The Informationally Underserved: Not Always Diverse, but Always a Social Justice Advocacy Model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionThe theory of and model for the Informationally Underserved (IU) (Froggatt, 2014) illustrates a social justice research methodology and findings that demands advocacy. This lead(s) to actions based on principles of equitable access to information, balance in collections, and mediation between information seekers and content (Budd, 2001). The purpose of this paper is to exemplify IU theory and findings in order to compel Library and Information Science (LIS) instructors, graduate students and professional school librarians (PSLs) to integrate social justice theories (Froggatt, 2014; Rioux, 2010) and equitable information access issues within their research, teaching, learning, and practice.The IU research spawned from Elfreda Chatman's research (1996) about information poverty. The School Library Impact Studies (SLIS), which provides powerful data about the positive impact of school access on standardized test achievement (Baughman, 2000; Lance, 2000; Kachel, 2011; LRS, 2013), provoked wondering about learning without a school library. This author, a school librarian for a diverse, American, urban high school, discovered that 40% of her students who, prior to age 15, were educated in schools without libraries. Did this social justice inequity impact their learning? IU research found the opposite of the SLIS findings: little or no access to active school programs (ASLP) prior to age 15, or when most American youth begin high school, demonstrated a weak relationship with poor standardized test performance and impacts extracurricular information seeking. Describing the IU educational context puts forward this conundrum: One needs knowledge about a given subject in order to locate and create new knowledge about it. The IU suffer from this information paradox (Shenton, 2007) and have a right to the transformational-formational challenge of learning through the school library (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2005).The Right to Equitable Access to InformationTheodore Sizer stated that is the fuel for freedom...a right, (Plaut, 2009, p.x). Learning without a school denies children the liberty to further their education as independent life-long learners, a foundational principle of a democratic society (AASL, 2007; Jaeger & Burnett, 2010). Lack of access to information is in direct opposition to this right and is the antithesis of the long-held altruistic stances of the LIS profession (Rioux, 2010, p. 14). Rioux's (2010) social justice meta-theory rekindles this ethic and suggests that LIS theory and discourse incorporate these five assumptions:1. All human beings have an inherent worth and deserve information services that help address their information needs.2. People perceive reality and information in different ways, often within cultural or life role contexts.3. There are many different types of information and knowledge, and these are societal resources.4. Theory and research are pursued with the ultimate goal of bringing positive change to service constituencies.5. The provision of information services is an inherently powerful activity. Access, control, and mediation of information contain inherent power relationships. The act of distributing information is itself a political act. (p. 13)Learners of any age have the right to access a library's social capital building (Bundy, 2008) to glean the richness of a library's body of knowledge. ASLP provide participatory collaboratively planned learning, which offers inquiry-focused activities that integrate academic content with information literacy skills. This is a marriage of constructivism (Dewey, 1997), critical thinking and resource-based learning (Farmer & James, 2008; Neuman, 2004) that cultivates self-reflection, self-correction, and self-regulation (Gordon, 2009a, p.63) to craft connections between new information and existing knowledge (Gordon, 2009b, p. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,031 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».