The The Qualitative Landscape of

Information Literacy Research Core

approaches and methods 1st Edition
Annemaree Lloyd
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-the-qualitative-landscape-of-information-literacy-r
esearch-core-approaches-and-methods-1st-edition-annemaree-lloyd/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed

Methods Approaches 6th Edition John W. Creswell

https://ebookmeta.com/product/research-design-qualitative-
quantitative-and-mixed-methods-approaches-6th-edition-john-w-
creswell/

Research Methods in Anthropology Qualitative and

Quantitative Approaches 6th Edition H. Russell Bernard

https://ebookmeta.com/product/research-methods-in-anthropology-
qualitative-and-quantitative-approaches-6th-edition-h-russell-
bernard/

Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches, 6e (ePub Convert) John W. Creswell

https://ebookmeta.com/product/research-design-qualitative-
quantitative-and-mixed-methods-approaches-6e-epub-convert-john-w-
creswell/

Research Design Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Methods

Arts Based and Community Based Participatory Research
Approaches 2e Patricia Leavy

https://ebookmeta.com/product/research-design-quantitative-
qualitative-mixed-methods-arts-based-and-community-based-
participatory-research-approaches-2e-patricia-leavy/
Research Methods for Political Science Quantitative
Qualitative and Mixed Method Approaches 3rd Edition
David E. Mcnabb

https://ebookmeta.com/product/research-methods-for-political-
science-quantitative-qualitative-and-mixed-method-approaches-3rd-
edition-david-e-mcnabb/

Making Sense of Literacy Scholarship Approaches to

Synthesizing Literacy Research 1st Edition Catherine
Compton-Lilly

https://ebookmeta.com/product/making-sense-of-literacy-
scholarship-approaches-to-synthesizing-literacy-research-1st-
edition-catherine-compton-lilly/

Qualitative Literacy A Guide to Evaluating Ethnographic

and Interview Research 1st Edition Mario Luis Small

https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-literacy-a-guide-to-
evaluating-ethnographic-and-interview-research-1st-edition-mario-
luis-small/

Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and

Mixed Approaches 7th Edition Robert Burke Johnson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/educational-research-quantitative-
qualitative-and-mixed-approaches-7th-edition-robert-burke-
johnson/

Qualitative Methods for Health Research 4th Edition

Judith Green

https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-methods-for-health-
research-4th-edition-judith-green/
Praise for The Qualitative Landscape of Information Literacy Research
‘This comprehensive, insightful and well-researched work is an
essential and timely contribution to sustaining information literacy
research and practice into the future. It provides an important
foundation for researchers and practitioners who seek to engage
deeply with the lived experiences of people, listen to their voices,
and build deep understandings and interpretations of the complex
dynamics and interactions that shape people’s everyday life
experiences with information. Founded on interpretivist frameworks
and social theories of learning, and embedded in the author’s
research and theorizing centering on information landscapes, the
work provides the necessary theoretical, methodological and ethical
frameworks and tools to plan, design and undertake information
literacy research that goes well beyond textual experiences that has
characterized much information literacy research to date. This is a
powerful, compelling and much needed contribution to the
information literacy agenda.’
Dr Ross J. Todd, Associate Professor, School of Communication
and Information, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
‘It has been a great privilege to have the opportunity to read this
volume. It is an extraordinarily rich introduction to qualitative
information literacy research, and to the practice of such research.
Annemaree Lloyd’s ability to weave together the range of qualitative
approaches, illustrate and illuminate them, will make this volume an
entry point to the world of information literacy research for new
researchers or those seeking a contemporary view of the field. As the
importance of praxis expands, and the divide between researchers
and practitioners blurs in many disciplines, this volume will be of
significant interest to those for whom the experience of information
use is dear, because it is seen to be transformational.’
Dr Christine Bruce, Dean, Graduate Research, James Cook
University
‘This is the book that information literacy researchers and
practitioners have been waiting for – a clear yet fabulously
comprehensive guide to information literacy research that has been
 p g y
written by one of the most influential scholars in the field. Focusing
on introducing the key theories and methods that have been
employed within information literacy research, the book stands out
for the clarity of its explanations as well as the range of examples
that Lloyd uses to contextualise her conceptual and analytical
discussions. If you have ever been frustrated by superficial or
checklist approaches to information literacy research, then this is the
book for you: Lloyd has produced a real tour de force that will be
influencing the field for many years to come.’
Dr Alison Hicks, Assistant Professor and Programme Director for
Library and Information Studies, University College London
Lloyd’s impressive grasp of the complex topography of information
literacy shines in The Qualitative Landscape of Information Literacy
Research. Addressing the needs of researchers and practitioners alike,
the book provides an excellent summary of approaches for studying
information literacy. Framing methods in a broader conversation of
research paradigms and theories, this book offers a useful tool for
comparing research methodologies. The book may be especially
valuable to researchers and students selecting an approach with
which to conduct information literacy research. For anyone seeking
to understand the various theories and methods used to study
information literacy, this is a must-read book.
Dr Clarence Maybee, Professor and W. Wayne Booker Endowed
Chair in Information Literacy, Purdue University Libraries and
School of Information Studies
The Qualitative Landscape
of Information Literacy
Research
Every purchase of a Facet book helps to fund CILIP’s advocacy,
awareness and accreditation programmes for information
professionals.
The Qualitative Landscape
of Information Literacy
Research
Perspectives, Methods and
Techniques
Annemaree Lloyd
 © Annemaree Lloyd 2021
Published by Facet Publishing,
7 Ridgmount Street, London WC1E 7AE
www.facetpublishing.co.uk
Facet Publishing is wholly owned by CILIP: the Library and
Information Association.
The author has asserted her right to be identified as such in
accordance with the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988.
Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 this publication may only be reproduced, stored or
transmitted in any form or by any means, with the prior permission
of the publisher, or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in
accordance with the terms of a licence issued by The Copyright
Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those
terms should be sent to Facet Publishing, 7 Ridgmount Street,
London WC1E 7AE.
Every effort has been made to contact the holders of copyright
material reproduced in this text, and thanks are due to them for
permission to reproduce the material indicated. If there are any
queries please contact the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978-1-78330-405-9 (paperback)
ISBN 978-1-78330-406-6 (hardback)
ISBN 978-1-78330-407-3 (PDF)
ISBN 978-1-78330-543-8 (EPUB)
First published 2021
Text printed on FSC accredited material.

