See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340940960

Information literacy in the digital age: Why critical digital literacy matters for
democracy

Chapter · January 2020

DOI: 10.29085/9781783303922.003

CITATIONS READS

49 1,530

1 author:

Gianfranco Polizzi
University of Birmingham
11 PUBLICATIONS 274 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gianfranco Polizzi on 27 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Information literacy in the digital age: why critical digital literacy
matters for democracy
LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/102993/
Version: Published Version

Book Section:
Polizzi, Gianfranco (2020) Information literacy in the digital age: why critical
digital literacy matters for democracy. In: Goldstein, Stéphane, (ed.) Informed
societies: why information literacy matters for citizenship, participation and
democracy. Facet Publishing, London, UK, pp. 1-23. ISBN 9781783304226

Reuse
Items deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights
reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private
study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights
holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is
indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item.

[email protected]
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/
1

Information literacy in the digital age:

why critical digital literacy matters for
democracy

Gianfranco Polizzi

Introduction
There is growing concern that Western liberal democracy has been undermined
over the decades by citizens’ participation deficit in institutional politics and
distrust of institutions and the media. More recently, in the context of Brexit and
the 2016 US Presidential election, there have also been concerns about
misinformation undermining citizens’ engagement in civic and political life.
Inasmuch as civic and political engagement is highly mediated by the internet
– at least in the West (e.g. Europe and North America) – this chapter explores
the relevance of information literacy to democracy by looking at its interrelation
with ‘critical digital literacy’, approached here as a set of critical abilities,
knowledge and interpretations necessary for engaging with information in the
digital age. After unpacking how the internet facilitates democracy while
remaining subject to structural constraints, this chapter discusses what has been
achieved by media research on critical digital literacy and civic and political
engagement. It then draws on political research and democratic theory to
discuss how the knowledge and abilities required by citizens to engage civically
and politically vary, depending on how we understand democracy.
This chapter addresses gaps within media research, political science and
democratic theory. It is argued that critical digital literacy can be a useful concept
for democratic practice in line with different normative models of democracy,
provided it is not just reduced to the ability to evaluate information in relation to
trustworthiness, bias and representation. In order to contribute to the active
participation of well-informed and critically autonomous citizens in democracy in
the digital age, critical digital literacy needs to include knowledge about the digital
environment where information circulates. It needs to incorporate an
2 INFORMED SOCIETIES

understanding of how the internet operates socio-economically along with its

potentials and constraints for democracy, politics and civic and political
participation.

Information literacy and critical digital literacy

The concept of information literacy transcends traditional and digital media, as
it refers to the ability to access, ‘identify, locate, evaluate, organise and effectively
create, use and communicate information’ (Information Literacy Meeting of
Experts, 2003, 1). In an age where information is highly mediated by digital
media, the boundary between information literacy and terms such as media
literacy is blurred (Livingstone, van Couvering and Thumim, 2008). As
captured by UNESCO’s adoption of media and information literacy (MIL),
‘the 21st century digital environment is deeply affecting the meaning and use of
media and information’ (UNESCO, 2014, 1). As a result, media literacy,
traditionally emphasising the critical understanding and creation of media texts,
has come to be used as an umbrella term referring to a variety of literacies,
including information, media, digital, multimodal and network literacies
(Livingstone et al., 2013).
Digital literacy may be understood as a variant of media literacy, one that is
specifically about digital media and the internet. It can be interpreted as twofold:
while functional digital literacy refers to the practical skills and understanding
necessary for engaging online, critical digital literacy should be approached as
more than just the ability to evaluate online information. Insofar as the internet
offers both opportunities and constraints for democracy and civic and political
participation, critical digital literacy needs to include users’ understanding of
socio-economic issues underpinning how information is accessed, used and
produced in the digital age (Buckingham et al., 2005; Buckingham, 2007). It
needs to incorporate political economy reflections on how advertising and
ownership, for instance, shape how online content is consumed and created, and
with what implications. Ultimately, users should understand how using the
internet has the potential to affect democracy and civic and political participation
(Fry, 2014). It follows that critical digital literacy should be approached as an
ensemble of critical abilities, knowledge and interpretations that are essential in
the context of democratic participation and social inclusion in the digital age
(Trültzsch-Wijnen, Murru and Papaionnou, 2017).
In order to address why critical digital literacy should be conceived in this way
and why it matters for democracy, the next section of this chapter reflects on the
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 3

potentials and constraints that the internet presents for democratic participation.
A section follows on what has been achieved, and with what limitations, by media
research on critical digital literacy and civic and political engagement. Within
this section links are established with the literature on information literacy and
librarianship. Insights from political research are then presented to elucidate how
the knowledge and competences that citizens need to engage civically and
politically vary on the basis of how we understand democracy. Finally, a
discussion on critical digital literacy and democracy follows, showing the
complexities of how the former can facilitate the latter. It is argued that a crucial
dimension of citizens’ knowledge and competences required to engage in
democracy in the digital age needs to intersect with critical digital literacy.
Relatedly, it is emphasised that the ability to evaluate online information in
synergy with knowledge about the broader digital environment can benefit
democracy and its different normative models. More specifically, critical digital
literacy has the potential to do so by contributing to the civic and political
engagement of informed, critically autonomous and active citizens in ways that
are mediated by the internet.

The internet and democratic participation

The notion of democratic participation entails not just the activities that citizens
perform to influence decision making, but also a psychological dimension
(Schonfeld, 1975). Thus, what citizens do to engage in civic and political life
may not necessarily influence politics but may be an expression of what matters
to them. Such an understanding of democratic participation resonates with the
notion of civic and political engagement, which includes citizens’ subjectivity
about their practices (Dahlgren, 2003). Crucial to institutional and non-
institutional civic and political engagement may be activities, both online and
offline, which range from using government websites and seeking, sharing and
commenting on civic and political content, to signing a petition, using
alternative media and participating in a demonstration (Dutton, Blank and
Groselj, 2013; Theocharis, 2015; van Laer and van Aelst, 2010).
Western liberal democracy operates through representative institutions and
under principles of individual liberty and equality. For decades, it has been
affected by a decline in citizens’ participation in electoral politics and their
alienation as a result of their inability to influence the political process (Coleman,
2013). In an age where nation-states are challenged in dealing with social
inequalities by supranational politics and global capital flows, liberal democracy
4 INFORMED SOCIETIES

and public communication in the West have been undermined by citizens’

