“Information Literacy,” “Media Literacy,” and Professional Territories: Recognizing Blurry Lines and the Value of Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue 

When I was first invited to contribute to this issue with a response to Buckingham’s essay “The Trouble with ‘Information Literacy’,” I had a moment of imposter syndrome. I am an academic instruction librarian who has taught and written about information literacy for a little over a decade. Since the 2016 US Presidential election, I have also engaged more with the intersections between information literacy and related areas like digital literacy, news literacy, and media literacy. But I have not identified as an “insider” of the media literacy education community. Did my experience give me the authority to write about media literacy, or to respond to an established media literacy scholar? Would I be overstepping my bounds and expertise? 

Despite my reservations, I drafted some initial thoughts, and I obviously decided that I did have something to say. In the process of writing this piece, I realized that my hesitation was a window into what I wanted to share. This essay is a reflection on definitions, categories, and the frequently blurry lines between related abstract terms like information literacy and media literacy. It is also a reflection on professional territories and communities, and the value of sometimes crossing boundaries and exploring the potential for expanded dialogue and collaboration. Relatedly, I suggest that examining our (educators’) own information and media practices across social and professional contexts can be generative for individual and collective inquiry, and that such inquiry can inform our teaching. 

Many of us who work in the Information literacy and media literacy spaces often emphasize the importance of examining information and media within the specific contexts in which they are created, circulated, or acted upon. Similarly, language and terminology are context-dependent: any complex term or concept means different things to different people and groups, and its meanings change across contexts and over time. In “The Trouble with ‘Information Literacy’,” Buckingham nods toward this slipperiness of language at numerous points, including in the post’s title, where information literacy appears in quotations and in the italicized introductory text, which references “a particular version of ‘information literacy.’” At the same time, in much of Buckingham’s text he seems to suggest information literacy is generally understood as having a unified definition, or that it means the same thing to an abstracted other whose thinking he critiques.

The version of information literacy that Buckingham challenges rests on a narrow definition of information. Early in this post, Buckingham writes, “Among the various reputable dictionary definitions [of information], I’ve found the following: ‘facts provided or learned about something or someone’; ‘knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction’; and ‘the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence’.” He notes the confusing and circular nature of these definitions, and rightly critiques oversimplified notions of information as either “good” or “bad.” While I share Buckingham’s frustration with framings of information as neutral and extracted from social context, he leaves out another definition of information that many in library and information science commonly use: information as any data, regardless of whether that data is correct. This broader understanding of information leaves room for far more complex discussions about what information is, as well as how people and social groups create, disseminate, and respond to, and interact with it.

Again, Buckingham does state at the outset that he is challenging the coupling of media literacy with “a particular version of ‘information literacy.’” However, throughout most of the article he appears to write with an authoritative voice about what information literacy is, without adequate consideration of varied understandings of it. It is only at the very end of his post that he acknowledges that “[not] all formulations of ‘information literacy’ are as problematic as I have implied.” He then briefly recognizes discourse on critical information literacy, which examines “the socially constructed nature of all information, and the relations between information and social power.” This is an important point, but it gets short shrift. At this point in his post, Buckingham also references a book chapter by Spencer Brayton and Natasha Casey which he describes as about critical information literacy. This is another important acknowledgement, but Buckingham omits a key point: Brayton and Casey’s central thesis is that the commonalities among critical information literacy and critical media literacy are so great that the two can be allied with the term “critical media and information literacy” (CMIL) (p. 117). As Brayton and Casey discuss, just as in the media literacy space there have been extensive and complex debates about what media literacy is and how educators might approach media literacy education, there are many nuanced discussions among information literacy educators about what information literacy means or does not mean, and how the concept intersects or diverges from other “literacies.” Such conversations are especially common among those who engage with critical media literacy and critical information literacy.

As work like Brayton and Spencer’s suggests, the discourse on hard-to-define concepts like information literacy, media literacy, or the myriad of other related terms (e.g., digital literacy, online civic reasoning) overlaps far more than Buckingham suggests. There is also considerably more variation within the media literacy and information literacy discourse than Buckingham acknowledges.

What do we gain when we stick to narrow definitions of complex concepts, and what do we lose? What do we gain or lose when we consider the limits of definitions, the complexity of concepts, or variations in understandings and interpretations of those concepts? Whose voices and perspectives might we invite or exclude when we draw distinct lines between the realms of media literacy and information literacy professionals?

Returning to my initial reaction when first reading Buckingham’s essay, I felt like a librarian outsider being spoken to by an authority of the media literacy space in which I do not belong and should not tread. This authority seemed to assert having more knowledge about information literacy than do I or others in my profession who have thought, written, and taught extensively about it. I wondered if it occurred to Buckingham during his writing that we might have something to offer to such a discussion. But regardless of whether that was the case, Buckingham, along with others, has expressed interest in a wider dialogue through this journal issue. I’m glad to play a small role in that conversation.  

Both the impetus behind this journal issue and my initial cognitive and emotional responses to Buckingham’s essay prompt me to reflect on professional discourse about information literacy and media literacy through a critical lens – that is, with a consideration of social, political, cultural, and affective dimensions of that discourse. As Buckingham acknowledges with the example of Brexit, people’s engagement with and responses to information (and media) are influenced by complex social, cultural, and material factors, all of which have been shaped over time and history. My unease with aspects of Buckingham’s essay and my moment of imposter syndrome are obviously informed by numerous factors, including my social and professional position. The library profession is widely understood as a historically feminized service profession with a culture of subservience, agreement, and pleasant smiles. In the past several decades, much has been written in the library literature about the need for librarians to challenge the status quo, to value and assert their unique expertise, and to build meaningful partnerships with others outside libraries, particularly in the areas of teaching and learning. Still, many if not most instruction librarians still struggle to be viewed and treated as equals alongside other educators. Otherwise, we probably wouldn’t write and think so much about how to communicate our expertise and connect with others outside our profession.

Though I have focused here on challenging much of Buckingham’s essay, I probably agree more than I disagree with most of his points. While I did not sense that I was part of his initially intended audience, this journal issue suggests that I and others who also may not have been his target audience can nonetheless play a role in wider, cross-disciplinary conversations about the important issues with which Buckingham engages. Educators with a shared desire to encourage critical reflection and thought within themselves, with students, and with fellow teachers ultimately achieve more by expanding dialogue, questioning rigid borders, and exploring what we can learn together, as we reflect on and are invited to share about our unique contexts. The complexities of human engagement with media and with information, along with changes in digital technologies and environments, make the need for expanded dialogue all the more evident. Sometimes this may also mean reflecting on our own professional positions and perspectives, as well as ways that we experience connection or disconnection with other perspectives and voices within and outside the spaces that we have traditionally moved in.

Reference

Buckingham, D. (2023, January 4). The trouble with information literacy. https://davidbuckingham.net/2023/01/04/the-trouble-with-information-literacy/