Sunday, December 18, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship
For my very first assignment, I have been asked to review a 2009 article called "Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship" by
Roxanne Missingham (2009) from Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.
The article stems from a presentation given by Missingham at the ALIA Public Libraries Summit in Canberra in July 2009 when she argues that libraries are helping Australians to become more digitally capable but that there are challenges to be faced. She also talks about the Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) – what it is, how it was established and why - and the importance of a secure, high speed broadband network across Australia.
Missingham sees the challenges for many Australian when wanting to participate in the digital environment as being ‘skills, access, accessibility and digital resources’.
Missingham uses statistics from he Australia's Digital Economy: Future Directions - Final Report to illustrate the challenges of access and accessibility. These statistics show that while Australia compares favourably with the UK and Canada in terms of household access to the internet, it lags behind when considering household and business broadband use. The statistics used in the report are from the 2007 ABS statistics. Recent 2008-09 ABS statistics show that broadband access in homes has increased (2009).
What the more recent statistics confirm however for Missingham’s argument is that people outside of metropolitan areas or in low income households still lack broadband access compared to other Australians.
Similarly 2010 OECD data shows the rate of Australian households with broadband access has improved (63.7%) but still has a way to catch countries like Norway and Sweden (both 82.6%) and Denmark (80.1%).
Missingham highlights the frustrations felt by people living in rural and regional areas in Australia by quoting case studies from the Senate Environment, Communications, Information technology and Arts Reference Committee’s 2003 inquiry into the role of the libraries in the online environment. The complaints of these people back Missingham’s four stated challenges.
Missingham goes to outline how in 2003 the Senate Committee mentioned above made a number of recommendations for the National Library of Australia (NLA) to be funded federally to identify key databases which national site licensing could be used for. In the following years, four National Licensing Proposal/National Site Licence Forums were organised by the NLA to help the library industry to work together. The ERA was launched. According to their website the ERA is ‘a consortia for Australian libraries for collaborative purchasing of electronic resources’.
Resources on the Internet can vary in quality, usefulness and accuracy. Quality resources can often have charges attached to them, such as subscribing to a journal. Missingham says ‘digital citizenship is a fundamental concept for modern democracies’ (2009, p392). She goes on to outline how libraries help Australians to access quality online information through such things as the ERA.
Missingham discusses why it is important for people to have access to information by looking at ABS statistics that show illiteracy is a significant issue in Australia. This illiteracy not only covers the basic ability to read and write but also cognitive document literacy which enable people to process and use information in meaningful way. Missingham argues that libraries are important factors in lifting literacy levels by providing information and digital literacy programs.
As mentioned, Missingham believes there are three barriers to Australians accessing digital information – connectivity, content and capacity.
Missingham sees that National Broadband Network as being saviour to issues of low access to and use of broadband. This argument is lacking somewhat and needs further discussion. As Don Perlgut (2011) argues, there is more to a low uptake of broadband than just access. He quotes American research figures that show 36% of Americans who haven’t connected to broadband have not done so because of cost while 22% say they lack digital literacy and 19% say broadband is not relevant to their lives. Missingham addresses the issue of literacy in her article but not cost and relevancy.
Missingham sees libraries have a major role in overcoming content and capability issues. While she sees libraries as having the capability to assist Australians learn how to use digital resources, she does not address any other issues preventing access other than remoteness and literacy. The issues of age, disability and poverty are not addressed at all.
The article is enthusiastic about the role libraries can play in the new digital age and the access to information that the NBN can bring, but Missingham fails to appreciate the range and variety of issues facing people when it comes to accessing information via computer.
Reference list
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2008-09, (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009)
Electronic Resources Australia website - http://era.nla.gov.au/
Missingham, R (2009), Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship, Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.
OECD Statistics sourced from http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,3746,en_2649_201185_46462759_1_1_1_1,00.html)
Perlgut, D (2011), Digital Inclusion in the Broadband World: Challenges for Australia, Paper presented at the Communications Policy and Research Forum 2011. Accessed at Australian Policy Online (http://apo.org.au/research/digital-inclusion-broadband-world-challenges-australia) pp7-8
Roxanne Missingham (2009) from Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.