distrust of institutions’ and traditional media’s ability to represent their concerns
(Dahlgren, 2004; Coleman and Blumler, 2009). But while the representative
character of Western political institutions has dwindled, we ‘have evidence of
alternative’ practices of resistance and activism ‘outside the parliamentarian
context’ (Dahlgren, 2004, ix). In addition, the advent of the internet has been
accompanied by hopes about its potential to revitalise democracy by facilitating
both institutional and non-institutional civic and political participation. Because
of its interactive features allowing users to consume, share and produce content,
the internet has been championed for its potential to decentralise politics, allow
marginalised groups to engage civically and politically, foster an online public
sphere and facilitate a deliberative democracy where citizens participate in
decision making (Benkler, 2006; Coleman and Blumler, 2009; Martin, 2015).
Furthermore, the internet has been celebrated for strengthening civil society and
non-institutional politics by contributing, for example, to better-organised
activism and the creation and consolidation of communities and collective
identities (Cammaerts, 2015; Garrett, 2006).
However, as a technology that is embedded in power structures, the internet is
far from having just a positive potential. Central to an ecosystem characterised by
online content, usage and technical features as well as ownership, governance and
socio-economic processes (van Dijck, 2013, 28), the internet presents structural
constraints. With just a few corporations such as Facebook enjoying most online
traffic (Freedman, 2012), the internet reinforces ideological extremism because of
how its algorithms amplify and feed users with popular content that generates
strong reactions (Vaidhyanathan, 2018). Given the internet’s implications for
privacy and security, issues of surveillance are also typical of the digital age. Insofar
as user-generated content is shared with advertising companies by corporations
such as Google and Facebook, the internet contributes to both commercial and
government surveillance, as such corporations often work closely with governments
(Fuchs, 2010; McChesney, 2013). Online content, furthermore, is fragmented and
polarised (Sunstein, 2007). And as the fake news phenomenon demonstrates, it is
also subject to issues of trustworthiness, bias and (mis)representation, issues that
undermine democracy and its reliance on a well-informed citizenry (Garrett, 2006;
Oxley, 2012).
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 5

Critical digital literacy and civic and political engagement

within media studies
Not inherently democratising or undemocratic, the internet offers opportunities
for reinvigorating democracy by contributing to institutional and non-
institutional engagement in civic and political life. However, as it also poses
challenges, citizens need to engage with information in the digital age in ways
that involve an understanding of its civic and political potentials and
limitations. Conceived as incorporating knowledge about the digital
environment, critical digital literacy can encourage civic and political
engagement and contribute to democracy. To reflect on how it may be expected
to do so, it is worth drawing on what has been achieved in media studies,
highlighting the gaps within different traditions.
Given media studies’ interdisciplinary nature, approaches to media literacy
have drawn on, and overlapped with, traditions ranging from social psychology,
cultural studies, critical pedagogy, information science and the New Literacy
Studies, which see literacy in socio-cultural terms, rather than just as an
individual, cognitive phenomenon. These traditions have generally focused on
education and young people rather than adults. But such a focus does not
necessarily lie in opposition to civic and political engagement. A few studies
implementing quantitative methodologies widely adopted in social psychology
have measured the extent to which critical analytical skills and knowledge about
traditional media in the context of media education correlate with civic and
political engagement. They have argued that the ability to analyse and evaluate
traditional news media is associated with civic engagement online (Martens and
Hobbs, 2015). Appreciation of knowledge about news production and bias in the
news corresponds to higher levels of civic engagement online and offline (Hobbs
et al., 2013). Knowledge about mass media structures correlates with the
intention to participate in media activism (Duran et al., 2008). And the ability to
evaluate the trustworthiness of websites is associated with political engagement
online and ‘higher levels of online exposure to diverse perspectives’ (Kahne, Lee
and Feezell, 2012, 19).
Another strand of research that has looked at critical literacy and civic and
political engagement in the context of education has taken inspiration from
critical pedagogy and cultural studies. A major emphasis of this strand lies not
only in the ability of internet users to critically evaluate media content, but also
in their ability to express their voices by producing alternative media, re-writing
media content subject to prejudice, bias and misrepresentation (Kellner and
6 INFORMED SOCIETIES

Share, 2007). While this strand has remained focused on students’ learning
practices, to a less extent it has also underpinned work on social movements and
activists’ engagement with alternative media (Feria-Galicia, 2011). Critical
pedagogy prescribes a teaching approach that encourages students’ critical
reflections against dominant representations together with political action (Freire,
2005; Luke and Freedboy, 1997). A limitation of this approach is that it has often
assumed a relationship between critical literacy and political engagement.
Drawing on critical theory, it has perpetuated the idea of social action as
necessarily critical of dominant ideologies.
In an age where politics is increasingly polarised, it is essential to differentiate
between, on the one hand, the questioning of media representations with a view
to empowerment and on the other, misinformation propagated, for instance, by
far-right ideologies questioning media credibility (Mihailidis and Viotty, 2017).
Nevertheless, we also need to recognise that the potential of critical digital literacy
to debunk misrepresentation and misinformation is not exclusively at the service
of progressive and liberal ideologies. Critical pedagogy has overlooked the extent
to which the questioning of dominant representations can be aligned with
conservative politics and, problematically, with extreme ideologies disregarding
evidence with the objective of delegitimising the political process. Such ideologies
entail a risk of succumbing to a post-truth society where emotions, personal
beliefs and distrust in expertise prevail over respect for evidence (Nichols, 2017).
Restrictively, critical pedagogy has left little room for more comprehensive
interpretations of civic and political engagement as institutional/non-institutional
and ideologically multifaceted. In addition, it has encouraged citizens’ critique
against dominant representations while only sporadically emphasising the
importance of understanding media structures and the broader digital
environment where information circulates (Pangrazio, 2016, 164).
With the advent of digital media, the overlap between information literacy
and media literacy has signalled the convergence of information science and
media studies (Livingstone, van Couvering and Thumim, 2008). As with media
scholars, information scientists and librarianship scholars have drawn on critical
pedagogy to approach critical information literacy as the ability to question power
and authority in ways that facilitate social justice (Correia, 2002; Elmborg, 2006;
Jacobs and Berg, 2011). The new definition of information literacy adopted by
CILIP (2018) resonates with such an approach in the way that it recognises the
relevance of information literacy to citizenship. From such a perspective,
librarianship has been interpreted as inherently promoting democratic values
such as intellectual freedom and access to knowledge (Gregory and Higgins,
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 7

