Abstract
This presentation will discuss findings from a qualitative study of social media content published by a Swedish network of nurses who challenge widely accepted truths about COVID-19 and the pandemic.
Information literacy is often assumed to decrease belief in false or misleading information. It is this assumption that justifies information literacy initiatives as a type of misinformation interventions (Roozenbeek et al., 2023)—that is, interventions aimed at mitigating belief in and spread of various types of disordered information (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017). For example, based on the premise that a lack of general critical thinking skills contributes to an individual’s susceptibility to ‘fake news’, boosting such skills has been proposed as a solution to limit their spread and influence (Lutzke et al., 2019).
However, critical thinking skills may lead to very different places depending on how and by whom they are applied. While interrogative questions concerning the information and its source are part of common and widely accepted guidelines for evaluating information through source criticisms and critical thinking (Blakeslee, 2004; Mandalios, 2013; Psychological Defence Agency, 2024), it has been suggested (boyd, 2017; Haider & Sundin, 2022; Hannah, 2023; Hicks & Lloyd, 2024) that such interrogative practices may already be part of processes of belief formation and knowledge production in communities formed around contested beliefs. The research I will present contributes to this discussion by examining information literacy practices in one such community.
Within the study, the dissenting views held by the network are understood as representing refused knowledge—knowledge that is rejected by scientific authorities and institutions (Neresini et al., 2024). Information literacy is approached from a sociocultural perspective (Limberg et al., 2012), and information literacy practices are conceptualized as shaped by and taking place within intersubjectively created information landscapes (Lloyd, 2010). Against this theoretical framework, the study explores how information literacy is constituted and enacted within the network’s refused knowledge information landscape.
Employing reflexive thematic analysis, three key themes are constructed and placed within the context of the network’s refused knowledge information landscape. The first theme (Being a part of the healthcare system) explores the network's relation to the healthcare system, highlighting friction between the ideals of nursing and the experienced reality of Swedish healthcare. The second theme (Creating community, producing knowledge) explores how refused knowledge is part of creating a sense of community and developing a community identity. The third theme (Becoming disillusioned) centres on how critical engagement with information is an antecedent for loss of trust in the previously taken for granted, and for reframing of beliefs. Taken together, these themes suggest that belief in refused knowledge may be an effect of information literacy within this landscape, rather than a lack of it.
The presentation will encourage attendees to consider the limitations of information literacy as a solution for belief in misinformation, and to reflect on how information literacy practices may themselves be part of the formation and circulation of such beliefs.
References
Blakeslee, S. (2004). The CRAAP Test. LOEX Quarterly, 31(3). https://commons.emich.edu/loexquarterly/vol31/iss3/4
boyd, danah. (2017). Did media literacy backfire? Journal of Applied Youth Studies, 1(4), 83–89. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.607936397466888
Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2022). Paradoxes of media and information literacy: The crisis of information. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003163237
Hannah, M. (2023). Information literacy in the age of internet conspiracism. Journal of Information Literacy, 17(1), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.11645/17.1.3277
Hicks, A., & Lloyd, A. (2024). Agency and liminality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Why information literacy cannot fix vaccine hesitancy. Journal of Information Science, 50(6), 1557–1572. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221124003
Limberg, L., Sundin, O., & Talja, S. (2012). Three Theoretical Perspectives on Information Literacy. Human IT: Journal for Information Technology Studies as a Human Science, 11(2). https://humanit.hb.se/article/view/69
Lloyd, A. (2010). Information literacy landscapes: Information literacy in education, workplace and everyday contexts. Chandos Publishing.
Mandalios, J. (2013). RADAR: An approach for helping students evaluate Internet sources. Journal of Information Science, 39(4), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513478889
Neresini, F., Agodi, M. C., Crabu, S., & Tosoni, S. (Eds.). (2024). Manufacturing Refused Knowledge in the Age of Epistemic Pluralism: Discourses, Imaginaries, and Practices on the Border of Science. Palgrave Macmillan Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7188-6
Psychological Defence Agency. (2024, March 17). Source criticism. https://mpf.se/psychological-defence-agency/knowledge-and-support/theme-library/source-criticism
Roozenbeek, J., Culloty, E., & Suiter, J. (2023). Countering misinformation. European Psychologist, 28(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000492
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html
