Manifestations of expert power in gatekeeping: a conceptual study

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to elaborate the picture of the relationships between information and power by examining how expert power appears in the characterizations of gatekeeping presented in the research literature.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses conceptual analysis for examining how expert power is constitutive of the construct of gatekeeper and how people subject to the influence of gatekeeping trust or challenge the expert power attributed to gatekeepers. The study draws on the analysis of 40 key studies on the above issues.FindingsResearchers have mainly constructed the gatekeepers' expert power in terms of superior knowledge and skills applicable to a specific domain, coupled with an ability to control or facilitate access to information. The gatekeeper's expert power has been approached as a contextual factor that facilitates rather than controls access to information. The power relationships between the gatekeepers and those subject to gatekeeping vary contextually, depending on the extent to which the latter have access to alternative sources of information. The findings highlight the need to elaborate the construct of gatekeeping by rethinking its relevance in the networked information environments where the traditional picture of gatekeepers controlling access to information sources is eroding.Research limitations/implicationsAs the study focuses on how expert power figures in gatekeeping, no attention is devoted to the role of social power of other types, for example, reward power and referent power.Originality/valueThe study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of expert power as a constituent of gatekeeping.

Pre-emptive Censorship of Children’s Literature that is Sexual in Nature by Elementary Librarians in the Middle East. (c2021)

“…In other words, results showed that many internal and external forces influence elementary librarians' decision to pre-emptively censor children's literature that are sexual in nature, however some forces are considered stronger than others and these forces seem to be consistent across the Middle East. This revelation is in fact consistent with claims made by other researchers; where they spoke of "expert powers" and their key influence in the intervention or inhibition of information (Lewin, 1947;Savolainen, 2020; Shoemaker emptively censor, these expert powers are considered as the stronger forces and the results of this study actually show that these stronger forces are what influence pre-emptive censorship of sexual literature. This chapter will be divided into three sections.…”

“…Pressure from parents, government officials, or others can also act as forces" (pp.235-236) Ojennus ( 2019) also spoke of 'forces at the gate' and claimed that librarians would prefer to avoid challenged books because they may produce negative forces; especially if they're perceived as. In addition to the above researchers, several others also delved into Kurt Lewin's gatekeeping theory and spoke of forces that may be positive or negative, internal or external (Farquhar & Carey, 2019;Lewin, 1947;Nye & Barco, 2012;Savolainen, 2020;Shoemaker & Vos, 2009). All this previous research prompted the use of gatekeeping theory within this study and allowed the data results to be categorized and arranged as either internal or external forces according to the theory.…”

“…When attempting to understand the decision-making process that Elementary librarians experience as gatekeepers and the forces that may influence their judgement, one must delve deeper into the internal and external forces that act as hidden "expert powers" within this process of pre-emptive censorship (Savolainen, 2020). Savolainen (2020) studied this notion of "expert power" and believed that gatekeepers are often characterized as actors with this power, moreover, this sort of power may also manifest itself within organizations or outside of them and they play a major role in the flow of information messages. In other words, though librarians being gatekeepers are known to be expert powers in the decision-making process, internal and external forces may also intervene; using this same power attributed to gatekeepers in order to inhibit or restrict information (Savolainen, 2020).…”

“…Savolainen (2020) studied this notion of "expert power" and believed that gatekeepers are often characterized as actors with this power, moreover, this sort of power may also manifest itself within organizations or outside of them and they play a major role in the flow of information messages. In other words, though librarians being gatekeepers are known to be expert powers in the decision-making process, internal and external forces may also intervene; using this same power attributed to gatekeepers in order to inhibit or restrict information (Savolainen, 2020). Shoemaker and Vos (2009) investigated this notion within gatekeeping theory by applying five levels of analysis which they believe "order the world into a hierarchy that can help us study communication and build theory" (p. 31).…”

“…Organizational routine focuses on the common practices within an organization, whereas organizational level of analysis focuses on the rules set by the members which hire the gatekeepers (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009). Researchers focus on this notion of power because they believe it can shape an organization and allow it to select a successful gatekeeper who can perfectly represent the interests of the organization; moreover, failure to operate the gates properly will result in the firing or replacement of the gatekeeper (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009;Savolainen, 2020). When observing this level of analysis within the context of pre-emptive censorship at elementary libraries, one can conclude that librarians may decide to pre-emptively censor out of the fear of losing their jobs (Steele, 2018).…”