Ethical issues in dis/misinformation

Previously I have discussed the definition and nature of dis/misinformation, social mediation of dis/misinformation, how dis/misinformation is influenced by culture, and the legal issues information professionals might expect to encounter that are related to dis/misinformation. I began this reflection because I was asked to look at how information professionals can help society by identifying and avoiding dis/misinformation. But I believe that some discussion is merited over the question of whether it is appropriate for information professionals to actively promote avoidance of information at all, even if it is dis/misinformation. 

The assumption that it is appropriate for us to may be at odds with the activities and ethics of modern information practice. Librarianship has a strong tradition of campaigning for intellectual freedom and against censorship of all kinds. For example the American Library Association Library Bill of Rights states that “Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation,” and that “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view,” (ALA, 1996). The avoidance of dis/misinformation in collections and services is also problematic from a practical point of view. For example, the Conspectus Collection Depth Indicator for a comprehensive collection “strives to be exhaustive, as far as is reasonably possible,” (Biblarz, Tarin, Vickery, & Bakker, 2001). Such depth of coverage would include resources that could easily be described as disinformation and misinformation.

I also contest the assumption that the avoidance of dis/misinformation is helpful to society. Some research has shown that avoidance of alternative points of view is unhealthy and leads to the propagation of ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’ neither of which could be described as helpful to society, though I hasten to add that there are disagreements about this (Bozdag & van den Hoven, 2015; Dubois & Blank, 2018). Disinformation can also be beneficial to society; propaganda is a species of disinformation, and yet some types of propaganda can also be helpful, such as public health messages, safety advisories, and social equality campaigns for example (Buşu, Teodorescu, & Gîfu, 2014). 

Photo by Sylvia Yang on Unsplash

I don’t think it’s our job to instruct people to avoid certain types of information.  Dis/misinformation isn’t a technological problem. It’s not an aspect of an algorithm that can be adjusted for. The effects we’re experiencing; microtageting, fake news, alternative facts, and the weaponized narrative are so pervasive because we’re used to ‘lazy thinking’ (Pennycook & Rand, in press). Critical analysis of any kind is challenging. But it’s our job to inculcate curiosity coupled with scepticism in the communities we serve. Dis/misinformation is a hard reality of life, and in a world of large-scale simultaneous communication it is one that we should get comfortable with challenging. 

American Library Association [ALA]. (1996). Library bill of rights. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/intfreedom/librarybill/lbor.pdf

Biblarz, D., Tarin, M.-J., Vickery, J., & Bakker, T. (2001). Guidelines for a collection development policy using the conspectus model. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Section on Acquisition and Collection Development. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/acquisition-collection-development/publications/gcdp-en.pdf

Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y

Buşu, O.-V., Teodorescu, M., & Gîfu, D. (2014). Communicational positive propaganda in democracy. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 38, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.38.82

Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information Communication and Society, 4462, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (in press). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 

What is dis/misinformation?

This is a series of commentaries and reflections on the phenomena of dis/misinformation. Further posts include discussion on the social construction of dis/misinformation, and the cultural construction of dis/misinformation, an exploration of important legal issues in dis/misinformation, and a consideration of the ethical issues in dis/misinformation.

---

One defining characteristic of post-modern life is the omnipresence of communication. The presence of dis/misinformation in this environment is an increasingly worrying phenomenon. Misinformation is defined as information misrepresented. It can carry factual errors or inaccuracies, subjective statements, and is sometimes out of date (Southwell, Thorson, & Sheble, 2018). It is believed to be true both by those who produce it and those that share it. On the other hand, disinformation is misinformation that has been purposefully created to deceive its eventual consumer. In descriptive terms, we could say that the difference between misinformation and disinformation is one of intentionality.

Photo by Kayla Velasquez on Unsplash

Both terms and their definitions presume that truth has an objective reality. However, speaking specifically about critical information research, Stahl (2006) writes that “truth can never be an objective description of an external reality. All perception is always value-laden and based on individual and collective prejudices,” (p. 90). This reflects Nietzsche’s concept of perspectivism and Foucault’s ‘regime of truth,’ both of which theorise that reality cannot be separated from human experience. I was interested to read Ian Clark's (2016) thoughts on this, especially alongside a quote from Edward Carr; “The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy,” (2001, p. 6). I would agree that truth is a socially constructed phenomenon, but I think it helps us to deal with the issue more practically if we recognise that for many people, truth has an objective quality.

