module ii
This week’s readings were certainly a challenge. I won’t claim to understand them fully but here are what I believe are to be some of the major issues brought forth.
First and foremost, in Braman’s article, she says that the only constant in the use and description of information is the term itself. With “…more than 40 academic fields that deal with information…” each has a separate and varying definition of information.
Braman diagnoses the term information as a “definitional dilemma,” and rightly so. With so many competing definitions, it can be safely said that the views and approaches to information making policy are just as diverse, which can create a cluttered, cumbersome process in agreeing on a definition of information, creating information policy.
Braman’s approach to this “definitional dilemma” is the application of theoretical pluralism, using a multitude of theories that each seek to find and analyze various aspects and effects of information. Rowlands, too, discusses multiple theoretical approaches in the study and development of information policy.
The one thing that is clear to me is that information is analyzed in a myriad of ways: economically, culturally, sociologically, politically, etc. Each approach has it pros and cons, and no one theory can justify a policy that would affect thousands or millions of people. For example, as Braman quotes Straus “’ information policy’s issues seen in one country as cultural are understood in another as economic.’” Therefore, one generalized theoretical approach would not suit the diverse study of information, and not preclude a well-thought out policy. Additionally, the study of information is interdisciplinary, and it seems impossible to create one agreeable definition of information. Library professionals must well-versed not only on their own definition of information, but on how different definitions may compete against and/or complement with during the policy making process.
Finally, Vaidhyanathan’s article, among many other things, promoted the idea of “semiotic democracy,” where creative influence can be allowed to thrive in media and social culture. In the areas of copyright law, intellectual property and other information legislations, information policy will directly influence how information can be “revised, edited, and manipulated.”
A lot of this is still fuzzy, but I may be trying too hard to finish the puzzle at the beginning of the class, rather than processing it one piece, one week at a time.
Hey, Diana-
ReplyDeleteI think you did an outstanding job synthesizing the week's readings. I feel you've pulled some important "nuggets" of truth from a lot of text, information that I can frame in the context of the public library world. The concept of a "definitional dilemma" for the concept of information is certainly valid since "information" increases exponentially in such a short period of time.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kathy, excellent summery of the week’s tough readings. I think you stated a valuable truth – “The one thing that is clear to me is that information is analyzed in a myriad of ways: economically, culturally, sociologically, politically, etc. Each approach has it pros and cons, and no one theory can justify a policy that would affect thousands or millions of people”
I am going to argue that it is, in part, because of this diversity that copy right law and information sharing guidelines exist. With so many definitions of the loose term “information” copy right laws provide something of a standard which, because they are law, can transcend the boundaries of field and study to create a unified practice. However, because copy right laws must accommodate for limitless areas of study, they are intrinsically complicated.
Yet, this innate complication is necessity; but also perhaps a weakness. So, I ask you, do copy right laws need to be so complex? Can copy right law even hope to successfully accommodate all definitions of information?
Diana - although you confessed to finding the readings challenging (and they were!), you did a great job coming up with some very important takeaways. For example, your observation that "The one thing that is clear to me is that information is analyzed in a myriad of ways: economically, culturally, sociologically, politically, etc. Each approach has it pros and cons, and no one theory can justify a policy that would affect thousands or millions of people," is key! This list you've started of the different lenses from which people view information and the nature of it will be helpful as we try to assess different debates and the policy that affects them. We should ask ourselves in what traditions or discourses are those policy arguments based? It will help us understand them all the better, in order to formulate our own critique. Good job.
ReplyDelete“Definitional dilemma” almost feels like an understatement. Thank you for doing an excellent job summing up these readings. I wasn’t completely lost by the readings, but it was touch and go for a while; I feel on much firmer ground now having read your post (and others).
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is because I have yet to obtain a thorough understanding of information policy and regulation, but I would tend to agree that Braman’s approach of “theoretical pluralism” is the way to go. With so many academic disciplines and societal interests involved in the creation, processing, distributing, etc. of information I am not sure if there is a way to reconcile all the varying viewpoints. If policy is based on context and perspective, one group considers something from an economic standpoint and another in terms of politics, then it needs to be looked at from as many angles as possible. ‘Why is this all so complicated,’ I asked myself while re-reading Braman. It is possible that copy-right laws and the like are as complex as they are because that is what they need to be. There are probably several ways that it could all be cleaned up a bit through interdisciplinary cooperation, Vaidhyanathan’s Critical Information Studies, but I think to eliminate all discrepancies would require eliminating viewpoints; doing away with intellectual property rights with free information for all or tighter restraints, bringing the control of information together under one governing body.
In response to LibraryRPGamer: You came up with some really good points. As to your question, "Can copy right law even hope to successfully accommodate all definitions of information?" I think hope is the only word we can count on. Copyright law provides the structural guidelines, but much of it tends to be so subjective, especially during the litigation process. Thanks for the comments everyone!
ReplyDelete