A Question of Accessibility

A Question ofAccessibility:

Exploring Barriers to the Free Flow of Information

資訊取得性的問題:

探討資訊自由流通的障礙

Jennine Knight Librarian , Main Library,

The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados, U.S.A.

Email: [email protected]

i.

edu

Cheryl King

Special Collections Li brarian, Main Library,

The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados, U.S.A.

Email: [email protected]

i.

edu

Keywords (關鍵詞)

:

Information Access (資訊取得) ; Free Flow of Information (資訊自由

流通) ; Information Deprivation (資訊剝奪) ; Technology (科授)

<

Abstract

>

Inthe。巾，the concept of freedom of access to information is ideal, particularly since de-mocracy warrants the free flow of information. However

,

in practice this seldom occurs

,

especially among various classes and groups

,

and across several geographical boundaries. There are many factors and obstacles which hinder or prohibit the flow of information. This paper explores some of the main barri幽 ers to the free flow of information and identi-ties ways in which they may be alleviated or removed through the use of technologies.

【摘要】 理論上，資訊自由取得的概愈是理想的，尤 其因為民主制度正保證了資訊自由流通。然而 這樣的情彤在實務上卻很少發生，尤其少見於 不同的階層與群體間，及不同的地域間。障礙 或阻礙賀訊流通的因素繁多，本文探討了一些 自由流動資訊的主要障礙，並提出使用科技來 減輕或消除這些障礙的方法。 Introduction

The major barriers which affect the flow of informa-tion may be divided into three categories - personal

,

economic

,

and legal. Personal barriers are those in-built obstacles that are unique to an individual (Tedd

,

Llwyd

,

Simon& Lithgow

,

2009). Barriers of this type stem from socialisation or experiences

,

and determine how an individual functions within a society. Exam-pies of these barriers inelude information illiteracy,

computer illiteracy

,

physical or mental disabilities

,

geographical boundaries, language differences, time,

education

,

social status and political affiliations. Economic barriers relate to the cost of accessing in-formation for the individual

,

while legal barriers are those imposed by the state's legal machinery and in-elude,for instance,laws against libel,sedition,slander,

and 悅ason.

Tedd et al. (2009) assert that there is the right not only to receive information but also the right to impart information without restriction (p. 2). This concept underpins several legislations,namely,the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19)

,

the Euro-pean Convention ofHuman Rights (Article 10 (1)),the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights

(Article 19) and the Declaration of Freedom and In-formation adopted by the Council of Europe

Commit-tee of Ministers on 29 April 1982(p.6). Freedom is

understood as the condition of being free or unre-stricted. However,with respect to information flow,

there is no such thing asunres甘icted access to infor-mation irrespective of the society. Furthermore,even in democratic societies

,

legislations may dictate access to information

,

thereby regulating this access.

Katz (1988) offers that information flow is

“

the amount of information flowing through formal (meas-urable) and informal (non-meas(meas-urable) ch位mels" (p.

131)

,

whereas Tedd et al. (2009) suggest a more pre-cise meaning:

“

the flow of information between the producers, distributo悶， and assimilators of informa-tion"(p.3). Thus,information is transmitted between the sender and receiver throughi，月[ormationcarriers.

The latter includes, inter alia, books, magazines,

newspapers, radio, television, films, telephone and Internet hosts. Varying accessibility of these

informa-tion carriers to people and societies propels the discus-sion of barriers to information.

Levels ofBarriers to Information

Flow

Tedd et al. (2009) identify two levels of the main barriers to information flow,namely,at the point of production and at the point of use or accessbaπiers.

The former refers mainly to output,time and institu-tional barriers

,

while the latter refers to information handling skills of users, personal or psychological,

geographical, ability or disability,cost, technological and linguistic barriers. As it relates to output,users seek to optimise a sub-set of information that meets their needs. However, they are sometimes greeted with so much information that it becomes impossible for it to be effectively used by them - the result of

i月[ormationoverload.

With the overwhelming quantities of information,

users often have a limited time in which it may be consumed. This introduces the barrier oftime. To maximise time,users must sieve through vast quanti-ties of information and set prioriquanti-ties for usage. They must exercise their power of choice. Choices are administered by both the senders and receivers of in-formation as to the quantity andquality 也atshould be disclosed or retained (也is stems the dispute of the

‘right to know' versus 'the right to privacy')

,

the for-mat of delivery and receipt of inforfor-mation (the debate is usually print versus electronic), and whether the information should be availablefor 企eeor a fee.

