Towards the Resistant Reading of Information: Resistant Spectatorship in the Information Age

Tewell, Eamon Towards the Resistant Reading of Information: Resistant Spectatorship in the Information Age., 2016 UNSPECIFIED thesis, Long Island University, Brooklyn. [Thesis]

[img] Text
towards-the-resistant-reading.pdf

Download (3MB)

English abstract

The theory of resistant spectatorship posits that an individual interacting with media may have the agency to oppose, reject, or reassemble the message of the information they encounter, instead of to passively accept it. This study puts resistant spectatorship in conversation with libraries and critiques in examining one aspect 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 ideas of resistant spectatorship, is an ideal mode for encouraging students to become resistant readers of information in its increasingly corporate-mediated forms.

Item type: Thesis (UNSPECIFIED)
Keywords: media studies, Google, search engines, information literacy
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AB. Information theory and library theory.
B. Information use and sociology of information > BD. Information society.
Depositing user: Eamon Tewell
Date deposited: 04 Nov 2016 22:45
Last modified: 08 Nov 2016 03:25
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/30212

References

"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, CA: University of

California Press, 2011), 205-206.

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, eds. Amanda Spink and

Michael Zimmer (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2008), 82.

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

Women and Girls Invisible,” 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. Noble, “Hyper-Visibility.”

7. Siva Vaidhyanathan, “Afterword: Critical Information Studies,” Cultural Studies

20, 2-3 (March 2006): 310.

8. Vaidhyanathan, “Afterword,” 293.

9. Herbert Schiller, Information Inequality: The Deepening Social Crisis in America (New York: Routledge, 1996), 45.

10. Ibid, 44.

11. Ibid, 46.

12. Ibid, 55.

13. Jean Baudrillard, The System of Objects (London: Verso, 2006), 59.

14. Nathaniel Popper and Conor Dougherty, “Wall St. Stars Join Silicon Valley Gold Rush,”

The New York Times, March 24,2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/business/wall-

st-stars-join-silicon-valley-gold-rush.html.

15. Safiya Umoja Noble, “Missed Connections: What Search Engines Say About

Women.” bitch 54 (Spring 2012), 36.

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

Press, 2011).

17. 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), 218.

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

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

19. 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.

20. Noble, “Hyper-Visibility.”

21. Gillespie, “Relevance.”

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Davisson, “Google Search.”

25. Noble, “Missed Connections,” 39.

26. Noble, “Hyper-Visibility.”

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

TheCode4Lib Journal, 28 (April 2015).

28. Zimmer, “Dataveillance,” 83.

29. Davisson, “Google Search.”

30. Kristen Purcell, Joanna Brenner, and Lee Rainie. “Search Engine Use 2012,”

Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project,

http://www.pewintemet.org/2012/03/09/search-engine-use-2012/.

31. Noble, “Hyper-Visibility.”

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

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

Zimmer (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2008), 13.

33. Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything, 3.

34. Ibid, xii.

35. Diaz, “Google Goggles,” 15.

36. Noble, “Missed Connections,” 39-40

37. Zimmer, “Dataveillance,” 77.

38. Ibid.

39. Zimmer, “Dataveillance,” 86.

40. Ibid.

41. Zimmer, “Dataveillance,” 92.

42. Ibid, 93.

43. Vaidhyanathan,

The Googlization of Everything, 48.

44. Ibid, 9

45. Gillespie, “Relevance.”

46. Baudrillard, The System of Objects, 43.

47. Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything, 7.

48. Ibid, 47.

49. Ibid, 48.

50. Noble, “Hyper-Visibility.”

51. Alison Hicks, “Google and Transcultural Competence,” in The Complete Guide to Using

Google in Libraries: Research, User Applications and Networking, ed. Carol Smallwood

(Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2015), 113-22.

52. Hicks, “Knowledge Societies,” 218.

53. Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything, 63.

54. Ibid, 67.

55. Diaz, “Google Goggles,” 17.

56. Noble, “Missed Connections,” 41.

57. 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 Studies10,2 (May 2013): 188.

58. Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything, 182.

59. Noble, “Hyper-Visibility.”

60. Ibid.

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

ACM 56,

5 (May 2013): 48.

62. Ibid, 52.

63. Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta, “Automated Experiments on Ad

Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discrimination,” arXiv: 1408.6491,

August 27, 2014, http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6491.

64. Baker and Potts, “White People,” 200.

65. Ibid, 191.

66. Davisson, “Google Search.”

67. Vaidhyanathan,

The Googlization of Everything, 59.

68. 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),

307.

69. Bernard Stiegler, Symbolic Misery, Volume 1: The Hyperindustrial Epoch (Cambridge,

UK: Polity, 2014).

70. Jonathan Beller, The Cinematic Mode of Production (Hanover, NH: Dartmouth, 2006).

71. Stuart Hall, “Encoding, Decoding,” in The Cultural Studies Reader (London: Routledge,

1999), 93.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid, 102.

74. Ibid, 103.

75. Ibid.

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

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

Screen

29, 4 (September 1988): 66.

78. Ibid, 75-76.

79. bell hooks, “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators,” in

Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992), 128.

80. Ibid, 116.

81. Ibid, 126.

82. Mayne, Cinema and Spectatorship, 92.

83. Ibid, 159.

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

Information Literacy,” Human IT 11,2 (2012): 95.

85. Christine Pawley, “Information Literacy: A Contradictory Coupling,”

Library Quarterly 73, 4 (2003): 424.

86. Ibid, 448.

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

Related Paper No. 5.,” November 1974.

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

Movement (Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2014).

89. Cees Hamelink, “An Alternative to News,” Journal of Communication 26, 4 (December

1976), 120.

90. Ibid.

91. Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, “The Invasion of Corporate News,”

Financial Times, September 5,2014, http://www.ft.eom/intl/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-l 1 e4-adef-

00144feabdcQ.html#axzz3cs4izaOm.

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

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

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

Practice,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32,2 (March 2006): 193.

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

Development of Political Agency,” Journal of Information Literacy 7, 2 (2013): 23.

95. Ibid.

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

97. Hicks, “Knowledge Societies,” 218.

98. Ibid, 220.

99. Ibid, 220-221.

100. Bettina Fabos, “The Commercial Search Engine Industry and Alternatives to the

Oligopoly,” EastBound 1, 1 (2006): 197, http://www.eastbound.eu/2006/.

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

102. Blanke, “Commercialization of Information,” 12-13.

103. Schiller, Information Inequality, 3 5.

104. Troy Swanson, “Information is Personal: Critical Information Literacy and Personal

Epistemology,” in Critical Library Instruction: Theories and Methods, ed. Maria T. Emily Drabinski, and Alana Kumbier (Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press, 2010), 266.

105. Ibid, 271.

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


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item