3.4 N ATURAL WHEY STARTER FOR P ARMIGIANO R EGGIANO : CULTURE
3.4.8 R EFERENCES
5. How to Organize Media and Information Literacy (MIL)
Countries that have a national MIL policy framework have proven more successful in their efforts to spread media and information literacy among their citizens than countries that lack one. Key factors are clearly expressed governance, broad support. and the participation of many different stakeholders in both the public and private sectors. Formalized networks under the coordination of a designated public authority (or other organization) are generally considered valuable assets. (Cf. Bulger and Davison 2018, EAO 2016, Frau-Meigs et al. 2017, LSE Commission on Truth, Trust and Technology 2018, O’Neill et al. 2018, UNESCO 2013).
These frameworks are the fruit of long-term processes involving media policy, digitization policy, education policy – and possibly other areas, as well. This is clear from a comparative study of MIL in Europe where three stances (“the three D’s”) of governance in relation to MIL are identified, the first of which is the most advanced:
1. Developing stance: full policy framework with the state as driver of the implementation of actions and coor-dination of non-public actors.
2. Delegating stance: partly developed policy framework that fosters action by other actors.
3. Disengaging stance: limited framework, non-public actors left to their own initiatives.
(Frau-Meigs et al. 2017b, p. 82-83)
Most of the countries studied fall into the second and third categories. Another European study found that
“higher income countries tend to have well-developed media literacy policy, while lower income countries tend to have underdeveloped or no media literacy policy at all” (Cernison et al. 2017, p. 4-5). But, only a few of the high-income countries have developed a national MIL policy that fulfills the criteria in the first stance. They may, however, have different names: national policy, national strategy, national guidelines, national framework, and so forth. But they all share the principle that MIL programs should be carried out in a common political framework that includes many, diverse actors. (Frau-Meigs et al. 2009, Frau-Meigs et al. 2017b, Costa et al. 2017, Matovic et al. 2017).
In some countries questions relating to media and information literacy sort under the ministry of culture or education, while digital competence is a matter for the ministry of industry, telecommunications or trade, with no dialogue or collaboration between the two. Much more resources are invested in digital competence than in MIL. In such cases, MIL risks being marginalized. And in countries where responsibility for MIL is concentrated in one ministry and there is no comprehensive national MIL policy framework with specified spheres of authority, the result is a fragmentation of efforts. Beneficial synergies are missed.
(Cf. Carlsson 2018, Frau-Meigs et al. 2017b).
In the study of MIL in Sweden it was found that MIL has bearing on eight policy areas: media, culture, education, digitization, justice, social, foreign and security policy.
Figure 1. Policy areas including MIL (Sweden)
Literacy Media Education
Social Affairs Democracy Culture
Even if media and information literacy has links to several policy areas, the interface between media and education is for the most part intact in most of countries with an established national MIL policy. In most European countries, regulatory agencies have distinct sections devoted to MIL within their spheres of responsibility. (Carlsson 2018, EAO 2016, Del Mar Grandio et al. 2017, Frau-Meigs et al. 2017b).
Implications and challenges
A conclusion is that any serious, long-term national policy for MIL has to have a body – an authority – that is assigned responsibility for developing, coordinating and evaluating the MIL policy. This body should be equipped to provide the resources and inspiration that enable successful MIL programs/activities – without political over-bearance and moralizing admonishments. Real progress requires constructive collaboration and coordination between stakeholders and between different levels of administration within a common framework based on a citizens’ perspective. Proactive political leadership is crucial to success. (Cf. Carls-son 2018, Frau-Meigs et al. 2017b, Livingstone 2010, 2018a, Pöttinger et al. 2015, UNESCO 2013, 2015).
The importance of collaboration cannot be stressed enough. Besides policy and public institutions, MIL involves media enterprises, suppliers of content to internet etc., academia and, not least, civil society.
Studies to date indicate the benefits of structures that encourage collaboration and dialogue among and between policy-makers and other stakeholders, a so-called multistakeholder model. Such broad-based models afford numerous advantages, but they are also demanding. (Cf. Bäckstrand 2006, Matovic et al.
2017, Celot et al. 2009, UNESCO 2013, 2015).
Broad knowledge, a holistic perspective, interest and collaborative skill are all key to the success of any project that involves sharing knowledge and experience, ideas and resources among such a diversity of actors, in the present case, to advance the common cause of media and information literacy.
Furthermore, there should be infrastructure for exchanges between national, regional and local levels.
