Kibirige, Harry M. “Internet Access in Public Libraries: Results of an End User Targeted Pilot Study, 1997-2000.” Information Technology and Libraries 20, no. 2 (Jun 2001): 113-115.
This article was written in 2001, using data from 1999. At that time, only 25 percent of households in the U.S. had access to the Internet from their homes. This meant that the role of public libraries in providing Internet access was viewed as essential.
Kibirige studied six New York metropolitan area public libraries and focused on how people searched for information. He then identified implications for librarians.
The information he discovered is interesting and relevant to my topic, but I have similar information in more current documents. This usefulness of this article rests in the history of the development of Internet access in public libraries.
Friday, November 11, 2011
“Public Libraries and Internet Access Across the United States: A Comparison by State 2004-2006.”
Jaeger, Paul T., John Carlo Bertot, Charles R. McClure, and Miranda Rodriguez. “Public Libraries and Internet Access Across the United States: A Comparison by State 2004-2006.” Information Technologies and Libraries 26, no. 2 (Jun 2007): 4-15.
This article reports the findings of the 2004 and 2005 Public Libraries and the Internet studies that continue the research started in 1994. Even though data that is more recent is available, this article discusses trends at an important point in the evolution of public libraries as access points to the Internet.
By 2006, virtually every public library in the United States had Internet access and government agencies were beginning to shift services to the internet, making access even more important than it had been previously.
One of the issues discussed in 2007 was the fact that “the data indicate that public libraries are at capacity in meeting some of [patron and government agency] expectations, while some libraries lack the funding, technology-support capacity, space, and infrastructure (e.g., power, cabling) to reach the expectations of each respective group” (4). That is, libraries were at their capacity to meet demands for Internet access, even as demand was growing.
The authors discuss differences between states, noting that states with active state libraries seemed to fare better, and they conclude that, “the state library can play a significant role in ensuring sufficiency of Internet access in public libraries in a state” (11).
They also discuss the need to identify “best practices” that more successful states can share with other states to help improve access and services.
This report also documents factors other than workstations that are integral to the subject of Internet access. These factors include the speed and quality of the connections, library hours, wireless access, and training in using the Internet.
This article reports the findings of the 2004 and 2005 Public Libraries and the Internet studies that continue the research started in 1994. Even though data that is more recent is available, this article discusses trends at an important point in the evolution of public libraries as access points to the Internet.
By 2006, virtually every public library in the United States had Internet access and government agencies were beginning to shift services to the internet, making access even more important than it had been previously.
One of the issues discussed in 2007 was the fact that “the data indicate that public libraries are at capacity in meeting some of [patron and government agency] expectations, while some libraries lack the funding, technology-support capacity, space, and infrastructure (e.g., power, cabling) to reach the expectations of each respective group” (4). That is, libraries were at their capacity to meet demands for Internet access, even as demand was growing.
The authors discuss differences between states, noting that states with active state libraries seemed to fare better, and they conclude that, “the state library can play a significant role in ensuring sufficiency of Internet access in public libraries in a state” (11).
They also discuss the need to identify “best practices” that more successful states can share with other states to help improve access and services.
This report also documents factors other than workstations that are integral to the subject of Internet access. These factors include the speed and quality of the connections, library hours, wireless access, and training in using the Internet.
“How to Close the Digital Divide? Fund Public Libraries.”
Celano, Donna C. and Susan B. Neuman. “How to Close the Digital Divide? Fund Public Libraries.” Education Week 29, no.28 (Apr 7,2010): 33.
The authors of this article are both university professors of communication, and their opinions matter. However, this article—as its title suggests—is basically a plea for funding for public libraries and had little to do with my topic. It does, nonetheless, contain some good quotes and may be useful for that purpose.
The authors of this article are both university professors of communication, and their opinions matter. However, this article—as its title suggests—is basically a plea for funding for public libraries and had little to do with my topic. It does, nonetheless, contain some good quotes and may be useful for that purpose.
“The Digital Divide & Public Libraries: a First-Hand View.”
Agosto, Denise E. “The Digital Divide & Public Libraries: a First-Hand View.” Progressive Librarian, no.25 (Summer 2005): 23-27.
In this fascinating article, the author compares the resources and services of three branch libraries within the same library system. In particular, she looked at the computer and Internet capabilities and found vast inequities.
After comparing the resources, the author identified three factors that contributed to the inequities. The first was an uneven distribution of resources such as computer workstations within the same library system. The second was a difference the amount of support private residents provided to augment the libraries’ resources. The third was a difference in the amount of support from local commercial entities (25).
Because the author was comparing specific branches, the data were more detailed, as in workstations per patron, and made the findings of larger studies more real to me. This was a short, but very powerful article that highlighted the differences in access to the Internet between communities. It also included specific examples of how the lack of access had a negative impact on particular people, such as the man who was going for a job interview but couldn’t get his resume finished before his interview because he didn’t have a computer at home and the library could only allow him 30 minutes on their public access computer. The library had imposed the time limit because it had only two public access computers and, at the time the man was trying to finish his resume, there was a two-hour waiting list of other people wanting to use the computer.
