Empowerment or Instrumental Progressivism?: Analyzing Information Literacy Policies

This article reports on a qualitative content analysis of a sample of national information literacy policies, whether endorsed by states or professional bodies. It develops a framework for analysis which is attuned to the idea that information literacy can and should be viewed from multiple perspectives; this being the “six frames of information literacy” model developed by Bruce, Edwards, and Lupton. One addition is made to this framework, that being to seek specific reference to collaboration and teamwork in the national policies, whether this means collaboration between learners or between different agencies, who are expected to work together to manifest the benefits of information literacy. This framework is then applied to the sample policies. Half are found to be generally holistic in form, the other half less so. These latter policies risk being what Robins and Webster call “instrumentally progressivist”: oriented toward producing learners who can act as information processors but not promoting approaches that lead to a more creative, empowered, socially conscious, and reflective relationship with information. Introduction This article reports on a qualitative content analysis of information literacy (IL) policies and statements from a range of countries. Precursors to this article exist in publications such as the review edited by Lau (2007), but that document is interested mainly in activities and resources.1 Virkus’s article (2003) is a wide-ranging review of developments and policies up to the date of publication, but for obvious reasons cannot serve as a review of recent developments in IL. 313 information literacy policies/whitworth The specific contribution of this article is that it analyzes the policies using a framework which is attuned to the political consequences of IL (see also Whitworth, 2009, 2010). IL practitioners must recognize that different forms of value come into play when decisions are made about how and why information is filtered out. Filtering is the fundamental basis for any relationship with information, but this task is not always undertaken by the learner acting as an autonomous agent. The structures of organizations and society, and the form of technological tools, have filtering built into them of which the learner is unlikely to be cognizant unless their critical awareness is raised. In addition, learners are not singular actors but parts of communities. Communities and groups can enhance and improve the process of IL, but also at times retard it, due to parochialism and “groupthink” (Janis, 1972). An IL strategy that is unaware of these issues risks becoming what Robins and Webster (1987) call instrumental progressivism: a tool for the disempowerment of the learner, rather than one that can help them become flexible, creative, and independent thinkers. I suggest that Bruce, Edwards, and Lupton’s (2007) “six frames of IL” model provides an analytical framework that is in large part attuned to the issues mentioned above. It can therefore counter tendencies for IL to become a tool of instrumental progressivism. However, I will observe that the six frames model does not pay explicit attention to the need for collaboration in information searching (though it is acknowledged that it is implicitly present at some levels). To supplement it, recent work by Andretta (2010) can be drawn upon. She recognizes that learner-information relationships must often involve third parties who may act as tools of the search but can also help the learner refine and reflect on the whole process of retrieving, filtering, and using information. Collaboration between learners and between agencies charged with delivering IL education must therefore be added to the framework. Once this analytical framework is in place it can be used in the analysis of a sample of national IL policies. As a result of this analysis I conclude that there does exist some IL policy statements that recognize the holistic and variable nature of the field, some of which have achieved a level of state recognition. But even these relatively exemplary policies could still go further in promoting a collaborative, relational perspective on IL. The Six Frames of Information Literacy Generally, this study can be justified by reference to principle 4 of the Prague Declaration (2003), which states that: Governments should develop strong interdisciplinary programs to promote Information Literacy nationwide as a necessary step in closing the digital divide through the creation of an information literate citizenry, an effective civil society and a competitive workforce. 314 library trends/fall 2011 Immediately, however, there appear tensions and contradictions. The first is located in the opening three words, “Governments should develop. . . .” In fact, no government directly develops and delivers educational programs. Though they may direct and promote such developments, the work will be undertaken by others. This is not a trivial point: perceptions of who should be responsible for IL vary, and these differences of opinion may block the formation of coherent IL policies, or result in contradictory tendencies within a national or international context. What some of these contradictions are can be partly judged from the final words of the Prague principle. The development of “an information literate citizenry, an effective civil society and a competitive workforce” are different goals, and there may be tensions between them; at best, each term needs more explanation in order to see where commonalities lie. The latter task is undertaken in the next section; the remainder of this section discusses the first possible tension, around perceptions of roles and responsibilities in the formation of IL policy. As the work of Bruce, Edwards, and Lupton (2007) shows, perceptions of IL vary. As they say, the notion that people see teaching and learning differently is “a deceptively simple proposition, supported by much research” (p. 1), and it is this proposition that drives their six frames model, to be discussed in more detail below. Extrapolating from this notion, it is also justifiable to claim that people see teachers and learners differently as well. Different views of learners include the “empty vessel” or “recipient of information” perspective characteristic of behaviorist pedagogies (e.g., Skinner, 1954); constructivism’s “active participant,” engaged in building their