Intrigued by this, but unfortunately have not had time ahead of the lisjc chat / annotation to work up what these could be from a discovery perspective. As noted above, of those presented here Authority, Research Process, & especially Scholarly Discourse come through clearest in our discovery user experience work.

It seems to me that "struggl[ing] to connect [one's] work to the broader conversations in the discipline" may well be something that affects LIS practitioners just as much as other disciplines.

I would question the extent to which we ourselves buy into the idea that we are a part of an ongoing scholarly conversation ourselves - within our own domain of LIS. Do we engage with scholarly work or other 'existing conversations' to the extent that we are expecting of our users in this concept?

This insight seems absolutely correct from ongoing user experience work at my workplace (a university). We see in more expert users a very well-developed idea that learning and knowledge creation takes places in a scholarly community. This community is understood as supportive, as it can provide recommendations, help and guidance, and has deep expertise in particular specialist areas that are tied to research in known and predictable ways.

I find this threshold concept the least "best fitting" of those identified. I suspect it may speak to a limitation of the Delphi method in this case - perhaps the participants selected, or a 'bandwagon' effect of some sort?

What I'm seeing here (particularly my highlights above) are in 2016 perspectives that do not chime with current novice or expert understandings of library search and discovery systems that I see as a practitioner - let alone a more general, complicated idea of being an information literate person.

I can only agree with the value of critiquing the commodification of information and understanding the political economy of information as a broader social context. This is one area the authors drive frame ideas in ways that more explicitly draw on critical information literacy so I will drop in as recommended reading:

Lawson, S, Sanders, K. and Smith, L. (2015) 'Commodification of the information profession: a critique of higher education under neoliberalism', Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 3(1). OA version: http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/12572/

I find this whole concept / Frame troubling as it simply does not fit very well with developed ('expert') understanding of format (or medium) as my own library users understand and interpret it. I found Lane Wilkinson's discussion of the equivalent draft Framework frame on format very useful and, I think, applicable here:

this frame isn’t about format at all. From the standpoint of information use, the differences between a .jpg image and a .png image, or a print book and an ebook, are an engineering issue, not an information literacy issue. I think the real focus of this frame is media, not format, and a more intuitive way to state the concept might simply be "Medium Matters."

from: https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/is-format-a-process/

I'm trying to read the article as-is rather than jumping into the finished Frames too much, but this is one case where I think the additional shaping and development of the Framework results in a better concept / Frame than the Delphi study did.

I would agree with this, based on how useful (or not) I have found the concepts / Frames from the study in my work which is systems-focused.

I have been using these in the context of user experience research of a discovery system. This sits in a broader information seeking landscape which is complex, nuanced, and of which library discovery and "the library" generally is only one piece.

Given the technical knowledge and expertise of my team, I've found that some concepts / Frames are simply much more useful in understanding infolit aspects of this process. These were: Authority, Research Process, & especially Scholarly Discourse.

I find it particularly interesting the authors note the need to expend extra effort on including practitioners, having discussed 'routine criteria for expertise' above.

I think in this case there is very definitely a need for an integrative approach: inductively developing theory from practice as well as applying theory to infolit classroom practices.

"Authority is constructed and contextual". ;-) I do not agree that these criteria necessarily allow reliable judgement about infolit expertise so much as reflecting those who are seen as authorities or 'prominent voices'.

I found this a key problem to grapple with further on in the paper where the concepts themselves are listed. Are they bounded by information science as a discipline? Three explicitly are not.

Just to digress: I agree with this argument myself and feel I have a strong bias toward this view of things. I highlight it here as I wonder if it is a somewhat taken-for-granted principle that is often not always followed through in infolit practice? To me that would mitigate against the usefulness of a threshold concepts Framework - you'd want both a "concepts" and a "competencies" document.

Not so sure about this argument. It just seems a little overstated. To me concept of threshold concepts appears relatively acceptable to libraryland - having seen it initially when Land spoke at the LILAC infolit conference with a keynote talk about threshold concepts (this is a very mainstream conference). It would not surprise me to see threshold concepts included in future infolit guidelines / frameworks from for example, SCONUL or CILIP with relatively little fuss.

My overall impression of the method is that it seems a reasonable way of getting some threshold concepts from subject matter experts. I would question if these concepts are necessarily "the" threshold concepts for infolit given the differences between the Delphi study and the Framework that draws on it.