‘Traditional or critical’?: Reflections on information literacy in the Philippines

Introduction

Paul Zurkowski coined the term information literacy in 1974, which became paramount taking in its ambit various techniques in applying it. He coined the term based on his observation that the emergence of new technologies would contribute to the development of novel media and information formats requiring people to be retrained on how to use them (Zurkowski, 1974).

Following this, the stakeholders ranging from librarians, teachers, and even the government became interested in the concept – and resultantly, guidelines outlining information literacy skills as well as measurement and assessment tools were developed. All these standards and assessment tools cater to varying age groups. Some standards such as those from Michael Eisenberg and Bob Berkowitz (The Big6 and Super3 models), the American Association of School Librarians (The AASL and AECT Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning), and the American Library Association (ALA) (Information Literacy Competencies for Higher Education) were developed, implemented first in the USA, and were adopted by other countries as well. In the Philippines, it is common to see school libraries (i.e., libraries in the basic education level) using Eisenberg and Berkowitz's Big6. The content of the standard is usually repurposed to match the grade level or year level of the target learners. Higher education institutions have developed their own initiatives as well, and have been at the forefront of standard and assessment development. Initiatives such as the Association of College and Research Librarians’ (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education illustrate this. Finally, a more practical take on information literacy was promoted by the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), in their redefined information literacy which highlighted five contexts not often associated with the concept: daily living, citizenship, health, education, and employment (CILIP, 2018).

The contemporary understanding of the concept shows that Zurkowski's take on information literacy as a library-only practice, has come a long way. Critics have commented on the difficulty of recontextualizing the old definition of information literacy, so these new conceptions are helpful in reestablishing the importance of the concept in the current media and information landscape.

Information literacy became such a popular concept, to the point that even UNESCO would offer its own take on what the concept means and what it encompasses. After years of treating media literacy and information literacy as two distinct concepts, UNESCO eventually released a document outlining the definition of the composite concept that is Media and Information Literacy (MIL). Since then, UNESCO has released guidelines and training materials focusing on the pedagogical approaches that may be taken to develop media and information literate communities. Their most recent update of the Core Educator Competencies Framework for MIL Educators in 2021, it contains an updated set of guidelines MIL teachers and librarians may use to develop and implement their own MIL instruction (“About media and information literacy”, n.d.).

Looking back at Zurkowski's definition of information literacy which conceptualized the practice as the use of information sources to solve information-related problems, the relevance of this 1974 definition is something we still see in the contemporary conceptions of information literacy.

Information literacy skills

Apart from being integral to library service, information literacy has also been part of the education agenda, and is one-half of UNESCO's unified concept of media and information literacy (About media and information literacy, n.d.). Information literacy has spawned definitions, redefinitions, standards, models, and assessments through the years (Elmborg, 2012). One example comes from the American Library Association (ALA), where they referred to information literacy as:

“…a set of abilities requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information. An information literate individual is able to:

• Determine the extent of information needed;

• Access the needed information effectively and efficiently;

• Evaluate information and its sources critically;

• Incorporate selected information into one's knowledge base;

• Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose;

• Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally”. (ALA, 2000: 2–3)

This definition of information literacy, which also prescribes a set of standards students must satisfy to be called “information literate” has long been adopted by various institutions and by LIS practitioners. Even in the Philippines, this has been in wide use since the conception of the said definition and standards. However, this prescriptive understanding of what it means to be information literate, has also received criticisms from LIS scholars. The nature of information literacy in this sense is skills-based (Addison and Meyers, 2013), and illustrates a sequential process of engaging with information: from search to acknowledgement (Sample, 2020). This has been very useful in developing instructional materials and assessment tools for information literacy skills, but critics of this view argue that these skills, since rooted on research mainly, cannot be easily repurposed to fit activities which may require information use. Furthermore, there is the concern regarding the differences in access people may have to resources that can help them master these skills. A newer set of competencies for information literacy comes from the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of ALA, when they released their ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education in 2015. Theirs is a reconceptualization of ALA's 2006 definition and skills, which they call “frames” as given below:

“• Authority Is Constructed and Contextual

• Information Creation as a Process

• Information Has Value

• Research as Inquiry

• Scholarship as Conversation

• Searching as Strategic Exploration”

