ing information is everywhere, it is more important than ever that young people can ask ‘what does good information look like?’. In the media, scientists and their studies can be misreported or the results over-em- phasised. Yet talking through the evidence behind a claim can get young people asking questions about quality, such as the sample size of studies – and in my experience young people are quick to spot the difference between a meta-analysis and single scientific studies.


Critical thinking can also help tackle the host of conspiracy theories surrounding coronavirus. The social media culture is prone to dismiss or attack anyone talking about conspiracies but if we are to slow the spread and influence of conspiracy theories we need to engage respectfully with young people if they talk about them, and support all young people to scrutinise these claims. We recently produced five tips on ‘How to talk about conspiracy theories’ (https://bit. ly/3injc8l). They include encouraging the scep- ticism directed towards those in authority to also be directed towards others, such as YouTube influencers and social media stars. This is something young people are getting better at. Over the past five years the percentage of 12-15 year olds who are aware that vloggers might be paid to endorse prod- ucts or services has increased from 47 per cent to 63 per cent, according to an Ofcom report (https://bit.ly/3gnTFtX). And those who do the Evidence Hunter activity are quick to tell me not everyone on Instagram is qualified to provide diet and nutrition advice. If we are to challenge conspiracy theories effectively then we should encourage young people who come across them to ask searching questions such as ‘who do I trust most to tell the truth?’


Public trust


Although the benefits of critical thinking are all the more clear in the wash of news and stories about coronavirus, young people’s lives, like everyone else’s, aren’t wholly defined by coronavirus and critical thinking is just as important for the less dominant issues they deal with. Part of my job is keep- ing up with the spread of new dodgy cures and diets as well as how people understand and use evidence – from children’s health interventions in Blackpool to infrastructure planning in Somerset, social housing in Glasgow to plastic pollution in Cornwall. Magazines, social media, agony aunts and influencers are still avidly covering exercise, nutrition and mental health to name a few and the best products or lifestyle choices to deal with them. It is issues like these that people referred to when they called for us to act. It is why we continue to use real life ex- amples in our work and why it is important to carry on talking about them. We’ve heard scientists, politicians and commentators say that the government must not take the public’s trust for granted and should treat the population like adults,


June-July 2020


explaining how science is informing policy and where the advice is coming from. Young people will most likely be living with a parent or carer but, nevertheless, their views and responses to the crisis are important, so they should not be left out of any conversa- tion about what’s happening and why it’s being dealt with in a particular way. Infor- mation professionals and educators who are working with young people or who are parents themselves have surely been asked about the decision to close schools (whether they’re enjoying the closure or not). It is important that the government


recognises this imperative and is prepared to have an open conversation with the whole nation about its Covid-19 poli- cies. In the past months confusion about what people should be doing in response to Corona virus (https://bit.ly/3dSNsV8) has been increasing whilst the number of people who approve of the government’s handling of the crisis (https://bit.ly/2YORz0a) has decreased. We have seen the effect a lack of transparency and willingness to have a frank discussion about policies can have. Young people want to understand – and scrutinise – the policy decisions that are having a direct impact on them. They should be part of that conversation, and they need to be equipped for it. CILIP’s definition (https://infolit.org.uk/ILdefi- nitionCILIP2018.pdf) of information literacy is useful, “It empowers us as citizens to reach and express informed views and to engage fully with society”. Critical thinking in the time of coronavirus is an opportunity for this generation (already dubbed the coro- nials – https://bit.ly/2BURpLI) to engage with democratic conversations about health, education and social welfare amongst others. It’s important we’re responsive and act now, but these interventions will also leave a legacy: equipping young people for the complex life decisions they will face in the years to come. IP


l https://senseaboutscience.org/ INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 33


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  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60