Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and re-direct recent schematic and empirical scholarship on Habermas’ theory of the public sphere in library and information science (LIS).

This paper conducts a critical analysis of the relevant literature in light of Habermas’ origination and use/purpose of the public sphere concept.

The authors examined here produced a schematic operationalization of the public sphere that thinned the concept, but in turn, that schematization has produced insight into the civil society functions and communications of libraries, both within and without. For this work to be meaningful, the considerations and contexts of democratic society must be reinserted.

Further explorations of the relationship between the public sphere and civil society as they are manifested around and in libraries is called for. Additionally, Weigand’s approach to producing data/evidence on the public sphere and libraries should be furthered.

Understanding the role and function of libraries in democratic societies is essential for libraries to play a productive democratic role in those societies and thus, in guiding them.

This paper helps to situate the bewildering circumstances of libraries who face both popular support and broad political-social questioning of their role and place.

This paper arguably interjects a more sophisticated and nuanced theoretical picture of the public sphere than prior precis presented in the LIS literature have undertaken. It also engages a unique set of empirical-theoretical students from another perspective in order to deepen and shift that research discourse.

The purpose of this paper is to flesh out a truncated line of analysis in library and information science (LIS) of language analyses of power in the field.

Literature-based conceptual analysis of the problems engendered by neoliberalism in LIS and the productive approach of language analysis of Austin, Habermas, and Smith that allows us to account for neoliberalism’s effects in language and practices – doing things with words.

LIS has engaged a productive postmodern analysis of power relations that reflects social and economic progress, but Austin, Habermas, and Smith offer a sensible, practical explanation for the operation of neoliberal hegemony on the practices of librarianship.

Postmodern analyses are now being deployed in portions of LIS, but they fail to account for the full implications of the dominant public language (and policy and practices) of neoliberalism for librarianship. This is productive exploration of those implications to correct and round out those analyses.

The purpose of this paper is to explore an approach to epistemology which allows a portion of library and information science (LIS) to coherently explain its social and intellectual contributions, and to overcome some of the problems of epistemology that LIS encounters.

Literature based conceptual analysis of the problems of epistemology in LIS and the productive approach of Deweyan Pragmatism.

LIS’ problems with epistemology come from a variety of sources: epistemology itself, the combining of librarianship with information science, and the search for a common grounding of the information professions, their tools and their institutions. No such theoretical foundation is possible, but Deweyan Pragmatism offers a sensible, practical explanation for the historical development and practices of librarianship.

Pragmatism has been deployed in portions of LIS, but the full implications and the “fit” of Dewey’s ideas for librarianship and its epistemology are productive explorations.

Library and Information Science (LIS) has seen an explosion of responses to fake news in the aftermath of the 2016 US election, political in nature, eschewing “neutrality” supporting democracy. The purpose of this paper is to trace the definition of fake news, the challenges, the roots of recent respondes to fake news, notes that the theoretical understanding of democracy must keep pace with these efforts.

Conceptual analysis of the LIS literature concerning fake news and its underlying themes; unpacking of actually existing democracy, re-linked to LIS practices.

Democracy does not require a space cleared of distorting claims but spaces suited to grappling with them, a call to address fake news, and not simply a matter of clearing up information sources; librarians should prepared to engage at the next level. Libraries stand for the proposition that there is more-true information which is worth accessing, organizing, etc., and for inclusion. Whether explicitly political or not, the imaginative uses to which libraries are put do enrich civil society and the public sphere. Libraries help to counter fake news both through specific educative actions aimed at it and as broadly educative institutions with a coherent notion of their relationship to informational discernment in democracy.

LIS discourse on fake news has value, and references democracy, but assumes a set of traditional relationships between informing, libraries and democracy. This paper goes at both the lesser role of informing and highlights the (arguably) greater social role of libraries in democratic society.

The broader analytical framing of systematically distorted communication (SDC) helps extract value out of the enormous amount of scholarship on fake news.

The massive literature on fake news has been the subject of handbook overviews, systematic literature reviews, summaries, taxonomies, citation studies and so on. Deploying these tools, the approaches that the literature takes can be characterized, Habermas' concept of systematically distorted communication (SDC) will then be presented in its context, reviewed and put to work to frame fake news research to tell us new things that individual pieces of specific analysis and research do not. Conclusions will be offered from this analysis.

Fake news research has become repetitive, revolving around themes such as the fate of journalism, the role of technology, remediating its effects and deep dives into definitional components (disinformation, misinformation, lies and so on). A broader framing of systematically distorted communication allows us to arrive at some conclusions about contemporary fake news: that it is a power strategy with a particular right-wing slant and it creates a sociology – that is, its own interpretive environment – hostile to democratic functioning. It answers the question: what is fake news for?

