Content area
This study investigates how Canadian university libraries communicate information literacy (IL) to non-library faculty members on faculty-facing web pages. A content analysis was conducted of websites from institutions affiliated with the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (n = 25) to identify trends in the terminology used to describe IL. The findings reveal that the term "information literacy" appears with varying frequency across website headings, subheadings and body text, while terms like "research skills" and "critical information use" may appear in its stead. University libraries may intentionally be employing these terms to enhance faculty engagement in response to the existing literature, which suggests non-library faculty generally dislike IL jargon. These findings have implications for how academic libraries market their IL-related services to non-library faculty, suggesting a need for further research into how the work of IL can be effectively communicated to non-library audiences.
Abstract
This study investigates how Canadian university libraries communicate information literacy (IL) to non-library faculty members on faculty-facing web pages. A content analysis was conducted of websites from institutions affiliated with the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (n = 25) to identify trends in the terminology used to describe IL. The findings reveal that the term "information literacy" appears with varying frequency across website headings, subheadings and body text, while terms like "research skills" and "critical information use" may appear in its stead. University libraries may intentionally be employing these terms to enhance faculty engagement in response to the existing literature, which suggests non-library faculty generally dislike IL jargon. These findings have implications for how academic libraries market their IL-related services to non-library faculty, suggesting a need for further research into how the work of IL can be effectively communicated to non-library audiences.
Keywords: information literacy, academic libraries, library instruction, higher education, faculty, marketing
In 2011, Badke identified what is known as the silo problem: the work of information literacy (IL) is siloed to the world of Library and Information Science (LIS), experiencing minimal recognition by other scholars in higher education. As a result, teaching faculty outside the field of LIS, also known as disciplinary faculty (Ford-Baxter et al., 2022), may have limited or inaccurate knowledge of the IL instruction provided by academic librarians (Badke, 2011). This IL knowledge gap serves as the impetus for this paper, as the author seeks to better understand how university libraries communicate their IL work to non-LIS faculty. According to surveys conducted between 2003 and 2009, faculty members indicate a "significant and consistent rise in desires and expectations for library-provided online tools and websites" (Nicol & O'English, 2012, p. 371). For this reason, this study relies on a corpus of webpages sourced from Canadian university library websites for its analysis.
The instruction of IL was institutionalized in academic libraries in 1989, when the American Library Association (ALA) published its final report from the Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Later in 2000, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of ALA, established the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, which was eventually reviewed and rescinded in favor of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, filed in 2015 and adopted in 2016. While these documents have experienced widespread uptake amongst American university librarians (Hsieh et al., 2021), other popular standards, like the Definition of Information Literacy 2018 from the Chartered Institute of Library Information Professionals' (CILIP), have also emerged (MacDonald, 2018).
The purpose of this study is to investigate the appearance, or lack thereof, of IL on faculty-facing pages on Canadian university library websites. More specifically, this paper seeks to prove the hypothesis that university libraries are refraining from using the term "IL" to market the instructional services they provide to disciplinary faculty. However, this hypothesis begs the question: if the term "IL" is not being used by libraries, which alternative terms are being employed by university libraries? From these alternative expressions, do any trends emerge, and what do these trends tell us about the state of IL? These alternative terms may provide insight into how university libraries believe they can more effectively communicate the work of IL to an external audience of disciplinary faculty members.
From a personal standpoint, the author has over six years of professional experience in Canadian postsecondary education, collaborating with librarians, disciplinary faculty, and students as both a library coordinator and course instructor. Compared to a disciplinary faculty member, the author is inordinately aware of the instructional services provided by libraries. In response, the author aims to circumvent the bias this could impose on the data collection process, which is addressed in further detail in the Research Methods section.
Literature Review
Academic Library Websites
In 2014, Yang and Chou published a survey of 264 university library websites in North America, and their investigation most closely resembles the present study. At the time of their survey, only 65% of libraries promoted instructional services on their websites, with the most popular term being "library instruction" instead of IL, due to the perceived intimidating nature of the term. Despite this small majority, multiple studies reaffirm the library website's primacy as a promotional tool for instructional services, especially in response to an increase in remote learning and internet usage (Ellis et al., 2017; Gardner et al, 2008; Little, 2012; Mierzecka & Suminas, 2016; Yang & Chou, 2014). Notably, in Gardner et al.'s (2008) website analysis, content targeted at disciplinary faculty more frequently mentioned teaching and research support than information related to library collections.