The ‘information society’ is the result of a multitude of communication technologies diffused into all aspects of existence in post-industrial life. When the production, dissemination, and consumption of information underlies all aspects of society, it becomes commodified, which is where the concept of the ‘knowledge economy’ arises. Dis/misinformation exists comfortably in the information society because it is socially constructed, and socially consumed (Marsh & Yang, 2018; Srinivasan, Finn, & Ames, 2017). This makes it difficult for mediators of information (such as information professionals) to involve ourselves because we are not party to the social aspects of information production and consumption, generally our primary function is an economic one.

As a profession, our efforts have largely been reactive. Instructional events such as like those advocated by Batchelor (2017) which include community events and credit-bearing courses fail to address the deeply social and economically-motivated nature of modern information transactions. Libguides on fake news and ‘post-truth’ don’t (and can’t) acknowledge the role that capitalism and an increasing fascist media machine play in our social information consumption. It is unrealistic to ask individuals to apply the ‘CRAPP test’ to every social media interaction they encounter, for example. Like Clark (2017) summarises, “this is a rather inadequate way of evaluating information and, for me, rather plays into the notion that the quality of the information can be assessed by following a simple check-box exercise. I don’t think this is realistic, useful or a desirable approach to take when critically appraising an information source.” 

Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash

So rather than being reactive, I would argue that our efforts are more usefully directed towards proactive interventions. The need for this has been widely acknowledged, for example in the Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper which asserts that:

We want to ensure that schools develop children’s critical thinking skills so that young people are better able to recognise intentionally misleading information. In the long-term, giving our young people the tools they need to assess material online will be the single most effective antidote to fake news (HM Government, 2017, p. 26, the emphasis is mine).

Though, it must be said with this particular issue, our government has a tendency to promise one thing and deliver something else entirely. In the next few posts I'm aiming to break down dis/misinformation further by interrogating the social cultural, legal and ethical issues surrounding the phenomenon. I also want to explore our role as information professionals in this environment. Dis/misinformation is clearly a problem in contemporary society, and we have some professional responsibility to address it. But I want to find out exactly what that responsibility entails.

Batchelor, O. (2017). Getting out the truth: The role of libraries in the fight against fake news. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-03-2017-0006

Carr, E. H. (2001). What is history?. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Clark, I. (2017) Fake news and the magic bullet. Infoism, http://infoism.co.uk/2017/07/fake-news-magic-bullet/

Clark, I. (2016) Information literacy won’t save us; or, fight fascism, don’t create a LibGuide. Infoism. http://infoism.co.uk/2016/12/information-literacy/

Marsh, E. J., & Yang, B. W. (2018). Believing things that are not true: A cognitive science perspective on misinformation. In B. G. Southwell, E. A. Thorson, & L. Sheble (Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences (pp. 15–34). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Srinivasan, J., Finn, M., & Ames, M. (2017). Information determinism: The consequences of the faith in information. Information Society, 33(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1248613

Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A., & Sheble, L. (2017). The persistence and peril of misinformation. American Scientist, 105(6), 372. https://doi.org/10.1511/2017.105.6.372

Stahl, B. C. (2006). On the difference or equality of information, misinformation, and disinformation: A critical research perspective. Informing Science, 9, 83–96.

Planning a CryptoParty

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was passed by both houses of parliament and enacted by the Queen late last year. This act specifically sets out the extent to which the government can interfere with the privacy of people living and working in the United Kingdom. Internet providers will now retain records of which websites you visited for the last year and will have to provide these to government officials without a warrant if asked to do so. For the first time it is now a criminal offence for someone working for an internet provider to disclose that information has been requested by the government. Icky right?

In libraries, a user’s right to privacy is one of the core professional values.  In 2015, among other privacy-related recommendations, The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions statement on privacy in the library environment recommended that;

Library and information services should support their users’ ability to make informed choices, take legitimate actions and weigh risks and benefits in their communications and use of services on the Internet.

Data protection and privacy protection should be included as a part of the media and information literacy training for library and information service users. This should include training on tools to use to protect their privacy.

The education of library and information professionals should include data and privacy protection principles and practices in a networked environment.

I felt that I had a professional duty to explore this further and look at ways that I could empower the people I work with to take the initiative for their own privacy and information security. So in December last year I began to think of ways in which I could give the issue of privacy more attention in my professional activities. This led me to consider hosting a CryptoParty as part of my wider library training programme. CryptoParties are decentralised social events where participants can explore different aspects of encryption and information security in a relaxed and nonthreatening environment. Rather than being events for hackers, pen-testers, cryptographers, and general tech-types, these events are for people who maybe don’t know much about information security, but would like to learn more.

