Organization and the individual

I have learned from experience that the larger the organization the more difficult it is for individuals within it to attain information literacy. One reason is communication: the more people who are involved, the less chance of accuracy. Therefore, facilitation of a consistent approach to sharing information is essential to all individuals. I specify ‘all individuals’ rather than overall organization: as mentioned in Chapter 8, I do not think it likely for one state of information literacy to be achieved at a group or organizational level. Due to the roles and relationships that underlie information literacy, it is an individual state of mind. However, information literacy as a process can definitely be facilitated to groups. This is important to recognize for training and assessment. Going back to education, some schools calculate information literacy rates; however, unless we are dealing with the telepathic equivalent of a Greek chorus, the calculations cannot be universally accurate.

Assessment

Should assessment be made based on component or overall attainment? The former is a popular method in academia, especially those who focus on Locate. It is very easy to measure a seeker’s Locate success: count the sources. However, as stated ad nauseam, there is more than Locate. Even if one were to use it as a barometer, quantitative methods are not ideal. ‘Show me the numbers’ by itself is rarely the best approach to any information literacy assessment because numbers can be interpreted in many ways, and information literacy is difficult to quantify no matter how one tries. For example, if one person finds 20 peer-reviewed sources and another finds only 10, is the one with 20 more information literate? Not necessarily: how relevant were the 20?

If not by numerical analysis of components, then should assessment be measured as a final product? Going back to education, instead of bibliographies, some schools take into consideration an entire research paper. Evidence of all four components can be found within one paper. This is more indicative than a component test. Again, however, if the person is not a good writer, component ability might be inaccurately assessed. It is not perfect.

Are there degrees of information literacy or just one state of information literacy? Can a person have some information literacy or does he or she have to be completely information literate? The answers depend upon whether one views information literacy from an individual standpoint or a product standpoint. To determine information literacy in an individual, their intelligence and subject knowledge (I do believe that information literacy is subject dependent) should be considered. Once the individual has gone through the component process, it can then be determined whether he or she has achieved some degree of information literacy.

For example woman A is informed by her doctor that her knee pain might be tendonitis. The doctor is unwilling to commit to this diagnosis so the patient further pursues the subject herself. The result is that she knows more about the ailment than before, and tries some of the treatment options she Located. Woman A is more information literate than she was before her doctor’s appointment. Suppose woman A also graduated with a degree in biology. Compare her with woman B who had the same diagnosis and pursued the same research, but did not study biology and is less intelligent. Woman A is probably more information literate than woman B, but both are more information literate than they were before they pursued the subject. If considered from a product standpoint (i.e. this is the subject, this is what you need to know), then woman B is not information literate in comparison with woman A. However, neither is woman A as compared with an orthopedic doctor. If information literacy amounts to being expert, then who decides what is expert?

It is hard to imagine anyone being universally and statically information literate about anything. Topics and the information relating to them change. Even if there was one ultimate level at a particular time of day, then it would still be difficult for all to share – the telepathic Greek chorus again comes to mind.

Returning to the components, must all be met for information literacy to be achieved or will some suffice? My answer is that all four must be met. Remember, information literacy is both state and process. To achieve the state, however, one must follow the process. The process includes all four components. If an individual performs Identify and Locate, they have performed research; however, they are not information literate without Analyze and Use.

It is easier to assess a seeker’s mastery of components than whether or not they are information literate; therefore, perhaps what can be assessed is component mastery, used as an indication of information literacy rather than any attempt at an information literacy state.

Libraries

Responsibility and information literacy, for both seekers and providers, has been considered often in this book. The current perception seems that it rests more on seekers; however, if this is truly the Information Age, then providers need to take their share. Where responsibility begins and ends depends on the situation.

Whose responsibility is it to facilitate information literacy? Should it be librarians, who have the research skills, or should it be those with the subject or sector knowledge? I believe the answer is both rather than one over the other. Additionally, the library needs to better account for primary research while the sectors need better secondary research skills. A problem for libraries is that primary information is ambiguous and dependent on its relationship to the seeker, unlike books and articles, which are similar in format and cataloging no matter what subject. To meet the needs of this Information Age, however, and to equip individuals and groups within the different sectors, libraries must better account for primary information in training. Also, those outside the library would benefit from an acknowledgment about information as a real entity in their lives, including the secondary information beyond Google. Whether it is bartering for cars in Nigeria or choosing attorneys in Egypt, the library has resources that can help increase a person’s awareness of general issues and subjects in relation to their own, and librarians have the skills to help find them.

Despite efforts of many librarians to change the mindset, the concept of a library limited to a repository (i.e. access) still exists. The library is indeed an excellent repository (according to Abdullah Alsaif in Chapter 5, the best), but it must be better recognized as an information literacy facilitation resource. I recently watched a local news reporter, in reference to the wonders of the Internet, ask: ‘Who needs the library?’ Ironically, due to the Internet and its boon to the Information Age, libraries are needed more than ever (e.g. to check facts against irresponsible media declarations). The research skills and experience librarians possess arguably are just as important to seekers as the secondary information to which they provide access. In addition, their motivations are generally trustworthy: the emphasis for the librarian is facilitating information literacy, not directing or profiting from it.

