Wednesday, March 28, 2012

A Critical Review of Encouraging the Digital Economy and Digital Citizenship by Roxanne Missingham


Missingham’s paper contains useful specific information and a helpful overview of one aspect of Australia’s digital divide[1], along with a suggested remedy. The title appears to promise a very comprehensive review, but in fact the article is primarily about the role of libraries in dealing with inequality of access to quality content.
.
fig. 1) Bourke Public Library: a rural PL
The opening sections suggest that while Australians appear to have reasonable access to internet services, this is true only of the capital cities. Anecdotal evidence is presented to highlight the difficulties of access in remote rural communities (Missingham 2009, p. 389). The opening section also explains Missingham’s belief that in the modern digital era, citizens need access to internet services, useful content and ICT training. 
.
The argument is thus primed, and in the remaining sections she presents a case for libraries to address all three of these areas. While the infrastructure for internet services is being slowly rolled out by the Federal Government, she argues that libraries should be used to provide community access to the internet, especially in rural areas (2009, p.395). She also argues that training should not only be provided for librarians but that libraries are ideal places for training to be offered to the local community. 
.
fig. 2) Bourke PL on Facebook
The issue of appropriate content takes up a considerable section of her paper (pages 388-394). She argues that quality information to support education and other aspects of citizenship are not readily available on freely accessed web pages and that the Federal Government ought to be helping with access to costly databases of quality content. She then goes on to explain that even though the Federal Government declined to do this, a consortium of library organisations has created ERA (Electronic Resources Australia) which aims to use their combined purchase power to secure discounted access to these resources. This is certainly a commendable endeavour, and as evidence of its success the NSW State Library has made extensive “pay for” databases free to every citizen of NSW (NSW State Library n.d.).
.

Missingham’s paper establishes a theme that she continues to address in later publications. For instance a paper titled “E-Government” published in 2011 approaches the idea of digital citizenship from the other end: the point of view of the parliamentarian, and their need to be digitally connected and available to constituents. While it is hard to fault her argument in the paper under review, the weight given to the ERA section makes the overall argument feel a little unbalanced. 
.

There is a larger omission, though again it does not invalidate her argument. There is more than one reason in Australia for a digital divide, and Missingham focuses mainly on the urban vs. rural aspect. Lloyd, Lipu and Kennan (2010) give an initial analysis suggesting that new arrivals to Australia may experience a similar digital divide and go on to propose further research. As well as the obvious factors of poverty and language, they outline the complex possibility that there may be cultural inhibitions that explain why some new arrivals do not become digitally active. Another area that Missingham could have addressed is the combination of poverty, rural isolation and cultural alienation that is likely to be restricting access by Indigenous Australians to digital resources… and one might suggest that this is another area where culturally sensitive library services could be a great benefit (McCallum, K and Papandrea, F 2009). 
.
While it may be unfair to judge a 2009 paper by a 2012 World Wide Web, Missingham’s case for the need for every citizen to be able to access special databases of scholarly journals and reliable records may be overstated. These materials by and large are formal and may be inaccessible due to academic tone and language. It goes without saying it is a good thing to have access to these materials, but there are other options. Good and reliable information is available on the internet via freely offered resources such as Google Books, websites created by authorities in many areas (hospitals, Fire Brigade, government) and in the Web 2.0 environment being digitally connected to other people via Facebook or even email means one can ask for recommended links. 
.
Australia does indeed face significant challenges in providing equality of access for all citizens to the benefits of the digital world. Missingham directs the reader’s attention to the importance of content, connection and training, and provides at least one example of how libraries have provided a vital service in bridging the digital divide.


