The framing of authority in the ACRL framework on information literacy: multidisciplinary perspectives on truth, authority, expertise and belief

IF 1.3 4区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Lisa M. Rose-Wiles
{"title":"The framing of authority in the ACRL framework on information literacy: multidisciplinary perspectives on truth, authority, expertise and belief","authors":"Lisa M. Rose-Wiles","doi":"10.1108/rsr-02-2024-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper engages multidisciplinary perspectives on truth, authority, expertise and belief to unpack and better understand the underlying epistemology and implications of the ACRL Frame “authority is constructed and contextual.”Design/methodology/approachFollowing an overview of the issues confronting us in a “post-truth world,” the paper reviews critiques of the ACRL Frame “authority is constructed and contextual” and examines the related concepts of truth, authority, expertise and belief from multidisciplinary perspectives.FindingsWhile the Frame acknowledges the limitations and biases of current scholarly publishing and implicitly supports social justice, it runs the danger of promoting relativism and is ambiguous regarding the relationships between expertise and authority. The critical concepts of truth and belief are conspicuously absent. Engaging a critical discussion and understanding of these concepts is a valuable contribution to information literacy.Originality/valueThis paper offers an important and accessible analysis of the frame “authority is constructed and contextual” and its underlying concepts. It moves beyond the library literature to include multidisciplinary perspectives and will require the engagement of the wider library community to promote discussion of the underlying epistemology and links between the construction of authority and truth, expertise and belief. In particular, the discussion of the construction of belief and the difference between judgments of fact and judgments of value offers important additions to the library literature.","PeriodicalId":46478,"journal":{"name":"Reference Services Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reference Services Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-02-2024-0003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThis paper engages multidisciplinary perspectives on truth, authority, expertise and belief to unpack and better understand the underlying epistemology and implications of the ACRL Frame “authority is constructed and contextual.”Design/methodology/approachFollowing an overview of the issues confronting us in a “post-truth world,” the paper reviews critiques of the ACRL Frame “authority is constructed and contextual” and examines the related concepts of truth, authority, expertise and belief from multidisciplinary perspectives.FindingsWhile the Frame acknowledges the limitations and biases of current scholarly publishing and implicitly supports social justice, it runs the danger of promoting relativism and is ambiguous regarding the relationships between expertise and authority. The critical concepts of truth and belief are conspicuously absent. Engaging a critical discussion and understanding of these concepts is a valuable contribution to information literacy.Originality/valueThis paper offers an important and accessible analysis of the frame “authority is constructed and contextual” and its underlying concepts. It moves beyond the library literature to include multidisciplinary perspectives and will require the engagement of the wider library community to promote discussion of the underlying epistemology and links between the construction of authority and truth, expertise and belief. In particular, the discussion of the construction of belief and the difference between judgments of fact and judgments of value offers important additions to the library literature.
ACRL 信息扫盲框架中的权威框架:关于真理、权威、专业知识和信仰的多学科视角
设计/方法/方法在概述了我们在 "后真相世界 "中所面临的问题之后,本文回顾了对 ACRL 框架 "权威是建构的和与背景相关的 "的批评,并从多学科角度研究了真相、权威、专业知识和信仰等相关概念。研究结果虽然该框架承认当前学术出版的局限性和偏见,并暗中支持社会正义,但它有助长相对主义的危险,而且在专业知识和权威之间的关系上含糊不清。真理和信仰的关键概念明显缺失。对这些概念进行批判性的讨论和理解,是对信息扫盲的宝贵贡献。 原创性/价值 本文对 "权威是建构的、语境的 "这一框架及其基本概念进行了重要而易懂的分析。它超越了图书馆文献的范畴,纳入了多学科视角,需要更广泛的图书馆界的参与,以促进对基本认识论以及权威构建与真理、专业知识和信仰之间联系的讨论。特别是,关于信念的构建以及事实判断和价值判断之间区别的讨论为图书馆文献提供了重要的补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Reference Services Review
Reference Services Review INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Reference Services Review (RSR ) is a quarterly, refereed journal dedicated to the enrichment of reference knowledge and the advancement of reference services. RSR covers all aspects of reference functions, including automation of reference services, evaluation and assessment of reference functions and sources, models for delivering quality reference services in all types and sizes of libraries, development and management of teaching/learning activities, promotion of information literacy programs, and partnerships with other entities to achieve reference goals and objectives. RSR prepares its readers to understand and embrace current and emerging technologies affecting reference functions, instructional services and information needs of library users.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信