Dr.Omaima Hameed Aladilee (1)
General Background: Transparency has become a central principle in modern information institutions, particularly university libraries that aim to provide equitable access to knowledge and digital resources. Specific Background: In the context of digital transformation, libraries are increasingly expected to implement transparent policies and procedures to ensure that users can access information services fairly and efficiently. Knowledge Gap: Despite growing attention to transparency and digital inclusion in library science, limited empirical studies have examined how transparency practices relate to digital justice within university library environments. Aims: This study investigates the relationship between transparency practices and the achievement of digital justice in the Central Library of the University of Karbala. Results: Using a survey method with 183 beneficiaries and statistical analysis including structural equation modeling, the findings demonstrate a significant relationship between transparency practices and digital justice, with transparency explaining approximately 45% of the variance in digital justice outcomes. Dimensions such as information accessibility, accountability, and community participation show notable associations with equitable digital service provision. Novelty: The study integrates the concepts of organizational transparency and digital justice within a single empirical framework in the context of an academic library. Implications: The findings provide evidence that transparent governance, accessible information channels, and participatory practices can support equitable digital access and improve users’ experiences with library services in higher education institutions.
Keywords: Transparency Practices, Digital Justice, Academic Libraries, Information Accessibility, Digital Inclusion
Key Findings Highlights
Transparency dimensions demonstrate measurable relationships with equitable digital access in library services.
Accessibility and accountability mechanisms receive stronger user responses than disclosure practices.
Institutional governance practices support inclusive digital resource availability for library beneficiaries.
Transparency in library administration and services is a vital part of achieving the goals libraries set to serve their customers. They also build trust between users and the library, explain rules and processes, and improve access to information. Transparency helps users understand their rights and duties, thus increasing users' ability to use available digital resources. Conversely, digital justice embodies a framework that guarantees the inclusivity of services and mitigates the marginalisation of any societal sector, irrespective of technological, cognitive, or economic impediments. This research aims to investigate the correlation between transparency practices and their contribution to attaining digital justice in the university library setting at the University of Karbala. This methodology can assist in identifying digital and knowledge disparities among users, along with their access to library-provided information resources, due to its direct influence on facilitating scientific research within the institution for students, researchers, and professors alike.
Research Problem
Notwithstanding the considerable progress in the libraries' information services sector due to technological innovations that have enhanced service delivery, numerous libraries, especially university libraries, continue to encounter obstacles in providing equitable access to information and digital services for all users. A significant share of these issues stems from the clarity and openness of the rules and processes used in service delivery, leading to gaps in comprehension and utilisation among recipient groups. In addition, the lack of transparency in the procedures used to manage digital resources may limit libraries' ability to achieve Digital Justice, particularly for low-skilled or less technically or economically endowed people [17]. This current research challenge highlights the need to understand how transparency practices can advance digital justice in university library contexts. The Central Library of the University of Karbala was selected to analyse and ascertain the parameters of this issue. The enquiries about the research problem are concisely outlined as follows:
1-2- The importance of the research
The current research derives its importance from the following:
1-3- Research Objectives
The research aims to achieve the following:
The current research aims to achieve the following:
1. Shed light on the transparency practices adopted in the researched library from the beneficiaries' perspective.
2. Shed light on the level of digital justice in the researched library from the beneficiaries' perspective.
3. Study the impact of transparency practices combined and their individual dimensions on achieving digital justice in the researched library.
1-4- Hypotheses, Hypothetical Diagram, and Research Measures
A. Research Measures
To achieve the research objectives, the measures shown in Table 1 were adopted, which indicate the specific measures for each variable and its associated dimensions.
Table 1 illustrates the measures adopted to determine the dimensions of the research variables.
The researcher compiled the sources from the books listed in the Table.
B. Hypothetical diagram and research hypotheses
Figure 1. Figure (1) Hypothetical Study Plan
Source: Prepared by the researcher based on the sources above
The research is based on a main hypothesis: (There is a significant influence of the variable of transparency practices and its dimensions on the variable of digital justice and its dimensions).
From this, the following hypotheses branch out:
- Sub-hypothesis 1 (There is no effect of information disclosure on digital justice)
- Sub-hypothesis 2 (There is no effect of access to information on digital justice)
- Sub-hypothesis 3 (There is no effect of clarity of policies and procedures on digital justice)
- Sub-hypothesis 4 (There is no effect of accountability on digital justice)
- Sub-hypothesis 5 (There is no effect of community participation on digital justice)
1-5- Research Limits
1-6- Research Community and Sample
The research community comprises fourth-year students, postgraduate students, and researchers (Higher Diploma, Master's, Doctorate) from the University of Karbala's colleges. The sample was deliberately chosen from beneficiaries who frequent the library at least once per week, as per library data. The sample size comprised 183 recipients.
