The concept of neutrality: a new approach
Date | 20 September 2019 |
Published date | 20 September 2019 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2019-0102 |
Pages | 333-353 |
Author | Stephen Macdonald,Briony Birdi |
Subject Matter | Library & information science |
The concept of neutrality:
a new approach
Stephen Macdonald
Bishop Grosseteste University, Lincoln, UK, and
Briony Birdi
Information School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Purpose –Neutrality is a much debated value in library and information science (LIS). The “neutrality
debate”is characterised by opinionated discussions in contrasting contexts. The purpose of this paper is to fill
a gap in the literature by bringing these conceptions together holistically, with potential to deepen
understanding of LIS neutrality.
Design/methodology/approach –First, a literature review identified conceptions of neutrality reported in
the LIS literature. Second, seven phenomenographic interviews with LIS professionals were conducted across
three professional sectors. To maximise variation, each sector comprised at least one interview with a
professional of five or fewer years’experience and one with ten or more years’experience. Third, conceptions
from the literature and interviews were compared for similarities and disparities.
Findings –In four conceptions, each were foundintheliteratureandinterviews. In the literature, these were
labelled: “favourable”,“tacit value”,“socialinstitutions”and “value-laden profession”, whilst in interviews they were
labelled: “core value”,“subservient”,“ambivalent”,and“hidden values”. The study’s main finding notes the
“ambivalent”conception in interviews is not captured by a largely polarised literature, which oversimplifies
neutrality’s complexity. To accommodate this complexity, it is suggested that future research should look to
reconcile perceptions from either side of the “neutral non-neutral divide”through an inclusivenormative framework.
Originality/value –This study’s value lies in its descriptive methodology, which brings LIS neutrality
together in a holistic framework. This framework brings a contextual awareness to LIS neutrality lacking in
previous research. This awareness has the potential to change the tone of the LIS neutrality debate.
Keywords Libraries, Librarians, Library and information science, Phenomenography, Value, Conceptions,
Dimensions of variation, Neutral, Neutrality
Paper type Research paper
Introduction and scope
Neutralityis a core –yet contr oversial –value withinlibrary and information science(LIS), and
the literature on the subject constitutes a theoretical or opinionated discussion of the merits or
demerits of its application. This debate casts neutrality as the property of a dominant positivist
conception of LIS (Radford, 1992), a shield for the “status quo”in collection development
(Iverson, 2008) and a democratic value that eliminates bias (Hart, 2016). To date, these ranging
presentations have neither been mapped nor related. As a result, neutrality has become an
elusive concept, arguably poorly understood.
In an attempt to address this omission, this investigation takes a different descriptive
view, executed in three stages. First, conceptions of neutrality in the LIS literature provide a
descriptive guide of existing conceptions. Second, cross-sector phenomenographic
interviews give rise to qualitatively distinct conceptions of neutrality, related via three
dimensions of variation. This broadens the level of descriptive by sampling views of current
practitioners. Third, categorisations from literature and interviews are compared for
structural similarities and disparities. The overall aim is to produce a descriptive guide
charting the varied uses of the concept within three LIS sectors. The breadth of a descriptive
approach, spanning different sectors and contexts, enables neutrality to be viewed
holistically; a perspective arguably lacking in previous research. Journal of Documentation
Vol. 76 No. 1, 2020
pp. 333-353
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-05-2019-0102
Received 31 May 2019
Revised 1 August 2019
Accepted 4 August 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
The authors aregrateful to Professor Nigel Ford, forhis constructive comments on a draftof this paper.
333
Concept of
neutrality
Research objectives
The study reported here had five objectives:
(1) To conduct a holistic literature review charting conceptions of neutrality within LIS.
(2) To conduct phenomenographic interviews with a purposeful sample of librarians across
academic, public and workplace sectors asking four “variation evoking”questions:
•In which professional contexts –if any –does neutrality arise?
•Is it possible to be completely neutral?
•How important is neutrality compared to other professional values?
•What influence –if any –does neutrality have on “day-to-day”work?
(3) To use data transcripts to describe qualitatively distinct conceptions of neutrality.
(4) To comparecategories withliterature, looking for structural similarities and disparities.
(5) To consider the normative implications that arise from the descriptive process.
Literature review
This review charts the varied understandings of neutrality in existing debate and forms a
backdrop for thefollowing phenomenographic study.First, the conceptual origin of neutrality
is outlined. Second, a favourable conception of neutrality in LIS is examined. Third, it is
argued that critical literature breaks down into three distinct conceptions. For clarity, these
four broad conceptions –one favourable and three critical –are then summarised.
Conceptual roots
A common definition of neutrality is “not taking any side in a war or dispute”(Collins
English Dictionary, 2009b). Johnson’s definition is near identical, “neutrality […] means not
having a position or not taking a side”( Johnson, 2016, p. 25). Montefiore (1975) elaborates:
neutrality takes place “between two or more […] actual or possible policies or parties”(p. 4);
it involves affecting “various parties […] in an equal degree”(p. 5). These piecemeal
definitions reflect an egalitarian commitment to not favour one entity over another.
Conceptually, neutrality’soriginliesinPolitical Liberalism –the view that “an
individual has the right to make choices”(Beckwith and Peppin, 2000, p. 68). The
pluralistic state is neutral, citizens can pursue any reasonable conception of the good, as
Jones (1989) states: “the neutral state deals impartially with its members and their […]
commitments”(p. 9). This neutral commitment is a hallmark of contemporary liberal
thought; Kymlicka (1989) notes “a distinctive feature of contemporary liberal theory is its
emphasis on “neutrality”–the view that the state should not reward or penalize particular
conceptions of the good life”(p. 883).
For Dworkin, neutrality ensures “equal concern and respect”( Jones, 1989, p. 10; Neal,
1985) notes that Dworkin defends a “neutrality thesis”in which “government must be
neutral on the question of the good life”(p. 665). Similarly, for Rawls, the concept plays a
central, yet controversial and changing role, in the development of his thought. In A Theory
of Justice, Rawls constructs the “original position”, members of society are placed behind a
“veil of ignorance”, stripped of personal characteristics, individuals collectively advocate
principles of justice, the first of which confers “equal […] liberties compatible with a similar
system for all”(Rawls, 1972, p. 302). Consequently, Kymlicka (1989) argues that Rawls
adopts a justificatory neutrality by which “the state does not take a stand on which ways of
life are most worth living […] as a justification of government action”(pp. 883-884). Put
another way, “government is neutral between different conceptions of the good”(p. 886).
334
JD
76,1
To continue reading
Request your trial