Participants’ interest, enthusiasm and energy seem to be a good indicator of success in carrying out national MIL policies.
International organizations like UNESCO and regional organizations obviously play important roles, assuring that MIL is included and developed in work on democratic development, all over the world.
They facilitate the exchange of experiences and knowledge between countries, offer stimulus, facili-tate cooperation, and inform decisions on regional and national levels. The mutual exchange between countries, at regional and global levels in a proper infrastructure can stimulate progress in MIL policies – which can also contribute to democracy development in less democratic countries. (Cf. Grizzle 2018, MILID Yearbooks 2014-2018, Perez Tornero et al. 2010, UNESCO 2013).
The importance of the family, schools and libraries
The two institutions that have the greatest potential to heighten media and information literacy among children and young people are the schools and families (see chapter 9 in this publication). In many cases schools – and school libraries – are decisive with respect to assuring equality – not least gender equality (Carlsson 2018).
But MIL can have its greatest value only when it is combined with basic knowledge of such core sub-jects as civics/social studies, history, native language, religion, foreign languages and mathematics. The ability to read, write and do arithmetic is crucial. In short, education of good quality is essential to the suc-cess of MIL programs/activities. This implies good schools for all – girls and boys, women and men – with competent teachers and sufficient funding. i.e., schools that take responsibility for young citizens’ lear-ning. (Cf. Buckingham 2003, Doganay 2014, Print et al. 2012, 2015, Mihailidis 2014, 2018, Radoslavov 2014).
From a policy perspective, digital convergence has given rise to an increasing focus on technical solutions and less focus on platforms as bearers of meaning. As a consequence, niches have opened for
actors who offer services and platforms without either pedagogic or media expertise. The focus has shifted from the quality of content to its technical delivery. Digital technology can be presented as the solution to often complex problems in education. (Cf. Frau-Meigs et al. 2017, Player-Koro chapter 13 in this publication).
In addition to the training of teachers and librarians there is also the need for ‘life-long learning’, which involves parts of the public sector, public service media and other media companies and, not least, civil society organizations. This is especially important in contemporary society, in which people from many different cultures, traditions and political views coexist side by side. But, how to reach the adult popula-tion, women and men? It is a critical issue where fair and just incentives are needed.
The vital role of public libraries and public service media has to be mentioned. They are seen as mainstays of the democratic public sphere, defending freedom of expression and professionalism – a major contribution to the common good. Both as mediators of what MIL is, and an example of how MIL is working, they are quite central. (Cf. Doherty 2014, Kozolanka et al. 2018, Radoslavov 2013).
Evaluation and Assessment
Uncertainty about financing and a lack of evaluation are major threats to long-term, ongoing MIL activi-ties/programs. It can be a vicious circle: lack of evaluations makes it more difficult to secure financing. The situation can open a niche for commercial actors who may not be pedagogically competent or have the common good and central aspects of MIL, such as freedom of expression and participation, in focus.
Evaluation – clarity about what is being done and what has been achieved – is most important, and a prerequisite is assessment. Measures/indicators have to be based on experience and scientifically founded insights. But not all results lend themselves to quantification. Too much preoccupation with measures can even hinder constructive work with MIL – measures, examination and meetings in place of actual learning.
Documentation and communication of ‘best practices’ are therefore invaluable to the development of MIL education in the long term. (Cf. Cernison et al. 2017, Costa et al. 2017, Grizzle 2018, Frau-Meigs et al. 2017b, Gordon et al. 2016, Jeong et al. 2012, UNESCO 2013).
Evaluations of media literacy education show that media education is more or less effective. In a meta-analysis of media literacy interventions the researchers found improvements in critical thinking skills, and even behavior change (Jeong et al. 2012). More limited studies point in the same direction (Bulger et al.
2018, Fletcher et al. 2018, Grizzle 2018, Gui et al. 2018). But, in sum it is remarkable that so few comprehen-sive evaluations have been carried out in recent years.
Development of knowledge
The development of knowledge can help resolve broader issues and systematic problems in society, including the media sector, digitization and MIL. In order for MIL policies and activities to be effective, the problems they address must first be analysed and clearly specified in a broad context of relevance.
There is an urgent need to gain a better understanding of the meaning and consequences of globaliza-tion and digitizaglobaliza-tion from the point of view of citizens and media. While these factors are far broader and not directly related to MIL, their impacts on MIL are both direct and strong. Current research, however, often presents contradictory results regarding the direction and quality of the digital transformation process. There is a risk that such a situation may aggravate an already normatively loaded debate on the effects of the digitization of media.
