Procesamiento de datos

A just society is one that enables all people to fully contribute and benefit in society. In the U.S., social justice does not occur naturally, but must be created or restored by the people within its society. The dominant members of a society generally have the most powerful voice and influence in the nature or state of the society. If movement toward social justice does not benefit dominant members of society, they may not have sustained motivation to create or restore a just society.

78

Scholars from a variety of disciplines, i.e., nursing, public health, medicine, philosophy, law, psychology, sociology, social work, geography, economics, religion, and LIS define and conceptualize social justice (Buettner-Schmidt & Lobo, 2011). Social justice includes fairness, equitable resources and processes, just systems and institutions, equity in human rights and development, and well-being (Buettner-Schmidt & Lobo, 2011). Scholars promote social justice from varying perspectives, highlighting values based on rights (Britz, 2008; Rawls, 1973) and needs (Alexander, 2008; Vincent, 2012).

Britz (2008) developed a moral framework based on social justice that would ensure equitable treatment of marginalized and excluded people within the global information society through the acknowledgement of cultural diversity, human dignity, freedom, and social

inclusion. Britz (2008) used John Rawls’ theory of justice, liberty principle and difference principle, to develop three core principles of justice. The first is that “all people, irrespective of who they are or where they live in this global Information Society, must be treated equitably and be judged according to the same norms” (Britz, 2008, p. 1175). He explained that justice results in respect for humanity and prioritizing the well-being of humans. The second principle is that “everyone should get what they deserve—be it good or bad” (Britz, 2008, p. 1175). Since societal contexts and individual people differ, Britz (2008) referred to Amartya Sen’s (1993; 1999) capability approach to determine what people are capable of, based on opportunities and individual capacity. The third principle acknowledges that all people have equal value; yet, there may still be norms that drive social and economic inequalities. Scholars supported social justice in libraries using a needs-based rational that direct resources toward those who have the least in material and opportunity, with an emphasis on community partnership, engagement, and co-production of services (Vincent, 2012) because of libraries’ ethical, civic, and social

79

responsibility (Alexander, 2008). LIS scholars, educators, and practitioners have employed social justice strategies in the profession.

2.3.2. Social justice in LIS

LIS professionals and scholars are in positions to challenge power structures, facilitate social influence and change, provide just services, and advance access to information and intellectual freedom. While the guiding documents of the ALA31 do not explicitly name social justice as a value, their primary principles of access to information, information equity, confidentiality, intellectual freedom, and rights for all people can embody and foster social justice for all (McCook, 2001b). In 1969, the Social Responsibilities Round Table (SRRT) became a division within the American Library Association that would engage in social issues. Some librarians saw it clearly aligned with their professional values, while others either did not support those professional values or did not want to engage in social and political issues that would result in controversy (Buschman, Rosenzweig, & Harger, 1994). While the creation of SRRT institutionalized the profession’s commitment to social issues, this was not a new

professional conflict. Librarians have wrestled with tensions among the profession, for example around the concept of neutrality (Latham, 2009; Lua & Higgins, 2013; Samek, 2001; Stoffle & Tarin, 1994). The SRRT was complemented by the Progressive Librarians Guild (PLG), which took on a more political stance on social responsibility (Kagan, 2015).

In practice, libraries and librarians provide equitable library and information services that foster collaboration and empowerment for all community members and advance social justice. Librarians serve, support, and engage with diverse populations to address distinct needs

31 _{American Library Association guiding documents include the Library Bill of Rights (American Library} Association, 1996), Code of Ethics (American Library Association, 2008), and Freedom to Read Statement (American Library Association, 2004).

80

and interests (Beiriger & Jackson, 2007). Librarians offer support and connections to other people, information, and community engagement for people who have experienced

marginalization (Vincent, 2012). Public libraries share power with community members through co-creation of mission statements that guide library decisions (Crawford Barniskis, 2016). Community assessment and engagement allows libraries to get to know their

communities as partners for future initiatives and advances cultural awareness (Keller, 1996; McCleer, 2013; Mehra, Albright, & Rioux, 2006). McCook (2001a) highlighted community- based librarianship that includes proactive advocacy and community partnership. An example is Agada’s (1999) case study approach to investigate the information needs and interests of an urban, poor African American community. By working with community organizations, Agada (1999) identified gatekeepers that provided access to research participants. This research illustrated the importance of library collaboration with community organizations, beyond conducting demographic research, to provide joint services to resolve community issues. This increases the capacity of all involved agencies, ultimately resulting in benefits for the

community.

Some librarians strive to provide services to all community members, but oftentimes those efforts fall short of truly meeting the needs of marginalized groups because of the lack of engagement with those communities (Beiriger & Jackson, 2007; DeFaveri, 2005; Gieskes, 2009; Holt, 2006; McCleer, 2013; Muddiman et al., 2001). For example, while people

experiencing poverty have access to traditional and mainstream library services, there is little attention to determining the distinct needs and interests of this population (Holt, 2006). Even when librarians make efforts, LIS assumptions about special populations are not always accurate (Chatman, 1991). Traditional library services and access to information can provide a

81

superficial or passive accessibility for “all”people which occurs when collections, services, and programs are primarily designed for a mainstream population with the argument that they are open for all to enjoy, whether there is relevance, need, or interest (Muddiman et al., 2001). An additional barrier to realizing social justice in LIS practice is a lack of engagement with racialized subordination and domination. LIS ethnic caucuses of ALA have taken stances and action on issues specifically related to social justice. Overall, the LIS engagement with social justice is limited to the margins of the field and does not employ consistent strategies of engaging with racism or actively advancing anti-racism to dismantle systemic and institutional racism.