Technology seeks to overcome at the point of pro-duction and at the point of use or access barriers by

implementing devices whereby users can store and peruse information at their convenience. Websites can be bookmarked

,

the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) may be deposited on storage devices or the information may be printed. Quicker access to the information required may be facilitated by CD

,

DVD ROMs,and other electronic devices which allow users

to cue from one link to another. Nonetheless, the information containedinthese sources lacks currency,

and are subjected to the durability of the source. In addition, these technologies command access to a computer

,

printer

,

DVD and CD player

,

and instruc-tions in their use.

Personal Barriers

Personal barriers may be as a result of illiteracy,

unawareness, the inability to articulate coherently,

shyness in approaching information professionals

,

the perception that the required information is non-existent,

or poor comprehension of the information received. Hence,even though society is rife with information and information resources

,

an unequal awareness among users of the nature and location of available information may be an impediment to access. These conditions speak also to the information literacy skills of the researcher. According to the definition by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL)

,

a division of theAmericanLibrary Associa-tion (ALA) in the United States of America (US)

,

to be information literate

,

a person must be able to "recog-nise when information is needed and have the ability to locate,evaluate,and use effectively the needed infor-mation" (2000). Information illiteracy may result from information deprivation among some groups.

Anability or disability barrier is another factor that may either debar or curtail the flow of information to an individual. Cunningham and Coombs (1997) de-fine disability as

“

a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life ac-tivities of such an individual

,

a record of such an im-pairment or being regarded as having such an impair-ment"(p.2). Disabilities may include vision

,

mobil-i旬.， hearing and speech impairments,learning disabili-ties,and 仕aumaticbraini吋uries. Vision impairments are categorised into various forms

,

and these usually hinder the individual's ability to read printed materials

,

computer screens and keyboards.

Two groups of persons who may be considered among the mobility impaired are those confined to wheelchairs and those with no hand usage. The for-mer group of persons usually experience difficulty in gaining en虹y into facilities to access information. Furthermore

,

there is the additional setback of being able to manoeuvre even after gaining successful entry. Persons with no hand usage are limited in using stan-dard computer input and output devices.

Technology has assisted in facilitating the flow of information to disabled groups. For instance, infor-mation is accessible through the use of Braille

,

talking newspapers and special photocopiers which

‘

read' the text for the blind and partially sighted. Moreover,

with environmental adjustments and the appropriate Adaptive of Assistive Technology the flow of informa-tion can be perpetuated. Adaptive or Assistive Tech-nology is computer software and hardware that has been modified to be accessible by persons with dis-abilities. Some of the hardware and software used,

include speech recognition

,

memory aiding

,

touch screen and eye-tracking devices

,

joysticks

,

trackballs

,

big visual cursors and large keyboards. Organisations such as Apple and Ability Hub focus on providing and locating the tools which are necessary for special needs groups to access information. Other organisations such as the Information Access Laboratory in the US

,

assist students with disabilities in their educational pursuits through the development of innovative technologies (Information Access Laboratory,1998).

In their effort to comply with the standards of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

,

2005

,

libraries in Ontario

,

Canada endeavour to become:

more accessible to everyone by ensuring that users can enter the library facility and successfully navigate within it; communicate effectively with staff who are trained to respond to specific requests for accommoda-tion; access print and electronic resources using a vari-ety of assistive devices; and fully participate in events

and other activities held in the library (Chittenden&

Dermody,201O).

The Act establishes accessibility standards to effect the achievement of equal and equitable access and use of resources

,

including those in libraries

,

to all Ontari-ans.

Economic Barriers

Cost is another major factor which appears at both levels of the barriers to information. The ALA pre-sents the view that cost should notin企ingeon or inter-fere with the provision or delivery of information and resources for any users of a publicly supported library. In the document Economic Barriers to Information Access: AnInte.ψretationof the Library Bill of Rights

which was adopted by the ALA Council on June 30

,

1993

,

the association states:

Library services that involve the provision of infor-mation,regardless of format,technology,or method of delivery,should be made available to all library users on an equal and equitable basis. Charging fees for the use of library collections,services,programs,or facili-ties that were purchased with public funds raises barri-ers to access. Such fees effectively abridge or deny access for some members of the community because

吐leyreinforce distinctions among users on their ability and willingness to pay

Moreover

,

cost is a determinant for both the indi-vidual and institution in their purchasing habits of tra-ditional and contemporary sources of information as well as specific information technologies. This factor is also extended to the country as a whole. The indi-vidual and the institution may opt for a print-based source over

,

for example

,

an online source. With the online source,there is the cost for access to the infor-mation in addition to the cost of the telecommunica-tions. Furthermore

,

the exorbitant fees of electronic sources permit access on subscription basis.