In a 2010 survey based in the United States, faculty members indicated that they were more likely to use online search engines to initiate their research rather than their institutional library website (Schonfeld & Housewright, 2010). The same Ithaka-led survey was conducted most recently in 2021, and the prognosis has only worsened, asserting that faculty usage of library websites has decreased across each discipline (Blankstein, 2022). This reduction in faculty patronage could be attributed to the library's inability to meet the contemporary information needs of its users (Nicol & O'English, 2012). Alternatively, web designers warn that library-specific jargon may be pushing faculty users away from library websites, instead encouraging the use of plain language to improve faculty engagement (Kous et al, 2020; Yang & Chou, 2014).
Faculty Perceptions of Students' IL
There exists extensive literature on faculty perceptions of IL, and the research indicates that disciplinary faculty are worried about the poor state of their students' IL-related skills (Bury, 2011; Bury, 2016; Cope & Sanabria, 2014; Dubicki, 2013; Ford-Baxter et al, 2022; Guth et al., 2018; Kaletski, 2017; Saunders, 2012). By that same token, faculty recognize the importance of IL instruction, equating the acquisition of IL-related skills with student success (Bury, 2011; Dubicki, 2013; Pinto, 2016). Across six separate studies, disciplinary faculty agreed on the primacy of three specific skills for student development: information retrieval, evaluation, and citation (Bury, 2011; Bury, 2016; Dubicki, 2013; Ford-Baxter et al., 2022; Kaletski, 2017; Saunders, 2012). In Cope and Sanabria's (2014) investigation, faculty stressed that students acquire the general education aspects of IL, like reading comprehension and writing. Additionally, Guth et al. (2018) found that faculty want students to develop the ability to formulate a research question and to employ a creative and critical approach when searching for an answer.
Faculty Conceptions of IL
While faculty may support the development of skills associated with IL, there appears to be a discrepancy between how librarians and disciplinary faculty conceive of these skills (Bury, 2016; Cope & Sanabria, 2014; Dubicki, 2013; Ford-Baxter et al, 2022; Pinto, 2016). In Dubicki's (2013) case, the term "IL" only resonated with a small percentage of faculty, who otherwise overwhelmingly preferred the term "research skills." According to Cope and Sanabria's findings (2014), disciplinary faculty do not conceive of research process skills and subject-specific knowledge as disparate entities. Similarly, Bury (2016) found that faculty lump IL-related skills together with twenty-first century literacies like academic writing and reading. However, faculty members at the University of Granada in Spain were surveyed, and many of them envisioned IL as two-pronged, consisting of a baseline set of interdisciplinary skills and some subject-specific knowledge (Pinto, 2016). Furthermore, Ford-Baxter et al. (2022) observed that faculty tend to conflate IL with critical thinking skills, leading the researchers to recommend that librarians avoid mentioning IL when speaking to faculty in favour of more general terms.
In fact, it would seem that disciplinary faculty are generally not fond of the terminology ascribed to IL by librarians (Fister, 2005; Gullikson, 2006; Guth et al., 2018; Saunders, 2012). Some faculty found the ACRL Competency Standards to be "insufficiently ambitious and hopelessly mechanistic" (Fister, 2005, p. 104), while others found the language to be confusingly vague, in some cases referring to IL as "a horrible term" (Gullikson, 2006, p. 591). In Saunders' (2012) investigation of ACRL's discipline-specific IL standards, faculty were reluctant to provide definitions of IL due to their general discomfort with the term. Guth et al. (2018) also found faculty were critical of the "use of jargon and lack of clarity" in the ACRL Framework and were concerned students "would not grasp the language" of IL (p. 709).