2013). However, only on occasion has critical information literacy been

approached as including the questioning of ‘the social, political, economic, and
corporate systems [. . . underpinning] information production, dissemination,
access, and consumption’ (Gregory and Higgins, 2013, 4; Cope, 2010). In a
similar vein, few media scholars have drawn on critical pedagogy to approach
critical digital literacy as incorporating an understanding of the internet as
embedded in power structures, in relation to production/consumption processes
and its democratising potentials and structural constraints (Buckingham, 2007;
Fry, 2014). Unlike critical digital literacy, however, most definitions of information
literacy do not explicitly incorporate knowledge about the internet. They do not
address ‘the now pervasive online environments’ where information circulates
in the digital age (Mackey and Jacobson, 2011, 63).
The New Literacy Studies represent another tradition that is relevant to media
studies. Approaching different literacies as embedded in the social context, this
tradition has explored young people’s ability to engage with multimodal content
that integrates different media texts (Bulfin and North, 2007; Hull and Katz,
2006; Jewitt, 2008). Nevertheless, it has not always focused on their ability to
evaluate content or their understanding of the digital landscape (Pangrazio, 2016,
167). Furthermore, it has placed little emphasis on civic and political engagement.
Exceptionally, a few studies have addressed young people’s civic engagement with
multimedia content within online communities as facilitating the development
and sharing of critical reflections on socio-political matters, personal storytelling,
blogging and transnational identities resisting dominant representations
(McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg and Saliani, 2007). But only a few have
explored young people’s understanding of the internet’s potential to facilitate,
for instance, both surveillance and storytelling (e.g. Shresthova, 2016).
The different traditions relevant to media studies, which have been discussed
above, have rarely transcended a focus on education and young people to look at
adults’ digital literacy in the context of their civic and political practices. Relatedly,
they have overlooked how understanding the digital environment may be
relevant to civic and political engagement. By contrast, digital divide research has
investigated the extent to which users’ attitudes and dispositions towards the
internet facilitate their online engagement (Durndell and Haag, 2002; Eynon
and Geniets, 2016; Hakkarainen, 2012; Reisdorf and Groselj, 2017). However,
having predominantly looked at the functional aspects of digital literacy, this
strand of research has retained an individualistic focus neglecting users’ civic and
political practices and understanding of the socio-political dimension of the
internet. A few media studies on social movements, instead, have explored
8 INFORMED SOCIETIES

activists’ interpretations of traditional and digital media. They have argued that
awareness of the internet’s potentials and limitations can facilitate a pragmatic
approach to using it for political purposes (Barassi, 2015; McCurdy, 2010, 2011;
Treré, 2015). But these studies have made no reference to media literacy theory.
Another limitation within media studies is that although it has been
emphasised that critical digital literacy can benefit democracy by contributing to
well-informed, critical and empowered citizens, the notion of democracy has
been approached rather monolithically by neglecting the different ways in which
it can be understood. Some have argued that critical analytical skills and the
ability to produce alternative media against dominant representations can
facilitate a radical, pluralistic democracy, one that ‘depends on a citizenry that
embraces multiple perspectives’, resulting in more participatory, ‘democratic self-
expression, and social progress’ (Kellner and Share, 2007, 14, 17; Mihailidis and
Thevenin, 2013). It has also been suggested that ‘it is vital for citizens of a
pluralistic democracy . . . to develop . . . competencies [such as] reading or
watching the news . . . commenting on an online news story, contributing to an
online community network . . . evaluating the quality of information [. . . and]
sharing ideas and deliberating’ (Hobbs, 2010, xi). The problem, however, is that
media research has provided a limited understanding of how critical digital
literacy can benefit civic and political engagement in ways that incorporate
knowledge about the digital environment. Furthermore, what has remained
obscure is how critical digital literacy can do so depending on how we conceive
of democracy. In order to address these questions, it is worth drawing on political
research and democratic theory.

Citizens’ knowledge and competences in democracy: insights

from political research
Political education studies have argued that ‘to be engaged in democracy, there
must be political literacy, the absence of which would make the prospect of
meaningful social justice in society less likely’ (Lund and Carr, 2008, 13).
Political literacy revolves around factual knowledge of history, the political
system, political and community groups, government, politicians and civic and
political affairs. It also includes the ability to participate in politics, influence
decision making and engage with communities. Ultimately, resonating with
information literacy and critical literacy, it may be understood as entailing
informed judgements based on critical thinking and ‘respect for truth and
reasoning’ (Lund and Carr, 2008, 14; Davies and Hogarth, 2004; Giroux, 2017).
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 9

Within political theory, Robert Dahl (2006, 52) has argued not only that citizens
need to know how to use resources such as time and money, but also that
democracy depends on ‘equal opportunities’ to develop ‘enlightened
understanding[s]’ and the ability to ‘seek out independent information’ (Dahl,
1998, 37–8; 2006, 12).
While the concept of political literacy overlaps with information literacy and
critical literacy, political science and political communication studies, lying at the
intersection of political research and media studies, have de facto focused on
political knowledge as ‘the primary indicator of citizen competence’ (Rapeli, 2014,
2). Referring to factual and objective knowledge, the concept of political knowledge
lacks a subjective dimension concerned, for instance, with ‘whether . . . information
is perceived to be correct or not’ (Rapeli, 2014, 11). Except for a few studies (e.g.
Bennett, Wells and Rank, 2009), political research has overlooked whether citizens
are able to evaluate information. Instead, it has emphasised that citizens should
have factual knowledge of the political system, the government, its rules and values,
and how institutions operate (Barber, 1969, 38; Neuman, 1986, 196; Weissberg,
1974, 71). They should understand socio-political contexts and voting procedures
(Downs, 1957, 215). And they should be familiar with domestic and international
affairs, politicians, parties, key policies, relevant history, socio-economic conditions
and political alignments (Dahl, 1992, 46; Delli Carpini and Keeter, 1993, 1182–3;
1996, 14; Neuman, 1986, 186).
What political research has overlooked is whether and to what extent citizens’
required knowledge is underpinned by the ability to evaluate information in
relation, for instance, to bias, prejudice and trustworthiness. Furthermore, while
we live in an age where civic and political life is highly mediated by the internet,
political research (similarly to media research, as suggested earlier in this chapter)
has placed little emphasis on citizens’ knowledge and interpretations of how the
internet operates as a technology embedded in power structures. It has neglected
that citizens should understand the civic and political opportunities and
constraints that characterise the digital environment where information
circulates. A few political scientists have measured the extent to which citizens’
perceptions of internet-based electronic surveillance predict online political
activity (Best and Krueger, 2008; Krueger, 2005). But they have made no
reference to media literacy theory. In short, what has remained silent in political
research is that a crucial layer of citizens’ civic competence and required
knowledge in the digital age should intersect with critical digital literacy.
Despite such a lacuna, recent work in political theory has offered insights into
the interrelation of citizens’ knowledge and democratic participation, which is
10 INFORMED SOCIETIES

