New Methods of Analysis Called Necessary for Critical Information and Barrier Assessment
New methods of analysis and study are needed to adequately address the critical information needs of and barriers faced by particular demographic groups in the U.S., said a panel of scholars who authored the Review of Literature Regarding Critical Information Needs of the American Public. The FCC issued a contract for the report that’s part of Section 257 of the Communications Act. Part of the draft study was released in conjunction with a workshop Tuesday hosted by the FCC Office of Communications Business Opportunities (http://xrl.us/bncyh6).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
"This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens,” said Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. The FCC commissioned the scholars under the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism to identify how critical information needs are met, how the media ecosystem addresses those needs and what barriers prevent those needs from being addressed. In reaching their conclusions, the scholars analyzed 800 peer reviewed articles. They found that “the existing analysis ... [and] the existing methods that are available simply do not adequately answer the questions that the FCC has posed,” said Prof. Lewis Friedland of the University of Wisconsin. “We can’t get there from here."
The scholars identified eight areas of core information needs: Emergency and public safety, health and welfare, education, transportation, economic opportunities, the environment, civic life, and political information. “In short, we found that there’s a shortage of critical information needs being met in communities in key areas,” said Friedland. That’s “particularly in marginalized and low income communities, but most importantly,” he said, “the literature is frankly spotty across all these areas."
By only focusing on traditional platforms, the majority of the research reviewed did not encompass the actual conditions of the media environment, said Prof. Philip Napoli of Fordam University. Traditional media platforms “rested on a fairly stable conception of communities ... that stability in society and local communities no longer exists,” Friedland said. “And so we need to develop new methods.” Information may start in a traditional media outlet and then flow through new media platforms, and vice versa, Napoli said. “Those interrelationships are only just beginning to see the research that takes that sort of interaction into affect.” The research doesn’t establish a template for informed policymaking, he said.
The FCC commissioned most of the research that addressed information barriers, Napoli said. The authors identified three categories of barriers: Marketplace dynamics, organizational barriers and changing barriers at the individual level. The literature better addressed the concept of a digital divide, Napoli said. But, the report failed to address critical information barriers for disabled people, one of the members of the audience noted. “There’s an incredible dearth of the literature that was found on the communications area” for the blind and visually impaired, said Friedland.
A multi-level analytical framework, social network analysis, comparative work and analysis that captures the complexity of developing communities are required to address the needs of and barriers to critical information, the scholars concluded. “We need to begin to think about new forms and new methods for conceptualizing these questions and we need to begin to actually lead in this area rather than simply lag behind,” Friedland said. “We have the tools to do that. Now we need the will to apply those tools.”