I did a sweep of the information already available. It turns out we didn't have any official guidance on say, encryption, that could be readily promoted to a lay audience. So I had to draft an awful lot of help material from scratch. In doing this I found A DIY Guide to Feminist Cybersecurity, Security In-A-Box, and Me and My Shadow useful for plain-language descriptions of information security concepts. I've stripped any institutional info and uploaded them here so feel free to reuse/re-purpose;

Safe Browsing

Safe Encryption

Safe Digital Behaviour

Safe Passwords

The document about backups is entirely institutional, so I haven't included it here. After drafting all the material then we chose a date, organised catering, and set to promoting the thing. 

When floating the idea, I was told in no uncertain terms that I would not be allowed to discuss certain topics as they directly contravene my organisations various information security policies – specifically anonymization. This meant that I couldn’t talk about services such as Tor, or systems such as Tails. While understandable from an organisational point-of view, I felt hampered by this attitude. In fact, this was the first time I've ever felt that my professional values conflicted with those of my employer. 

The people who have the most to gain for your good idea will be the quickest to throw obstacles into your path. In a previous post I gave the following piece of advice; "Don't ask for permission to do great things. Ask for resources." Well, in this instance I felt compelled to ask for permission first. I work for an organisation that has information security set firmly on the strategic agenda. There are people in my department who are responsible for promoting issues relating to information security to staff and students. I really didn't want to step on their toes. There are also student groups specifically dedicated to this issue so getting them involved made sense. And, hey, the more people involved the easier the whole thing would be, right? Wrong. Promised information never materialised. Quite a few folks pulled out at the last minute. While some of the interventions were helpful, others were not and in the end balancing everyone's differing points of view and commitments proved stressful. All in all, it took FIVE MONTHS to plan and deliver the event. 

Will I do this again? Yes, but I think that making the next event localised will give me more control and bizarrely, less stress. In the end we had conversations with about 50 staff and students (mostly students) about privacy online and information security. It's a worthwhile endeavour, but just takes a little more effort than the other library skills development events.

No Business Left Behind

The UK Digital Strategy was published at the beginning of this month, and includes seven strands that will contribute to the government’s plans for ‘stronger, fairer country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.’ Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote that it was an important step in ensuring that 'nobody is left behind in the digital revolution,' (2017). The second chapter of the policy paper outlines plans for growing digital capabilities and ensuring that everyone has access to the skills they need and highlights the role that libraries should play in this. As I’ve written before, we are experiencing a paucity of digital literacy skills among the new generation of students and employees. I believe this is in some ways the result of our misplaced assumption in the proficiency of the digital native, as well as the reduced socio-economic capital and access to support that is now experienced by people of all ages across the United Kingdom. 

Marc Prensky popularised the notion of digital natives in 2001, suggesting that those born in the late eighties now have near-innate technological competence, enabling them to thrive in a world of iPhones and global-WiFi (2001). The concept of digital natives has been widely debated, critiqued, and even discredited. Yet, I still overhear fellow professionals discussing the proficiencies of a generation that has been ‘born digital.’ Digital competence, and in particular – literacy – is not innately acquired, no matter how much an individual is exposed to technology throughout their lifetime. Further, studies have shown that there is little-to-none in the way of differences in generational approaches to learning (Bullen, Morgan, Columbia, & Qayyum, 2011; Lai& Hong, 2014). Believing elsewise, have we neglected to instil digital literacy skills in an entire generation of Britons?

A person’s socio-economic capital can predict the level of competence in digital literacy. Areas of social deprivation have poorer public library provision, underfunded schools, and reduced internet connectivity (Palmer, 2012; Office for National Statistics,2016). Those over 65 are particularly lacking in internet access and digital skills, mostly because they cannot afford it. In the last decade public authorities have drastically reduced funding to services, and to public libraries in particular (Loughborough University, 2015). Spending on library resources (such as staff, stock, and services for example), as well as opening hours has fallen, resulting in reduced visits to public libraries throughout communities (Department for Culture, 2016).

A community of connected and digitally-literate individuals is critical to the success of our society in the years to come. It is no surprise then that the UK Digital Strategy places such importance on digital skills acquisition. To its credit, the strategy mentions the role of libraries in facilitating this. However, that discussion is largely perfunctory, as the strategy has placed an alarming amount emphasis on the role of corporately-sponsored education and development programmes in remedying the skills gap. A raft of companies including Microsoft, Amazon, Lloyds Bank, Halifax, Barclays, BT, Accenture, Cisco, O2, Samsung, Sky, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Deloitte, IBM, Apple, and of course Google are ‘hugely welcome’ to steer the direction of digital literacy in the UK according to the policy paper.