The article stems from a presentation given by Missingham at the ALIA Public Libraries Summit in Canberra in July 2009 when she argues that libraries are helping Australians to become more digitally capable but that there are challenges to be faced. She also talks about the Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) – what it is, how it was established and why - and the importance of a secure, high speed broadband network across Australia.
Missingham sees the challenges for many Australian when wanting to participate in the digital environment as being ‘skills, access, accessibility and digital resources’.
Missingham uses statistics from he Australia's Digital Economy: Future Directions - Final Report to illustrate the challenges of access and accessibility. These statistics show that while Australia compares favourably with the UK and Canada in terms of household access to the internet, it lags behind when considering household and business broadband use. The statistics used in the report are from the 2007 ABS statistics. Recent 2008-09 ABS statistics show that broadband access in homes has increased (2009).
What the more recent statistics confirm however for Missingham’s argument is that people outside of metropolitan areas or in low income households still lack broadband access compared to other Australians.
Similarly 2010 OECD data shows the rate of Australian households with broadband access has improved (63.7%) but still has a way to catch countries like Norway and Sweden (both 82.6%) and Denmark (80.1%).
Missingham highlights the frustrations felt by people living in rural and regional areas in Australia by quoting case studies from the Senate Environment, Communications, Information technology and Arts Reference Committee’s 2003 inquiry into the role of the libraries in the online environment. The complaints of these people back Missingham’s four stated challenges.
Missingham goes to outline how in 2003 the Senate Committee mentioned above made a number of recommendations for the National Library of Australia (NLA) to be funded federally to identify key databases which national site licensing could be used for. In the following years, four National Licensing Proposal/National Site Licence Forums were organised by the NLA to help the library industry to work together. The ERA was launched. According to their website the ERA is ‘a consortia for Australian libraries for collaborative purchasing of electronic resources’.
Resources on the Internet can vary in quality, usefulness and accuracy. Quality resources can often have charges attached to them, such as subscribing to a journal. Missingham says ‘digital citizenship is a fundamental concept for modern democracies’ (2009, p392). She goes on to outline how libraries help Australians to access quality online information through such things as the ERA.
Missingham discusses why it is important for people to have access to information by looking at ABS statistics that show illiteracy is a significant issue in Australia. This illiteracy not only covers the basic ability to read and write but also cognitive document literacy which enable people to process and use information in meaningful way. Missingham argues that libraries are important factors in lifting literacy levels by providing information and digital literacy programs.
As mentioned, Missingham believes there are three barriers to Australians accessing digital information – connectivity, content and capacity.
Missingham sees that National Broadband Network as being saviour to issues of low access to and use of broadband. This argument is lacking somewhat and needs further discussion. As Don Perlgut (2011) argues, there is more to a low uptake of broadband than just access. He quotes American research figures that show 36% of Americans who haven’t connected to broadband have not done so because of cost while 22% say they lack digital literacy and 19% say broadband is not relevant to their lives. Missingham addresses the issue of literacy in her article but not cost and relevancy.
Missingham sees libraries have a major role in overcoming content and capability issues. While she sees libraries as having the capability to assist Australians learn how to use digital resources, she does not address any other issues preventing access other than remoteness and literacy. The issues of age, disability and poverty are not addressed at all.
The article is enthusiastic about the role libraries can play in the new digital age and the access to information that the NBN can bring, but Missingham fails to appreciate the range and variety of issues facing people when it comes to accessing information via computer.
Reference list
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2008-09, (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009)
Electronic Resources Australia website - http://era.nla.gov.au/
Missingham, R (2009), Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship, Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.
OECD Statistics sourced from http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,3746,en_2649_201185_46462759_1_1_1_1,00.html)
Perlgut, D (2011), Digital Inclusion in the Broadband World: Challenges for Australia, Paper presented at the Communications Policy and Research Forum 2011. Accessed at Australian Policy Online (http://apo.org.au/research/digital-inclusion-broadband-world-challenges-australia) pp7-8
Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World
My second critique is of a 2009 article called "Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World" by Fred Heath from the Journal of Library Administration, 49: 5, 519 - 532
Fred Heath is Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas (UT) Libraries. His article argues that research libraries should confront the challenge of digital information resources and web-based discovery tools by embracing the technological tools of information discovery. He argues that libraries need to stay focussed on facilitating critical inquiry.
