From: Introduction to Information Science and Technology - First Edition

From: Introduction to Information Science and Technology - First Edition

From: Introduction to Information Science and Technology - First Edition


[edit]A Collaborative Book

Introduction to Information Science and Technologyis a collaborative book. Volunteers with knowledge in their respective areas have provided draft chapters reflecting their perspectives and knowledge. These have been reviewed, enhanced, and interlinked by the initial authors and other experts. A website showing the ongoing development and more extensive coverage of many topics in the book will be available from the American Society for Information Science and Technology. The book version has been edited to serve as an introductory text, supplemented by the website.


We begin by discussing basic terms used in information science and technology and presenting a timeline of intellectual and technical advances in the field. Chapter 2 considers what causes people to look for information and their behaviors as they seek and use it. Chapters 3 and 4 examine the historical roots and current practices regarding how information can be represented and organized effectively, enabling potential users to identify sources that might meet their needs. Chapter 5 presents computers and network technologies; chapters 6 and 7 examine how they are used in information systems. Chapter 8 considers the roles of information system users. Social informatics is the topic for chapter 9, looking at how information technologies affect and are affected by the organizations in which they are used; chapter 10 examines how information and communication technologies are used in scholarly and social communication. Chapter 11 considers policy aspects of information access and use; and chapter 12 looks at how information professionals approach these and related issues. Chapter 13 examines underlying theoretical issues and connections between information science and communication studies and philosophy.

[edit]Collaborators and Contributors

This collaborative undertaking would have been impossible without the instigation and cheerleading of Sam Hastings, who wears, among other hats, that of ASIST Monographs Editor. John Bryans, Editor-in-Chief at Information Today, was also an early supporter and voice of reason and encouragement. Russ Evans, who set up the wiki for our online collaboration, provided useful guidance, especially for our first steps. Bob Williams and his students at the University of South Carolina have agreed to test-drive a first draft of the book. Most importantly, the following people have helped write, edit, and occasionally gnash teeth over what has emerged as thisIntroduction to Information Science and Technology. This book would not exist but for these contributors:

Bill Albing
David Bawden
Gerald Benoit
Jill Breznican
Pascal Calarco
Donald Case
Shan-Ju Chang
Yungrang Cheng
Michele Cloonan
Charles Cole
Christine Connors
Dave Cooksey
Ed Dale
Charles Davis
Anne Diekema
Susan Doran
Lorraine Eakin
Sanda Erdelez
Frank Exner, Little Bear
Jeffrey Forrest
Jane Greenberg
Raf Guns
Carole Hafner
Suliman Hawamdeh
Ken Himma
Birger Hjørland
Marico Howe
Sharon Hu
Richard Hulser
Judy Jeng
Rafal Kasprowski
Sherry Koshman
Joseph Kraus
Bill Kules
Christopher Lueg
Paola Maderna
Christine Marton
Terrence A. Maxwell
Lawrence J. McCrank
Michel J. Menou
Michael Middleton
T. Patrick Milas
Stefano Mizzaro
Allyson Mower
Sue Myburgh
Diane Neal
Jeppe Nicolaisen
Sunny Pai
Jay Paraki
Shampa Paul
Gabe Peterson
Anis Pervez
David M. Pimentel
Serhiy Polyakov
Devendra Potnis
M. Asim Qayyum
Haleh Raissadat
Alma Rivera
Nancy Roderer
Alenka Sauper
Steve Sawyer
Debora Shaw
Scott Simon
Diane Sonnenwald
Stacy Merrill Surla
Deborah Swain
Donghua Tao
Laurel Tarulli
Mike Thelwall
Ray Uzwyshyn
Shelly Warwick
Bob Williams
Mary M. Williams
Dave Yates
Jane Zhang
Lisa Zilinski

[edit]Lead Authors and Major Contributors for the Chapters

Chapter 2. Information Needs, Seeking, and Use: Birger Hjørland (initial draft), Laurel Tarulli, Yungrang Cheng, David Bawden, Lyn Robinson

Chapter 3. Representation of Information: Sue Myburgh, Birger Hjørland, and Diane Neal (initial drafts), Birger Hjørland, Laurel Tarulli

Chapter 4. Organization of Information: Birger Hjørland, Diane Neal, Alenka Šauperl, and David Bawden (initial drafts), Laurel Tarulli, Raf Guns

Chapter 5. Computers and Networks: Lisa Zilinski (initial draft)

Chapter 6. Structured Information Systems: Debora Shaw (initial draft)

Chapter 7. Information Systems Applications: Charles H. Davis, Birger Hjørland, Rafal Kasprowski, Ray Uzwyshyn (initial drafts)

Chapter 8. Users’ Perspectives in Information Systems: Diane H. Sonnenwald, Judy Jeng (initial drafts)

Chapter 9. Social Informatics: Deborah Swain, Birger Hjørland, Paola Maderna (initial drafts), Laurel Tarulli

Chapter 10. Communication Using Information Technologies: Laurel Tarulli, Jeppe Nicolaisen, Mike Thelwall (initial drafts)