Aside from ALA's six frames, another reconceptualization for information literacy come from the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). In 2018, CILIP released a document which presented a new definition of information literacy and also included a discussion of five contexts upon which information literacy can be applied. The definition is as follows:

“Information literacy is the ability to think critically and make balanced judgements about any information we find and use. It empowers us as citizens to reach and express informed views and to engage fully with society… Information literacy is central for information professionals as they create, curate and enable the use of diverse types of information in an ethical manner”. (CILIP, 2018: 3–6)

In the Philippines, it is very common for libraries to adopt Western LIS models, even for information literacy. School libraries would usually develop their information literacy programs using models such as Eisenberg and Berkowitz's Big6 and Super3 model, while others still maintain their adherence to ALA's 2000 definition of information literacy and its prescribed skills.

These frameworks, while useful, are mainly based on the Western experience, information sources, and information issues. Doing this might cause misalignments with the local media and information landscape in the Philippines. It might also contribute to the development of an information user who follows what the standard says, but also misunderstands application of the skills, since the contexts are different. This may be illustrated using a prescribed skill from ALA (2000): “Evaluate information and its sources critically”. One function of librarians is to deliver reference and information services. i.e., to provide answers to queries and instruct users to select the best resources to address their needs. To be able to do this, a librarian needs to be familiar with the different levels of literature available and the different types of reference sources users might need. One example of a reference source is grey literature, or unpublished resources created at different levels of business, or government. These sources are treated as authoritative, and if one were to simply follow the information literacy skill which requires evaluation: all government resources would be deemed reliable. However, since there is such a thing as propaganda, and as such, a person might easily be swayed into believing certain viewpoints by misunderstanding the deeper context behind the production of a resource.

This is where critical information literacy comes in. It opposes the traditional view of information literacy as a sequential, skill-oriented task that is transferable, but instead views information literacy as something rooted on people's history, their social and cultural practices, and the institutions that govern them. The sociopolitical dimensions of information and knowledge production and the non-neutrality of libraries and information centers form the foundation of critical information literacy (Drabinski, 2019, 2021; Drabinski and Tewell, 2019).

Interestingly, shortly after Zurkowski’s 1974 definition of information literacy, media and communication scholar Cees Hamelink (1976) also used the term to refer to a tool “necessary for liberation from the oppressive effects of the institutionalized public media” (p. 120). He discusses that the structures that govern public communication are influenced by economic and intellectual interests and so, in order for people to see the full picture suppressed perspectives must also be presented, and people must be oriented on how to do a “reading” of these perspectives, and insights about this reading must be communicated. According to Tewell (2016), Hamelink's information literacy perspective which directly counters hegemonic and oppressive information, is the pioneering conceptualization of critical information literacy.

Critical information literacy is relatively a new aspect of information literacy discourse. In studying the history and the evolution of information literacy, it is noticeable that the concept has undergone many re-conceptualizations since 1974. Various perspectives in studying and researching it have emerged (Addison and Meyers, 2013) and these have influenced the way information literacy programs are designed.

What is critical information literacy?

Critical information literacy challenges traditional views of information literacy, instead of it being treated as a “thing,” critical information literacy seeks to understand the interconnection between people, information practices, and the society. The concept merges two perspectives in its definition: first is the use of “critical” directly means “urgent” which reflects the novelty of this brand of information literacy. This emphasizes that critical information literacy is a new concept but one that is an urgent agenda for practitioners. The second perspective is the use of the term ‘critical’ to mean critiquing current beliefs and practices (Elmborg, 2012).

Critical information literacy, according to Drabinski and Tewell (2019) employs critical theory to analyze the ways information is produced, disseminated, and accessed. A classic example often used in the discourse concerns access. Practicing critical information literacy is recognizing that some of the systems used to organize information may be oppressive, hence the use of labels such as “illegal aliens” to classify resources which discuss undocumented migrants in the USA, is seen as a perpetuation of a discriminatory system. Interestingly, in the Library of Congress Classification Scheme, a library classification scheme widely used globally, the term “illegal aliens” was the authorized term used to refer to resources about noncitizens. The term was in place until 2016 when calls for its revision were addressed and the term was replaced (Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 03, 2016).