Broader collaboration across boundaries in coordinated studies that produce comparable results is essential in fields like media and MIL, where research is conducted in many different disciplines. It has never been easy to find funding for interdisciplinary and transnational research, but it is even more difficult today. A host of factors in academic research – the incessant struggle to find funding, the pressure
The paucity of interdisciplinary studies and cross-national collaboration on MIL is clearly a problem.
Studies of children’s interaction with media, too, are few nowadays, even though the need for a better understanding of how media habits are established and evolve is as great as ever. Furthermore, words rather than images continue to get most attention, even though images occupy such a central position in contemporary media culture. (Cf. Potter 2010, Hobbs 2011, Sefton-Green et al. 2016).
There is need for a MIL research agenda that transcends cultural, political, ethnic and religious boundaries, but accommodates regional variations – and, not least, addresses methods and models for understanding current phenomena based on a critical reassessment of traditional concepts. In short: it is urgent to consider MIL beyond the Western world.
The challenge for the researchers is not only to explain the problems, but also to communicate with the people in power so that research findings will make a difference. To dare engage in debates on demo-cracy, social change, human rights, freedom of expression – and the role of media and information literacy in relation to these fundamental values. (Cf. Bennet et al. 2018, Bulger et al. 2018, Carlsson 2007, 2014, Grizzle 2018, Jolls et al. 2018, Livingstone 2018b, 2019, Qiu et al. 2018, Servaes et al. 2016).
Essential elements in a model for national MIL policy
If the aim of MIL is to maximize opportunities and minimize risk in the digital communication environ-ment, responsibility must be taken to ensure that solutions and policies contribute to creating an inclusive democratic policy, based on well-informed, engaged and participating citizens. Clarity of purpose – poli-tical agreement on the importance of MIL, on what MIL is, and in what ways national MIL policy and/or specific MIL programs/activities contribute to democracy and social change – is of the essence.
Frameworks for media and information literacy must, however, be responsive to an ongoing develop-mental process driven by social progress objectives, technological development, and currents of political debate. At present, national digitization and AI strategies are the dominant concern, but these strategies may change in response, for example, to the emergence of new kinds of hardware and software. In this fluid environment, it is important for policy-makers and other stakeholders to have a clear and robust idea of what they expect of MIL, and how media and educational policies relate to other policy areas.
On the basis of existing MIL research, comparative studies (mostly in Europe), the Swedish survey and policy documents from a number of countries, together with UNESCO and EU documents, a set of essential elements of national MIL policy can be identified:
1. A consolidated framework in the national policy system with an articulated conception of MIL in a longer-term and holistic perspective; i.e., a well-defined idea of how MIL (both practices and outcomes) can contribute to democratic development and social progress;
2. A high degree of coordination between ministries, authorities and other public sector institutions, with clear assignment of roles and responsibilities;
3. A governance mechanism (e.g. authority) with input from a wide range of involved actors/stake holders representing media companies, purveyors of content, educational organizations, adult education organiza-tions, technological companies, the research community, civil society, etc. (with incentives to collaboration at multiple levels in society – preferably formalized in networks);
4. The development of professionalism in education and capacity building efforts – for classroom and life-long learning.
5. Structures for following accumulated knowledge and promoting/stimulating further research;
6. Structures for assessment and evaluation, including documentation of best practices;
7. Active involvement in MIL issues in regional and international organizations with feedback to the national level and vice versa.
8. Coordination of resources and financing.
Any country that has made a commitment to develop a national political framework for MIL has to pro-ceed according to its circumstances and capacity, its governmental structure, its media landscape/media culture and educational infrastructure. These considerations will in many respects decide the country’s level of ambition and how the framework is structured.
The overall objective is to create conditions that are conducive to constructive efforts in all relevant policy areas to foster and heighten media and information literacy among the country’s citizens – thereby contributing to the preservation and vigor of democracy, freedom of expression and social progress.
Today, most democratic countries agree as to the importance of heightened media and information literacy, when media and communication cultures are in such flux. It is essential to equip citizens so they are able to exercise their civic responsibilities and civil rights.
