Information & anxiety: The impossibility of ‘literacy’ and the necessity of agency

This was a panel I presented at 2017 “What Is Life?” Conference at the University of Oregon in Portland. My co-authors are Gesina Phillips, Digital Scholarship Librarian at Duquesne University’s Gumberg Library, and Megan Massanelli, Project Archivist at the Senator John Heinz History Center.

This was presented April 8, 2017 on the Panel titled “Criticality”. The full article will be posted to Duquesne University’s Institutional Repository.

My name is Christie Kliewer, and I am the Outreach and Communications Librarian at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. My co-authors are Gesina Phillips, a librarian, and Megan Massanelli, an archivist. They were unable to attend this conference but have contributed to this panel to provide perspectives on this topic from different areas of information science.

Our goal is to give you a framework to understand the concepts in information science which deal directly with the issue of reliable information sources and trust in the age of the internet. Our professional values as information scientists are specifically codified in order to deal with information anxiety and promote critical thinking, and our daily work is to foster responsible interactions with information. We will draw upon these values as examples in order to find interdisciplinary points of similarity among our audience, and demonstrate strategies for approaching information anxiety.

We have noticed an increasing discussion about trustworthy information sources, “fake news,” and the growing fear of being misinformed. We too are afraid, and while we believe it’s responsible to remain wary and vigilant, we were inspired to create this presentation in order to offer some ideas from our professions that we feel can bring us closer to developing workable solutions.

“Information Anxiety is produced by the ever-widening gap between what we understand and what we think we should understand. It is the black hole between data and knowledge, and what happens when information doesn’t tell us what we want or need to know.” — Richard Saul Wurman, Information Anxiety (2001)

Information anxiety, defined by Richard Saul Wurman, is a state “produced by the ever-widening gap between what we understand and what we think we should understand. It is the black hole between data and knowledge, and what happens when information doesn’t tell us what we want or need to know.”

On the Printing Press: “The sorrows of any part of the world, many times greater geographically than the old world as known to the ancients, through the medium of the press and the telegraph are made the sorrows of individuals everywhere.” — George Miller Beard, American Nervousness: Its Causes and Consequences (1881)

Advances in mass communication have historically prompted anxiety in reaction to the increasing volume and breadth of information.

Information anxiety is not new, but the scope of the information that we interact with regularly today is far larger. The printing press allowed for far greater distribution of information, but this distribution was limited to the production of more individual physical copies of documents. The internet (and increased consumer access to digital technologies) enables simultaneous distribution and ease of content creation. If the barrier to creation and distribution of materials is low, the traditional power structures of communication are changed and arguably reduced. If the archiving of information is no longer controlled exclusively by those with the means and access to an Archives, our collective memory of human experiences will contain greater diversity.

“Information overload occurs when the amount of input to a system exceeds its processing capacity. Decision makers have fairly limited cognitive processing capacity. Consequently, when information overload occurs, it is likely that a reduction in decision quality will occur.” — Speier et. al., “The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective” (1999)

The term information overload was popularized by Alvin Toffler in his 1970 book Future Shock but was given the definition presented here by Speier et. al. in 1999.

It is part of the responsibility of information scientists to give users the means to make informed decisions independently. Our Code of Professional Ethics as Librarians holds Service as the foremost principle.

“We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.” — Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (2008)

Information Scientists are all concerned with the issues of organizing and providing access to information, but librarians consider the role we play as the mediator between the user and information — through one-on-one interactions as well as through our systems — to be as important as the information itself. We are deeply motivated by how patrons engage with information and do not see our role as a passive act. We engage with our patrons in order to provide them with not only the most applicable information, but also the tools to find more information on their own in the future.

This service orientation leads librarians to speak about information overload in terms of the effect it has on patrons who come to us for help. While new technologies have enhanced and expanded our professional ability to disseminate information to a larger audience, they have also fundamentally changed how we provide information. Ascertaining the value of an information resource to a patron in a given context is foundational to the profession; as the volume of available information increases, teaching patrons the skills necessary to locate valuable information becomes more of a challenge.