Typeset from author’s files by Flagholme Publishing Services in

10/13 pt Palatino Linotype and Open Sans.
Printed and made in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon,
CR0 4YY.
Contents
Figures
Foreword by Geoff Walton
Acknowledgements
Introduction: The Qualitative Landscape of Information
Literacy Research
Why do we need to undertake research?
Balancing the quantitative narrative: focusing on qualitative
research
Researching this book
The structure of the book
1 Situating Information Literacy Research
Introduction
A theory of information literacy landscapes
Practitioner and academic research routes to information
literacy research
The language of research
Building block concepts: paradigm, ontology and
epistemology
Paradigms
Conclusion
2 Informing Information Literacy Research
Introduction
The work of theoretical frameworks
Foundational sociocultural theories used in qualitative
information literacy research
Phenomenology
Constructionism
Practice theory
Variation theory
Postmodernism
Critical theory
Social capital theory
Conclusion
3 Framing Information Literacy as an Educational Practice
for Research. Learning Theories and Models
 Introduction
Ways of teaching information literacy
Researching information literacy as a practice of learning in
an information-intense and complex age
Learning theories
Behaviourist theory
Social cognitive theory
Sociocultural learning theories
Situated learning
Problem-based learning
Collaborative learning
Blended learning
Postmodern theories
Institutional models and frameworks of information literacy
SCONUL (Seven Pillars)
A New Curriculum for Information Literacy (ANCIL)
Framework for Association of College and Research Libraries
Guidelines (ACRL Guidelines)
Metaliteracy
Information search process (ISP)
Informed learning
Conclusion
4 Qualitative Methods in Information Literacy Research
Introduction
Action research and participatory action research methods
Case study method
Critical incident technique
Delphi method
Discourse analytic approaches
Ethnography
Grounded theory methods (traditional and constructivist)
Phenomenography
Visual methods
Participatory visual methods
Arts-based and arts-informed research
Conclusion
5 Collecting Data About Information Literacy: Data
Collection Techniques
Introduction
Interviews
Focus groups
Interview to the double
Diaries
Observation
Arts-informed techniques – potential use for information
literacy research
Mapping the information landscape
Doing information literacy research online
Conclusion
6 Planning for Research
Introduction
Designing qualitative information literacy research
Identifying the research problem
Research questions
Elements of a research plan
Pilot study
Searching for research literature
Data analysis
Working with data
Evaluating information literacy research
Conclusion
7 Qualitatively Speaking and Doing Information Literacy
Research
Introduction
Themes emerging from research (2010–2020)
Themes from the literature
Conclusion
References
Index
Figures
1.1 Information environment and landscape
1.2 Model of information literacy
1.3 Multiple information landscapes that shape people’s
everyday lives
1.4 Entry points to researching information literacy
1.5 Paradigm and its key elements
1.6 Ontology, epistemology, methodology
6.1 Information literacy as a qualitative research topic
6.2 Inductive research design
Foreword
This is a landmark book. When a book such as this arrives on the
actual or virtual shelves it demonstrates that a subject area has come
of age. Annemaree Lloyd has brought together the most important
methods and techniques in qualitative research for information
literacy into this new volume. What marks this work out from others
is the numerous examples included from information literacy
research which enable the reader/researcher to further pursue their
interests. Equally valuable is that Annemaree emphasises that it is
the research question or problem that drives the methodology and
methods that follow. The explanations of research philosophies,
paradigms, methodologies, methods and techniques and how they
relate is second to none in this welcome addition to our research
toolbox.
But why is qualitative research so valuable? I thought I would
describe an incident which alerted me to the significance and the
richness of carrying out qualitative analysis and how it can get
beyond the numbers to create a rich narrative of the subject you are
researching. It is these ‘rich narratives’ which give us in-depth
insights into the participants or subject we are researching. For me
this was my first piece of ‘real’ information science research. It was
my PhD which provided me with an abiding motivation to continue
with qualitative research for the rest of my career.
In the initial stages of my PhD on information literacy, longer ago
than I care to remember, I recall that I was fixated on garnering
numerical data for my thesis, thinking it was superior in quality to a
bunch of quotes. How utterly wrong I was. The qualitative data I
gathered through actually talking to people revealed insights and
issues I had not thought of. It also gave a deep and nuanced
meaning which the numerical data could never unearth.
I had asked students to tell me what they thought of the
information literacy reflective practice exercise I had given them –
thinking they would have loved every minute of it. They were very
honest! They took me aback to be frank. The insights were hard to
take at first but deeply revealing. Learners were asked what they
thought about reflective practice and collaborative learning. One
 g p g
learner responded thus: ‘I did not find reflecting on the work of
another useful’ and ‘I’m not really interested in other people’s
comments, I’d rather be learning’. This tells us some very useful
things about perceptions of learning. First of all, reflecting isn’t seen
by this learner as having any utility and perhaps implies a
stereotypical view. However, it’s the second comment which gives
the deeper insight into views about peer learning, in that the learner
believes receiving feedback from a fellow learner has no value. I
thought students would lap this sort of thing up given that the
literature promotes reflection and collaboration. It became
abundantly clear to me that what we needed to do was explain the
merit of these approaches so that students have a worthwhile
experience. A very important lesson. The most important learning
for me was that, for research to be really valuable, we have to reveal
the negative as well as the positive outcomes. In other words, stay
faithful to the axiom of information literacy as underpinning critical
thinking.
It is insights like these that make qualitative research so necessary
because of the detailed stories they reveal. These were issues that
hadn’t even crossed our minds when I was setting up the study. In
other words, qualitative research is far more revealing and
interesting than the numbers; it tells a story in a human way which
we can relate to, readily understand and empathise with. This is
why qualitative research is so valuable and why I will be using this
book for my teaching and my research.
Dr Geoff Walton
Senior Lecturer in Information and Communications and
Programme Leader for the MA Library & Information Management,
Department of Languages, Information and Communications,
Manchester Metropolitan University
Acknowledgements
This book is the product of many discussions with information
literacy researchers, library practitioners and students who are
interested in moving beyond attempts to quantify and measure
information literacy, towards trying to understand the deeper
complexities that shape our understanding of information literacy as
a practice.
Thanks to Marion Bannister, Dr Alison Hicks and Dr Geoff Walton
who read final drafts of this book and provided very helpful
comments and suggestions.
It would not have been possible to complete this book without the
unwavering, confidence-building support and enthusiasm of my
mentor, teacher, critical reader and friend Marion Bannister. Thanks
Mazza.
Finally, thanks to Jim – who forged the time and space which
allowed me to think and write.
Introduction: The Qualitative Landscape of Information
Literacy Research
Over the last 47 years, information literacy has become a highly
researchable field in education, workplace and everyday settings
where it has been investigated and interrogated as a phenomenon,
topic, social practice, competence and skill. Bibliometric studies,
(Aharony, 2010; Kolle, 2017; Larivière, Sugimoto and Cronin, 2012;
Pinto, Cordón and Gómez Díaz, 2010; Pinto, Escalona-Fernández
and Pulgarín, 2013) report consistent growth in peer-reviewed
published information literacy research and identify broad analytical
frameworks, from which the field is explored.
The fundamental importance of information literacy to the
contribution of practice and performance has led to its appropriation
by other fields, where the core aspects of the practice are reshaped to
accommodate contextual differences, leading to growth into areas
such as health, finance, media, digital, and algorithmic literacy, to
name but a few. Quantitatively, attempts are made in every field and
discipline to measure the competency and skills of information use
required to designate what it means to be information literate.
Qualitatively, researchers strive to dive deeper in order to
understand the inherent dimensions, textures and relations of the
practice and its performances, focusing on the contextual aspects,
knowledges and social conditions which influence the shape of
information literacy, its discourse and operationalisation and the
various ways in which it is experienced. Drawing from social theory
perspectives and qualitative methods provides information literacy
researchers with theoretical, methodological and ethical tools from
which to make sense of the information experiences and practices of
people in a world which is rapidly changing and through which
multiple versions of truth and ways of knowing exist.
Qualitative research perspectives and methodological approaches
have the capacity to move information literacy research to a deeper
analytical level, opening up new spaces for enquiry. This perspective
encourages researchers to move beyond the ever-present objectivist
discourses of ‘deficit’ or focus on skills and competencies to consider
questions linked to the politics of representation, about how and
q p p
why these discourses are privileged, to questions which interrogate
the role of power in the privileging of certain types or forms of
information, or ways of knowing; and to account for the information
experiences and practices of ‘other voices’ which have become
marginalised, disenfranchised or silenced.
The Qualitative Landscape of Information Literacy Research:
Perspectives, Methods and Techniques introduces and describes some
key theories, methods and techniques that have been used from 2010
to 2020 to shape our qualitative knowledge of information literacy
and the approaches we apply to its investigation.
The central aim of this book is to develop and support readers’
understanding of how qualitative approaches to information literacy
research and teaching is informed, framed, developed and
produced. A focus on qualitatively informed approaches and
methods is justified, as this area is underrepresented in information
literacy research (Sproles, Detmering and Johnson, 2013).
This book will be of value to researchers already engaged in
researching the information literacy landscape; to students who are
developing or undertaking research or simply interested in
identifying approaches to information literacy; and to practitioners
who want to investigate the practice of information literacy to create
an evidence base to support information literacy in their workplaces
or institutions. Practitioners and students who are new to
information literacy research and its application will find this book a
useful tool to help them evaluate existing information literacy
research.
Why do we need to undertake research?
Research is undertaken to provoke and sometimes (often) worry or
problematise the status quo. All research should stir or prompt
people into thinking about or seeing something in a different way.
Research promotes new learning by creating new awareness. For
example, in the 1990s information literacy was primarily connected
to the information skill-set of librarians. However, our thinking
about information literacy began to change with the emergence of
the phenomenographic work of Bruce (1997), Limberg (2000a) and
Webber and Johnston (2000), and the sociocultural/practice
 p
perspective of Lloyd (2005, 2010a) and Pilerot (2014) and critical
perspectives espoused by Kapitzke (2003a), Elmborg (2006) and
more recently Hicks (2019a) and Tewell (2017). Information literacy
is now understood to be experienced in various ways according to
context and the social, cultural, political, historical relations that
shape the social, corporeal and epistemic dimensions of the practice
in action. These perspectives and approaches also influence how we
enter the research arena of the practice/phenomenon/object of
learning.
There are many reasons why we are motivated to undertake
research into information literacy:

To explore: Information literacy is still a relatively and narrowly

explored area in library and information science and is still often
narrowly confined to the investigating of information skills in the
context of school and higher education. When we undertake
exploratory research, we are learning about the potential,
possibilities, limits and boundaries of a topic to contribute to the
social fabric of life. Exploratory research can provide new
insights or approaches or fill in gaps in the existing knowledge
base. Exploratory research can act as a baseline approach to
prompt the development of new research questions or new
avenues of exploration.
To describe: Descriptive research aims to provide rich descriptions
of social life (Geertz, 1973). In information literacy research, this
might focus on understanding how various groups (of students,
refugees, workers, community) experience information literacy in
the context of their practices. Descriptive research focuses on
understanding how people make meaning from their experiences
and, in the case of information literacy, how they make meaning
of their experiences with information or knowledge or knowing
practices.
To explain: Researchers, often in education settings, want to explain
the cause and effect or correlations of why something is like it is
(e.g. what factors might influence students’ learning and
information literacy practice). There is sometimes a focus on
 yp
causal relationships, which suggest that if X then Y or that X
causes Y in specific situations.
To change: Research is often undertaken when an issue or challenge
presents itself that requires change or interaction. In this case,
researchers might work with communities or communities may
themselves undertake research to identify issues or challenges,
determine causes and actions and then evaluate outcomes of the
actions. Community or participatory research enables researchers
to gather evidence, to be presented to policy makers at local
levels.
To evaluate: Researchers who undertake evaluation research are
interested in the effectiveness or impact of information literacy
programmes or policies. Evaluation determines the merit or
worth of something against socially or metrically informed
criteria.
Balancing the quantitative narrative: focusing on
qualitative research
Why focus on the qualitative landscape of information literacy
research?
Research into information literacy has been largely undertaken in
connection with learning (in academic and school-based settings)
and as such there has been a focus towards quantifying information
skills and competencies as measurable outcomes. From a
quantitative perspective information literacy research emphasises
provision and attainment: provision of expert knowledge in
information seeking and searching and attainment relating to the
development, operationalisation and execution of information
literacy skills.
The application of a quantitative approach to information literacy
has drawn a specific type of research landscape and established a
narrative about information literacy, which problematises people as
lacking skills and competencies necessary to make informed
decisions. According to this view, the deficit narrative can be
addressed through the provision of information literacy education
that focuses on attainment of skills and competency, which enable
and empower people in all aspects of life to ‘seek, evaluate, use and
 p p p p
create information effectively to achieve their personal, social,
occupational and educational goals’, as noted in the Alexandria
Proclamation (UNESCO, NFIL and IFLA, 2006).
Qualitative research into information literacy has the capacity to
balance this narrative and deepen our understanding about our
complex relationship with information in all its forms. Undertaking
research that favours this approach enables us to focus our attention
towards interrogating and understanding the lived experience of
people as they interact, connect, engage, produce, circulate and
create with information as part of their everyday, educational or
working life. The landscape produced by qualitative research
emphasises the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of information literacy practice as it
is shaped by people’s conditions of being in their world, the
knowledges that are valued, their practices and ways of knowing.
Understanding how information literacy emerges and the conditions
that enable or constrain its emergence allows us to understand the
deeper social and material complexities associated with the practice.
Researching this book
This text has some boundaries. Search parameters for examples of
information literacy research included in this book were set at
research literature published in peer-reviewed journals and
monographs between 2010 and 2020. However, this did not preclude
an older published example being included when necessary.
Major databases (Scopus, Library and Information Science
Abstracts (LISA), Web of Science) were searched, along with
individual journal titles where information literacy was listed in the
remit. Abstracts and conference papers from major conferences
where information literacy is a topic were also searched – European
Conference on Information Literacy, i3 (Information, Interaction,
Impact Conference) CoLIS (Conceptions of Library and Information
Science). However, it is acknowledged that not all publications or
reported research have been included in this book. Not included in
this study were information literacy research publications that
focused specifically on school-based experiences of the practice. This
decision was primarily made on the basis of the size and scope of
this literature.
The structure of the book
This section provides an overview of the qualitative research
landscape of information literacy, identifying key themes and
perspectives. There are many reasons why information literacy
research is undertaken, and it is important to note that the field has
been shaped by practitioners and academic researchers (many of
whom started their careers as practitioners). The topic of information
literacy is consequently grounded in the unique knowledges,
expertise and reflexivities specific to the practice of librarianship.
The first three chapters situate information literacy research in a
qualitative context, describing the nature of qualitative research, and
the perspectives and theories which have influenced the
establishment of this space.
1. Situating Information Literacy Research
This chapter describes key concepts that are foundational to
developing qualitative research design and to understanding how
research which is framed through this approach is executed.
Additionally, the chapter sets out a theory of information literacy
landscapes and literacies of information developed by the author
(Lloyd, 2010b, 2017a) and uses this theory and model to guide an
understanding of how researchers and practitioners approach and
enter information literacy research from a qualitative perspective.
2. Informing Information Literacy Research
Describes social theory frameworks that have been applied to
information literacy research. The chapter explores a range of
theories that continue to influence information literacy research, i.e.:

• phenomenology
• constructionism
• practice theory
• variation theory
• postmodernist theory
• critical theory
• social capital theory.
3. Framing Information Literacy as an Educational Practice for
Research. Learning Theories and Models
The construction of sound pedagogical/andragogical practice has its
basis in research and draws from a variety of theoretical
frameworks. Chapter 3 describes how information literacy is
connected with learning and the theories that underpin this
connection. This chapter will allow researchers, practitioners and
students to gain an understanding of these theories, and how they
influence research into information literacy in an educational setting.
Some theories and approaches described in this chapter are :

• behaviourist and social cognitivist theory

• sociocultural theories
• situated learning
• problem-based/inquiry-based learning (IBL)
• collaborative learning
• blended learning
• postmodern theory.

4. Qualitative Methods in Information Literacy Research

This chapter describes a selection of qualitative methods that have
been used to shape our understanding of information literacy:

• action research method

• case study
• critical incident technique
• Delphi method
• discourse analytical approaches
• ethnography
• grounded theory methods (traditional and constructivist)
• phenomenography
• participatory action research
• visual methods and arts-based approaches.
5. Data Collection Techniques
Chapter 5 discusses the core qualitative data-collection techniques
that have been employed in information literacy research:

• interviews
• focus groups
• diaries
• observation
• photovoice/photo elicitation
• drawing
• mapping
• doing information literacy research online.
6. Planning for Research
This chapter focuses on developing research plans, questions,
design, sampling, and the role of ethics and working with a range of
participants and evaluating information literacy research. Topics
include:

• elements of a research plan and design outlined

• developing a research question
• coding and analysing data
• sampling
• ethics
• identifying core elements of research description
• the characteristics of good research
• assessing the credibility of information literacy research
• piloting a study
• evaluating information literacy research.
7. Qualitatively Speaking and Doing Information Literacy
Research
This final chapter identifies the themes emerging from qualitative
information literacy research from 2010 to 2020.
CHAPTER 1
Situating Information Literacy Research
Introduction
In 1974 Paul Zurkowski (1974), reflecting on the capabilities of people
to cope with the emerging complexity of the information age, coined
the term information literacy. The practice of information literacy was
connected to the achievement of economic and organisational goals
and to people’s ability to solve problems and workplace tasks (Lloyd,
2010a). Zurkowski’s observation about the role of information and
people’s capacity to deal with information in complex situations
acted as the catalyst for information literacy research within the
library and information science field. The concept of information
literacy has been adopted by public, school and academic librarians
and is now established in the profession as a core aspect of
professional practice.
Research into and about information literacy has also become a
significant field for library and information science academics, who
investigate the phenomenon from many different perspectives. While
some researchers are interested in information literacy as a skill or an
inquiry strategy which supports learning, other researchers attempt
to understand the complex dimensions of the practice, i.e. what
conditions enable and/or constrain it, and how the practice
contributes to formal and informal learning leading to the
development of information landscapes and to building information
resilience.
It is central to our professional information literacy practice (as
researchers or practitioners) that we develop a critical understanding
of how information literacy is shaped and that we understand how
research is operationalised and executed, either to undertake our own
research or to evaluate the corpus of research about information
literacy that we use to support our own work. The aim of this book is
therefore to provide a primer or guide to the range of qualitative
research, theories, methods and techniques being employed to
investigate and describe the complexity of the practice.
A theory of information literacy landscapes
This book is framed and positioned by the theory of information
literacy landscapes described by Lloyd in 2010a; 2010b; 2017a.
Information literacy is view by her as:
A practice that is enacted in a social setting. It is composed of a
suite of activities and skills that reference structured and
embodied knowledge and ways of knowing relevant to the
context. Information literacy is a way of knowing.
(Lloyd, 2010a, extended in Lloyd, 2017a)
The theory presents information literacy in the broader sense, as a
situated practice that is shaped by the conditions, arrangements and
discourses of a social site, rather than restricted to skill-based
enactments related solely to text-based mediums (print or digital).
According to this theory, the practice of information literacy is also
present in a corporeal and social sense. As a way of knowing, the
practice connects us to epistemic/instrumental ways of knowing, and
to local, nuanced, contingent and embodied forms of knowledge that
reference the context/s in which we operate (Lloyd, 2005; 2006a).
Key concepts
Information literacy is a complex practice, and in the information-rich
environment of a post-truth world, is becoming an increasingly
important form of literacy practice. When executed, this practice
enables a person to understand the sources and sites of knowledge
and ways of knowing that contribute to becoming situated and
emplaced. This knowledge, in turn, affords a person the opportunity
and capacity to think critically about the way information is
operationalised on a sociocultural level (what is valued), and how it
is operationalised materially, i.e. through tools, mechanisms and
source-related practices through which information is produced,
reproduced, circulated, disseminated and archived. This idea extends
from print through to digital landscapes. The practice has, therefore,
relational, situational, recursive, material and embodied dimensions
that are drawn upon to make it meaningful.
While the language may change to accommodate the perspective of
a researcher or practitioner, in reality the core structure and trajectory
of the practice does not. Foundationally, information literacy is a
practice, that like all practices, is enacted in ways that:
• draw from modalities of information that reference the
knowledge base of the specific setting and broader context by
members of the setting
• engage in activities that form part of the individual and collective
performances
• use the material objects and artefacts that are sanctioned as part of
the performance.