Faculty Attitudes Towards IL Instruction
On the ground, the uptake of IL-related instruction amongst non-LIS faculty appears to be mixed. In Dubicki's (2013) investigation of universities and community colleges in New Jersey, non-LIS faculty integrated IL-related skills into their learning outcomes at a higher level than previously reported studies. However, Weng and Murray's (2020) study of two research universities and two smaller colleges found that academic librarians experienced reluctance on the part of disciplinary faculty members regarding the integration of IL into their curriculum. This uphill battle for integrating IL education into curriculum is further complicated by faculty who believe they are solely responsible for teaching these skills in their courses and may be unaware of how librarians support the development of these skills (Cope & Sanabria, 2014; Kaletski, 2017).
In other studies, faculty share the burden of IL instruction with librarians, either engaging in direct faculty-librarian collaboration or outsourcing IL instruction exclusively to librarians (Bury, 2011; Dubicki, 2013). These same investigations also concluded that faculty see the importance of library instruction and consultation in the development of students' IL-related skills (Bury, 2011; Dubicki, 2013). Conversely, Weng and Murray (2020) found that faculty perceive librarians as facilitators of the faculty research process and not as experts in the field of IL instruction. Unless the librarians held faculty status or were in frequent communication with faculty members, faculty were not likely to reach out to academic librarians for instructional purposes (Weng & Murray, 2020).
Research Methods
This study aims to explore how the work of IL is communicated to faculty members via Canadian university library websites. The research method employed in this paper follows the principles of content analysis, inspired by the work of Krippendorff (2019) as well as
Busha and Harter (1980) in the field of LIS. Content analysis is predicated on unbiased and precise observation with minimal external interference (Busha & Harter, 1980; Krippendorff, 2019). As insiders, librarians might espouse beliefs and have knowledge about IL instruction at their institutions that does not accurately reflect the information available on their websites for disciplinary faculty. In turn, interviews are discouraged in content analysis because they jeopardize the objectivity of such analyses (Busha & Harter, 1980; Krippendorff, 2019) and so librarians and library website designers were not contacted in this study. After establishing the hypothesis, appropriate data and a sampling pool were determined.
The websites of university libraries affiliated with the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) served as the pool of samples for this study. These libraries were chosen because they represent Canada's major university and research libraries, positioning them as potential leaders in the field of IL. To become a member of CARL, an institution must demonstrate a commitment to graduate-level study and research, offering multiple Ph.D. programs across various programs. Furthermore, at least 15%, if not more, of the institution's general operating budget must be sourced from sponsored research projects (CARL, 2024). Therefore, this study's sampling pool consists of libraries affiliated with Canada's largest research institutions. While CARL's membership includes 29 libraries in total, this study did not account for university library websites that operate solely in French (n = 4), because the data from these websites would be incongruous with the data gathered from the English-language websites (n = 25).
As Krippendorff (2019) explains, content analysis involves counting, and this counting must be repeated for the data to be validated. The university library websites were analyzed during the months of July and August 2024, with an iterative data gathering process taking place throughout July and a final data review and analysis in August. The pages accounted for in this analysis were retrieved using the following website navigation process: homepage of the university library website < directory page of library services < instructional services page targeted to faculty members. The latter page served as the sole sampling unit for this study, and so this study did not account for content outside of the main landing page for faculty navigating the library's website. This navigational path was chosen to simulate how a disciplinary faculty member unfamiliar with the library or its services would navigate the library's website upon first visit. While other web pages located elsewhere on library websites may contain additional content related to IL and its instruction, content from these pages does not reflect the content with which these faculty members would engage.