Heath begins his discussion by examining the impact of the expansion of the digital environment on the newspaper, music and book publishing industries, and how these industries have responded or, in most cases, not responded.
He also discusses the challenges faced by higher education and then outlines what UT is doing to respond to these challenges.
In discussing the challenges facing universities, Heath states that even ‘in higher education, the digital world can render irrelevant the physical, geographical aspect of higher learning’. Despite this, it is interesting to note that his discussion about UT’s activities is as much about preserving the physical aspects as it is about embracing digital technologies.
As an example, Heath talks about what is being done about library instruction and helping undergraduates to develop their critical inquiry. The initiatives are all face-to-face responses – courses taught by professors, and seminar rooms being built. Nowhere is there an example of library instruction being given via a Web 2.0 service, such as Skype or YouTube, or of the notion that courses can taught be online and off campus.
Other responses orientated around physical structure are partnering with other libraries to store resources, and being focussed when building collections.
The initiative that most uses a digital response to a digital challenge is getting librarians to understand that when students approach the reference desk, it is because the navigation systems in the library have failed. To support students’ self-reliance, the library’s website has become more user-friendly and interactive. Here we see the library using resources that would be considered Web 2.0 or Library 2.0 .
To me, there are two things that stand out in this article.
The first is that Health does not mention whether students were at any stage asked what they wanted or needed from the library. What he describes is not the ‘open, opinionated, participatory, personalised and very public learning’ landscape described by Pru Mitchell in her 2007 SLANZA Conference presentation, ‘Information Literacy Experts or Expats’ (2007, p4). Mitchell argues that there has been a shift in power in terms of learning to where ‘learners now participate in decision making, where instructional skills focus on questioning, listening and responding’ (2007, p.4).
Mitchell also quotes Lyn Hay’s Australian school libraries research which shows the gap between what students value from library services and what teachers and librarians think are important. The surveyed students rated access to computers as most important whereas teachers and librarians considered getting and using information and working independently most valuable (2007, p2). This demonstrates the importance of getting input from students when designing digitally-based library services.
The second striking thing about this article is that the notions of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 are not mentioned. It’s almost as if Heath is writing in a void. Heath could have taken the Library 2.0 definition outlined by Jack Maness and used it as a framework to discuss the innovations at UT libraries.
In his 2006 article ‘Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries’, Maness discussed the four essential elements of Library 2.0 as being:
• It is user centric
• It provides a multi-media experience
• It is socially rich
• It is communally innovative
This framework could have been used by Health to explore his library’s journey – where it had been and where it still needed to go.
The most enlightening aspect of this article is that it a real-life example of how research library is facing the digital future and attempting to adapt. It also highlights, however, how far some libraries need to go in embracing concepts such as Web 2.0 and Library 2.0.
Reference list
Heath, F (2009), Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World, Journal of Library Administration, 49: 5, 519 - 532
Marness, J. (2006) Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries, Webology, 3(2), Article 25
Mitchell, P. (2007). Information literacy experts or expats? Presented at SLANZA 2007 Conference.
Fred Heath is Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas (UT) Libraries. His article argues that research libraries should confront the challenge of digital information resources and web-based discovery tools by embracing the technological tools of information discovery. He argues that libraries need to stay focussed on facilitating critical inquiry.
Heath begins his discussion by examining the impact of the expansion of the digital environment on the newspaper, music and book publishing industries, and how these industries have responded or, in most cases, not responded.
He also discusses the challenges faced by higher education and then outlines what UT is doing to respond to these challenges.
In discussing the challenges facing universities, Heath states that even ‘in higher education, the digital world can render irrelevant the physical, geographical aspect of higher learning’. Despite this, it is interesting to note that his discussion about UT’s activities is as much about preserving the physical aspects as it is about embracing digital technologies.