relevant for addressing why critical digital literacy matters for democracy in the
digital age. The notion of democracy entails both a descriptive and normative
connotation. At the descriptive level, countries in the West are equipped with a
system whereby citizens delegate representative power to institutions and
politicians through elections. This system goes under the name of liberal
democracy, operating under principles of political and economic individual
liberty and equality. At the normative level, however, democracy may be
understood in ways that build on or transcend the representative character of
liberal democracy (Held, 2006). Drawing on democratic theory, Rapeli (2014)
has employed Held’s description of modern, 20th-century forms of democracy as
a frame to theorise that citizens’ political knowledge and participation in
democracy vary depending on whether the latter is conceived in competitive
elitist, pluralistic, participatory or deliberative terms (Rapeli, 2014, 69–74). Such
an approach may not be exhaustive, since an understanding of democracy as
predominantly dependent on the legal system was deliberately put aside. But it
is a step towards refining our understanding of what citizens should know to
participate civically and politically, in line with four ‘models which are generally
considered the main types of modern democracy’ (Rapeli, 2014, 78):

1 The competitive elitist normative model prescribes liberal democracy as

relying entirely on a ‘political elite capable of making necessary legislative
and administrative decisions’ (Held, 2006, 157; Rapeli, 2014, 70). It revolves
around citizens’ political knowledge of competing parties and their
electoral participation.
2 A pluralistic vision of democracy assumes that ‘power is contested by
numerous groups’ and emphasises the role of factions seeking political
influence (e.g. state, pressure groups, corporations, international
organisations) (Dahl, 1982, 5; Held, 2006, 173). Intended as a ‘polyarchy’, a
pluralistic democracy requires citizens’ knowledge of politics, policies,
electoral competition and political groups. It implies that citizens ‘engage
in politics in . . . other way[s] than just by voting’, as exemplified by their
involvement in civil society (Rapeli, 2014, 71).
3 The participatory democratic variant advocates ‘direct participation of
citizens in the regulation of the key institutions of society, including the
workplace and local community’ (Held, 2006, 215). It emphasises the
importance of a well-informed and knowledgeable citizenry that actively
participates in decision making (Rapeli, 2014, 71; Held, 2006, 215).
4 Finally, deliberative democracy implies that it is ‘public deliberation of free
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 11

and equal citizens [. . .that] legitimate[s] political decision making’

(Bohman, 1998, 401). It requires a knowledgeable citizenry which, capable
of rational argumentation, participates through deliberation in the public
sphere (Held, 2006, 253; Rapeli, 2014, 72).

Democracy’s normative variants present different limitations. While the

competitive model is per se elitist, reducing citizens to spectators of the political
process (Held, 2006, 153), a participatory democratic vision is subject to
problems of time and size. It requires citizens to commit time to participate in
civic and political life. And it barely transcends the level of towns and cities to
apply to more complex systems such as nation-states with large populations and
numerous political actors (Dahl, 2006, 118). As a result, participatory
democracy is generally de facto approximated as local government-led initiatives
such as neighbourhood committees, public forums and participatory budgeting
– initiatives that make governance more legitimate and interactive but not
necessarily direct (Rosanvallon, 2011, 203–5). Deliberative democracy is
constrained by issues of exclusion intrinsic to expecting citizens to deliberate in
rational terms, lacking an affective dimension. It also assumes too easily
citizens’ equal access to deliberation, relying too enthusiastically on the
internet’s deliberative potential to facilitate their participation in decision
making (Held, 2006, 238). Finally, the pluralistic model neglects systematic
imbalances in the distribution of power as public policies are generally skewed
towards the interests of more influential, resourceful groups. In addition, it falls
short of recognising that not all groups engaging in democracy are equally
listened to by those in powerful positions (Held, 2006, 165).
Drawing on democratic theory allows us to nuance how we understand what
citizens should know with a view to social inclusion and democratic
participation. What stands out from Rapeli’s (2014) approach is that more
knowledge is required as citizens’ participation increases, depending on whether
democracy is assumed to be competitive elitist, pluralistic, participatory or
deliberative. As citizens’ engagement in civic and political life increases, civic and
political knowledge becomes more essential, not just for legitimising power
through voting, but also for expressing individual and collective interests, holding
politicians and policies accountable, resisting dominant ideologies, calling for
greater socio-economic and political equality, and ultimately contributing to
decision and policy making (Rapeli, 2014, 19, 26–7). With respect to the role that
information and communication technologies play in mediating politics and civic
and political engagement, Rapeli (2014, 5) acknowledges that ‘in order to
12 INFORMED SOCIETIES

understand how democracy functions or fails to function, it will become

particularly important to understand how political information is produced,
managed, presented, received, utilized and recalled’.
To date, however, no links have been established between media literacy
theory and how knowledge and participation vary in democracy. Dahl (1982,
144) has emphasised that citizens’ required knowledge and competences have
become more abstract and complex within the nation-states, as opposed to
‘knowledge of . . . the common interest’ within smaller contexts enhanced by
‘direct experiences and perceptions’. Such an argument implies that what citizens
need to know and reflect on to engage in civic and political life can change over
time. From this perspective, in an age that is highly mediated by digital
technologies, it seems fair to suggest that critical digital literacy should be
understood as a set of abilities, knowledge and values that are indispensable for
participating in democracy.

Critical digital literacy and democracy

Critical digital literacy does not just involve the ability to critically evaluate
information, which is central to the notion of information literacy. Inasmuch as
digital media are not neutral but embedded within wider power structures, a
critical reading of different traditions relevant to media studies allows us to
revisit how we approach critical digital literacy. It enables us to conceive of it as
incorporating knowledge and values about the internet in relation to how it
operates socio-economically, and how its democratising potentials and
structural constraints characterise the digital environment where information
circulates. Different strands of research, inspired for instance by social
psychology, critical pedagogy or the New Literacy Studies, have offered limited
insights into how critical digital literacy facilitates civic and political
engagement. These strands have generally explored critical digital literacy in the
context of education, overlooking adults’ civic and political practices.
Conceptually, they have largely approached critical digital literacy as the ability
to question online content and dominant ideologies, without necessarily
incorporating knowledge about the internet and its civic and political potentials
and limitations (Pangrazio, 2016, 164, 167). In addition, critical digital literacy
has been interpreted as intrinsic to political engagement that is ideologically
critical, as with research inspired by critical pedagogy. Alternatively, in the case
of the New Literacy Studies, it has often been explored by privileging a focus on
internet users’ creativity over their critical reflections (Pangrazio, 2016, 167).
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 13

