Toward the Resistant Reading of Information: Google, Resistant Spectatorship, and Critical Information Literacy

Tewell, Eamon Toward the Resistant Reading of Information: Google, Resistant Spectatorship, and Critical Information Literacy. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2016, vol. 16, n. 2, pp. 289-310. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[img] Text

Download (350kB)

English abstract

The theory of resistant spectatorship posits that individuals interacting with media and information may have the agency or power to oppose, reject, or reassemble the message they encounter instead of passively accepting it. This study puts resistant spectatorship in conversation with information literacy and critiques one example of a dominant information discovery system, Google Search, from a “resistant” position. Additionally, this study argues that, within academic libraries, the practice of critical information literacy, a pedagogical approach aligned with the concept of resistant spectatorship, is an ideal mode for encouraging students to become resistant readers of information in its increasingly corporate-mediated forms.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: critical information literacy, Google, search engines, resistant spectatorship, media theory, information literacy
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AC. Relationship of LIS with other fields .
B. Information use and sociology of information > BC. Information in society.
C. Users, literacy and reading. > CD. User training, promotion, activities, education.
L. Information technology and library technology > LS. Search engines.
Depositing user: Eamon Tewell
Date deposited: 12 Aug 2016 17:43
Last modified: 12 Aug 2016 17:43


"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

1. Siva Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything (Berkeley: University of California Press,

2011), 205–6.

2. Henry T. Blanke, “Libraries and the Commercialization of Information: Towards a Critical

Discourse of Librarianship,” Progressive Librarian 2 (1991): 9–14.

3. Michael Zimmer, “The Gaze of the Perfect Search Engine: Google as an Infrastructure of

Dataveillance,” in Web Search: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Amanda Spink and Michael

Zimmer (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2008), 77–99.

4. Safiya Umoja Noble, “Google Search: Hyper-Visibility as a Means of Rendering Black

Women and Girls Invisible,” in “Blind Spots,” special issue, InVisible Culture 19 (Fall 2013).

5. Amber Davisson, “Google Search and the Development of Public Opinion,” Journal of

Digital and Media Literacy 1, 2 (Winter 2013),


6. Herbert I. Schiller, Information Inequality: The Deepening Social Crisis in America (New York:

Routledge, 1996), 45.

7. Ibid., 44.

8. Ibid., 46.

9. Safiya Umoja Noble, “Missed Connections: What Search Engines Say about Women,” bitch:

Feminist Response to Pop Culture 54 (Spring 2012): 36–51.

10. Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You (New York: Penguin, 2011).

11. Alison Hicks, “Knowledge Societies: Learning for a Diverse World,” in Not Just Where to

Click: Teaching Students How to Think about Information, ed. Troy A. Swanson and Heather

Jagman (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2015), 217–42.

12. Emily Drabinski, “Teaching the Radical Catalog,” in Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front,

ed. K. R. Roberto (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2008), 198–205.

13. Tarleton Gillespie, “The Relevance of Algorithms,” in Media Technologies: Essays on

Communication, Materiality, and Society, ed. Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo J. Boczkowski, and

Kirsten A. Foot (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014), 167–94.

14. Noble, “Google Search: Hyper-Visibility.”

15. Gillespie, “The Relevance of Algorithms.”

16. Ibid.

17. Noble, “Missed Connections,” 39.

18. Bess Sadler and Chris Bourg, “Feminism and the Future of Library Discovery,” in

“Diversity in Library Technology,” special issue, Code4Lib Journal 28 (April 2015).

19. Davisson, “Google Search.”

20. Kristen Purcell, Joanna Brenner, and Lee Rainie, “Search Engine Use 2012” (Washington,

DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2012), http://www.

21. Alejandro Diaz, “Through the Google Goggles: Sociopolitical Bias in Search Engine

Design,” in Spink and Zimmer, Web Search, 11–34.

22. Noble, “Missed Connections,” 39–40.

23. Zimmer, “The Gaze of the Perfect Search Engine,” 77.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 86.

26. Ibid., 92.

27. Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything, 7.

28. Paul Baker and Amanda Potts, “‘Why Do White People Have Thin Lips?’ Google and the

Perpetuation of Stereotypes via Auto-Complete Search Forms,” Critical Discourse Studies 10,

2 (May 2013): 187–204.

29. Noble, “Google Search: Hyper-Visibility.”

30. Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything, 182.

31. Noble, “Google Search: Hyper-Visibility.”

32. Latanya Sweeney, “Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery,” Communications of the

ACM [Association for Computing Machinery] 56, 5 (May 2013): 44–54.

33. Baker and Potts, “‘Why Do White People Have Thin Lips?’” 200.

34. Davisson, “Google Search.”

35. Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything, 201.

36. Cathy Eisenhower and Dolsy Smith, “The Library as ‘Stuck Place’: Critical Pedagogy in

the Corporate University,” in Critical Library Instruction: Theories and Methods, ed. Maria

T. Accardi, Emily Drabinski, and Alana Kumbier (Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press, 2010),


37. Bernard Stiegler, Symbolic Misery, Volume 1: The Hyperindustrial Epoch (Cambridge, U.K.:

Polity, 2014).

38. Stuart Hall, “Encoding, Decoding,” in The Cultural Studies Reader, ed. Simon During

(London: Routledge, 1999), 90–103.

39. Ibid., 102–3.

40. Judith Mayne, Cinema and Spectatorship (New York: Routledge, 1993), 92.

41. Manthia Diawara, “Black Spectatorship: Problems of Identification and Resistance,”

Screen 29, 4 (September 1988): 66–76.

42. Ibid., 75–76.

43. bell hooks, “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators,” in Black Looks: Race and

Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992), 115–31.

44. Ibid., 116.

45. Ibid., 126.

46. Louise Limberg, Olof Sundin, and Sanna Talja, “Three Theoretical Perspectives on

Information Literacy,” Human IT 11, 2 (2012): 93–130.

47. Christine Pawley, “Information Literacy: A Contradictory Coupling,” Library Quarterly 73, 4

(2003): 422–52.

48. Paul G. Zurkowski, “The Information Service Environment Relationships and Priorities:

Related Paper No. 5,” National Commission on Libraries and Information Science,

National Program for Library and Information Services, November 1974, http://eric.

49. Andrew Whitworth, Radical Information Literacy: Reclaiming the Political Heart of the IL

Movement (Oxford, U.K: Elsevier, 2014).

50. Cees Hamelink, “An Alternative to News,” Journal of Communication 26, 4 (December 1976):


51. Ibid., 120.

52. Allan Luke and Cushla Kapitzke, “Literacies and Libraries: Archives and

Cybraries,” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 7, 3 (1999): 467–91.

53. James Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional

Practice,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32, 2 (March 2006): 192–99.

54. Lauren Smith, “Towards a Model of Critical Information Literacy Instruction for the

Development of Political Agency,” Journal of Information Literacy 7, 2 (2013): 15–32.

55. Ibid.

56. Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy,” 194.

57. Hicks, “Knowledge Societies,” 218.

58. Ibid., 220.

59. Ibid., 220–21.

60. Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy,” 194.

61. Blanke, “Libraries and the Commercialization of Information,” 12–13.

62. Schiller, Information Inequality, 35.

63. Troy Swanson, “Information Is Personal: Critical Information Literacy and Personal

Epistemology,” in Accardi, Drabinski, and Kumbier, Critical Library Instruction, 265–77.

64. Ibid., 271.

65. Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy,” 195.


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item