Information Literacy in a time of polycrisis and cherry blossom: Sheila Webber keynote #Lilac2026

This is Pam liveblogging Sheila Webber's keynote on day 2 of the LILAC conference in Sheffield. Sheila's slides are uploaded here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-3COpggFid2YoBGeWm-5dPBqhz6vINE-/view?usp=drive_link (and will also be available on the LILAC website). The title of the presentation was Reflecting on Information Literacy in a time of polycrisis and cherry blossom

Sheila began her keynote by distributing some information literacy definitions created by students on the information literacy module as one of the opening activities. Delegates are invited to keep these definitions as a souvenir of the session. Sheila chose the title because we are living in a time of crisis, and because she loves this time of year and finds joy in cherry blossoms. Sheila is convinced that information literacy is a "thing", and is an important standalone subject discipline. `the essence of information literacy is information, it really matters! The Institute of Information Scientists was an association that merged with CILIP: Sheila had been active in that association and also published an article discussing the nature of information science as a discipline, during which she uncovered definitions of information. 
Sheila shared definitions from Bertie Brookes and Marcia Bates: "the pattern of organisation of matter and energy". Marcia Bates developed a typology of information: genetic information, experienced information, enacted information, expressed information and exocomatic information (i.e. information outside our bodies). Sheila showed some images of Ballerat in Australia, where a whole suite of information was produced to improve signage to prevent violence to staff. However, some people might experience all this information as overwhelming. Sheila then showed some images of the Wave (the location of the conference) and talked us through the information that is available to people as they enter the building, and how that differs for different people. We took part in a Wooclap activity where Sheila asked us to share the information that we have from the room we are currently in. There were a lot of people who thought the room was really cold! Sheila made the point that these physical experiences can affect learning. There is a huge amount of information in every space.

Sheila shared 3 examples of visual images of cherry blossom, and the way in which images are created affects how we engage with them. One was a picture of real cherry blossom from Sheffield, one was an AI picture created in midjourney and one was a picture of Sheila Yoshikawa in Second Life standing in front of a cherry tree. Sheila invited us to think about the information that is evoked by the different pictures. It's imporant for educators to think about what information means to them as well as to their learners.

Sheila introduced 7 ways of looking at information literacy: IL is contextual, it's a word/phrase, it exists in definitions, it is a discipline, it exists in frameworks or models drawn up by expert groups, it is models discovered through research and information literacy is also a practice. Sheila presented the definition of Il that she developed with Bill Johnston: "the adoption of appropriate information behaviour to identify, through whatever channel or medium, information well fitted to information needs, leading to wise and ethical use of information in society." "Appropriate" means appropriate to the context or need; it isn't a value judgement. There is a huge variety of ways in which we acquire information, and, and informatin seeking is prompted by a range of needs. Sheila showed a video of an installation in Second Life where she included a range of quotes from research participants and others to illustrate what information literacy means to them. The quotations from Dr Shahd Salha's research were particularly powerful and revealed the spiritual aspect to information literacy.

Sheila spoke about the relationship between AI, media & Information and digital literacy. She encouraged us to resist views of information that tidy librarians and information literacy into a little box. There are indicators of this kind of academic writing, for example, a citation to Shannon & Weaver (1964) and ignoring all the subsequent work that has been published in information science journals and books. 
There may be a disjunct between your conception of IL and that of your employer, so it is worth reflecting regularly on your own conception of IL. Sheila made a brief plug for the forthcoming information literacy as a discipline. She introduced the roots of the development of her own conceptions of information literacy, including learning from all the PhD students she has supervised. Sheila spoke about the conference that took place in the late 1990s in Australia, that brought together researchers to address IL and lifelong learning. 

Then she talked about the knowledge base of IL. There are various groups who contribute to IL research, some are full time e.g. academics, but there are a huge number of part-time researchers who are also practitioners, other disciplinary specialists, and national institutes and policy organisations. It's important to draw on all these researchers and this evidence base when thinking about IL. There is stronger growth if you are connected with your roots and, this helps us deal with the polycrises that we are faced with. The doomsday clock expresses how close we are the "midnight" (the end of the world) due to what we are doing to ourselves. The current social media landscape allows us to ignore war, as it doesn't feel real, and fits around other kinds of social media. Ways you can address this include developing a curriculum for an information literate lifecourse and helping others to do the same. In this way, Information Literacy can be seen as a discipline to enable life.

The photo is by Sheila Webber of cherry blossom in Sheffield city centre.

Closing session #LILAC26

This is the closing session of the LILAC conference. It included talking to neighbours in the room about conference highlights, contributing to a padlet on What's next for information literacy (the questions were: What new IL challenges do you foresee for library users in the next 3–5 years? Which skills will be most critical for library users to thrive? What role can you play in preparing them? What one bold step can you take where you are? and What practical step can you take where you are?) The results on the padlet will likely be written up for the Journal of Information Literacy. There were several prize draws and presentations to organisers (including my colleague Pam!). St Georges University in London 21-23 April 2027 was identified as the next venue for LILAC. Photo - the entrance hall at the Wave, Sheffield University

Exploring Indigenous-Informed Pedagogy in Academic Library Instruction #LILAC26

The penultimate session I'm attending (though there will be some currently-part-finished blogs that will go up later today or tomorrow) at the LILAC information literacy conference is Collective Conversations: Exploring Indigenous-Informed Pedagogy in Academic Library Instruction presented by Adair Harper (Simon Fraser University, Canada). The abstract is here
They started by introducing themselves, reflecting on their positionality and history, and acknowledging the traditional holders of the land on which Simon Fraser University stands, theese people's knowledge systems, and the impact of colonisation on education/ library practices.
They went on to identify key aspects of the Canadian contect, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Indigenous Matters Committee of the Canadian Federation of Library Associations (which had a report about responding to the TRC's calls to action) and the Simon Fraser University Aboriginal Reconciliation & Conciliation report. There is a Decolonising the Library Working Group in the university, formed in 2018, and a very small Indigenous Initiatives Team which is also developing the Indigenous Curriculum resource centre.
They went on to identify other decolonising initiatives from the library, including the WG for information literacy and instruction explicitly addressing decolonisation.
In summer 2025 they had reading circles reading a chapter form the book Wayi Wah, then in autumn/winter 2025-6 they started to apply First Peoples Principles of Learning and involve more people in implementing them, developing curriculum with the principles of indigenous learning, addressing biases cause by using colonialist approaches to education.
They started by all looking at teaching materials for a class Foundations for Academic Literacy (FAL), so they could discuss and compare ideas. This module aims to introduce undergraduates to academic research. The librarians worked through this by each focusing on some of the materials and bearing specific principles in mind. This is still progress, so these were reflections on what has emerged so far. They found that focusing on one principle at a time was helpful in avoiding overwhelm. The process also helped in understanding and incorporating the principles into their own practice. The people doing this work (librarians and library assistants) have different roles in learning and teaching.
Key principles that are emerging as areas of focus are "Learning involves patience and time" and "Learning is holistic, reflexive, reflective, experiential, and relational (focused on connectedness, on reciprocal relationships, and a sense of place)". There is a desire to bring more experiential and conversation-based learning into the classroom; to recognise learners' and teachers' experiences & knowledge; be an "imperfect friend" rather than a "perfect stranger".
They have been revising the teaching material for the FAL module, will have workshops in the summer for colleagues, pilot material and then run the updated module next academic year, and also aim as write a chapter.
Photo by Sheila Webber: in Sheffield Botanical Gardens, March 2026