Research inspired by social psychology has emphasised that appreciation of

knowledge about bias in the news and the ability to evaluate information
correlate with civic and political engagement online and exposure to diverse
political opinions (Hobbs et al., 2013; Kahne, Lee and Feezell, 2012; Martens
and Hobbs, 2015). Additionally, research aligned with the New Literacy Studies
has pointed out that networked engagement within online communities can
facilitate the development and sharing of critical debate. And it can contribute to
the formation of identities that resist dominant media representations through
blogging and storytelling (McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg and Saliani, 2007;
Shresthova, 2016). Insofar as critical digital literacy is essential for debunking
online misinformation and misinterpretation, research inspired by critical
pedagogy has argued that citizens can resist dominant representations by creating
alternative media to express their voices (Kellner and Share, 2007). However, we
need to recognise that the questioning of dominant representations can serve
different political agendas (Mihailidis and Viotty, 2017) – which is why respect
for expertise is crucial for countering extreme ideologies that disregard evidence
(Nichols, 2017). While these conclusions suggest that critical digital literacy can
benefit democracy by contributing to civic and political engagement, critical
digital literacy has often been approached restrictively within media studies. And
the notion of democracy has also been employed rather monolithically by
overlooking that it can be understood in different ways.
The concept of political literacy has been addressed in political education
studies as overlapping with information literacy and critical literacy (Lund and
Carr, 2008, 13–14). Political research, however, has predominantly employed the
notion of factual and objective political knowledge as an indicator of civic
competence (Rapeli, 2014, 2). In order to participate in democracy, citizens are
expected to have knowledge, for instance, of the political system, how the
government works, politicians, policies and civic and political affairs. Depending
on how we conceive of democracy, recent research has argued that as citizens are
expected to engage more actively in civic and political life, their political
knowledge is also expected to increase (Rapeli, 2014). Restrictively, however, this
model fails to refer to critical digital literacy as a crucial dimension of citizens’
required knowledge and competences in the digital age.
It is only when combining a media studies perspective with insights from
political research and democratic theory that we can better understand why
critical digital literacy matters for civic and political engagement and democracy,
depending on how the latter is normatively understood. It is reasonable to
imagine that as citizens’ engagement in civic and political life increases in ways
14 INFORMED SOCIETIES

that are mediated by the internet, it becomes more essential for them to have not
only political knowledge, but also critical digital literacy. From a competitive elitist
perspective revolving around citizens’ electoral obligations, it may be supposed
that gathering online information – for example, on competing parties, politicians
and public affairs – is enhanced by the ability to evaluate content in relation to
bias and trustworthiness. And it is also enhanced by knowledge and critical
interpretations of the internet, how information is generated online, the role of
targeted advertising and what it means for privacy, along with the internet’s
potentials and limitations for journalism and for navigating civic and political
content.
While such a range of abilities, knowledge and interpretations is central not
just to a competitive elitist vision of democracy but also to every other model of
democracy, questioning online information in synergy with knowledge about the
digital environment is crucial for engaging from a pluralistic perspective in ways
that go beyond voting and seeking information. From such a perspective, citizens
need to be able to evaluate content transcending institutional and electoral
politics. They need to be able to engage with alternative media and content
produced by activists and different publics, including those that are marginalised
from dominant communications (Downey and Fenton, 2003). They need to do
so in ways that do not delegitimise respect for evidence and expertise. In addition,
citizens need to understand how the internet operates socio-economically, along
with its civic and political potentials and limitations. Critically understanding
the internet’s potential for civil society and activism may be useful for interacting
within online community settings, engaging in voluntarism, producing
alternative media challenging dominant ideologies as well as organising, and
seeking and sharing information about, demonstrations and other forms of public
protest. In this respect, media research on social movements has emphasised the
importance of understanding the opportunities and constraints of the internet in
the context of non-institutional engagement in politics (Barassi, 2015; McCurdy,
2010, 2011; Treré, 2015).
A participatory democratic perspective entails that citizens should not just be
aware of how they may participate in decision making – for example, via
referenda, public forums or multi-stakeholder initiatives bringing civil society
actors together to propose legislation. Inasmuch as citizens’ political literacy
needs to intersect with critical digital literacy, they should also know what
potentials and constraints the internet presents for participating in decision
making, reflecting on issues of access and security affecting the possibility of
gathering information, exchanging opinions or collaboratively preparing a policy
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 15

document. Finally, exemplifying a specific form of participatory democracy, the

deliberative model revolves around citizens’ deliberative practices, generally
promoted through government-led online initiatives. These practices may be
enhanced not just by the ability to evaluate information, but also by knowledge
about the internet’s potentials and limitations for deliberation. Citizens, for
instance, should understand the internet’s potential to facilitate connectivity and
marginalised groups’ participation in the public sphere as well as government
surveillance and how algorithms affect online visibility, reinforcing polarisation
and ideological extremism (Blumler and Coleman, 2010; Hindman, 2009;
Martin, 2015; McChesney, 2013; Vaidhyanathan, 2018).
For now, the proposition that critical digital literacy can benefit democracy in
different ways, depending on how we conceive of democracy, remains theoretical.
What needs to follow is empirical research. It may be fruitful to explore civic and
political practices ranging in institutional/non-institutional character, mapping
out their interrelation with critical digital literacy and different democratic
paradigms. Alternatively, a case study methodology may be advisable, based on
case studies exemplifying different democratic variants. Regardless of these
options, critical digital literacy should be approached not only as the ability to
evaluate information online, but also knowledge about the internet in relation to
socio-economic issues, its democratising potentials and structural constraints.
Combining a media studies perspective on critical digital literacy with insights
from political research and democratic theory invites future media research to
investigate how the notion of democracy may be employed in relation to critical
digital literacy. In addition, it invites political research to acknowledge that a
crucial dimension of the knowledge and competences that citizens require in
order to participate in democracy in the digital age should intersect with critical
digital literacy.

