These communities possess deep, contextualized knowledge and agency, often engaging in purposeful, thoughtful practices to develop their own alternative information infrastructures to navigate, resist, protect themselves, and adapt to these exclusions. To better understand how information exclusion operates, we draw on existing scholarship and our direct work with marginalized communities. At the heart of this discussion is the concept of information precarity, which describes the systemic ways that access to needed, useful information can be hindered for traditionally under-served individuals and groups.

Early information science theories implied that marginalized communities lacked good information due to their own shortcomings. In contrast, information precarity recognizes that there are often bigger structural, social, economic, and cultural forces at work.

Information precarity is “the politically induced, systemically enforced conditions through which marginalized populations experience unstable, insecure and unreliable access to and literacies of information, exacerbating their underlying/existing social, political, legal, and economic vulnerability and exacerbating inequity.” Thus, information precarity arises from the fundamental interdependence between institutions and individuals as a condition shaped by political and social forces, making marginalization inherently systemic and information infrastructures unjust.

In other words, the barriers that people encounter in one area branch out like a rhizome, creating complex interconnections of challenges and disruptions across multiple other areas, including information. For example, in the U.S., public schools are generally funded mostly by local property taxes. A low-income neighborhood is likely to generate lower tax revenue, reducing funding for the nearby schools. This, in turn, will affect teacher recruitment, the range of educational materials (such as textbooks), and the capacity to build or renovate the school facilities. Consequently, limiting students’ opportunities to access support systems, academic success, and economic freedom, resulting in heightened precarity. In this rhizomatic web of vulnerability, limited education opportunities created by the tax scheme lead to reduced economic well-being, further entrenching systemic inequities. The interconnectedness between the sociopolitical, economic, and cultural environment creates a dynamic that maintains people’s vulnerability through policies, institutions, assumptions, and the cultural narratives that shape how we view marginalized groups.

Structuring Equitable Partnerships

Researchers, governments, and organizations alike have increasingly advocated for multistakeholder engagement with marginalized communities. However, these so-called partnerships often lead to short-term collaborations that provide minimal lasting benefits to marginalized communities. Very often these partnerships are prescriptive and dominated by the most powerful stakeholders, leaving marginalized communities with little influence, agency, or lasting benefit. To build collaborations that promote fair and balanced information exchange, we need to take several steps.

First and foremost, we must recognize that the problem is structural and multifaceted, rooted in information precarity. This means that information infrastructures can be experienced differently by different people, because they are created by and for the dominant social groups, creating a misalignment between state policies, institutions, and marginalized populations’ needs. Mainstream information infrastructures that create information barriers in one area trigger widespread, interconnected challenges in other areas. Information barriers are contextual conditions that limit an individual’s ability to access, use, or share information within the official information infrastructures. For example, if information about voting registration is only available online and/or in English, many potential voters will be disenfranchised. That is why a policy can be experienced as an opportunity for some people while a barrier for others.

Second, we must also understand that marginalized communities already work to address these misalignments, engaging in proactive practices where they used their own contextual knowledge to adapt and modify infrastructures in to align with their specific needs or tasks through alternative infrastructures. Beyond just technical adjustments, these practices also helped bridge social and emotional gaps, fostering deeper interpersonal connections and better supporting their emotional needs connections between communities. Thus, local community organizations are capable of addressing many of the challenges caused by information precarity; their roles as experts in their community and their own experiences need to be recognized with equitable partnerships.

Third, it’s important to recognize that these communities may not aim to “integrate” into mainstream/official infrastructures, as doing so would perpetuate a system that has already failed them. They may choose to engage in protective practices to avoid being part of systems that are racist, ableist, or otherwise marginalizing. Therefore, the collaborative process must ensure that historically marginalized communities have the agency to shape the process, make decisions, and influence the outcomes.

In conclusion, equitable partnerships require more than just collaboration—they demand a commitment to shift our focus from a poverty model to understanding the pervasive, interconnectedness, and systemic nature of inequality.

We need to abandon the expectation that marginalized communities should integrate into a dominant system that has historically rejected them -at least until the system becomes genuinely welcoming. We need to visibilize and strengthen the alternative information infrastructures they have already built. As researchers and practitioners, this requires embracing transformational approaches, developing cultural competencies, and fostering reciprocal learning where knowledge flows both ways rather than being extracted or imposed. We need to redefine success based on community-driven priorities rather than institutional metrics. Ultimately, transformative partnerships are as much about reshaping our own perspectives as they are about supporting community-driven solutions.

[1] , e.g., digital inclusion initiatives, university-led research projects, and library outreach programs.