"All mushrooms are edible but some only once": rethinking information literacy in leisure contexts through hobbyist mycology, Laura Williams. #Lilac26

 Laura Williams is a PhD student in the School of Information Journalism and Communication, but this presentation was not about her PhD topic; instead, this was a topic of personal interest to her. Laura created a Zine as a way to cope with semester 1 library teaching, and this stimulated the presentation today. This is a conceptual paper, that isn't based on research other than reading lots of literatyre about mushroom hobbyists, and Laura's growing interest in mushroom foraging. This is an information-rich hobby: enthusiasts learn about mushrooms, they spot mushrooms and photograph them, go to mushroom social events. Is hobbyist mycology a risky hobby? Yes even the most experienced mycologiest need to continually update their knowledge of mushrooms to avoid dangerous encounters. Laura reviewed the current literature on hobbyist mycology to identify the information aspects to this. Laura dtaws on Lloyd's work to define Il as a socially enacted practice, and Hicks' book on risk in information literacy. Risk-informed information practice focuses on everyday information literacy, but Laura wants to apply these ideas to a leisure context, as much information science literature about leisure hobbies focuses on the joy of the hobby and sharing information.

There hasn't been much research on fungi from an information perspective. There is a growing body of literature on multispecies information literacy, and fungi are mentioned as a fascinating area to look at as they are neither animals or plants. There is a body of literature on risky leisure practices, but information literacy isn't mentioned often or drawn on, even though information is a theme explored in the research. Risk is conceptualised as a balance between potential harm and the desired benefits. Information literacy: the mushroom itself is a source of information (drawing on Bates ideas of what is information). Laura has identified 6 ways that information literacy is enacted to manage risk

Rules of thumb: quick and personal rules to assist decision-making, e.g. "never munch on a hunch". But the problem with these is that they take time to develop and are difficult to share with others, and can be affected by complacency.

Folkways: folk knowledge of mycology and folk practices such as hunting and foraging. The common names of mushrooms are linked to folklore. Some folk knowledge fuels mycophobia and can perpetuate misinformation.

Documentary sources are a critical information source; they contain authoritative information. However, documented knowledge can become outdated. In the UK, mushroom guides might identify a mushroom as poisonous, but a guide in another country might say that a mushroom isn't dangerous as long as it's prepared in the right way.

The body & sensory information. This is incredibly important. Foraging is a physical practice that forces the forager to use all their sensory information: touch, taste and smell are very important. Sensory information must be used alongside other forms of knowledge. Mushroom books contain vivid descriptions of the sensory impact of mushrooms.

Participating in communities: there is a long history of fungi groups, on and offline e.g. facebook groups. Some are only for the scientific identification of mushrooms, others are about foraging and eating mushrooms. There is always the potential that these groups can share poor-quality information. Groups have very specific rule that many photos of a mushroom must be shared in order to invite others to identify a mushroom.

Technologies: AI and social media are affecting the information landscape of mushrooms, e.g. AI image tools to identify mushrooms. AI tools can't engage in sensory information, so they tend to be very bad at identifying mushrooms. Content creators are active on social media to share mycology.

Each of these 6 dimensions could be explored further to investigate aspects of risk in mycology, and could be a rich site of information literacy research.

Matteo Bergamini keynote #LILAC26

The keynote for day 3 of the LILAC information literacy conference is given by Matteo Bergamini (CEO of Shout Out UK (SOUK). This is Sheila liveblogging it. I'll give the usual caveat that these are my immediate impressions whilst liveblogging. 
He started by describing the work of SOUK which "provides impartial political and media literacy training and campaigns focused on democratic engagement and combatting disinformation online". He then talked about the labels used: misinformation (false information shared by mistake, which can lead from e.g. not knowing that "verified" accounts may have just bought that verification), disinformation (false information shared deliberately, using the example of information shared in the Southport riots), malinformation (distorting actual information for harmful purposes e.g. taking it out of context) and false information (e.g. AI generated text, images, videos).
Bergamini showed us some images of people and asked us to guess which are real and which AI, the results of which showed that often it was really difficult to tell. He went on to talk about how algorithms are designed to keep us engaged, therefore feeding us what we might like, to keep hold on us, often showing increasingly emotive and extreme material, leading to desensitisation and seeing such material as normal. Social media can thus become a shield against ideas and feelings which are different to oour own. Bergamini talked about how this process is exploited by religeous extremism and incel/manosphere ideologies, feeding on people's insecurities and reinforcing negativity. This includes fascination with extreme violence, which formerly wasn't seen as a form of ideology. He also highlighted that the number of children who were arrested for terrorism-related incidents was increasing in the UK (20% in 2024 and 4% in 2019). Bergamini said that there is not mass radicalisation, but radicalisation can happen very quickly: it used to happen over months, but now it might happen within 24 hours, so the the time period for potentially intervening is much shorter.
Bergamini presented the solution as being media literacy - the ability to use, understand and create. [Obviously I would say you could also mention information literacy at this point!] He identified the cross curricular initiative in Finland for media literacy, which does seem to have an impact. In France he highlighted a programme with 30 coordination centres for media literacy and also the Welsh digital competency framework. He also mentioned the curriculum review in England which does include requirements for media literacy education (though, I would add, sadly not as a subject in itself and also Bergamini mentioned the lack of specific resources for teacher training so far).
Then he highlighted the Dismiss initiative and the other work of SOUK itself. He explained the ideas of prebunking (aiming to prevent spread of harmful information before the event) and debunking (work after the event - e,g, fact checking). SOUK focuses on prebunking, in particular technique-based prebunking (looking on the different techniques that are used for spread of disinformation etc.) An example of teaching with prebunking is showing a video with someone giving health misinformation and then discussing the techniques that are being used in the video. SOUK has resources to support educators on its website https://www.shoutoutuk.org/ including a podcast and lesson plans.
One question from the audience was about whether SOUK had material to work with adults as well as young people, and the answer was yes. Another issue that came up in the questions was developing scepticism without people becoming cynical and distrusting everything. Things that got discussed including examining the different actors producing the information, also working on this continously, it isn't a one off thing. One useful tip about spotting fake AI was looking at the context of AI generated material rather than looking for "tells" that it was fake (e.g. not how realistic is this picture of a person, but rather how likely is it that they would be doing this in this setting). Another question was about having positive examples as well as negative ones [I was thinking here that highlighting information creators who were open about how they checked and reflected on their practice would be useful].
Photo by Sheila Webber: cherry blossom behind Sheffield train station tram stop, March 2026

Co-constructing knowledge justice: faculty and student partnerships that transform library instruction, Heather Campbell, Lea Sansom and Ashley McKeown.

