What is Equitable Access to Information?
There are several terms used to describe inequitable access to information: “information poverty”, “information inequality”, information gap”, “information divide” (Yu, 2006). The term “digital divide”
· came about with the introduction of ICTs in the 1990s (Yu, 2006)
· is an extension of the terms “information rich – information poor”, being the gap between those who have access to and knowledge of how to use information and communication technologies (ICT) and those that don’t, within or between nations (Tavani, 2003).
The following video by Peterson (2013) defines digital divide and knowledge divide in terms of equitable access.
· came about with the introduction of ICTs in the 1990s (Yu, 2006)
· is an extension of the terms “information rich – information poor”, being the gap between those who have access to and knowledge of how to use information and communication technologies (ICT) and those that don’t, within or between nations (Tavani, 2003).
The following video by Peterson (2013) defines digital divide and knowledge divide in terms of equitable access.
Why is Equitable Access to Information Important?
Without universal ability to participate in the sharing, creating and accessing of information, the information society is a lesser place. Inter- and intra-nation access to ICT is essential, for access to a growing range of information, ability to participate in societies, and heightened economic prospects (Tavani, 2003). Social return is as necessary as economic return for economic sustainability (Smith, 2001).
Factors Contributing to Equitable Information Access
Some factors are socio-economic, education, race and disability. Indigenous cultures generally have less access to information and can find it difficult to take ownership of their own culture within a dominant culture with established practices (Rekhari, 2009). Equitable access to information can greatly influence the threat of losing indigenous cultures (Smith, 2001).
For a global information society to exist there must be ICT infrastructure (national and global); content of information which is accessible in terms of affordability, timelines and in appropriate languages; human intellectual capability (technological or otherwise); human intellectual capacity (including R&D investment to enhance the global information society) (Britz, 2008, p. 1171).
On analysis of research, overall reasons for information equality occur at three different levels: societal (political economy), community (social constructivism) and individual (cognitive science) and all three levels implicate the ethical viewpoint (Yu, 2006).
For a global information society to exist there must be ICT infrastructure (national and global); content of information which is accessible in terms of affordability, timelines and in appropriate languages; human intellectual capability (technological or otherwise); human intellectual capacity (including R&D investment to enhance the global information society) (Britz, 2008, p. 1171).
On analysis of research, overall reasons for information equality occur at three different levels: societal (political economy), community (social constructivism) and individual (cognitive science) and all three levels implicate the ethical viewpoint (Yu, 2006).
Why is Equitable Access to Information an Ethical Issue?
Part of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “[e]veryone has the right…to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations, n.d.). Inequality of access to infrastructure and content of ICT is a widely acknowledged reality and an ethical issue (Tavani, 2003, Scott, 1997, Yu, 2006). A comparative analysis of the library code of ethics of 28 different countries that are found on the IFLA website found that free and equal access to information is recognised globally as an ethical obligation, but how well is it acted on (Shachaf, 2005)?
What can be Done?
Equitable access to information needs to be addressed starting with good policy developed by a collaboration of government, public and private organisations representing a variety of fields and interested parties, including the LIS field (Scott, 1997, Tavani, 2003, Yu, 2006). Information professionals have a role to play in policy making from the ethical point of view and relation with the public sector but it must be done with the mutual cooperation and understanding of the digital sector with “its interdisciplinary openness, technological awareness and strong influence on government and business sectors” (Yu, 2006, p. 243).
Please watch the following presentation as a summary of the topic and some of the ways the LIS field is contributing on an international level:
Please watch the following presentation as a summary of the topic and some of the ways the LIS field is contributing on an international level:
Useful Links
https://www.alia.org.au/about-alia/policies-standards-and-guidelines/statement-free-access-information
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/intergovernmental-programmes/information-for-all-programme-ifap/about-ifap/
http://iseforum.org/uploads/seminars/190EX_UNESCO-Ethical_Dimensions_Information_Society.pdf
https://fair.alia.org.au/
http://www.ifla.org/information-society
http://www.lyondeclaration.org/
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002264/226425e.pdf
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/intergovernmental-programmes/information-for-all-programme-ifap/about-ifap/
http://iseforum.org/uploads/seminars/190EX_UNESCO-Ethical_Dimensions_Information_Society.pdf
https://fair.alia.org.au/
http://www.ifla.org/information-society
http://www.lyondeclaration.org/
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002264/226425e.pdf
References
Britz, J.J. (2008). Making the global information society good: a social justice perspective on the ethical dimensions of the global information society. Journal for the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(7), 1171-1183. doi:10.1002/asi.20848
International Federation Library Associations. (2012). Code of ethics for librarians and other information workers (full version). Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/news/ifla-code-of-ethics-for-librarians-and-other-information-workers-full-version
International Federation Library Associations. (2014). The Lyon declaration on access to information and development. Retrieved from http://www.lyondeclaration.org/
Peterson, A. (2013, January 21). The digital divide and the knowledge divide [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNlhzuTSRFU
Rekhari, S. (2009). Indigenous communities and new media: Questions on the global digital age. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 7(2), 175-181. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14779960910955882
Scott, M. (1997). Access to the information highway: Principles and issues from the perspective of the National Library of Canada. The International Information and Library Review, 29(3/4), 505-509. doi: 10.1080/10572317.1997.10762459
Shachaf, P. (2005). A global perspective on library association codes of ethics. Library and Information Science Research, 27(4), 513-533. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2005.08.008
Smith, M. (2001). Global information justice: Rights, responsibilities, and caring connections. Library Trends, 49(3), 519-537.
Tavani, H. T. (2003). Ethical reflections on the digital divide. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 1(2), 99-108.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2014). Building inclusive knowledge societies: a review of UNESCO’s action in implementing the WSIS outcomes. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002264/226425e.pdf
United Nations (n.d.). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Yu, L. (2006). Understanding information inequality: Making sense of the literature of the information and digital divides. Journal of Librarianship and Informational Science 38(4), 229-252. doi: 10.1177/0961000606070600
International Federation Library Associations. (2012). Code of ethics for librarians and other information workers (full version). Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/news/ifla-code-of-ethics-for-librarians-and-other-information-workers-full-version
International Federation Library Associations. (2014). The Lyon declaration on access to information and development. Retrieved from http://www.lyondeclaration.org/
Peterson, A. (2013, January 21). The digital divide and the knowledge divide [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNlhzuTSRFU
Rekhari, S. (2009). Indigenous communities and new media: Questions on the global digital age. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 7(2), 175-181. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14779960910955882
Scott, M. (1997). Access to the information highway: Principles and issues from the perspective of the National Library of Canada. The International Information and Library Review, 29(3/4), 505-509. doi: 10.1080/10572317.1997.10762459
Shachaf, P. (2005). A global perspective on library association codes of ethics. Library and Information Science Research, 27(4), 513-533. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2005.08.008
Smith, M. (2001). Global information justice: Rights, responsibilities, and caring connections. Library Trends, 49(3), 519-537.
Tavani, H. T. (2003). Ethical reflections on the digital divide. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 1(2), 99-108.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2014). Building inclusive knowledge societies: a review of UNESCO’s action in implementing the WSIS outcomes. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002264/226425e.pdf
United Nations (n.d.). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Yu, L. (2006). Understanding information inequality: Making sense of the literature of the information and digital divides. Journal of Librarianship and Informational Science 38(4), 229-252. doi: 10.1177/0961000606070600