Feather(1988) notes that

“

online databases starkly il-luminated the financial dimension ofthe market-place"

(p. 71). He also informs that there was a demand but the potential customers had insufficient resources to purchase the product. Therefo時， the CD-ROM was developed

,

thus bringing supply and demand into bal-ance within the financial limitations of the customers. In his updated work

,

Fωther(2008) emphasises:

The hardware needed for access to CD-ROM is comparatively inexpensive,and is both cheap and easy to maintain compared with the high capital and run-ning costs of online access. CD-ROM has the effect of removing the telecommunications element from the information technology equation. This is of the ut-most importance in developing countries

,

where the telecommunication in仕'astructure is often weak

,

and the technology for transmitting digitised data often does not exist(pp. 120-121).

Cost deters some information poor countries from

investing in Integrated Communications Technology

(lCT).

As posited by Tedd et al. (2009),the investment in ICT is a crucial factor in establishing and retaining a competitive edge in macro-economic terms. These writers mention numerous inequalities of information access,which can result in information imperialism -data flowing in abundance between Western Countries but a lack of collaboration wi也 the Third World. Therefore,the flow of information is either denied or clouded. Users can manipulate the information carri-ers as a way of overriding the cost factor. For in-stance

,

the consumer book market has a clear socio-economic bias towards the wealthier and better educated members of a society. However

,

television and radio may transcend those boundaries. Essen-tially

,

broadcast information is easier to absorb and cheaper to receive than printed information. The cost of technology has been significantly reduced,thereby facilitating the access to a wider source of electronic information.

Geographical Barriers

Geographical obstacles to infonnation occur as a consequence of the residence of the individual and the inaccessibility to various infonnation providers. These limitations can be classified as local (urban ver-sus rural areas)

,

regional (states or countries in close proximity), and international (developed countries versus developing coun出es). The latter is often re-ferred to as the information rich and information poor. The information rich are those persons with access to abundant resources of infonnation and the ability to retrieve and utilise the infonnation obtained. The

i月(ormationpoorare 伽 completeopposite.

The level of education of a group

,

the type of re-sources

,

technological and telecommunications infra-structures detennine the categorisation of information

rich and information poor. This is highlighted in the 1995 work by HaywoodIn.舟-Rich， In.舟-Poor: Access and Exchange in the Global Information Society. This author posits that an information divide results“where access to higher education is symptomatic of access to interesting infonnation-based work opportunities,and the pursuit of rich and abundant life choices

,

while

exclusion 企om higher education generally reduces access to infonnation rich environments . . ."(pp. 22-23).

Tools such as the computer,telephone and radio are extremely useful to the flow of infonnation. Through the use of computer technologies,access is granted to the bulk of infonnation stored elec仕onically， where updating

,

revision

,

and correction of infonnation can be a continuous process. Internet technologies afford infonnation to be transmitted so that delivery is virtu-ally instantaneous. Furthennore

,

users can exploit the services of electronic mail and instant chat. Itis im-portant to note though that the value of the Internet as a good resource to accessing infonnation is often com-promised by the lack of proper telecommunication services to remote areas. The consensus seems to be that education among the service population

,

in

addi-tion to a good balance of telecommunicaaddi-tion and tech-nological resources is needed if technology can assist in removing geographical barriers to infonnation.

The advent of electronic libraries has helped to eliminate some geographical barriers. Access to bibli-ographies

,

indexes

,

various publications and even da-tabases is facilitatedby 也ismeans. Moreover,with the introduction of electronic publishing, the inconven-ienceof 個.velling to libraries is diminished. In many poor places, however, users still have to travel to a library or some other facility where computers are available for use in order to access needed infonnation.

Language Barriers

“The most prevalent and specific intellectual barrier is a linguistic one" (Tedd et aI.,p. 11). This is a limita-tion to the recipient of the infonnalimita-tionb的auseof the inability to understand the written or spoken message. An individual greeted with a linguistic or language barrier may become 企ustrated and relinquish the source or seek an alternative source instead of at-tempting to find a 仕'anslation of the document or a

仕anslator.