 Pam McKinney here live-blogging from the final day of the LILAC conference in Sheffield. The presenters from Canada have blended roles that involve teaching and library roles. There is a lot of focus on decolonial practice in Canada, and the presenters wanted to enact knowledge justice in their information literacy programme. We are all equal, and have equal capacity to be knowers, but sometimes certain people are privileged as "knowers", and knowledge justice seeks to embed equality. They were unsure about how to do this in their teaching, so this panel is about exploring how they managed to find their way. There are 25 people in the partnership, but only 3 people are presenting. The first question they explored was why collaboration is necessary to address knowledge justice. Lea said that there has to be ways of recognising multiple ways of knowing, so collaboration is essential to bring different perspectives and different ways of knowing in the team. Everyone brings something to the team. They have all had moments of imposter syndrome, but the group can provide support and reinforce that everyone has something to contribute. Ashley spoke about how knowledge justice is very much grounded in indigenous knowledge systems, and expressed a feeling of loneliness and thought she had very different ways of approaching her nursing course. Collaboration was important to keep on her journey, and support her interaction with students who come from indigenous communities and become nurses. The collaborative approaoch supported the whole group to decolonise their teaching and decolonise their minds. Its importa t to trust in the collective, go to communities of practice and read important texts. Knowledge justice has felt overwhelming, but it must be done. The trick was to find collaborators from outside their own white identities.

What does collaboration focus on knowledge justice look like? Lea spoke about collaborating with instructors and other librarians. She is focused on relationship building in her new institution and is bringing the knowledge justice perspective with her. Heather spoke about the timeline of the partnership, and the points at which she's worked with students and the points at which they've worked with faculty. There are different types of collaboration that they have engaged with, including faculty administrative staff, and the centre for teaching and learning. She is leading decolonising initiatives that come through the teaching development team. They did some experimentation in Ashley's class and created some open educational resources. Ashley spoke about the approaoch to partnership and collaboration that is strength-based, so that collectively they can identify work that corresponds to people's strengths. Teaching knowledge justice to students has led to conversations between students and faculty that have led to a gradual dissemination of the knowledge justice in the university. It is important that individual academics decolonise their teaching, but this doesn't lead to systemic change.

What has only be posisble due to collaboration? Teaching and learning librarians have to be invited into sessions by faculty. So the only way that they can enact a knowledge justice approach is in negotiation with faculty. So it's about identifying particular aspects of the content or particular assessments that suit a knowledge justice. Heather tries to make sure that she goes to university committees to spread a knowledge justice approach and tries to support meaningful change. Students who have experienced knowledge justice in the curriculum are able to go into the workplace to spread this approach, but they need support for this as new professionals. It's challenging because as a librarian doing Information literacy teaching, they only impact a small number of people, but raising awareness of knowledge justice can have lasting and profound effects on those people. They spoke about the need to record the meetings they go to and the other teaching activities as "library instruction" even though the audience and the mode is really different.

Publish and Prosper: Self-Reflection and Survey Results from a Research Program for Librarians #LILAC26

First blog of the 3rd day from me (Sheila) of LILAC information literacy conference is Publish and Prosper: Self-Reflection and Survey Results from a Research Program for Librarians presented by Helen Power, Rhiannon Jones and Ethel Gamache (Canada). The abstract is here They explained that they tried a prototype in 2023 using Belcher's Writing your journal article. Then they wanted to find out what the impact of the programme, so they decided to do some research, getting ethics approval. Therefore they ran the programme again, making use of a research accelerator programme that was designed to support librarians doing research (6 weeks online of 1.5 hour session), also supported by CAPAL so it could give a certificate (if you attended 5 out of 6 sessions). It was based on works by Belcher & on Cresswell, adapted for Canadian librarians - this included language, where to publish etc. This was run in summer 2025. There were 35 librarians taking part. There was a Discord, aiming to help create a community of practice.
The first sesssion was introduction, the 2nd on designing research (talking about picking a topic you know, different kinds of research approach, ethics etc.), the 3rd about working on writing, the 4th on developing evidence and interpretation (it was mentioned Belcher here was useful here, also they discussed knowledge justice), the 5th on strengthening our structure, and 6th on preparing for publishing (including dealing with responding to reviewers). They mentioned that on Zoom they used breakouts, whiteboard activities (e.g. where would you publish this title?) etc. Looking at the participants' profiles, on average research wasn't an expected part of their job, had taken a research methods course and published (but it varied).
The presenters then introduced the ACRL Framework for IL in Higher Education and their definition of Information Literacy (I've covered this framework a lot in this blog so I won't describe it here!). Then they they pulled out the elements of the Framework which they found particularly useful for this programme (e.g. that research is iterative, that questions lead to more questions but you also need to know when to stop) and gave examples of how they were used in the programme. As examples (they showed all 6 weeks but I can't type that fast!) they used Information Creation as Process and Scholarship as a conversation (including giving and receiving feedback) in week one. In week 3 the learning outcomes were: discussing approaches to writing literature reviews and articulating claims for significance ("so what?"), and the ACRL Frames were authority is constructed and contextual and searching as strategic exploration. In week 4 the learning outcomes were differentiating between different kinds of article structure and also optimising different strategies for editing documents for comprehensiveness and clarity - the ACRL Frames used here were on Information creation as a process and Searching as strategic exploration. I'll also mention that in week 6 they covered wellness and emotions, when looking at the reasons why papers get rejected, and there was a discussion about predatory journals and how to spot them.
There research of the programme consisted a pre programme survey, mid point survey, immediate post session survey and 6 month follow up. Also they qualitatively analysed the chat and activities (if people did not want to be included in this analysis they were excluded).
In terms of which session was most helpful, this was spread across sessions 2-5, and what emerged was it was the session most useful at the point of individual need. In terms of least helpful, it was again mostly related to the stage they were at in their research/ writing. In terms of the participants' reported skill levels, this showed improvement through the programme and in fact it was strongest in the 6 month follow up. Also they had quotes about confidence going up and benefiting from interacting with peers. Of respondents to the questionnaire 8 had completed a draft of their writing, 7 not, and the 6 month follow up showed that some had submitted and all at least intended to.
In terms of the observations, participants engaged more fully as the weeks progressed (having been less active in information interaction initially). They observed some breakout rooms: dynamics varied between breakout rooms. They had the suggestion of having the same people in your breakout room every time -  positives were that people might be more likely to talk & it saved time as you didn't have to introduce yourself each time, although there were downsides such as getting to know fewer people. Also there was a suggestion on having one on one breakouts, which also had positives and negatives.
Looking to the future they will use their findings to develop the programme and plan to run it every 2 years with (probably) rotation of facilitators. They also plan to write an article!
They also will include material from their programme in a google folder with the slides from this presentation  (I'll add the link when I get it).
Photo by Sheila Webber: Camellias in the Sheffield Botanic Gardens, March 2026

Reframing Information Literacy Instruction through a Lens of Knowledge Justice #LILAC26

The last session I'm attending final session today at the LILAC information literacy conference is Reframing Information Literacy Instruction through a Lens of Knowledge Justice presented by Heather Campbell and Ashley McKeown (Western University, Canada). The abstract is here This is a liveblog, so this is just my rushed impression of this rich session.

