ABSTRACT:

In this post, I examine how a Christ-centered perspective can inform my understanding and practice of information literacy as a librarian. While traditional definitions and frameworks from the Association of College and Research Libraries have shaped my professional approach, I’ve seen that Scripture and theology offer valuable insights into knowledge, learning, and wisdom deeply relevant to information literacy. Drawing on John Frame’s biblical epistemology—normative, situational, and existential perspectives—I reflect on how standards, context, and self-knowledge all play a role in how I seek, evaluate, and share information. Ultimately, I ask how a reverent and worshipful heart toward God should shape my approach to information literacy. I also invite further exploration of how faith can guide faithful librarianship in theory and practice.

FULL ENTRY:

Information literacy has become a critical tool for many academic librarians and is often used by librarians to connect with faculty and administrators in many educational contexts. The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) has hallmarked information literacy by creating the Information Literacy Competency Standards in 2000 and the Framework for Information Literacy in 2016. Both have played critical roles in assisting librarians with their advocacy for information literacy. As this blog aims to look at librarianship through a faith-based lens, one cannot help but ask, how should a faithful librarian assess information literacy? There are many points of information literacy to critique and evaluate, and future entries will assess particular components of information literacy by looking at some of its epistemological presuppositions and the six frames of the Framework. This entry will examine the overarching element of information literacy and ask, “How can a Christ-centered perspective inform how a faithful librarian assesses and engages with information literacy?”

When discussing information literacy, one often thinks about “a set of abilities requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (Association of College and Research Libraries [ACRL], 2000, p. 2). The Framework also comes up in many discussions related to information literacy. The Framework, adopted by ACRL in early 2016, notes that “(i)nformation literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing 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” (para. 6).

In much of my earlier work with information literacy, I easily bypassed the query regarding how information literacy connects with any theological premise. Since neither Scripture nor theological works explicitly discuss information, I thought there was no warrant for developing how a faithful librarian might look at information literacy. However, after doing some work in this area, I was reminded that Scripture has much to say about knowledge, learning, understanding, and wisdom, and the literature suggests that each of these has some connection back to how we understand information (Capurro & Hjorland, 2002, p. 356; Cleveland, 1985, p. 23; Jones, 2010, para. 1; Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 189).

When aiming to look at knowledge as a faithful librarian, it is hard to ignore the works of John Frame. In his book, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, John Frame provides insight regarding what knowledge might look like in a biblical-theological framework. Frame points out three common means through which we come to know and notes that the Christian faith speaks into all these: normative, situational, and existential. In normative epistemology, one tends to look for a standard or a rule that is not influenced by human subjectivity through which one can know what is true. For example, librarians often use the Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers (2023) as a standard to know when a reference interview was done well. While I doubt that anyone would argue that these protocols were developed entirely apart from human subjectivity, their development by an association implies a communal subjectivity that often speaks louder than the voice of a single person. Subsequently, protocols such as these establish standards to determine communal norms for a reference interview. Protocols or norms such as these play a role in learning (i.e., attaining knowledge) regarding how one does a reference interview well (i.e., a normative standard). Librarianship (like many facets of life) has normative standards. Just like a librarian can do a reference interview well by abiding within the norms of the Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers (2023), humanity does well by abiding within the authority, control, and presence of God’s law (Frame, 1987, pp. 62-64).

A second factor impacting knowledge is our contexts (i.e., situational). Frame notes that knowing God involves knowing our contexts, the world God created. By knowing the world, we further understand the works of God, which play a crucial role in helping us know more about God. God also wants people to apply Scripture to their situation; thus, understanding the situation often plays a critical role in applying biblical and theological truths to those scenarios. Frame (1987) also argues that we cannot know the world without knowing God: a lack of adequate understanding of God quickly leads to misunderstanding the world (pp. 64-67). In a professional context, situational epistemology can be seen in the incredible value of learning on the job. Many argue that such experiences are an excellent means to learn, grow, and become a more robust professional. The idea that we can learn through our experiences not only about our job but about God should resonate for faithful librarians as we believe that God allows all of our experiences to work together for good (Romans 12:2), which, at least in part, involves understanding what God desires to teach us through them.

An existential epistemology argues that knowledge comes from understanding oneself. Frame (1987), again, notes that this aligns with a biblical understanding of knowledge (pp. 67-70). Because humanity is created in God’s image, we can often learn more about God as we gain knowledge of ourselves. For example, the human body’s intricacies and the fact that differing entities of the body all work together to sustain life can teach us about the critical roles that unity and diversity play in sustenance. When I understand that the same God who created my body created all facets of life, I can connect what I learn about God’s character by better understanding myself in differing contexts, as the same God who created me also made the heavens and the earth. For example, the fact that all the diverse components of the physical body work together to sustain it implies that God can and often does his work through diverse entities.

Also, I cannot know myself rightly until I see myself as created in God’s image: fallen yet saved by grace. I cannot know God rightly until I seek to know him, acknowledging my role as a creature and a servant. This infers that a purely ‘objective’ view of knowledge is neither possible nor favorable because of our fallen nature. These components speak to an existential epistemology (Frame, 1987, pp. 67-70).