In comparison, the role of libraries in the success of the strategy appears to be inconsequential and this is problematic for a number of reasons. Not a single one of these organisations can be relied upon to champion the rights of individuals in matters of privacy, freedom of expression, or equality. In fact, they have a history of doing just the opposite. It’s incredibly naive to leave the education of our communities in the hands of companies that are primarily interested in promoting the financial success of their products and services. These businesses are not interested in building a ‘stronger, fairer country’ unless it is profitable for them.

The slow march towards full corporatisation of our education system will continue apace. Meanwhile, people across the country will continue to live lives of deprivation. This is aided by the fact that they cannot access appropriate training and education that will allow them to experience healthier, well-informed lives without sharing their data or compromising the integrity of the information offered (Clark, 2016). For this reason I’m sceptical that the UK Digital Strategy will meet its lofty aim of growing the digital capabilities of people across Britain.

Bibliography

Bradley, K. (2017) Why the UK's Digital Strategy will ensure 'nobody is left behind'. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-digital-strategy-karen-bradley
Bullen, M., Morgan, T. T., Columbia, B., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital Learners in Higher Education : Generation is Not the Issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.21432/T2NC7B 

Clark, I. (2016, March 14). The digital divide in the post-Snowden era. Journal of Radical Librarianship. Retrieved from https://journal.radicallibrarianship.org/index.php/journal/article/view/12/27

Department for Culture, M. and S. (2016). Taking part focus on: Libraries. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519675/Libraries_short_story_-_FINAL.pdf

Lai, K.-W., & Hong, K.-S. (2014). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12161

Loughborough University. (2015). Public and Academic Library Statistics. Loughborough University. Retrieved from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/microsites/infosci/lisu/lisu-statistics/lisu-uk-library-statistics.pdf

Office for National Statistics. (2016). Statistical Bulletin: Internet access households and individuals. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/2016

Palmer, G. (2012). United Kingdom: lacking consumer durables. Retrieved March 10, 2017, from http://www.poverty.org.uk/11/index.shtmlPrensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf 

The Information Drive-Thru

Our ability to create, manage, and discover information is critically interlinked with areas of national importance. For example in the Make or Break report published last February, the House of Lords Digital Skills Committee found that across all age groups in Britain there is a significant skills gap in terms of Digital Literacy. Working with FE students from a variety of backgrounds and age groups I saw the hard proof of this every day. To me at least, Prensky’s model of the millennial as a ‘digital native,’ that is young people fluent in the language of technology and information, is looking more and more mythical. A person’s competence in areas of Digital Literacy in my experience seems largely dependent upon the social capital they are lucky enough to inherit. Those from (the increasing ranks of) poorer communities can hardly be expected to adopt and adapt to new technological developments if they are unable to afford even basic amenities. Job Centres may offer help with the compilation of CVs, but they very rarely touch on the topic of online identity management. Just because a teenager can type 85 wpm on a smartphone doesn’t necessarily mean that they are are capable producing a quality analysis of of a given topic. And finally, even if an entire generation communicates through twitter, facebook, tumblr, whatsapp, instagram, and snapchat, that will not equate to participation in thoughtful academic discussion and reflection.

It is perhaps sad that as Information Professionals we are in some ways contributing to the dearth of Digital Literacy skills. American sociologist George Ritzer published The McDonaldization of Society in 1993 where he likened trends in societal organisation to fast-food, a theory which was quickly applied to Higher Education (the McUniversity), and more recently, academic libraries (Ritzer, 1996; Nicholson, 2015; Quin, 2015). Brian Quinn describes the production of “Information Happy Meals,” whereby students expect to be presented with information, in a format of their choosing no less, rather than undertake any in-depth research or information discovery for themselves (2015).When discussing the feedback she received from her students, Alison Garden noted that  “As students begin to think of themselves as consumers, rather than learners, their attitudes towards those who teach them is changing.” (2015)  Librarians are of course service providers, but increasingly the emphasis is less on service, and more on provision. In many libraries dedicated OPAC terminals sit unused. When students want to know if we have a book in stock, they come and ask at the service desk “because it’s easier.”