[1] Digital Divide is a term that came into usage in the 1990s to refer to uneven distribution of access to new media (Tsatsou 2011, p.318)

References
  • Burke, J (2009) Neal-Schuman Library Technology Companion (3rd ed). New York : Neal-Schuman
  • ERA (n.d.) Retrieved from http://era.nla.gov.au/  
  • McCallum, K and Papandrea, F (2009) Community business: the internet in remote Australian Indigenous communities. New Media Society 11: 1230. DOI: 10.1177/1461444809342059  
  • Lloyd, A., Lipu, S., & Kennan, M.A. (2010). On becoming citizens: examining social inclusion from an information perspective. Australian Academic and Research Libraries 41(1): 42-53 
  • Missingham, R (2009) Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship. The Australian Library Journal, November: 386-399  
  • Missingham, R (2011) E-parliament: Opening the door. Government Information Quarterly 28(3): 426–434 Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.006  
  • NSW State Library (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www2.sl.nsw.gov.au/databases/athome.cfm  
  • Tsatsou, P (2011) Digital divides revisited: what is new about divides and their research? Media Culture Society 33: 317, DOI: 10.1177/0163443710393865
Figures 1&2  retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bourke-Public-Library/120402079114
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

A Critical Review of Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World by Fred Heath

Fred Heath is Director of the University of Texas Libraries (Vice Provost n.d.) described as one of America’s largest (Libraries Replacing Books 2005). In this paper he outlines the changes in these libraries in response to the Web (2007 p.524).

The text is appealing as it is written in the first person, and cheerfully addresses the reader as “you”. It is similar in tone to Heath’s 2011 paper on Library Assessment which was delivered as a speech (2011, p.7). The argument progresses clearly and is reflected in the sub-headings.

Heath considers the impact of the Web on newspapers and other industries, suggesting rather gloomily that the majority of these enterprises are simply now trying to survive the challenges of the digital age without having an effective plan (2007, pp. 520-524). He suggests many academic libraries are in this position, but proceeds to outline the strategies in place at the University of Texas (UT).

He seems to overstate the negative case for other industries, as some have grasped the fact that existing content is not irrelevant to the modern marketplace, it simply needs to be framed and available in new formats[1]. Interestingly this insight, applied to libraries, appears in the conclusion: “Old vessels, such as books and journals, often confused by librarians with the information that they contained…” (Heath 2007, p.531).

Despite the positive steps that UT libraries have taken, a larger problem looms. He refers to the rapidity of change and ability of new ventures to move to pre-eminence in a short time (Heath 2007, p.524). He then observes that “our system of academic library services is instinctively inertial”. As the library is simply massive in terms of holdings, it is inevitably less agile. 

(A "how to" video posted by the UT Library on YouTube)

The developments in the UT library are significant, though questions arise about some. The library is developing courses for undergraduates that focus on the general skills of locating information and critical analysis. At the time of the paper these appear to still be taught face to face: by 2012 however, students expect to access courses online[2]. It is pleasing to see from a search of the UT Libraries website that students can now do online classes which are recorded (UT Library Lesson 2010). 
fig. 1) from the UT Libraries homepage

An apparently simple change to the library’s web page reflects a core change of view: a search box is available from the home page, and this can be directed not only to the university’s collection but also to Google Books. Heath explains this in terms of the library focussing on facilitating access to data. This may be a step towards using Google rather than formal cataloguing (Calhoun, 2006 in Waller, 2008).
fig. 2) Extreme archiving at the new
Univesity of Chicago Library

The library still has massive holdings. Some collections have been combined, and physical collections are frozen at current levels (Heath 2007 p.527). The space is intended for study and meeting spaces. The point here is to avoid replication while focussing resources on specialised collections (e.g. human rights abuses in the modern world) that will attract academics (2007, p.528). This is consistent with the idea that “in the digital world, libraries are becoming more involved in the creation …of knowledge” (Lougee 2002, p.iv). UT is collaborating with other universities to provide appropriate web publishing for dissertations.
Heath presents a strong case for action by academic libraries to ensure that their expertise and treasures can be utilised by students who expect much more in the digital age than a catalogue of books. Such ventures may not all work, but even failures based on clearly articulated strategies indicate new opportunities. Paul Anderson suggested libraries needed to “experiment and take risks” (2007, p196) and Heath’s paper suggests a number of ways this is actually happening.

[1] A current example of this process is the development by the ABC in Australia of iView, a web portal and iPad app where virtually all programmed content is available free for two weeks after it is aired.
[2] In a conversation with Dr James Dalziel of Macquarie University in 2012 he shared his perception that undergraduate students now expected all lectures to be videotaped (as they are at Macquarie) and to be able to access them at any time day or night.

