The Relationship Between Information Literacy and Social Epistemology

 

 

By Lilian H. Hill

Examining the relationship between information literacy and social epistemology is important for developing critical thinking, making informed decisions, and participating effectively in society. Exploring these ideas together enhances educational outcomes, professional capabilities, and personal growth while also addressing broader societal challenges like misinformation and social justice. By delving into these areas, individuals and communities can foster a more informed, equitable, and dynamic knowledge landscape.

 

Definitions

• Information literacy is the skills and abilities needed to effectively find, evaluate, use, and communicate the huge amount of information available today. It includes recognizing credible sources, critical thinking, and understanding the ethical uses of information. In other words, information 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.

• Epistemology is the study of knowledge, meaning the philosophical basis of how we know what we know or think we know. The ultimate test of whether information is true or false is an epistemological question.

• Social epistemology is a subfield that focuses on the social dimensions of knowledge acquisition and dissemination. Social epistemology provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the social aspects of knowledge, highlighting the importance of collective practices, institutions, and power dynamics in shaping what we know and how we know it. It bridges the gap between individual cognition and social processes, offering valuable insights into the complex interplay between knowledge and society.

• Knowledge construction is how individuals and groups develop and organize knowledge through experiences, interactions, and reflections. It involves actively integrating new information with existing cognitive structures, resulting in a deeper understanding and refined perspectives. This process is dynamic and ongoing, influenced by various cognitive, social, cultural, and contextual factors.

Key Concepts in Social Epistemology

Social epistemology involves the “mental choices involved in shaping knowledge, the sources of evidence for those choices, the evaluation of outcomes of those choices, and the types of actors involved in the choices” (Nord, 2019, p. 3). Unlike traditional epistemology, which primarily concerns individual knowers and isolated knowledge claims, social epistemology examines the collective processes, practices, and institutions that contribute to developing and spreading knowledge within a community or society. Social epistemology explores how individuals can most effectively seek the truth, either with the assistance of or despite other people, social practices, and institutions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2024).

• Collective Knowledge: Social epistemology investigates how groups, rather than individuals, contribute to and possess knowledge. This includes exploring how collaborative efforts, shared resources, and communal practices enhance or hinder knowledge production.

• Testimony: Testimony refers to acquiring knowledge through the reports or accounts of others. Social epistemology examines the reliability and significance of testimony, considering factors like trust, credibility, and the social mechanisms that support or undermine it.

• Epistemic Communities: These are groups that share common epistemic goals, methods, and standards. Social epistemology studies how these communities form, operate, and impact the broader knowledge landscape.

• Division of Cognitive Labor involves the specialization and distribution of epistemic tasks among different individuals or groups, acknowledging that no single person can master all knowledge domains. Social epistemologists explore how such division enhances or complicates knowledge production.

• Peer Disagreement: This concept deals with how individuals should respond to disagreements with peers, especially those considered epistemic equals. It explores the implications of such disagreements for individual belief revision and collective knowledge practices.

• Epistemic Injustice: Coined by philosopher Miranda Fricker (2007), this term refers to wrongs done to individuals in their capacity as knowers. It includes concepts like testimonial injustice (when someone’s word is given less credibility due to prejudice) and hermeneutical injustice (when someone’s social experience is obscured from collective understanding due to structural prejudices).

Critiques and Challenges

Some critics argue that emphasizing the social dimensions of knowledge can lead to relativism, where the truth is seen as contingent on social or cultural contexts. Social epistemologists respond by distinguishing between socially influenced knowledge practices and the objective nature of certain knowledge claims. The role of authority and power in knowledge production and dissemination raises concerns about potential biases and injustices. Social epistemologists critically examine how power dynamics shape who gets to be recognized as a knower and whose knowledge is valued. Balancing the benefits of epistemic diversity with the need for coherent and reliable knowledge practices is an ongoing challenge. Social epistemologists explore how diverse perspectives can be integrated into a cohesive epistemic framework.