Bennett, W.L. and B. Pfetsch (2018). Rethinking Political Communication in a Time of Disrupted Public Spheres. Journal of Communication, 68 (2): 243–253, doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx017
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buckingham, D. (2018). Waking up from the digital dream: media education and media reform. Retrieved from
Buckingham, D. and H. Strandgaard Jensen (2012). Beyond “Media Panics”. Journal of Children and Media, 6(4): 413-429, doi:10.1080/17482798.2012.740415
Bulger, M. and P. Davison (2018). The Promises, Challenges and Futures of Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(1): 1-21.
Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, account-ability and effectiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance, 16: 290-306, doi:10.1002/eet.425
Carlsson, U. (2007). Why regional and international cooperation? Reflections from a Nordic Horizon. Global Media and Communication, 3: 279-283.
Carlsson, U. (2014). NordMedia A Vital Venue, Then as Now. Reflections on Media Research 1973-2013. Nordicom Review, Special Issue, p. 265-271.
Carlsson, U. (ed.) (2018). Medie- och informationskunnighet i den digitala tidsåldern: En demokratifråga. Kartläggning, analys och reflektioner. [Media and Information Literacy in the Digital Age: A Question of Democracy]. Göteborg:
Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
Celot, P. and J.M. Perez Tornero (2009). Study on Assessment Criteria for Media Literacy Levels. For the European Commis-sion. Bruxelles: EAVI.
Cernison, M. and A. Ostling (2017). Measuring Media Literacy in the EU: Results from the Media Pluralism Monitor 2015.
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2017/01. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2906216 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2906216
Costa, C., V. Car and S. Papadimitriou (2017). “Good practices and emerging trends in media and information literacy”.
In: Frau-Meigs, D., I. Velez and J. Flores Michel (eds.). (2017). Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe. Cross-Country Comparisons. Oxon: Routledge/ECREA, pp. 229-268.
De Abreau, B.S., P. Mihailidis, A.Y.L. Lee et al. (2017). International Handbook of Media Literacy Education. New York:
Del Mar Grandio, M., S. Dilli and B. O’Neill (2017). “Legal frameworks for media and information literacy”. In: Frau-Meigs, D., I. Velez and J. Flores Michel (eds.). (2017). Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe. Cross- Country Comparisons. Oxon: Routledge/ECREA, pp. 116-129.
Doganay, A. (2013). “A Curriculum Framework for Active Democratic Citizenship Education”. In: M. Print och D. Lange (eds.). Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens. Rotterdam: Springer Science &
Business Media/Sense Publishers.
Doherty, H. (2014). Media literacy and public service broadcasting. Bruxelles: EU publication.
EAO (2016). Mapping of media literacy practices and actions in EU-28. Bruxelles: European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO).
Ekström, M. and A. Shehata (2018). Social media, porous boundaries, and the development of online political engage-ment among young citizens. New Media & Society, (20)2:740-759.
Fletcher, R. (2018). “The Impact of Greater News Literacy”. In: N. Newman with R. Fletcher, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. A. L.
Levy and R. Kleis Nielsen, Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Oxford: Reuters Institute For the Study of Jour-nalism, Retrieved from http://media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/digital-news- report-2018.
Frau-Meigs, D. and J.M. Perez Tornero (eds.) (2009). Mapping Media Education Policies in the World. Visions, Programmes and Challenges. New York: The UN Alliance of Civilizations.
Frau-Meigs, D., I. Velez and J. Flores Michel (eds.) (2017A). Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe.
Cross-Country Comparisons. Oxon: Routledge/ECREA.
Frau-Meigs, D., I. Velez and J. Flores Michel (2017B). “Mapping media and information policy: new perspectives for the governance of MIL”. In: Frau-Meigs, D., I. Velez and J. Flores Michel (eds.). (2017). Public Policies in Media and Informa-tion Literacy in Europe. Cross-Country Comparisons. Oxon: Routledge/ECREA, pp. 19-88.
Grizzle, A. (2018). Assessing Citizens’ Responses to Media and Information Literacy Competencies Through an Online Course: An Empirical Study and Critical Comparative Analysis of Experts’ Views. PhD thesis. Faculty of Communication Sciences, Department of Journalism and Communication Sciences of the Autonomous University of Barcelona https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/imprimirFicheroTesis.do
Gordon, E. and P. Mihailidis (eds.) (2016). Civic Media: Technology, Design, Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gui, M., T. Gerosa, A. Garavaglia, L. Petti and M. Fasoli (2018). Digital Well-being. Validation of a Digital Media Educa-tion Proposal in High Schools. Research Report. Milan: ExploitaEduca-tion of Research Results and Technology Transfer, University of Milan-Bicocca. Retrieved from www.benesseredigitale.eu/materiali
Hobbs, R. (2011). The State of Media Literacy: A Response to Potter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(3):
Jeong, S.H., H. Cho and Y. Hwang (2012). Media Literacy Interventions: A Meta-Analytic Review. The Journal of Communi-cation, 62(3): 454–472. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01643.x. PMC 3377317. PMID 22736807
Jolls, T. and M. Johnsen (2018). Media Literacy: A Foundational Skill for Democracy in the 21st Century. Hastings Law Journal, 69: 1379-1408.