Using Excel, the university library pages were anonymized using an alphanumeric code: UL (for university library) followed by a number indicating the order in which they were analyzed. These pages were stripped of their text, and this text was separated according to typographical hierarchy: headings, subheadings, and body text. In web design, headings (the largest text) denote the main idea of a webpage, subheadings divide the page into navigable sections, and body text (the smallest text) conveys the most detailed information (Williams, 2000). The headings and subheadings of each webpage were coded using a simple yes/no coding system: either IL appeared at that typographic level (yes) or it did not (no). However, a more detailed color-coding system, akin to the categories outlined in Yang and Chou's (2014) study, was applied to analyze the content of the body text on each webpage. Abductive inferences were then made (Krippendorff, 2019) based on the following categories:
o Red: the term "IL" does not appear in the text whatsoever.
o Orange: the term "IL" does not appear in the text, but the webpage links to an additional page or external resource that does explain the concept of IL.
o Yellow: the term "IL" appears in the text, but without explanation or reference to a set of standards.
o Green: the term "IL" appears in the text, accompanied by an explanation that references at least one set of IL standards (ACRL, CILIP, etc.).
Findings
Headings
Of the 25 library websites analyzed for this study, 22 of them (88%) used some variation of the phrase "Library Instruction" as the heading for their faculty-facing page. These headings included phrases like "Instructional Services" and "Teaching and Learning Support," highlighting the teaching services the library could provide to disciplinary faculty members. Two of the headings employed imperative verbs, like "Book a Library Class" and "Request Library Instruction." Compared to the other headings, the action-oriented language used in these headings more actively encouraged faculty to engage with library services.
Additionally, two of the website headings used generic headings: "Faculty" and "New Faculty Information." Only one library website (UL7) included IL in a heading: "Information Literacy & Research Skills." This was the only website heading that spoke directly to the skills or knowledge libraries may assist in developing.
Subheadings
Nine of the 25 (36%) university library websites analyzed in this study made explicit mention of IL in the subheadings of their faculty-facing page. While six of the subheadings plainly indicated "Information Literacy," three of the subheadings situated the term in a question: "What is information literacy?" However, most of the website subheadings (14 out of 25) used phrases like "Classroom Support," "Support for Teaching," "Student Learning," and "Library Curriculum." Like the website headings, the subheadings spoke more broadly to the instructional services offered by academic libraries. The term "research skills" appeared again, this time in UL15's subheading: "Research Skills Workshops."
Body Text
Using the color-coding system to analyze website body text, seven of the 25 websites (28%) fell into the Green category (see Figure 1). On these pages, IL was explicitly mentioned and explained through a variety of IL standards: there were six references to the ACRL Framework, one reference to the CILIP Definition, and five references to institutional toolkits for IL. These institution-specific standards often referred to definitions (like the ACRL Framework and CILIP Definition) and relevant authorship in the field of IL. Then, seven of the 25 websites (28%) fell into the Yellow category. In the body text of these pages, the term "IL" appeared in a decontextualized manner with no explanation of the term or reference to an existing set of standards. While the term "IL" appeared on the pages in this category, it was typically outnumbered by the appearance of alternative terms and expressions. Two websites (UL16 and UL23) found themselves in the Orange category. One of these pages linked visitors directly to the ACRL Framework, while the other page linked to a directory of different international IL standards. In this case, the appearance of IL fell outside the scope of this study, as they did not appear on the main library landing page for faculty members. Lastly, nine of the pages (36%) made no mention of IL, placing them in the Red category. On these pages, libraries either used alternative language to explain IL or they eschewed explanations altogether, instead inviting faculty to book a consultation. While it did not explicitly mention IL, an additional institution-specific toolkit appeared in this category, resulting in a total of six institution-specific IL toolkits across all pages.
Of the 25 pages analyzed for this study, 18 (72%) did not refer to existing IL standards, instead using alternative terms to describe or replace IL altogether. The most frequently used alternative terms or phrases were "research skills" and some variation of the expression "find, evaluate, and use information." Neither of these expressions were ever attributed to a cited source, but they did appear 10 and nine times, respectively, in the content analysis. The term "research skills" also appeared at least once at every level of the typographical hierarchy analysis, demonstrating its widespread use in conveying the meaning of IL to faculty members. Furthermore, various iterations of the expression "critical thinking" or "critical research skills" appeared on seven of the pages, demonstrating that critical-thinking skills were another common alternative to convey IL. Two unique terms emerged from the content analysis: one library used the term "information skills," while another employed the expression "knowledge justice."