 

Information Literacy and Social Epistemology: Shared Focus Areas and Complementary Insights

Social epistemology and information literacy are closely related fields that together provide a comprehensive understanding of how individuals and communities engage with information to construct knowledge. The table below provides an explanation of their relationship in terms of their shared focus areas (source evaluation, critical thinking, and the role of testimony) and complementary insights (context, ethical considerations, and knowledge construction):

 

	Social Epistemology	Information Literacy
	Shared Focus Areas
Source Evaluation	Analyzes how social factors like trust, credibility, and authority affect the evaluation of information sources.	Teaches individuals to critically assess credibility and reliability of information sources, including understanding biases and identifying authoritative voices.
Critical Thinking	Encourages critical examination of how social influences, such as power dynamics and institutional practices, shape knowledge.	Promotes critical thinking skills to question and analyze information, avoiding misinformation and discerning trustworthy sources.
Role of Testimony	Investigates the role of testimony in knowledge acquisition, examining how trust and social relationships influence the acceptance of others' accounts.	Emphasizes the importance of evaluating testimonial evidence, such as expert opinions and eyewitness accounts, to determine their reliability.
	Complementary Insights
Context	Provides insight into the social and cultural contexts that shape information and knowledge production.	Helps individuals understand the context in which information is created and disseminated, improving their ability to interpret and use information effectively.
Ethical Considerations	Explores ethical issues related to knowledge production and dissemination, including epistemic injustice and the fair distribution of epistemic resources.	Includes understanding the ethical use of information, such as respecting intellectual property, avoiding plagiarism, and using information responsibly.
Knowledge Construction	Focuses on how knowledge is constructed collaboratively within communities, emphasizing the role of social interactions and institutional practices.	Encourages collaborative learning and the sharing of information, recognizing that knowledge is often constructed through group efforts.

 

Practical Applications

Some people might consider epistemology as too theoretical and impractical. However, combining social epistemology with information literacy provides insight into three practical applications: (1) education and training, (2) combating misinformation, and (3) enhancing public discourse.

 

		Social Epistemology		Information Literacy
Education and Training	Incorporating social epistemology into information literacy programs can help students and professionals understand the broader social dynamics that influence information and knowledge.		Teaching information literacy with a focus on social epistemology can enhance critical awareness of how social factors impact the reliability and credibility of information.
Combating Misinformation	Social epistemology's insights into the social mechanisms of misinformation can inform strategies for teaching information literacy, helping individuals to recognize and resist false information		Information literacy programs can use concepts from social epistemology to address the social and psychological factors that make individuals susceptible to misinformation.
Enhancing Public Discourse	Understanding the principles of social epistemology can improve public discourse by fostering a more critical and reflective approach to information sharing.		Information literacy initiatives can leverage social epistemology to promote more informed and respectful discussions, particularly in online and media environments.

 

The relationship between social epistemology and information literacy is symbiotic, enriching each field. Social epistemology provides a deeper understanding of the social contexts and dynamics influencing information and knowledge. In contrast, information literacy equips individuals with practical skills to navigate and critically assess the information landscape. Together, they offer a robust framework for developing more informed, critical, and ethical consumers and producers of knowledge.

 

References

Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2003.10473216

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

Nord, Martin I. (2019). Understanding critical information literacy through social epistemology. Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship, 5, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.33137/cjal-rcbu.v5.28630

 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2024, March 22). Social epistemology. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/

 

Infodemics: How Misinformation and Disinformation Spread Disease

 

 

By Lilian H. Hill

 

An infodemic refers to an overabundance of information, both accurate and false, that spreads rapidly during an epidemic or crisis, making it difficult for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance. The term is a blend of "information" and "epidemic". It highlights how the proliferation of information can parallel the spread of disease, creating additional challenges in managing the primary crisis. The term rose to prominence in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. During epidemics, accurate information is even more critical than in normal times because people need it to adjust their behavior to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from infection (World Health Organization, 2020).

 

Contradictory messages and conflicting advice can create confusion and mistrust among the public (Borges et al., 2022). An infodemic can intensify or lengthen outbreaks when people are unsure about what they need to do to protect their health and the health of people around them. The situation is so dire that the World Health Organization (2020) published guidance to help individuals, community leaders, governments, and the private sector understand some key actions they can take to manage the COVID-19 infodemic.

 

Characteristics of Infodemics

Infodemics result in more information than most people can process effectively, especially those with low health literacy. With growing digitization, information spreads more rapidly. Alongside accurate information, a significant amount of misinformation (false or misleading information shared without harmful intent) and disinformation (false information deliberately spread to deceive) is disseminated. Information spreads quickly, particularly through interconnected social media and digital platforms, reaching global audiences instantaneously. Infodemics often feature highly emotional, sensational, or alarming content that captures attention but may not be accurate or helpful.

