An understanding of the Digital Environment
and how it is related to libraries is undertaken in the critiquing of three
articles each offering different perspectives.
In the first, Anderson (2007a) attempts to find an academic framework
within which to analyze “Web 2.0” and “Library 2.0”. Missingham (2009) describes the Australian
experience in encouraging participation in the digital economy and digital
citizenship through a national initiative – the Electronic Resources Australia
(ERA) and finally the State Government of Victoria (2012) takes the question to
a local level in asking what the role of its libraries will be in this digital
future.
Summaries:
Anderson,
P. (2007a). 'All That Glisters Is Not Gold’ — Web 2.0 And The Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information
Science, 39(4), 195–198.
In his article Anderson (2007a) examines the
concept of Web 2.0 and how this relates to the librarian. He begins with
a history and some definitions of Web 2.0. He then proposes a three-part
framework within which to scaffold discussions around how Web 2.0 impacts the
library. These can roughly be summarized
as services / applications, the “six big ideas” and technologies /
standards.
Services / applications include software and
social networking. The “Six Big Ideas”
are the principles underpinning the Internet in its current form as outlined by
O’Reilly (2005): “individual production and user generated content; harnessing
the power of the crowd; data on an epic scale; the architecture of
participation; network effects and openness”. (Anderson 2007a, p.196). The
final aspect is the technology and accepted standards that underlie the
services and applications. In his
article “What is Web 2.0“, Anderson, (2007b) further elaborates on this framework in general
with specific focus on implications for libraries from page 36.
Missingham,
R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship. Special issue on the ALIA Public Libraries
Summit 2009, 58(4), 386.
In her article, Missingham
(2009) describes the history and status of Australian use of technology with
comparative statistics to the UK and Canada.
She gives a background to the creation of ERA and justifies the need of
Australians for access to the types of information purchased by the ERA
consortium in order to participate in the “digital economy”. This view has a foundation in the four benefits to narrowing the digital divide in a society: economic
equality, social mobility, democracy and economic growth (Internet World Stats,2012).
The
final part of her article examines the role of libraries in supporting access
to digital resources, not only as subscribers to the ERA, but also in helping
the community develop (digital) literacy skills. She concludes by touching on issues relating
to the digital divide in Australia, including connectivity, content issues and
the capability of users. The primary
problems highlighted by her concern the gap between rural and metropolitan areas,
affordability of services and literacy levels.
Ministerial
Advisory Council on Public Libraries. (2012). Tomorrow’s Library: DiscussionPaper. State Government of Victoria.
This discussion paper initiates the first
part of a review of the role and function of public libraries in the State of
Victoria, Australia in order to determine future strategic directions. In the document four dimensions of libraries
are covered: Collections, resources and programs; Library buildings;
Technology; and Service delivery. In each, the topic is introduced with
challenges they pose now and in the future and feedback in the form of answers
to questions is requested of stakeholders.
Critique:
Anderson’s framework is very useful when
reading articles concerning Web 2.0 and Library 2.0. One can quickly put an article or research in
context. For example Xu, Ouyang and Chu
(2009) in "The Academic Library Meets Web 2.0" focuses mainly on the first part of the
framework in surveying the websites of 81 academic libraries in the State of
New York and neglects any discussion of “big ideas” or technologies and
standards. On the other hand in “ComingTogether around Library 2.0” Miller (2006) concentrates more on the impact of
the “big ideas” quoting Ian Davis who said “Web 2.0 an attitude, not a
technology" and makes a plea for integrating “library stuff” into normal
workflows of library users.
However, no matter how useful a framework may
be, unless other researchers adopt it as some kind of standard, its relevance
may be questioned. In reviewing the
literature on Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 it appears that after a flurry of
research and articles in the years 2005-2007 academic interest in that aspect
of the topic seems to have waned.
Perhaps research was overtaken by the practicalities of implementing the
new technologies, the specifics of integrating systems and licensing matters
and dealing with their day-to-day issues.
It can be argued that the framework would have relevance at some point
in doing a meta-analysis and literature review of the Web / Library 2.0
literature in the early 21st century.