Becoming information literate requires the development of a

meaningful landscape and the range of activities that enable
information to be drawn from that knowledge base. This requires
competence (knowledge of context and relevant skills) and an ability
to relate to social and material practices (Shove, Pantzar and Watson,
2012).
Unpacking information literacy theory
The theory of information literacy that frames the development of a
book on research methods draws from several concepts. One that
threads throughout the text is the representation of information as
‘any difference which makes a difference in some later event’
(Bateson, 1972, 315). Bateson argued for information as a ‘bit’ or an
idea which, when accessed, made a difference, and this implies a
qualitative change to knowledge, including ways of knowing. This
change may produce positive or negative effects (Lloyd, 2017a).
To construct a way of being in the world, people draw from
information environments, which are described here as larger stable
sites of knowledge (e.g. health, education, politics, religion) to create
information landscapes that reference the sites of knowledge and
ways of knowing central to the construction of their intersubjectivity
(shared sense of meaning). These enable their individual subject
agency (to act). Intersubjectivity represents the common reference
points and knowledge shared by people who are collectively engaged
in shared endeavours or practice. For example, the larger project of
being a librarian draws from previous experiences, histories, social
and material practices of librarianship and ways of working as a
librarian that are shared among those who engage with this
endeavour. Subjectivity refers to an individual’s belief drawn from
the intersubjective project. The theory of information literacy
presented here views intersubjectivity as the dominant aspect driving
thought and action and contributing to personal or subjective views
and action (Lloyd, 2017a).
Information literacy landscapes
The practice of information literacy is conceptualised as creating an
information landscape (Lloyd, 2006b). Information landscapes are
shaped by modalities of information representing the ways of
knowing about the collective forms of knowledge, i.e. they are drawn
from the information environments that people interact with – health,
workplace, educational, sporting or leisure (Lloyd, 2006b). These
modalities may be social (and accessed by our interaction with each
other), epistemic (the expressed rules and regulations and discourses
that legitimise practice) or corporeal (that are referenced through our
embodied actions – as practice). Drawing from these modalities
allows people to shape their information landscapes and to enact
literacies of information which, in turn, act to reference the social site
(Lloyd, 2005). These dimensions are entwined, and the enactment of
information literacy is predicated on the agreed-upon shared
meanings about a project or collective endeavour, and on the activity
and action involved, thus supporting the reason why information
literacy is enacted in a way that is meaningful for the setting (Figure
1.1).
Figure 1.1 Information environment and landscape (Lloyd and
Olsson, 2019)
Enacting information literacy: literacies of information
The practising of information literacy references the values,
knowledges and ways of knowing that are inherently valued within a
social setting. For example, practising information literacy in a
scientific setting will reference the types of knowledge and ways of
knowing that are legitimised and valued by the discipline. The
scientific way of practising information literacy may differ in other
settings such as playing soccer, where the practice of information
literacy may emerge corporeally and favour knowledges which are
developed through physical experiences of playing soccer and
therefore embodied.
Enacting the practice scaffolds a person’s being in the world,
through the development of ways of knowing, and affords
opportunities for alignment with, and membership of, a community.
This allows the practice to develop in ways that are valued by the
social site and promotes information resilience (Lloyd, 2015b).
Information literacy does this by enabling access to knowledge about
the way an information landscape is shaped, enabled and constrained
and to knowledge of the information activities, competencies and
skills required to enact and execute the practice in context.
Information literacy connects people to the social,
epistemic/instrumental and corporeal dimensions that reference
being in the world.
We practise information literacy and in that moment of practice,
information becomes a practice. Enactment has been conceptualised
through Weick’s studies of organisations. In that context, Weick
(1995) suggests that enactment entails a process (something being
played out – an activity) and a product (the environment). Weick
describes enactment as a two-step process: the first step being the
bracketing of the field of experience as the basis for preconceptions
(the ways things should be done/understood) and the second the
guiding of people’s activities or actions by preconceptions (the ways
things are done/understood). In relating this process to the practice of
information literacy, it can be argued that enactment occurs in a
specific context and is recognised because it reflects the way people
work with information in that specific context and the knowledge
they agree upon. According to Weick, the outcome, or product, of
enactment is social construction and is always subject to
interpretations. In a similar vein and also within the context of
organisational studies, Orlikowski’s (2002) idea of knowing in practice
draws from Weick’s position that enactment is action-based and
evidenced by ‘acting, doing and practicing’ (Niemelä, Huotari and
Kortelainen , 2012, 214). Weick’s concept of enactment is relevant to a
theory of information literacy because it highlights the emergence of
social (overt and nuanced) and material activities that enable and
support access to information modalities (Lloyd, 2006b) within a
social site. Information literacy is often viewed as something that is
attained, and this attainment is often reduced to the targeted
development of information skills.
When viewed as an enactment that references ways of knowing
and manifests through literacies of information the focus is directed
towards understanding social and material activities that help to
build a social practice. This allows us to delve deeper into the
complex interactions that are foundational to questions about how
and why information literacy, as an information practice, emerges or
is viewed in relation to context. The concept of enactment has been
employed by Lloyd (2012) to highlight for researchers the ontological
and epistemological conditions that shape the practice and should
feature in research into information literacy practice. This suggests
that, ontologically, enactment is expressed as an understanding of
what constitutes information and knowledge, and it emerges
epistemologically as ways of knowing and practising.
Enactment emerges in practice as an expression of and with
reference to ‘the social’ (Schatzki, 2002). When a practice is enacted, it
is brought into being. When we enact information literacy, we are
referencing the realities of a social site, such as the knowledges and
ways of knowing (activities and skills) that are valued and
legitimised. Consequently, the discourse that often surrounds what
constitutes information literacy practice may seem to be different
when the practice is described by academic researchers and by
practitioners, teachers or librarians, even though the foundational
elements are actually the same. The enactment of information literacy
practice occurs socially, corporeally and materially, with all three
entwined modalities patterned and shaped ontologically and enacted
through the epistemological lens of context. Social and corporeal
modalities reference vernacular or local literacies, that constitute
important and often invisible forms of information work, connecting
with and creating tacit, contingent or embodied forms of knowledge.
Material practices and their enactment through technologies or
documents (for example, digital literacy, media, and visual literacy)
are often the most visible to researchers and educators and the most
often discussed in the library and information science literature. To
represent social, corporeal and material enactments more accurately,
the concept of literacies of information is adopted here in preference
to the term ‘information literacies’ (Limberg, Sundin and Talja, 2011).
Information literacies is used by these authors to highlight the
variation in emphasis that can occur when researching information
literacy according to different theoretical traditions. The juxtaposition
to literacies of information is not merely a semantic exercise but is
intended to emphasise the inherently central role of information
enacting in contemporary literacy practices such as digital, visual and
media literacy and thus foreground how the elements of information
literacy emerge as the core focus for researchers and for practitioners
in the library and information science field (Lloyd, 2017a).
Advocating the use of the phrase ‘literacies of information’
highlights that the practice of information literacy is enacted and
shaped or reshaped according to the doings or sayings of a site
(Lloyd, 2010a; Schatzki, 2002). This allows us, in the first instance, to
be open to acknowledging the different views that participants hold
about what constitutes information, knowledge and ways of
knowing. Consequently, emergence and enactment become anchored
ontologically within the domain of the knowledge claims about truth
(such as what knowledge is valid and what counts and contributes to
reason), and epistemologically in language games (such as how/what
knowledge and ways of knowing are sanctioned) (Wittgenstein,
1958/2009). By this account, information literacy is positioned as
being primary and foundational, along with reading and writing
practices, rather than being adjunct to them.
Becoming information literate is realised through its enactment and
references the cultural-discursive and social-political arrangements of
the site (Kemmis and Grootenboer, 2008). The material-economic
arrangements (Kemmis and Grootenboer, 2008) are represented
through the suite of literacies of information (digital, visual,
technological), which have either a contextual emphasis (e.g. health
literacy, financial literacy) or a material emphasis (e.g. digital literacy,
print-based literacy, technological literacy, critical literacy). Literacies
of information represent the visible elements of information literacy
(the enactments) and the information competencies and skills
associated with these. The term describes the enactment of
information literacy through material practices and activities that
reflect the intersubjective doings of practice and modalities of
information within a particular site. In line with the privileging of
specific information modalities (e.g. epistemic modality over social),
what literacies of information are privileged in use will also reflect
the traditions inherent in the social site. Feldman and Orlikowski
(2011, 1246), writing about technology practices, noted that
‘technology is not valuable, meaningful or consequential by itself; it
only becomes so when people actually engage with it in practice’. The
enactment of literacies of information may, therefore, depend on the
acceptance of some material practices over others, which is also
reflected in the privileging of some information skills over others.
To connect this to research, when we think about information
literacy and the literacies of information that support this practice,
our thinking is predicated upon and informed by the way in which
we think about information (and what we think it is) and the values
and belief we have about what is normative in relation to the way we
engage with ways of knowing (e.g. what kind of activity associated
with searching or seeking information is valid).
To say that information literacy has different context, different
concepts and different truths (Lloyd, 2005) means that information
literacy as a practice will take different forms according to the
information and knowledge that are valued within a setting and the
ways of knowing, using creating and circulating that are sanctioned.
For example, in some settings knowledge expressed through print
(text) is valued, more than tacit or nuanced knowledge; while in other
settings tacit or nuanced knowledge that lies at the heart of embodied
expertise may be more valuable. The means of accessing, using and
evaluating the two types of knowledge may also differ depending on
contextual preference.
A model of information literacy is represented by Figure 1.2. In this
model, people are required to interact with multiple sites of stable
knowledge (information environments) in the course of their daily
activity. To illustrate, a person diagnosed with chronic illness is
linked to larger medical environments associated with their illness,
and also with smaller information environments (allied health
services, social services, support groups). Their interactions with
these environments are played out in physical and digital spaces (e.g.
they may visit their doctor, but they may also visit a website to find
out about their symptoms or join an online support group to chat
with other people sharing this illness, or even go online to claim
medical rebates, arrange allied health services or prescriptions –
because of this process they are likely to have complex information
landscapes. Similarly, engaging in the workplace means connecting
with a range of information landscapes that contribute to our
working life (e.g. operational knowledge of the work, knowledge of
the context of the work, social knowledge about workplace teams and
colleagues, workplace histories and traditions).