In this fascinating article, the author compares the resources and services of three branch libraries within the same library system. In particular, she looked at the computer and Internet capabilities and found vast inequities.
After comparing the resources, the author identified three factors that contributed to the inequities. The first was an uneven distribution of resources such as computer workstations within the same library system. The second was a difference the amount of support private residents provided to augment the libraries’ resources. The third was a difference in the amount of support from local commercial entities (25).
Because the author was comparing specific branches, the data were more detailed, as in workstations per patron, and made the findings of larger studies more real to me. This was a short, but very powerful article that highlighted the differences in access to the Internet between communities. It also included specific examples of how the lack of access had a negative impact on particular people, such as the man who was going for a job interview but couldn’t get his resume finished before his interview because he didn’t have a computer at home and the library could only allow him 30 minutes on their public access computer. The library had imposed the time limit because it had only two public access computers and, at the time the man was trying to finish his resume, there was a two-hour waiting list of other people wanting to use the computer.
"The Role and Value of Public Libraries in the Age of Digital Technologies.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 37, (Dec
Aabo, Svanhild. “The Role and Value of Public Libraries in the Age of Digital Technologies.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 37, (Dec 2005): 205-211.
Although the title made this article sound promising, the author’s focus is mostly on the role of public libraries as meeting places in the digital age. She includes discussion of the Internet, but more in terms of how the Internet has affected library use. That is, she examines the effect of the Internet on the demand for public library services.
The only part of this article that relates to my report is a section on social inclusiveness and citizenship. In this section, she discusses the importance of the “ability to access, adapt and create new knowledge using information and communication technology,” especially as it relates to social inclusion (208).
However, the author is more concerned with the role of the public library as a “cross-cultural, low-intensive meeting place” (209), as a place to increase community involvement, rather than as a point of access to the Internet.
She writes that her article focuses “on a widening of the digital gap and a weakening of social participation and involvement,” but, in fact, she writes very little about the digital gap and more about the weakening of social participation and the role she sees for public libraries in terms of strengthening community bonds.
Although the title made this article sound promising, the author’s focus is mostly on the role of public libraries as meeting places in the digital age. She includes discussion of the Internet, but more in terms of how the Internet has affected library use. That is, she examines the effect of the Internet on the demand for public library services.
The only part of this article that relates to my report is a section on social inclusiveness and citizenship. In this section, she discusses the importance of the “ability to access, adapt and create new knowledge using information and communication technology,” especially as it relates to social inclusion (208).
However, the author is more concerned with the role of the public library as a “cross-cultural, low-intensive meeting place” (209), as a place to increase community involvement, rather than as a point of access to the Internet.
She writes that her article focuses “on a widening of the digital gap and a weakening of social participation and involvement,” but, in fact, she writes very little about the digital gap and more about the weakening of social participation and the role she sees for public libraries in terms of strengthening community bonds.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
“The Policy Implications of Internet Connectivity in Public Libraries”
Jaeger, Paul T., John Carlo Bertot, Charles R. McClure, and Lesley A. Langa. “The Policy Implications of Internet Connectivity in Public Libraries.” Government Information Quarterly 23, (2006): 123-141.
In this article, the authors draw on data gathered in the Public Libraries and the Internet 2004 study and use that data as part of their analysis of government policies that affect Internet connectivity in public libraries.
The identify six key policy issues: (1) the nature of sufficient bandwidth, (2) the perpetuation of the digital divide regarding Internet access in libraries, (3) the role of public libraries as access points for e-government services, (4) funding of Internet access, (5) the impact of filtering, and (6) the effect of homeland security legislation.
What they found in 2004 was that policy issues included, but were not limited to “sufficiency of connectivity, levels of public access, the need for training, continuing gaps in access, sources of funding for technology, and questions of public policy” (124).
The authors examine changes from earlier studies in the series and discussed those changes in terms of policies that helped facilitate increase access to digital technology, particularly the Internet.
They go on to explore how policies are changing and discuss the impact of some of those changes. For example, they note that, “in recent years, government attention has shifted from the digital divide to a focus on ‘digital inclusion.’ This new focus on digital inclusion emphasizes how many people are currently online. By making this shift, the policy direction has moved from working to increase Internet usage among entire populations to viewing current levels of access as an accomplishment” (128).
To me, this shift signals a loss of interest in, and commitment to, communication disparities on the part of policy makers. As the authors note, “By adopting a ‘mission accomplished’ perspective, the policy has greatly reduced the urgency given to efforts promoting online participation…accompanied by a reduction in the funds available for many programs related to increasing access to the Internet among the underserved populations” (128).
However, the 2004 study showed that “there is still an identifiable digital divide in the United States” (128). In other words, policy makers have declared success too soon. The authors discuss three types of disparities: rural vs. other libraries in terms of number of access terminals and broadband connectivity, state-to-state disparities in terms of access and bandwidth, and times of day when there are an adequate number of workstations available.
