Authoritative? How much does the marketplace affect information production and access

This is a post I wrote for my MLIS class arguing that Radical Information Scientists face ethical challenges where inclusion is concerned

“We’re funding huge CEO salaries and staggering profit margins built on the artificial scarcity of the knowledge that we produce” (Fister, 2010, p. 88).

Social Justice Infographic, from https://hildakweisburg.com/2016/07/26/on-libraries-teaching-social-justice-in-the-library/

One of the major ethical challenges for the RIS community is ensuring/increasing access to information for all. (One other major ethical challenge, who is included in the RIS community, I’ve already addressed in my post on Can the Subaltern Speak in the Library). Ensuring access to information is a core value of the American Library Association Code of Ethics. Take this statement, for example

The core ethics and values of the information disciplines and professions require that we steward, validate, protect, and also liberate the cultural and documentary record; that we insure that documentation is transparent and accountable; and that we provide equitable and ready access to information for all (Noble, 2014).

And this,

The American Library Association promotes equal access to information for all persons, and recognizes the urgent need to respond to the increasing number of poor children, adults, and families in America. . . Therefore it is crucial that libraries recognize their role in enabling poor people to participate fully in a democratic society, by utilizing a wide variety of available resources and strategies. (quoted in Gieskes, 2009, p. 50)

And

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 19, states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The first statement comes from a petition that Information Science professionals developed and put together in response to the Black Lives Matters movement. The petition is focused on ensuring access to information for all. The second statement comes from the ALA Round Table on Social Responsibility and confirms that equal access is not just an ethical principle from the edges of the profession but a core value in the information professions.  And the third is International in scope and emphasizes how much access to information is central to what it means to be human.

In the RIS community, these ethical statements are of particular importance because social justice depends on information seeking and sharing and information’s accessibility to all.  Debbie Hansen (2016) states that the ODLIS (Online dictionary of library information science) defines information as “all the facts, conclusion, ideas and creative works of the human intellect and imagination that have been communicated, formally or informally, in any form”. Ensuring access to all these kinds of information is an ethical necessity to social justice and equity and thus to the RIS community. For the RIS community this ethical concern is one they face in their information seeking to understand how to make information, in general, more accessible but also one they face in how to make their own information production (of which they do much) more accessible (this second ethical issue, unfortunately, gets little attention).

While the goal is clear, ensuring access to all information for all people, how to get there is quite complex. Information barriers exist in many forms, some easy to identify, others not so much. Information barriers that affect access to most information seeking are fairly easy to identify. Economic issues, like access to databases or books, can interfere with the publics’ and scholarly access to resources (Fister, 2010; Haider, 2007). Cultural issues, like a lack of awareness of a culture’s documents, can interfere with a given group’s access to knowledge (Britz & Loh, 2010). And, physical barriers, like computers that the blind or deaf can’t access, create additional limitations. Other physical constraints like the inability to get to a library can decrease access. Added to these barriers are issues of filters that decrease access to certain documents (Dresang, 2006; Frechette, 2005), government policies that attempt to reduce or forbid access to some documents or events (see Documenting the Now and Jaeger & Bertot, 2010) and the rapid loss of information posted and then “disappeared” from the web (Lepore, 2015; Worthham, 2016). Unfortunately, it is not difficult to think of other barriers to information access: library fines, limited library hours, limited internet or costly internet and pay walls to name a few.

From http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21574634-chinas-model-controlling-internet-being-adopted-elsewhere-each-their-own

Censorship is obviously also a concern, but it is a tricky issue for this group (Dresang, 2006). While full and equal access to information is a strong component of social justice in Information Science, there are compelling voices in that community that advocate for censorship of materials that increase violence and hatred against marginalized groups. Resolving the desire for full access with the desire to protect marginalized groups has not been easy and remains an ethical challenge for this group.

Finally, barriers to access to information can be less obvious: Chatman mentions people’s fears as preventing access and increasing resistance to information (Chatman, 1996; Fulton, 2010); and Vance (2016) highlights how much loyalty to our own community can prevent the access to or acceptance of information.  Also alternative, unique or unusual collections (like that of a transgender community, for example) may not be collected in a public space, or even if it is collected, no one knows about it, and thus, very few people really have access.

Beatty (2014), in his essay on information literacy and Neoliberalism addresses the issue of inclusion by showing how information is systematically excluded because of our privileging of certain information sources over others.
He writes
 "Nik and his neighbor have run afoul of ideas we take for granted about the relative value of information. Because the format and the context of their writing is irregular, the content is automatically discounted. Scholarly articles have passed a competitive process of peer review. The precisely-formatted pages of the journal becomes, in theory, the outward sign of the article’s innate value. But in an ecosystem or a marketplace of information it is precisely the format and context that is valued. Because something is on a free blog whose template hasn’t been changed since 2008 it is automatically of less worth than a paywalled academic article. “Marketplaces” and “ecosystems” of information thus serve to justify existing inequalities of access, both to content and to publication."