 

Examples of Infodemics

Three global epidemics have occurred in recent memory, each accompanied by infodemics:

 

1. COVID-19 Pandemic: During the COVID-19 pandemic, an infodemic emerged with vast amounts of information about the virus, treatments, vaccines, and public health measures. This included a significant spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

 

2. Ebola Outbreaks: Past Ebola outbreaks have seen infodemics where misinformation about the disease’s transmission and treatments spread rapidly, complicating response efforts.

 

3. Zika Virus: The Zika virus outbreak was accompanied by an infodemic, with rumors and false information about the virus’s effects and prevention measures.

 

Understanding and addressing infodemics is crucial for effective crisis management and public health response, ensuring that accurate information prevails and supports informed decision-making by individuals and communities. With human encroachment on natural areas, the likelihood of future epidemics is high (Shafaati et al., 2023).

 

Consequences of Infodemics

The flood of conflicting information can cause confusion, anxiety, and stress, making it hard for individuals to know how to respond appropriately to the crisis. Trust in authorities, experts, and media can be eroded when people encounter inconsistent messages or feel they are being misled. Misinformation can lead to harmful behaviors, such as using unproven treatments, ignoring public health advice, or spreading conspiracy theories. The spread of false information can hamper public health responses and crisis management efforts, as resources may be diverted to combat misinformation instead of focusing solely on the crisis. The plethora of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric (Borges et al., 2022). Infodemics can exacerbate social divisions, as different groups may cling to varying sets of information and beliefs, leading to polarized views and conflicts.

 

Managing Infodemics

Another new term is “infodemiology,” a combination of information and epidemiology. Epidemiology, the study of the distribution of health and disease patterns within populations to use this information to address health issues, is a fundamental aspect of public health. It aims to minimize the risk of adverse health outcomes through community education, research, and health policy development (World Health Organization 2024). Infodemiology is the study of the flood of information and how to manage it for public health. Infodemic management involves systematically applying risk- and evidence-based analyses and strategies to control the spread of misinformation and mitigate its effects on health behaviors during health crises.

 

For example, in their systematic review of publications about health infodemics and misinformation, Borges et al. (2022) commented that “social media has been increasingly propagating poor-quality, health-related information during pandemics, humanitarian crises and health emergencies. Such spreading of unreliable evidence on health topics amplifies vaccine hesitancy and promotes unproven treatments” (p. 556). However, they noted that social media has also been successfully employed for crisis communication and management during emerging infectious disease pandemics and significantly improved knowledge awareness and compliance with health recommendations. For governments, health authorities, researchers, and clinicians, promoting and disseminating reliable health information is essential to counteract false or misleading health information spread on social media.

Image Credit: Anna Shvets, Pexels

 

Strategies for Combating Infodemics

For government officials, public health professionals, and educators, preparation is essential to prevent the next pandemic disaster (Shafaati et al., 2023). Strengthening public health services and investing in research and development for new medications and vaccines are crucial steps. Expanding access to education and resources in vulnerable communities is also necessary to enhance understanding and encourage preventive actions. Additionally, investing in international cooperation is vital to support countries at risk of outbreaks and provide economic assistance to those affected by pandemics.

 

1. Promoting Accurate Information: Authorities and experts must provide clear, accurate, and timely information. This includes regular updates from trusted sources like public health organizations.

 

2. Media Literacy: Enhancing public media literacy can help individuals critically evaluate the information they encounter, recognize reliable sources, and avoid sharing unverified claims.

 

3. Fact-Checking and Verification: Fact-checking organizations and platforms are crucial in verifying information and debunking false claims. Prominent placement of fact-checked information can help correct misconceptions.

 

4. Algorithmic Adjustments: Social media platforms and search engines can adjust their algorithms to prioritize credible sources and reduce the visibility of misleading content.

 

5. Collaboration and Coordination: Effective communication and coordination among governments, health organizations, media, and tech companies are essential to manage the flow of information and combat misinformation.

 

6. Public Engagement: Engaging with communities and addressing their concerns directly can build trust and ensure accurate information reaches diverse audiences. This may include town hall meetings, Q&A sessions, and community-specific communications.

