Thanks to David for challenging the precepts of transliteracy in his inimitable style. I LOL'd at the find and replace screen in which "Library 2.0" is completely replaced by "transliteracy."
Yes, we should be cautious about a heedless embrace of buzzwords. And yes, the "sloppy use of langauge betrays sloppy thinking" (a point David echoes from this post by Scott.)
All that said, David goes too far in his highly conservative defense of the English language. Just this week, thanks to Google Book Search, we learned of at least 500,000 English words that are not in any dictionaries. So this idea that we need to keep a tight lid on the language, or even that this is possible, is foolhardy. I'm all for crisp and clear thinking, but given that led the words run riot.
Of course, that's David's real critique--that "transliteracy" represents sloppy thinking. I was thinking so too, until coming across this post by Lane Wilkinson (which was prompted by David's critique.)
Here is my favorite passage from Wilkinson: "Transliteracy comes into play as a pedagogical method, a way to break down the barrier between the student and the library. It encompasses established methods like transfer of learning and analogical reasoning in the library classroom. It’s using Wikipedia to find keywords for a search in CINAHL. It’s reading an academic journal article and then looking up the author’s personal blog for more context. It’s comparing hashtags to subject headings and Amazon reviews to abstracts."
I can see the criticism coming a mile away. "This is old news! We are ON THIS! My library has offered well-attended workshops on Wikipedia since 2005. We live for hashtags!" etc. etc.
Fine. That's great, and there is no doubt that many people are already teaching this way. But I'd argue that our conceptual notion of information literacy remains stuck in time. Sometimes we come dangerously close to suggesting that people blow the 1/2 inch of dust off the top of the Britannica and then read it, because this, dear students, is an "authoritative resource."
Yes, I jest. And yes, I exaggerate. But not by as much as I'd like. We still lionize peer reviewed articles despite their manifold flaws, and keep an arms length view of Wikipedia and communally developed resources in general. Of course I support sharp and incisive critique of Wikipedia entries. But I don't support the idea that Wikipedia is something other, alien or foreign.
In that light, it seems to me that 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. This is valuable, and much less overblown than the Library 2.0 hooha back in the day.
[Note: The title of this blog post is deliberately sloppy]
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
Posted by: Giustini | December 21, 2010 at 12:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Senseandref.blogspot.com | December 21, 2010 at 12:37 PM
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.
Posted by: TheGoLibrarians | December 22, 2010 at 06:51 AM
@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.
Posted by: Marcus | December 22, 2010 at 10:32 AM