A perspective on fake news research is much needed and Habermas' concept is a useful framing mechanism for the large corpus of research. Systematically distorted communication asks – and answers – different questions of the research. Meanwhile, SDC itself is modified by its application to fake news research and contemporary conditions.

This is a troubled age for democracy, but the nature of that trouble and why it is a problem for democracy is an open question, not easy to answer. Widespread wishing for responsible leaders who respect democratic norms and pursue policies to benefit people and protect the vulnerable don’t help much. The issue goes well beyond library contexts, but it is important that those in libraries think through our role in democracy as well. Micro-targeting library-centric problems won’t be effective and don’t address the key issue of this volume. The author can only address the future if we recover an understanding of the present by building up an understanding of actually-existing democracy: (1) the scope must be narrowed to accomplish the task; (2) the characteristics of the retreat from democracy should be established; (3) core working assumptions and values – what libraries are about in this context – must be established; (4) actually-existing democracy should then be characterized; (5) the role of libraries in actually-existing democracy is then explored; (6) the source and character of the threat that is driving the retreat from democracy and cutting away at the core of library assumptions and values is analyzed; (7) the chapter concludes by forming a basis of supporting libraries by unpacking their contribution to building and rebuilding democratic culture: libraries are simultaneously less and more important than is understood.

This article addresses a recent debate in this journal between Buschman and Widdersheim and Koizumi on public libraries and public sphere theory in library and information science (LIS). The article moves beyond the debate as the debate has been too focused on the theories of Jürgen Habermas. In order to really understand the democratic mission of public libraries and how it is related to the public sphere, the author argues that LIS scholars need to look beyond Habermas' theories of the public sphere.

This is a theoretical article that discusses different theories of the public sphere, and how they have been and can be applied in library and information science.

The author finds that a main disagreement between Buschman and Widdersheim and Koizumi is whether one can use the concept of a public sphere without doing it in a “traditional” Habermasian way. The answers put forward in this article, is that we can and should look beyond Habermas' work when seeking to understand the role of public libraries as public spheres.

The article puts forward theories that are not commonly used in LIS, and advocates for broadening the theoretical scope of LIS scholars studying the relations between public libraries and public spheres.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the shaping of public libraries as an infrastructure for a sustainable public sphere through a comprehensive literature review.

In order to capture the whole picture of this research field, we utilize comprehensive review methodology. The major research questions are: first, to what extent have research topics regarding libraries as public sphere institutions expanded and diversified? Which theoretical perspectives inform research? Second, which challenges and topics does the research focus upon, such as: social inclusion and equal access to information; digital inequalities; censorship and freedom of expression; and access to places and spaces with a democratic potential and the role of libraries in that respect? Third, what influence has social media exerted on libraries in the context of the expanding digital world?

The authors identified mainly four themes regarding the public library and public sphere, such as: the importance of public libraries by using Habermas’s theory; the function of meeting places within the public library and setting those places in the center of the library in order to enhance and encourage democracy; the relationship between social inclusion and public libraries and its functions in current society such as diminishing the digital divide; and the emerging electronic resources and arena of SNS in public libraries and utilizing them to reach citizens.

Capturing the recent history of this research field through comprehensive review is valuable.

The aim of this paper is to define a framework for public information services in the twenty‐first century, as a means to address some arguments that are put forward in the debate on the obsoleteness of public information services in the age of the internet.

The paper discusses theoretical concepts on the function of information in modern democracy, followed by analysis of two foremost models of seeking knowledge, “the wisdom of crowds” and “expertise”, the different kinds of questions both forms apply to, the kind of knowledge the different models result in, and the application of the findings from that analysis in the information services environment.

The function of information in a modern democracy still applies today. Information is a means to allow citizens to make informed decisions in the democratic process. The debate on the proper way to provide functional information services in modern democracy is roughly divided between two “schools of thought”. One of them puts the model of “the wisdom of crowds” forward, and sees information technology as the final answer to all questions. The other relies on expertise, which is paramount in classic information services. The conclusion of this paper is that, where not all (research) questions yield to knowledge derived from the wisdom of crowds, there is a true need for information services that specialize in providing information produced by experts. As no other party provides that, public information services should commit themselves to playing a central role in society in providing expert information.

The main value of the paper is comprehensive analysis of the widespread claim that free information on the internet is the end to all means, providing all knowledge at the fingertips. It provides arguments to put forward in debates on the value of public information services.