Information literacy and its relationship to knowledge management

Stuart Ferguson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper explores the perceived commonalities between information literacy (IL) and knowledge
management (KM) and the different contexts in which the two areas of theory and practice
manifest themselves. It approaches the study in terms of, first, the widespread interest in KM within
the Library and Information Services (LIS) community; second, the belief, supported by research
into workplace IL, that IL and the fostering of an information literate workforce are key components
in any KM initiative; and, third, the LIS profession’s long-standing interest and expertise in IL
instruction. KM is put into context with reference to two publications by Standards Australia and
from this the main functions of a knowledge manager are delineated. It is suggested, with
reference to IL in higher education and workplace contexts and to well-articulated models of
knowledge transfer, such as SECI, that there are significant commonalities between IL and KM but
that there are equally significant differences between the two. The paper argues that research in
each domain can inform the other but that IL represents a fraction of the KM domain, so attempts
to conflate the two may cause confusion rather than providing a pathway for information
professionals and others pursuing workplace IL. Finally the paper provides recommendations for
further research and suggests a scalar approach to conceptualising KM and IL practice.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)6-24
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Information Literacy
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

knowledge management
literacy
workplace
information service
expertise
profession
manager
cause
community

Cite this

@article{0da0ea73b62f4b2bb15ab741c84c0dfe,
title = "Information literacy and its relationship to knowledge management",
abstract = "This paper explores the perceived commonalities between information literacy (IL) and knowledgemanagement (KM) and the different contexts in which the two areas of theory and practicemanifest themselves. It approaches the study in terms of, first, the widespread interest in KM withinthe Library and Information Services (LIS) community; second, the belief, supported by researchinto workplace IL, that IL and the fostering of an information literate workforce are key componentsin any KM initiative; and, third, the LIS profession’s long-standing interest and expertise in ILinstruction. KM is put into context with reference to two publications by Standards Australia andfrom this the main functions of a knowledge manager are delineated. It is suggested, withreference to IL in higher education and workplace contexts and to well-articulated models ofknowledge transfer, such as SECI, that there are significant commonalities between IL and KM butthat there are equally significant differences between the two. The paper argues that research ineach domain can inform the other but that IL represents a fraction of the KM domain, so attemptsto conflate the two may cause confusion rather than providing a pathway for informationprofessionals and others pursuing workplace IL. Finally the paper provides recommendations forfurther research and suggests a scalar approach to conceptualising KM and IL practice.",
author = "Stuart Ferguson",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.11645/3.2.188",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "6--24",
journal = "Journal of Information Literacy",
issn = "1750-5968",
publisher = "CILIP Information Literacy Group",
number = "2",

}

Information literacy and its relationship to knowledge management. / Ferguson, Stuart.

In: Journal of Information Literacy, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009, p. 6-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Information literacy and its relationship to knowledge management

AU - Ferguson, Stuart

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - This paper explores the perceived commonalities between information literacy (IL) and knowledgemanagement (KM) and the different contexts in which the two areas of theory and practicemanifest themselves. It approaches the study in terms of, first, the widespread interest in KM withinthe Library and Information Services (LIS) community; second, the belief, supported by researchinto workplace IL, that IL and the fostering of an information literate workforce are key componentsin any KM initiative; and, third, the LIS profession’s long-standing interest and expertise in ILinstruction. KM is put into context with reference to two publications by Standards Australia andfrom this the main functions of a knowledge manager are delineated. It is suggested, withreference to IL in higher education and workplace contexts and to well-articulated models ofknowledge transfer, such as SECI, that there are significant commonalities between IL and KM butthat there are equally significant differences between the two. The paper argues that research ineach domain can inform the other but that IL represents a fraction of the KM domain, so attemptsto conflate the two may cause confusion rather than providing a pathway for informationprofessionals and others pursuing workplace IL. Finally the paper provides recommendations forfurther research and suggests a scalar approach to conceptualising KM and IL practice.

AB - This paper explores the perceived commonalities between information literacy (IL) and knowledgemanagement (KM) and the different contexts in which the two areas of theory and practicemanifest themselves. It approaches the study in terms of, first, the widespread interest in KM withinthe Library and Information Services (LIS) community; second, the belief, supported by researchinto workplace IL, that IL and the fostering of an information literate workforce are key componentsin any KM initiative; and, third, the LIS profession’s long-standing interest and expertise in ILinstruction. KM is put into context with reference to two publications by Standards Australia andfrom this the main functions of a knowledge manager are delineated. It is suggested, withreference to IL in higher education and workplace contexts and to well-articulated models ofknowledge transfer, such as SECI, that there are significant commonalities between IL and KM butthat there are equally significant differences between the two. The paper argues that research ineach domain can inform the other but that IL represents a fraction of the KM domain, so attemptsto conflate the two may cause confusion rather than providing a pathway for informationprofessionals and others pursuing workplace IL. Finally the paper provides recommendations forfurther research and suggests a scalar approach to conceptualising KM and IL practice.

U2 - 10.11645/3.2.188

DO - 10.11645/3.2.188

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 6

EP - 24

JO - Journal of Information Literacy

JF - Journal of Information Literacy

SN - 1750-5968

IS - 2

ER -