In our call for papers we prompted contributors to reflect on issues such as the research agenda for IL, who should be involved in developing the discipline of IL, the target populations for IL programmes, the priorities for IL in different parts of the world, and IL’s role as regards global challenges, human rights and social justice. We were happy to receive a broad range of articles contributing in all these areas. In this editorial we provide a taster of the themes addressed by the 16 selected articles and identify the lines of action for the future of the discipline of IL.

The Special Issue starts with Budd’s historical perspective, sketching out key developments and landmarks, starting with Zurkowski’s (1974) paper. Budd notes that “… information literacy is a complex process, one that has both a history and a future.” The contributors to the Special Issue map out challenges and a pathway to the future, starting with Garcia, who discusses the relationship between AI and existing IL expertise. He urges us to resist the “rhetoric of radical novelty” and consider how librarians can use the current IL knowledge and pedagogical skill base to meet the challenge of generative AI.

A number of the articles look at specific populations and how IL needs to be developed to meet their needs. Trunnell, Sana and Rathnayake focus on educational programmes for IL. Trunnell highlights the need to target parents of younger children (up to 12 years old) so that they are able to support their children in navigating the new information world. She emphasises that programme design should take place at community level.

Both Sana and Rathnayake concentrate on post-secondary education. Rathnayake discusses reasons why IL is essential when using generative AI. He proposes that academic libraries and educational institutions take the lead in integrating IL activities that engage critically with AI, and gives some examples. Sana advocates for IL as core in all disciplines in Pakistani higher education. She identifies how a lack of public libraries, especially in rural areas of Pakistan, makes embedding IL even more important at college level. Sana notes the potential positive impacts of this approach, for example in enabling greater understanding of complex scientific subjects.

However, IL outside formal education, and beyond conventional information sources, is an even stronger thread in the contributions to this Special Issue. Kaufmann addresses the affective dimension of IL. She connects the scholarship of happiness to the discipline of IL, relating three macronutrients of happiness (enjoyment, satisfaction and meaning) to IL, working towards a conceptualisation of IL happiness. Seifi considers indigenous knowledge held by Iranian women, concerning crafts, agriculture, cooking and cultural practices. This knowledge is shared “through observation, practice and storytelling” in the community, and IL is important in preserving and documenting this knowledge. Additionally, it requires a concept of IL that acknowledges that information is contained in the ecosystem and our own practice. Together, Kaufmann and Seifi present IL that is relevant to our everyday lives, with their emotions and materiality. Webber echoes this theme, identifying the rich variety of ways in which we inform ourselves, including in situations involving our health.

Zijlstra, Kong and Lyckblad address the healthcare sector directly, from a patient’s point of view. Zijlstra describes the development of a Scottish initiative that links together the territorial National Health Service board with local public libraries to improve access to reliable information for the public: IL integrated into the healthcare service. Kong discusses what is required to be information literate in selecting this reliable information, observing that IL has to go beyond a “checklist” approach if it is to be a discipline for the future. Amongst the issues she mentions are the person’s context and the need to recognise that there are genuine uncertainties in medical information: something which over-confident AI answers may mask. Lyckblad reflects on the skills and knowledge required simply to interact with your local healthcare provider and make sense of the information about your own health. What used to be communications with human beings have often become text chats, online forms and portals, video calls, and referrals. Apparently equal access to health records is not equitable if some people are struggling to use the services and interpret what is presented. In these circumstances “information literacy becomes a matter of social justice”.

The social justice theme comes to the fore in Šobota and Špiranec’s article which elaborates the concept of critical workplace IL. They propose IL as a transformative “social and democratic practice, an action literacy” which takes IL beyond only being a way of knowing. In their concise overview of Brazil’s IL research record and agenda França and Casarin note how the IL field is “linked to the country’s social struggles”, and can be a source of empowerment. Johnston also relates IL to social justice, focusing on IL’s essential role in deliberative democracy, helping to shape citizens’ participative practices and support civic engagement.

Social justice also underpins Haire and Walsh’s explanation of how differences in the way different neurotypes experience information means that people are information literate in different ways. This is something that is not sufficiently recognised in IL frameworks and programmes that are built around neurotypical IL engagement. It can also be noted that the theme of in/equity emerged in many of the articles, for example in Sana‘s identification of disadvantage of Pakistan in relation to Western countries. Tackling inequity involves exploring, developing and applying IL: Zijlstra identifies “IL as a societal need”. Webber notes that IL is not a magic solution, but is still valuable in a time of polycrisis.

Finally, Maybee and Fundador raise a big question: as more and more information is created by non-humans, through AI, has the relationship between people’s conception of information and people’s experience of reality changed? This entails a shift from epistemological questions about the nature of knowledge and truth, to ontological ones to do the nature of reality itself.

Looking across all 16 articles, there are signposts to a research agenda for the IL discipline. There are the high level conceptual questions, like that of Maybee and Fundador, or Kaufmann’s proposed examination of the intersection of IL and happiness (raising the importance of research into affect and IL). There are questions to do with the experience and conceptions of particular populations, such as Haire and Walsh’s proposals for research into the IL experience of neurodivergent people, and Šobota and Špiranec’s focus on the workplace. Johnston poses research questions relating to IL in the democratic process, including specific processes such as Freedom of Information and citizen’s assemblies. França and Casarin provide a valuable example in their description of IL research topics and IL research gaps in Brazil. Seifi, and other contributors, remind us, importantly, that IL, and IL research needs, will vary depending on who is researching, who is the participant, and where we are carrying out the research.

There are also directions for practice, such as Sana’s and Trunnell’s proposals for expanding IL programmes, and Seifi’s ideas on how IL can help communities document, preserve and share traditional knowledge. For both research and practice, collaboration is advocated. This includes co-design of research and co-production of material used in practice. Several contributors (e.g. Webber, Kaufmann) stress the need to work with researchers from other disciplines.

Thus this Special Issue provides an agenda for both research and practice. As Šobota and Špiranec say “IL is for everyone – in workplaces, civic spaces and everyday life” and we hope that this Special Issue provides inspiration for readers to engage more deeply in this fascinating discipline.