1-7- Research Methodology and Data Collection Tools
To conduct the research and arrive at the final results, a survey approach was adopted. The following data collection tools were also used:
(183) questionnaires were distributed to the purposive sample of (183) beneficiaries, of which (167) questionnaires were returned and valid for research purposes, representing (91%).
1-8- Normal Distribution and Scale Reliability
The instrument's data-collection reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. This metric reflects the instrument's consistency and dependability in assessing its intended parameters. This is seen in Table 2 below:
Source: Prepared by the researcher based on SPSS outputs.
The findings indicate that the study's data follow a normal distribution, with skewness and variance within the permissible limits, thereby permitting the use of parametric statistical procedures that yield more precise results. Cronbach's alpha coefficient values, ranging from 86.54% to 92.31%, are very high and clearly exceed the tolerable limit of 70%. This confirms that the tool used to measure was consistent and reliable in the desire to collect information on the two variables of this study: “transparency practices” and “digital justice”, thus enhancing the validity and reliability of the final results.
1-9- Previous Studies
Several studies in the library context have explored transparency policies and their importance in building trust with users by information organisations. The study (Al-Ansari, 2018) compared his practices of transparency in the management of university libraries in Kuwait. The study found that openness to decisions in general and policy publication increases trust and use rates. Based on the above initiatives, it was also suggested that systems be maintained to periodically post information for users on library websites about how much of library resources were disclosed and the methods & patterns were used to access them [3]. Foster and McMenemy (2019: 226) explored how open public libraries are when delivering services in their study of the phenomenon across the United Kingdom. The study concluded that when rules and processes are clear, Disputes diminish, and the relationship between library staff members and their surrounding local community improves. Concomitantly, a lack of transparency is often associated with poor regulation or insufficient management training [4]. Kim and Lee (2021) conducted research on transparency, focusing particularly on the context of digital libraries, explaining the state of access to data. Elements that contribute to user happiness include sources of information and conditions of use, as well as trends toward clear, understandable user interfaces. The investigators stressed the need to create interactive dashboards that increase transparency and enhance the user experience. The preceding studies make it clear that high-quality library services and their improvement require the application of transparency techniques in both physical and digital libraries. A plethora of studies have explored the concept of digital justice in relation to the library sector, emphasizing its importance for driving usability and inclusivity in the services delivered to each beneficiary group [5]. The study (Jaeger & Bertot, 2011) focused on digital equity in academic libraries, stressing the importance of creating inclusive and accessible digital services for all groups (especially people with disabilities and lower-income populations) [6]. The study indicated that a lack of digital equity exacerbates the digital divide among socioeconomic groups. National library policies and practices render the attainment of digital justice exceedingly difficult [7]. The study determined that bridging the digital divide via concrete policies and equipping end-users with digital skills training enhances equality and empowerment metrics while facilitating the utilisation of library services. The study (Gibson et al., 2017) asserts that attaining social justice is fundamental to public library services. Consequently, ensuring equitable access to digital infrastructure and providing equal opportunities for digital training are crucial for empowering marginalised individuals to utilise technology effectively, thereby fostering digital justice and advancing the public library movement within society. The aforementioned research together affirms that digital justice is an essential element of equal access to information for all societal sectors in the digital era [8].
2- The Theoretical Aspect of the Research
2-1- The Concept of Transparency Practices in Information Institutions
The emergence of transparency techniques in the library and information science literature began in the late 1990s, coinciding with the increasing emphasis on good governance and public accountability. At the onset of the twenty-first century, this concept gained popularity in library environments, notably amid the digital transition and evolving user expectations. Transparency policies were initially used in public libraries to bolster confidence and demonstrate their accountability to society [6]. Interest in transparency techniques within university libraries became evident after 2010, driven by escalating demands to enhance academic achievement and service quality. This emphasis is grounded in the need to uphold transparency in the management of university resources, the formulation of policies, and the delivery of research and educational activities, all aimed at attaining institutional excellence and fostering collaboration within the university community. Moreover, the accessibility of open data and the implementation of assessment and accountability instruments have facilitated the enhancement of transparency practices inside the administrative frameworks of these libraries [9]. Transparency practices in university libraries encompass a set of rules and processes that ensure transparency in resource management, accountability in decision-making, and the explicit disclosure of services and policies to all stakeholders [10]. Transparency practices in libraries encompass procedures and measures that facilitate beneficiaries' access to information about decision-making mechanisms, resource management methods, and service provision, thereby fostering trust and accountability within the library.