“Information as knowledge, meaning the knowledge imparted; Information as process, the process of becoming informed; and Information as thing, denoting bits, bytes, books and other physical media.”— Michael Buckland, Information and Society (2017)

It becomes necessary at this point to define what we mean by “information.” Michael Buckland (2017) offers these definitions of some of the manifestations of information, as knowledge, process, and thing.

This discussion will consider information in all categories. For example, information may be a thing when it is used to refer to information sources located to fulfill a user’s information need, or when it refers to digital objects that we have created. Information literacy instruction describes the process of information retrieval, evaluation, and synthesis, as well as the hopeful end result of having internalized information as knowledge.

Delving into this journey from information as thing to information as knowledge is particularly relevant with the ongoing consideration of “fake news.” How can we be well-informed if the starting information is of questionable quality? In particular, the question of authority or expertise — or the ability to speak in an informed manner — is challenged by what Richard Morrison referred to in 2008 in the London Times as “the new belief that everyone’s opinion, on every subject, is equally valid.”

There is a valuable germ in this idea that deference to signifiers of authority should not be automatic. In fact, many strategies in information literacy instruction ask learners to vet a source’s claim to authority rather than accepting it as a matter of faith. However, we have seen that the results of questioning authority based simply on personal opinions or feelings can be catastrophic (take, for example, objections to scientific climate change data that are based on anecdotal evidence). Information literacy asks learners and information seekers to embrace a grey area, a space where information must be honestly evaluated before it can be said to be trustworthy or untrustworthy.

Teaching and the ambiguous nature of “literacy”

Tweet “‘Fake news’ is lazy language. Be specific. Do you mean: A) Propaganda B) Disinformation C) Conspiracy Theory D) Clickbait” posted by user @7im Tim Dickinson about “fake news” shortly after the 2016 US Presidential Election.

In addition to traditional library instruction — catalog searches, call numbers, and so on — librarians are engaged in teaching information literacy skills.

Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education: Information literacy as the “reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning” — Association of College and Research Libraries (2015)

Information literacy instruction seeks to foster an ecosystem of thought which enables responsible, self-aware, and generative information use. Information literacy supplements critical thinking skills by investigating the broader context for an information object, while also emphasizing the learner’s role as a creator of information.

One of the struggles in information literacy instruction, and perhaps in higher education in general, is teaching relative to the overwhelming amount of information available. Students conducting research need to be able to sift good results from bad; individuals reading online need to be able to tell the difference between sponsored results, propaganda, and well-reported content. This avalanche of information — in the sense of search results numbering in the tens of thousands — prompts the need for what Nathan Shedroff refers to as “an even deeper need for truly informing experiences — for insight, the most precious form of information.”

Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education: “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual — Information Creation as a Process — Information Has Value — Research as Inquiry — Scholarship as Conversation — Searching as Strategic Exploration” — Association of College and Research Libraries (2015)

Information Has Value Research as Inquiry Scholarship as Conversation

Searching as Strategic Exploration

The rhetoric of “becoming information literate” seems to gesture toward a future point at which the learner has “achieved” literacy. In reality, information literacy is an unrelenting, ongoing process that must keep pace not only with the changing information needs of the user but also the evolution of the information landscape. Additionally, the concept of being information literate may presuppose the state of being information illiterate. The term seems to imply a binary, while the reality lies somewhere in between — it is possible to demonstrate information literate behavior in one context, but fail to meet that standard in another.

Students in a recent study demonstrated this tension between hitting the mark and falling short in terms of information literate behavior. From 2015 into 2016, researchers at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education studied what they called “civic online reasoning,” or “the ability to judge the credibility of information” found online. Students asked to evaluate a politically-tinged Tweet linking to polling data appeared to rely exclusively on their prior knowledge and visual impressions, privileging opinion over the acquisition of new knowledge. At the same time, many respondents referenced “the limitations of polling or the dangers of social media content,” both of which may also be true in this case. Can we truly classify this as information illiterate behavior?