own knowledge structures, scaffolded by the teacher but not dictated by him/her (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978); a member of a community of practice engaged in learning behavioral norms and ways of thinking appropriate in a particular workplace setting (Wenger, 1998); a disempowered subject of political hegemony, maintained through the discourses and environments of education as much as through manipulation of the public sphere (Gramsci, 1971); and so on. Each will give rise to a different view of what it means to be “information literate.” Respectively these may range from the need to be an efficient information searcher and filterer; an independent learner; a good communicator and collaborator, engaged in a joint knowledge-manufacturing process; and a critically aware “organic intellectual,” challenging received ways of thinking, including their own (e.g., Shor, 1996). Similarly (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), teachers may be seen merely as the “human face” of a learning environment designed with reference to principles developed “scientifically” and disseminated from the educational research laboratory or field experiment through to the policyand standards-setting establishment, but without passing through the unpredict315 information literacy policies/whitworth able, subjective, and parochial hands of teachers on the way. Conversely, teachers may be seen as continuously developing, self-reflective professionals, actively constructing an individual, context-sensitive praxis of education, always questioning basic assumptions, autonomous and forever learning about learning, their own, and their students’, each informing developments in the other (Carr & Kemmis). In practice, of course, these are stereotypes or ideals. They are helpful constructs for thinking, but real teachers and learners do not fall neatly and for all time into one of these categories. Different learning and teaching styles, the affordances of available technology, structural, financial, and personal pressures all combine to leave most real teaching and learning situations as pragmatic constructions, built through a range of compromises and negotiations around what objectives and perspectives are to be valued at given places and times (Cervero & Wilson, 1998). This is why the six frames model (Bruce, Edwards, & Lupton, 2007) is not trying to define different frames separately from one another but instead recognizes that a really effective approach to IL education is only manifested when students can “experience variation” (p. 6) in their interaction with information. That means knowing what approaches to IL are appropriate at particular times. The six frames of IL are the content, competency, learning to learn, personal relevance, social impact, and relational frames. More detailed interpretations of the frames are available in Bruce, Edwards, and Lupton (2007); see also below. In practice, these different perspectives on IL are not equally valued. Andretta conducted a survey of 157 IL practitioners, asking each to indicate which two of the frames best described the approach to information literacy education adopted by their institutions (2007, 2010, pp. 46–48). One hundred thirty-one of the respondents put the competency frame first or second, and sixty-three the content frame; none cited the social impact frame. The first research question worth examining, then, is whether this great variation in value also affects how IL is defined at the macro-level (national policy statements) as well as the micro (individual teachers’ views). The six frames provide the basic framework for this analysis. IL: Colonized, or Just Confused? Different perceptions of the role of the teacher also exist at the macroand micro-level. The best source for this discussion is Carr and Kemmis (1986). In essence, these authors propose that education is characterized by a political struggle between centralizing and decentralizing forces, with notions of authority and professional development the key instruments. Who is granted a politically legitimate role in the design of learning environments, and/or their assessment? On what grounds is this legitimacy based? 316 library trends/fall 2011 Robins and Webster (1987, p. 34, cited in Whitworth, 2009a, pp. 125– 126) point out that the most significant feature of the development of advanced capitalism and the nation state has been their endeavor to integrate diverse areas of life into domains over which they have control. Drawing in and extending into once exempted activities, corporate capitalism and state agencies typically have achieved a greater management of social relationships, have increasingly “scripted” roles and encounters, at the same time as they have advanced their criteria as those most appropriate for conducting affairs. This process should be seen as the rationalization of control in pursuit of particular interests. Essentially, this is the process that Jürgen Habermas (1984/7) calls colonization. (A full exploration of this idea is beyond the scope of this article, but see Whitworth, 2009, pp. 123–126, for an introduction; also see Webster, 2006, pp. 161–202.) Colonization in education has the effect of devaluing the context-specific praxis of individual teachers, with authority and professional status dependent on continuous self-reflection and negotiation, and replacing it with the “objective” pronouncements of educational science and policy science (cf. Fay 1975, pp. 27–28). The autonomous teacher/designer is replaced by the instructional designer; the peer reviewer by the government inspectorate; the mutual recognition of competence and community by the abstract qualification and license to teach (Mezirow, 1990, p. 363). Robins and Webster (1987, pp. 207–225) call tendencies like these “instrumental progressivism.” In the name of studentor pupil-centered education, the teacher is disempowered, but this is not accompanied by the genuine empowerment of the learner. Instead, the learner becomes the focus of a widespread social engineering project designed to turn the education system into a production line contributing to the ongoing production of state capitalism. In other words, education serves the interests of hegemony (Gramsci, 1971). I have argued elsewhere (2007, 2009a; see also Reffell & Whitworth, 2002) that models of IL based too strongly on only the content and competency frames are complicit in instrumental progressivism and contribute to the colonization