Conference Agenda

With the advance of Artificial Intelligence in creating or assisting with both academic and creative works, a team of librarians and researchers at an American university formed to guide the use and development of these tools in higher education, including ethical concerns for using these tools. A subcommittee quickly formed to research the various tools available in order to develop guidelines for ethical use of the most popular AI tools. The research team quickly discovered that AI is a swiftly moving target, and development stymied as keeping pace with the unfolding changes proved impossible. Any guide for researches the team wished to develop would be hopelessly outdated before it could even be deployed, even as the need for ethical guidelines increased. This understood, the team pivoted away from providing answers and instead put effort into developing questions that students and faculty should ask themselves, questions such as: Was the data informing this tool sourced ethically? What is the safety of your personal data when using this tool? Were the staff responsible for training these tools employed and compensated fairly? Are there concerns of environmental impact due to the computational power required? Will marginalized groups and individuals have their voices heard

For disabled individuals, the situation is even more dire. Often considered as no more than an afterthought when it comes to design, concern regarding these tools and marginalized populations is paramount. With recent developments in the United States in terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion, we cannot rely on government oversight to ensure these concerns are addressed by private industries developing Large Language Models and other AI tools. Already, we begin to see backlash against the disabled community, with chilling pronouncements from US leadership. It will ultimately fall to educators and advocates to push accessibility; however, this struggle is not new and we have the ability to help prepare users and designers to adapt.

Zooming out, the authors will present a broad overview of the current situation while highlighting tools that already exist to make information more accessible to all users. Ethical uses of AI have improved accessibility in certain cases. AI has already demonstrated acumen in live transcriptions of presentations and meetings. Such tools have existed for years, but AI tools have accelerated their availability and utility. Image descriptions for the visually impaired have greatly improved in a short time through the continuing development of AI tools.

Attendees will acquire deeper knowledge of the fast-moving history of these tools, the ethical issues facing information seekers and creators, and encouraging developments for improving access in the current and future environment.

Among universities in the United States. X university ranks very high in terms of a diverse undergraduate student body. The X university library system is vast and complex, spanning different campuses representing and supporting different academic areas and demographic needs. This study explores the experiences of a small group of library and information science (LIS) graduate students employed in the academic library system and who interact closely with the diverse undergraduate student population as a part of their job duties. The LIS student employees also interact regularly with and receive training from academic librarians who mentor and model in the areas of student interest and library study track. The study utilizes participatory research (PR) methodology which prioritizes participant perspectives and allows inclusivity, ensuring that their voices are central to the study. Specifically, it explores the experiences of LIS students employed in an academic library, centering their individual perspectives to understand how these dual roles shape their identities and influence their work performance in the library, regardless of department. By connecting the experiences of these graduate students as they interact with academic librarians, the research aims to explore the characteristics of and to foster meaningful relationships that support inclusivity. LIS graduate student experiences around inclusivity prior to working in the academic library and exposure to LIS coursework are also critical to the study. Furthermore, the goal of the study is to identify ways to strengthen relationships among librarians and LIS graduate student employees. Moreover, by incorporating qualitative analysis and researcher positionality statements, the study also emphasizes researcher reflexivity in its design.

The findings reveal varied experiences with inclusion, shaped by prior coursework and exposure to critical pedagogy and other inclusive practices some of which are beyond the academic library (employer). Students who encountered these approaches and ideas felt more included, while others reported a perceived lack of structural support. A key theme emerged: the responsibility for fostering or seeking inclusive practices and experiences often fell on the students, rather than being formally embedded in their LIS academic program or in the academic library (the employer). These findings suggest that LIS programs and academic libraries should intentionally integrate inclusive practices and critical pedagogy into their organizational and structural frameworks to better support graduate students in preparation for the workplace which is becoming increasingly diverse in the US and whose clientele (library patrons) are vastly diverse, bringing multi-cultural and multi-lingual perspectives and customs. Furthermore, such inclusive practices can, in turn, create and sustain more equitable environments for all students at the university fostering feelings of belonging. This is especially critical at institutions with highly diverse populations including those that have native or non-traditional populations. Overall, this study seeks to provide practical strategies for academic libraries and LIS academic programs to better engage with and support their students, recognizing the value of individual identities and the importance of connecting librarians authentically with the graduate student experience to the benefit of all at the immediate institution and beyond into the workplace environment.

References

Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824

Public libraries play a crucial role in fostering information literacy and strengthening democratic resilience. In an era where disinformation, conspiracy narratives, and hate speech are amplified by artificial intelligence, librarians require targeted training to address these challenges effectively. In this best practice session, a structured training framework designed to empower librarians in recognizing and countering digital misinformation will be presented.

The program comprises four key modules: (1) Understanding disinformation and AI-driven manipulation, (2) Conspiracy narratives as part of the disinformation ecosystem, (3) Media literacy as a preventative measure, and (4) Hate speech as an escalation of misinformation. Through a combination of online and in-person workshops, participants acquire theoretical knowledge and learn to apply it everyday life. The training has been successfully implemented in several public libraries in Germany, where it was evaluated to ensure its adaptability to the needs of library professionals.

