Analyzing the laws of MIL: A five-step scientific conversation on critical information literacy
Communications in Information Literacy, ISSN: 1933-5954, Vol: 13, Issue: 1
2019
- 3Citations
- 1,312Usage
- 50Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes3
- Usage1,312
- Abstract Views669
- Downloads643
- Captures50
- Readers50
- 50
Article Description
This essay mixes epistemological considerations on truth and science, a critical information literacy exercise on the 5 Laws of MIL (Media and Information Literacy), LIS theory and international experience reports. It is constructed in five parts, in line with the 5 Laws of Media and Information Literacy (Grizzle & Singh, 2016) and Ranganathan’s laws (1931). First, a critique of the Laws of MIL is presented; then a specific social context puts the first part into perspective; the feedback from the international community on the first two is followed by new research on library/MIL laws; and finally, matters of space, readers, staff and mutation are addressed in order to open the theme to other interlocutors and experiences that enrich the conversation. It concludes that the scientific method is neither perfectly objective nor completely useless: it has to be understood as a social construction. Furthermore, to put information neutrality utopia definitely behind us, we should expose our biases, rather than pretend to erase them, as a way to build a new trust in science.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85073409565&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2019.13.1.8; https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/29386; https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/comminfolit/vol13/iss1/8; https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=comminfolit; https://dx.doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2019.13.1.8; https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/comminfolit/vol13/iss1/8/
Portland State University Library
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know