Anderson opens the point of entry for a
discussion of the other two papers when he says: “much of the discussion can
often be seen in the context of the wider public debate concerning the
operation of public services in a modern, technology-rich environment in which
user expectations have rapidly changed (Crawford, 2006), rather than Web 2.0 per se.” (Anderson, 2007b, p. 36)
We now move to the provision of public
services in the form of the establishment of the ERA, (Missingham, 2009) and
the specific instance of Victoria Public Libraries. Underlying Missingham’s
paper are references to the “digital divide”. The term “digital divide” is very broad and she only touches on aspects
of it in a rather unstructured manner, with consideration of “access” in
between a “content” discussion, (p. 389) and “literacy” in between the
examination of the importance of “access” (p. 395) and little reference to
local research such as that of Black and Atkinson (2007) who cover the
arguments and literature surrounding the digital divide in Australia very
well. For a better framework to this
concept, Warschauer (2003) uses the rubrics of: Physical Resources (computers
and connectivity); Digital Resources (content and language); Human Resources
(literacy and education) and Social Resources (communities and
institutions). Framing her discussion in
this way would have led to a more coherent argument. Further, her evidence of the divide is
anecdotal in the form of selective quotations from submissions to a Senate
enquiry (pages 389-390). Her argument
could have been better served by reference to data such as that generated by
Ewing and Thomas (2010), for example, “home access by income” and “use by
location”, illustrated in the graphs below.
 |
| (Ewing and Thomas, 2010, The Internet in Australia. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, p.10) |
 |
| (Ewing and Thomas, 2010, The Internet in Australia. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, p.3) |
A shortcoming in
the traditional writings on digital divide is the neglect of the concept of
“digital natives” versus “digital immigrants”.
Reading the essays collected in “The digital Divide” (Bauerlein, 2011),
one has to conclude that all the above papers’ authors are “digital
immigrants” - a term coined by Marc Prensky in 2001. This is further
exposed when one contrasts what is being said and done on the Internet versus
in the libraries and written about in academic literature. For example Harradine (2012) reports on the introduction of eBooks into the Western Australia Public library system. Her article echoes the earlier
experiences in the USA with initial slow take-up by patrons and friction
between the publishing companies and libraries (Zickuhr,Rainie, Purcell, Madden, & Brenner, 2012). Australian reporting on eResources could
benefit by looking at worldwide trends in more technical savvy countries. In contrast, when browsing forums concerning
eBooks in Australia, it would appear that patrons step boldly where libraries
fear to tread, with early adopters paying to join libraries in the USA and
Singapore in order to borrow eBooks that are not available in their local
libraries. These are potentially lost
patrons who would not even appear on the radar of the librarians who are
complaining about the lack of interest in digital services.
Neither Missingham nor the discussion paper
consider the potential “leapfrogging” of terminals and desktop computer
ubiquity and use as a result of the uptake in mobile devices such as tablets
and smart phones. Carlucci Thomas (2012) writes
about the need for libraries to follow patrons in providing new mobile services. She posits that adoption of
mobile devices is driving the interest in eBooks in the USA where, since May
2011, eBooks outsold print books for the first time on Amazon. Another digital native librarian -
self-described “Edupunk” - Travis (2012)
demonstrates in her blog that cost need not be an obstacle in providing
services and Greenhill (2012) echoes this sentiment for the Australian market,
highlighting extra-legal “free and easy” aspects to obtaining digital
information which librarians need to be aware of.
The Year Book Australia, (2012) in launching
its National Year of Reading makes some very astute statements about the
changing roles of libraries from being simple repositories of reading materials
to being the point of contact for the acquisition of information for all
community members “with a focus on the most disadvantaged”. Emphasis is given
in this initiative to a wide range of materials both in print and online
gleamed from a range of collaborative partnerships.
If one reads the State Government of Victoria
discussion paper in conjunction with the Australian Public Library Statistics(2010-2011), it seems to be a rather shameful exercise in the selective use of
statistics and quotations. For example
in the discussion on technology, they state
“78.6% of libraries provide a computer lab / Internet area.” The more relevant statistic would be that
Victoria only has 3.62 public access Internet terminals per 10,000 persons,
which is one of the lowest in Australia and lags the National average of 4.43,
and other states such as South Australia (8.11) (Australian Public Library
Statistics, 2012, p.20).
 |
| (Public & Indigenous Library Services State Library of Queensland. (2012). Australian Public Libraries Statistical Report 2010-2011. p.20) |
This is not surprising when you dig further
and see that there was no spending on electronic resources in libraries at all
in the years 2007 to 2010 (ibid. p.19) for the State of Victoria, with a huge
catch up spend in 2010-11.
 |
| (Public & Indigenous Library Services State Library of Queensland. (2012). Australian Public Libraries Statistical Report 2010-2011. p.18) |
The report is very inwardly focused and does
not even make reference to what is happening in the rest of Australia, not to
speak of internationally, and could quite possibly be an exercise in
reinventing the wheel. Their internal focus is astounding, referring to a
“borderless library” and in the same breath speaking of “across the state (of
Victoria)” rather than referring to the rest of the country or the world.
