On the final afternoon of the ECIL conference this is Sheila liveblogging Academic Librarians’ Responses to Mis/Disinformation: A Cross-Country Study authored by Laura Saunders, Joumana Boustany, Karolina Brylska, Mariangela Fujita, Maureen Henninger, Nicole Johnston, Tjaša Jug, Denis Kos, Anna Mierzecka, Angela Repanovici, İpek Şencan, Dijana Šobota, Sonja Špiranec, Katarina Švab, Ana Lucia Terra, Polona Vilar, Pavla Vizváry, and Hilary Yerbury.
This was a panel which reported on a cross country (16 countries) study examining how academic librarians conceptualise and address mis/disinformation challenges in their professional lives. The study was introduced by Joumana Boustany. There were 1721 respondents from the 16 countries, addressing four core areas: perceptions, instructional roles, pedagogical practice and faculty collaboration. There were 14 questions (drafted in English and translated into relevant languages) in the questionnaire and it was distributed via library associations and professional networks. Not all countries were represented at the conference. There was a lot of detailed information in these presentations, and I have just blogged some of it, hopefully without too many mistakes (I'm afraid there are likely to be some).
The Australian contribution was presented by some asked at the last minute, who was not involved in the project, so she did well! 62 academic librarians in Australia participated, what concerns them most re mis/disinformation is social media (79%) and then 71% for news media, followed by academic publications. There was no clear consensus on how to tackle isssues of AI, although AI was seen as connected with mis/disinformation. Some librarians were currently teaching mostly info sources, other more explicitly IL. Some felt that there was a collective responsibility across the LIS profession to tackle mis/disinformation. There was a feeling that IL frameworks needed to be expanded to include AI.
Vizvary presented the Czech contribution - they had 58 respondents of which 58.6% actively teach information literacy. They were concerned about mis/disinformation's impact on democracy, mis/disinformation in social media and then in news media. They all agreed the importance of IL teaching. 34 were involved at least now and then in IL teaching in classes. They were more likely to include the topic in lessons if they had been teaching for longer. 86% most commonly pointed students to Libguides. Faculty often did not feel the topic of mis/disinformation was relevant to their teaching, which is obviously a barrier.
Kos presented on Croatian results. 93 of 527 academic librarians responded. Almost all were strongly concerned or concerned about the impact mis/disinformation in news and social media, and a slightly lower number also felt concern about academic publications. There were some respondents very concerned about most of the offered options, and they were also concerned about the impact on democracy. 43% said they teach IL, mostly part of specific projects or in other classes, and a third were in small-sized institutions and most liaised with one or more academic departments. Of those who teach and liaise, 25% point students to guides, 20% consult with faculty on mis/disinformation material. About three quarters address mis/disinformation in their teaching. If they didn't do this the largest response was that faculty didn't request it or that it should be addressed elsewhere in the curriculum.
Brylska reported that in Poland they received 65 responses. Librarians were concerned about mis/disinformation in academic publications. They mostly agreed on the importance of humans in fact checking etc., and a lot fewer agreed that AI could be using. Of those who taught IL (I think about 40%) the majority said it was not applicable to teach mis/disinformation, and most of the rest said they did not teach it. Top reasons for not doing it were that there was no time or faculty did not ask for it. This is an interesting result and the speaker mentioned that in Poland are not recognised as teachers and there is a lot of dependence on using simple online tutorials.
Terra presented results from Portugal and Brazil (both used a questionnaire in Portuguese). In Brazil there were 101 responses and in Portugal 53. In both countries there were great concerns about all aspects of mis/disinformation - social media came top (both 4.8 or 4.9 out of 5) but others came close. The lowest was belief in ability of AI solutions to combat mis/disinformation. The Portuguese (54%) were more involved in teaching IL than those in Brazil (21%). Also Portuguese librarians liaised with academic librarians more than Brazilian (41.5 vs 11.8%) and addressed mis/disinformation more in class (37.7 vs 14.9%).
Repanovici reported on Romanian results. They had 543 responses, with about 65% involved in IL teaching. In Romania you are not allowed to teach formally unless you have a PhD and (I think) are a faculty member. Nevertheless some librarians did tailor material to courses. Reasons for not integrating mis/disinformation notably included not having time, and then that it was not requested by faculty. The impact of mis/disinformation on News Media, Social media and democracy was of most concern (by 80%-88%). Those librarians who collaborated more were also more likely to teach mis/disinformation, and those who rate interventions highly are more likely to teach it.
Jug and Svab reported on Solvenian results. They mentioned the terminology used, and not used, in Slovenia (direct translations of mis/disinformation are not commonly used). Also as librarians mostly do not have the required qualification they cannot formally teach and don't see themselves as teachers. They had 88 responses. 95% agree that IL is imporatnt in teaching mis/disinformation. 89.9% are concerned about the impact of mis/disinformation on social media, 88.6 on news media, and 65.9 on academic publications, 77.3% that mis/disinformation impacts students ability and 71% see it as threat to democracy. 22.7% address mis/disinformation in classes they teach. Time constraints and lack of faculty requests were seen as chief reasons for not including mis/disinformation teaching.
Sencan gave information on the Turkish results. There were 160 responses. There was less concern about the impact of mis/disinformation on academic publishing, and on democracy, than in some other countries. About 33% taught IL. 47 librarians worked with academic departments. The most frequent reason for not including mis/disinformation in teaching was that faculty had not requested it, and next that it should be elsewhere in the curriculum.
Boustany showed the response from each country (my observation - the UK seemed rather low). She highlighted some differences e.g. very high concern about social media in Brazil and least in Estonia (though all were over 4 out of 5 on the likert scale). She also highlighted the Czech response as distinctive. Romania had the lowest teaching, France had high teaching engagement, and Czech had low incorporation rate despite high conviction of its importance. Boustany noted an assessment gap in most countries. As regards faculty collaboration, there was multimodal collaboration in the USA, balanced in Nordic countries, and a Liaison-Consultation gap in the Czech Republic. She identified implications for library administrators, policymakers and professional associations. Future research could include longitudinal, observational, experimental and qualitative investigations.
Photo by Sheila Webber: door, Bamberg, September 2025
