Course:LIBR559A/Gómez-Hernández, J. j., Hernández-Pedreño, M. m., Romero-Sánchez, E. e. (2017)

Citation

Gómez-Hernández, J. j., Hernández-Pedreño, M. m., & Romero-Sánchez, E. e. (2017). Social and digital empowerment of vulnerable library users of the murcia regional library, Spain. El Profesional De La Información, 26(1), 20-32.

Main Arguments

The authors argue that the library is the site of social and digital inclusion. It is a library’s function to support a community’s need for “information, communication, and learning” (21). This manifests as providing free access to uncensored resources, especially the internet. Leveling the playing field between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ is an important idea throughout the article. Immigrants and refugees are vulnerable populations that often find themselves on the losing side of the digital divide.

Theoretical Frameworks

The authors attempt to model “social exclusion” (23). A person can be in a state of integration, exclusion, or moving from one to the other. Exclusion has several dimensions: economic, workplace, training, socio-health, residential, relational, participative, and technological. A reduction in technological exclusion “can contribute to the reduction of the remaining causes of vulnerability” (24).

Method

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews and “participant observation” (22). The seventeen subjects were made up of nine vulnerable users and eight library staff. The nine vulnerable users were categorized into two groups: those that were excluded and those that were vulnerable. Vulnerability is the state between integration and exclusion. The authors identified themselves, as if to acknowledge their own biases. The data was gathered by nine students in the final year of their “information & documentation science, pedagogy & social work” (23). Which seems to be a more comprehensive description for what we study. It appears that the authors did not collect the data themselves.

Pitfalls

The authors did not acknowledge how the goals (social and digital inclusion) are compromised by the divisive nature of computers. There is a picture (p. 30) of cubicles, alongside it reads “there is a kinds of spatial separation created, so as not to mix.” This makes me wonder if personal computers can bring us together. There is no acknowledgment of the cultural imperialism that comes along with the internet. In this article access to the internet is good. Full stop. It is odd to study immigrants and not consider assimilation.

Page Author: Audrey McField