Frame argues that these three perspectives (normative, situational, and existential) must drive epistemology. The normative perspective examines epistemology by arguing that man was made to think according to God’s law. God’s law is the ultimate presupposition. A situational framework emphasizes that God commands us to understand creation well enough so that we can apply scriptural ideas and principles to all facets of life. Finally, epistemology is driven by our understanding of ourselves because, as we are created in the image of God, such an understanding can point us to God. Frame argues that from a biblical worldview, these three interrelated perspectives drive epistemology. Can these three aspects of knowledge help us understand information literacy? Limberg, Sundin, and Talja (2012) infer this might be possible.

Limberg, Sundin, and Talja (2012) argue that three theoretical perspectives drive our understanding and practice of information literacy: phenomenography, sociocultural theory, and discourse analysis. Limberg, Sundin, and Talja (2012) note that phenomenography looks at the differing patterns that result when individuals experience information literacy (p. 116). On the other hand, sociocultural theory tends to look at information literacy as a tool-based practice within specific communities (Limberg, Sundin, & Talja, 2012, p. 116). Discourse analysis identifies broader historical information literacy discourses that create standards and rules for expressing information literacy (Limberg, Sundin, & Talja, 2012, p. 111).

While Limberg, Sundin, and Talja’s (2012) three components are not identical to Frame’s (1987), I find an intriguing alignment. Frame’s normative perspective bears similarities to information literacy’s discourse analysis in that both look for standards or rules upon which to base their understanding. Similarly, Frame’s (1987) situational perspective and Limberg, Sundin, and Talja’s (2012) sociocultural theory look at communal context as a key component of knowledge and information literacy. Finally, Limberg, Sundin, and Talja (2012) note that phenomenography places the individual doing the learning in the center of an information literacy endeavor (p. 117). This aligns nicely with Frame’s (1987) argument for the existential component of epistemology, which argues that the knowledge of self is epistemologically critical (pp. 67-70). Perhaps these similarities suggest that how one understands epistemology plays a crucial role in understanding and practicing information literacy. Like Frame (1987, p. 70), Limberg, Sundind, and Talja (2012) note that these three components are intended to complement one another (p. 121). When these three frames are utilized for information literacy, Limberg, Sundin, and Talja (2012) note that it presents a holistic picture of how information literacy can strengthen one’s pursuit of learning, growth, and knowledge (p. 121). Similarly, the works of Swanson (2006, p. 104), Kulthau (2004, pp. 4, 69), and Hofer and Pintrich (1997, p. 88) infer that our understanding of knowledge impacts our understanding of learning and has subsequent impacts on how we understand and apply information literacy. Despite the ambiguity noted earlier, these terms (knowledge, understanding, and wisdom), their inter-connectedness inferred by the literature, and the similarities between epistemology and information literacy, it seems safe to assume that what we think about knowledge will impact our understanding of information literacy.

This entry began with the question: “How can a Christ-centered perspective inform how a faithful librarian assesses and engages with information literacy?” Some groundwork needs to be established to answer such a question, such as “What is information literacy?” One could simply accept the definitions provided by ACRL. By doing some background, I am not necessarily inferring that they are incorrect or erroneous. However, looking at foundational information literacy components, such as epistemology, helps understand how a Christ-centered perspective might engage with information literacy. Connecting information literacy with epistemological assumptions needs further exploration (cf. Budd and Lloyd, 2014).

The discussion of epistemology and its connection with information literacy likely leads to the question: “What does it mean for a faithful librarian if knowledge has a connection with information literacy?” Proverbs 1:7 states that “(t)he fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge…” (ESV). This verse infers some connection between epistemology and having a reverent and worshipful heart towards God (Botterweck, 1974, p. 298). If information literacy is also connected with epistemology, could there be any connection between how we practice information literacy and reflecting a reverent and worshipful heart? The following blog entries will explore these questions and provide a biblical and theological base to help faithful librarians understand, apply, and advocate for information literacy.

References

Association of College and Research Libraries (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.

Association of College and Research Libraries (2016). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

Botterweck, G. J. (with Ringgren, H., Fabry, H.-J., & Green, D. E.). (1974). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (vol. 6). Eerdmans.

Budd, J. M., & Lloyd, A. (2014). Theoretical foundations for information literacy: A plan for action. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2014.14505101001

Capurro, R., & Hjørland, B. (2002). The concept of information. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 36, pp. 343–411). Information Today Inc.

Cleveland, H. (1985). The knowledge executive: Leadership in an information society. Truman Talley Books.

Frame, J. M. (1987). The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Baker.

Jones, W. (2010). No knowledge but through information. First Monday, 15(9). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3062/2600

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170620

Kuhlthau, C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (2nd ed.). Libraries Unlimited.

Limberg, L., Sundin, O., & Talja, S. (2012). Three theoretical perspectives on information literacy. Human IT: Journal for Information Technology as a Human Science, 11(2), 93–130.

Reference User and Services Association. (2023). Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers. https://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral

Swanson, T. (2006). Information Literacy, Personal Epistemology, and Knowledge Construction: Potential and Possibilities. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13(3), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1300/J106v13n03_07