The presenters started by recognising the traditional holders of the lands that their university stands on, and identifying themselves as white settlers in Canada, and they shared aspects of their identity and positionality. They talked about the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the responsibilities it brings for decolonisation. They cited "We must make space to balance generate and enable diverse knowledge systems to thrive". They talked about the work being done in the nursing profession (as Ashley is a nurse educator) to decolonise and critique figures such as Florence Nightingale. The coauthor Lea Sansom also introduced herself via video.
The went on to talk about how Ashley and Heather collaborated on teaching and learning, following on from Ashley discovering the university's Library Curriculum https://www.lib.uwo.ca/teaching/curriculum.html. This collaboration has resulted in the Knowledge Justice in the Helping Professions learning resource, currently an open resource, https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/epistemicjusticeoer/

They defined epistemic injustice [if I can find this definition in their book I will insert it later] and talked further on how there can be epistemic injustice even within that field of study, encouraging us to think about who we cite, who isn't being cited, whose voice is being promoted or supressed. When teaching undergraduates they use AI and social media as teaching tools, and they gave an example of 2 videos that show how gen AI is biased when prompted for images of people with autism. This leads into debates e.g. of where are people's stories being shared, what are the sources that are contributing to the bias within a specific discipline. The presenters then shared a clip from a video on Epistemic injustice in health and medicine. This video provides a stimulus for learners to share examples of epistemic injustice.
Following on from that, the presenters talked about the importance of questioning who conducts academic research, whose voices are represented in the academy (e.g. on editorial boards) and who has power in authorising knowledge and knowers.
Then they talked about how they do talk about the words epistemology, ontology and axiology (particularly with faculty). Heather said that she spends more of her time teaching faculty, in addition to teaching students. Prompt questions for faculty include - what is the origin of your discipline, what does knowledge mean in your discipline, who is seen in the field. The presenters showed a list of types of knowledge (including ancestral knowledge, letters, ceremony, plants, water, as well as journals etc.) and ask people to reflect on which type of knowledge is acknowledged in their field. This leads on to asking people to reflect on the edges of their discipline's knowledge and their relationship with multiple ways of knowing and knowledge justice. The presenters also teach people about approaching knowledge seeking with humility.
Ashley talked about how she asks her students to interrogate what is meant by "best evidence" (troubling both words - best and evidence), and use case studies (each of which has an ethical conundrum). For an assignment she asks students to pick a case study and then generate a diverse list of references that could guide practice for this case. They encourage people to look for "voices" not "sources", focusing on (in their search) balancing lived experience, academic research and "arms length observers".
Something there wasn't time for in the presentation was talking about searching (e.g. adjusting your language to find a wider range of voices). Then they played a clip from a video from Lea about evaluating material critically using a knowledge justice lens, using a "framework of harms" (do they have potential for harm embedded in them). This is applied to all types of information. Lea also gave an example of when a faculty member had said she didn't want Lea to take a knowledge justice approach in a teaching session. However, Lea was still was able to introduce relevant questions into the teaching and bring in discussion of the different types of online harm. She noted that the students were in this case prepared for this type of discussion (e.g. they felt safe to share thoughts), which might not always be the case, also the faculty member felt that the teaching goals had been met.
The presenters finished by presenting some of the feedback from learners.
Photo by Sheila Webber: magnolia tree, Sheffield Botanic Gardens, March 2026

Starting, scrapping, and rebuilding AI literacy at Sussex #LILAC26

This is my first blog post for the 2nd day of the LILAC information literacy conference is From workshop to workshop: Starting, scrapping, and rebuilding AI literacy at Sussex presented by Nicholas Heavey (University of Sussex, UK). The abstract is here
Heavey said that initial initiatives felt a bit piecemeal, so they first identified a framework to help map skills across the curriculum. They decided to use UNESCO's framework for AI competency. This has 3 progression levels and 4 competency aspects. This helped them to see where gaps were, what they needed to cover and what they didn't. As this framework was designed for schools, they also mapped it to the UK's QAA HE framework, which gave a roadmap and helped to break this down for session aims and learning outcomes. Also it gave legitimacy when they went to talk to academics.
Heavey said that the first workshops didn't go quite as planned but gave useful insights into how students were actually using AI & what they needed. The library team went on to a dialogic and problem based approach, e.g. asking learners iteratively using prompts to see what happens and develop effective prompting techniques.
Looking at what worked at what didn't - early workshops were too technical, overloading learners with detail they didn't need. Therefore they turned to a more experiential learning approach, with more time to reflect. Secondly, they noticed that learners were anxious about AI e.g. not wanting to use it in a way that would make them discredited. Therefore it important to have open conversations, not being the assessment police and also not overstating the case against AI. Thirdly they have introduced more playful elements, e.g. using lower stakes activites/ tools to encourage experimentation. Two of their main sessions are: Questioning & prompting and Chatting and searching.
Heavey identified that sessions are structured around the brain vs AI (so thinking about what just uses the brain, what uses LLMs, how can you effectively use LLMs to assist) "LLM and research tasks emphasise the value and importance of researching and writing". The focus is on learning and understanding and they ask the learners to think of themselves as researchers. They explain key concepts through analogies and metaphors, which can be used to stimulate discussion. They also remind learners that they are responsible for any AI generated material. They ask people to reflect on whether the response from AI is changing the question they are asking - whether it actually answers the question they are posing.
The team use the CLEAR framework for AI prompts (example explanation here). Heavey presented a diagram to do with tool choice with more creative at one end and less creative at the other.
They use a three level model - introduction; Critical AI skills; and (not developed yet!) Advanced AI applications. They have also collaborated with teaching faculty (which sounded like a good collaboration with co-design and co-teaching), and gave an example of collaboration with Law where students took on the role of trainee solicitors (they undertook an authentic task, evaluated LLM outputs and reflected on professional ansd ethical implications). This was embedding traditional and AI research skills together.
In conclusion, Heavey saw this as an opportunity, as academics and learners are looking for support, and librarians can show how they can help.
Photo by Sheila Webber: not AI generated - magnolia tree in Sheffield Botanic Gardens, March 2026.

Breaking through the noise: exploring the role of social media content creators for fitness information literacies, Laura Williams. #Lilac26

 Pam McKinney here, live-blogging from the first day of the Lilac Conference in Sheffield. Laura Williams is a PhD in our home department, the School of Information, Journalism and Communication. Laura started her PhD research in 2020 and is undertaking it part-time while working as a librarian. The theme of Laura's doctoral research is ultra-running, essentially very long-distance running. If you search for ultra-running on social media, you get lots of content of very healthy and fit-looking people.  "Breaking through the noise" is a verbatim quote from one of Laura's participants, as they experience social media as "noisy". The PhD research brings together Laura's interest in sports and fitness with questions about how social media shapes information practices. The research questions were formed out of her own experiences of using social media as a runner, and bring in Laura's professional experiences with IL and IB. Ultrarunning requires the use of a lot of in-depth information in order to cope with the psychological and physiological challenges e.g. pain, digestion, sleep deprivation etc.

Information from bodies is incredibly important for ultrarunners, but they are also taking i information from the landscape and watching the bodies of others. Epistemic, formal information is used, as well as social information, and of course a lot of social media information. The presentation focuses on the problems encountered on social media and how ultrarunners and their coaches navigate these. Takes Lloy'd's research as a framework for the study: Information literacy as a socially enacted practice. It isn't a skills checklist but is relational, situated, embodied and power-laden.

Social media research has focused on social media fitness influencers and content creators, who can be characterised as non-expert and unprofessional, who use social media to market themselves and products produced by partner brands. The information isn't tailored, and can be problematic. However, social media can play an important role in helping people understand their bodies, and can teach people about how to have a healthy body.