Conclusions
This chapter has explored why critical digital literacy matters for democracy and
civic and political engagement. For decades, Western liberal democracy has been
undermined by citizens’ distrust in politics, traditional media and institutions’
inability to represent citizens, and ultimately, citizens’ lack of participation in
electoral politics. However, not only have non-institutional forms of participation
emerged, but the advent of the internet has also been accompanied by hopes about
its potential to contribute to both institutional and non-institutional politics. The
internet has been praised, for instance, for diversifying political content, allowing
16 INFORMED SOCIETIES

marginalised groups to participate in civic and political life, and facilitating

resistance and activism. Nevertheless, as it is embedded in power structures, it
also contributes to surveillance and ideological extremism affecting civic and
political participation. Among other issues, it also contributes to misinformation
and misrepresentation, which undermine democracy and its reliance on a well-
informed citizenry.
While information literacy revolves around the ability to access, locate and
evaluate information, critical digital literacy should be approached as being about
evaluating online content in relation to bias, prejudice and trustworthiness. It
should also incorporate knowledge about internet-related socio-economic issues
concerning, for instance, how ownership and advertising shape online
information. Ultimately, critical digital literacy should be about understanding
the internet’s democratising potentials and structural constraints. Different
traditions relevant to media studies have largely neglected the importance of
conceiving critical digital literacy in this way. What we know from these traditions
is that the ability to evaluate online information corresponds to higher civic and
political engagement and exposure to political content. Critically interpreting
media representations is crucial to producing alternative content challenging
dominant ideologies. Networked engagement within online communities
facilitates the construction and sharing of critical reflections on socio-political
matters. Furthermore, despite overlooking media literacy theory, media research
on social movements has emphasised that understanding the potentials and
limitations of the digital environment is essential for engaging in resistance and
activism. Not only has the contribution of media studies remained limited as to
how critical digital literacy, as approached here, can benefit democracy and civic
and political engagement, but the notion of democracy has also been employed
rather monolithically by neglecting the different meanings that it can have. What
has remained obscure is how critical digital literacy can benefit civic and political
engagement depending on how we understand democracy.
This chapter has argued that a media studies perspective, enriched with
insights from political and democratic theory, can help us gain a more nuanced
understanding of why critical digital literacy matters for democracy in the digital
age. Political education studies have approached political literacy as overlapping
with information literacy and critical literacy. But political research has de facto
focused on citizens’ factual and political knowledge as an indicator of civic
competence. Even though we live in an age that is highly mediated by digital
technologies, political research has paid little attention to the idea that citizens’
required knowledge and competences depend on their critical digital literacy.
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 17

Recent work in political theory has explored how citizens’ political knowledge
and participation vary on the basis of whether democracy is normatively assumed
as competitive elitist, pluralistic, participatory or deliberative. While this work
does not account for critical digital literacy, this chapter has suggested that it can
help us understand how critical digital literacy can benefit democracy. What
stands out is that as citizens’ civic and political engagement increases in ways
that are digitally mediated, not only does their political knowledge become more
essential, but so also does their critical digital literacy.
By drawing on media studies in synergy with political and democratic theory,
this chapter has argued that critical digital literacy can benefit democracy in
different yet not mutually exclusive ways aligned with different democratic
variants. From a competitive elitist democracy perspective, critical digital literacy
can benefit citizens’ electoral engagement by allowing them to critically evaluate
online content as well as understand how information circulates, and with what
implications, in the digital age. While the ability to evaluate online information
is essential under each democratic variant, in a democracy conceived as
pluralistic, critical digital literacy is crucial for evaluating content transcending
institutional and electoral politics. In addition, knowledge about how the internet
operates socio-economically, along with its democratising potentials and
structural constraints, is particularly relevant in the context of civil society,
community engagement, alternative media, resistance and activism. From a
participatory democracy perspective, citizens should also understand the
internet’s potentials and limitations for participating in decision making, in
relation, for instance, to issues of access and security affecting government-led
participatory initiatives. Finally, in a democracy conceived as deliberative, citizens
should be particularly aware of the internet’s potentials and constraints for
connectivity and participation in the public sphere, and also in relation to
government surveillance and issues of exclusion.
By drawing on media studies and political research, this chapter has offered an
interpretation of how critical digital literacy can benefit different democratic
variants. Not only is critical digital literacy indispensable for citizens’ engagement
in democracy in the digital age, but it can also facilitate civic and political
engagement, in whichever way democracy is conceived.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant
number ES/J500070/1). Many thanks to Sonia Livingstone and Nick Couldry
18 INFORMED SOCIETIES

for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

References
Barassi, V. (2015) Social Media, Immediacy and the Time for Democracy: critical
reflections on social media as ‘temporalizing practices’. In Dencik, L. and Leistert,
O. (eds) Critical Perspectives on Social Media and Protest: between control and
emancipation, Rowman & Littlefield International, 73–88.
Barber, J. D. (1969) Citizen Politics: an introduction to political behaviour, Markham.
Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: how social production transforms markets and
freedom, Yale University Press.
Bennett, W. L., Wells, C. and Rank, A. (2009) Young Citizens and Civic Learning: two
paradigms of citizenship in the digital age, Citizenship Studies, 13 (2), 105–20,
doi:10.1080/13621020902731116.
Best, S. J. and Krueger, B. S. (2008) Political Conflict and Public Perceptions of
Government Surveillance on the Internet: an experiment of online search terms,
Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5 (2), 191–212,
doi:10.1080/19331680802294479.
Blumler, J. G. and Coleman, S. (2010) Political Communication in Freefall: the British
case – and others?, International Journal of Press/Politics, 15 (2), 139–54,
doi:10.1177/1940161210362263.
Bohman, J. (1998) The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy, Journal of Political
Philosophy, 6 (4), 400–25, doi:10.1111/1467–9760.00061.
Buckingham, D. (2007) Digital Media Literacies: rethinking media education in the
age of the internet, Research in Comparative and International Education, 2 (1),
43–55, doi:10.2304/rcie.2007.2.1.43.
Buckingham, D., Banaji, S., Burn, A., Carr, D., Cranmer, S. and Willett, R. (2005) The
Media Literacy of Children and Young People: a review of the research literature on
behalf of Ofcom, Ofcom, http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10000145.
Bulfin, S. and North, S. (2007) Negotiating Digital Literacy Practices across School
and Home: case studies of young people in Australia, Language and Education, 21
(3), 247–63, doi:10.2167/le750.0.
Cammaerts, B. (2015) Social Media and Activism. In Mansell, R. and Ang, P. H. (eds)
The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society, Wiley-
Blackwell, 1027–34.
CILIP (2018) CILIP Definition of Information Literacy 2018, CILIP: the Library and
Information Association, https://infolit.org.uk/ILdefinitionCILIP2018.pdf.
Coleman, S. (2013) How Voters Feel, Cambridge University Press.
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 19

