Critical Information Literacy and the Digital Humanities Classroom: Supporting Critical
Engagement in Scholarly Discourse and Practices
In recent years the term “information literacy” has become increasingly familiar to those in higher
education. The importance of information literacy to colleges and universities is evident in the fact that
many institutions have identified information literacy as an institutional learning goal, while numerous
regional accreditation agencies list it as an essential aspect of quality education.1
The meaning of the concept “information literacy,” however, is not necessarily always fully understood or
agreed upon. Information literacy is often associated simply with generic library instruction about the
mechanical aspects of database and library catalog searching. In actuality, the concept encompasses a
wide range of higher-order thinking skills, including critical evaluation of information, synthesis and
analysis of information, and understandings of information practices performed within specific contexts
and academic disciplines.
As a librarian who is concerned that the deeper meanings and values of information literacy often go
unrecognized, I was comforted to learn that at this year’s Annual Meeting of the American Association of
Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), a panel of digital humanities scholars, discussing the role of DH in
liberal arts education, emphasized the importance of information literacy in the DH classroom. According
to the speakers, humanities instructors should take on the responsibility of “teach[ing] undergraduates
how to read websites and digital discovery tools with the same critical vigilance with which they are
taught to read textual arguments” (Kolowich). As their comments suggest, in a culture in which
information technologies are often treated as modes of passive consumption, digital humanities present
rich possibilities for individuals instead to engage actively and critically with the digital information and
technologies that permeate our everyday lives.
The AAC&U panelists’ comments point to information literacy as far more than a basic ability to locate,
evaluate, and effectively use information. On a deeper level, information literacy entails critical
understandings of how we use and interact with information in any context. This more nuanced view of
information literacy requires awareness of how our relationships to and engagements with information are
inevitably influenced by a confluence of factors, including social, political, and structural forces, as well
as discursive communities and their practices.
As a growing number of librarians, along with other educators across disciplinary lines, make clear, the
sociopolitical dimensions of information and our relationships to it unfortunately are often overlooked, in
both academic and non-academic contexts.2 And yet the need to explore these aspects of information and
information practices seems all the more important as digital technologies increase the complexity of the
information landscape, both within and beyond scholarly communication.
See, for example, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education’s “Characteristics of Excellence in Higher
Education” (Middle States Commission on Higher Education) or the New England Association of Schools and
Colleges (NEASC)’s “Standard Seven: Library and Information Resources” (Commission on Institutions of Higher
Education). The institutional recognition of information literacy is further evident in AAC&U’s 15 “Essential
Learning Outcomes” (Association of American Colleges and Universities, “Liberal Education”) and its Information
Literacy Value Rubric (Association of American Colleges and Universities, “Information Literacy Value Rubric.”
1
2
The recently published book Critical Library Instruction: Theories and Methods (Accardi, Drabinski, and
Kumbier, 2010) and the forthcoming book Information Literacy and Social Justice: Radical Professional Praxis
(Higgins and Gregory, 2013) reflect the increased engagement among librarians in critical information literacy
instruction. The authors included in these essay collections frequently draw upon the work of educators and
librarians including James Elmborg, Heidi L. M. Jacobs, and Cushla Kapitzke.
The sociopolitical dimensions of information and information practices are central to the relatively new
concept of critical information literacy. This understanding of information literacy contrasts more
traditional library instruction, which has tended to focus mainly on pragmatic and mechanical aspects of
research. Instruction in critical information literacy is deeply informed by critical pedagogy, an approach
developed by educational theorists including Paulo Freire and Henry Giroux. Advocates of critical
pedagogy emphasize the democratic, social, and political dimensions of education, and call into question
what Freire called the “banking model” of education, in which students are expected to collect and
deposit knowledge, rather than to reflect critically on ideas and to develop their own understandings of
the world (Freire). Freire instead contended that learning should be a process in which individuals
construct their own knowledge through personal reflection and social and political engagement.
While I would not argue that critical pedagogy should be adopted in its entirety as a flawless teaching
model, its general framework presents particularly rich possibilities for information literacy in higher
education. The principles of critical pedagogy encourage individuals to question the notion of any
information, including scholarship, as purely objective and independent from the social world. This
approach is vital to understanding academic discourse, which of course is by no means immune to the
influences of the social, the political, and the structural (as digital scholarship repeatedly makes clear).
And yet often students leave college classrooms with the impression that if information is scholarly it
must be both accurate and unbiased. After library instruction sessions, for example, many students leave
class with the impression that scholarly sources are “good” and popular sources “bad,” or that all
information from databases or libraries is authoritative, while only other sources are suspect. Even fewer
undergraduates, in my experience, are likely to evaluate and interpret a scholarly work with careful
consideration of how social, political, and institutional structures may influence an argument and its
rhetoric.
As this suggests, when it comes to helping students develop critical understandings of academic
discourse, or what James Elmborg has called academic information literacy, higher education may not be
doing enough (Elmborg). Academic information literacy, defined by Elmborg as “the ability to read,
interpret, and produce information valued in academia” (196), is a vital aspect of critical information
literacy, for academic information literacy involves not merely adopting or mimicking academic
discourse, but rather evaluating that discourse critically and understanding it as a product of specific
sociopolitical structures and contexts. As Elmborg points out, true information literacy (including
academic information literacy) “involves the comprehension of an entire system of thought and the ways