The authors also discuss how the government and the public have come to expect public libraries to be universal access points to the Internet. What this means is that as government information and services have shifted to an online environment, agencies expect the public to be able to access that information and those services through the Internet. They further expect public libraries to provide the needed Internet connection for those who have no other access.
This increase in demand for access is coming at a time when “the level of technology in some libraries may be reaching a plateau” (130).
The next policy area the authors examine is funding and how current policies may not recognize the need for continuing funding for maintenance and upgrade of equipment and software. For example, “one of the main sources of technology funding for pubic libraries, the E-rate program, was actually temporarily suspended for several months in 2004 as a result of management and oversight issues” (132).
The last areas the authors examine are the effects of government legislation requiring filtering of Internet content and the implications of homeland security. Both sets of legislation create problems for libraries in terms of access to information and patron privacy.
Filtering is easier said than done, and existing filters tend to block large amounts of health information. In addition, complying with the law is costly and complex and some libraries are opting to forgo the funding attached to compliance for those reasons.
Homeland security, particularly The Patriot Act, presents the threat of invasion of privacy and affects the kinds of records that libraries keep. The Patriot Act increases the circumstances and the scope of surveillance and investigations in libraries, expands definitions of records that can be searched, allows for tracing and searching electronic communications, and places a gag order on investigations (125).
Concern for patron privacy has led many libraries to cease keeping many types of usage records, records that “have an number os extremely important uses in libraries, from collection development to justification of funding” (135).
Even though this article goes way beyond the scope my project, it includes a wealth of material related to the whole topic of public libraries and Internet access, all of which affects my perception of my topic and its importance.
In this article, the authors draw on data gathered in the Public Libraries and the Internet 2004 study and use that data as part of their analysis of government policies that affect Internet connectivity in public libraries.
The identify six key policy issues: (1) the nature of sufficient bandwidth, (2) the perpetuation of the digital divide regarding Internet access in libraries, (3) the role of public libraries as access points for e-government services, (4) funding of Internet access, (5) the impact of filtering, and (6) the effect of homeland security legislation.
What they found in 2004 was that policy issues included, but were not limited to “sufficiency of connectivity, levels of public access, the need for training, continuing gaps in access, sources of funding for technology, and questions of public policy” (124).
The authors examine changes from earlier studies in the series and discussed those changes in terms of policies that helped facilitate increase access to digital technology, particularly the Internet.
They go on to explore how policies are changing and discuss the impact of some of those changes. For example, they note that, “in recent years, government attention has shifted from the digital divide to a focus on ‘digital inclusion.’ This new focus on digital inclusion emphasizes how many people are currently online. By making this shift, the policy direction has moved from working to increase Internet usage among entire populations to viewing current levels of access as an accomplishment” (128).
To me, this shift signals a loss of interest in, and commitment to, communication disparities on the part of policy makers. As the authors note, “By adopting a ‘mission accomplished’ perspective, the policy has greatly reduced the urgency given to efforts promoting online participation…accompanied by a reduction in the funds available for many programs related to increasing access to the Internet among the underserved populations” (128).
However, the 2004 study showed that “there is still an identifiable digital divide in the United States” (128). In other words, policy makers have declared success too soon. The authors discuss three types of disparities: rural vs. other libraries in terms of number of access terminals and broadband connectivity, state-to-state disparities in terms of access and bandwidth, and times of day when there are an adequate number of workstations available.
The authors also discuss how the government and the public have come to expect public libraries to be universal access points to the Internet. What this means is that as government information and services have shifted to an online environment, agencies expect the public to be able to access that information and those services through the Internet. They further expect public libraries to provide the needed Internet connection for those who have no other access.
This increase in demand for access is coming at a time when “the level of technology in some libraries may be reaching a plateau” (130).
The next policy area the authors examine is funding and how current policies may not recognize the need for continuing funding for maintenance and upgrade of equipment and software. For example, “one of the main sources of technology funding for pubic libraries, the E-rate program, was actually temporarily suspended for several months in 2004 as a result of management and oversight issues” (132).
The last areas the authors examine are the effects of government legislation requiring filtering of Internet content and the implications of homeland security. Both sets of legislation create problems for libraries in terms of access to information and patron privacy.
Filtering is easier said than done, and existing filters tend to block large amounts of health information. In addition, complying with the law is costly and complex and some libraries are opting to forgo the funding attached to compliance for those reasons.
Homeland security, particularly The Patriot Act, presents the threat of invasion of privacy and affects the kinds of records that libraries keep. The Patriot Act increases the circumstances and the scope of surveillance and investigations in libraries, expands definitions of records that can be searched, allows for tracing and searching electronic communications, and places a gag order on investigations (125).
Concern for patron privacy has led many libraries to cease keeping many types of usage records, records that “have an number os extremely important uses in libraries, from collection development to justification of funding” (135).
Even though this article goes way beyond the scope my project, it includes a wealth of material related to the whole topic of public libraries and Internet access, all of which affects my perception of my topic and its importance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)