One of the first issues that we struggle with is the failure to establish the philosophical argument behind establishing information literacy as a discipline. While considerable emphasis has been placed on how information literacy fulfils some of the criteria of a discipline (though we would challenge some of these assertions), it is important that proponents also establish the necessary cognitive authority through setting out the intellectual basis for their claims. Where, for example, would the ontological, epistemological and methodological elements of this disciplinary core lie? Current information literacy knowledge is informed by boundary crossing through transdisciplinary engagement in established disciplines such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and from educational and organisational fields. What are the specific bodies of knowledge, theories and terminology that would distinguish information literacy from these areas of study? It is further unclear to us how this new discipline would differ from Library and Information Science, which explicitly shares the same social questions related to how people relate to, seek, and use information (Bates, 1999, p.1048). Lastly, why specifically a discipline? The term is often used interchangeably, and it remains ambiguous why a field, sub-discipline, domain, or speciality label can’t offer the “epistemological coherence and integrity” that is claimed for disciplinarity.

We also find it hard to accept the promised advantages of a disciplinary label. A recent article claims that establishing IL as a discipline would have important implications for library school curricula and instruction librarian teaching practice, including shoring up faculty status, supporting more theoretical approaches to IL and facilitating collaborative work. And yet, it is hard to see why many of these developments could not be achieved outside of disciplinarity. The growing output of both “theoretical” and “personal and work-life” information literacy research, including our own extensive body of work, over the last twenty years challenges the claim that disciplinarity is needed to progress the field. It further seems naïve to assume that a disciplinary branding would automatically accord protection given that UK faces cuts in Modern Languages (Aberdeen), Maths (Oxford Brookes) and Biosciences (Nottingham), and library and information schools are increasingly being restructured or dis-established with staff being placed in a wide range of disparate faculties, including Business, Law, or the broader Social Sciences. The deep pockets and strong stakes of many media organisations, including the Aspen Foundation, also means we are unconvinced that the ‘success’ of media literacy can be uniquely linked to its (arguably questionable) disciplinary status. 

In sum, we appreciate and agree with the sentiment behind the argument for a discipline; we, too, would like to see an expansion of information literacy research and practice, including better funding and staffing, more engagement with institutions, and more research into how information literacy is shaped, how people build their information literacy practice over time, and the social, economic and emotional impact throughout life. After all, information literacy is central and integral to everyday life.  However, we do not think that a claim for disciplinarity, at this stage, is either justified or appropriate for these goals. We consider that lists of disciplinary characteristics are overly broad and that the intellectual argument for disciplinary status remains to be made. We also think it is important to consider what we would lose by seceding from Library and Information Science, including valuable creative tension with information behaviour and practices research. We further urge disciplinary proponents to consider the structural issues that constrain information literacy’s position, including the status of female-dominated educational work.

Information literacy is a rich and vibrant field of study yet claims for disciplinarity seem to push forward a narrow agenda wherein information literacy is positioned as a “way of thinking” rather than as a dynamic, situated, and corporeal social practice that supports becoming emplaced. In lieu, we encourage both researchers and practitioners to continue expanding their information literacy research frontiers, contributing to the ontological, epistemological and methodological depth required of disciplinary status, and resisting attempts to impose exclusionary boundaries around such an important social issue.