that information flows in that system. Ultimately, it also involves the capacity to critically evaluate the
system itself” (Elmborg 196). From this perspective, one might ask, for example, what information,
language, voices, or practices are privileged (or not) in the university and why, and what those tendencies
suggest about environments and communities within the academy.
These are not the kinds of questions many students raise in college classrooms, at least in my experience.
The lack of critical thought that many students bring to evaluating academic discourse is, I believe, often
closely tied to students’ implicit understandings of their low social status in the academy, as well as to a
common view that scholarly debates have little or nothing to do with their own lives. The university is
often viewed as rigid, hierarchical, and erudite. Such a structure, whether real or imagined, likely affects a
so-called outsider’s sense of confidence in their ideas, as well as their ability to think creatively and
critically from within that structure.
It is thus not surprising to me how few students I work with will call to question the arguments put forth
in scholarly sources. If, however, students make connections between their own experiences and the
issues raised in scholarly discussions, and if students are encouraged to view themselves as bringing
valuable perspectives to academic conversations that have clear relevance to them, their relationships to
academic work may shift in powerful ways.
Promoting this kind of connection to scholarship is challenging for numerous reasons. Among these
challenges is the reality that as scholars we may become so accustomed to the conventions and structures
of our disciplines that we take them for granted. This can happen even when we strive to recognize that
the language and practices of our disciplines are new to many students, and even when we are aware that
academic discourse may seem impenetrable to those new to it. Promoting academic information literacy
is complicated further by the reality that institutions may be less inclined to critique their own structures
and practices.
Many digital scholars, however, are questioning traditional academic structures and practices. As these
individuals actively challenge traditional notions of what counts as legitimate scholarship, and as they
communicate the value of new modes of scholarship and scholarly communication, they present
alternative perspectives that are unfamiliar to many students. In large part because digital academics often
play unique roles in a slowly changing academic structure and culture, they may be especially well
positioned to support students in developing more complex understandings of academic work,
communities, and institutions. And because digital scholars are occupied with the digital environment that
has become so comfortable to most traditionally aged students, digital scholars may provide a kind of
bridge between the scholarly realm and students’ personal and social lives.
Students’ frequent engagement with the digital points to how critical pedagogy and the digital humanities,
together, present exciting ways to facilitate critical and academic information literacy. A critical
pedagogical approach emphasizes the importance of students’ experiences, while also drawing awareness
to how social, political, and institutional structures impact our everyday lives. Moreover, digital scholars
often demonstrate – in direct and indirect ways – how academic discourse and practices are shaped by the
sociopolitical structures that to a great extent determine what students’ learning experiences will look
like.
As I have been arguing, digital humanities present unique possibilities for fostering critical and academic
information literacy at a time when our relationships to information are in many ways becoming
increasingly complex. As many digital scholars push the boundaries of what is considered “true”
scholarship, they invite us to think more deliberately and more critically about the circumstances that lie
behind both traditional and emerging scholarly and disciplinary practices.
Consider issues and debates that are quite familiar to those engaged in digital scholarship, such as the
value of print vs. electronic publications, varying forms of peer review, the role of social media in
academics, the place for collaborative writing and research, and even concerns about the tenure and
promotion process. All of these issues point to established and changing academic practices and
conventions that are best understood in relation to the rhetorical, social, political, and structural contexts
from which those practices arise
At the same time that I hold a very positive view of what the digital humanities and critical pedagogy
bring to promoting information literacy, I do not wish to oversimplify the role of the digital in college and
university teaching. While on the one hand digital environments offer intriguing possibilities for new
communities and modes of communication and thought (all of which reflect significant changes in our
social interactions and social structures), emphasizing the digital in learning environments also presents
significant challenges. We ourselves may often take for granted how we interact in digital environments
with tools, information, and other people. In such moments, it may be easy to overlook, for example, the
reality that some students who are less familiar with digital contexts may experience alienation during the
learning process. Similarly, both instructors and students may sometimes fail to recognize assumptions or
biases inherent in digital tools and in our ways of using them. While certain assumptions, such as the
notion that information technologies are purely neutral tools, may stand in the way of deep and critical
thought, their very presence is all the more reason for reflection on and critical engagement with these
technologies. While the scope of this paper does not allow for an in-depth discussion of these issues, I
contend that critical pedagogy, alongside the concepts of critical and academic information literacy,
provides a valuable framework for developing greater critical awareness of our complex relationships to
information.
How we apply that framework and how we open questions and conversations in the classroom will
largely depend on the particularities of our classes and course content. With this in mind, the following
topics and questions are intended as catalysts for exploring how to support critical and academic
information literacy in DH classrooms. Through the lens of digital humanities, these topics point to the
connections among information, information practices, discursive communities, and the social and power
dynamics inherent within all of these. The issues listed below are intentionally broad in nature, since the
many directions discussions or activities might take will depend on a class’s focus, interests, learning
goals, and needs. I welcome thoughts, comments, questions, and critiques about both the theoretical and
the practical dimensions of integrating critical information literacy and critical pedagogy into teaching
and learning.
Critical Information Literacy and the Digital Humanities Classroom: Supporting Critical
Engagement in Scholarly Discourse and Practices
Topics for Class Discussions & Activities

