Towards structure–agency integrative theories for information access disparity. Lessons from within and beyond LIS
| Pages | 458-477 |
| Date | 13 May 2019 |
| Published date | 13 May 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2018-0149 |
| Author | Liangzhi Yu |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
Towards structure–agency
integrative theories for
information access disparity
Lessons from within and beyond LIS
Liangzhi Yu
Department of Information Resource Management,
Nankai University, Tianjin, China
Abstract
Purpose –Based on the assumption that information access disparity is a highly complex phenomenon
demanding integrative explications that heed both structure and agency, the purpose of this paper is to
outline the theoretical background against which endeavours to develop such explanations can be planned.
Design/methodology/approach –The study is based on a close reading of: existing explanations of
information access disparity; research of other library and information science (LIS) issues that have demonstrated
conscious attempts to bridge structure and agency; and cross-disciplinary integrative theories that have served as
foundations for LIS research. Explanatory power of the first and applicability of the latter two are critically
assessed; lessons for future research are drawn.
Findings –The examination showsthat efforts to developintegrative theoriesfor informationaccess disparity
are emerging but remain indistinct; integrative frameworks for other LIS phenomena exist but are developed
primarilyby adopting conceptsfrom cross-disciplinarytheories and are, therefore, bothenabled and constrained
by them. It also shows that cross-disciplinary integrative theories contribute to LIS by exporting the general
integrative theorising approach and a range of specific concepts but, owing to their limitations in dealing with
information-specificissues, their adequacy forexplaining informationaccess disparity cannotbe assumed.
Originality/value –The study demonstrates that a promising way forward for developing integrative
theories of information access disparity is to follow the general integrative approach, but to ground related
concepts andpropositions in empiricaldata alone, i.e., to begin the journeyof integrative theorisingtheory-free.
Keywords Information theory, Information society, Information inequality, Cross-disciplinary theories
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Compelled by its mission to ensure information accessibility and facilitate information access,
library and information science (LIS) has been inherently intrigued by the notable disparity
among members of society in their access to information. By “information access disparity”,this
paper means the quantitative and qualitative differences between members of society in their
actual access to information and information technologies/facilities,asmanifestedintheir
information-related actions. Systematic disparity of this type among sections of society, together
with the unequal availability and accessibility of information afforded to different sections,
constitutes society’s information inequality. Within LIS, the inquiry of various forms of
information access disparity can be traced back to studies on variances of public library use and
reading habits at the Graduate Library School of the University of Chicago in the 1930s (e.g.
Carnovsky, 1935; Waples, 1933). It has been extended to other similar variations, such as
behavioural differences, the knowledge gap, the digital divide, etc., in the subsequent decades
(e.g. Berelson and Asheim, 1949; Chatman, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1996, 1999; Childers and Post,
1975; Jaeger and Bowman, 2005; Jaeger et al., 2012; Jaeger and Thompson, 2004; Japzon and
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 75 No. 3, 2019
pp. 458-477
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-09-2018-0149
Received 19 September 2018
Revised 9 January 2019
23 January 2019
Accepted 31 January 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
This study is funded by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71273141). The author
would like to thank the two referees of this paper for their enormously enlightening comments and
detailed suggestions for revision.
458
JD
75,3
Gong, 2005; Lievrouw, 2000, 2001; Lievrouw and Farb, 2003; Nemer and Tsikerdekis, 2017;
Parker and Paisley, 1965; Sung and Parboteeah, 2017; Yu and Zhou, 2016; Yu et al., 2018). It can
be argued that behind this lasting research interest, lie some deeply entrenched convictions: that
human beings deserve equal opportunities to realise their potential to the greatest extent, that
equal access to information plays a critical role in this regard and that structural information
access disparity among sections of society is problematic.
Accumulated evidence for various forms of information access disparity has also stimulated
lasting attempts to account for their formation. As the next section will show in detail, in
attempting to explain the observed disparity, studies in this area have largely followed the social
science traditions juxtaposing structure with agency. Those that favour structure over agency
contend that it is the external structure of society (e.g. social strata or classes, media ownership,
institutional arrangements, etc.) that decide information distribution and access; born into a
society with all structural elements already in place, individuals are subordinate to the force of
these elements and are shaped by them. Those that favour agency over structure contend that it
is individuals’internal capabilities, motivation, interest, worldviews, consciousness of the self
and others, internalised norms of social practices and other subjective orientation that determine
their choices and actions in information access. While some of these latter studies (e.g. Chatman,
1996) refer to individuals’social conditions as backgrounds for their views and consciousness,
hence alluding to a non-deterministic connection between socio-economic conditions and the
individual’s information access, others accentuate agency to such an extent that the connection
between one’s socio-economic and informational statuses is negated or even repudiated. It is
worth noting that in addition to the structure vs agency dualism, research in this area is also
influenced by other dualistic traditions in social sciences, such as the “society vs individuals”
dualism which favours either the whole society or individual persons as the research object, the
“objectivism vs subjectivism”dualism which argues either for the objective version of social
reality (to be unveiled from social facts) or the subjective version of it (to be constructed from
social actors’interpretations). However, it is the structure vs agency dualism which most
significantly underlies the division of causal explanations for information access disparity.
As commented by Lievrouw and Farb (2003) and Yu (2011), for a complex phenomenon
like information access disparity, neither of the divided approaches is likely to suffice.
Information, no matter how it is defined, has been regarded as a dual resource in information
society: a strategic resource for society and organisations, and a cognitive resource for
individuals. While the former subject information distribution and access to a variety of
society’s structural factors, the latter also subject them to a range of individuals’agentic
factors. It is unlikely that the two strands of effects do not intersect. It is inconceivable, for
instance, that a stringent political or market control of information does not constrain the
intellectual growth of individuals. Back in the nineteenth century, the British philosopher
John Stuart Mill (1859/1993) had already warned that “there never has been, nor ever will be,
[in the atmosphere of mental slavery], an intellectually active people”(p. 40). To adequately
explain society’s information access disparity, therefore, related theories need to take both
structure and agency as well as their interactions into account.
This paper is the first part of a study that responds to the call for structure–agency
integrative theories for the issue. This part aims to set the theoretical background for related
endeavours in general and for an empirical study following this approach in particular. More
specifically, it intends to examine the extent to which integrative explanations are offered
presently, and possible lessons that further research can learn from similar endeavours in other
areas of LIS and the social sciences. This is achieved through a close reading of three clusters of
selective literature: literature that explains the formation of different forms of information access
disparity, selected mainly from prior reviews of related studies (e.g. Lievrouw and Farb, 2003;
Yu, 2011; Yu and Zhou, 2016); literature of information behaviour studies that have
demonstrated conscious attempts to bridge structure and agency, selected from widely
459
Information
access
disparity
To continue reading
Request your trial