“The Impacts of Free Public Internet Access on Public Library Patrons and Communities”

Bertot, John Carlo, Charles R. McClure, and Paul T. Jaeger. “The Impacts of Free Public Internet Access on Public Library Patrons and Communities.” Library Quarterly 78, no. 3 (2008): 285-301.

This article presents findings from the 2007 Public Libraries and the Internet Study, which continues the research started in 1994. The authors are the co-principal investigators in this study and have written a large number of articles about various aspects of the data gathered using surveys of librarians across the United States.

In this particular article, the authors examine some of the challenges facing today’s libraries, especially in light of changing technology and public expectations about access to that technology. They write, “libraries are beginning to face a ‘disconnect’ between what their communities expect and the levels of Internet access that they are able to provide to their communities” (287).

The authors go on to discuss the impact of Internet access on communities. The impacts elaborated are technology training and assistance, e-government service delivery, education resources, services for job seekers and disaster/emergency roles and services, among others” (287).

They also present interesting data that show the trends in public access to the Internet and the roles that public libraries play in those trends. For example, virtually every library in the United States now offers public access to the Internet. As a result, the roles of libraries have evolved, with more emphasis on the support services that go with providing that access, particularly training.

One thing I found disturbing in this article is a shift in tone from that of other articles by these same authors. The authors seem to have adopted an assumption that people are entitled to free Internet access. I agree that the access is important—even crucial—in today’s world. I also agree that those without access are at a serious cultural disadvantage, and that it is in society’s best interest to narrow the Digital Divide. However, I find it troubling when the element of entitlement is included. It is my opinion that too many people believe that “Someone” else must take care of their needs, and when we do that for them, we relegate them to the role of children.

I also found that some of the authors’ data didn’t track. Specifically, at one point they combine statistics incorrectly. They write that, “in 2007 wireless access was available in 54.2 percent of libraries, with an additional 17.4 percent of libraries that do not currently have wireless access planning to add it in the next year. Thus, if libraries follow through with their plans to add wireless access, 71.6 percent of public libraries will have it within a year” (292).

They merely added the percentages, rather than 17.4 percent of those without wireless. The total is actually closer to 62.2 percent—still a dramatic increase, but not the 71.6 percent the authors presented.

As a continuation of the study that was started in 1994, the information in this article is extremely valuable to me and my research question, in spite of the discrepancy with the specific numbers.