Additionally, these practices involve the clear and organised dissemination of information related to administrative, financial, and service activities, ensuring employee and beneficiary participation in oversight and decision-making.
Furthermore, they entail the provision of policies, procedures, and service-related information in a manner that allows beneficiaries to comprehend and assess processes, thereby enhancing the library's credibility and promoting equitable access to information [11]. Kim & Liu (2021) described it as the obligation of university libraries to provide precise and timely information on their policies, goals, and operational choices, enabling stakeholders and staff to gain a deeper understanding of the aims. The researchers delineated the transparency procedures of university libraries as follows [5]: The university library administration employs various practices to enhance access for beneficiaries and library staff to information regarding the decision-making processes, implementation methods, and their impact on the library's overall performance and service delivery mechanisms. This enables people to understand the rationale behind management's decision-making and, thereafter, to express their views on the quantity and direction of services delivered to them.
2-2- The Importance of Transparency Practices in Information Institutions
The significance of adopting transparency principles in libraries is evidenced by the functions they may provide in the following areas:
2-3- Dimensions of Transparency Practices
The literature analysis on transparency practices revealed that there is no precise worldwide metric to assess the dimensions of openness in libraries, especially in university libraries. This excludes the 2012 handbook published by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). This guide draws on axes of library transparency practices, especially university-academic libraries, along with examples for individual axes. With this guiding framework, the axes can help derive a definitive list of dimensions. Information disclosure, accessible information, clarity of policies and processes, accountability, and community engagement comprise the five components. Then, each of these aspects is considered separately as we follow in the outline above[1]:
2-4- The Concept of Digital Justice
Over the past two decades, digital justice has emerged as a concept and ethical framework aimed at fostering fair access to digital opportunities and promoting equality of participation in the digital realm. The global emergence is linked to the growing recognition that the digital divide must be addressed [21], as it has become more pronounced with the rapid spread of digital transformation across all aspects of human life, resulting in disparities in access to digital resources and services. The concept's scope has recently expanded to include issues of equality concerning digital infrastructure, digital skills, and rights, ensuring that all individuals are enabled to effectively profit from the digital realm [22]. As our areas of focus broadened to include digital justice amidst the rapid transition from in-person services to remote opportunities, librarians began to acknowledge the significance of equitable access and service outcomes concerning e-catalogues, databases, and other digital resources in the ongoing quest for cognitive justice [2]. Research on information and libraries indicates that libraries, especially university libraries, play a vital role in digital justice, serving as essential mechanisms to bridge the digital divide and provide equitable access to knowledge and information resources [23]. Digital Justice, according to UNESCO guidelines, is defined as the provision of access to digital resources and services for all individuals, regardless of their social, economic, or geographic status, along with the requisite skills to engage effectively in the digital society [24]. The architecture concerns the equitable distribution of digital opportunities, guaranteeing fair access to technology, services, and information for all of humanity on digital platforms [23]. This entails bridging the digital divide and fostering digital inclusion. The American Library Association defines digital justice in the library context as "a library's institutional commitment to ensure equally high access to digital resources and electronic services for all users, regardless of their individual or societal circumstances" [2].
The researchers characterise digital justice as: "The actions of information institutions and libraries that endeavour to ensure, irrespective of class, status, or economic standing, the users' entitlement to unobstructed access to digital services and information resources."
2-5- The Importance of Digital Justice in Information Institutions
Digital justice shows its relevance on several axes, both at the institutional and societal levels. The most notable of which may be emphasized in the following:
1- Improved Access to Knowledge: Digital justice helps ensure that everyone can access digital resources and services without social, economic, or geographical limitations. UNESCO has stated that ensuring equitable access to digital technology is a prerequisite for a more inclusive knowledge society and supports the potential of every person to learn and participate on equal terms in the digital economy [25].
2- Minimum social and economic inclusion: Individuals need to develop digital skills and capacities and use them to fully participate in the economic and cultural aspects of societal life, where social justice is a significant contributor. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, providing equal access to digital technology reduces social exclusion. It offers new frontiers in both work and education, especially for groups that have faced traditional barriers to resource access [26].
3- Supporting higher education and scientific research: Digital justice ensures equal access to digital resources and scientific research tools for students and researchers. A lack of digital equity in schools perpetuates learning gaps and restricts academic growth in areas where it should be fostered. One of the pillars of digital justice is that it provides everyone with the necessary technology and welfare; this is an area where university libraries can play a role in facilitating [28].