Another interesting example of critical information literacy in the context of access is in the way people are able to recognize their “information privilege” (ALA, 2015). The open access movement aims to democratize information dissemination by not having a paywall for open access journals. The journal publishing industry has some big names that connote prestige, but a lot of these publishers may charge subscription fees before one can access the journals they host. Since accessing these big-name brands in publishing requires either institutional affiliation (i.e., being enrolled in a school that has a subscription, or paying the fee on your own) it reflects a kind of “information privilege,” and proponents of critical information literacy advocate for the recognition of this privilege.

Despite this, there are still some limitations given that there exists country-specific legal restrictions may hinder access to information sources. In critical information literacy discourse, information privilege can also manifest in people's access to information that others may not be able to access due to laws or other societal restrictions.

Eamon Tewell, an eminent scholar on critical information literacy has contributed enormously on the topic talked about the benefits of designing critical information literacy programs. Grounded on the observation that traditional information literacy practices may fail to account for social, cultural, and political contexts that might affect information creation, access, and distribution, such as information privilege, Tewell (2018) investigated the ways that librarians incorporate critical literacy into their instruction. In his research, he discovered that librarians used various techniques in implementing critical information literacy initiatives. One is on educating students regarding how economic power structures prohibit access to information resources impacting scholarly communication practices. Also part of the program were discussions of issues concerning peer review, how it maintains quality control in scholarly outputs and how it could also be a tool in suppressing other unorthodox ideas (Tewell, 2018). Lenker (2023) discusses a related perspective stating that a good technique in critical information literacy education is presenting both sides of an issue, even the controversial aspects.

Going back to Tewell, as proof of his extensive scholarship on critical information literacy, he was also able to produce a literature review of critical information literacy works wherein he listed various themes in critical information literacy research (Tewell, 2015). Some of these themes were critical viewpoints in cataloging and classification, parallel to Drabinski's work, critical pedagogy in reference service provision, critical information literacy and democracy (Tewell, 2015).

Despite the promise of critical information literacy, it is not without pitfalls. Porterfield (2018) discussed some challenges in critical information literacy initiatives by conducting a case study of a single-session of critical information literacy for students. Some of the issues encountered were logistical in nature: time constraints, assessment concerns. Aside from these, there were also concerns about the qualification and competence of the personnel handling the programs. Specifically, it was about the educator's confidence in discussing critical social issues. Porterfield (2018) adds that even for experienced critical information literacy educators, planning and designing sessions may take a significant amount of time. This shows that competence is really crucial in critical information literacy instruction.

This supports Haider and Sundin (2022) in their view that media and information literacy (MIL) education rests mainly on the competence of the educator. They discussed MIL paradoxes in their 2022 book and zoned in on five crucial paradoxes: responsibilization, normativity, neutrality, temporality, and trust. In discussions of critical information literacy and the role of educators, the trust paradox is evident. This paradox tells us that while information literacy instruction involves teaching evaluation, it must also balance trust with mistrust. A mistrust-oriented approach might lead to the educator being doubted as well, since the core of this is questioning everyone. Mistrust could also harbor intense skepticism leading to the development of a “skeptical evaluator” (Haider and Sundin, 2022). The skeptical evaluator maintains a “to see is to believe” kind of mindset, which is usually the type that gives rise to counter-knowledge. Haider and Sundin (2022) also adds that through the adaptation of Western standards, models, and resources on MIL, the universally-understood definition of the concept which highlights democratic participation, and empowerment may not always be aligned with other nations. The example the authors used was UNESCO's report entitled Media and Information Literacy Education in Asia: Exploration of policies and practices in Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines and through this they saw that the core tenets of MIL is at odds with the actual situation in some of these countries. With some being opposite of established cultural norms and political systems (Haider and Sundin, 2022).

With that said, the need for critical information literacy is highlighted. Given what was already said in the previous sections about it being considerate of the social and cultural context that affect information engagement and shape the media and information landscape, it is shown to be more apt as an approach to MIL rather than purely adopting existing standards or frameworks (Cuevas-Cerveró et al., 2023). Furthermore, Cuevas-Cerveró et al. (2023) notes that the emancipatory nature of critical information literacy, with it questioning how power affects information practice, reflect a kind of “information activism.” Tied to core librarianship values such as: information access, intellectual freedom, and social responsibility, information activism shows the same emphasis on truthful information and the promotion of social justice.