Laura observed social media activity on Instagram, and then interviewed people, and will combine these two sets of data together. The observation was ethnographic in data, where Laura engaged with social media and diarised her experiences, including her emotional state. A second stage of 19 interviews with ultrarunners including coaches and influencers, was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Laura identified 6 aspects of information sharing on Instagram: documenting running practices, sharing opinions and critiquing, talking about problems & challenges, giving advice, promoting products and events and advocacy campaigning. She found 3 ways that information was shared: photographs such as selfies on the run, watches, and running kit "flatlays" where all equipment is laid out on a surface in preparation for a run. They shared video content such as videos of runs, routines, training diary highlights, and finally composite media, which might be things like running data.

Social media noise is created by a combination of information problems (e.g. low-quality information, personal experiences rather than evidence), platform affordance (e.g. addictive nature, echo chamber, impact of algorithms) and social media culture (w.g. running to create content, influencers). Laura had to do a lot of very active searching to find running content from more diverse groups e.g. runners of colour, or muslim runners, or the algorithm would just throw up lots of white, conventionally attractive, young and thin runners. 

The consequences of the noise are mental health problems and becoming burnt out or injured. So what strategies do people adopt to break through the noise? 

Laura identified five strategies and tactics for breaking through the social media noise. People liked to create their communities, acknowledge that every body is different, resisting against platform affordances, being authentic and supporting information literacy: amplifying good quality information, challenging and critiquing poor quality information, advocating for expertise and authenticity. Influencers and content creators can play an important role in supporting information literacy. Participants spoke about a tension between competing for attention but also trying to remain authentic.  Content creators could reduce the impact of social media noise through activities such as teaching runners to understand their bodies, calling out poor-quality information, and sharing transparent training rationales. Laura asserted IL is important in this space, but it is complex on social media. IL is contextual, community-specific and socially constructed.

Character Defining: a library journaling game #LILAC26

The next session I will blog from the LILAC information literacy conference is Character Defining: a library journaling game about creating characters from the unexpected connections between books presented by David Smith (University of the Arts, London). The abstract is here and Smith's blog with a detailed account of the initiative (and material you can download) is at https://daspgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/
Smith explained that it started with the idea of the game genre solo journaling, where you are prompted to create characters and story for a role playing game, and then thinking about how this could be used to help people explore books they would not otherwise look at.
A library move had led to a weeding exrecise, but some of the books were worthwhile to read even if they hadn't been used for a while. Smith thought of making interaction with these underused books into an event - preferably fun - and thus the idea of a game. Smith mentioned Andrew Walsh's book on teaching through games and play. He was also influenced by work on serendipity and by counselling interventions that involved role play. Smith's aim was to enable people to seek out roles and stories that were not like their own, including developing conversations about decolonisation.
An exemplar game is The Last Teashop. The principles for Smith's game involved developing a character by developing the characters/stories of others in the character's life (a mentor, love interest, rival family member), so the character's story was developed through their relationship with others. These other characters were developed through random interaction with the books that had been scheduled for weeding out.
Smith acted as games master in the trial run - summing up he is certainly going to run something similar, but not exactly the same as there were logistics difficulties (books falling over), players needing more support etc. However, positives included the interaction in sharing the characters and stories, in players getting interested in some of the books and topics, and players creating a diverse, complex range of characters, locations and stories. The gaming aspect also stretched players' imagination.
An example of a follow up was a project set up for MA Publishing students "Decolonising the archive". They took a selection of books and created a scenario where Smith and another librarian roleplayed strict/misleading librarians, with fake catalogue cards and the books hidden in a cupboard. This made the students into scholars who were investing the accuracy of the records and interacting with the books. Another initiative is using the library's photobook collection as prompts for sound art projects.

Critical thinking and dissent: information literacy in a refused knowledge information landscape #LILAC26

Next from me (Sheila) at the LILAC information literacy conference is Critical thinking and dissent: information literacy in a refused knowledge information landscape presented by Madelene Logren (Umea University, Sweden). The abstract is here

Logren started by observing that IL has often been positioned as a solution to the spread of misinformation. However, this assumes that there are shared norms of credibility and authority, but this may not be the case. That leads to the question: What if IL can sometimes contribute to belief in misinfrmation, rather than reducing it? This could happen if people apply IL to e.g. spreading misinformation.
Logren's subject of study was a network of nurses formed during the COVID pandemic. This network critisised Sweden's approach to the pandemic as being unscientific and unethical (e.g. a lack of informed consent for vaccination, ignoring social impact). The network position themselves as being both inside and outside "traditional" healthcare. Most of their activity is online, with some in person protest. Logren's  theoretical framework uses Lloyd's concept of information landscapes (e.g. this book) and Neresini's work on refused knowledge and refused knowledge communities (perhaps this book); thus to examine the refused knowledge information landscape.
Logren's research explores how IL is constituted and enacted within the refused knowledge information landscape of this nurses' network. She collected from the network's accounts on Telegram and Instagram, and analysed a sample of text and images using reflexive thematic analysis.
There are 3 central central themes - being a part of the healthcare system, creating community & producing knowledge, and becoming disallusioned. The themes are within the refused knowledge information landscape and reinforce each other. The network is open to information, drawing on information from alternative sources (such as personal experiences) and also established sources (so they are not stuck in their own bubble - they do engage with opinions unlike their own).
As well as raising their profile on social media, they are also aiming to raise awareness and discussion, posing questions e.g. "What does medical freedom mean?" "How are potential conficts of interests assessed?" 

Logren then talked more about each of her 3 themes. The first theme was being a part of the healthcare system which involved reflection on the professional identity and role of the nurse (e.g. being on the patient's side). They expressed frustration with the healthcare system (saying that it was bad both for staff and patients), and moved from friction/ frustration to refused knowledge (since the nurses' critique is ignored or dismissed by management). "Nurses have a duty to report if something doesn't seem right, We must have critical thinking ..." since the nurse has a responsibility to protect the patient, and take the patient's problem seriously.
Creating community & producing knowledge was the 2nd theme - collecting personal stories as evidence so they can form a collective narrative (this includes health concerns not being taken seriously and also the experience of being silenced). Independent experts who are seen as willing to challenge traditional approaches are seen as authorities. 

The 3rd theme was Becoming Disallusioned. This included critical engagement with information (applying information literacy / critical thinking)  which resulted in reinterpretation of institutional science as untrustworthy. An example quotation was criticising the vaccine roll out because there had not been gold standard (randomised double blind) studies into whether the vaccinations reduce hospitalisation and death.
Thus "critical thinking emerges both as a moral obligation for nurses and as a way to uncover the truth." "IL practices can lead to and sustain belief in refused knowledge". This reinforces the idea that IL is social and situated. Logren's key takeaway was that the "context may shape the meanings and outcomes of information literacy practices" and one can't assume there is a skill deficit.

Pedagogical approaches in medical librarianship: exploring non-lecture-based methods for teaching information literacy, Lea Watson. #lilac26

 Pam McKinney here live blogging from day 1 of the Lilac conference.Lea Watson shared her dissertation research into pedagogical approaches in medical Librarianship. Lea began by talking about her background as a graduate trainee at the Bodleian library followed by working as a trainee outreach librarian with the NHS, where she did a lot of information literacy teaching, followed by a master's course at UCL. In preparing for her dissertation, Lea identified that there is less research on IL teaching in health libraries compared with academic libraries. Active-learning is discussed in health contexts, but only really when led by clinicians, not librarians. Lea conducted a mixed-methods study, a survey of 82 librarians and interviews with 5 librarians. The majority of the survey respondents were working in NHS libraries. Lectures do have their place, but respondents recognise that they aren't the whole education story. Librarians described a range of approaches such as workshops, using pop-up stalls, outreach activities such as micro-teaching, case-based discussions, games-based learning and simulation-based learning. The results showed 3 key benefits: 1) engagement: hands-on. activities that gave learners the opportunity to practice what they were learning about, and how they relate to daily tasks. It also situated learning in work contexts. 2) collaboration, peer learning and the establishment of support networks. 3) service visibility: getting out of the library makes librarians more visible and increases professional presence. It also helped reduce library anxiety.

