What Does it Mean to Say Authority is Constructed & Contextual?

In today’s complex information ecology, the ability to critically evaluate sources is crucial for writers, speakers, and researchers. ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries), has identified six key concepts that form the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Among these, “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” stands out as a fundamental principle for understanding how to assess the credibility of information sources.

According to the ACRL, “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” refers to the recognition that “Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used. Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the level of authority required” (ACRL, 2016).

This concept challenges the notion of absolute authority and encourages a more nuanced approach to evaluating information sources. It recognizes that authority can vary depending on the discipline, the specific information need, and the context in which the information is being used. For instance, a respected scientist might be considered an authority in their field of study, but their authority may not extend to unrelated domains.Understanding that authority is constructed and contextual is crucial for:

1. Critically examining sources across various media and formats
2. Recognizing biases that may privilege certain sources over others
3. Developing a healthy skepticism towards information while respecting genuine expertise
4. Adapting evaluation strategies to different information needs and contexts

As we delve deeper into this concept, we’ll explore how it relates to the other elements of the ACRL Framework and how it can be applied in practice to enhance information literacy skills.

Related Concepts

\

While this article focuses on the ACRL framework’s concept of “Authority is Constructed and Contextual,” it’s important to understand how to establish and maintain authority in your own writing and speech. For a comprehensive guide on developing credibility and authority in research, writing, and speaking, see Authority & Credibility – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing. This article provides practical strategies for enhancing your ethos and building trust with your audience across various contexts.

How Is Information Built? Unpacking the Concept of Constructed Information

The Building Blocks of Information

Information doesn’t simply exist; it’s created through various processes:

• Research and data collection form the foundation
• Analysis and interpretation shape raw data into meaningful insights
• Writing and editing refine these insights into communicable information

Example: A scientific paper on climate change is constructed from years of data collection, analysis of trends, peer review, and careful writing to present findings.

The Role of Context in Information Construction

Information is always created within a specific context:

• Cultural backgrounds influence how information is framed and understood
• Historical contexts shape the questions we ask and the answers we seek
• Disciplinary contexts determine methodologies and standards of evidence

Example: A historian’s account of a historical event is constructed differently from a journalist’s report on the same event, reflecting their different contexts and approaches.

The Influence of Perspective in Information Creation

Information is inevitably shaped by the perspective of its creator:

• Personal experiences and biases affect how information is presented
• Ideological leanings can influence which facts are emphasized or omitted
• Professional training determines what’s considered relevant or important

Example: News reports on economic policies might be constructed differently by economists with different schools of thought, each emphasizing aspects that align with their perspective.

The Collaborative Nature of Information Construction

Much information is the result of collective efforts:

• Academic knowledge is built through ongoing dialogue and peer review
• Journalistic reports often involve multiple sources and fact-checkers
• Online platforms allow for collaborative creation and editing of information

Example: Wikipedia articles are constructed through contributions from multiple users, with ongoing edits and discussions shaping the final content.

The Impact of Technology on Information Construction

Digital tools have transformed how information is created:

• Big data analytics allow for new types of information to be constructed from vast datasets
• AI and machine learning algorithms can generate or assist in creating content
• Social media platforms enable real-time construction of information through user interactions

Example: Social media trends and hashtags construct narratives about current events in real-time, often shaping public perception before traditional news outlets can report.

The Ongoing Nature of Information Construction

Information is not static; it’s continually being built and rebuilt:

• New discoveries lead to the reconstruction of existing knowledge
• Changing social norms result in the reframing of historical information
• Emerging technologies enable new ways of constructing and presenting information

Example: Our understanding of human evolution is constantly being reconstructed as new fossil evidence is discovered and analyzed.By recognizing that information is constructed, we can approach it more critically, understanding that it’s not an absolute truth but a product of human processes, perspectives, and contexts. This awareness allows us to evaluate information more effectively, considering not just what is presented, but how and why it was constructed in that particular way.

Information is Contextual

The relevance and weight of authority can vary significantly depending on the situation, discipline, or information need.

The Communities of Practitioners who inhabit a rhetorical space, a context, have distinct ideas about what constitutes a valid knowledge claim. Academic disciplines—for example, mathematics, psychology, physics, engineering, or business—have different ways of conducting and evaluating research. An anthropologist’s account of kinship patterns in a tribe of Native Americans bears almost no resemblance to a cognitive psychologist’s investigation of sensory responses to light stimuli. Even within a particular academic discipline, researchers may disagree over what makes good research.  Different researchers employ different research methodologies because they have opposing, sometimes contradictory ideas, about what constitutes a valid knowledge claim. 

Not only do people disagree about appropriate methods of research, but their ideas may change over time. Conceptions about knowledge, available technologies, and research practices influence each other and change constantly. For example, capturing gorillas and studying them in cages might have been considered good research in the 1920s. The work of later researchers like Dian Fossey, however, demonstrated how animals might be better understood in their natural environment. Today, research based on observations of wild animals in captivity would gain little support or interest.

The poignancy, currency, and perceived accuracy of knowledge claims are contextual. While a writing teacher may be an expert in the academic discipline of English composition, you may be more of an expert at playing the violin, so they could teach you in a college course and then turn around and take violin lessons from you. Depending on the context (i.e. rhetorical situation), different people are experts by virtue of their previous study and experience. Society also provides context. For example, women were rarely recognized as authorities, in spite of any expertise they might have, until very recently, and in some societies, women still fight to be acknowledged.

Why is this Concept Important?

Understanding that authority is constructed and contextual is crucial because it:

1. Encourages critical thinking about sources
2. Promotes awareness of diverse perspectives and voices
3. Helps in evaluating information based on specific needs and contexts
4. Challenges learners to question traditional notions of authority
5. Prepares individuals to navigate complex information ecosystems

Implications for Writers and Researchers

Understanding the constructed and contextual nature of authority has several implications:

1. Critical Evaluation: Approach all sources with informed skepticism.
2. Diverse Voices: Recognize that authority can come from various sources and perspectives. Seek out and consider authoritative voices from different backgrounds, disciplines, or viewpoints that are relevant to your research context.
3. Contextual Appropriateness: Choose sources relevant to your specific context, considering the audience, purpose, and discipline of your work.
4. Audience Awareness: Consider what sources of authority will resonate with your readers, recognizing that different audiences may value different types of authority.

By grasping these dimensions of how authority is constructed and contextualized, writers and researchers can navigate the complex landscape of credibility more effectively, tailoring their approach to establishing and evaluating authority based on their specific context and audience.

Further Reading

For practical strategies on building credibility and authority in your own work, see:Authority & Credibility – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & WritingThis companion article provides concrete techniques for establishing your own authority as a writer or researcher, building on the concepts discussed here.