Chapter 11. Information Policy: Gabriel Peterson (initial draft)

Chapter 12. The Information Profession: Laurel Tarulli, Debora Shaw, Paola Maderna (initial drafts), Birger Hjørland

Chapter 13. Theoretical Issues: Scott Simon, Birger Hjørland (initial drafts)

[edit]Other Readers, Reviewer, and Supporters

Introduction to Information Science and Technologyhas benefitted from support and advice from many people. In addition to the contributing authors, these include:
Hamid Ekbia
Samantha Hastings
Kathryn La Barre
Liliano Sergio Maderna (in memoriam)
Hanna M. Söderholm
Fred Sonnenwald
Chicca Stitt
Miles J. Stitt, Jr.
Bob Williams


Chapter 11. Information Policy

==What is Information Policy?==

This chapter considers three subjects related to information policy: economics of information, intellectual property, and standardization. Considerations of three major stakeholder groups—individuals, governments, and organizations—are reviewed for each subject area. Governments are considered separately from other organizations because their impact on information policy is so profound that they warrant being considered in their own right.

From the information policy perspective, the user or stakeholder who gathers, understands, and acts on information may be an individual, an organization, or a government. Members of any group of stakeholders will have diverse priorities and opinions regarding the effective disposition of information resources. Each stakeholder has an individual set of goals and criteria for making decisions and each will develop his or her own strategies for deriving benefit from information. Formally or informally, each of these stakeholders develops mechanisms for managing information as a tool to achieve the desired goals. Information policy therefore assumes both the existence of information as a resource and the existence of stakeholders.

Information policy discussions highlight the multiple meanings of the word information. Braman (2006) posed four ways the term is understood:

:1. as a resource

:2. as a commodity

:3. as a perception of pattern

:4. as a societal force

When considered as a resource or commodity, information has broad microeconomic and macroeconomic impacts. When treated as a perception of pattern, (which is to say, as knowledge), information can provide enlightenment or strategic advantage. When considered as a societal force, information has broad political impacts and has caused innumerable changes in modern society.

From a political science perspective, which works well for information policy study, policy can be described as “determining who gets how much of a resource.” Government information policy is often created in response to information distribution or protection issues, especially when those issues have broad economic, social, or security ramifications. For example, information policies at the individual level might include personal e-mail management practices or household rules regarding Internet or telephone use by children. Information policies at the organizational level might include policies regarding confidentiality or collections management. Information policy decisions are largely dictated by the obligations and motivations of the policymakers, which are in turn shaped by a number of internal and external factors, especially the economic value of the information resource under management and the desire and ability of the information stakeholder to share the information.

Context also has a role in defining information policy. In order to be useful, information must be strategically managed. The kinds of information available, as well as the priorities of the policymakers and decisions required in order to manage information collections for the benefit of users vary depending on the nature of the collection and the motivations of owner of the information. Consider the examples of two organizations, the individual, and the government:

:• A public library will develop information policies that are focused on achieving the library’s goals, which the American Library Association (2009) describes as “to promote the highest quality library and information services and public access to information.” Collection management decisions, Internet access policies, and periodical selections are examples of policy decisions that are all considered from the perspective of a body whose primary motivation is the encouragement of access to information.

:• In contrast, the information policies of an institution that perceives information as a commodity will be developed with considerations of maximizing competitive advantage and minimizing the risk of undesirable data loss. Corporations use sophisticated data collection methods and leverage intellectual assets and intellectual property to achieve advantage in the marketplace. The library’s goal is to disseminate information; but the corporation aims to use information as an asset.

:• Individuals may also seek information with the intention of arming themselves with information for strategic advantage, for instance when making consumer decisions.

:• Finally, governments have always been both the source of and the destination for vast amounts of information; the policies directing how that information should be managed are tools of governance as well as resources to be used for strategic gain. Furthermore, governments have traditionally been the source of information resources such as cryptography, national statistics, and standards. Governments are also key policymakers when decisions must be made regarding the dissemination of information, as in case of the consumer health information resource MedlinePlus or in its restriction, as in the case of laws intended to protect the confidentiality of citizens’ medical records (HIPAA). Governments are also frequently the source of regulatory policy, as in the case of regulation of the broadcast and telephony infrastructure.

Shapiro and Varian (1997) described three areas to government information policy:

:1. governmental creation and dissemination of information (including funding research and creating and distributing statistics and records)

:2. development, regulation, and use of information infrastructure (including telephony and broadcast legislation, library policy, and Internet censorship)

:3. institutional and legal infrastructure (including participation in international treaties and organizations, privacy rules, antitrust policy, standard settings, contract law, encryption and security, and intellectual property policy.)