Other Findings
As was previously addressed, the websites analyzed in this study were drawn from a pool of Canada's largest research-intensive universities. All the libraries in this study are affiliated with institutions that fall within Maclean's (2024) top 40 overall best universities. This reputational ranking is based on feedback from faculty members, university administrators, and businesspeople who are surveyed about their opinions on quality and innovation at Canadian universities (Maclean's, 2024). There seems to be little correlation between the libraries that explicitly referred to IL on their websites and their institutional ranking, as evidenced by the libraries in the Green category, which appear across various points of the list's top 40 ranking. However, the library websites in the Red category are affiliated with institutions that consistently rank within the top 20 of this list, and four of these institutions fall within the top 10 of the ranking. This observation suggests a potential correlation between higher university ranking and reduced usage of the term "IL," which would require further investigation to be verified.
Moreover, the library websites analyzed in this study are all affiliated with institutions that report between 11,000 and 92,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students (Universities Canada, 2024), positioning them within the country's highest enrollment rates. FTE enrollment numbers function as indicators of institutional funding needs, class sizes, and student retention. Similar to the Maclean's ranking, there appears to be little correlation between Green category libraries and FTE enrollment. Libraries in this category are affiliated with institutions that report between 11,000 and 44,000 FTE students and are evenly spread across this margin. Conversely, the Red category libraries are affiliated with institutions that report between 16,000 and 43,000 FTE students. Most of these institutions (seven out of nine) report at least 28,000 FTE students, suggesting that IL as a term may be falling out of favor with larger institutions. Once again, this correlation would need to be verified through future investigations.
Lastly, there also appears to be a discrepancy in popularity of the term "IL" based on geographical location. While seven of the 11 (63%) libraries associated with western (provinces between British Columbia and Manitoba) or eastern universities (including the Atlantic and Maritime provinces) in Canada fell into the Green category, none of the libraries associated with universities in Ontario and Quebec appeared in this category. The universities in Ontario and Quebec represent six of the country's top 10 universities (Maclean's, 2024) and account for over 65% of the country's total FTE students (Universities Canada, 2024). This finding falls outside the focus of this study, but more research could be done to understand the reasoning behind this geographical disparity.
Discussion
Addressing the Hypothesis
Overall, the web content (headings, subheadings, and body text) evaluated in this study indicates that university libraries may be reconsidering or refraining the term "IL" to communicate the instructional services they offer to disciplinary faculty. Since IL only appeared in one webpage heading, this may indicate the term is not relevant or eye-catching enough for faculty navigating the library's website for the first time. This is further substantiated by the fact that the singular occurrence of IL in the headings also includes a reference to "research skills," suggesting that IL must be qualified with plain language to be understood. In general, the website headings emphasized the library's instructional services, which aligns with the findings from Yang and Chou (2014). This also hearkens back to the conclusions drawn by Cope and Sanabria (2014) and Kaletski (2017) regarding the lack of awareness of library instructional services amongst non-LIS faculty.
While IL appears more frequently in the analyzed subheadings, the subheadings still demonstrate a preference for library teaching services rather than IL. In some cases where IL does appear, the website explicitly addressed the question: What is information literacy? This phrasing suggests that the library may receive this question frequently from faculty members, which corroborates the findings of Cope and Sanabria (2014) and Bury (2016) that faculty may not distinguish IL from other academic literacies.
Despite the mixed nature of the body text finding (see Figure 1), more than a third of the websites made no mention of IL whatsoever, which corresponds with the findings of Yang and Chou's (2014) study. If disciplinary faculty are indeed averse to IL as a term (Fister, 2005; Gullikson, 2006; Guth et al, 2018; Saunders, 2012; Yang & Chou, 2014), then it would make sense for faculty-facing websites to discontinue the use of the term, at the risk of discouraging faculty from engaging with library instruction. In the cases where IL did appear in the body text, it often required further explanation by way of the ACRL Framework or an institutional toolkit. Notably, this finding contradicts Yang and Chou's (2014) observation that few library websites explain IL in detail or link to official IL standards. The popularity of these toolkits suggests an attempt on the part of libraries to overcome faculty confusion around IL (Bury, 2016; Cope & Sanabria, 2014; Dubicki, 2013; Ford-Baxter et al., 2022; Pinto, 2016), because these toolkits help contextualize IL within the disciplines taught at a specific institution.