A visit to the website of Victoria State
Library shows it doesn’t even mention eResources on their home
page and one has to dig four levels down to find them. In contrast the
National Library has a well developed website for eResources and the State Library of Western Australia appears to have a more developed policy and methodology for the loaning
of eBooks. Unlike their counterparts
nationally and in other states there is no friendly “how to” video or tutorial
on the use of eResources.
In the discussion on Library buildings, it is
important to learn from the experience of libraries further along the
eResources curve, who find that some patrons visit the library less and access more
remotely and that the location, nature and use of libraries has changed
substantially (Zickuhr etal, 2012). In the report, service
delivery, including workforce is dealt with separately to technology, although
one of the challenges lies in an ageing public library workforce, whom, one may
assume are not digital natives.
Conclusion:
All three authors seem to suffer somewhat
from the mindset of “build it, and they
will come”. Anderson has a useful framework that doesn’t appear to have been
widely adopted. Missingham discusses the
ERA that in conjunction with the National broadband Network (NBN), will provide
the physical and electronic resources for the digital economy, but doesn’t
address how the human and social resources aspects will be adapted to optimize
their use. The State Government of Victoria is embarking on an old fashioned
and potentially extensive, expensive and long term exercise, with the risk that
it is redundant before it’s finished.
This is in complete contrast to one of the key “big ideas” of Web 2.0,
which is living life in a perpetual state of Beta. Finally one has to resort to the most
important question, which is whether any of these articles contribute to
enhancing the operation of public services.
Reference List and Bibliography:
Anderson, P. (2007a). 'All ThatGlisters Is Not Gold’ — Web 2.0 And The Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195–198.
Anderson, P. (2007b). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, February 2007.
Australian Bureau of Statistics.
(2012). 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012. The National Year of Reading: Libraries
Helping to make Australia a Nation of Readers.
Berners-Lee on the read/write web.
(2005). BBC.
Black, R., & Atkinson, J.
(2007). Addressing the Digital Divide in Rural Australia. Presented at the
Australian World Wide Web (AusWeb) Conference, Lismore, Australia: Southern
Cross University Printery.
Burke, J. J. (2009). Neal-Schuman Library Technology Companion
(Third Edition.). Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Carlucci Thomas, L. (2010). Gone mobile? (Mobile Libraries Survey 2010). Library
Journal.
Carlucci Thomas, L. (2012). The State of Mobile in Libraries 2012 - The Digital Shift.
Carlucci Thomas, L. (2012). The State of Mobile in Libraries 2012 - The Digital Shift.
Digital Divide - ICT Information
Communications Technology - 50x15 Initiative. (2012). Internet World Stats.
Dudley, E. (2009). Editorial: Lines
of Communication. Journal of
Librarianship and Information Science, 41(3), 131–134.
EBook Library (EBL): State Library of Western Australia. (2012).
Greenhill, K. (2012). No library required: the free and easy backwaters of online content sharing. In VALA2012 CONCURRENT SESSION 11: Digitisation.
Presented at the VALA2012, Melbourne, Australia.
Harradine, N. (2012). Libraries begin lending e-books to members - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting
Corporation).
Leonard, C. (2007). Competing in a Google world. Connections.
Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the New Library. Ariadne: Web Magazine
for Information Professionals, (45).
Miller, P. (2006). Coming Together around Library 2.0. D-Lib Magazine,
12(4).
Ministerial Advisory Council on
Public Libraries. (2012). Tomorrow’s Library: Discussion Paper. State
Government of Victoria.
Missingham, R. (2009). Encouragingthe digital economy and digital citizenship. Special issue on the ALIA Public Libraries Summit 2009, 58(4), 386.
Needleman, M. (2007). Web 2.0/Lib2.0—What Is It? (If It’s Anything at All). ScienceDirect.com - Serials Review, 33(3), 202–203.
Norris, P. (2012). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement,Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University
Press.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.
Palmer, C. (2012). NBN pricing critical as digital divide deepens. The
Conversation.
Patty, A. (2010). City-rural divide hits computer literacy. The Sydney
Morning Herald.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon
(MCB University Press), 9(5).
Public & Indigenous Library
Services State Library of Queensland. (2012). Australian Public Libraries Statistical Report 2010-2011.
Richtel, M. (2012). New “Digital Divide” Seen in Wasting Time Online - NYTimes.com.
Ewing, S. & Thomas, J. (2010).
The Internet in Australia. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and
Innovation.
Travis, T. (2011). Edupunk goes mobile: Mobile library sites with zero budget « Tiffinianne’s Blog.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion : rethinking the digital divide. The MIT Press.
Xu, C., Ouyang, F., & Chu, H.
(2009). The Academic Library Meets Web 2.0: Applications and Implications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
35(4), 324–331.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.04.003
Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell,
K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). Libraries, patrons, and e-books. Pew
Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
