Yuval Harari proposes the dystopian view that an algorithm can understand us and our thoughts and feelings better than our mothers, without us even recognising that this is happening, and that this can lead to a threat to democracy (Harari in Thompson, 2018). Questions of responsibility for overcoming the power vested in technologies abound in the literature, with calls for regulation by technology companies and by nation-states through legislation. Although many people are resigned to the unregulated media environment, informed citizens can also take on some responsibility, through maintaining a high level of digital literacy. As Henninger (2021) notes, this is not new information. Lloyd (2019) calls for information literacy scholars and librarians to consider how they address the impact of algorithms on everyday activities. This study aims to heed this call, drawing on accounts of the information literacy practices of librarians.
Objectives
Algorithms influence our online interactions and have real impacts on individuals and on society, in ways that are rarely apparent and which can be detrimental to a democratic society. Librarians claim to have a significant responsibility for developing information and digital literacies, through which a level of algorithmic literacy might develop, but little is known about the professional processes through which they achieve this. The purpose of this study is to position the development of algorithmic literacy in the context of an inclusive and democratic society.
Methodology
Using a practice theory approach, this study has interviewed more than twenty academic librarians who provide programs and services in information literacy services to university students in New South Wales, Australia, in order to identify how they talk about these processes and interactions (Schatzki 2012). The transcripts of the interviews, as well as resources relevant to their practices, were analysed using thematic analysis to identify elements of algorithmic and digital literacies, considerations of democratic practices, active citizenship and wider societal implications.
Outcomes
There was little evidence of a focus on algorithmic culture. Librarians’ understanding of algorithmic literacy ranged from the naïve to passive acquaintance especially through social media, with few claiming conceptual or practical expertise. Perceptions of the relationship between information and digital literacies and active citizenship were influenced by the ethos of the university, presenting a fragmented perspective on the role of these literacies. Responsibilities for regulating the effects of algorithms on citizens in their everyday lives were mostly seen to lie beyond the scope of librarians, vested in government, in technology companies and the institutions of education from earliest childhood. Taken together, these factors are likely to weaken further the position of librarians as arbiters of authoritative sources of information in a society.
References
- Thompson, N. (2018). When tech knows you better than you know yourself: Yuval Noah Harari and Tristan Harris interviewed by Wired. [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-yuval-noah-harari-tristan-harris/
- Henninger, M. (2021). Information literacy: Importance and consequences. Philippine Journal of Librarianship and Information Studies, 41(2), 3–12. Retrieved from https://phjlis.org/index.php/phjlis/article/view/82/67
- Lloyd, A. (2019). Chasing Frankenstein’s monster: Information literacy in the black box society. Journal of Documentation, 75(6), 1475–1485. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0035
- Schatzki, T. R. (2012). A primer on practices: Theories and research. In J. Higgs, et al. (Eds.), Practice-Based Education: Perspectives and Strategies, (pp. 13–26) Rotterdam: Springer.
Maureen Constance Henninger, Hilary Yerbury
University of Technology Sydney, Australia
English 
French