The ease with which information is readily available has also, alarmingly, affected our ability to identify areas of knowledge on which we can improve and may even artificially inflate how much we think we know. Recent studies on information searching behaviour and memory show that when people search for answers or factual information online they later believe that they came up with the answers on their own (Fisher, Goddu, & Keil, 2015). Researchers call this the “Illusion of Knowledge,” and conclude that it is directly driven by the act of searching for information. Because we can search for a piece of knowledge, we already think we know it. Ready access to information (any information!) reduces our ability to recall information correctly (Sparrow, Liu, & Werner, 2011). This phenomenon of outsourcing of memories is often described as the “Google Effect” and directly inhibits the way that people process information (Ward, 2013; Wegner & Ward, 2013).

That students increasingly rely on search engines, is not news. In fact, Further and Higher Education students have been heavily over-relying on search engines for well over a decade now (Griffiths & Brophy, 2005). However, it is starting to become clearer how this behaviour is affecting not just information literacy among students, but other core skills, such as problem solving, critical thinking, communication, managing their online reputations, and even more alarmingly, their employability. For example, Arya and Nardon note that students who rely heavily on web searching for information in programming classes not only underperform, but also fail to develop the complex problem-solving abilities required to be a halfway decent programmer (2014). The British and Irish Association of Law Librarians has reported that the information literacy skills of legal trainees in the United Kingdom is particularly lacking in that they are unable to find, interpret, evaluate, and manage complex legal information appropriately;

“...they noted that trainees seemed to depend on one-hit-only searching: in other words they did not check thoroughly and contextually around their findings. They used Google extensively and their searches tended to be shallow and brief. Trainees were also increasingly unable to distinguish between the genres of legal research tools - the difference between an encyclopaedia and a digest, for example. They seemed to lack persistence and diligence in searching, as well as organisation.” (Legal Training & Review, 2013, p. 45)

When I worked in FE, I helped students with all kinds of technology queries. Quite a few of them have little to no experience in using technology, because they have immigrated from a country where computer use isn’t widespread, or because they are from a demographic unfamiliar with current technology, to cite two general examples. However, there are an alarming number of younger, local students, who lack basic word processing skills, or even knowledge about email and browser programmes. These students have smartphones and music players, but they appear to have never had any formal ICT education at all. This goes against the grain of Prenky’s theory of the ‘digital native.’ There is also a growing cohort of students who don’t have access to a computer or the internet at home. The dedicated among them come to the Library in the evenings after class, and when we were open during the holidays. However balancing the demands of education, employment - and for many - parenthood, does not leave a lot of free time for checking your email, let alone conduct a thorough search of a Library database. Neither does a smartphone with a data plan lend itself complex research. We can depend on Libraries to provide computing facilities and internet access to members of the community but after a harsh five years of public Library closures, reducing academic budgets, and reduced staff and opening hours, more people are finding themselves in need, and Libraries are only able to provide less.

The Digital Skills Committee strongly recommended that to bridge this gap Digital Literacy needed to become a core subject at all levels of education, alongside the traditional standbys of literacy and numeracy. The report goes one step further, recommending that Further Education is perfectly placed to make up the current shortfall in digital education. I would agree. Certainly, including digital literacy on the syllabus for primary and secondary education is an important step, but this does nothing to develop the skills of mature students and lifelong learners. If this was the only course of action we would be neglecting the digital literacy of several generations. By the time students reach Higher Education, these skills should already be in place - making colleges, with their broad cross-section of the community, ideally suited to the task.

It’s surprising then to discover that Further Education colleges have implemented very little in the way of digital literacy instruction as evidenced by the large number of students demanding “information happy meals” and requesting help with tasks as simple as word-processing. Further Education has been particularly helpful to those with traditional neurological dysfunctions, such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia, providing some specialist training and guidance, as well as introducing technology to assist these groups. However, these developments have been made possible by funding allocations from HEFCE/SFC specifically for this purpose. Meanwhile, libraries in FE remain overwhelmingly under-funded. At a previous workplace we traded insolvent just to keep our basic online subscriptions in place until we received the next round of funding. Upon learning of our budget allocation for the 2015-2016 academic year it became immediately obvious that for the second year in a row we would not be able to afford any new physical stock. We cancelled newspapers, we cancelled magazines, we cancelled interlibrary loans. It feels, at least from where I’m standing, that the government has cancelled Further Education, and perhaps we’ve helped them to do so.