Overview

The TikTok House, an innovative media literacy intervention, began as a student project at the University of Tartu. Its main goal was to equip individuals with knowledge about TikTok, providing insights into the app’s inner workings and data collection practices. By arming the public with this information, the TikTok House aimed to help people make informed decisions about their involvement with the platform.

While the intervention covered key TikTok-related topics, including hidden advertisements and legal cases, its primary focus was on the app's algorithm. TikTok’s recommendation system determines the content users see based on collected data. Social media algorithms have been described as invisible mechanisms shaping users' perceptions of reality (Klug et al., 2021). TikTok stands out because its content-recommendation algorithm solely determines what users encounter (Bhandari and Bimo, 2022).

The rise of platforms driven by personalized recommendations has highlighted the need for algorithmic literacy. Understanding how these opaque “black box” systems (Oeldorf-Hirsch & Neubaum, 2023) influence social media consumption – particularly among younger generations (Head et al., 2020) – has become crucial. To make the topic accessible, this intervention brought TikTok into a vibrant physical space, where its algorithm was explained interactively. Information bubbles, detailing different aspects of the algorithm, were hung from the ceiling, guiding visitors through a pathway that revealed its functions. A full-length mirror at the center resembled the familiar TikTok homepage.

The decision to use a physical space, rather than an online campaign, stemmed from research indicating that online campaigns tend to reach fewer people without financial amplification (Miller, 2021) due to platforms’ profit models (Kozinets, 2022).

Outcomes

The idea evolved into a physical space intervention as part of Tartu's annual Christmas Village at the end of 2022, held in the Town Hall Square. The TikTok House successfully captivated the public, drawing an estimated 40,000 visitors. To date, the intervention has been hosted in two different seasons and cities across Estonia, with the second edition taking place in August 2023 during the National Opinion Festival. Notably, the intervention has gained attention from the Global Media Literacy Network and TikTok’s Trust and Safety team.

References

Bhandari, A. & Bimo, S. (2022). Why’s Everyone on TikTok Now? The Algorithmized Self and the Future of Self-Making on Social Media. Social Media + Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221086241

Head, A. J., Fister, B., & MacMillan, M. (2020). Information literacy in the age of algorithms. Project Information Literacy, 55.

Klug, D., Qin, Y., Evans, M. & Kaufman, G. (2021). Trick and please. A mixed-method study on user assumptions about the TikTok algorithm. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447535.3462512

Kozinets, R. V. (2022). Algorithmic branding through platform assemblages: core conceptions and research directions for a new era of marketing and service management. Journal of Service Management, 33(3), 437-452.

Miller, E. L. (2021). Amplified Speech. Cardozo L. Rev., 43, 1.

Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Neubaum, G. (2023). What do we know about algorithmic literacy? The status quo and a research agenda for a growing field. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231182662

Twenty years ago, Wayne Weigand asked, “To what extent are libraries places worth experiencing?” (2005, 78). Now, as generative AI pushes us to live digitally, we must retain focus on how we interact with physical spaces. And we must continue to examine embodied experiences that take place in libraries. As Annemaree Lloyd says, “the body as an information source that matters and is pivotal to meaning-making that is essential in all forms of human existence” (2024, 166).

Objective:

In this best-practices presentation, I will describe the outcomes and implications of my research study that examined university students’ recollections after taking an on-site library tour.

Methods:

Drawing on almost 500 responses by undergraduate students to the exit survey, I will provide a brief overview of the implementation of the tour, which is the only one known to employ a particular combination of recorded content, asynchronously offered, but experienced on-site. Results indicate experiences of physical spaces are embodied experiences providing students with first-hand information about their agentic choices not only within the library, but in their broader educational contexts. These results reflect similar findings based in the work of Andrew Cox (2018, 2019), who examines academic libraries as sites rich in embodied cognition and sensory experiences. This work also connects more broadly to the work of Annemaree Lloyd, in that these experiences are ones of information literacy as the “performance of emplacement” (2024, 177). This suggests that not only are libraries worth experiencing, but they are places worth experiencing corporeally.

Outcomes:

Participants of this session will:

1. Deepen their understanding of embodiment and embodied cognition in the setting of an academic library.

2. Recognize the main components of the tour in order to implement a similar offering in their context.

References

Cox, A. M. (2018). Embodied Knowledge and Sensory Information: Theoretical Roots and Inspirations. Library Trends, 66(3), 223–238.

Cox, A. M. (2019). Learning bodies: Sensory experience in the information commons. Library & Information Science Research, 41(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2019.02.002

Lloyd, A. (2024). Surfacing the body: Embodiment, site and source. In A. Hicks, A. Lloyd, & O. Pilerot (Eds.), Information literacy through theory. Facet.

Weigand, Wayne A. (2005). Library as Place. North Carolina Libraries, 63(3). https://doi.org/10.3776/ncl.v63i3.70