As an example, Heath talks about what is being done about library instruction and helping undergraduates to develop their critical inquiry. The initiatives are all face-to-face responses – courses taught by professors, and seminar rooms being built. Nowhere is there an example of library instruction being given via a Web 2.0 service, such as Skype or YouTube, or of the notion that courses can taught be online and off campus.
Other responses orientated around physical structure are partnering with other libraries to store resources, and being focussed when building collections.
The initiative that most uses a digital response to a digital challenge is getting librarians to understand that when students approach the reference desk, it is because the navigation systems in the library have failed. To support students’ self-reliance, the library’s website has become more user-friendly and interactive. Here we see the library using resources that would be considered Web 2.0 or Library 2.0 .
To me, there are two things that stand out in this article.
The first is that Health does not mention whether students were at any stage asked what they wanted or needed from the library. What he describes is not the ‘open, opinionated, participatory, personalised and very public learning’ landscape described by Pru Mitchell in her 2007 SLANZA Conference presentation, ‘Information Literacy Experts or Expats’ (2007, p4). Mitchell argues that there has been a shift in power in terms of learning to where ‘learners now participate in decision making, where instructional skills focus on questioning, listening and responding’ (2007, p.4).
Mitchell also quotes Lyn Hay’s Australian school libraries research which shows the gap between what students value from library services and what teachers and librarians think are important. The surveyed students rated access to computers as most important whereas teachers and librarians considered getting and using information and working independently most valuable (2007, p2). This demonstrates the importance of getting input from students when designing digitally-based library services.
The second striking thing about this article is that the notions of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 are not mentioned. It’s almost as if Heath is writing in a void. Heath could have taken the Library 2.0 definition outlined by Jack Maness and used it as a framework to discuss the innovations at UT libraries.
In his 2006 article ‘Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries’, Maness discussed the four essential elements of Library 2.0 as being:
• It is user centric
• It provides a multi-media experience
• It is socially rich
• It is communally innovative
This framework could have been used by Health to explore his library’s journey – where it had been and where it still needed to go.
The most enlightening aspect of this article is that it a real-life example of how research library is facing the digital future and attempting to adapt. It also highlights, however, how far some libraries need to go in embracing concepts such as Web 2.0 and Library 2.0.
Reference list
Heath, F (2009), Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World, Journal of Library Administration, 49: 5, 519 - 532
Marness, J. (2006) Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries, Webology, 3(2), Article 25
Mitchell, P. (2007). Information literacy experts or expats? Presented at SLANZA 2007 Conference.
All that Glistens is not Gold
My third and last critique is of "All that Glistens is not Gold: Web 2.0 and the Librarian", a 2007 article by Paul Anderson from Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195+.
This article provides a history and definition of the term Web 2.0 using Tim O’Reilly’s 2005 paper as a springboard; and discusses the implications of Web 2.0 services, and where librarians are positioned to contribute to the further development of these services.
Anderson’s definition of Web 2.0 uses Tim O’Reilly’s work as a basis (O'Reilly, 2005). Both works stress that Web 2.0 is more than just the technologies usually associated with it such as blogs, wikis and RSS feeds. Anderson argues that it is more complicated and is more about a bringing together of ‘economics, technology and new ideas about the connected society’ (Anderson, 2007, p195).
Have a look at the meme map at the top of this post. Created by O’Reilly, it shows that Web 2.0 is based on a number of principles: the Web as a platform (rather than applications); harnessing collective intelligence; the importance of the user; a focus on services rather than software; and the importance of data management (O’Reilly, 2005).
The emphasis on the power and interaction of users and the openness of information echoes Tim Berner Lee’s original ideas about having freely available data on the Web and encouraging others to see the importance of this idea and contribute . Barby however believes that Web 2.0 has been ‘sidetracked by the commercial web’, arguing that many of Web 2.0’s services directly or indirectly are commercial activities, rather than information-sharing ones (Barbry, 2007, p92).