Or is it instead more useful and honest to chart these responses on a continuum of information use that demonstrates some mastery, but also the potential to further develop critical thinking strategies?

More than literacy, the methods employed within information literacy instruction describe a process of striving to create insightful users of information who are adaptable and thoughtful about their information use. This is a moving target given the changing face of information formats and delivery mechanisms, but the underlying emphasis on being able to ascertain what is valuable is a powerful tool in the fight against information overload and its attendant anxiety.

Archival Anxiety

Illustration created by Erik Desmazieres for the David R. Godine Publishing House copy of Jorge Luis Borges’ “The Library of Babel”

Archival Anxiety: “The challenges archivists face are the result of a growing recognition of the importance of records in our society and its organizations, although these challenges are pushing archivists to think well beyond the cultural mission so many archivists have chosen to emphasize. The days of archivists sitting quietly in their stacks and waiting for the occasional researcher to appear are long gone (if they ever really existed). Archival anxiety may be the result of this community being shaken out of its complacency.” — Richard Cox, Archival Anxiety and the Vocational Calling (2011)

In addition to the importance of records, the digital format poses new problems in preservation and management. Whereas physical paper and film documents can be set aside and forgotten and remain intact to a certain extent, bit-rot, obsolescence, and other issues make immediate and sustained action necessary for the preservation and control of digital records. Often, information anxiety in the sphere of digital archiving manifests as the fear of loss of control, context, access, and ultimately the story of who we are and who we were.

Out of the stacks… : Personal Digital Archiving (PDA) is a movement that seeks to address this need: “the archival challenges posed by our digital, networked lives from the point of view of the individual rather than the institution.” — Grace Lile, 2013… Incorporates core values to professional archival practice such as selection, access and use, and responsible custody — Manifests as tip sheets, step-by-step guides, workshops, and special content management tools (WAIL, Karenware, etc.) — However, not always accessible to intended audience (issues of jargon, technical knowledge, resources, and time)

Personal digital archiving, a movement that popped up in the mid-2000s in the U.S., seeks to address the archival challenges posed by our digital, networked lives from the point of view of the individual rather than the institution. Core professional values and practices set out by the Society of American Archivists — practices intended for application at an archival institution by a professional archivist or librarian — are scaled to individual, non-professional use.

Potential Questions: What was the original purpose of your content? — Where is it located? — Do you want to keep it long term? — What value does this have for yourself, your family, your work, your community? — What kind of digital formats do I have? — Do I need to download or export content that is online?

For example, selection and appraisal guidance asks individuals to consider questions such as…

The answer to these questions can help individuals identify necessary actions for organization and preservation. Open-source tools can aid individuals in executing plans for managing their content. While the guides, tip-sheets, and tools are available and often explicitly created for individuals and those outside of the archival and library profession, they are not always accessible.

Open Source Personal Digital Archiving Tools: WAIL (Web Archiving Integration Layer): to create copies of web pages — DROID (Digital Record Object Identification): file management software — XifTool:adding and editing file metadata

Lack of technical knowledge, ability, resources, and time can prevent individuals from utilizing PDA recommendations. However, the underlying goal of personal digital archiving is to empower individuals to begin to act. Our own individual digital lives have created a volume of information that necessitates new tools and paradigms to maintain. The application of personal digital archiving may not create perfect order, but it can be employed to alleviate the anxiety of having personal output and records that are not usable in the present or meaningfully curated and organized for the future.

Information as Other

If you spend time working on a book for publication, you are conscious of your role as a creator. Conversely, but more commonly, you might not think of posting a birthday message to your daughter’s Facebook as an act of creation, but that post is in effect an information object.

Both, despite the obvious differences, are examples of the creation and dissemination of information. We are frequent information creators in the digital realm, often without even being conscious that we have created an information object. The sheer scale of this near-constant production can lead to overload and deep anxiety.