A study conducted by Fisher et al.(2004) reveal that migrant Mexican workers faced serious challenges in locating and assimilating infonnation which was nec-essary for active participation in their daily existence. This was so because most of the documents which they needed to access were written in English and their native language was Spanish. The writers also dis-covered that many of the older immigrants relied on their children to interpret and conduct their everyday transactions for them.

Technology has made progress in alleviating the language barrier which has been affecting migrant workers. According to Fisher et al. (2004)

“. . .

availability of cutting edge technology and training is positively affecting the lives of the people in these communities by giving them the oppo討班lity to in-crease their literacy levels

,

technology and job skills in

addition to creating a sense of community." Today

,

search engines such as Google and Altavista offer

fur-ther assistance through the facilitation of translation features as part oftheir service to Internet users.

Zhang's discourse International Students and U.S. Academic Libraries Revisited identifies three m句or

challenges which international students experience when trying to access information from US academic libraries. According to that writer

,

language

,

com-munication and technology barriers prevent these

stu-dents 企om effective use of library services. Brown (2000)

,

Kumar and Suresh (2000) and Wang and Frank (2002) are also commentators on the subject ofbarriers to information access which are experienced by inter-national students in US academic libraries.

Institutional Barriers

Institutional barriers are limitations to information access designed by individual organisations and the government. As it relates to individual organisations,

barriers to information mayrange 企omthe refusal to invest in ICT to curtailing the flow of information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. In the latter instance

,

only a selected few

,

mainly senior members of staff or certain departments are privy to

‘

sensitive' information. The government sometimes utilises legislations to withhold information ‘for the public good' and

‘

for the public health'. The objec-tive, in these instances, is to protect the individual,

society,and the state.

In Britain

,

according to Robertson(1993)

,“

the av-erage adult has private information about himself or herself on over two hundredsep訂atefiles and by 1982 Government departments alone boasted 220 different computerised data banks" (p. 116). The individual's personal record is scattered among

“

school and NHS records,tax and VAT returns,insurance,mortgage and credit ratings

,

social-security files

,

motor-vehicle

li-ce凹的，police records and the like"(p. 116). Further,

Robertson (1 993) 中0臨 Lord Browne-Wilkinson as

saying“if the information obtained by the police

,

the Inland Revenue

,

the social-security service

,

and other agencies were to be gathered together on one file,the freedom of the individual would be gravely at risk"(p.

116).

The computer,because it can link and match scraps ofinformation 企omvarious data sources has the po-tential to be used as an instrument in the sullying of an individual's integrity. Robertson (1993) notes that this ability to store personal data in various locations on the computer is actually‘to build up an incomplete jigsaw of the individual on record"(p.117).

Legal Barriers

Legislation is required to protect the individual's personal data. The United Kingdom (UK) Data Pro-tection Act

,

1998

,

speaks to prohibiting the abuse of personal data. A news item on November 14,2010 headlines “Google

‘

breached data protection act' in UK." According to Christopher Graham

,

Britain's In-formation Commissioner

,

Google“broke the law when Street View cars collected personal data from unse-cured wi-fi networks." The Internet giant wasac心used

of

“

deliberately collecting millions of passwords, web-sites (URLs) and emails for commercial gain." Google had recently launched a StreetView mapping cars in Ireland. The Internet service provider was not penal-ised after pledging not to repeat the violation (Break-ingnews.ie.,2010).

Copyright; Intellectual Property; and Defamation acts are other forms of legislations in the UK and US which are designed to protect the individual.However

,

the enforcement of these laws may be confined to a specified territory. For instance,in November 2003 when damaging information on Prince Charles was circulated,the local media,through aninjunction 企om

the British High Court was prevented from disclosing the details of the allegations. However, the Prince was not afforded this protection on the Internet.

made available to alI web users. Additionally,

Google was very effective in removing the linguistic barriers for those people who did not speak or under-standItalian.

Under the UK Official Secrets Act

,

which was im-plemented to safeguard national security,the British government in 1987 出edto prohibit thepubli臼tionof

Spycatche月 whichwas authored by a former British Intelligence Officer, Peter Wright. The UK Law of Sedition also aims to safeguard national security

,

while the Race Relations Act was implemented to protect groups within a society. Robertson (1993) believes that irrespectiveof 也elegislations,British society still has access to information which contains obscenities through the use of technologies. “The main battle-ground has shifted to television drama - EastEnders and the plays of Dennis Potter and the late-night mov-ies on Channel 4,and the imminent invasion of alien porn from outer space through the satellite dish" (p.