4- Promoting inclusiveness of public services — Digital justice is needed to support the inclusiveness of public services, including libraries, by providing digital infrastructure and assistive technologies (for all population groups). Indeed, applying the digital justice principles to improve the quality of public services reinforces trust between institutions and their communities [27], particularly in contexts where the public relies heavily on digital platforms.
5- Digital Justice and Libraries and Information Services — Digital Justice in information and library institutions concerns equitable access to digital resources and services, especially for the most marginalized groups. By enacting wide-scale, fully articulated action plans for digital justice, libraries can deliver better user experiences, broaden access to knowledge, and narrow knowledge inequalities associated with digital access disparities [11].
2-6- Dimensions of Digital Justice
The researchers were unable to get a universally recognised identifier for the components of the digital justice construct, especially within the information and library sectors, which impeded their capacity to delineate the digital justice dimension. They analysed specific projects, documents, and standards from regional and international organisations that addressed methodologies for assessing digital justice, including the UNESCO Guidelines for 2021 and 2023, which delineated the characteristics of digital justice across various dimensions, such as digital access, digital skills, and digital governance. UNESCO, 2023. The OECD analysis comprehensively examined digital justice and digital equality, delineating a series of essential metrics to assess the digital justice variable. The indicators are digital access, digital infrastructure, digital skills, technology utilisation, digital inclusion, digital security, and digital trust [26]. The European Commission manages the Digital Compass 2030 initiative at the European Union level, which aims to guide digital transformation policies within the EU until 2030, emphasising access, skills, and digital engagement [27]. The initiative encompasses four dimensions: digital competencies, digital infrastructure, corporate transformation, and digital public services (ECDCI, 2022). The American Library Association (ALA) has issued guidance on achieving equality and fairness in access to libraries and digital services at the library level. The guidance recommended a series of quantifiable dimensions, with primary emphasis on access to digital infrastructure, digital competencies, inclusivity and equity, and technical support and assistance services. The present research assessing digital justice is based on these dimensions. It embraced them as dimensions for analysing the variable, along with the organization's operational nature, the guide it developed, and the characteristics of libraries and their emphasis on beneficiaries. The dimensions will be delineated in the following order:
3- Field Aspect of Research
3-1- Description of the Research Sample
Figure 2.
Source: Questionnaire Data Analysis
Table 3, which describes the research sample by gender, indicates that females comprise the highest percentage (68%). The sample description by age group indicates that the (21-30) and (31-40) age groups each achieved 69%. This may be because the largest number of sample members were fourth-year students. The lowest percentage (3%) was for those over 51 years old. The sample description by grade level indicates that the highest percentage was for fourth-year students. The sample description, by the number of times the library was visited, was for the (1-5) category, which had the highest percentage (54%), while the lowest percentage was for the (16+) category. Finally, the sample description by specialization reveals that the highest percentage (69%) was for humanities majors.
3-2- Analysis of sample responses to the research variables (transparency practices) and (digital justice)
Figure 3. Table No. (4) shows the analysis of sample responses to the variable (transparency practices/information disclosure)
"Data source generated by a researcher using SPSS”
Data from Table 4, which examines the sample responses on the information disclosure dimension, reveals that this dimension typically attained a weak to average weighted average. This reflects the library's inadequate practice of updating information on its services and activities, its inability to communicate new choices before they are implemented, and its insufficient commitment to providing customers with comprehensive information about its resources and services.
Figure 4. Table 5 shows the analysis of the sample responses to the variable (transparency practices/accessibility of information).
Table 5 presents data on the dimension of information accessibility, revealing that the highest weighted mean (4.07) corresponds to the sixth question, which assesses beneficiaries' interaction with the library website's search interfaces regarding usability. This is followed by question (7), which has a weighted mean of (3.89) and indicates that the library administration offers various channels for information retrieval, including the official website, email, social media, and direct inquiry.
Figure 5. Table No. (6) shows the analysis of the sample’s answers to the variable (transparency practices/clarity of policies and procedures)
Table (6) presents data on the dimension of clarity in policies and procedures, revealing that question (10) attained the highest arithmetic mean of 4.70, signifying that the library explicitly communicates loan conditions and usage instructions for all beneficiary categories. Then we have question (11), with an average score of 4.32. It means that the library provides beneficiaries with booklets and guides that clarify how their service works in a clear way. The twelfth item had the lowest arithmetic mean (2.04), reflecting the library's weakness in informing beneficiaries of its new policies before implementation.
Figure 6. Table No. (7) shows the analysis of the sample’s answers to the variable (transparency/accountability practices).