Coleman, S. and Blumler, J. G. (2009) The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: theory,
practice and polity, Cambridge University Press.
Cope, J. (2010) Information Literacy and Social Power. In Accardi, M. T., Drabinski,
E. and Kumbier, A. (eds) Critical Library Instruction: theories and methods, Library
Juice Press, 13–28.
Correia, A. M. R. (2002) Information Literacy for an Active and Effective Citizenship,
White Paper prepared for UNESCO, the US National Commission on Libraries
and Information Science and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use
at the Information Literacy Meetings of Experts. Prague, Czech Republic,
www.researchgate.net/publication/228765129_Information_literacy_for_an_
active_and_effective_citizenship.
Dahl, R. A. (1982) Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: autonomy vs. control, Yale
University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1992) The Problem of Civic Competence, Journal of Democracy, 3 (4),
45–59, doi:10.1353/jod.1992.0048.
Dahl, R. A. (1998) On Democracy, Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (2006) On Political Equality, Yale University Press.
Dahlgren, P. (2003) Reconfiguring Civic Culture in the New Media Milieu. In Corner,
J. and Pels, D. (eds) Media and the Restyling of Politics: consumerism, celebrity and
cynicism, Sage, 151–70.
Dahlgren, P. (2004) Foreword. In van de Donk, W., Loader, B. D., Nixon, P. G. and
Rucht, D. (eds) Cyberprotest: new media, citizens and social movements, Routledge,
ix–xiii.
Davies, I. and Hogarth, S. (2004) Political Literacy: issues for teachers and learners. In
Demaine, J. (ed.) Citizenship and Political Education Today, Palgrave Macmillan,
181–99.
Delli Carpini, M. X. and Keeter, S. (1993) Measuring Political Knowledge: putting
first things first, American Journal of Political Science, 37 (4), 1179–1206,
doi:10.2307/2111549.
Delli Carpini, M. X. and Keeter, S. (1996) What Americans Know About Politics and
Why It Matters, Yale University Press.
Downey, J. and Fenton, N. (2003) New Media, Counter Publicity and the Public
Sphere, New Media & Society, 5, (2), 185–202, doi:10.1177/1461444803005002003.
Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper & Row.
Duran, R. L., Yousman, B., Walsh, K. M. and Longshore, M. A. (2008) Holistic Media
Education: an assessment of the effectiveness of a college course in media literacy,
Communication Quarterly, 56 (1), 49–68, doi:10.1080/01463370701839198.
Durndell, A. and Haag, Z. (2002) Computer Self-Efficacy, Computer Anxiety,
20 INFORMED SOCIETIES

Attitudes towards the Internet and Reported Experience with the Internet, by
Gender, in an East European Sample, Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 521–35,
doi:10.1016/S0747–5632(02)00006–7.
Dutton, W. H., Blank, G. and Groselj, D. (2013) Cultures of the Internet: the internet in
Britain, Oxford Internet Survey 2013, Oxford Internet Institute,
http://oxis.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OxIS-2013.pdf.
Elmborg, J. (2006) Critical Information Literacy: implications for instructional
practice, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32 (2), 192–9,
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2005.12.004.
Eynon, R. and Geniets, A. (2016) The Digital Skills Paradox: how do digitally
excluded youth develop skills to use the internet?, Learning, Media and Technology,
41 (3), 463–79, doi:10.1080/17439884.2014.1002845.
Feria-Galicia, J. (2011) Mascot Politics, Public Pedagogy, and Social Movements:
alternative media as a context for critical media literacy, Policy Futures in
Education, 9 (6), 706–14, doi:10.2304/pfie.2011.9.6.706.
Freedman, D. (2012) Web 2.0 and the Death of the Blockbuster Economy. In Curran,
J., Fenton, N. and Freedman, D. (eds) Misunderstanding the Internet, Routledge,
69–94.
Freire, P. (2005) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary edn, translated by Ramos,
M. B., Continuum International.
Fry, K. G. (2014) What Are We Really Teaching? Outline for an activist media literacy
education. In de Abreu, B. S. and Mihailidis, P. (eds) Media Literacy Education in
Action: Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspectives, Routledge, 125–37.
Fuchs, C. (2010) StudiVZ: social networking in the surveillance society, Ethics and
Information Technology, 12 (2), 171–85, doi:10.1007/s10676–010–9220–z.
Garrett, K. R. (2006) Protest in an Information Society: a review of literature on social
movements and new ICTs, Information, Communication & Society, 9 (2), 202–24,
doi:10.1080/13691180600630773.
Giroux, H. A. (2017) The Scourge of Illiteracy in Authoritarian Times, Contemporary
Readings in Law and Social Justice, 9 (1), 14–27, doi:10.22381/CRLSJ9120172.
Gregory, L. and Higgins, S. (2013) Introduction. In Gregory, L. and Higgins, S. (eds)
Information Literacy and Social Justice: radical professional praxis, Library Juice
Press, 1–11.
Hakkarainen, P. (2012) No Good for Shovelling Snow and Carrying Firewood: social
representations of computers and the internet by elderly Finnish non-users, New
Media & Society, 14 (7), 1198–1215, doi:10.1177/1461444812442663.
Held, D. (2006) Model of Democracy, 3rd edn, Polity Press.
Hindman, M. S. (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy, Princeton University Press.
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 21

Hobbs, R. (2010) Digital and Media Literacy: a plan of action, The Aspen Institute.
Hobbs, R., Donnelly, K., Friesem, J. and Moen, M. (2013) Learning to Engage: how
positive attitudes about the news, media literacy, and video production contribute
to adolescent civic engagement, Educational Media International, 50 (4), 231–46,
doi: 10.1080/09523987.2013.862364.
Hull, G. A. and Katz, M.-L. (2006) Crafting an Agentive Self: case studies of digital
storytelling, Research in the Teaching of English, 41(1), 43–81,
www.jstor.org/stable/40171717.
Information Literacy Meeting of Experts (2003) The Prague Declaration: towards an
information literate society, Prague,
www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/
PragueDeclaration.pdf.
Jacobs, H. L. M. and Berg, S. (2011) Reconnecting Information Literacy Policy with
the Core Values of Librarianship, Library Trends, 60 (2), 383–94,
doi:10.1353/lib.2011.0043.
Jewitt, C. (2008) Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms, Review of Research
in Education, 32, 241–67, doi:10.3102/0091732X07310586.
Kahne, J., Lee, N.-J. and Feezell, J. T. (2012) Digital Media Literacy Education and
Online Civic and Political Participation, International Journal of Communications
6, 1–24, doi:1932–8036/201200050001.
Kellner, D. and Share, J. (2007) Critical Media Literacy, Democracy, and the
Reconstruction of Education. In Macedo, D. and Steinberg, S. R. (eds) Media
Literacy: a reader, Peter Lang, 3–23.
Krueger, B. S. (2005) Government Surveillance and Political Participation on the
Internet, Social Science Computer Review, 23 (4) 439–52,
doi:10.1177/0894439305278871.
Livingstone, S., van Couvering, E. and Thumim, N. (2008) Converging Traditions of
Research on Media and Information Literacies: disciplinary, critical, and
methodological issues. In Coiro, J., Knobel, C., Lankshear, M. and Leu, D. J. (eds)
Handbook of Research on New Literacies, Routledge, 103–32.
Livingstone, S., Wijnen, C. W., Papaioannou, T., Costa, C. and del Mar Grandío, M.
(2013) Situating Media Literacy in the Changing Media Environment: critical
insights from European research on audiences. In Carpentier, N., Schrøder, K.
and Hallett, L. (eds) Audience Transformations: shifting audience positions in late
modernity, Routledge, 210–27.
Luke, A. and Freedboy, P. (1997) Shaping the Social Practices of Reading. In Muspratt,
S., Luke, A. and Freedboy, P. (eds) Constructing Critical Literacies: teaching and
learning textual practice, Hampton Press, 185–225.
22 INFORMED SOCIETIES