Varying definitions of the term “digital humanities”
o similarities and differences among definitions of DH
o “Big Tent” approaches to DH
o pragmatic, social, political, and structural implications of varying definitions of DH
o the tone, rhetoric, and reasoning of arguments that define (or resist defining) DH
o connections between defining/re-defining disciplinary lines, community building, and community
structure
o students’ experiences of belonging/dis-belonging in various communities (both within and
outside academic)

Defining “scholarship”
o criteria for what qualifies as scholarship (including source type, publication format/medium)
o whether/how the digital realm changes and/or challenges what is considered scholarly
o changing attitudes and evaluations among academics about what constitutes scholarly work

Comparisons of print and electronic publications
(Such discussions can easily open with questions about students’ own reading and writing habits and
behaviors.)
o the variety of types of print and electronic sources (could include both scholarly and nonscholarly materials)
o differences and similarities among print and electronic sources (e.g., content, layout, authorship,
audience, publication process)
o possibilities and limitations of digital vs. print content
o the influence of digital and print formats and technologies on writing styles and conventions (e.g.,
hyperlinking, citation practices, multi-media)
o the influence of digital and print formats and technologies on reading/viewing habits and
behaviors (including receptions of and responses to print vs. digital content)
o the intended and actual audiences of various print and electronic publications
o how audiences of print and electronic sources are reached

The value placed on print vs. electronic publications
(Comparing specific publications can help to focus discussion. Publications might include: open
access journals (DH Quarterly, Shakespeare Quarterly), crowd-sourced resources like Wikipedia and
Scholarpedia, subscription e-journals, journals available both in print and electronically, specific
websites, blogs, print journals, and books.)
o criteria used to evaluate these source types, and the rationales for these approaches to assessment
o how and by whom the values ascribed to various print and electronic sources are determined
within various scholarly communities
o characteristics of publications that are available both in print and electronically
o debates about the quality and purpose of print vs. electronic sources