As shown in Table 7 it is noticed that all the questions of dimension (3)(library administration deals with it equally, beneficiaries' complaints), with a support of the highest arithmetic mean(4.20) for question 14, which indicates that the library administration considers everyone complaining to them on the same level, regardless of the beneficiary's category. On the other hand, observation (16), which scored the lowest mean of 2.26, indicates that the library does not adequately contact beneficiaries when their observations are applied.
Figure 7. Table No. (8) shows the analysis of the sample’s answers to the variable (transparency practices/community participation)
Table 8 reveals that the highest arithmetic mean (4.44) corresponds to question 17, suggesting that the library engaged beneficiaries in ongoing surveys to ascertain their opinions regarding the services and resources offered, aimed at enhancing the quality of information services. The lowest arithmetic mean (2.23) was recorded for question (20), indicating a lack of widespread invitations from the library to beneficiaries to attend meetings and activities aimed at enhancing its services.
Figure 8. Table No. (9) Arrangement of dimensions of the variable (transparency practices)
The data presented in Table 9 concerning the hierarchy of the dimensions of the transparency practices variable reveal that the dimension of access to information ranks first with a total response intensity of 77.7%. This is followed by the dimension of clarity of policies and procedures, with a response intensity of 75.9%. The dimension of community participation follows with a response intensity of 58%. Lastly, the dimensions of accountability and information disclosure exhibit response intensities of 55.8% and 52.5%, respectively.
Figure 9. Table No. (10) shows the analysis of the sample’s answers to the variable (digital justice/access to infrastructure)
The data in Table 10, analyzing responses to the dimension of access to infrastructure, reveal that the highest arithmetic mean (4.49) corresponds to the third question, indicating that the library offers appropriate spaces for electronic work, such as private retreats equipped with power outlets and internet connections. This is followed by the fifth question, which has an arithmetic mean of (4.46), indicating that the library allows beneficiaries to access digital resources remotely, irrespective of their location. The lowest arithmetic mean (2.40) was recorded for the first question, indicating the inadequate capacity and speed of the library's internet connections in providing beneficial services.
Figure 10. Table No. (11) shows the analysis of the sample’s answers to the variable (digital justice/digital skills).
The data in Table 11 for analyzing the answers to the (digital skills) dimension indicate that the highest arithmetic mean (4.31) was for the eighth question, indicating the library’s keenness to provide clear guidance to beneficiaries when using various digital systems, such as library databases and electronic indexes. As for the lowest arithmetic mean (2.49), it occurred for the ninth question, indicating the library’s limited tendency to provide a range of educational materials to enhance digital skills among beneficiaries.
Figure 11. Table No. (12) shows the analysis of the sample’s answers to the variable (digital justice/inclusiveness and fairness)
Table 12 presents an analysis of the sample's responses regarding the dimension of inclusiveness and fairness, revealing that the highest arithmetic mean (4.57) corresponds to the twelfth question, which suggests that the library offers digital resources in various languages to cater to the diverse needs of the beneficiary community. The twelfth question, with an arithmetic mean of 4.14, suggests that the library provides digital information that reflects the cultural and social diversity of its beneficiaries. The lowest arithmetic mean (2.17) was recorded for the eleventh question, indicating a deficiency or insufficient consideration of the library for individuals with special needs in the design of its services and resources for beneficiaries.
Figure 12. Table No. (13) shows the analysis of the sample’s answers to the variable (digital justice/technical support and assistance services).
The data in Table (13) for analyzing the sample’s answers to the dimension (technical support and assistance services) indicate that the highest arithmetic mean (4.48) was for the sixteenth question, which indicates the keenness of library workers to provide technical support as quickly as possible to beneficiaries when facing problems in using digital resources, followed by the seventeenth question with an arithmetic mean (4.47), which indicates that the library provides notifications directed to beneficiaries alerting them to cases of malfunctions or maintenance of the digital systems that it provides to beneficiaries.
Figure 13. Table No. (14) Arrangement of dimensions of the variable (digital justice)
Table (14) for the arrangement of the dimensions of the digital justice variable indicates that (technical support and assistance services) obtained first place with a response intensity of (77.8%), followed by the dimension (access to infrastructure) with a response intensity of (74.9), then the dimension (inclusiveness and fairness) with a response intensity of (67.7%), and finally the dimension (digital skills) in fourth and last place with a response intensity of (60.8).
Testing hypotheses about the relationship between two research variables. There are two types of hypotheses:
Suppose the significance level (P-value) is higher than 0.05. In that case, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, indicating that there is no statistically significant relationship between the two research variables. The null hypothesis is rejected if the Sig. (P-value) is less than the significance level of 0.05. The alternative hypothesis, that there is a statistically significant relationship between two of the research variables, is accepted.