The goal of resisting oppression which is also one aspect of critical information literacy is also discussed in Tewell (2016). Using IT giant Google, Tewell (2016) argues that while the company claims neutrality specifically in their search engine, there are several aspects of Google Search that prove otherwise. Some of these include its data collection practices that could contribute to its personalization function, its predictive technology, and its autocomplete function which, according to Tewell (2016), promotes racial stereotypes. This, Tewell (2016) continues, proves that personal agency on the part of the users must be developed, so that they could effectively discern how systems such as Google can manipulate users. Noble (2018) talks about the same thing, but this time using algorithms. In her book Algorithms of Oppression, she referred to racial profiling through algorithms as “technological redlining” and claims that since search engines are so much a part of people's lives now, it is worrisome to see how some of these platforms reinforce inequality through their predictive algorithms, and through the way information is organized in these platforms. She calls for a rethinking of how these platforms are designed, and for stronger policies that could mitigate issues stemming from what she calls “algorithmic oppression” (Noble, 2018).

Apart from these suggestions from Noble (2018), addressing these issues may also be accomplished partly through critical information literacy initiatives, specifically by orienting users about the “resistant reading approach.” This would mean that apart from knowing that Google is a search engine that can lead them to sources, users must also know that they need to interrogate and sometimes even oppose the search results they will find (Tewell, 2016).

This resistant reading approach is also useful in what Lenker (2023) calls an “information ecosystem that is hard to trust” (p. 556). Lenker (2023) argues that information literacy instruction must go beyond seeking information from sources and must also involve understanding points of contention for issues of inquiry. This is done to promote understanding, and not just knowledge of a topic, since having an understanding of a phenomenon, subject, or topic would make a person less likely to be doubtful of it than if a person only knows something about it (Lenker, 2023).

A similar sentiment is echoed in Wardle and Derakshan (2017), through their work on information disorder. Their view is that information literacy is one of the tools that can address the “polluted information stream” (Wardle and Derakshan, 2017). Their groundbreaking 2017 report categorized the different types of information disorder into three: misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation; and also further subdivided misinformation and disinformation into seven types. Part of their report also included a call to action to different sectors, indicating that government, tech companies, media organizations, the civil society, education ministries, and funding organizations all have roles in combating information disorder. A crucial suggestion from Wardle and Derakshan (2017) pertained to the need for stronger and well-funded educational campaigns on information literacy which would directly target information disorder. These educational campaigns could be considered critical information literacy initiatives, but therein lies the question of how engaged could all the stakeholders mentioned above be in this activity. In Wardle's own but different article, she assessed information disorder origins and found that certain types are fueled by the need for political influence (Wardle, 2017). This now could open discussions on how national governments may contribute to critical information literacy initiatives.

In the Philippines: Information literacy education and advocacies

Looking at information literacy initiatives in the Philippines, one can see that it is either delivered as course content (i.e., as a senior high school course (K to 12 basic education curriculum, 2013), or as a course in tertiary programs such as in Library and Information Science (Santos, 2019, 2023) or as an intervention (i.e., MIL programs, seminars, or workshops).

For a long time, however, information literacy was understood merely as a set of skills related to the successful conduct of research. A good illustration of this is the number of skills-assessment-themed thesis submitted to UP SLIS between the years 2000 to 2020. As the author is someone who is also included in this list, it is clear that back then, information literacy assessments were very trendy topics in LIS. The list of potential assessment tools was long, and the standards these assessments used catered to a variety of groups: information literacy standards for the field science and technology (ALA, n.d.), for sociology and anthropology students (ALA, 2008), for nurses (ALA, 2013), for psychologists (ALA, 2010).

