Schreiber, Trine

Sundin, Olof

English

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITYPO Box 117221 00 Lund+46 46-222 00 00Is there a need for re-claiming search in information literacy practices research?Sundin, Olof; Schreiber, Trine2017Document Version:Peer reviewed version (aka post-print)Link to publicationCitation for published version (APA):Sundin, O., & Schreiber, T. (2017). Is there a need for re-claiming search in information literacy practicesresearch?. Abstract from The Nineth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and InformationScience (CoLIS) , Uppsala, Sweden.Total number of authors:2General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portalRead more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim.Download date: 08. Oct. 2022Panel proposal	for	CoLIS	9	 	 January	29.	2016		 Type of event Panel  Title of even/session Is there a need for re-claiming search in information literacy practices research?  Organizers Olof Sundin, Professor, Lund University, olof.sundin@kultur.lu.se Trine Schreiber, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, trine.schreiber@hum.ku.dk  Short abstract Traditionally, searching constitutes a core area in information studies, but it seems that during the last decade of practice-oriented information literacy research searching has lost some of its attraction as a field of research. At the same time, searching is discussed intensively in other areas of information literacy, in information behaviour research as well as outside the realm of information studies (e.g. Hillis, Petit & Jarret, 2013; Rieh et al., 2016).   Knowledge important for searching is to an increasing extent built into the information infrastructure surrounding us and to which we always have constant access to the internet (Sundin, 2015). When searching for information became an activity anyone could carry out, as well as access to search facilities became mobile, the activity of search has been given a less significant position and less attention in information literacy research,	especially from a practice-oriented perspective. Boolean logic, truncation and other search techniques are less important in a time when any search on Google generates the answers people search for. The theoretical development of the field in a practice-theoretical direction might even have amplified this lack of interest in searching as a phenomenon and activity.  Accordingly, research focus has in many cases moved from searching information to assessing its trustworthiness. In fact, the dominant discourse on information literacy in schools, both public and academic, circulates around difficulties people face when assessing whether information found can be trusted or not. The wider concept of seeking is often more prominent than searching. Another discourse on information literacy in the same area has had the focus on the written assignment practice and the changing character of the activities performing this practice (Schreiber, 2014). In both discourses the information activities has been examined. All this is very important, but the actual searching and the tools for finding this information have not been investigated and problematized in the same respect. Many aspects in relation to information searching might therefore contribute to information literacy research.  The aim of this panel is to turn to the question of the role of search in information literacy investigated from various practice-oriented perspectives. Focus will be on discussions around Panel proposal	for	CoLIS	9	 	 January	29.	2016		questions like e.g. has search fallen into oblivion? Has searching been left aside for a good reason? Is there a role for search in a field where seeking has been a dominant concept? Is search as well as research on search in fact more important than ever? If so, do we need to approach search in a different way than we used to? Do research employing a practice-oriented approach to information literacy need to rethink research methods for studying information searching?  The panel will gather early career and senior researchers with experiences from information literacy research and/or practice-oriented research of information seeking and use. The panellists will discuss the central theme of the panel by taking examples from their own research. The audience will be engaged through a moderator-led discussion.  Length: 90 minutes.  Participants: Information literacy has been a strong theme on CoLIS conferences. The topic of the panel is expected to attract approximately 30 participants.   Proposed format Beside the organizers of the panel five panellists have been invited representing different universities and research approaches:  Andrew M. Cox, Senior Lecturer, University of Sheffield, a.m.cox@sheffield.ac.uk Helena Francke, Associate Professor, University of Borås, helena.francke@hb.se Ola Pilerot, Senior Lecturer, University of Borås, ola.pilerot@hb.se Cecilia Andersson, PhD student, Lund University, Cecilia.andersson@kultur.lu.se Camilla Moring, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, camilla.moring@hum.ku.dk  The panel is organised as scheduled in Table 1 below. Firstly the panel theme is introduced and put in relation to relevant literature. Thereafter each panellist presents arguments which in short account for his/her standpoint regarding the theme of the panel. Each argument is concluded by 1-2 questions, but the discussion of these questions is saved for the final discussion of all arguments. The discussion will be moderated in an attempt to encourage discussion not only among the panellists but including all participants at the panel session.  Table 1: Content Responsible Time Introduction Trine Schreiber 6-8 minutes Argument 1 Olof Sundin 8-10 minutes Argument 2 Helena Francke 8-10 minutes Argument 3 Cecilia Andersson 8-10 minutes Argument 4 Andrew M. Cox 8-10 minutes Panel proposal	for	CoLIS	9	 	 January	29.	2016		Argument 5 Camilla Moring 8-10 minutes Argument 6 Ola Pilerot 8-10 minute Discussion  Moderator: Trine Schreiber 15-20 minutes  Purpose, goals and expected outcomes The purpose of the panel is to discuss the growing obscurity of one traditionally central interest of information literacy research – searching. The goal is to discuss whether there is a need to reclaim searching for information literacy research, if so, to discuss the implications this might have for future research in information literacy practices.  References  Hillis, K., Petit, M. & Jarret K. (2013). Google and the Culture of Search. New York, Routledge.  Rieh, S. Y., Collins-Thompson, K., Hansen, P. & Lee, H. J. (2016). Towards searching as a learning process: a review of current perspectives and future directions. Journal of Information Science. 42(2):19-34.  Sundin, O. (2015). Invisible Search: Information Literacy in the Swedish Curriculum for Compulsory Schools. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(4):193–209.  Schreiber, T. (2014). Conceptualizing students´ written assignments in the context of information literacy and Schatzki´s practice theory. Journal of Documentation, 70(3): 346-363.   

Is there a need for re-claiming search in information literacy practices research?

https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/23013589/Panel_proposal_for_CoLIS_9_jan2016.pdf

Is there a need for re-claiming search in information literacy practices research?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lund University Publications