Anderson takes O’Reilly’s principles and other ideas and uses them to create a framework for analysis. His framework has three aspects to it:
1. the ‘visible surface’ which are the more mature social software applications, such as blogs, wikis, podcasting, YouTube, Flickr and Facebook. He says that these services are the ‘building blocks of the technologies and open standards that underpin the Internet and the Web’ (Anderson, 2005);
2. the Big Six Ideas which are basically an extension of O’Reilly’s ideas; and
3. Web technologies and standards, such XML, AJAX and Flash, which enable idea to be brought together and used for concrete purposes, such as Facebook and MySpace.
Anderson’s Six Big Ideas are:
1. Individual production and user generated content – the importance of the user involvement
2. Harness the power of the crowd – an increase in Internet users increases the collective wisdom
3. Data on an epic scale – the importance of the collation of data
4. Architecture of participation – how participation both is facilitated by services and generates the improvement of services
5. Network effects – the importance of understanding the interlinking of networks on the Web
6. Openness – commitment to open ways of working – open standards and open source code
Going back to Anderson’s Big Six Ideas, there are a few points to be argued. The idea of collective wisdom is one that needs further evaluation. Eero Pantzer (2000, p231) believes that the idea that access to more information will inevitably lead to more wisdom is flawed. He argues that ‘(m)ere information or raw knowledge as such will not be enough to reduce poverty, unemployment, solitude, anxiety, crime, feelings of insecurity or war’. This is a valid point that needs far more exploration in this article.
The other aspect that needs discussion is openness, although Anderson does expand on this further on in the article. Anderson’s article finishes by discussing the role of Web 2.0 in library services. He points out that there has been interest in Web 2.0 by libraries which has given rise to the term Library 2.0. The impact of Web 2.0 on librarians seems to be highlighted by articles such as Karen Coomb’s (2007) which use O’Reilly’s ideas to create her six pillars of Library 2.0 framework. Her six pillars are:
1. Radical decentralization
2. Small pieces loosely joined
3. Perpetual beta
4. Remixable content
5. User as contributor
6. Rich user experience
Library 2.0 is about moving beyond the physical walls of the library and making use of Web 2.0 services to reach the customer base. Anderson admits that Library 2.0 faces its own challenges. The first challenge is the need for theoretical and peer-reviewed work related to Library 2.0. The other is the ethical issues around privacy and copyright. This discussion is unfortunately short and doesn’t move beyond assuming that librarians’ public sector ethos will overcome this and thus help to influence developments in the future.
This lack of discussion on the issues of privacy and copyright is the weakest aspect of the article. These are issues of importance to librarians and ones that are explored more robustly in such writings as Houghton and Berryman’s “Ethics and law for information practice” in Libraries in the twenty-first century (2007), which examines the challenges facing librarians in being both legal and ethical with such issues as intellectual property, censorship and privacy.
Overall, this article helped me to understand the concept of Web 2.0 and to start thinking about how this concept can be applied to libraries. However its brevity on some important issues such as privacy and copyright is indicative of an overall need for more research in this area.
Reference List
Anderson, P. (2007) All That Glistens Is Not Gold: Web 2.0 and The Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4) p195
Barbry, Eric (2007) Web 2.0: Nothing Changes... but Everything is Different. Communications & Strategies, No. 65, p 92
Berners Lee, T from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIioH6Yt0YM
Coombs, K. A. (2007). Building a Library Web Site on the Pillars of Web 2.0. Computers in Libraries, from http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/jan07/Coombs.shtml
Houghton, J. and Berryman, J. (2007). Ethics and law for information practice. In Libraries in the twenty-first century. S. Ferguson (Ed.). Centre for Information Studies, CSU: Wagga Wagga. pp267-288
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation. from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Pantzar, E. (2000). Knowledge and wisdom in the information society. Foresight, 2(2), p231
Greetings from the student librarian
This blog is all about libraries. I've just started studying a Graduate Diploma in Information Studies through Charles Sturt University (http://www.csu.edu.au/) with a view to becoming a librarian. The course has already opened my eyes to many, hither-to-unknown things. Who knew there was something called Web 2.0? Who knew the Web was actually invented by someone and didn't come to us all wrapped in a bow ready to go? I didn't.
So, this blog will chronicle my journey and also feature my assignments, dear lucky readers.
Enjoy.
So, this blog will chronicle my journey and also feature my assignments, dear lucky readers.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)