Trends in IL Marketing
The most common alternatives used to describe or replace IL found in this study shed light on how Canadian university libraries believe they can more effectively market their instructional services to disciplinary faculty. Iterations of "research skills" were the most popular alternative term, and this correlates with Dubicki's (2013) finding of faculty's preference for research over IL. If IL is a confusing or vague term for faculty, the phrasing of "research skills" connects to their lived experiences as academics and educators. Faculty actively engage in research themselves and, as the literature indicates, they are concerned about their students' ability to conduct research (Bury, 2011; Bury, 2016; Cope & Sanabria, 2014; Ford-Baxter et al, 2022; Guth et al, 2018; Kaletski, 2017; Saunders, 2012).
Iterations of the expression "find, evaluate, and use information" were the second most popular alternative, positioning IL as an action. Even though this phrasing pulls directly from various ALA and ACRL documents, dating as far back as the 1989 presidential committee report, it does not frame IL as a concept specific to the field of LIS. Instead, the verbs in this phrasing may remind faculty of learning outcomes written in the style of Bloom's Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), which they might have encountered in preparation for their own discipline-specific courses. In this way, the wording may resonate more deeply with disciplinary faculty who feel uncertain about library instruction. Perhaps intentionally, these three verbs also align perfectly with the three skills faculty believe students struggle with most, according to the literature (Bury, 2011; Bury, 2016; Dubicki, 2013; Ford-Baxter et al, 2022; Kaletski, 2017; Saunders, 2012).
The third most popular alternative, iterations of "critical information use," is reminiscent of Guth et al.'s (2018) findings that faculty want students to approach research in more creative and critical ways. Furthermore, for faculty who conceive of IL as general critical thinking skills (Ford-Baxter et al., 2022), libraries maybe using the term "critical information use" to telegraph the concept of critical thinking in hopes of speaking the same language as faculty. This phrasing may also address the proliferation of mis/disinformation in the modern information landscape, targeting faculty who feel the library is not meeting their contemporary information needs (Nicol & O'English, 2012). Alternatively, "critical information use" may also stem from critical information literacy or CIL, most recently popularized by Drabinski and Tewell (2019), which redresses IL through an understanding that all information is structured by systems of oppression. The anti-oppressive lens of CIL enables libraries to advance EDI initiatives, and while CIL has experienced uptake in library circles, the term is not likely to resonate with faculty outside of the library silo.
What Language Are We Speaking?
Despite the literature that encourages libraries to use more faculty-friendly language (Ford-Baxter et al., 2022; Kous et al., 2020; Yang & Chou, 2014), there is a time and place for both plain language and discipline-specific jargon. As a term, IL is integral to the history of LIS (ALA, 1989; ACRL, n.d.; MacDonald, 2018), and this history enables community building amongst practitioners who can use a term that transcends international borders. Some of the alternative, plain language terms outlined above may vary from one region to another based on cultural differences, limiting their universality. Moreover, the usage of plain language terms risks denigrating the esteem and academic rigor of university libraries. Conversely, since the relationship between librarians and disciplinary faculty may already be strained (Badke, 2011; Cope & Sanabria, 2014; Kaletski, 2017; Weng & Murray, 2020), using plain language could improve this relationship. If the library website acts as a first point of contact for faculty members unfamiliar with the library and its services, then plain language may encourage more engagement from these faculty members. However, points of contact that presuppose an already captive audience, like email exchanges and in-person conversations, may be the preferred communication channels for building IL awareness.
