Clifford Lynch position paper analysis

The position paper, “Information Literary and Information Technology Literacy: New Components in the Curriculum for a Digital Culture” written in 1998 by Clifford Lynch, was very insightful. The author begins his introduction with a humble approach, yet leaves the reader with much food for thought.

I believe Mr. Lynch’s paper centers around the argument of specialization versus generalization when referring to information technology literacy. While educating the masses on the intricacies of an internet 2 access grid, DLA, or rack-mount environment would be advantageous, it is my opinion that most of us can be categorized as specialists or generalists. Specifically, training to that degree is best offered to the specialists; those with daily application of that information.

When Mr. Lynch refers to including “fluency with current tools”, most students would not have the interest to support separate dedicated information literacy training. Although intriguing, the practical application of such a program does not seem feasible.

Mr. Lynch achieves his goal of presenting his arguments for incorporating new components into curriculum for the general student population. He supports his argument citing inadequacies in IT curricula as it pertains to broad spectrum subjects. However, he also counters with an admission of the time needed to impart the complexities of IT and information literacy. His argument concludes with a question of the importance of a “bank” of skills which would aid those in all facets of our society, i.e., commerce or science or other.

With regard to information technology, Mr. Lynch goes so far as to touch on the issue of creating maps of information, such as the context models hypothesized in the previous article. But he also refers to the limitations of digital resources, stating that “much material will not be available in digital form for the foreseeable future” (1998, Lynch, Clifford: Information Literacy and Information Technology Literacy: New Components in the Curriculum for a Digital Culture). This statement is incongruous to his prior arguments. His closing statements indicate a desire to explore more, as he lists the issues related to information literacy. I look forward to reading more of his work.