Figure 1.2 Model of information literacy (Lloyd, 2017a)

The model presented in Figure 1.3 opposite highlights the reality
that people have many information landscapes (for example health,
education, work, everyday, sport, religion, cooking). These multiple
landscapes make understanding information literacy as a single
practice tricky work; hence it is important when undertaking research
into information literacy that we consider methods and approaches to
research design that are appropriate and focused on the elements of
information literacy that interest us.
Figure 1.3 Multiple information landscapes that shape people’s
everyday lives (Lloyd, 2017a)
Consequently, the landscape we construct when conducting
research into information literacy and identifying the literacies of
information that are applicable to that context will be influenced by
the values we have as researchers. This in turn influences whether we
pursue qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods forms of research.
Similarly, our position as researchers, whether we are researching in
an academic setting or from a practitioner perspective, will also help
to shape the landscape of our research practice.
Practitioner and academic research routes to information
literacy research
Over the last few years there has been divergence of information
literacy practice into two spaces.
 The first space is practitioner-based or institutionally led, where
research is executed by higher/vocational education or teacher/school
librarians, either as the delivery of one-off instructional classes or as a
practice embedded in the learning curriculum of a specific subject,
but rarely as a holistic programme integrated and embedded within
an entire course (Lloyd, 2017a). In this context information literacy is
researched as it is operationalised in this space, i.e. the acquisition
and practice application of information competencies by students
predominantly focusing on information-seeking and search
strategies, use and evaluation of sources.
The second space belongs to researchers (predominantly non-
practitioner academics), where the focus is on understanding the
nature and shape of the practice, how it is experienced, describing
variations of the experience, how it emerges in a particular context,
what conditions enable or constrain the creation of the information
landscape, and how the practice scaffolds the stirring in of multiple
contexts and settings that shape people’s reality.
In Figure 1.4, academic researchers may enter the model through
‘what’ or ‘how’ questions that are often embedded in investigations
of information practice that are more sociologically and dialogically
focused (Talja and McKenzie, 2007). In describing a social ontology,
Schatzki (2002, 3) states that ‘the social is a field of embodied,
materially interwoven practices centrally organized around shared
practical understandings’. The philosophical entrant, therefore, aims
to describe and problematises the traditions inherent in the
structuring of a practice.
Figure 1.4 Entry points to researching information literacy (Lloyd,
2017a)
Practitioners may enter an information literacy landscape by
focusing on the literacies of information at an empirical level and
describing the elements of the practice (the activities and skills) that
represent enactment of the sayings and doings of a site. From this
entry point, information literacies and activities and skills that
operationalise the practice will be emphasised, along with epistemic
modalities of information that reflect the normative conditions of
information literacy instruction.
The language of research
The model above suggests that research into information literacy can
be approached from two different routes. One route focuses on what
information literacy is and the conditions, which shape the practice.
The other route focuses on how the practice is operationalised. How
information literacy is viewed as a research object is predicated on
the way that researchers or practitioners think and talk about it, and
this leads us to the definitional parts of this chapter. It is important
for both practitioner-based and academic researchers to become
familiar with the language, concepts and entry points that each group
uses as starting points to develop their research design and because it
also provides them with some theoretical and methodological tools to
understand how to evaluate the veracity of information literacy
research being conducted.
This chapter now turns to the definitional work required to enable
researchers and practitioners to approach information literacy
qualitatively and to understand commonly used concepts. This
section is designed to encourage critical thinking about how research
design and analysis are influenced.
Building block concepts: paradigm, ontology and
epistemology
Paradigm, ontology, epistemology, and methodology may be
concepts that appear unfamiliar to practitioners and to some
researchers, and it is easier to think of them as the building blocks in
the cycle of research (Figure 1.5 on the next page).
These concepts are not always explicitly stated, described or
discussed in information literacy research; however, being able to
recognise these aspects in the reporting of any kind of research is
useful because they frame (consciously or unconsciously) the
decisions made during the research process. Generally speaking,
while we may not explicitly use these terms in our research, they are
present, and they reveal two important focuses of research: (1) what
do we believe – what knowledges frame our understanding of the
world? and (2) how do we know?
Figure 1.5 Paradigm and its key elements
Paradigms
A paradigm is composed of an ontology and epistemology, which in
turn influences the execution and operationalisation of research
(methodology) (Figure 1.6 opposite).
A paradigm represents a philosophy or a basic set of beliefs and
values, which influence the way that we see and make sense of the
world. The paradigm we embrace influences the assumptions and
choices we make when we are developing and executing a research
(methodology). The way in which research is developed,
operationalised and then executed (i.e. the decisions that are made
about what to include, what to focus on, how to collect and then
analyse data and how to report what is collected) are all shaped by
the paradigm adopted by the researcher either consciously or
unconsciously.
Being aware of the paradigm that is in operation is important in
information literacy research and forms part of our own information
literacy practice. Researchers and practitioners need to develop this
awareness because it influences how we undertake research, i.e. our
research designs, the methods we select, the techniques we employ to
collect data, how we analyse data, and how we view and evaluate the
results of research. It also influences how we work with clients (or
researchers, academics, teachers) and how research is evaluated and
understood.