Finally, understanding how their own information production might not be readily available is also part of this ethical issue. Information produced within the RIS community is subject to many of the barriers that I’ve listed above. However, it is easy to look around outside our community and identify the barriers others have put in the way. It is much more difficult to turn that critical eye inside and identify the problem areas within the RIS community. As a result, little of this self-criticism is produced within the RIS community. This ethical challenge seems to go largely unaddressed.

Attempting to overcome the barriers and meet the ethical demands of information access for all is a daunting and perhaps even impossible task. Expecting the community to turn an inquiring eye inward might be too much to ask for.  However, they clearly feel an ethical need to grapple with these information barriers outside their own community.

In an effort to “free-up” information, the RIS community (and others) have sought out the following strategies. Open access to documents has been one widespread call from the RIS community (Chan, Kirsop and Arunachalam, 2005). Perhaps the best example of the emphasis on open access is exemplified in The Journal of Radical Librarianship's mission which includes the desire to "make work as free and available to the public as possible" (Barron, 2015). Another has been vigorous and rigorous attempts to fight the journal consolidator corporations that charge for and limit access to published materials (Fister, 2010). Still others have created open journals and advocated strongly for their availability in third world countries where information access may be even more limited (Deschamps, 2003). And many fight for the free accessibility of documents that are produced in public institutions using public funding (Fister, 2010). Others seek funding for unique collections to make them freely available to the public (Wakimoto, Hansen & Bruce, 2013).

Most of the work on the RIS concern for inclusion that I’ve mentioned so far comes from research and scholarly work. However, one of the foundational aspects of an information community is its interest in accessing varying information sources (Fisher and Durrance, 2003). While the RIS information community accesses much of its information on inclusion from research sources, it is also very much engaged in anecdotal and social sharing as a means to seek and share information on the issue of inclusion. And, in some cases, the concern with inclusion gets taken out in the street, so to speak. For example, in Portland Oregon, libraries provide mobile lending that reach out to communities that cannot access the physical or digital libraries. And Radical Reference (Morrone & Friedman, 2009) was founded on the desire to bring information services to streets, cafes and parks to serve the needs of those not inside information spaces. This is also mirrored by the Occupy Wall Street library, which sprang up to serve the needs of those involved in the Occupy movement (Lingel, 2012). Similarly, radical cataloging is suggested as a means to present materials in a way that benefits all users (Roberto, 2008).  States Librarian Chris Dodge, “I think of my library as being wherever I am—it’s not just a building full of shelves, but a living concept, a verb. A library can be about freely and extemporaneously providing connections. .. “ (quoting Dodge in Morrone & Friedman, 2009, p. 380). And a recent tweet on “radical librarian” reminds us “We cannot ignore issues around info access” (O’Connor, 2016).

Barbara Fister (2010) has gone so far as to create a “Liberation Bibliography” aimed at “the empowering nature of knowledge and the belief that it shouldn’t be a luxury good for the few” (p. 88).

“Intellectual freedom means the active promotion and protection of equal access to information as an inalienable right of all citizens” (Schuman, 1987, p. 131).

In the midst of all these efforts, however, is disagreement. Not everyone believes that these strategies are the best option for opening up information for all. Some want censorship as protection against violence (Burke, 2010; Dresang, 2006). For example, Progressive Librarians Community wants libraries to be more responsive to speech that others might find harmful and remove or limit such speech (Dresang, 2006). The RIS community has attempted to be culturally sensitive in accepting and working from ethical frameworks that are sensitive to cultural differences, which can sometimes result in self or other censorship (Mathiesen, 2015). Are there times, the community asks, when denying access to information is okay? The answer is not clear or without ethical baggage.

A final note, I’ve left Google out of this discussion even though clearly its ethical impact on “documentation” and information access through the Google Book Project and its preeminence as a search engine (and what that means for what we “find”) are significant for this discussion. However, I decided that tackling them in this post would require too much more space! But, if you are interested, there is a detailed dissertation on Google and its relation to Social Justice that is worth looking at (Hoffman, 2014).

Information communities bring together diverse individuals who come together around a shared need (Fisher and Durrance, 2003). And, while they share a common goal and ethical framework—in this case to increase social justice for all through their work in information science--they may not all agree on how to go about meeting the ethical challenges they face. One of the great things though about information communities is that they continue to share, interact and increase their connections as they collaborate with one another. So, while the RIS community faces significant ethical challenges both within their group (see my post on Subaltern in the Library) and outside their group, in this case with how to go about increasing information access for all, their continual interaction and sharing will hopefully continue to bring them closer to their social justice goals.

