BACKGROUND

The Framework defines IL as “[t]he set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning” (ACRL 2015). The Framework consists of the following six interconnected core concepts, or frames, that represent big ideas related to the use and production of information:

• • authority is constructed and contextual

• • information creation as a process

• • information has value

• • research as inquiry

• • scholarship as conversation

• • searching as strategic exploration

These frames encourage students to explore the complexity of encountering, using, and creating information. Each frame contains a set of knowledge practices and dispositions. They are written such that faculty can apply them to their teaching in disciplinary courses.

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INFORMATION LITERACY

Disciplinary buy-in to teaching IL is critical because undergraduates across various academic fields generally lack advanced IL skills (Flierl et al. Reference Flierl, Bonem, Maybee and Fundator2018). Moreover, teaching IL is perhaps even more important for political science faculty compared to those in other disciplines. Williams and Evans (2008, 117) made the case that “political science and information literacy seem inherently linked.”^{Footnote 2} Political science courses regularly provide forums for undergraduate students—including majors and nonmajors—to address important and complex issues facing society. Distilling these issues down to their most essential components is critical to fruitful dialogue in class discussion and students’ written work.

However, current practice in political science typically does not match this significance. Williams and Evans (2008, 117) explained that the discipline “lags behind” other fields in consistently incorporating IL into instruction. They also demonstrated empirically that, prior to receiving any such instruction, the IL skills of undergraduates in general—and political science majors specifically—are limited. As a result, typical students enrolled in political science courses often cannot search effectively for the information they need, evaluate the relative authority of various sources, and/or conceptualize scholarship as a conversation among different perspectives. In short, the current state of the discipline reflects a problematic tension. Although IL is universally important and particularly critical to political science, students taking courses in the discipline (both majors and nonmajors) often do not have the necessary skills.^{Footnote 3}

Fortunately, past research also demonstrates that dedicated IL instruction can be effective in improving students’ work across various disciplines (Flierl et al. Reference Flierl, Bonem, Maybee and Fundator2018) and specifically in political science courses (Gilbert, Knutson, and Gilbert Reference Gilbert, Knutson and Gilbert2012; Williams, Goodson, and Howard Reference Williams, Anne Goodson and Gary Howard2006; Williams and Evans Reference Williams and Evans2008). For instance, Shannon and Shannon (Reference Shannon and Shannon2016) compared two iterations of the same course on international politics—administered once with and once without an IL component—and found that IL instruction improved student papers on several dimensions, including the use of source material and overall quality (see also Marfleet and Dille Reference Marfleet and Dille2005). However, to our knowledge, the Framework has not yet been formally introduced to political science. Instead, the current literature reflects the old Standards that were phased out in 2016 (Gilbert, Knutson, and Gilbert Reference Gilbert, Knutson and Gilbert2012; Stevens and Campbell Reference Stevens and Campbell2008). The notable differences between the Framework and the Standards (Foasberg Reference Foasberg2015) warrants an update that encompasses current best practices.

Additionally, the extant literature in political science places strong emphasis on direct librarian involvement in IL instruction. For instance, Gilbert, Knutson, and Gilbert (Reference Gilbert, Knutson and Gilbert2012) described the benefits of adding a library laboratory component to a political science course, and Shannon and Shannon (Reference Shannon and Shannon2016) evaluated the effect of “embedding” a librarian in class during an entire semester. In general, these scholars take the position that even the “one-shot” library session, in which the class visits the library on a single day, is not enough (Shannon and Shannon Reference Shannon and Shannon2016; Stevens and Campbell Reference Stevens and Campbell2008). In our view, the embedded approach is useful under the right circumstances. However, it also presents challenges that might prevent faculty from adopting IL instruction at all.

Specifically, relying too heavily on direct librarian interaction requires substantial startup and continued investment of instructors’ and librarians’ time (Gilbert, Knutson, and Gilbert Reference Gilbert, Knutson and Gilbert2012, 117; Shannon and Shannon Reference Shannon and Shannon2016, 466). This issue alone may be enough to dissuade faculty—who are also trying to publish, teach other courses, and complete service work—from adding IL into their curricula. Furthermore, embedding librarians in courses may not be possible at colleges and universities with small library faculties that already are stretched thin by their many responsibilities. Moreover, exclusively outsourcing IL instruction implicitly states that only librarians can teach those skills.

Using the new Framework as a guide is an opportunity for political science instructors to incorporate IL into their course plans. These efforts could include library collaborations; however, our emphasis is on tools that do not require direct librarian involvement. Instead, we focus on instructional methods that faculty can quickly add to their syllabi before the course begins or even with little additional planning during the term. We contend that IL is important enough that it should be taught by political science instructors alongside substantive content, with or without librarian involvement (Cassell Reference Cassell2018; Gooblar Reference Gooblar2018). We anticipate that these low-cost approaches are more feasible for a wide range of instructors in political science.

THE FRAMEWORK IN THE CLASSROOM

Our strategies for teaching IL are rooted in the Framework and designed to address low or nonexistent IL skills in the political science classroom. Teaching IL need not involve an elaborate overhaul of courses or frequent collaboration with librarians. Instead, instructors can scaffold assignments and activities to allow students to engage with information relevant to course material as well as other areas of their lives. We briefly summarize several simple but effective activities (see the online supplementary materials for complete details).^{Footnote 4}

Although all six frames of the Framework can provide inspiration for instructors, the focus here is on two frames that are particularly relevant to undergraduate political science courses: (1) Scholarship as Conversation, and (2) Authority Is Constructed and Contextual. In doing so, we encourage faculty to focus on two crucial habits related to information creation and use: building (or rebuilding) context and slowing down.

First, the need to build context stems from the fact that a common first stop for student researchers—an online search engine—often produces results that are removed from their original contexts. Entries might include blog posts, scholarly articles, and social media links, all on the first page. Whereas determining which entries are valuable often is second nature to faculty, they appear the same to students. Likewise, the initial results pages in library catalogs and academic databases are snippets of information rather than complete entries. Journal articles appear outside the rest of the journal and may be mixed in with newspapers, books, or other resources. Understanding each resource and identifying the larger conversation(s) to which it belongs takes practice.

It also is important to build in opportunities for students to slow down when engaging with information. Indeed, they often have the endpoint in mind (i.e., their thesis statement or conclusion) before they get started, which incentivizes “cherry-picking” quotes from articles or refusing to acknowledge information that does not conform to their ideas. Slowing down and engaging with information in a meaningful way allows the research process to move them. In other words, students can identify the various perspectives on a given topic and think critically about where gaps may still exist in the literature, which perspectives they agree or disagree with, and how they might proceed in pursuing a research question.

SCHOLARSHIP AS CONVERSATION

Thinking about scholarship as conversation can help students understand the importance of building the context of information sources that they find in the process of a research project or other assignment. Following is a description of this frame (ACRL 2015):

When students begin to understand this concept, they see information sources as part of a larger dialogue rather than as isolated artifacts. Faculty should demonstrate how researchers communicate through their scholarship, agreeing or disagreeing with one another and building from previous work. Students then will begin to learn the importance of seeking out multiple perspectives on a topic—and even recognize themselves as contributors to the conversation.

AUTHORITY IS CONSTRUCTED AND CONTEXTUAL

This frame is described as follows (ACRL 2015):

Students should consider who is an authority regarding a topic of interest and why. This focus also can lead to discussions about how the ways in which we grant authority may be flawed.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519001756