« Remembering Locke Morrisey | Main | Women, Men and Boiled Potatoes »

December 21, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Nicely done. You are a natural diplomat and have yourself an inimitable style.

What I find extraordinary is that there are others critiquing the use of the term without looking at the literature, without so much as listening to the many available lectures on the topic strewn across the internet. Our librarian colleagues are grappling with the issues themselves and we should help them understand the term if we can.

For the record, I don't particularly like the terms "transnational" or "transliteracy". With respect to the latter, I prefer metaliteracies.

To help my students, I've started an entry on 'transliteracy' http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Transliteracy_for_librarians


You wrote: "transliteracy, as a concept, is an attempt to label what we are already doing--linking up traditional notions of authority with the realities of how people obtain information today." That's what I should have said more explicitly the first time around. It's as simple as that...

Thanks for clarifying what I found it hard to say.


keep a tight lid on language? not sure about that, but we definitely should keep trying to get better command of language, particularly where we holding professional discussions about education and literacy.

@Giustini you may be onto something when you write that "there are others critiquing the use of the term without looking at the literature, without so much as listening to the many available lectures on the topic strewn across the internet."

much of the literature on this topic and related conversations just misses the mark. it's convoluted. it seems the authors are often underinformed, lack the ability to structure their writing to remain concise and stay on topic, or (yikes) both.

it's like Dylan says: "i'll know my song well before i start singing." i've read a lot lately about transliteracy, metaliteracies, contextual learning, metacognition, learning styles, etc. yet, too often, it seems the authors have not completely grasped the natural contrasts among those subjects. they are linked, but they are not the same. the effect is that i tend to feel handcuffed when i want to join the conversation and contribute to discussion.

it also reminds us why we've subscribed to the same rules of authority for as long as we have.


@GoLibrarians, thank you for chiming in!

I observe a widespread double standard in discussions like this, in which anything new is subject to linguistic rigors that are not applied to the supposedly "tried and true." The new ideas have to jump through hoops, the old verities get an easy pass. "Authority" ends up morphing into that concept we don't need to consider anymore, leaving aside time to apply disproportionate rigor to anything new. I'm all for sharp thinking, but it should be across the board.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Published Pieces

January 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31