212).

Censorshipres甘ictsthe free flow of information to a society. Through acts such as the UK Obscene Pub-lications Act

,

1959

,

or policies of individual institu-tions,the state and other entities are able to obs甘uct

the free flow of information. A case in point . the publication,The Satanic Verses was banned under the Blasphemy Law of several Islamic nations. Further-more,several publications arebanned 企ominstitutions annually through their individual collection develop-ment polices. This does not only relate to books. In July 2002

,

the Saudi Arabian Govemment blocked approximately 2000 websites. Most of the blacklisted sites were either deemed sexually explicit

,

about relig-ion,on women's history or about bathing suits (BBC. Saudis,2002).

Google.com was banned in China, in September 2002. The rationale verbalised by the Chinese for-eign ministry spokesman was: “Obviously there is some harmful information on the internet [and] not everyone should have access to this harmful informa.

tion. The whole world now is exploring a way to man-age the Internet and China is also working on this" (BBC. Google

,

2002). 訂閱 InternetContent Provider in an effort to allow 企'ee access to its Chinese users automatically redirected 也em to its Hong Kong's search engine. This action displeased 也e Chinese government,who insisted on being able to censor in-formation accessed via the Internet within China. After years of negotiations, Google in March 2010 agreed to stop the automatic redirect.

More recently,in August 2010,two Gulf States, cit-ing security concerns

,

announced bans on some func-tions of the Blackberry mobile phone. Saudi Arabia prevented the use of the Blackberry.to-Blackberry instant messaging service. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) intended to block such function-alities as sending e-mails

,

accessing the Internet

,

and delivering instant messages from one Blackberry handset to another, in October 2010. However,the ban was not put into effect after Blackberry's maker Research in Motion proved to the UAE's Telecommunications Regulatory Authority that it was

“

compliant with its security needs" (BBC. United

,

2010).

Conclusion

The role of technology in the flow of information is seamless. Technology can both facilitate the flow and also create barriers to information. Persons may have difficulty in understanding how to use it or may be unable to keep abreast of the dynamic changes as there is a lack of standardisation. Furthermore

,

this diffi-culty can be compounded by technophobia. Com-puter packages can still be inflexible and unsophisti-cated. In addition

,

there may be instances whereby

so自ware changes may be incompatible with an indi-vidual's computer. However,software and hardware is sold with manuals which provide instructions as to usage. There are also help screens and faqs to facili-tate easy access to information. In some public set-tings

,

guidance to individuals in need is provided by

information professionals whoare 甘ainedin the use of the technologies offered.

There will always be barriers to thefre活 flowof in-formation. These may occur as a result of personal or economic factors which affect an individual.

Alterna-tively，位ley may be imposed by the society or the state's legal machinery for the protection of a people. As highlighted by this paper, not all barriers are in-surmountable. Technology has played a very effec-tive role in alleviating and removing some of theba叮i­

ers to allow access of information. Libraries are also playing their part in making information more accessi-ble to those who experience challenges occasioned by barriers which restrict the 企ee flow of information.

“

Information is power." In most cases,researchers are disadvantage when there are barriers to information access. They are empowered when there is free flow of information.

References

American Library Association. (1993). Economic

barriers 的 informationaccess: AnInte中retationof the Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved August 21

,

2010, from http://www.ala.orglTemplate.cfm? Sec-tion= Interpretations&Template=ContentManagementl ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8536.

Apple. (n.d.). Apple's commitment 的 accessibility.

Retrieved August 24

,

2010

,

from http://www.apple. com/accessibility.

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000).

Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Retrieved August 27,2010，企om

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrVstandards/inf ormationliteracycompetency.cfm.

Breakingnews.ie. (2010

,

November 15). Google

‘

breached Data Protection Act' in UK. Re甘ieved

November 15,2010,from http://www.breakingnews. ie/world!google/b reached-data-protection-act-in-uk-480290.html. See also British Broadcasting Corpo-ration (BBC). (2010,November 3). Google in‘

sig-‘significant breach' of UK Data Laws. BBC News. Retrieved November 15

,

2010

,

fromh句 ://www.bbc.

co.uklnews/technology-11684 952.