I want to end this post with this quote from Sanford Berman (1972) who started advocating for information access for all many years ago:

[T]he pressure for change—if it’s to be effective—needs to come from two directions: not only from inside the traditionally straight-laced, stuffed-shirted, status-quo-hugging profession, but also from outside, from the liberationists and undergrounders themselves, from angry feminists and alienated students, warring Indians and unshackled Blacks, from proud Chicanos and no-longer-docile Asian-Americans, from bossburdened workers and impatient peaceniks. It’s not merely our right to enjoy easy access to the books, pamphlets, films, tapes, discs, and mags we want, but equally a necessity that the mass of committed and largely uninformed citizens have access to sources that authentically explain what we’re all about, that genuinely convey our vision of the “alternative society.” If what Middle Amerika knows about the Black Panthers, Radical Reference 387 as an example, derives solely from Time and tv, they’ll never understand the BPs, nor all the fuss about “persecution” and “genocide.” The Movement, in short, if it’s ever to shuck its insularity and really get its message to the Amerikan public, must be made more accessible. Libraries are one route. (Berman 1972, 52-3; emphasis in original)

Links for further information

Conference stream for the Access to Information is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT conference at the University of Washington Center for Human Rights http://humanrights.washington.edu/access-to-information-as-a-human-right/#time

Human Rights Information Project link https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/01/27/introducing-the-human-rights-information-project/

Global Commission on Internet Governance: One Internet, https://www.ourinternet.org/report#20

Excellent information on journal costs for libraries (with graphics) http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/04/publishing/the-winds-of-change-periodicals-price-survey-2013/#_

Dissertation develops a taxonomy of information nonuse, which highlights in great depth many of the barriers to information access. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/6896/houstonr21009.pdf

Excellent discussion of the theoretical and conceptual foundations of information access as an ethical right in Information Science. Chart on p. 28 summarizes issues and questions around the ethics of access. http://bpm.ils.indiana.edu/scholarship/oltmann_paper.pdf

References

Barron, S. (2015). A radical publishing collective: the Journal of Radical Librarianship. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. Retrieved from http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/a-radical-publishing-collective-the-journal-of-radical-librarianship/

Beatty, J. (2014). Locating information literacy within institutional oppression. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. Retrieved from http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/ 2014/locating-information-literacy-withininstitutional-oppression/

Berman, Sanford. 1972. Libraries to the people! In Revolting librarians, ed. Celeste West and Elizabeth Katz, 51–7. San Francisco: Booklegger Press

Chatman, E. (1996). The impoverished life-world of outsiders. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci., 47, 193–206

Chan, L., Kirsop, B. and Arunachalam, S. (2005), “Open access archiving: the fast track to building research capacity in developing countries”, Science and Development Network, retrieved from, www.scidev.net/ms/openaccess.

Curley, Arthur. 1987. Towards a broader definition of the public good. In Libraries, coalitions, & the public good, ed. E. J. Josey, 34–42. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Deschamps, C. (2003), “Round table: open access issues for developing countries”, Information Services & Use, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 149-59.

Dresang, E. T. (2006). Intellectual freedom and libraries: Complexity and change in the twenty‐first‐century digital environment1. The Library, 76(2).

Fister, B. (2010). Liberating knowledge: A librarian’s manifesto for change. Thought & Action, 83–90. Retrieved from http:// www.nea.org/assets/img/ PubThoughtAndAction/A10Fister1.pdf

Frechette, J. 2005. “Cyber-Democracy or Cyber-Hegemony? Exploring the Political and Economic Structures of the Internet as an Alternative Source of Information. Library Trends 53 (4): 555–76.

Fulton, C. (2010). An ordinary life in the round: Elfreda Annmary Chatman. Libraries & the Cultural Record, 45(2), 238-259.

Haider, J. (2007, July). Of the rich and the poor and other curious minds: on open access and “development”. In D. Bawden (Ed.), Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 59, No. 4/5, pp. 449-461). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Hoffmann, A. L. (2014). Google Books as Infrastructure of In/justice: Towards a Sociotechnical Account of Rawlsian Justice, Information, and Technology. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Retrieved from http://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1535&context=etd

Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371-376.

Lepore, J. (2015). The cobweb: Can the internet be archived? The New Yorker,

Lingel, J. (2012). Occupy wall street and the myth of technological death of the library. First Monday, 17(8)

Mathiesen, K. (2015). Human rights as a topic and guide for LIS research and practice. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1305-1322.

Morrone, M., & Friedman, L. (2009). Radical reference: Socially responsible librarianship collaborating with community. The Reference Librarian, 50(4), 371–396. doi: 10.1080/02763870903267952

Noble, S. U. et al. (2014, December). Statement from information studies academics and professionals on documentary evience and social justice. Message posted to https://criticallis.com/2014/12/19/statement-from-information-studies-academics-and-professionals-on-documentary-evidence-and-social-justice/

O’Connor, M. (2016). Twitter post. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/hashtag/radicallibrarian?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw.

Roberto, K. R. (Ed). (2008). Radical cataloging: Essays at the front. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

Weisburg, H. (2016, July 26, 2016). On libraries: Teaching social justice in the library. Message posted tohttps://hildakweisburg.com/2016/07/26/on-libraries-teaching-social-justice-in-the-library/

Wortham, J. (2016, June 21, 2016). How an archive of the internet could change history. New York Times Magazine,