terms, the individual may not know in any precise way what they do not know and their information gap is hard to frame. Robert Taylor goes so far as to argue that, in its rawest or “visceral” form, an information need may be no more than “a vague sort of dissat- isfaction” that is “probably inexpressible in linguistic terms”.8 Let us consider also the danger of failing to spot useful information when it is encountered. This is especially possible when the individual is tackling an area about which they know very little and, if the retrieved material pertains to a broader or related matter, the person may not be aware of the links between these topics and their true focus of concern. They may also be unaware of synonyms for their intended topic, thereby raising the possibility that the value of directly relevant information given in a source is not noted. The view that pertinent information is likely to go unrecognised as such by the searcher is not held by all com- mentators, however. Marydee Ojala highlights the IKIWISI perspec- tive, with the individual believing, “I’ll know it when I see it”. She comments, though, how even when searchers who take this attitude come across material that may be pertinent, it may not be suitable. Ojala cites a range of problems in this context, including material that is “deliberately misleading, malevolent, or incorrect”.9
In
today’s ever more uncertain world, this may be our biggest concern. If what we are seeking is information that we do not know, how can we be sure when we find it that the material is accurate? As Belkin points out, the first challenges associated with ignorance may well begin far earlier in the inquiry process. A student who is unfamiliar with their chosen area may struggle to formulate an effective research question and some only gradually realise that their envisaged focus of study offers no potential. It may, for example, be based on a misconception or there may be insufficient high quality information about it to support a project of the required depth. In other cases, the student fails initially to appreciate the advanced nature of the issues at the heart of the inquiry, and the sources available are ultimately found to be too cognitively demanding for the learner.2 inquiry becomes futile.
In all these scenarios, the
Still, let us remember that in many situations students will be seeking concrete answers to valid, hard and fast questions that lie within their ability level. Often youngsters will be researching areas where they have some existing mental model of their subject and the territories into which it extends. Nevertheless, young children, in particular, may lack the multi-faceted vocabulary that would both provide them with a set of search terms and afford a
February-March 2026
method of determining the relevance of information they retrieve. Thus, we return to the problem that pertinent material can easily be missed. I have, elsewhere, discussed the challenge faced by a young inquirer who, along with his classmates, was shown by his teacher how a sheet of plastic could be made to cling to another sur- face. He was asked to find out for the following day what was making it stick. The term, “static electricity”, was entirely unknown to the boy, who consequently lacked an obvious entry point that would lead him to relevant information. For this eight-year-old, his area of interest did indeed seem “non-specifiable” when he was first presented with the task. He was able to solve the mystery only after question-and-answer dialogues with his parents.10 We, as information literacy specialists, may well disagree with the conclusion that is to be drawn from Meno’s Paradox, namely that all inquiry is essentially futile because either the information involved is already known to the individual or, where new knowl- edge is being sought, the person is likely to overlook relevant information when they access it. We may muse, though, on the difficulty, in certain situations, of users defining from the outset what actually constitutes the “unknown” upon which they want to focus and assessing, when they do retrieve pertinent information, how far they can trust it. It is here where the facilitating role of the information professional becomes significant. Despite its age, Meno’s Paradox retains an undeniable value – it reminds us of some of the complications associated with inquiry and invites us to think more deeply about the challenges that emerge when we look to develop the investigative skills of our students and devise situations in which they can be practised.
References 1. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Volume 18. William Benton, 1963.
2. Shenton, A.K. What makes a good question for pupil research? Education Today, 66 (1), 2016, pp. 24-29.
3. Paterson, E.C. Information Skills 8 to 18. Professional Centre, Hull College of Higher Education, 1981.
4. AI: Promise or peril? The Moral Maze. BBC Radio Four, 4 June 2025. URL:
www.bbc.
co.uk/sounds/play/m002d122
5. Graef, R. The Illusion of Information. Part one. BBC Radio Four, 23 July 2000. 6. The Wikipedia Story. BBC Radio Four, 24 July 2007.
7. Belkin, N.J. Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5 (1), 1980, pp. 133-43.
8. Taylor, R.S. Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College and Research Libraries, 29 (3), 1968, pp. 178-94. 9. Ojala, M. I’ll know it when I see it. Online, 33 (5), 2009, p. 5.
10. Shenton, A.K. Young People’s Information Universes: Their Characteristics and Development. VDM, 2009.
INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 37
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54
