[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-598775-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":85,"doc-detail-598775-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":78,"head_meta":80,"extra_data":82,"updated_unix":84},105,"en","volume-7-issue-2-reflecting-on-the-standards-marketing-information-literacy","Volume 7 - Issue 2 - Reflecting on the Standards - Marketing Information Literacy","","Marketing Information Literacy by Maura Seale examines the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education after the Standards were institutionalized as the goal of academic library instruction. It reviews critiques of the 1999 framework, then analyzes two 2012–2013 revision documents from an ACRL task force, focusing on how the revised approach may shift toward flexibility, conceptual core abilities, and expanded critical abilities while still risking the replication of apolitical assumptions and inequities.",{"@graph":14,"@context":77},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/volume-7-issue-2-reflecting-on-the-standards-marketing-information-literacy/598775/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/volume-7-issue-2-reflecting-on-the-standards-marketing-information-literacy/598775.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"awa","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69,73],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What criticism does Maura Seale raise about the 1999 ACRL information literacy standards?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Seale argues the 1999 standards present information literacy as universal and apolitical, which hides inequities and avoids systemic critique of knowledge production and consumption.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which two documents hint at the revised standards’ direction?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Seale identifies an ACRL task force memo submitted in 2012 and a 2013 “A Prospectus for Revision” submitted by the task force co-chairs.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What changes does Seale suggest the revised standards might introduce, and why is that important?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"She notes the prospectus rejects the original benchmark format and emphasizes a philosophical, flexible set of core abilities, including expanded critical abilities—moves she sees as addressing earlier weaknesses.",{"name":74,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":75},"Why does Seale remain concerned about the revision even if changes are welcome?",{"text":76,"@type":64},"She worries the revisions may still frame knowledge production and information landscapes as natural or inevitable and continue to reproduce the memo/prospectus position that technology and online environments democratize media creation despite persistent gaps in internet access.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":79,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":81,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":83,"site_id":7},598775,1792164983,{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":87},"success",[88,92,96,100,105,109,114,118,123,126,130],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},8,30,"research-report",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":125},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":129},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":133},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":135},{"doc_id":83,"user_id":136,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":110,"language":143,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":144,"faqs":145,"seo_title":146,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":147,"read_time":148},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Volume 7, Issue 2, 2013  \nREFLECTING ON THE STANDARDS [ARTICLE]  \nMARKETING INFORMATION LITERACY  \nMaura Seale  \nGeorgetown University  \nSeale, Marketing Information Literacy Communications in Information Literacy 7(2), 2013  \nIn 2012, more than a decade after the original ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (hereafter the Standards) were institutionalized as the goal of academic library instruction, the Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force convened by ACRL recommended in amemo that the Standards “should not be approved as they exist but should be extensively revised” (ACRL, 2012, p. 1) . More recent models of information literacy informed this decision, as well as “changes in technology, scholarly communication, and the information life cycle” (p. 2) . It is clear, the memo asserted, that “the scope of literacy is changing and we must respond”(p. 4) . As a critic of the original Standards, I was pleased to hear that they would be revisited and revamped. The 1999 document conceptualized information literacy as universalizing and apolitical, reiterated dominant discourses around the information society, and elided inequities in information access and creation. The individual standards, indicators, and outcomes failed to articulate the processes that lead to information literacy, relied on conventional notions of objectivity and authority, ignored the politics of knowledge production, and represented the information landscape as natural and inevitable. Ultimately, I argued, the Standards promulgated an uncritical consumption of information in lieu of any sort of systemic critique.  \nThe revised Standards have obviously not yet been published, and it does not appear that they will be until 2014. Nonetheless, two documents that hint at the shape of the revised Standards have been released: the aforementioned memo submitted by the Task Force to the ACRL Information Literacy Standards Committee (ACRL, 2012; hereafter “memo”), and more  \nrecently, “A Prospectus for Revision,”submitted by the co-chairs ofthe Task Force (ACRL, 2013; hereafter “prospectus”) . These documents do seem to indicate that the revised Standards will address some of my earlier critiques. Both refer to other approaches to information literacy—the model developed by SCONUL, metaliteracy, and transliteracy—that do not depict information literacy as either a series of benchmarks, or as centered on libraries and library resources as authoritative and objective entities. The prospectus specifically rejects the format of the original Standards; it “proposes a philosophical approach to preparing a new model that will, in effect, not reproduce the standardslike inventory of the 1999 document, but will instead offer a conceptual approach” (2013, p. 1) . The revised Standards will not be “a detailed listing of skills, but rather a set of archetypal or core abilities”(2013, p. 1), and flexibility will be emphasized. The prospectus even goes so far as to renounce the notion that this“flexible entity” should even be conceptualized as “a set of standards” (2013, p. 2) . Moreover, therevision will explicitly incorporate “a section on critical abilities, which will be expanded from traditional information literacy skills” (2013, p. 2) . These documents suggest that the revised Standards will move towards articulating the processes that lead to information literacy; towards a sense of openness, rather than the foreclosure of possibilities; and away from a focus on linearity, tool use, and conventionally authoritative information sources. These sorts of revisions will do much to mitigate some of the weaknesses in the original Standards.  \nWhile these changes are certainly welcome, I am also troubled by what these documents reveal. I realize that they do not necessarily  \nSeale, Marketing Information Literacy Communications in Information Literacy 7(2), 2013  \narticulate or even allude to all of the potential changes, but I do","cbCaihjShuHGWqoM","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihjShuHGWqoM","pdf",318253,"English","# Reflecting on the Standards\n## Background: the 1999 ACRL standards and critiques\n## The revision process: memo and prospectus\n## What the revised standards may change\n## Ongoing concerns: politics of knowledge and inequities","[{\"question\":\"What criticism does Maura Seale raise about the 1999 ACRL information literacy standards?\",\"answer\":\"Seale argues the 1999 standards present information literacy as universal and apolitical, which hides inequities and avoids systemic critique of knowledge production and consumption.\"},{\"question\":\"Which two documents hint at the revised standards’ direction?\",\"answer\":\"Seale identifies an ACRL task force memo submitted in 2012 and a 2013 “A Prospectus for Revision” submitted by the task force co-chairs.\"},{\"question\":\"What changes does Seale suggest the revised standards might introduce, and why is that important?\",\"answer\":\"She notes the prospectus rejects the original benchmark format and emphasizes a philosophical, flexible set of core abilities, including expanded critical abilities—moves she sees as addressing earlier weaknesses.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does Seale remain concerned about the revision even if changes are welcome?\",\"answer\":\"She worries the revisions may still frame knowledge production and information landscapes as natural or inevitable and continue to reproduce the memo/prospectus position that technology and online environments democratize media creation despite persistent gaps in internet access.\"}]","Volume 7 - Issue 2 - Reflecting on the Standards - Marketing Information Literacy | PDF",1792087576,18]