3-3-1- Factor Analysis of the Research Variables
The researcher utilised confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the Amos V.24 tool to validate the scales' structural integrity. The aim was to verify that the collected data corresponded with the hypothesised structural model. To assess the model's quality, several metrics were utilised: parameter estimates (weights) must exceed 0.40, and the critical ratio (C.R.) must exceed 1.96 to attain statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Fit indices, notably the Chi-Square test, were utilised to assess the model's overall validity.
The fit indices evaluate the structural model's adequacy and validity. The Chi-Square (2) index is paramount among all indices. Assume the fit index value for the degrees of freedom falls within the permitted range. Consequently, the majority of the other fit index values are also inside the permitted range, as seen in Table 15 below:
Source prepared by the researcher based on Hair et al. (2010).
Based on these indicators, the proposed data model is either accepted or rejected. It is noted that all calculated indicators are consistent with the standard indicators, meaning that the proposed model is consistent with the actual model in application.
Figure 14. Table (16) Confirmatory factor analysis of digital transparency and justice practices
“Source: Prepared by the researcher based on the outputs of the statistical package program” (Amos, 24).
3-3-2- Testing the first hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between transparency practices and digital justice in the library under study.
To test this hypothesis, the researcher used structural equation modeling, as illustrated in the figure below:
Figure 15. Figure No. (2): The relationship between transparency practices and digital justice
“Source: Prepared by the researcher based on the outputs of the statistical package program” (Amos 24).
Based on the statistical analysis, it is clear that transparency practices have a significant and positive impact on digital justice. According to the Table, the standard regression weights (impact parameter) were (0.674), indicating that every one-unit increase in transparency practices leads to a 0.674 unit increase in digital justice.
This effect is further validated by the explanatory coefficient (R2) value that equals 0.45, indicating that transparency practices can explain 45% of the variance in digital justice. In contrast, that 55% is accounted for by other factors not studied here. These results were found to be statistically significant, with the critical value reaching 9.430 and the level of significance reaching 0.019, both indicating that the impact is meaningful and there is acceptance of this hypothesis.
The researcher next performed the following tests to examine how the dimensions of transparency practices affect digital justice:
Figure 16. Figure No. (3): The relationship of influence between (dimensions) of transparency practices and digital justice
Source: Prepared by the researcher based on the outputs of the statistical package program (AMOS 24)
Figure 17. Table No. (18): The relationship of influence between (dimensions) of transparency practices and digital justice
The Table and picture above indicate that the four hypotheses are acceptable.
The analytical findings indicate a substantial and affirmative influence of each dimension of transparency practices (information disclosure, information accessibility, clarity of rules and processes, accountability, and community engagement) on digital justice in the examined library.
· Testing the initial sub-hypothesis about the influence of information disclosure on digital justice.
A good and strong association exists between information sharing and digital justice. The impact parameter (standardised regression weights) was 0.389, indicating that a one-unit increase in information disclosure is associated with a 0.389-unit increase in digital justice. The influence is statistically significant, given that the obtained significance level (0.003) is below the conventional threshold (0.05). The library's offer of transparent, up-to-date information about its services, options, and performance bolsters users' trust and perceptions of fairness in digital transactions.
Testing the Second Sub-Hypothesis: The Influence of Information Accessibility on Digital Justice
Access to information has a beneficial and substantial impact on digital justice. The impact parameter (standardised regression weights) was 0.278, indicating that a one-unit increase in access to information is associated with a 0.278-unit increase in digital justice. This effect is statistically significant (p = 0.027), even more so than the traditional 5% cutoff. The accessibility of information through the library's website, various communication channels, and timely responses to enquiries improve users' perceptions of fairness and trust. The more consumers have access to such information, the greater their perception of fairness in their digital interactions.
Testing Third Sub-Hypothesis: The Impact of Clarity of Policies and Procedures on Digital Justice
It suggests that clarity on policy and process has little, if any, effect on digital justice. The effect parameter (standardised regression weights) was 0.104, and the attained significance level (0.181) was above the conventional significance threshold (0.05). This finding indicates that knowledge hiding behaviour is not significantly affected by the clarity of policies and procedures. As a result, the theory relevant to this dimension is rejected.
· Fourth Sub-Hypothesis Testing (Effect of Accountability on Digital Justice)
Accountability has a positive and significant effect on electronic justice. The particular (standing parameter regression coefficients) of the impact parameter was 0.316, indicating that each 1-unit increment in accountability causes an increase of 0.316 units in the digital justice element scale. The effect is statistically significant, where the p-value (0.005) is below the conventional threshold for significance (0.05). Such a result proves that having a clear, open path for contesting and hearing concerns, treating beneficiaries' voices seriously, and responding to own mistakes are the right practices to help users see the digital relationship with the the library as just.