Back then, creating an assessment tool was fairly simple. The method involved having a target group in mind and checking if an existing standard for that group was available, then crafting assessment questions based on the standard. In some cases, certain groups had more than one standard available, for example, school children can be assessed using more than three standards, the Big6 and Super3 Standards by Eisenberg and Berkowitz, AASL and AECT Information Literacy Standards, or the ALA Standards. In case no standard exists yet, existing ones can be adopted anyway. This was the same thing Philippine libraries did in developing information literacy programs, since the assumption was experiences in school were more or less the same for all kids (of course, it wasn’t). There was no local standard made for the Philippine setting, and that situation made for an interesting research topic, that Domingo (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of nine information literacy assessment-themed theses in UP SLIS. In doing this she was able to determine that all the assessment tools used had the same objectives and outcomes expected, but that there were differences in the results of these assessments. This led to the conclusion that there is no one-size fits all information literacy assessment, and that a person's context affects their performance in these tests. This led me to think that perhaps Domingo's paper could be further expanded and be re-angled to a more critical information literacy-learning approach.

Perhaps owing to the emergence of new information literacy conceptions, recently however, there have been a number of local groups taking the lead in MIL advocacy. In 2021, the Out of the Box Media Literacy released a handbook entitled #MIL4Democracy: Teaching Media and Information Literacy for Democracy. The handbook was marketed to be a resource for senior high school teachers handling MIL courses. The handbook, which was divided into 18 chapters, delves into topics such as: freedom of speech, information disorder, and digital citizenship (Out of the Box Media Literacy Initiative, 2021). A look into the handbook reveals an approach to MIL that is more embedded in the social context of the Philippines, instead of being one of a skills-oriented view. The handbook uses examples of MIL incidents relevant to the Philippine experience (e.g., Philippine press freedom issues, COVID-19-related fake news, troll farms), while including global resources and examples of MIL. This reflects a contextually-appropriate framing of MIL instruction that could potentially resonate well with learners (Out of the Box Media Literacy Initiative, 2021; Santos et al., 2023).

Another MIL initiative comes from the Journalism Department of the UP College of Mass Communication, which specifically aims to combat online information disorder. Launched in October 2023, the initiative also aims to develop learning materials for MIL. Involved in this activity are veteran Filipino broadcasters Kara David, Atom Araullo, Howie Severino, Ivan Mayrina, Connie Sison, Mariz Umali, Jeff Canoy, Karmina Constantino, and Zen Hernandez (Pilapil, 2023).

As far as MIL initiatives go, the education sector also has put in place several MIL-related initiatives. In the Philippines’ senior high school curriculum, an MIL subject is included. Intended for Grade 11 and 12 students, the subject covers discussions on the types of media, media and information sources, and media and information trends. The handbook mentioned above was designed with this specific subject in mind, hence there are some overlaps in the topic coverage in the K-12 MIL syllabus and in the MIL subject (K to 12 basic education curriculum, 2013).

In the tertiary level, the curriculum of the Bachelor of Library and Information Science (BLIS) also has an MIL course. Required by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order number 24, series of 2015, the revised BLIS curriculum stipulates that library and information science courses in the Philippines must have one information literacy course in the BLIS program (Revised policies, standards and guidelines for the Bachelor of Library and Information Science (BLIS) program, 2015). Santos (2019) details the planning, development, and implementation of an information literacy course in UP's BLIS program and discusses the topical contents of the course. As a follow-up, Santos (2023) mapped the said course's pedagogy against UNESCO's Media and Information Literacy Core Competencies and found that in terms of content, the course is able to amply address most of the seven competencies but improvement is needed in terms of competencies relating to content creation as such might be better addressed by a production course, which is outside the purview of the program.

Despite these local initiatives, there is still work needed to be done in strengthening MIL initiatives, and even more work required in the novel approach that is critical information literacy. Most information literacy initiatives offered locally still revolve around the skills perspective where information literacy's utility in research is highlighted. As we’ve seen in the discussion above, there is a call for a deeper understanding of what MIL is, and how it could be delivered anchored with critical theory.

Reframing information literacy: Shifting from skills to practice

The information literacy standards mentioned above, were revised in 2022 and were developed as a companion document to ACRL's 2015 Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. This may be a step in the right direction given the ACRL's agenda of making their 2015 Framework a unified one, in order to make it applicable to any context, which was different from back when they had different standards for different groups.