of education and society. Hence, not just the interest, but the requirement that information literacy, to meet the objectives outlined in the Prague Declaration (2003) and Alexandria Proclamation (Garner, 2006), be taught and defined in holistic ways that extend beyond the focus on content and competencies. With information literacy education, questions of legitimacy are further complicated by the significant role played by another professional group, librarians (and other representatives of the information professions). Historically, IL has been “strongly influenced by the idea that it is the province of librarians” (Whitworth, 2009, p. 98). There is no innate reason why this should be so. In the list of “information literacy givens,” which open 317 information literacy policies/whitworth the Alexandria Proclamation (Garner, 2006, p. 30), the library makes no specific appearance: During the Preliminary Meeting of Sector Experts and Regional Team Leaders on Sunday November 5, 2005, the following “givens” were developed in order to maximize the time and effort available during the Colloquium. All participants understood that the “givens” existed and, therefore, did not need to be issues requiring debate during the course of the Colloquium. • Information Literacy is too important to be left to any one institution, agency or profession; collaboration is essential. • Information Literacy needs to be approached within the context of people’s cultural values, societal groupings and personal information needs. • Information Literacy is more than use of technology. • Information Literacy is concerned with empowering people regardless of modes of information access and delivery. • Achievement of Information Literacy goals requires flexible strategies to meet the needs of diverse communities and individuals. • Information Literacy is a prerequisite for participating effectively in the Information Society and is part of the basic human right of lifelong learning. However, it is the library sector that has largely taken on the role of defining, promoting, and implementing IL education. This also requires attention in the present analysis. Whose policies have been adopted or publicized? What connections, if any, have been drawn between state policymakers, educational researchers, administrators, teachers, librarians and information scientists, parents, learners, and employers (consumers of the products of education systems)? Diverse objectives among stakeholders can lead to a lack of communication at best, confusion at worst. Other writers have seen this in diverse international contexts. Virkus (2003, no pagination) says: Danish information literacy initiators, Skov & Skǽrbak (2003) also report that discourse analysis reveals that informationskompetence (the Danish analogue for information literacy) is “a ‘floating signifier’, a term open to interpretation, and one that means different things to different people”, even among librarians. The term is used mainly in the library sector in Denmark and “has not yet made its way into the vocabulary of the official publications outlining strategies for acquiring the competencies needed in the knowledge society.” De Jager and Nassimbeni (2002), discussing South Africa (see also below) bemoan a “lack of convergence” (p. 127); in Ireland, Russell and O’Brien see “no consensus” (2009, p. 101). Ponjuan (2010) makes the general point that any national IL policy is challenging to implement because very few countries have experience working with the library and information science field as well as educational communities like teachers: the links between these different groups are weak in most places. Conse318 library trends/fall 2011 quently, IL is rarely recognized at the highest political level, being “subsumed within an ‘information society’ agenda focusing primarily on the promotion and development of ICT skills and infrastructure” (Russell & O’Brien, 2009, p. 102; see also Whitworth, 2009). Lower down the political hierarchy (Russell & O’Brien, 2009, p. 103): Sectoral approaches to IL tend to be dissimilar and specific to their own needs. For example, in health IL may be evidence-based whereas in special libraries a more corporate or strategic approach may apply. Academics tend to be concerned about learning outcomes and pedagogy; while public libraries are more concerned with social inclusion. This could be viewed in a positive way, as a sign of diversity, which has value in its own right as it facilitates adaptation to changing circumstances (Whitworth 2009a, p. 21), as well as awareness of the personal relevance frame (see below). But fragmentation can also pave the way for colonization: the imposition of meaning from a policy drawn up by a limited range of interests which then, in turn, reduces the range of support available from related structures that are based on the policy (e.g., funding, assessment regimes, legal requirements). These can all converge on a relatively narrow view of IL. Therefore, to strengthen the framework used in this analysis, it is necessary to account for the importance of collaboration between different stakeholder groups, and more explicitly recognize not just that valuations of the frames vary between groups, but why this variation may itself be problematic. A strong IL policy must explicitly recognize the value of collaboration, and in different ways. In the first place, drawing on personal and professional relationships is a highly effective strategy for improving the effectiveness of information searching. An example of this came with the writing of this very article. The task of finding enough policy documents to make the analysis worthwhile would not have been impossible without the help of colleagues (as explained in the “searching and filtering strategies” section below; and see also the acknowledgments), but it would have taken much longer and, particularly outside the Englishspeaking world, been both less effective and less efficient as a result. Collaboration between librarians and library users (students or teachers) is also an essential part of the IL process, with the librarians taking on the roles of “information provider” and “information educator” at different points in the relationship (Andretta, 2010). At the level of policy rather than practice, collaboration and integration of the work not only of librarians but academics, students, and employers is essential if IL is to break out of the stereotypical view of it as “library skills” (see Head & Eisenberg, 2009, pp. 34–35; Thornton, 2010, pp. 364–65). Therefore, it was decided to add collaboration to the list of coding categories for the content analysis, not as a “seventh frame” but as something that can enhance and improve each of the six frames of IL. 319 information literacy policies/whitworth Methodology The original intention in this article was to focus only on policies that were endorsed at the state level. However, as soon as the literature search began it became apparent that such policies were very few in number. The scope of the review was therefore broadened to include IL frameworks endorsed by professional bodies such as the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL), and so on. The decision was also taken to consider policies at any level of education, from elementary to tertiary, and also in communities, informal learning, and the workplace. I have argued previously (Whitworth, 2009a, pp. 179–193) that a holistic view of IL requires a consideration of how it spans the “classroom walls,” and moves between the formal and informal sectors. As much for reasons of difficulties of measurement and definition as anything else (O’Sullivan, 2002, p. 10), employers and their representative associations often do not have clear policies on information literacy, despite their declared interest in it being present in their staff. As Irving and Crawford say (2008, p. 5): “although employers do not explicitly ask for information literacy it is implicitly expected, seen as important work but not included in workplace training. It therefore falls to education to provide future employees with the necessary information literacy skills and competencies.” IL is declared as important for economic competitiveness, yet this is not backed up with an awareness of how the economy itself and its component businesses and industry sectors can develop IL skills in its own interest. The burden is placed on universities and schools. However, some policies (such as Scotland’s; see below) do address the lifelong learning, workplace, and community sectors. The six frames of IL were expanded into coding categories show in table 1. Table 1. Interpretations of the Six Frames Frame Coding categories Content The importance of information and IL. Drivers of the need for IL. Knowledge of information sources. Competency Searching skills, anti-plagiarism, generic evaluation regimes (e.g. ensuring web page has date of publication, etc.) Learning to learn Developing metacognitive skills, independent learners. Personal relevance Developing awareness of personal (not generic) filtering strategies. Awareness of context-specific applications, multiliteracies. Social impact The production of information intended for public use, active citizenship, solving problems. Relational Awareness of holistic nature of discipline, need to experience variation, iteration and dynamic definitions. Self-awareness of the process of IL itself. 320 library trends/fall 2011 It is acknowledged that these are interpretations of the six frames, which could be disputed. The frames are not completely separable from each other in any case: some activities will cross over between different frames. However, these particular interpretations have been used before, in a project in which they were intersubjectively validated both by students and expert IL practitioners (Whitworth, McIndoe, & Whitworth, 2010). Content analysis is particularly suitable for testing existing theories (Ezzy, 2002, pp. 84–85) and through revealing the assumptions which underlie any qualitative analysis, the reliability and validity of that analysis is enhanced (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002). Added to these was a seventh coding category, highlighting evidence that a policy valued collaboration, whether between individual learners, or between learners/facilitators, or between different professional groups. Were attempts being made to reach an understanding between different groups, to overcome subjective values of the learners or parochial views of the field more generally? Searching and Filtering Strategies The principal criteria for selecting source documents were that a document had to: • had to be written in English2; • mention information literacy at some point (as opposed to merely using other terms such as digital literacy, information skills, etc.); • discuss policy at a national context; that is, as opposed to forming policy in a particular university; • include some kind of discussion of specific standards and practices; that is, being more than a general discussion of the importance of IL; • have been published after 2003; that is, after the date of Virkus’s review. Scope was also a cogent issue. The project was undertaken specifically for this special journal issue, and despite a desire to secure a comprehensive review, it was known in advance that word count would be limited. The researcher therefore made only two “passes” through the literature, or rather, one pass with two different approaches: first with the aid of colleagues (through a request for help on the LIS-Infoliteracy mailing list); the second by searching the IFLA resources. This pass brought up eleven candidate documents. Of the initial eleven, two were rejected on the grounds that no English version existed and translations could not be effected in time (Norway, Taiwan) and three on the basis that though they discussed the need for policy in a general sense, they were anticipations of a policy that had not yet been formed (Wales); had not yet been published (Ireland); or was not available for consultation (Cuba). Having removed these five, six documents 321 information literacy policies/whitworth remained, used hereafter as representative of policy in the following countries: • Finland • United States • Australia/New Zealand • Hong Kong • Scotland • South Africa Although a small sample, this is a geographically diverse one, containing representatives from all continents except South America. It also covers two countries in which English is not the first language (Hong Kong and Finland) and one in which there are many official languages (South Africa). It was therefore decided that this was a good balance of national contexts while simultaneously being few enough to be able to keep this article within the required length for the journal. It was therefore decided to end the literature search at this point. Each is now discussed in turn, with reference to the criteria given in the previous section.