 

Referencesre

Borges do Nascimento, I. J., Pizarro, A. B., Almeida, J. M., Azzopardi-Muscat, N., Gonçalves, M. A., Björklund, M., & Novillo-Ortiz, D. (2022). Infodemics and health misinformation: A systematic review of reviews. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 100(9):544-561. https://doi.org:10.2471/BLT.21.287654.

Shafaati, M., Chopra, H., Priyanka, Khandia, R., Choudhary, O. P., & Rodriguez-Morales, A. J. (2023). The next pandemic catastrophe: can we avert the inevitable? New Microbes and New Infections, 52, 101110. https://doi.org: 10.1016/j.nmni.2023.101110. 

World Health Organization (2020). Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic: A call for action. Author. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/334287/9789240010314-eng.pdf?sequence=1on

World Health Organization (2024). Let’s flatten the infodemic curve, https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/let-s-flatten-the-infodemic-curve

 

Navigating the Complexities and Dynamics of the Information Ecosystem

 

 

By Lilian H. Hill

 

The information ecosystem refers to the complex network of processes, technologies, individuals, and institutions involved in the creation, distribution, consumption, and regulation of information. It encompasses various elements that interact and influence each other, shaping how information is produced, shared, and used in society. The use of the term ecosystem as a metaphor suggests key properties of environments in which information technology is used. An information ecosystem is a complex system of parts and relationships. It exhibits diversity and experiences continual evolution. Various parts of an ecology coevolve, changing together according to the relationships in the system (Nardi & O’Day, 1999).

 

While the term Information Ecosystem has been in use in academic circles for more than 20 years, it has penetrated today’s media. The dynamic and often unpredictable information ecosystem we inhabit necessitates renewed focus on the fundamental concepts of that ecosystem (Kuehn, 2022). The relationship between information literacy and the information ecosystem is symbiotic and integral. Information literacy refers to the set of skills and knowledge that allows individuals to effectively find, evaluate, use, and communicate information. It encompasses critical thinking and problem-solving abilities in relation to information handling. The term information ecosystem describes the complex environment in which information is produced, distributed, consumed, and preserved. This includes libraries, databases, media, social networks, and other channels and platforms where information flows.

 

Burgeoning and rapidly evolving information technologies influence information production and access. While the emphasis should be on the human activities served by information technologies, the truth is that technology is radically changing ways that information is produced, accessed, understood, and applied.

 

Components of the Information Ecosystem

Multiple constituents work together to produce, distribute, interpret, consume, and regulate information.

 

Information Producers

·      Journalists and Media Organizations: Traditional news outlets, digital news platforms, and independent journalists who gather, verify, and disseminate news.

·      Academic and Research Institutions: Universities, research centers, and scholars who produce scholarly articles, studies, and data.

·      Government Agencies: Institutions that generate reports, statistics, and public records.

·      Businesses and Corporations: Companies that create content for marketing, public relations, and corporate communications.

·      Individuals: Citizens who produce content through blogs, social media, and other personal platforms.

 

Information Distributors

·      Social Media Platforms: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and others that facilitate the rapid spread of information.

·      Search Engines: Google, Bing, and others that organize and provide access to information.

·      Traditional Media: Newspapers, television, radio, and magazines distributing news and entertainment content.

·      Online Platforms: Websites, forums, and blogs that host and share various forms of content.

 

Information Consumers

·      General Public: Individuals who consume news, entertainment, educational content, and other forms of information.

·      Professionals: Individuals in specific fields who create and rely on specialized information.

·      Organizations: Businesses, nonprofits, and governmental bodies that use information for decision-making and strategy.

 

Regulatory Bodies

·      Government Regulators: Agencies that enforce laws and regulations related to media, information privacy, and intellectual property.

·      Industry Groups: Organizations that set standards and guidelines for information dissemination and ethical practices.

 

Dynamics of the Information Ecosystem

Engaging within the information ecosystem requires participating in interrelated activities. Information is generated through research, reporting, personal expression, and other methods. Verification processes, such as fact-checking and peer review, are crucial to ensure accuracy and credibility. Information is distributed through various channels, from traditional media to digital platforms. Access to information is influenced by factors such as digital divide, censorship, and platform algorithms. Individuals consume information based on personal preferences, biases, and social influences. Interpretation of information can vary widely, affecting public opinion and behavior. Consumers provide feedback through comments, shares, likes, and other forms of engagement. This interaction can influence future content production and distribution strategies. Finally, regulatory bodies and ethical standards shape the practices of information producers and distributors. Unfortunately, technological innovations occur more rapidly than regulation and ethical standards. Issues such as misinformation, data privacy, and intellectual property rights are key considerations.