Making a session interactive doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work well. Lea identified that software could support more active approaches, e.g. Mentimeter. Incentives could help to support engagement , e.g. post-it notes as prizes for activities. It was important to address accessibility, with choices of software and learning design. Large group teaching was better if co-teaching models were adopted. It';s important to clarify session design with learners so that expectations can be managed. The physical space mattered, so librarians would try to book spaces that were consistent with the design of their activities. Approaches tool flexibility and sensitivity, especially when conducting outreach activities. Professional relationships help embed teaching, and there was a need for librarians to work in a cross-professional way.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching, librarians mostly relied on informal  obeservation, but some used more structure forms e.g. evaluation forms. However it was quite difficult to collect data, and it was difficult to understand long term benefits of the training. The study identified that openess and willingness to experiment with teaching, spending time in nurse environments as part of outreach teaching increased librarian confidence in communication with nurses. Experimentation was important, and the ability to learn from successes and challenges. Professional growth through professional development is vital.

Under the radar: poor health literacy as a predictor of ill-health #LILAC26

This is Sheila with my 3rd liveblog for the first day of  the LILAC information literacy conference Today's keynote is from Sue Lacey Bryant titled Under the radar: poor health literacy as a predictor of ill-health. This is a liveblog, so I am aiming to capture key points - there was a lot of information on Bryant's slides and I haven't captured it all!
Bryant started by talking about how poor health literacy limits people's ability to deal with their health (and it is a predictor of ill-health), but it is an underaddressed issue (though she noted that the amount of literature is increasing right now). She said how we can take our literacy for granted, as we practice it in our everyday lives.
Her top 3 takeways were (1) it is a determinant of health  (2) it is a stronger predictor that demographics such as education level or ethnic group and (3) health literacy can be improved (the good news!) Bryant highlighted that 16.4% of adults in England have low literacy, but it is under the radar "because, by its very nature, it is exclusionary" since literacy skills are needed for most modes of communication (Bryant cited this). She showed a journey for literacy development, from functional literacy, to digital literacy, to information literacy, to health literacy.
Bryangt moved on to indicate the "scale of the problem" 19.4% respondents to a questionnaire had some level of difficulty reading and understanding written health information (which is more concerning, considering that a level of literacy is needed to fill in a questionnaire). An observational study found that 61% of people cannot understand word based health information which includes numbers well enough to make decisions (from this article). Also there are big differences between different parts of the UK, in terms of health literacy.
Bryant referred to the Canberra Health Literacy Club to identify situations where higher levels of skills and support were needed. There is a strong evidence that poor health literacy impacts people's health e.g. being less able to manage long term conditions, more likely to have depression, more likely to experience hospitalisation. This means there are health inequalities!
Bryant talked about the Complete Care Community Programme which worked with 65 sites, aiming to address "wider determinants of health that leads to inequity of access to, and poor outcomes from, care." - I think she said there was a report due soon.
There is a cost associated with the poor health that comes with health inequality - which falls on health trusts (e.g. with readmissions, treatment needed because of poor self-management of health) and also the cost to the person and those supporting the person.
She went on to cite Palmer & Gorman (I think this) who identified that people inhabit an information environment - and different people inhabit different information environments e.g. it might be one that is open to more misinformation. Misinformation has been shown to spread swiftly and deeply  and the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer found that 58% of 18-34 year oldd regretted health-related decisions they had taken based on advice from influencers.
Bryant welcomed the UK government report A Safe, Informed Digital Nation which sets out an agenda to give easier access to clear, trusted information and develop media literacy. She also highlighted recommendations from the Health Equity Evidence Centre Use of library services was included, but there is currently a low evidence base to demonstrate libraries' impact - more research is needed here.
In the US National Library of Medicine's Health Literacy Companion Document (to its HL framework - see the image at the start of the post) it highlights the need for information accessibility, quality and relevance; the importance of professionals and the role of organisations. Bryant gave some examples of the need and impact of these key elements. Recommendations include having health literacy taught in teh school curriculum, not just for those studying medicine and healthcare. Bryane also mentioned a scoping review on misinformation (Boler et al, 2025 - I think this) which identifies the need for health literacy education for adults, outside formal education.
Bryant recommended the Health Literacy Matters website and also advocated becoming a health literate organisation, and also mentioned numerous NHS resources that can support health literacy. Bryant herself chairs the National Health and Digital Literacy Partnership which aims to establish a community-based approach. A key issue was collaboration, and Bryant urged people to get involved in these initiatives and to take individual steps to close the health literacy gap e.g. co-design resources and upskill.

Women of steel #LILAC26

The logo for this year's LILAC information literacy conference, held in Sheffield, shows the women of steel, a statue in the city centre that commenorates the women who worked in Sheffield steelworks during the First and Second world wars - the wikipedia entry is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_of_Steel.
The conference started with a talk from Michelle Rawlins (a faculty member in my department, the School of Information, Journalism and Communication) who has written a book about these women (there is an article introducing the book here).
Rawlins traced the history of steel in Sheffield, which started in the 15th century, leading it to be known as the steel city. In terms of women's involvement, this started with the "Buffer Girls" in the 1860s. Rawlins' focus has been on the women who joined the steel works in the world wars. She saw that there wasn't a book about them, and so she set about writing one. They had to work in apalling conditions, with little regard for health and safety. They were motivated by helping the war effort and their jobs included crane drivers, machine operators, making parts for planes, tanks and munitions.
After the war they didn't really talk about their experience, as there seemed so many other things to work on once the war ended. The project started with Kathleen Roberts, who had very clear memories of war being declared, she worked in the steel works through the war and thought that the women of steel should get more attention. Roberts contacted the local newspaper, the Sheffield Star, in 2009 and they took up the story and started interviewing women of steel, so more women got to tell their story. Eventually a statue was proposed (with no corporate sponsorship allowed, so it wasn't cluttered!) and the statue was commissioned, with input from the women themselves on how it should look.
Following on from that Rawlins was contacted to write a fictional series based on the women's stories and she has done that - you can find information on her website https://michellerawlins.co.uk/

Links as Evidence, Ads as Clues: Undergraduate Source Evaluation Strategies #LILAC26

I will be liveblogging from the LILAC information literacy conference, which started today and which is at my university, Sheffield University. Dr Pam Mckinney may also do some liveblogging, but not as much as usual as she was a key member of the organising committee and is super busy with that!
My first session is Links as Evidence, Ads as Clues: Undergraduate Source Evaluation Strategies, presented by Alyssa Russo and Lori Townsend (University of New Mexico, USA), also authored by Amy Jankowski and Stephanie Benee. The abstract is here. The slides are at https://bit.ly/ccg_lilac As I'm liveblogging, these are my immediate impressions.