Varying forms of peer review (e.g., blind, open, hybrid)
o comparisons of peer review models and their processes and rationales
o the social and structural dynamics implicit in these models
o whether/how the social and structural dynamics implicit in these models are evident in specific
aspects of the publications (e.g., publication’s stated focus or purpose, community members and
their relationships)
o connections between the content/audience/authorship/perspective/bias and chosen form of peer
review

The role(s) of social media in DH
o student uses of social media, and how they compares to those within DH communities
o social media’s functions, rhetoric, and tone (both within and outside the university)
o how the functions and rhetoric of social media in DH compare with other types of scholarly
discourse
o limitations and possibilities of communication through various social media (e.g., Twitter,
Facebook, Storify)
o effects that writing conventions or constraints have on communication (e.g., Twitter’s 140character limit)
o effects that user interfaces and the display/organization of information have on reading habits and
use of social media

The role of online communities in DH
o differences and similarities among specific online DH communities, including in terms of
purpose, members, practices, events, activities in both virtual and face-to-face settings
(Examples of online communities include: HASTAC, NEH Office of Digital Humanities,
centerNet, Digital Humanities Now, MediaCommons, and THAT Camp.)
o questions of what defines a community, and who is included/excluded from that community
o differences in the social interactions and structures of communities which exist primarily online
vs. those with regular face-to-face interactions
o the social structures of communities, and how those structures are connected to the purposes and
cultures of specific communities

The place for collaborative writing and research
o challenges and opportunities that such collaborative work presents for authors and for institutions
o differences in writing and research practices across disciplines
o students’ personal experiences with individual and collaborative writing activities

User interfaces and their influence on searching for/interpreting information
o
o
o

how information is organized and displayed in various digital resources (e.g., library catalogs,
databases, Google and other search engines, digital collections, social media, blogs, websites)
search options available through these interfaces
how the organization and display of information and search functions affects users’ interactions
with and uses of information
The creation of metadata in one or more research tools/collections (e.g., library catalogs, databases,
Google and other search engines, digital collections, social media, blogs, websites)
o what bibliographic data is included
o what the choice of bibliographic data suggests about the source and the access tool
o what terms are chosen for metadata and how/by whom (e.g., subject headings, subject terms,
descriptors)
o how metadata is displayed to users, and how this affects users’ understandings of the given
information records
o debates about “controlled vocabulary” vs. user-defined metadata
o how library classification systems (e.g., Library of Congress Classification, Dewey Decimal
System) organize and prioritize various types of knowledge
WPI Digital Humanities Symposium – November 2, 2012
Andrea Baer, Ph.D.
Instruction/Reference Librarian – King’s College (PA)
andreabaer@kings.edu
Works Cited
Accardi, Maria T, Emily Drabinski, and Alana Kumbier, eds. Critical Library Instruction: Theories and
Methods. Los Angeles: Library Juice Press, 2010. Print.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. “Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP).”
Association of American Colleges and Universities. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.
---. “Information Literacy Value Rubric.” Association of American Colleges and Universities. Web. 30
Oct. 2012.
Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. “Standard Seven: Library and Information Resources.”
Standards for Accreditation. New England Association of Schools and Colleges, 2005. Web. 30
Oct. 2012.
Elmborg, James. “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice.” Journal of
Academic Librarianship 32.1(2006): 192-199. Print.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th ed. Trans. Donaldo Macedo. New York: Continuum,
2002. Print.
Higgins, Shana, and Lua Gregory, eds. Information Literacy and Social Justice: Radical Professional
Praxis. Los Angeles: Library Juice Press, forthcoming in 2013. Print.
Jacobs, Heidi L.M. “Information Literacy and Reflective Pedagogical Praxis.” Journal of Academic
Librarianship 34.3 (2008): 256-262. Print.
Kapitzke, Cushla. “(In)formation Literacy: A Positivist Epistemology and a Politics of (Out)formation.”
Educational Theory 53.1 (2003): 37-53. Print.
Kapitzke, Cushla. “Information Literacy: A Review and Poststructural Critique.” Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy 26.1 (2003): 53–66. Print.
Kolowich, Steve. “Behind the Digital Curtain.” Inside Higher Ed, 27 Jan. 2012. Web.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. “Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education:
Eligibility Requirements and Standards for Accreditation.” Philadelphia: Middle States
Commission on Higher Education. 2006. 40-49, 59, 70. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.