Second, in the case of the Philippines and the possibility of implementing critical information literacy, perhaps the first thing which must be done is to reframe ideas of what information literacy or MIL is. To date, there are still several initiatives on information literacy that treat it as skills, this is evidenced by the discussion made in the previous section, specifically listing down some existing initiatives.

In order for this viewpoint to shift, there must be an acknowledgement of what Addison and Meyers (2013) refers to as the social practice perspective. This treats information literacy as embedded in day-to-day practices, even those not necessarily linked to education or research activities.

To illustrate the skills perspective, some practical examples may be used. For example: informed decision-making for matters concerning one's finances is very important. Regardless of where a person might be, financial decisions are high-stakes decisions thereby requiring access to and understanding of financial information and familiarity with financial institutions. A person must be familiar with authoritative sources concerning banking and financial transactions. They must also be aware of financial scams, phishing techniques, and the like so that they can avoid it. This is quite tricky because scammers have been very creative with their techniques, an unsuspecting person unfamiliar with say, the authorized email of the bank, or what the one time password (OTP) is for, might fall victim to these scams. Still, on the social practice perspective and financial decisions, there must also be some kind of instruction involving discernment. For example, in determining who's authoritative and who's not. One must be able to distinguish how certain ‘experts’ may not be experts at all, but instead are just someone trying to sway them into investing into less than legitimate financial vehicles.

Another example related to the social practice perspective is regarding health information. Since health and well-being is a concern that is of paramount importance to people, informed decision-making in this context is also very important. In Santos (2022) the role of information literacy in combating the infodemic was discussed, a point of discussion made in that paper is on how people's information behaviors evolved too. Due to the uncertainty amidst the COVID-19 problem, people started to exhibit novel information practices to the point of compartmentalizing because of the widely varying information available back then about the disease (Lloyd and Hicks, 2021; Santos, 2022). Situations like this call for a stronger critical information literacy initiative since issues concerning the role of governments, health institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and technology in disseminating information came to light during this challenging time. The question of authority and health expertise loomed over people's heads and a quick check of social media showed opposing, sometimes even outrageous claims about the illness and its cures (Santos, 2022). Interestingly, the limitations of traditional information literacy emerged here as some people deemed to be experts were found to be spreading health misinformation (Nelson et al., 2020). To an observer, seeing a physician to talk about an illness doesn’t really raise eyebrows because of their assumed background and expertise in health; but according to Nelson et al. (2020) even health professionals may fall victim to misinformation, thus they can spread it too.

A report by the Philippine Daily Inquirer in August 2023 referenced the Philippine government's plan to launch a MIL program to address fake news (Abarca, 2023). This is quite interesting since research has shown that disinformation played an influential role in the Philippine election (“Golden age”, 2023; Kasuya, 2023), and abroad, social media has been seen to also impact elections (Cadwalladr and Harrison, 2018).

Still on the question of how MIL programs might be developed to match the Philippine experience, perhaps there would also be value in interrogating the “receptivity” of the Filipino in matters concerning critical thinking. Human information sources are counted as valid sources (Chatterjee, 2017), but of course legitimacy of claims cannot be determined easily. Critical information literacy in the context of a culture with a strong oral tradition, would require a thorough examination of the motivations of the human information sources consulted.

Interestingly, Grosser and Lombard (2008), found that variations in cultural backgrounds influence people's critical thinking capabilities. Their upbringing and belief systems contribute to their critical thinking, so the practice of relying on human information sources may be an interesting area of research in the context of information literacy. This intersection of culture and critical thinking might also be a useful consideration in developing a more contextualized MIL program for the Philippines.

Conclusion

Information literacy (i.e., even the unified concept of MIL) in the Philippines is evolving. Various advocacy groups have taken the lead in moving toward the novel understanding of information literacy, and the rest of the stakeholders including the education sector, the media, and the LIS sector could potentially create more impactful initiatives should they move in the same direction. Of course, the author remains firm in the belief that before critical information literacy can be advocated for and implemented in the Philippines, there must first be clarity in the direction of MIL instruction first. A combination of efforts coming from different stakeholders such as in Wardle and Derakshan (2017), policy (Noble, 2018), and a rethinking of the ways information is created, organized, and disseminated (Drabinski and Tewell, 2019) is necessary in this endeavor.