They explained they were grappling with the problem that students wanted to plunge into content without paying attention to the "packaging" - what kind of information it is e.g. article, report (the "container conundrum"). It was easier to identify information genres when pre-digital and gen-AI has intendified the container conudrum, with faked information getting more difficult to detect.
They wanted to find out what the students were doing, so undertook some research. Research questions included how students perceive info online, how do they decide what to trust, what do they consider when making evaluative decisions. The participants were 15 18-23 year old undergraduates. They were 60% female and the demographic mix was a reasonable match to the UNM population. They carried out semi structured interviews, participants were prompted with possible search topics, then they did google searches and followed up websites from that, speaking aloud and responding to questions as they went along. The researchers did thematic analysis with 2 rounds of coding - some data was collected several years ago before gen AI as life, COVID etc. intervened and the analysis is not yet complete.
The presenters showed emerging findings. This included presenting some video clips e.g. Evergreen was saying why they thought an item on the National Geographic website was scholarly (that it was on a site with reputation, that it had quotes, that it was giving data points, that it gave direct links to sites that were .gov) Townsend noted that the presence of links was often treated as like references, and participants saw .gov (or international equivalents) as being more trustworthy. The researchers wanted to know whether students could recognise genres - one student identified something as like a "yelp page for a dog park" which was pretty accurate.
Another example was a participant talking about how they judged sites by the type of adverts e.g. if the adverts were off topic or loud, that put them off, but if the ads were related to the content on the page then that was seen as more trustworthy. Townsend said that participants reacted adversely if there were prominent, loud, pop-up, bait & switch etc. The participants were thinking about WHY the adverts were in that website. The participant Fir gave reasons for why they would trust the website's creator, based on the detailed information (e.g. personal details, a calendar) and the design quality "I think she's actually trying to help people". Hemlock similarly said "Their main goal is making a difference rather than like drawing the eye".
Participants saw the lived experience, with personal stories, as being more trustworthy. Evidence of purpose was therefore important. Talking about an equality website, looking at the list of board directors, participant Hemlock felt that a foundation that drew on personal experiences was more reliable. Hemlock had less trust for a site that emphasised data (bar charts etc.) rather than personal experience. Elm trusted a website that "provides an area for people who are interested to be able to share their stories" - this was seen as a community which was less biased. This issue of bias detection came up, and "opinions" were seen as bad (e.g. one gave an example of not trusting posts from Twitter or Facebook; another thought that big national news site were biased, trying to attract viewers). Another participant talked about why they trusted an article from the Guardian, but said they thought that complete impartiality wasn't possible.
Students reported that they did sometimes check up on things, and whether did depended on the situation. For example Cottonwood said they would check up on things if it was for work, because it might affect people, whereas if it was a university project they might not. However, Birch said that they would check up if it WAS for a university project. Russo noted how the students also brought their own experience (e.g. Birch recognised the Mayo clinic as trustworthy, as her grandmother had been a patient at a Mayo clinic).
In terms of teaching implications, the presenters advocated starting with "what kind of thing is this?" "what is it trying to do?" type questions. Knowing that "scholarly is good" does not help them tell whether something is scholarly or not. Acronyms like SIFT or CRAAP are rather too simplistic, and you have to acknowledge that source evaluation is complex. However, it can be fun working with the students - as they found in this project.
Photo by Sheila Webber: registration desk before registration started

#LILAC26 preview: Supercharged by AI

My final preview post for the LILAC conference is the second from the library team at Sheffield University SUPERCHARGED BY AI: The power of global collaboration in facilitating critical AI literacy.

Vicky Grant writes: Day 2 of LILAC26 provides the opportunity to visit an exhibition. Entitled Supercharged by AI and presented by Maria de Brasdefer from IFLA and Vicky Grant and Nabila Cruz, University of Sheffield and presenting on behalf of the IATUL Special Interest Group for Information Literacy, the session is on 31 March 2026 (Parallel Session 6, 15:30 - 16:30, In Lecture Theatre 1).
Supercharged is a collection of engaging materials exhibited internationally through a global collaboration between the International Association of University Libraries (IATUL) and the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA). This interactive exhibition was developed by Tactical Tech and Density Design Lab in collaboration with IFLA. 
Designed to engage communities with artificial intelligence through hands-on learning and critical reflection, and as a model for digital inclusion, the exhibition goes beyond technical exploration to spark conversations about the ethics, bias and societal impact of AI. It exemplifies how libraries can create inclusive, accessible spaces where communities can not only learn about emerging technologies but also critically examine their implications. 
This showcase will share experiences of hosting the exhibition in locations around the world. We will provide insights into the exhibition’s impact, engagement strategies, and how libraries as trusted neutral spaces can foster information and digital literacy, curiosity, and ethical dialogue around AI. Delegates of LILAC 2026 will be able to interact with the exhibition through this immersive showcase. They will leave with practical ideas for hosting or adapting the exhibition or similar initiatives in their own contexts.
The exhibition showcase outline is: Introduction; Supercharged by AI - reflecting on experiences from around the world; Engagement with the exhibition; Linking to online materials for local adoption; Summary, discussion and close.

Reference       
IFLA, 2024. Supercharged by AI: A new creative intervention about the effects of AI on our online lives. http://www.ifla.org/news/supercharged-by-ai-a-new-creative-intervention-about-the-effects-of-ai-on-our-online-lives/

#LILAC preview: Making, makerspaces and the role of information literacy

Only one day to go before LILAC! My final two posts are from the library team at Sheffield University. Firstly, Making, makerspaces and the role of information literacy. Vicky Grant writes: 

Day one of LILAC26 sees a parallel session from the Sheffield team (Graham McElearney, Rosa Sadler, Jack Emmens and Vicky Grant) and a fun opportunity to have a go with the digital sewing machines at a workshop on library makerspaces (Monday 30 March 2026, Parallel Sessions 3 (15:55 - 16:55) in Wave Seminar Room 5.)
The recent JISC Digital Transformation Framework (2025) and accompanying work on library perspectives on digital transformation recognises the core role libraries take in supporting knowledge creation. Citing interdisciplinary library makerspaces and the provision of equipment and training in digital content creation as an example of a library activity that can contribute to library transformation, this work opens up new and innovative possibilities for libraries. But how does this materialise in practice, and which library teams should take responsibility and lead?
This workshop will showcase participatory research and pedagogical approaches adopted to develop the University of Sheffield’s Digital Commons, an interdisciplinary library makerspace led by the Library Learning and Teaching Services team. Using a hands-on practical activity, we will focus on how student learning, the pedagogy of making, and the literacy of knowledge creation within our information and digital literacy offer gave a natural home for library based makerspaces within our information literacy practice.
Information literacy frameworks increasingly encompass creative literacies which enable individuals to become active knowledge creators, not just sophisticated information consumers (ACRL, 2015, Coonan & Secker, 2011; Open University Library, 2012; University of Sheffield Library, 2019, UNESCO, 2013). Libraries’ support for this "creative turn" (Grant 2024) in IL is reflected in the increasing establishment of makerspaces within university libraries, and the burgeoning role for librarians in supporting the development of these creative or ‘making’ literacies (Curry, 2017; Curry, 2022).
The Digital Commons is our new library makerspace. It was conceived from and builds on the outcomes of participatory action research conducted in our Creative LIbrary Project and LibFest programme (Whitehead-Wright et al., 2024, Sadler et al. 2025). This participatory co-creation is continuing this year via partnership projects with student societies.
In addition to "conventional" makerspace pedagogies (Curry, 2017; Curry 2022; Long and Hicks, 2022), we have recently been exploring anthropological and ideological pedagogical approaches, building on work by e.g. Ingold (2013) and Rowsell (2025). These include "making as a way of knowing", emphasising the importance of the "process" of making rather than just the "outcome", iterative experimentation, and the importance of engaging with the materiality of making tangible objects (e.g. stitchcraft as in this workshop). We see these as essential pedagogical principles in the age of AI, where creativity and knowledge creation can be so easily bypassed by its transactional nature.