Figure 1.6 Ontology, epistemology, methodology (adapted from

Denzin and Lincoln, 2005)
Ontology is the study of ‘what is’. In other words, the study of
being and existence. An ontological question asks ‘What is the form
and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known
about it’ (Guba and Lincoln, 1998, 201). Ontology informs our
theoretical perspective; e.g. if a researcher believes that there is an
external reality which sits outside the mind then this ontological
perspective is called ontological materialism, and the term positivism
is used. Alternatively, a researcher may approach the framing and
analysis of research with the view that reality is constructed in the
mind of the observer and shaped by the relations and interactions
within a specific context. This perspective is often called
interpretivism or constructionism. In general terms ontology is often
just referred to as the theoretical perspective.
Epistemology references our understanding of the way we know
what we know, i.e. what it means to know (Crotty, 1998; Denzin and
Lincoln, 2005) or what counts as knowledge. Epistemology references
the assumptions that researchers make about knowledge. Objectivism
is an example of an epistemology, which asserts that external objects
gain their meaning independent of consciousness. Researchers who
adopt a positivist epistemology may focus their research area on
information skills or measuring the impact of information literacy
instruction on students’ learning outcomes. Constructivism, on the
other hand, references the social construction of meaning.
Information literacy researchers who work from this perspective will
focus on how people build meaning about the experience of the
practice or the conditions that enable or constrain the practice.
Major paradigms
Paradigms have been defined as ‘the net that contains the researcher’s
epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises’ (Denzin
and Lincoln, 2005, 22). Paradigms are traditionally split into two
major positions – interpretivism and positivism – which influence
qualitative or quantitative research designs and thus make specific
demands on researchers, and in doing so, create a distinctive
language to describe the research that is undertaken and reported.
While this appears clear-cut, in reality the distinction is often blurred,
and within the major paradigms there are numerous interpretations.
Interpretivism
Interpretivism represents a foundational paradigm from which other
social perspectives emerge. Interpretivism emphasises the naturalistic
settings of social phenomena, acknowledging multiple versions or
constructions of reality. There is a strong focus on the patterns,
relationships or meanings which emerge from the data.
The central tenet of interpretivist approach rests on the view that
people are in the continual activity of interpreting the world, which is
also in a state of continual change (Guba and Lincoln, 1998; Denzin
and Lincoln, 2005). Researchers who work within this paradigm will
emphasise context, adopt reasoning which is inductive (theory will
emerge from data) and focus on qualitative forms of data collection
and methods.
Research questions are exploratory and are often supported by
sub-questions, which aim to interrogate and unpack participants’
experiences as the research progresses. Epistemologically,
descriptions of reality are time- and context-bound (Lincoln and
Guba, 1985), referencing the interaction between knower and known.
An interpretivist perspective dictates a qualitative methodology.
The interpretivist paradigm (the focus of this book) can then be
further divided to include constructivist, critical, transformative,
pragmatic and rationalist perspectives or approaches. Transformative
and pragmatic approaches have also emerged to alert researchers to
the inadequacy of major paradigms to address issues of social justice.
The foundational assumptions of the interpretivist paradigm
influence the development of many social theories. Social theories are
interpretations of the world, represented through frameworks, which
highlight or emphasise aspects of the lived experience, conditions or
arrangements that people experience as they interact or move in or
out of various contexts. There are numerous social theories employed
by researchers to frame their information literacy research, including
symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, phenomenology, social
constructionism, constructivism, social capital theory and the suite of
critical theories which have an ideological focus on the nature of
social structures, e.g. Marxism, feminism and poststructural and
postmodern theories or discourses of inequality, disadvantage and
marginalisation.
In qualitative research studies of information literacy, researchers
who frame their research within the interpretivist paradigm often
attempt to focus on the experience of information literacy in the lived
world of specific settings (classroom, library, being a nurse, teacher,
soccer player) or ways in which participants develop ways of
knowing or making meaning from the experiences or consider the
variations of that experience (Bruce, 1998; Hicks, 2019a; Lloyd, 2009;
Yates and Partridge, 2014).
Nested perspectives within the interpretive tradition
Within this broad paradigm are approaches often adopted in
information literacy research. These are
constructionism/constructivism and phenomenology (these will be
described in a later chapter). Each of the paradigms described below
could be considered to be ‘nested’ within the broader interpretive
paradigm and, while they are understood as fully evolved in their
own right, they also share and draw from some or all of the
antecedents of interpretivist philosophy (i.e. they have a family
resemblance). It is therefore advisable to explore these paradigms in
more depth than is offered in this chapter.
Constructivism/constructionism
Constructivism, social constructionism and constructionism are all
nested within the same paradigmatic family, but with slight
variations and emphasis. Constructivism contends that people
constantly construct and reconstruct versions of reality through their
interactions with each other and with the artefacts, signs and symbols
of their practice. This is often referred to as the ‘social construction of
reality’ (Berger and Luckmann, 1991).
Constructivism is closely associated with theories of learning
(Bruner, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978) and focuses on the individual as they
construct meaning. It has been employed by information literacy
researchers as a framework for instructional design and pedagogy.
Social constructivism (sometimes referred to as collectivism)
positions knowledge as being socially, physically and subjectively
constructed. There is a dialectical relationship between the subject
and social setting (Smith and Matteson, 2018). Kuhlthau’s ISP search
process (1994), which is often used as a foundation for information
literacy, is an example of social constructivism. There is an emphasis
on the individual subjective experience through interaction with
society, social settings or experiences.
Constructionism (social constructionism) advocates that practices
have their origins in community settings (workplace, educational
settings, home life, sporting, health or other social settings) and are
consequently socially shaped. This perspective has a broader focus
and attends to language and its role in the formation of identity and
meaning and intersubjectivity (the development of shared meaning).
Constructionist approaches are therefore viewed as dialogic.
Information literacy research which is framed using this perspective
focuses on socially and culturally shaped ways of understanding how
the practice is constructed. The production and reproduction of
knowledge occurs in ongoing dialogue with the setting which shapes
identities and ways of knowing. Key social theorists include Foucault
(1972), Gergen (2001) and Potter (1996).
Critical perspectives
Critical perspectives emphasise ideologically oriented research,
focusing on oppression, societal imbalance and power relationships,
and attempt to dissect and unpack discourses to understand how
people are enabled or constrained by the conditions of their
circumstances. The critical paradigm is reflected in a range of
perspectives including feminist, postmodern and poststructuralist
theories, race, queer and indigenous, e.g. Butler (2006), Freire (1970),
Habermas (1987) and Marx (1854/1978).
There is a methodological emphasis on qualitative research and on
emancipatory, collaborative and participative methods, which
advocate collaborative approaches that focus the social conditions
and shape the lived experiences of people. In the last decade a critical
information literacy has developed, which emphasises agency
through a critical and discursive approach (Elmborg, 2006; Tewell,
2015) and has also provided substantial critiques of current
information literacy practices (Hicks, 2013; Kapitzke, 2003b;
Whitworth, 2016).
Transformative perspectives
Transformative perspectives emerged from dissatisfaction with
existing research paradigms and practices. This perspective contends
that existing paradigms do not adequately address issues related to
social justice, inequality and marginalisation and have ‘been
developed from the white, able-bodied male perspective and based
on the study of male subjects’ (Mertens, 2005, 17). The transformative
paradigm is therefore driven to challenge existing political agendas
(including research agendas and approaches) and work towards
developing action agendas aimed at transforming lives. Qualitative
and quantitative approaches may be combined in a mixed method,
which it is argued enables ‘an understanding of greater diversity of
values, stances and positions’ (Greene, Kreider and Mayer, 2005).
Pragmatic perspectives
Paradigms situate our ontological and epistemological positions, and
they can be thought of as creating a complementary research
continuum. While at one end of the continuum sits interpretivism
(which argues for constructions of reality), at the other end sits
positivism (which argues for objective reality that can be discovered
and generalised and quantified). The middle ground is described as
postpositivism (advocating research design that includes both
quantitative and qualitative methods) while interpretivism (multiple
realities which are context-dependent, qualitative research design) is
located at the other end. Pragmatism is a philosophical position,
which posits that the truth is ‘what works’, meaning what is feasible
to address the specific problem at hand. A pragmatic approach offers
a détente between interpretivists and positivist paradigms and
provides the middle ground from which to develop mixed methods
(e.g. quantitative surveys, followed by semi-structured interviews).
Positivism
While this book is focused on highlighting the power of the
qualitative perspective in approaching, designing and understanding
the practice and experience of information literacy, it is important to
balance this view and to recognise the significant contribution that
positivist-informed research plays in increasing our understanding of
the ‘information skills’ component of the practice.
Positivist perspectives frame the scientific method and espouse the
ontological view that reality exists (realism) regardless of human
observers (objectivism), leading to the positivist claim that there is a
single apprehensible reality. Consequently, the epistemological
purpose of positivist research is to identify and understand the links
between cause and effects. Upon this view, knowledge represents
what is objectively observable to the researcher. Research design will
espouse rationalist language (it may therefore be described as
rationalist or realist). The character of quantitative research design
will focus on causal relationships, demonstrating the links between
variables, describe measurement techniques (statistically) and present
hypotheses to be confirmed or rejected; sample sizes will be large, to
allow generalisable propositions to be described. In terms of
information literacy research, quantitative research design is easily
identified in studies which attempt to measure information literacy
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The First Lay of Guthrun
[Contents]

Introductory Note
The First Lay of Guthrun, entitled in the Codex Regius simply
Guthrunarkvitha, immediately follows the remaining fragment of the
“long” Sigurth lay in that manuscript. Unlike the poems dealing with
the earlier part of the Sigurth cycle, the so-called Reginsmol,
Fafnismol, and Sigrdrifumol, it is a clear and distinct unit, apparently
complete and with few and minor interpolations. It is also one of the
finest poems in the entire collection, with an extraordinary emotional
intensity and dramatic force. None of its stanzas are quoted
elsewhere, and it is altogether probable that the compilers of the
Volsungasaga were unfamiliar with it, for they do not mention the
sister and daughter of Gjuki who appear in this poem, or Herborg,
“queen of the Huns” (stanza 6).

The lament of Guthrun (Kriemhild) is almost certainly among the

oldest parts of the story. The lament was one of the earliest forms of
poetry to develop among the Germanic peoples, and I suspect,
though the matter is not susceptible of proof, that the lament of
Sigurth’s wife had assumed lyric form as early as the seventh
century, and reached the North in that shape rather than in prose
tradition (cf. Guthrunarkvitha II, introductory note). We find traces of
it in the seventeenth Aventiure of the Nibelungenlied, and in the
poems of the Edda it dominates every appearance of Guthrun. The
two first Guthrun lays (I and II) are both laments, one for Sigurth’s
death and the other including both that and the lament over the
slaying of her brothers; the lament theme is apparent in the third
Guthrun lay and in the Guthrunarhvot.

In their present forms the second Guthrun lay is undoubtedly older

than the first; in the prose following the Brot the annotator refers to
the “old” Guthrun lay in terms which can apply only to the second
one in the collection. The shorter and “first” lay, therefore, can
scarcely have been composed much before the year 1000, and may
be somewhat later. The poet appears to have known and made use
of the older lament; stanza 17, for example, is a close parallel to
stanza 2 of the earlier poem; but whatever material he used he fitted
into a definite poetic scheme of his [412]own. And while this particular
poem is, as critics have generally agreed, one of the latest of the
collection, it probably represents one of the earliest parts of the
entire Sigurth cycle to take on verse form.