 

Challenges in the Information Ecosystem

With technological advances, numerous challenges exist, including the rapid spread of mis-and dis-information, information overload, echo chambers, inequities, and increased privacy concerns. The spread of false or misleading information can have significant societal impacts, from influencing elections to public health crises. The vast amount of information can overwhelm consumers, making it difficult to discern credible sources.  Algorithms and personalized content can create echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to information that reinforces their existing beliefs. Inequities in access to technology and information resources can exacerbate social and economic disparities. The collection and use of personal data by information platforms raises significant privacy issues.

 

Artificial Intelligence and the Information Ecosystem

AI systems are reshaping the information ecosystem. Information systems play a crucial role in everyday life by influencing and reorganizing people’s thoughts, actions, social interactions, and identities. Hirvonen et al. (2023) argued that the “affordances of AI systems integrated into search engines, social media platforms, streaming services, and media generation, shape such practices in ways that may, paradoxically, result both in the increase and reduction of diversity of and access to information” (p. 1).

 

Fleming (2023) indicated that AI tools can create distorted histories and fake profiles, presenting them persuasively as facts. The stakes are escalating daily as rapid advancements in generative AI pose the risk of escalating online hate speech and misinformation to unprecedented levels. These voices are not new, but the global reach of social media allows lies and conspiracy theories to spread instantly worldwide, affecting millions, undermining trust in science, and fostering hatred potent enough to incite violence. Pernice (2019) indicates that the questions of how to (1) effectively safeguard the deliberative process of building political will and (2) preserve the legitimacy of the democratic process against various IT-driven manipulation attempts remains unresolved. 

 

Importance of a Healthy Information Ecosystem

Peterson-Salahuddin (2023) commented that concerns within information ecosystems include (1) ways information production, particularly in mainstream journalism, can lead to information inequity in its representations and (2) the dissemination and retrieval of this journalistic information via algorithmically mediated online systems, such as social media and search platforms, can replicate and reinforce information inequity within the broader information ecosystem. A healthy information ecosystem is essential for informed citizenship, effective governance, and social cohesion. It promotes:

 

1.    Informed Decision-Making: Accurate and reliable information enables individuals and organizations to make informed decisions.

 

2.    Democratic Participation: Access to diverse and credible information supports democratic processes and civic engagement.

 

3.    Social Trust: A trustworthy information ecosystem fosters social trust and cooperation.

 

4.    Innovation and Progress: Access to knowledge and information drives innovation, education, and cultural development.

 

In a prophetic comment, Nardi and O’Day (1999) indicated that the ecological metaphor conveys a “sense of urgency about the need to take control of our information ecologies, to inject our own values and needs into them so that we are not overwhelmed by some of our technological tools” (p. 49). Maintaining a healthy information ecosystem requires efforts from all stakeholders, including information producers, distributors, consumers, and regulators, to uphold standards of accuracy, fairness, and transparency.

 

References

Fleming, M. (2023, June 13). Healing Our Troubled Information Ecosystem. Medium. https://melissa-fleming.medium.com/healing-our-troubled-information-ecosystem-cf2e9e8a4bed

Hirvonen, N., Jylhä, V., Lao, Y., & Larsson, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence in the information ecosystem: Affordances for everyday information seeking. Journal of the Association of Information Science Technology, 74(12), 1–14.

Kuehn, E. F. (2022). The information ecosystem concept in information literacy: A theoretical approach and definition. Journal of the Association of Information Science Technology, 74(4), 434-443. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24733

Nardi, B. A., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. MIT Press.

Pernice, I. (2019, March 5). Protecting the global digital information ecosystem:  A practical initiative. Internet Policy Review. https://policyreview.info/articles/news/protecting-global-digital-information-ecosystem-practical-initiative/1386

Peterson-Salahuddin, C. (2024). From information access to production: New perspectives on addressing information inequity in our digital information ecosystem. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 1. https://doi-org /10.1002/asi.24879