Cited by 0Library Science and Information LiteracyInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The case for friction in AI-mediated information seeking and learning

Open access
Archambault, Susan Gardner, Kizhakkethil, Priya·2026·Information Research an international electronic journal

Abstract

Introduction. This paper challenges the assumption that frictionless AI-mediated information seeking represents progress. We argue that AI systems eliminating productive friction, such as uncertainty, exploration, and reflective processes, undermine intellectual virtues essential for critical thinking in an AI-saturated information environment. Method. This conceptual article employs a theory synthesis approach, drawing on library information science (LIS) theories of information behaviour, experience, and literacy, virtue epistemology, and human–computer interaction (HCI) friction design literature. Analysis. We map intellectual virtues such as curiosity, thoroughness, and intellectual humility onto the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, building on and extending previous analyses. We connect dimensions of virtuous search to AI system design principles and align friction types with specific intellectual virtues. Results. We propose three design principles for human-centred AI systems (representation, affordance, and facilitation) and develop a typology that maps friction interventions to intellectual virtues, providing concrete examples for each. Conclusion. Productive friction should be understood as a feature supporting intellectual development, not a barrier to efficiency. The design choices made today will determine whether AI serves as intellectual scaffolding or cognitive crutch.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.47989/ir31263104

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Metadata

Authors
Archambault, S. G., & Kizhakkethil, P.
Affiliations
  • Loyola Marymount University (US)
  • Texas Woman's University (US)
Venue
Information Research an international electronic journal
Published
2026-05-15
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
234-256
ISSN
1368-1613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7161230531
Cited by
0
References
3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Information Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
friction, intellectual virtues, critical thinking, information literacy, ACRL Framework for Information Literacy, virtue epistemology, curiosity, intellectual humility, exploration, uncertainty, information behavior

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