Lund, D. E. and Carr, P. R. (2008) Introduction: Scanning Democracy. In Lund, D. E.

and Carr, P. R. (eds) Doing Democracy: striving for political literacy and social
justice, Peter Lang, 1–32.
Mackey, T. P. and Jacobson, T. E. (2011) Reframing Information Literacy as a
Metaliteracy, College & Research Libraries, 72 (1), 62–78, doi:10.5860/crl-76r1.
Martens, H. and Hobbs, R. (2015) How Media Literacy Supports Civic Engagement
in a Digital Age, Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23 (2), 120–37,
doi:10.1080/15456870.2014.961636.
Martin, J. A. (2015) Mobile News Use and Participation in Elections: a bridge for the
democratic divide?, Mobile Media & Communication, 3 (2), 230–49,
doi:10.1177/2050157914550664.
McChesney, R. (2013) Digital Disconnect: how capitalism is turning the internet against
democracy, The New Press.
McCurdy, P. (2010) Breaking the Spiral of Silence: unpacking the ‘media debate’
within global justice movements: a case study of dissent! And the 2005 Gleneagles
G8 Summit, Interface: a journal for and about social movements, 2 (2), 42–67,
www.interfacejournal.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/
Interface-2-2-pp.42-67-McCurdy1.pdf.
McCurdy, P. (2011) Theorizing ‘Lay Theories of Media’: a case study of the dissent!
Network at the Gleneagles G8 Summit, International Journal of Communication,
5, 619–38, doi:1932–8036/20110619.
McGinnis, T., Goodstein-Stolzenberg, A. and Saliani, E. C. (2007) ‘indnpride’: online
spaces of transnational youth as sites of creative and sophisticated literacy and
identity work, Linguistics and Education, 18, 283–304,
doi:10.1016/j.linged.2007.07.006.
Mihailidis, P. and Thevenin, B. (2013) Media Literacy as a Core Competency for
Engaged Citizenship in Participatory Democracy, American Behavioral Scientist,
57 (11), 1611–22, doi:10.1177/0002764213489015.
Mihailidis, P. and Viotty, S. (2017) Spreadable Spectacle in Digital Culture: civic
expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in ‘post-fact’ society,
American Behavioral Scientist, 61 (4), 441–54, doi:10.1177/0002764217701217.
Neuman, R. W. (1986) The Paradox of Mass Politics: knowledge and opinion in the
American electorate, Harvard University Press.
Nichols, T. (2017) The Death of Expertise: the campaign against established knowledge
and why it matters, Oxford University Press.
Oxley, Z. M. (2012) More Sources, Better Informed Public? New media and political
knowledge. In Fox, R. L. and Ramos, J. M. (eds) iPolitics: citizens, elections, and
governing in the new media era, 25–47, Cambridge University Press.
 INFORMATION LITERACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE 23

Pangrazio, L. (2016) Reconceptualising Critical Digital Literacy, Discourse: studies in

the cultural politics of education, 37 (2), 163–74,
doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.942836.
Rapeli, L. (2014) The Conception of Citizen Knowledge in Democratic Theory, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Reisdorf, B. C. and Groselj, D. (2017) Internet (Non-)Use Types and Motivational
Access: implications for digital inequalities research, New Media & Society, 19 (8),
1157–76, doi:10.1177/1461444815621539.
Rosanvallon, P. (2011) Democratic Legitimacy: impartiality, reflexivity, proximity,
translated by A. Goldhammer, Princeton University Press.
Schonfeld, W. R. (1975) Review: The Meaning of Democratic Participation, World
Politics, 28 (1), 134–58, doi:10.2307/2010033.
Shresthova, S. (2016) Between Storytelling and Surveillance: the precarious public of
American Muslim youth. In Jenkins, H., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L.,
Kligler-Vilenchik, N. and Zimmerman, A. M. (eds) By Any Media Necessary, New
York University Press, 149–85.
Sunstein, C. R. (2007) Republic.Com 2.0, Princeton University Press.
Theocharis, Y. (2015) The Conceptualization of Digitally Networked Participation,
Social Media + Society, 1 (2), 1–14, doi:10.1177/2056305115610140.
Treré, E. (2015) The Struggle Within: discord, conflict and paranoia in social media
protest. In Dencik, L. and Leistert, O. (eds) Critical Perspectives on Social Media
and Protest, Rowman & Littlefield International, 163–80.
Trültzsch-Wijnen, C. W., Murru, M. F. and Papaioannou, T. (2017) Definitions and
Values of Media and Information Literacy in a Historical Context. In Frau-Meigs,
D., Velez, I. and Michel, J. F. (eds) Public Policies in Media and Information
Literacy in Europe: cross-country comparisons, Routledge, 91–115.
UNESCO (2014) Paris Declaration on Media and Information Literacy in the Digital Era,
www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/In_Focus/
paris_mil_declaration_final.pdf.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018) Antisocial Media: how Facebook disconnects us and undermines
democracy, Oxford University Press.
van Dijck, J. (2013) The Culture of Connectivity: a critical history of social media, Oxford
University Press.
van Laer, J. and van Aelst, P. (2010) Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires,
Information, Communication & Society, 13 (8), 1146–71,
doi:10.1080/13691181003628307.
Weissberg, R. (1974) Political Learning, Political Choice, and Democratic Citizenship,
Prentice Hall.

View publication stats