Embracing theories of precarity for the study of information practices
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2021-0084 |
| Published date | 23 February 2022 |
| Date | 23 February 2022 |
| Pages | 1353-1370 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
| Author | Owen Stewart-Robertson |
Embracing theories of precarity for
the study of information practices
Owen Stewart-Robertson
School of Information Studies, McGill University, Montr
eal, Canada
Abstract
Purpose –The paper aims to explore the value of various notions of precarity for the study of information
practices and for addressing inequities and marginalization from an information standpoint.
Design/methodology/approach –Several interrelated conceptualizations of precarity and associated terms
from outside of library and information science (LIS) are presented. LIS studies involving precarity and related
topics, including various situations of insecurity, instability, migration and transition, are then discussed. In
that context, new approaches to information precarity and new directions for information practices research
are explored.
Findings –Studies that draw from holistic characterizations of precarity, especially those engaging with
theories from beyond the field, are quite limited in LIS research. Broader understandings of precarity in
information contexts may contribute to greater engagement with political and economic considerations and to
development of non-individualistic responses and services.
Originality/value –The presentation of a framework for an initial model of information precarity and the
expansion of connections between existing LIS research and concepts of precarityfrom other fields suggest a
new lens for further addressing inequities, marginalization and precarious life in LIS research.
Keywords Information practices, Information precarity,Information behavior, Precariousness, Precarization,
Precariat, Marginalization, Inequity, Migration, Transitions
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
As multiple shifts and intersecting crises continue to shap e our world, the differentiated impacts
of these events on certain populations and the precarious circumstances that often ensue have
been regularly highlighted. For example, broad and ongoing economic and technological shifts
are seen as increasing labor insecurity and vulnerability at many levels (Neilson and Rossiter,
2005); the global climate crisis continues to upend environments and influence human migration
(Hoffmann et al.,2020); historic and still sy stemicracism and oppression lead to many situations
where certain lives are rendered less livable or even disposable (e.g. Baldridge, 2020;Borges,
2020); aging populations face new forms of insecurity (Grenier et al.,2020) and shape new
dynamics of marginalized labor (Lanoix, 2013) and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have
created widespread uncertainty and vulnerability, disproportionally affecting certain
communities and groups (Laurencin and Walker, 2020). Moreover, the ways in which
ongoing engagement with andparticipation in norms,systems, structures and/or technologies
may perpetuate precarious existences have been widely described (e.g. Berlant, 2011;Moore,
2019;Zembylas, 2019). Yet, throughout these and many other difficult situations, individuals
and groups are also seen to engage in practices that resist, mobilize, creatively intervene and
make sense of heightened forms of precariousness (Butler, 2014).
While discussions in library and information science (LIS) have gradually, on some level,
come to address various forms of differentiated precariousness, conversations around how
precarity may affect and shape information practices (Olsson and Lloyd, 2017)remainquite
limited (e.g. Lloyd, 2020;Wall et al.,2017;Willson, 2018). More broadly, conversations ar ound
inequalities of informationhave expanded significantlysince the 1960s (Yu, 2011);however, this
work has tended to be fragmented, drawn from many fields, subfields, perspectives and
approaches. Yu identified several groupings of ideas that have in some way attempted to
address various aspects of the information divide, including the political economy of
Precarity and
information
practices
1353
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 23 April 2021
Revised 31 January 2022
Accepted 8 February 2022
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 78 No. 6, 2022
pp. 1353-1370
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-04-2021-0084
information, Chatman’s theory of information poverty, knowledge gap theses, Dervin’s sense-
making theory and social network analysis. Despite the many approaches to these issues from
other fields and calls for deeper connections with critical perspectives in LIS (Drabinsky, 2019),
approaches to issues of precarity (and related discussions of inequities and marginalization)
which draw from critical political, economic and/or cultural theories from outside of LIS have
been less prevalent. While scholars have called for further questioning of the “connections
between pow er and knowledge”(Wiegand, 1999, p. 23) in the LIS field, noteworthy progress on
this front has been seen as limited (Drabinski, 2017;Olsson and Heizmann, 2015). For LIS to
address various situation s and causes of inequity, inequa lity, marginalization an d
dehumanization at multiple levels, further engagement with approaches to such issues from
outside the field is necessary. In drawing from such approaches, the seeking of some common
threads between various understandings of inequity and instability, from an information
standpoint, is also crucial.
In addressing these gaps and this fragmentation, the goal of this conceptual study is to explore
the value of bringing theories and conceptualizations of precarity (and related concepts of
precariousness and precarization) as expressed by writers including Judith Butler and Isabelle
Lorey into conversations around information practices. The intention here is not to critique former
approaches nor to suggest any universalizing answer. Rather, this work aims to think through
such concepts from an LIS standpoint to suggest connections to existing work in the field and to
inform future research around the information practices of groups facing various states of
precariousness –from those with outwardly precarious lives (e.g. many recent immigrants,
refugees and unhoused populations), to the many groups of precarious laborers (e.g. gig economy
workers, household workers and artists) and beyond. From Butler’s understanding of
precariousness, rooted in influential theories of performativity and gender identity (Butler,
2009), comes the potential for a lens with which to view these various states while also suggesting
further avenues for addressing issues of power, marginalization and inequity in LIS. The initial
framework for a model of information precarity presented below (Table 2) seeks to define these
broader concepts from an LIS viewpoint. Building from such approaches to the fluid, complex and
often self-perpetuating nature of precarious existences and experiences could, through future
research, both expand on understandings of many disparate circumstances and present new
opportunities for activism, resistance and expanded information services to address such issues.
Theoretical discussions of precarity
While the particular qualities of precarious positions in society may be seen as far from new
(Munck, 2013), the concept of precarity (and its various related derivations) has only appeared
more regularly in scholarly and political conversations since the early 2000s (Banki, 2013). As
will be discussed in the subsequent section, the concept’s appearance in LIS literature has
been even more recent. From its use in discussions around precarious employment conditions
and what is often seen as an ever-growing class of workers regularly termed the precariat (e.g.
Neimark et al., 2020;Siegmann and Schiphorst, 2016), the exploration of such concepts has
expanded into conversations enveloping areas such as gender (Joy et al., 2015), sexuality
(Frost et al., 2019), citizenship (Baban et al., 2017), climate migration (Bates-Eamer, 2019) and
education (Zembylas, 2019). The breadth of the topics discussed, the multiple definitions and
origins of the terms and the broad potential for application of some of these ideas may be seen
to complicate the tracking of their use in research. Thus, in navigating this wide spectrum of
thought, the precarity-related theorizations of only a few writers are considered here. In
particular, writings which build from Butler’s understanding of precariousness as a
universal, yet differentially experienced, condition (Ruti, 2017) and which apply such
thinking beyond (though often still inclusive of) discussions of labor politics are considered.
Far from an exhaustive overview of such work, these broader, more holistic perspectives on
JD
78,6
1354
To continue reading
Request your trial