Assessment of the fifth sub-hypothesis (Community Engagements and Digital Justice)
Community involvement has a positive, significant impact on digital justice. The influence parameter (normalized regression weights) observed was 0.321, meaning that for every unit increase in the predictor variable community engagement, there would be an impact of 0.321 units on digital justice. The effect is statistically significant, with the p-value (0.041) below the commonly accepted significance threshold (0.05). It may also help explain the finding that user engagement in surveys, public release of survey results, consideration of user service improvement suggestions, and attendance at meetings are all factors that strengthen users’ trust and perceptions of fairness in their digital interactions with the library.
Overall Impacts of Transparency Practice Dimensions: Based on the five dimensions of transparency practices, a cumulative 39.4% of the variance in digital justice could be explained (R2 = 39.4). It implies that most of the changes in digital justice can be attributed to adopting these features. The remaining 51.6% is due to factors that were not included in the study model. The findings confirm that transparent policies serve as a crucial stimulus for digital justice within the studied library.
4- Suggestions and Conclusions
1. The study's findings highlight that transparency, with its multiple meanings, is one of the key factors influencing access to digital justice in the library. The fundamentals of transparency—information dissemination, availability, accountability, and community engagement—had a meaningful positive impact on digital equity. All these elements create a trust relationship between the library and the user. By improving transparency and accessibility, addressing user criticism and grievances, and promoting active consumption, the library is democratising the digital landscape. Though the clear delineation of policy had no statistically significant impact, it contributed to a growing share of what could be described as progress towards digital justice. It points out that openness, in the wider sense, is the primary regulator of fairness in digital transactions.
2. The library's methodology for implementing information disclosure procedures is inadequate, especially with the announcement of its services, activities, and forthcoming decisions.
3. The library has established explicit rules and processes, especially for the distribution of pamphlets and booklets to beneficiaries, and the library management provides a detailed description of the protocols for delivering information services.
4. The library administration considers complaints from all beneficiary groups and is committed to investigating their causes and addressing them. Nonetheless, there are deficiencies in the systems for notifying beneficiaries about the actions implemented to address these issues.
5. The library is eager to implement community engagement strategies, namely by including beneficiaries in ongoing surveys on the type and quality of services offered to them.
6. The library offers a digital workspace that meets the needs of its users, enabling them to access online resources.
7. The library offers enough assistance to beneficiaries in utilising its digital services, including databases and electronic catalogues.
8. Library services promote inclusivity and equity for all user demographics by offering digital content that embodies the cultural and socioeconomic variety of its users.
9. The library offers technical support and assistance to patrons, providing prompt access to the necessary technical aid.
10. Transparency policies directly influence the attainment of digital justice in the examined library.
4-2- Recommendations
1. The library should establish a dedicated section on its official website to document all recent changes, emphasising the importance of publicising forthcoming projects to improve transparency in information policies.
2. The library must inform pertinent users of service issues and announce remedial efforts using social media or direct phone calls.
3. The library should provide quarterly or annual reports that include usage metrics and survey findings, which should be disseminated on the library's official website.
4. Establishing beneficiary groups (Library Friends Group) to include them in deliberating on existing or proposed library policies on information services.
5. The library ought to implement a high-speed internet infrastructure to optimise the advantages of this service for beneficiaries.
6. The library ought to establish and implement digital skills training programs for beneficiaries to improve their capacity to use digital information resources and the library's digital services.
7. The library needs to implement methods and services that accommodate the characteristics and requirements of individuals with special needs. In this context, local, Arab, and worldwide experiences may be examined and utilised.
[1] International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, “IFLA Code of Ethics for Librarians and Other Information Workers,” 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11092
[2] American Library Association, “Digital Equity in Libraries,” ALA Policy Brief, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.ala.org/advocacy/broadband/digitalequity
[3] H. Alansari, “Transparency Practices in Academic Library Management: A Case Study in Kuwait,” Library Management, vol. 39, no. 4–5, pp. 278–291, 2018, doi: 10.1108/LM-12-2016-0099.
[4] A. Foster and D. McMenemy, “Transparency and Openness in Public Library Service Delivery,” Public Library Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 226–242, 2019, doi: 10.1080/01616846.2019.1581870.
[5] S. Kim and H. Lee, “Enhancing Transparency in Digital Library Services: A User-Centered Approach,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 47, no. 5, p. 102403, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102403.
[6] P. T. Jaeger and J. C. Bertot, “Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating User-Centered and Equitable Digital Library Services,” The Library Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 83–108, 2011, doi: 10.1086/657444.