Guthrunarkvitha I, so far as the narrative underlying it is concerned,

shows very little northern addition to the basic German tradition.
Brynhild appears only as Guthrun’s enemy and the cause of
Sigurth’s death; the three women who attempt to comfort Guthrun,
though unknown to the southern stories, seem to have been rather
distinct creations of the poet’s than traditional additions to the
legend. Regarding the relations of the various elements in the
Sigurth cycle, cf. introductory note to Gripisspo.

[Contents]

Guthrun sat by the dead Sigurth; she did not weep as

other women, but her heart was near to bursting with
grief. The men and women came to her to console
her, but that was not easy to do. It is told of men that
Guthrun had eaten of Fafnir’s heart, and that she
understood the speech of birds. This is a poem about
Guthrun.

1. Then did Guthrun | think to die,

When she by Sigurth | sorrowing sat;
Tears she had not, | nor wrung her hands,
Nor ever wailed, | as other women.

[413]

2. To her the warriors | wise there came,

Longing her heavy | woe to lighten;
Grieving could not | Guthrun weep,
So sad her heart, | it seemed, would break.

3. Then the wives | of the warriors came,

Gold-adorned, | and Guthrun sought;
Each one then | of her own grief spoke,
The bitterest pain | she had ever borne.

4. Then spake Gjaflaug, | Gjuki’s sister:

“Most joyless of all | on earth am I;
Husbands five | were from me taken,
(Two daughters then, | and sisters three,)
Brothers eight, | yet I have lived.”
5. Grieving could not | Guthrun weep,
Such grief she had | for her husband dead,
And so grim her heart | by the hero’s body.

6. Then Herborg spake, | the queen of the Huns:

[414]
“I have a greater | grief to tell;
My seven sons | in the southern land,
And my husband, fell | in fight all eight.
(Father and mother | and brothers four
Amid the waves | the wind once smote,
And the seas crashed through | the sides of the
ship.)

7. “The bodies all | with my own hands then

I decked for the grave, | and the dead I buried;
A half-year brought me | this to bear;
And no one came | to comfort me.

8. “Then bound I was, | and taken in war,

A sorrow yet | in the same half-year;
They bade me deck | and bind the shoes
Of the wife of the monarch | every morn.

9. “In jealous rage | her wrath she spake,

And beat me oft | with heavy blows; [415]
Never a better | lord I knew,
And never a woman | worse I found.”
10. Grieving could not | Guthrun weep,
Such grief she had | for her husband dead,
And so grim her heart | by the hero’s body.

11. Then spake Gollrond, | Gjuki’s daughter:

“Thy wisdom finds not, | my foster-mother,
The way to comfort | the wife so young.”
She bade them uncover | the warrior’s corpse.

12. The shroud she lifted | from Sigurth, laying

His well-loved head | on the knees of his wife:
“Look on thy loved one, | and lay thy lips
To his as if yet | the hero lived.”

13. Once alone | did Guthrun look;

His hair all clotted | with blood beheld,
The blinded eyes | that once shone bright,
The hero’s breast | that the blade had pierced.

14. Then Guthrun bent, | on her pillow bowed, [416]

Her hair was loosened, | her cheek was hot,
And the tears like raindrops | downward ran.

15. Then Guthrun, daughter | of Gjuki, wept,

And through her tresses | flowed the tears;
And from the court | came the cry of geese,
The birds so fair | of the hero’s bride.
16. Then Gollrond spake, | the daughter of Gjuki:
“Never a greater | love I knew
Than yours among | all men on earth;
Nowhere wast happy, | at home or abroad,
Sister mine, | with Sigurth away.”

Guthrun spake:

17. “So was my Sigurth | o’er Gjuki’s sons

As the spear-leek grown | above the grass,
Or the jewel bright | borne on the band,
The precious stone | that princes wear.

18. “To the leader of men | I loftier seemed

And higher than all | of Herjan’s maids; [417]
As little now | as the leaf I am
On the willow hanging; | my hero is dead.

19. “In his seat, in his bed, | I see no more

My heart’s true friend; | the fault is theirs,
The sons of Gjuki, | for all my grief,
That so their sister | sorely weeps.

20. “So shall your land | its people lose

As ye have kept | your oaths of yore;
Gunnar, no joy | the gold shall give thee,
(The rings shall soon | thy slayers be,)
Who swarest oaths | with Sigurth once.
21. “In the court was greater | gladness then
The day my Sigurth | Grani saddled,
And went forth Brynhild’s | hand to win,
That woman ill, | in an evil hour.”

22. Then Brynhild spake, | the daughter of Buthli:

“May the witch now husband | and children want
Who, Guthrun, loosed | thy tears at last,
And with magic today | hath made thee speak.”

[418]

23. Then Gollrond, daughter | of Gjuki, spake:

“Speak not such words, | thou hated woman;
Bane of the noble | thou e’er hast been,
(Borne thou art | on an evil wave,
Sorrow hast brought | to seven kings,)
And many a woman | hast loveless made.”

24. Then Brynhild, daughter | of Buthli, spake:

“Atli is guilty | of all the sorrow,
(Son of Buthli | and brother of mine,)
When we saw in the hall | of the Hunnish race
The flame of the snake’s bed | flash round the
hero;
(For the journey since | full sore have I paid,
And ever I seek | the sight to forget.)”
[419]

25. By the pillars she stood, | and gathered her

strength,
From the eyes of Brynhild, | Buthli’s daughter,
Fire there burned, | and venom she breathed,
When the wounds she saw | on Sigurth then.

Guthrun went thence away to a forest in the waste,

and journeyed all the way to Denmark, and was there
seven half-years with Thora, daughter of Hokon.
Brynhild would not live after Sigurth. She had eight of
her thralls slain and five serving-women. Then she
killed herself with a sword, as is told in the Short Lay
of Sigurth. [411]

[Contents]

NOTES
[412]

Prose. The prose follows the concluding prose of the Brot without
indication of a break, the heading standing immediately before
stanza 1. Fafnir’s heart: this bit of information is here quite without
point, and it is nowhere else stated that Guthrun understood the
speech of birds. In the Volsungasaga it is stated that Sigurth gave
Guthrun some of Fafnir’s heart to eat, “and thereafter she was much
grimmer than before, and wiser.”

1. This stanza seems to be based on Guthrunarkvitha II, 11–12. [413]

4. Gjaflaug: nothing further is known of this aunt of Guthrun, or of the

many relatives whom she has lost. Very likely she is an invention of
the poet’s, for it seems improbable that otherwise all further trace of
her should have been lost. Line 4 has been marked by many editors
as spurious.

5. Some editors assume the loss of a line, after either line 1 or line 3.
I prefer to believe that here and in stanza 10 the poet knew exactly
what he was doing, and that both stanzas are correct.

6. Herborg: neither she nor her sorrows are elsewhere mentioned,

[414]nor is it clear what a “queen of the Huns” is doing in Gunnar’s
home, but the word “Hun” has little definiteness of meaning in the
poems, and is frequently applied to Sigurth himself (cf. note on
stanza 24). Herborg appears from stanza 11 to have been the foster-
mother of Gollrond, Guthrun’s sister. Lines 5–7 may be
interpolations, or may form a separate stanza.

7. Lines 1 and 2 stand in reversed order in the manuscript; I have

followed Gering’s conjectural transposition.

9. Herborg implies that the queen’s jealousy was not altogether

misplaced. [415]

10. Cf. stanza 5 and note. The manuscript abbreviates to first letters.

11. Gollrond: not elsewhere mentioned. Line 4 looks like an

interpolation replacing a line previously lost.

12. The manuscript indicates line 3 as the beginning of a stanza, and

some editors have attempted to follow this arrangement.
14. Many editors assume the loss of a line from this stanza. [416]

15. The word here translated “tresses” is sheer guesswork. The

detail of the geese is taken from Sigurtharkvitha en skamma, 29, line
3 here being identical with line 4 of that stanza.

16. Line 1, abbreviated in the manuscript, very likely should be

simply “Gollrond spake.”

17. Cf. Guthrunarkvitha II, 2. The manuscript does not name the
speaker, and some editions have a first line, “Then Guthrun spake,
| the daughter of Gjuki.”

18. Herjan: Othin; his maids are the Valkyries; cf. Voluspo, 31, where
the same phrase is used. [417]

20. Line 4 looks like an interpolation (cf. Fafnismol, 9, line 4), but
some editors instead have queried line 5. How Guthrun’s curse is
fulfilled is told in the subsequent poems. That desire for Sigurth’s
treasure (the gold cursed by Andvari and Loki) was one of the
motives for his murder is indicated in Sigurtharkvitha en skamma
(stanza 16), and was clearly a part of the German tradition, as it
appears in the Nibelungenlied.

21. Cf. Gripisspo, 35 and note.

22. Line 1 is abbreviated in the manuscript. [418]

23. Editors are agreed that this stanza shows interpolations, but
differ as to the lines to reject. Line 4 (literally “every wave of ill-doing
drives thee”) is substantially a proverb, and line 5, with its apparently
meaningless reference to “seven” kings, may easily have come from
some other source.