Limitations
The scope of this study is limited to 25 of Canada's largest research-focused institutions. In turn, this study does not account for libraries associated with smaller or private Canadian colleges and universities, which likely benefit from closer interpersonal relationships between librarians and faculty (Weng & Murray, 2020). These institutions may rely less on websites as a touchpoint for disciplinary faculty, so the findings of this study should not be applied broadly to all academic libraries. Furthermore, while the color-coding system employed in the present study was reviewed by an external third party, another investigator could code the same data differently and achieve divergent results. For example, a simpler yes/no coding system would have yielded a more positive prognosis for IL. Lastly, the content set analyzed in this study is temporally bound to August 2024. Website content can change easily, so the findings of this study will fluctuate based on future website updates. Much like Yang and Chou's (2014) investigation, the content set of this study also does not include private communication channels, like emails and meetings, where libraries may communicate additional IL-related information to disciplinary faculty.
Future Study
Although this study cannot establish an explicit correlation between the usage of terms like "research skills" and "critical information use" and the cited literature on IL, the findings herein set the stage for more conclusive research in the future. For instance, the findings of this paper could be cross-referenced with website analytics. Data related to page visits and clicks would more clearly illustrate if pages that explicitly mention IL experience higher or lower rates of engagement than those that employ plain language. Future research should also involve interviews with instructional librarians and library website designers. These interviews would complement the quantitative findings of this study, addressing not just what language we are speaking when it comes to IL, but why we are speaking it the way we do to non-library faculty.
Conclusion
As Ford-Baxter et al. (2022) warn, libraries should use plain language to promote IL-related services, especially when speaking to disciplinary faculty, and Canadian university libraries seem to be heeding this warning. Not only does IL appear infrequently in website headings and subheadings, but even at the body-text level, alternative terms to describe IL appear with a high frequency. If faculty are indeed critical of IL jargon, as the research suggests (Fister, 2005; Gullikson, 2006; Guth et al., 2018; Saunders, 2012), then university libraries may benefit from higher rates of faculty engagement when refraining from using LIS-specific language on their websites. Ultimately, the author intends for the findings of this study to spark a conversation amongst academic librarians about the benefits and drawbacks of both plain language and library jargon. Ideally, this conversation would address how to improve website navigability for non-library faculty members without diminishing the history of IL in LIS.
References
American Library Association. (1989, January 10). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final report, https://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objective. Longman.
Association of College and Research Libraries, (n.d.). ACRL and Choice history. https://www.ala.org/acrl/aboutacrl/history/historv
Badke, W. (2011). Why information literacy is invisible. Communications in Information Literacy, 4(2), 129-141. https://doi.Org/lO.15760/comminfolit.2011.4.2.92
Blankstein, M. (2022). Ithaka S+R US faculty survey 2021. Ithaka S+R. https://doi.org/lO.18665/sr.316896
Bury, S. (2011). Faculty attitudes, perceptions and experiences of information literacy: A study across multiple disciplines at York University, Canada. Journal of Information Literacy, 5(1), 45-64. https://doi.Org/lO.11645/5.l.1513
Bury, S. (2016). Learning from faculty voices on information literacy: Opportunities and challenges for undergraduate information literacy education. Reference Services Review, 44(3), 237-252. https://doi.org/lO.1108/RSR-ll-2015-0047
Busha, C. H., & Harter, S. P. (1980). Research methods in librarianship: Techniques and interpretation. Academic Press.