[7] Y. Zhang and S. Kudva, “E-Quality and Digital Inclusion: Policy and Practice in Public Libraries,” Library Trends, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 237–253, 2014, doi: 10.1353/lib.2014.0016.
[8] A. N. Gibson, S. Bertot, P. T. Jaeger, and C. McClure, “Libraries on the Frontlines: Neutrality and Social Justice,” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 751–766, 2017, doi: 10.1108/EDI-11-2016-0100.
[9] S. Corrall, “Transparency and Openness in Academic Libraries: Ethics and Implications,” Library Trends, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 386–405, 2019, doi: 10.1353/lib.2019.0003.
[10] H. Zhou and S. Pi, “Organizational Transparency and Employee Engagement in Academic Libraries,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 47, no. 1, p. 102299, 2021.
[11] A. Smith, K. Thompson, and M. Lee, “Digital Equity in Libraries: Leveraging Technology to Bridge the Divide,” Library Management, vol. 42, no. 4–5, pp. 313–327, 2021, doi: 10.1108/LM-09-2020-0138.
[12] S. J. Piotrowski and G. G. Van Ryzin, “Citizen Attitudes Toward Transparency in Local Government,” The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 111–124, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0275074019877911.
[13] G. E. Evans and P. L. Ward, Leadership in Academic Libraries Today: Connecting Users, Institutions, and Communities. Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2020.
[14] A. S. Sife and E. T. Lwoga, “Digital Transparency in Academic Libraries: Current Practices and Emerging Trends,” Information Development, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 467–478, 2022, doi: 10.1177/02666669211016777.
[15] OECD, Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2017, doi: 10.1787/9789264268104-en.
[16] Transparency International, Transparency in Public Administration. Berlin, Germany: Transparency International, 2014.
[17] UNESCO, “Towards Access to Information for All by 2030,” UNESCO Publishing, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373722
[18] UNESCO, “Access to Information: A Key to Building Knowledge Societies,” UNESCO Publishing, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000371489
[19] N. Evans and M. Schneider, “Organizational Transparency and Library Policies: Increasing Patron Engagement,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 573–579, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.07.004.
[20] S. G. Grimmelikhuijsen, G. Porumbescu, B. Hong, and T. Im, “Transparency and Trust in Government: A Cross-National Comparative Experiment,” Public Administration Review, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 575–586, 2013, doi: 10.1111/puar.12047.
[21] L. Robinson, H. Cotten, J. Ono, A. Quan-Haase, G. Mesch, W. Chen, and J. Schulz, “Digital Inequalities and Why They Matter,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 569–582, 2015, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532.
[22] L. Robinson, “Digital Inequalities 2.0: New Challenges and Opportunities,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 940–957, 2022, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1962949.
[23] K. M. Hoffman, N. Wallace, and J. Davis, “Advancing Digital Equity in Academic Libraries: Strategies for Inclusion and Access,” College & Research Libraries, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 567–586, 2022, doi: 10.5860/crl.83.4.567.
[24] UNESCO, Accountability in Education: Meeting Our Commitments. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375706
[25] UNESCO, Global Education Monitoring Report: Technology in Education – A Tool on Whose Terms? Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384438
[26] OECD, Digital Economy Outlook 2020: Shaping Policies for Digital Transformation. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2021, doi: 10.1787/69096873-en.
[27] European Commission, “2030 Digital Compass: The European Way for the Digital Decade,” Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2775/060204
[28] L. Czerniewicz, N. Agherdien, J. Badenhorst, D. Belluigi, T. Chambers, M. Chili, M. de Villiers, A. Felix, S. Gachago, S. Gokhale, C. Ivala, H. Kramm, B. Marshall, M. Prinsloo, P. Solomon, S. Strydom, B. Swanepoel, T. Waghid, and A. Walker, “A Wake-Up Call: Equity, Inequality and Covid-19 Emergency Remote Teaching in Higher Education,” Postdigital Science and Education, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 946–967, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4.
[29] E. Van Laar, A. J. Van Deursen, J. A. Van Dijk, and J. De Haan, “Determinants of 21st-Century Skills and 21st-Century Digital Skills for Workers: A Systematic Literature Review,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 103, pp. 109–123, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106139.
[30] Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, “The State of Broadband 2021: People-Centred Approaches for Universal Broadband,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://broadbandcommission.org/publication/state-of-broadband-2021/
[31] A. P. Bishop and N. A. Van House, “Digital Services and Community Support in Libraries: Understanding the Human Infrastructure,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 659–672, 2020, doi: 10.1002/asi.24309.
[32] J. F. Hair Jr., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. London, UK: Pearson Education, 2010.