Kozolanka, K. and P. Orlowski (2018). Media Literacy for Citizenship: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: Canadian Scholars.
Livingstone, S. (2010). “Media literacy and media policy”. In: B. Bachmair (ed.). Medienbildung in Neuen Kulturräumen.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Livingstone, S (2018a). Media literacy: what are the challenges and how can we move towards a solution? Media Literacy Project Blog 2018-10-25. The post is based on a presentation at the UNESCO Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018 in Kaunas/Riga, 24-31October. blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2018/10/25/media-literacy-what-are-the-challenges-and-how-can-we-move-towards-a-solution/#comments
Livingstone, S. (2018b). Audiences in an Age of Datafication: Critical Questions for Media Research. Television & New Media, 20(2): 170–183. doi.org/10.1177/1527476418811118
LSE Commission on Truth, Trust and Technology (2018). Tackling the Information Crisis. A policy Framework for Media System Resilience. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://www.lse.
ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/T3-Report-Tackling-the-Information-Crisis.pdf Lunt, P. and S. Livingstone (2011). Media Regulation: Governance and the Interests of Citizens and Consumers. London:
Matovic, M., K. Juraité and A, Gutiérrez (2017). The role of non-governmental actors in media and information literacy:
a comparative media systems perspective. In: In: Frau-Meigs, D., I. Velez and J. Flores Michel (eds.). (2017). Public Policies in Media and Information Literacy in Europe. Cross-Country Comparisons. Oxon: Routledge/ECREA, pp. 159-193.
Mihailidis, P. (2014). Media Literacy and the Emerging Citizen. Youth Engagement and Participation in the Digital Culture.
New York: Peter Lang.
Mihailidis, P. (2018). Civic media literacies: re-Imagining engagement for civic intentionality. Leaning Media and Technology, published 6 February.
Mihailidis, P. (2019). Civic Media Literacies Re-Imagining Human Connection in an Age of Digital Abundance. New York:
O’Neill, B. och T. Dinh (2018). The Better Internet for Kids Policy Map: Implementing the European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children in European Member States. Brussels: European Commission, European Schoolnet and EU Kids Online. Retrieved from https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/bikmap
Perez Tornero, J.M. and T. Varis (2010). Media Literacy and a New Humanism. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
Potter, W.J. (2010). The State of Media Literacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(4): 675–696.
Print, M. and D. Lange (eds.) (2013). Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens. Rotterdam:
Springer Science and Business Media/Sense Publishers.
Print, M. and C. Tan (2015). Educating “Good” Citizens in a Globalising World for the Twenty-First Century. Rotterdam:
Pöttinger, I., T. Kalwar and R. Fries (eds.) (2015). Doing politics. Politisch agieren in der digitalen Gesellschaft. (Schriften zur Medienpädagogik). München: Kopaed.
Qiu, J. and C. Fuchs (eds.) (2018). Ferments in the field: The past, the present and futures of. communication studies.
Journal of Communication, (Special Issue), 68 (2): 219–232.
Radoslavov, S. (2014). ‘Media Literacy Promotion as a Form of Public Value?’. In: G. F. Lowe and F. Martin (eds.). The Value of Public Service Media. Ripe 2013. Göteborg: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
Sefton-Green, J. and O. Erstad, Ola (2016) Researching “learning lives” – a new agenda for learning, media and technology. Learning, Media and Technology, (42): 1-5. 10.1080/17439884.2016.1170034.
Servaes, J. and J. Anderson (eds.) (2016). The Unbearable Lightness of Communication Research. The International Communication Gazette, Special issue, 78(7): 609-730.
UNESCO (2013). Media and Information Literacy. Policy and Strategy Guidelines. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2013). Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: Country Readiness and Competencies.
Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002246/224655e.pdf
UNESCO (2015). Keystones to Foster Inclusive Knowledge Societies. Access to information and knowledge, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Ethics on a Global Internet. Paris: UNESCO.