British Broadcasting Corporation (2002,September 3). Google fights Chinese ban. BBC News. Retrieved July 21, 2010，企om http://news.bbc.co.ukll/hi/ technology/2233229.stm.

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2002

,

July 31). Saudis block 2

,

000 websites. BBC News. Retrieved August 24

,

2010

,

from http://news. bbc.co.ukll/hi/

tee趾lology/2153312.stm.

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2010

,

August I). Two Gulf statesto ban some Blackberry functions.

BBC News. Retrieved August 14

,

2010

,

from

http;/川ww.bbc.co.uk

/news/world-middle-east-I 0830485.

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2010,October 8). United Arab Emirates will not ban Blackberries.

BBC News. Retrieved November 19

,

2010

,

from http://www.bbc.co. uklnews/ technology -11499755. British Broadcasting Corporation. (2010, August 4). Untangling the BlackBerry ban. BBC News. Re-trieved August 14, 2010, from http://www. bbc.co.uklnews/technology-I 0866417.

Brown,C. C. (2000). Reference services to the intema-tional adult learner: Understanding the barriers.R耳其 erence Librarian,33(69/7旬， 337-347.

Chittend凹， M. & Dermody, K. (2010). Removing barriers to access: Libraries and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Felicite月 56 (3),

94-96.

Cunningham

,

C. & Coombs

,

N. (1997). Information

access and adaptive technology. Phoenix,Arizona:

American Council on Education and Oryx Press. Feather

,

J.(1998). The Information society: AS的砂 of

continuity and change. (2nd ed.) London: Library Association Publishing.

Feather

,

J. (2008). The InformationSocie妒 A Stu砂 of continuity and change. (5吐1ed.) London: Facet Pub-lishing.

ency-c/opedia of information and library science. London:

Routledge.

Fisher, K.E.,Marco間，E.,Miller, L.S.,Sanchez,A.&

Cunningham.

,

E. R. (2004

,

Octobe吵. Information behaviour of migrant Hispanic farm workers and their families in the Pacific Northwest IR

Informa-tion Research, 10 (1). Re甘ieved August 21,2010, 台omhttp://www.webcitation.org/mainframe. php. Google. (n.d.). Google language tools. Retrieved July

21

,

2010

,

from http://www.google.comllan-guage_tools?hl=en.

Haywood, T. (1995). Info-rich, In.舟、poor: Access and exchange in the global information society.

London: Bowker Sauro

Haywood,T. (1995). Only connect: Shaping networks

and knowledge for the new millennium. London: Bowker Sauro

Haywood,T. (1982). The Withering ofpublic access: Viewpoint in LIS. London: Library AssociationPu b-lishing.

Information Access Laboratory. (1998). Information

access research and development: Breaking barriers through innovation technologies. Re甘ieved August 24, 2010，台om http://www.ee.ude1.edulIn- foAc-cess/Technology.

IntelliTools. (n.d). About us,co"!戶Iter access,seniors surfing the web. Retrieved August 24

,

2010

,

from http://www.intellitools.com lindex .htm.

Katz

,

R. L. (1988). The Information society: An

In-temational perspective. New York: Praeger.

Kumar

,

S. L. & Suresh

,

R. S. (2000). S甘ategies for providing effective reference services for interna-tional adult learners. R吃ference Librarian, 33

(69170),327-336.

Meadows,1.(Ed.). (1991). Information technology and

the individual. London: Printer.

Melbourne Indymedia. (2003

,

November 9) Prince

Charles story - A gay time in the Royal Palace? Re-仕ieved November 9, 2003, from

http://www.mel-bo叮ne.indymedia.orgJnewsI2003/l1l57323_comrne nt.php.

On-line Books Page. (2003). Banned books on-line.

Retrieved December 8,2003,from http://www-2.cs. cmu.edu/People/spok/banned-books.htrnl.

Robertson,G. (1993). Freedom,the individual and the law. (7th ed.). London: Penguin.

Tedd, L., Llwyd, R. G., Simon, A. &Lithgow,S. D.

(2009). DSM7620lILM 5120 Information and Soci-ety. Aberystwyth: University ofAberystwy曲，Open Learning Unit.

Wang, J. & Frar祉， D. G. (2002). Cross-cultural com-munication: Implications for effective information services in academic libraries. Portal:Libraries and the Academy,2 (2),207-216.

Zhang,W.(2006). International students andU.S. aca-demic libraries revisited. Journal ofLibrary and

In-formation Science

,

32 (2)

,

6-17.