References
Figure 1 retrieved from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/ (cropped screen cap)
Figure 2 retrieved from http://futuresavvy.net/2011/07/books-are-the-widgets/
Video is a link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIUX2Qef7Xw
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

A Critical Review of ‘All That Glisters Is Not Gold’ – Web 2.0 and the Librarian by Paul Anderson

Anderson writes at a particular moment in the history of Web 2.0 three years after the term was coined (2007b, p195). He suggests that discussions about the impact on libraries were generalised and would benefit from a framework such as his relatively modest proposal (2007b, p196)[1]. He does not attempt to define ‘Library 2.0’ though he notes others have (2007b, p196). His framework is based on his own previous work on Web 2.0 (2007a).

He points out that explanations of Web 2.0 often consist of lists of web services, and derives from this his first aspect, the “surface” of Web 2.0 (2007b, 196). It is unclear how such lists constitute a framework, but perhaps he is pointing out that discussions may be about specific instances. These sites are simply exemplars of the second aspect, “Six Big Ideas” (2007b, p.196) which are:
  •  Individuals produce and contribute content
  • Collective knowledge 
  • Massive Data repositories 
  • Architecture of Participation
  • Network effects
  • Openness
 He suggests the third aspect of Web 2.0 discussions should be about technical protocols[2].
 This is a rather complex view of a “framework”. Rather than suggesting three “aspects” it would have been simpler to refer to the robust “Six Ideas” while pointing out that discussions may include specific sites, applications or technologies. His six points may also oversimplify what was originally a broad idea presented by O’Reilly (2005). The complexity of O’Reilly’s ideas may be judged by looking at his “meme map” shown to the right (click to enlarge).
  
Anderson then points out aspects of Web 2.0 that will impact libraries. He firstly notes the idea of libraries extending beyond their physical boundaries (2007b, p196), though misses the larger idea that libraries may well become places of facilitation rather than repository. He also notes that librarians will be able to deploy social networking sites to encourage reading and involvement (Melbourne Library Service (2012) is one example).
  
His comments on “perpetual ‘beta[3]’” introduce the idea that we are involved in ever faster change. (This has led some futurists to the extreme concept of a singularity event, (Kurzweil 2009)). Business and service organisations are struggling to keep abreast. A second and insightful comment follows: librarians may need to learn how to “experiment and take risks” (Anderson 2007b, p196).
Finally he makes a significant proposal. Libraries have long held to a central ethic of respecting privacy and supporting copyright (see Houghton and Berryman, 2007, pp.270-71), and he proposes that libraries can make a contribution by enunciating their concerns when technologies blithely ignore these ethical areas[4].
  
Anderson’s article was a timely contribution to a developing discussion. He suggested the need for more formal articles and proposed a framework for further discussion based on Web 2.0 concepts. While it may have been sounder to focus on the Big Six Ideas rather than the superimposed Three Aspects, the ideas themselves are indeed at the heart of changes taking place, and his further comments on areas of interest to libraries show some helpful insights.

[1] Anderson himself refers to the rate of change of technology as one of the hallmarks of Web 2.0 (2007, p196) and indeed it now seems that technologies can emerge and become pre-eminent in astoundingly short time frames. As an example, while Apple product sales data is hard to get, Apple did report over 37 million iPhones sold in the financial quarter ending December 2011 (Apple Reports, 2012). This product was first announced in June 2007 just a few months prior to Anderson’s article being published.  Mobile devices don’t feature in Anderson’s overview, and the iPad launched in 2010 is likely to have an even more significant impact on libraries.
[2] . It is interesting to note his inclusion of Flash … to prove his point about rapidity of change Adobe has announced it is not going to develop Flash further (Flash Focus, 2011).
[3] A beta test occurs when a version of software (or a web site) is released to the public or a limited group of participants in order to seek further error reports and allow for improvements prior to full scale launching. The phrase here takes on the meaning of constant upgrades.
[4] This case is now famously highlighted by Google’s astonishing efforts to create Google Books by scanning and publishing the complete content of the Harvard library without first obtaining author’s and publisher’s permission… a project that the Harvard library was obviously complicit with (Google Books History 2011).








References


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Location: Castle Hill NSW 2154, Australia
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)