Canadian Association of Research Libraries. (2024). Canadian Association of Research Libraries: An overview, https://www.carl-abrc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/CARL_Backgrounder_2024_EN-1 .pdf
Cope, J., & Sanabria, J.E. (2014). Do we speak the same language?: A study of faculty perceptions of information literacy, portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(4), 475-501. https://doi.org/l0.1353/pla.2014.0032
Drabinski, E., & Tewell, E. (2019). Critical information literacy. In R. Hobbs, & P. Mihailidis (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media literacy. Wiley. https://doi.org/l0.1002/9781118978238.ieml0042
Dubicki, E. (2013). Faculty perceptions of students' information literacy skills competencies. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), 97-125. https://doi.Org/lO.11645/7.2.1852
Ellis, C, Johnson, F., & Rowley, J. (2017). Promoting information literacy: Perspectives from UK universities. Library Hi Tech, 35(1), 53-70. https://doi.Org/lO.l 108/LHT-10-2016-0118
Fister, B. (2005). Smoke and mirrors: Finding order in a chaotic world. Research Strategies, 20(3), 99-107. https://doi.Org/l0.1016/j.resstr.2005.10.005
Ford-Baxter, T., Faulkner, K., & Masunaga, J. (2022). Situating information literacy: A case study exploring faculty knowledge of national disciplinary standards and local program learning outcomes. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48{3), Article 102523. https://doi.Org/l0.1016/j.acalib.2022.102523
Gardner, S. J., Juricek, J. E., & Xu, F. G. (2008). An analysis of academic library web pages for faculty. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34{l), 16-24. https://doi.Org/l0.1016/j.acalib.2007.ll.006
Gullikson, S. (2006). Faculty perceptions of ACRL's Information literacy competency standards for higher education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32{6), 583-592. https://doi.Org/l0.1016/i.acalib.2006.06.001
Guth, L.F., Arnold, J.M., Bielat, V.E., Perez-Stable, M.A., & Vander Meer, P.F. (2018). Faculty voices on the Framework: Implications for instruction and dialogue, portal: Libraries and the Academy, 18(4), 693-718. https://doi.org/l0.1353/pla.2018.0041
Hsieh, M. L., Dawson, P. H., & Yang, S. Q. (2021). The ACRL Framework successes and challenges since 2016: A survey. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), Article 102306. https://doi.Org/l0.1016/i.acalib.2020.102306
Kaletski, G. (2017). Faculty perceptions of the Framework for information literacy for higher education. Endnotes: The Journal of the New Members Round Table, 8{l), 26-35. https://www.iournals.ala.org/index.php/endnotes/article/view/6574
Kous, K., Pusnik, M., Hericko, M., & Polancic, G. (2020). Usability evaluation of a library website with different end user groups. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(1), 75-90. https://doi.Org/l0.l 177/0961000618773133
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/l0.4135/9781071878781
Little, G. (2012). Where are you going, where have you been? The evolution of the academic library web site. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38{2), 123-125. https://doi.Org/l0.1016/i.acalib.2012.02.005
MacDonald, G. (2018, October 10). What is information literacy? Chartered Institute of Library Information Professionals (CILIP). https://www.cilip.org.uk/news/421972/What-is-information-literacv.htm
Maclean's. (2024, October 10). Canada's best universities in 2025 by national reputational ranking, https://macleans.ca/education/canadas-best-universities-in-2025-by-national-reputational-ranking/
Mierzecka, A., & Suminas, A. (2016). Academic library website functions in the context of users' information needs. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 50(2), 157-167. https://doi.org/l0.1177/0961000616664401
Nicol, E.C., & O'English, M. (2012). Rising tides: Faculty expectations of library websites. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(4), 371-386. https://dx.doi.org/l0.1353/pla.2012.0038
Pinto, M. (2016). Assessing disciplinary differences in faculty perceptions of information literacy competencies. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68{2), 227-247. https://doi.org/lO.1108/AIIM-05-2015-0079
Saunders, L. (2012). Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learning outcome. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38{4), 226-236. https://doi.Org/lO.1016/j.acalib.2012.06.001
Schonfeld, R.C., & Housewright, R. (2010). Faculty survey 2009: Key strategic insights for libraries, publishers, and societies. Ithaka S+R. https://doi.org/l0.18665/sr.22364
Universities Canada. (2024). Enrolment by university, https://univcan.ca/about-universities-canada/facts-and-stats/enrolment-by-universitv/
Weng, C, & Murray, D. C. (2020). Faculty perceptions of librarians and library services: Exploring the impact of librarian faculty status and beyond. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), Article 102200. https://doi.Org/lO.1016/j.acalib.2020.102200
Williams, T. R. (2000). Guidelines for designing and evaluating the display of information on the web. Technical Communication, 47{3), 383-396. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43748886
Yang, S. Q., & Chou, M. (2014). Promoting and teaching information literacy on the
internet: Surveying the web sites of 264 academic libraries in North America. Journal of Web Librarianship, 8(1), 88-104. https://doi.org/l0.1080/l9322909.2014.855586
© 2025. This work is published under https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/comminfolit/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.