The transition from viewing information as a “thing” for edification and improved understanding to viewing it as a commodity with economic and civic value has brought greater prominence to the study of information policy. Governments, organizations, and individuals receive a constant torrent of information; the ability to identify, organize, understand, and act on this intellectual capital has become crucial for even mundane tasks. Failure to use information effectively can result in lost opportunity, reduced productivity, and less effective competition in the global marketplace. In some ways information is unlike other economic assets (e.g. non-rivalrous, promiscuous—see next section); appreciating these characteristics has led new policies in both economic and political spheres. Developing these policies is challenging because so many, varied groups have interests and because of the technology, and the social structures shaped by that technology, continue to evolve. Samuelson (2000) noted that policymakers in this arena need to recognize when existing policy can be adapted to modern versions of old challenges (as in the case of censorship) and when new laws must be created to deal with new policy challenges (as in the case of data mining and cybercrime).

Information policy assumes that information is a resource to be allocated, managed, and utilized by stakeholders. Therefore, information policy might be thought of as an established way of making decisions regarding the generation, acquisition, organization, storage, retrieval, use, or dissemination of information assets. Some policy issues relate specifically to the Internet and do not pertain to government or other organizations; for example, administration and standards issues, as well as subjects related to the structure and administration of the Internet. These issues are considered later in this chapter.

==Information Economic Policy from a Governmental Perspective==

Modern telecommunications technology has increased the utility of information as a resource and asset. Technology has also encouraged people to treat information as a commodity with economic value but no other salient distinguishing characteristics: It has increased the commoditization of information.

These developments are not new; network technologies date to the mid-19th century and more than half of Americans have been “knowledge workers” since the late 1950s. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the economic value of “facts” in 1991 (Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.). Information has always had strategic value to individuals and organizations; after World War II, technological developments supported the rise of what has been called the “network society” (Castells, 1996), and fundamental changes in the nature of government (Braman, 2006). Rubin (2004) worried that, with the commoditization of information, the observation that some information has economic value might lead to the conclusion that all of it does. That is, excessive commoditization of information may have the potential to diminish the amount of information in the public sphere, to the detriment of the public in general and with particular harm to the economically disadvantaged.

On the other hand, there are those who maintain that because all information has economic value, policy should address the ability of individuals of limited means to have access to vital resources. Further, without some way of ensuring the economic significance of the information infrastructure, the Internet will suffer from a “Tragedy of the Commons” downfall. (The tragedy of the commons demonstrates that individual needs can overwhelm the common good: the commons, open pasture for all the people in a village, will be over-grazed if each villager brings in as many sheep as possible.) That information has economic value of information, however, is not in dispute. The study of the economics of information has developed enormously since Stigler (1961, p. 213) described the field as occupying a “slum dwelling in the town of economics.” As the economic and social significance of information has been better understood, its perceived importance as a necessity for economic and political well being has been more thoroughly recognized and information policy has been perceived as necessary to the survival of the state (high policy).

Information has characteristics that make it fundamentally different from other commodities. Most importantly, information is non-rivalrous: the internalization of information by one user does not impede the ability of another to do the same. This property makes information unique among commodities; two people may use the same recipe to make bread, but the two people may not eat the same loaf of bread. However, like bread, information can be sold; it has economic value. Unlike bread, information does not require a fixed physical form and it is not bound by physical location.

Many researchers have suggested that the Internet suffers from a “Tragedy of the Commons” market inefficiency. As Shapiro and Varian (1997) put it “the key aspect of information for the purposes of economic analysis is that information is costly to produce, but very cheap to reproduce, especially in digital form.” As a consequence, digital information becomes ubiquitous and thus almost free. Some people have suggested that it is most efficient to make information freely available. However, producing information is expensive and these costs must be borne somewhere in the information production chain. Shapiro and Varian suggest that (government) information producers charge “at least incremental cost” for the use of information. Failure to provide compensation to information producers will reduce incentive for future innovation. Moreover, if the information infrastructure is treated as a free, public resource it may be devalued and filled with the informational equivalent of rubbish and undesirable elements. The omnipresence of intrusive or disreputable advertising in some free online services and applications (and its absence in subscription-based services) provides a cautionary example.

Publishers’ roles in the dissemination of information are changing rapidly, a situation sometimes perceived as challenging their continued existence. Some commentators argue that these concerns are unjustified, that the distribution of intellectual property changes often, each time presenting information property creators and stakeholders the opportunity to access new revenue streams. For example, music publishers resisted the player piano and radio broadcast; and the entertainment industry had concerns about home video technology (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., “the betamax case”). Technological restrictions on duplication and dissemination of information are often suggested in such cases. To date, however, such technologies have generally proven to be ineffective and perhaps even counter-productive. Rights holders have sought policies to enforce their rights, either in the courts or through laws. In this way the government has been involved in information policies related to the enforcement of property rights and rights of contract.

Given its entropic nature (in the sense of spreading and becoming uniform) and ease of reproduction, some scholars (such as Lessig, 2002) have suggested that information is a public good. Public goods are typically defined as being non-rivalrous and difficult to restrict to specified users. Advocates of Digital Rights Management and encryption technology maintain that information can be made exclusive, so it would fail the definitional test of being a public good. However, technological measures to exclude unauthorized users from accessing information have so far not been able to provide security, limiting information rights holders’ ability to enforce their exclusive rights. In any case, the characteristics that make information similar to a public good encourage economies of scale, with a small number of providers become the overwhelming source of a given product.