Privacy literacy instruction practices in academic libraries: Past, present, and possibilities
Open accessAbstract
This article explores the past, present, and possibilities of privacy and privacy literacy (PL) instruction in academic libraries. It surveys the scholarship on privacy and privacy literacy from the domains of philosophy, anthropology, history, law, education, and LIS. A privacy conceptual model is proposed demonstrating the zones of informational agency that privacy preserves, and a timeline of privacy and libraries documents key developments in privacy culture in the US. Findings from an original exploratory survey of privacy literacy instruction practices in academic libraries are discussed. The survey identifies the rationales, topics, contexts, methods, and assessments academic librarians use in delivering privacy literacy instruction, as well as barriers against privacy literacy that they encounter. The article concludes with a case study explicating the authors’ own privacy literacy instruction experiences, and specific recommendations for overcoming the barriers to delivering privacy literacy instruction in academic libraries identified in the survey findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Hartman-Caverly and Chisholm (2020) aligned the "Information Has Value" frame with privacy literacy.
“Hartman-Caverly and Chisholm (2020) aligned the frame with privacy literacy (i.e., how personal data and metadata were collected and shared).”
From Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy (2023) · cites this paper as Hartman-Caverly and Chisholm, 2020
The privacy paradox describes where people's actual behaviors often contradicted their stated privacy values due to information asymmetries between the system and the user, lack of user knowledge of system design, and users lacking the technical and legal literacy needed to understand privacy-related terms of service.
“Hartman-Caverly and Chisholm (2020) described the privacy paradox, where people's actual behaviors often contradicted their stated privacy values due to information asymmetries between the system and the user, lack of user knowledge of system design, and users lacking the technical and legal literacy needed to understand privacy-related terms of service.”
From Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy (2023) · cites this paper as Hartman-Caverly and Chisholm, 2020
Cites
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2477899 · Cited by 3,048 · see citing works
Gerber, N., Gerber, P., & Volkamer, M. (2018) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Privacy as Protection of the Incomputable Self: From Agnostic to Agonistic Machine Learning
Hildebrandt, M. (2019) · Theoretical Inquiries in Law · doi:10.1515/til-2019-0004 · Cited by 153 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Rapid developments in networked technologies pose an intellectual freedom conundrum: that as technology provides users with increasing access to ideas and affordances for extended cognition, it simultaneously renders their internal mental processes subject to observation and influence (Cohen, 1996; Gandy, 1993; Hildeb…”
BackgroundInfluentialLearning Analytics and the Academic Library: Professional Ethics Commitments at a Crossroads
Jones, K., & Salo, D. (2018) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl.79.3.304 · Cited by 85 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…2016); academic libraries’ complicity and participation in the learning analytics practices of their home institutions (Hartman-Caverly, 2018; Jones and Salo, 2018; Prindle and Loos, 2017); and the adoption of personalization library systems, such as OCLC’s Wise (Fister, 2018) to name a…”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy
Loyola Marymount University, & Archambault, S. (2023) · Communications in Information Literacy · doi:10.15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.11 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hartman-Caverly, S., & Chisholm, A.
- Affiliations
- Penn State Berks, USA
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- IFLA Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-08-28
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 305-327
- ISSN
- 0340-0352 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-2651
- OpenAlex
- W3081807385
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 24.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- IFLA Journal (publishedVersion)
- ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Science and Libraries
- Keywords
- privacy literacy, academic libraries, academic librarians, history of privacy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