Quinn notes that the McDonalized library is “slow to respond, simplistic, and shortsighted,” (2014, p. 345). As providers of “information happy meals” we are clearly doing our students a disservice. But aren’t we also damaging our own profession? For example, without meaning to, CollegeHumor’s depiction of the human Google accurately captures what it is to work on a reference desk (2014). It is as if librarians and search engines are conflated in our customers’ imagination. As Arlie Russell Hochschild notes in The Managed Heart, increasingly mechanised and automated roles combined with the stresses of Emotional Labour only serve to depersonalise our professional interactions with others (1983). When we sit at the widow of the Information Drive-Tru and focus our efforts on quick-and-easy-to-digest consumer products that are worthy of Customer Service Excellence accreditation, who exactly benefits? It might be efficient service provision, but is it effective education?

Kevin Michael Klipfel suggests a model of pastoral librarianship that would work so well precisely because it is everything that the McLibrarian is not (2015, p. 24). This works because learning is largely dependent on the creation of meaning. When we inject authenticity into our practice both sides of the desk benefit. However, this requires upskilling and autonomy from our McLibrarians. Yes, this approach would cost significantly more in terms of staff investment and in funding, but I have a feeling that the results (a digitally literate and competent society) are very much worth it. But we can’t begin to change the minds of our students, or help them become the skilled citizens they want to be if we are spending a megre £0.07 per student on learning resources provision.

I have worked in Libraries for six years, and only half of that time has been spent in an academic environment. So I can’t claim to be best equipped to offer solutions. However, I do know that there is a problem, and I do know that our current government’s plan to turn post-secondary education into a commodity is not likely to help (Department for Business, Innovation, & Skills, 2015). I do know that interjecting some authenticity into our approach to information literacy couldn’t hurt.

Bibliography

Arya, A. and Nardon, L. (2014) ‘Google it: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving in the Internet Age’, 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. Barcelona, Available at: http://library.iated.org/view/ARYA2014GOO .

Booth, C., Lowe, M. S., Tagge, N. and Stone, S. M. (2015) ‘Degrees of Impact: Analyzing the Effects of Progressive Librarian Course Collaborations on Student Performance’, College & Research Libraries, 76(5), pp. 623–651. doi: 10.5860/crl.76.5.623.

De Groote, S. L., Shultz, M. and Blecic, D. D. (2014) ‘Information-seeking behavior and the use of online resources: a snapshot of current health sciences faculty’, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 102(3), pp. 169–176. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.006.

Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (2015) Higher education: teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher-education-teaching-excellence-social-mobility-and-student-choice

Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K. and Keil, F. C. (2015) ‘Searching for Explanations: How the Internet Inflates Estimates of Internal Knowledge.’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, . doi: 10.1037/xge0000070.

Garden, A. (2015) Students, don’t rate me on my appearance but on my teaching. Available at: http://gu.com/p/47k7k/sbl .

Griffiths, J. R. and Brophy, P. (2005) ‘Student Searching Behavior and the Web: Use of Academic Resources and Google’, Library Trends, 53(4), pp. 539–554.

Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart : Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

Klipfel, K. M. (2015) ‘Authenticity and Learning: Implications for Reference Librarianship and Information Literacy Instruction’, College & Research Libraries, 76(1), pp. 19–30. doi: 10.5860/crl.76.1.19.

Legal Education and Training Review (2013) Setting Standards: The future of legal services education and training regulation in England and Wales. Available at: http://letr.org.uk/the-report/index.html .

Nicholson, Karen P. (2015) ‘The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries and the Values of Transformational Change,’ College & Research Libraries, 76(3), pp. 328-338. doi:10.5860/crl.76.3.328

Pan, D., Ferrer-Vinent, I. J. and Bruehl, M. (2014) ‘Library Value in the Classroom: Assessing Student Learning Outcomes from Instruction and Collections’, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(s 3–4), pp. 332–338. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.011.

Quinn, B. (2015) ‘The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries?’,College & Research Libraries, 76(3), pp. 339–352. doi: 10.5860/crl.76.3.339.

Ritzer, G. (1996) ‘McUniversity in the Postmodern Consumer Society’,Quality in Higher Education, 2(3), pp. 185–199. doi: 10.1080/1353832960020302.

Ritzer, G. and ... (2007) The McDonaldization of society. 5th edn. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press.

Select Committee on Digital Skills (2015) Make or Break: The UK’s Digital Future. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/lddigital/111/11102.html.

Ward, A. (2013) “Supernormal: How the Internet Is Changing Our Memories and Our Minds,” Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), pp. 341-348. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2013.850148

Wergner, D., and Ward, A. (2013) “How Google is Changing Your Brain,” Scientific American, 2013. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-internet-has-become-the-external-hard-drive-for-our-memories/