No longer “neutral among ends” – liberal versus communitarian ethics in library and information science

McMenemy, D. (2021) No longer “neutral among ends” – liberal versus communitarian ethics in library and information science. In: Toeppe, K., Yan, H. and Chu, S. K. W. (eds.) Diversity, Divergence, Dialogue: 16th International Conference, iConference 2021, Beijing, China, March 17–31, 2021, Proceedings, Part II. Series: Lecture notes in computer science (12646). Springer: Cham, pp. 207-214. ISBN 9783030713041 (doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-71305-8_16)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.


As the concept of neutrality is under significant challenge as an ethic in LIS in the past decade from more critical approaches to social justice, the paper argues that in such a polarized world, we must seek to consider ethical approaches that do not divide us but instead have the capacity to bring people together around a common good, while also respecting aspects of group identity. Communitarianism is presented as a potential solution to that dilemma. The paper begins by exploring the philosophical debate between liberalism and communitarianism in political philosophy, and how concepts like neutrality figure in that debate. It presents the philosophies of both liberalism and communitarianism to encourage debate among the LIS community as to the potential for a communitarian ethic to develop in LIS as an alternative to the one based on liberalism. In doing so it considers what a communitarian ethic might look like for library and information science, and considers that ethical approach in contrast with both individual rights, and group-rights based philosophies. The paper adds to the wider debates within LIS related to the ethic of neutrality and its fit for modern practice and presents an alternative to liberalism that is, nevertheless, still grounded in a liberal tradition.

Item Type:Book Sections
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:McMenemy, Dr David
Authors: McMenemy, D.
College/School:College of Arts > School of Humanities > Information Studies
Published Online:19 March 2021

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record