References 

ACRL (2015) Framework for information literacy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (Accessed 13 November 2025).
Coonan, E. & Secker, J. (2011) A new curriculum for information literacy: curriculum and supporting documents. Available at: http://ccfil.pbworks.com/f/ANCIL_final.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Curry, R. (2017) ‘Makerspaces: a beneficial new service for academic libraries?’, Library Review, Vol. 66(4-5), pp. 201–212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-09-2016-0081.
Curry, R. (2023) ‘Insights from a cultural-historical HE library makerspace case study on the potential for academic libraries to lead on supporting ethical-making underpinned by ‘Critical Material Literacy’’, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 55(3), pp. 763–781. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221104796.
Grant, V. (2024) ‘A creative future for information and digital literacy’, Journal of Information Literacy (JIL), Vol. 18(1), pp. 14-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.11645/18.1.577.
Ingold, T. (2013) Making. London: Routledge. 
Jisc (2025) Digital transformation library lens. Available at: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/10295/19/digital-transformation-library-lens.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Long, J. & Hicks, J. (2022) ‘Maker Literacy: Connecting IL within the maker movement’, Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference (LILAC). Manchester, April 2022. Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/maker-literacy-connecting-il-within-the-maker-movement-jessie-long-jennifer-hicks/251667818 (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Open University Library (2012) Digital and information literacy framework. Available at: https://www5.open.ac.uk/library-skills-framework/DIL-framework (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Rowsell, J. (2025) The Comfort of Screens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sadler, R., Stephenson, R., Broad, G., Grant, V., & Rocha-Lawrence, T. (2025) ‘LibFest: critical information literacy and connected relations’, Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference (LILAC). Cardiff, April 2025. Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/libfest-critical-information-literacy-and-connected-relations-rosa-sadler-rhian-stephenson-georgie-broad-vicky-grant-and-tomas-rocha-lawrence/277511792 (Accessed: 6 November 2025).
UNESCO (2013) Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: country readiness and competencies. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000224655.locale=en (Accessed 31 October 2025).
University of Sheffield Library (2019) Framework for information and digital literacy. Available at: https://sites.google.com/sheffield.ac.uk/idl-framework (Accessed: 13 November 2025).
Whitehead-Wright, R. Grant, V. Rocha-Lawrence, T. and Wood, C. (2024). Reflections on liberating the library through information creation: a ‘messy’ workshop at LILAC 2024. Information Literacy Group Blog, October. Available at: http://infolit.org.uk/reflections-on-liberating-the-library-through-information-creation-a-messy-workshop-at-lilac-2024/ (Accessed:13 November 2025). 
Image from Vicky Grant: turtlestitch

#LILAC preview: Digital Literacy through arts and culture activities: supporting older adults

My next post sharing a preview of colleagues' LILAC conference presentations is from Dr Pamela McKinney, about a session which be on day 2 of the conference (31st March), Digital Literacy through arts and culture activities: supporting older adults. The abstract is here. Pam writes: 

This presentation will report on the findings from a small-scale pilot study that took place in Leeds in 2025 to understand how creativity can foster digital literacy and digital inclusion oin older adults. The project was led by my colleague Dr Sharon Wagg, and funded by the Arts Council. 
The project team, including PhD student Laura Woods and our collaborators, 100% Digital Leeds collected data from organisations in Leeds about their approaches to supporting digital inclusion in older adults that focused on arts, culture and creativity. We discovered a really broad spread of activities, including: 
- Digital art and multimedia creation e.g. digital collage, zine-making, animations, digital Christmas cards, digital embroidery 
- Virtual Reality & Augmented Reality e.g history experiences on VR headsets 
- Engagement with local history e.g. using the Leodis image archive for research 
- Digital photography e.g. to record experiences on an excursion, or to align wth other interests e.g. gardening, walking 
- Creative writing, storytelling, folklore and oral history 
- Online and hybrid arts and culture activities e.g. dance and cooking. 
- Digital music making 
We found that a caring orientation, which focused on fun and play, was really effective for supporting digital inclusion “by stealth”. Older people told us that the support they received these organisations helped them engage more with digital tools and services in other areas of their lives. The project website has links to our report, infographic and podcast, and the toolkit developed by 100% Digital Leeds
Photo of an older man with camera, "Photography", from the Centre for Ageing Better age-positive image library

Where do Americans turn first for information about breaking news?

An interesting report from the Pew Research Center - Where do Americans turn first for information about breaking news? - one striking think (highlighted in the report) is the difference between age groups e.g. 31% of 18-29 year olds going first to social media for breaking news vs. 6% of those aged 65+. 
I've linked below to the summary story, and there are links (at the bottom of the article) to the methodology, to the questions and to the descriptive results. 
The latter includes further interesting questions e.g. 67% had at some point stopped getting news from a specific source and 60% had reduced the amount of news they got overall. There is also a question about "do you consider this research" with options such as comparing sources, Googling, discussing with friends. 
St. Aubin, C. (2026, March 24). Where do Americans turn first for information about breaking news? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/24/where-do-americans-turn-first-for-information-about-breaking-news/
Photo by Sheila Webber: magnolia tree, March 2026

#LILAC26 preview: information experiences of female engineering students; Learning Sets; Digital literacy

I continue sharing previews of Sheffield colleagues' sessions at the LILAC conference . Today's is from Laura Woods, talking about the three sessions she is involved with. Laura writes. 

I am fortunate to be speaking three times at LILAC this year! I’ve never given multiple presentations at a conference before, but all three of my presentations are from entirely separate projects, so I’m excited to be able to bring them all to LILAC. 
My first presentation is on day 1 of the conference, and will present preliminary findings from my PhD research into the information experiences of female engineering undergraduates at UK universities. I am actually revisiting a presentation I gave at LILAC in 2025, which shared results from my pilot study, at an earlier stage of my research. I’m hoping that any attendees who were there in 2025 will be able to see how my research has developed since completing all of my data collection and beginning data analysis.
My second presentation will be in the morning of day 2, where I will be presenting alongside Dr Pam McKinney. We are sharing the results of an Arts Council-funded project, looking at how creative and arts-based activities can be a gateway to digital literacy for older people. This has been a fascinating project that I’ve felt privileged to be part of, so I am looking forward to discussing the project with the LILAC audience. [There will be more about this from Pam, tomorrow!]
Finally, also on day 2, I am hosting a workshop to launch the Information Literacy Group’s (ILG) inaugural LILAC Learning Sets programme. This is a pilot scheme we are launching this year, aimed at enabling LILAC attendees to form connections and sustain these past the end of the conference. If you are attending LILAC and interested in participating in the LILAC Learning Sets, there is still time to sign up for the workshop - but places are limited! To register for the workshop, sign into your account on the LILAC website, then scroll down to “Book your conference sessions”.
Image: this year's LILAC logo, celebrating Sheffield's women of steel