24. The stanza is obviously in bad shape; perhaps it represents two

separate stanzas, or perhaps three of the lines are later additions.
Atli: Brynhild here blames her brother, following the frequent custom
of transferring the responsibility for a murder (cf. Helgakvitha
Hundingsbana II, 33), because he compelled her to marry Gunnar
against her will, an idea which the poet seems to have gained from
Sigurtharkvitha en skamma, 32–39. These stanzas represent an
entirely different version of the story, wherein Atli, attacked by
Gunnar and Sigurth, buys them off by giving Gunnar his sister,
Brynhild, as wife. He seems to have induced the latter to marry
Gunnar by falsely telling her that Gunnar was Sigurth (a rationalistic
explanation of the interchange of forms described in the
Volsungasaga and Gripisspo, 37–39). In the present stanza Atli is
made to do this out of desire for Sigurth’s treasure. Hunnish race:
this may be [419]merely an error (neither Gunnar nor Sigurth could
properly have been connected in any way with Atli and his Huns),
based on Sigurtharkvitha en skamma, wherein Sigurth appears more
than once as the “Hunnish king.” The North was very much in the
dark as to the differences between Germans, Burgundians, Franks,
Goths, and Huns, and used the words without much discrimination.
On the other hand, it may refer to Sigurth’s appearance when,
adorned with gold, he came with Gunnar to besiege Atli, in the
alternative version of the story just cited (cf. Sigurtharkvitha en
skamma, 36). Flame of the snake’s bed: gold, so called because
serpents and dragons were the traditional guardians of treasure, on
which they lay.

Prose. The manuscript has “Gunnar” in place of “Guthrun,” but this is

an obvious mistake; the entire prose passage is based on
Guthrunarkvitha II, 14. The Volsungasaga likewise merely
paraphrases Guthrunarkvitha II, and nothing further is known of
Thora or her father, Hokon, though many inconclusive attempts have
been made to identify the latter. Brynhild: the story of her death is
told in great detail in the latter part of Sigurtharkvitha en skamma.
[420]
[Contents]
SIGURTHARKVITHA EN SKAMMA
 The Short Lay of Sigurth
[Contents]

Introductory Note
Guthrunarkvitha I is immediately followed in the Codex Regius by a
long poem which in the manuscript bears the heading
“Sigurtharkvitha,” but which is clearly referred to in the prose link
between it and Guthrunarkvitha I as the “short” Lay of Sigurth. The
discrepancy between this reference and the obvious length of the
poem has led to many conjectures, but the explanation seems to be
that the “long” Sigurth lay, of which the Brot is presumably a part,
was materially longer even than this poem. The efforts to reduce the
“short” Sigurth lay to dimensions which would justify the appellation
in comparison with other poems in the collection, either by
separating it into two poems or by the rejection of many stanzas as
interpolations, have been utterly inconclusive.

Although there are probably several interpolated passages, and

indications of omissions are not lacking, the poem as we now have it
seems to be a distinct and coherent unit. From the narrative point of
view it leaves a good deal to be desired, for the reason that the
poet’s object was by no means to tell a story, with which his hearers
were quite familiar, but to use the narrative simply as the background
for vivid and powerful characterization. The lyric element, as Mogk
points out, overshadows the epic throughout, and the fact that there
are frequent confusions of narrative tradition does not trouble the
poet at all.

The material on which the poem was based seems to have existed
in both prose and verse form; the poet was almost certainly familiar
with some of the other poems in the Eddic collection, with poems
which have since been lost, and with the narrative prose traditions
which never fully assumed verse form. The fact that he seems to
have known and used the Oddrunargratr, which can hardly have
been composed before 1050, and that in any case he introduces the
figure of Oddrun, a relatively late addition to the story, dates the
poem as late as the end of the eleventh century, or even the first half
of the twelfth. There has been much discussion as to where it was
composed, the debate centering chiefly on the reference to glaciers
(stanza 8). There is something to be said in favor of Greenland
[421]as the original home of the poem (cf. introductory note to
Atlakvitha), but the arguments for Iceland are even stronger; Norway
in this case is practically out of the question.

The narrative features of the poem are based on the German rather
than the Norse elements of the story (cf. introductory note to
Gripisspo), but the poet has taken whatever material he wanted
without much discrimination as to its source. By the year 1100 the
story of Sigurth, with its allied legends, existed throughout the North
in many and varied forms, and the poem shows traces of variants of
the main story which do not appear elsewhere.

[Contents]

1. Of old did Sigurth | Gjuki seek,

The Volsung young, | in battles victor;
Well he trusted | the brothers twain,
With mighty oaths | among them sworn.

2. A maid they gave him, | and jewels many,

Guthrun the young, | the daughter of Gjuki;
They drank and spake | full many a day,
Sigurth the young | and Gjuki’s sons.

3. Thereafter went they | Brynhild to woo,

And so with them | did Sigurth ride, [422]
The Volsung young, | in battle valiant,—
Himself would have had her | if all he had seen.

4. The southern hero | his naked sword,

Fair-flashing, let | between them lie;
(Nor would he come | the maid to kiss;)
The Hunnish king | in his arms ne’er held
The maiden he gave | to Gjuki’s sons.

5. Ill she had known not | in all her life,

And nought of the sorrows | of men she knew;
Blame she had not, | nor dreamed she should bear
it,
But cruel the fates | that among them came.

[423]

6. By herself at the end | of day she sat,

And in open words | her heart she uttered:
“I shall Sigurth have, | the hero young,
E’en though within | my arms he die.
7. “The word I have spoken; | soon shall I rue it,
His wife is Guthrun, | and Gunnar’s am I;
Ill Norns set for me | long desire.”

8. Oft did she go | with grieving heart

On the glacier’s ice | at even-tide,
When Guthrun then | to her bed was gone,
And the bedclothes Sigurth | about her laid.

9. “(Now Gjuki’s child | to her lover goes,) [424]

And the Hunnish king | with his wife is happy;
Joyless I am | and mateless ever,
Till cries from my heavy | heart burst forth.”

10. In her wrath to battle | she roused herself:

“Gunnar, now | thou needs must lose
Lands of mine | and me myself,
No joy shall I have | with the hero ever.

11. “Back shall I fare | where first I dwelt,

Among the kin | that come of my race,
To wait there, sleeping | my life away,
If Sigurth’s death | thou shalt not dare,
(And best of heroes | thou shalt not be.)

12. “The son shall fare | with his father hence,

And let not long | the wolf-cub live;
Lighter to pay | is the vengeance-price
After the deed | if the son is dead.”

13. Sad was Gunnar, | and bowed with grief,

Deep in thought | the whole day through; [425]
Yet from his heart | it was ever hid
What deed most fitting | he should find,
(Or what thing best | for him should be,
Or if he should seek | the Volsung to slay,
For with mighty longing | Sigurth he loved.)

14. Much he pondered | for many an hour;

Never before | was the wonder known
That a queen should thus | her kingdom leave;
In counsel then | did he Hogni call,
(For him in truest | trust he held.)

15. “More than all | to me is Brynhild,

Buthli’s child, | the best of women;
My very life | would I sooner lose
Than yield the love | of yonder maid.

16. “Wilt thou the hero | for wealth betray? [426]

’Twere good to have | the gold of the Rhine,
And all the hoard | in peace to hold,
And waiting fortune | thus to win.”

17. Few the words | of Hogni were:

“Us it beseems not | so to do,
To cleave with swords | the oaths we swore,
The oaths we swore | and all our vows.

18. “We know no mightier | men on earth

The while we four | o’er the folk hold sway,
And while the Hunnish | hero lives,
Nor higher kinship | the world doth hold.

19. “If sons we five | shall soon beget,

Great, methinks, | our race shall grow; [427]
Well I see | whence lead the ways;
Too bitter far | is Brynhild’s hate.”

Gunnar spake:

20. “Gotthorm to wrath | we needs must rouse,

Our younger brother, | in rashness blind;
He entered not | in the oaths we swore,
The oaths we swore | and all our vows.”

21. It was easy to rouse | the reckless one.

. . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . .
The sword in the heart | of Sigurth stood.

22. In vengeance the hero | rose in the hall,

And hurled his sword | at the slayer bold; [428]
At Gotthorm flew | the glittering steel
Of Gram full hard | from the hand of the king.
23. The foeman cleft | asunder fell,
Forward hands | and head did sink,
And legs and feet | did backward fall.

24. Guthrun soft | in her bed had slept,

Safe from care | at Sigurth’s side;
She woke to find | her joy had fled,
In the blood of the friend | of Freyr she lay.

25. So hard she smote | her hands together

That the hero rose up, | iron-hearted:
“Weep not, Guthrun, | grievous tears,
Bride so young, | for thy brothers live.

26. “Too young, methinks, | is my son as yet,

He cannot flee | from the home of his foes; [429]
Fearful and deadly | the plan they found,
The counsel new | that now they have heeded.

27. “No son will ride, | though seven thou hast,

To the Thing as the son | of their sister rides;
Well I see | who the ill has worked,
On Brynhild alone | lies the blame for all.

28. “Above all men | the maiden loved me,

Yet false to Gunnar | I ne’er was found;
I kept the oaths | and the kinship I swore;
Of his queen the lover | none may call me.”