Image of Yahoo Search for “how to cook a turkey”: Search results generated by Yahoo (and similar search platforms) often do little to differentiate search results and advertisements related to the search query.

The unparalleled volume of information offered by the internet is not without barriers to access. An individual can walk to their local public library and log into a terminal regardless of whether or not they have internet in their home or have an internet-capable device of their own. This person can spend hours using the information available on the open web or Wikipedia, or in the library’s databases, and can access their social media profiles to keep in touch with friends and family. This person CAN do all these things, hypothetically, if they understand how to browse Wikipedia (or even know what Wikipedia is), or know how to find a library database on genealogy. But has this person ever engaged with a search platform that places ads adjacent to the list of results? Are they aware that the ad they clicked is not actually a search result for their query?

Do they know their Facebook page is public, and potential employers can see what they have posted? It is true that “millennials” demonstrate a competency for digital platforms that previous generations might not as frequently possess. But the inability to discern between a well-design ad and a legitimate search result spans all age groups.

It’s very difficult to remain “off the grid” given how thoroughly our lives have been integrated into digital platforms. It is almost impossible to apply for an entry-level job without an email address, and most major email platforms require the user to have a personal cell phone for activation. These requirements are not prohibitive for those who are already integrated into the digital world, but can be nearly insurmountable barriers for those who are not.

The recent Bill rolling back consumer protections against the sale of their browser history and user metadata by Internet Service Providers has created a reasonable amount of public outcry. It has emphasized the fact that we do not own the data about our digital lives. We do not have control over who can see it and who can access it. The potential vulnerability of our personal data contributes to the growing cultural perspective that we are always unsafe. The internet is a landscape that requires specialized skills to navigate, and an environment where information proliferates and mutates until it is difficult to discern what is useful and what is untrustworthy.

Conclusion: The bright side

Of course, the fundamental tension of online spaces is that this idea of vulnerability exists alongside the potential for growth. It is not just a space for disinformation and manipulation, but a space where communities can disseminate ideas and create meaningful and unique content. The same space that can be used to work collaboratively and foster community can also be used for bullying, harassment, and hacking. This is a reflection of physical spaces in certain ways, but is of a scope and immediacy that is unique.

Information scientists seek to empower users with the skills necessary to navigate this environment confidently rather than anxiously, and to take advantage of the wealth of information and communication platforms available. Focusing on promoting insightful behavior when it comes to information objects — those which we create as well as those which we encounter — empowers users to sift through and discard that which is damaging, false, or useless. It is important to remember that navigating the information landscape is always an imperfect endeavor, but that interacting with information is a journey rather than a safe harbor, and it is possible to teach and learn strategies to alleviate overload and assuage anxiety.

Sources

• American Library Association. (2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics
• Association of College and Research Libraries. (2015). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
• Beard, G. M. (1881). American nervousness: Its causes and consequences. A supplement to Nervous Exhaustion (Neurasthenia). New York, NY: Putnam. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/americannervousn00bearuoft
• Buckland, M. (2017). Information and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Cox, R. J. (2011). Archival anxiety and the vocational calling. Sacramento, CA: Litwin Books.
• Desmaziere, E. (1997). The library of Babel (Etching). Retrieved from http://www.velly.org/Erik_Desmazieres.html
• Foster, S. (1993). Information literacy: Some misgivings. American Libraries, 24(4), 344–346. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25632883
• Morrison, R. (2008, November 19). 2008: The year when the experts lost the plot. London Times. Retrieved from http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2008-the-year-when-the-experts-lost-the-plot-z5523jc908c
• Shedroff, N. (2001). Forms of information anxiety. In R. S. Wurman, Information Anxiety 2 (p. 16–17). Indianapolis, IA: Que.
• Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. (1999). The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 337–360.
• Stanford History Education Group. (2016). Evaluating Information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Executive summary. Retrieved from https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.pdf
• Wurman, R. S. (2001). Information Anxiety 2. Indianapolis, IA: Que.