Would it behoove other sectors like business and health care to maintain their own libraries? Many already do (although when money is short, libraries are often the first expense to go). However, these special libraries are usually only for employees. When looking at information literacy from a provider/seeker perspective, it would be responsible and possibly profitable to foster library service for both roles, even if it is in conjunction with the public library. Many of the interviewees in this book mentioned the need for increased Locate and Analyze skills. Through speaking with them, however, it was evident that some lacked awareness of Identify and Use in relation to information. Most people take information for granted; they need to be made more fully aware of all the aspects of it as it relates to them. If not, then it could be a disaster for our so-called Information Age: as our American Army Captain said, ‘no information is better than misinformation’.

I also think the library can borrow the primary research techniques of other sectors; both surveys and observations are useful to understanding library users. The interview in particular, however, is a technique that can be both used and taught in pursuit of information literacy. As observations and surveys collect information, so too can interviews. However, they are also useful for secondary research and its teaching. When teaching Analyze to students, I always draw the analogy between reading a book and interviewing an expert: ‘What questions would you expect the expert to answer? Write them down. In reviewing the book, is it able to answer the same questions? If not, then it probably is irrelevant to your topic.’

Libraries can be pivotal to the Information Age, but they need to better account for practical, real life information relationships. In pursuit of this, it might be useful to borrow from some of those other sectors, not just regarding tools, but also approaches.

Information literacy, truth and the fifth component

Rarely does information literacy rest on the finite, and rarely is truth static outside of the finite; information literacy is neither static nor finite. Truth is difficult to pinpoint but is essential to information literacy. It rests solely on the individual and his or her interpretation of it. Like everything else in this book, it is not something that will be achieved at the end of a linear process. Rather it (i.e. an honest approach) needs to be a part of the entire process, from beginning (when the seeker first Identifies) to end (casts a vote, develops a budget, reports the news, decides to start the whole process over again). If the seeker and/or provider are truthful in their pursuit of information literacy, then truth has a better chance of being realized.

Should truth be a fifth component? What about ‘understanding’, knowledge’ or ‘wisdom’? I frequently see an information chain that looks like this: data → information → knowledge → wisdom.

I think so-called fifth components, no matter what they are called (truth, wisdom, etc.), must be present when engaging the four. One must be truthful and relatively wise when pursuing information literacy if you are to gain additional truth or wisdom; otherwise, there will be no information literacy. Just as pursuing information literacy enhances one’s critical thinking ability, so does it one’s sense of truth. There is no need to include it as a fifth component, and doing so might mislead facilitation and individuals.

Providers and components

The four components are most often associated with seekers. However, in any relationship roles should be considered equally; therefore, if information literacy relationships are to be best understood, there should be a better account of providers. The component framework is still useful, and can be used to describe the provider’s response in relation to those who seek. The case with much information, however, is that the providers do not directly provide in response to seekers, but before seeking actually began.

Information literacy as subject

The question ‘should information be taught as its own subject?’ is often asked. Information literacy is not a standalone subject: unlike mathematics or history it relies on the individual and his or her relationship to information. Yet there are some very talented people doing innovative information literacy programming. The answer depends upon the teacher, the curriculum and the definition.

I do not think it should be taught much differently from library science. This might sound biased from a librarian, but Identify, Locate, Analyze and Use have been the foundation of modern librarianship well before the term ‘information literacy’ was coined. I do not think there needs to be both information literacy and library science programs available to individuals: library science needs to remember its place as a mosaic discipline that supports all aspects of learning. Do not focus solely on cataloging or reference or periodicals: understand universally what is information (including primary sources), and how to enable individuals via the four components, be it through direct application (doing research for them) or facilitation.

That stated, I do think education in general needs increased integration of information literacy into the curricula. No matter the subject, research is applicable, and understanding and proceeding with the components will benefit any program and student. In the Information Age, no matter the career or subject, it is important to understand the relevant information associated with research, and one’s relationship to it.

Future

I hope this book not only enables readers to view information literacy as both an important process and a state of mind, but also to pursue it and to help others pursue it. Although there are many sectors, situations and roles involved, information literacy offers a common string that can help connect the dots. The so-called Information Age is disconnected and inconsistent. In a society where multitasking is rewarded more than focus, information literacy as an approach offers a compromise: juggle many things at once, but recognize and work from the connected patterns. Recognizing the situational relationships, especially one’s own, helps facilitate it. If we approach the sectors in this way, then we will make better selections on physicians, media outlets, products, civic duty, etc. It can bring balance into our chaotic lives.

We will continually be confronted by new roles, information, relationships and resources; however, the fundamental process of achieving information literacy will not change. The more we strive to attain and help others attain, the more information literate society will become. The gap between haves and have nots will lessen, and progress and innovation will follow.

Information in an Information Age is too important to be taken for granted. There should be a more formal, systematic approach to learning about and using it. It may be an Information Age, but like all ages, it is people who shape it. To do so for the good of all, there must be better understanding and guidance.