Information literacy: the new knowledge management?

Information literacy: the new knowledge management?

In March 2006, a new UK-based resource dealing with information literacy was launched called, with a rather un-British lack of modesty, “The Information Literacy Website” (www.informationliteracy.org.uk). Supported by a coalition of the good and the great of the UK information world (CILIP, SCONUL, the Museums, Libraries and Archives council, and others), this has the stated aim of providing “a practical resource that information professionals regularly visit to discover the latest developments in information literacy”. And very useful it looks.

With its assumption that information literacy is something with which information professionals necessarily need to keep up, this is merely the latest piece of evidence suggesting that the IL-thing has moved to centre-stage in the concerns of all those who think of themselves as information specialists. The fact that the site could be launched at the “Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference” is another; not many library topics have annual conferences all to themselves. Another is the devoting of an issue of CILIP’s main “membership magazine” to the theory and practice of information literacy (CILIP, 2005). Yet another is the increasingly grandiose output from the UNESCO-supported bodies addressing these topics (the Prague Declaration, the Alexandria Proclamation …), which suggest, without any evidence of tongues being in cheeks, that information literacy will be a major tool in bringing about the abolition of poverty, the reduction of inequality, and the establishment of world peace, among other laudable aims. These add to the earlier claims of its being “the meta-competence of the knowledge economy” and “the final key to the information society”.

This, then, seems a suitable time to address the question of whether information literacy is becoming the new knowledge management; a “hot topic”, claimed by its adherents to be the answer to many problems (not least the perceived lack of status of information specialists) and by others to be so much hot air.

It is true that, so far as I know, no-one has said that information literary is “nonsense”, as Tom Wilson memorably said of knowledge management, though it was described at a very early stage as a “bogus bandwagon” (McCrank, 1991), and more recently as a “contradictory coupling” (Pawley, 2003). Perhaps the most common equivalent is the assertion, by more than one senior person in the field, that information literacy is fascinating to librarians, and other information-centred folk, and of little or no interest to anyone else.

Similarly, much as knowledge management was, and is, accused of being “nothing more than … ” such things as information management, so with information literacy. The latter has been accused of being “nothing more than” a dressing up version of bibliographic instruction, user education, information skills training, and other traditional activities of library service. There has also been a debate as to whether these topics can exist on their own, as “pure” or “generic” KM or IL, or whether they make sense only in the context of a subject or domain (for IL examples, see Grafstein, 2002; Tuominen et al., 2005).

There has also been a strong association, criticised by some, but now seemingly well entrenched, between information literacy and the educational role of the library. The slow take up of information literacy programmes, at least called as such, in the workplace may be seen a consequence of this. This echoes, to some extent, the association of knowledge management with the private, corporate sector, and its slow acceptance into other areas.

Again as with knowledge management, information literacy has been a difficult concept, in that there has been limited agreement as to quite what it means, and where its boundaries lie (see, for example, Behrens, 1994; Bawden, 2001; for overviews, and Marcus, 2002; Purdue, 2003; Catts, 2005; Lloyd, 2005, for more specific arguments). It is interesting to note that Purdue suggests that information literacy should involve “stories, not information”, an echo of a strong theme in KM. Despite the predominance of the ALA/SCONUL “six step” model for information literacy, particularly in academic library circles, there is still some debate as to quite what the subject is about.

A distinct difference between the two may be found in the extent to which they are renamed. KM is, and always, pretty much had a constant name, with some variants along the “know how” route. Information literacy, on the other hand, has been subject to numerous renamings. “Information competence”, “information fluency”, and “information mastery” has suited those who do not like the, possibly demeaning, “literacy” label. “Digital literacy” avoids the I-word, and arguably sounds sexier. Complete alternatives have also been found, such as “smart working” (in a UK government programme) and, from this journal, “self-efficacy” (Kurbanoglu, 2003).

If there is any validity in the comparison between IL and KM, then it is interesting to reflect on a significant difference. KM, though claimed by some commentators to be the future for information professionals, has always remained something of a side issue for this community, equally, if more, adopted by the information technology and human resources functions. Academically, this has resulted in much of the KM literature being quite separate from that of LIS, even its information management wing. Information literacy, on the other hand, seems to have been adopted primarily by the LIS professions, and largely written about in their literature. Which is “better”, and whether either of these topics will survive as a focus for academic research and for professional practice, remains to be seen.

David Bawden