Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship by Roxanne Missingham

Missingham reviews the importance of digital connectedness within our digital economy in Australia and the role of the Electronic Resources Australia (http://era.nla.gov.au/) initiative [ERA] in delivering digital content. Although ‘digital economy’ is not defined in the article, the term is used to encompass the activities that comprise a society – this includes access to information as well as the opportunity to participate fully in a networked world. Although Missingham does not take this point of view, the term digital economy is almost a tautology – the world is mediated through electronic devices and digitised information. The digital economy is not so much pervasive or important, but is rapidly becoming the society.

There is therefore a need for all sections of Australian society to be able to access good quality information – indeed “digital citizenship” is regarded as vital for individuals and democracies. Participation requires an interdependent set of factors – a population with good information literacy skills; an efficient means of accessing information through cohesive nationwide telecommunications infrastructure; quality content and access to devices including computers.

Regarding information literacy, Missingham quotes Australian Bureau of Statistics data that found that 46% of the Australian population aged 15 – 74 years ‘had scores below the level regarded by the survey developers as “the minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy’’” (p395). This means that almost half the population of around working age, does not have the information literacy skills regarded as necessary for everyday work and life.

Australia is identified by Missingham as being a country of early adopters of technology. Missingham quotes Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which indicate that over two thirds of the population has access to the Internet at home, and that 4.3 million households have broadband access. Willis & Tranter (2006) reveals that this diffusion of technology is most common in households with higher incomes and those located in proximity to major urban centres. So, while Australians may have early adoption patterns, what we adopt may be the devices, but lack the nationwide infrastructure to ensure equitable access to digital information.

The ERA initiative is a national response to provide content by utilising library networks and capabilities. In part this initiative also helps ameliorate the poor infrastructure available to households.

The adoption of ERA membership is patchy and may mirror the diffusion of technology nationwide. For example: the ACT has an ERA membership rate of around four percent, with less than two percent of the overall Australian population; The Northern Territory has a membership percentage of 0.6 percent, but the 1.1% of the total national population.
Now while these figures are very rough, they mirror the trends nationally – ironically they reinforce the pattern of distribution.

Libraries have always strived to provide information to their communities – the ERA initiative attempts to provide high quality digital information and utilise the power of consortia purchasing to gain value for their communities. There is a focus on Australian news and business information which has the additional benefit of allowing the cultural heritage of the country to be supported.

In spite of the best efforts of the ERA, the provision of quality content is uncertain – based on a ‘fragile model and Missingham identifies the need to:
 Improve the provision of high quality content.
 Develop funding models and a national approach to purchasing.
 Make all government information easily available, online.
 Make government funded research freely available.

Overall, Missingham identifies many flaws within Australia’s provision of digital information resources. The infrastructure is poor, with those outside of capital cities having difficulty in accessing information, which may lead to disadvantage within those communities. The ETA was established to provide quality Australian content via a network of libraries throughout the country. This has enabled the provision of a range of quality information to the communities, and has also allowed the members of ETA to better negotiate with suppliers.

One of the main problems is poor infrastructure. This requires long term Federal government commitment – to build a network capable of delivering information to all areas of the country.

Missingham sees ETA as a very valuable but ‘fragile’ model of content provision based on the use of libraries to compensate for inadequate broadband networks. She contends that there needs to be long term commitment to secure funding to enable a viable digital economy that allows social inclusion for all.

Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of libraries in a digital world.

Fred Heath, from the University of Texas libraries, reviews the challenges facing university libraries brought about by “disruptive technologies” - digital information resources and web-based discovery tools.

The article paints a broad picture of a crisis in the higher education sector within the United States. The author posits that the perception of a university education has changed from one of public good to one of a private good. This change in perception has adversely affected levels of government funding as the population questions the levels of funding flowing to universities. In addition, the Global Financial Crisis and ensuing recession in the US have reduced the amount of money flowing to the universities in the form of endowments.

The author, belonging as he does to one of the older, pre-eminent universities in the United States does not discuss the explosion in growth of new education providers, which indicate a burgeoning education field, and the amount of money associated with it. In addition, he does not consider the corollary to these changes– that as information is more and more available, even of very questionable quality, the value of information has been downgraded in public perception.

Some commentators have painted a pessimistic picture for universities in the face of change – Heath quotes Duderstadt (2002) in surmising that every aspect of academic life will change, and that some functions will be replaced by changing technology. (p.523). The article further refers to Louis Rossetto, the editor of Wired, a magazine biased in favour of technological change, who predicted a nirvana of knowledge and information, one in which all had access to information and the ability to publish. This world was predicted as needing no gatekeepers or navigators, all who were interested in debate could contribute.

In an environment of disruptive technologies, changes to perception and to funding, Mr Heath outlines the steps that the libraries at the University of Texas have taken to ensure they meet the challenge.

The article posits that the core role of libraries and librarians is : ”facilitating critical inquiry on the part of our university community.” (p.531), and throughout the article the author makes reference to the student body and faculty – the customer. This focus, although not stated so baldly, is the driver, the raison d’etre, of the library, at a time when the library has to demonstrate its worth.

There are five areas in which the University of Texas Libraries have focussed in order to meet the challenges.

Firstly the important function of teaching the undergraduates the skills to search, discover, evaluate, critique and test ideas was addressed. The university formed a School of Undergraduate Studies, and the library took the opportunity to work with the School to develop “baseline information literacy skills in all”. The integration of an information literacy program within the School of Undergraduate Studies allows the library to partner more closely with faculty, and elevates information literacy to a recognised learning outcome, with the library central to that process. This practical, and politically savvy, change allows the library to become a more visible contributor to student learning.


The libraries have also moved beyond the somewhat static, gatekeeper mode – librarians are no longer “the epicentre of the information universe.” (p.527). The author reports a significant drop in the number of reference inquiries as students prefer to find and evaluate information themselves. This trend is echoed by Hillier and Kyrillidou (2008) who found a drop of around one third in the number of personal reference enquiries at the University of Washington. Librarians at the University of Texas have abandoned their posts at the reference desk and now concentrate on building reliable, easy-to-use navigation systems so students can discover information. In this way librarians are providing the infrastructure and tools required to facilitate critical enquiry. Additional factors that Heath does not mention are that students and faculty expect access at all times – so if the library building is not open, the resources are still available. In addition, the changed emphasis of staff from gatekeepers to virtual guides allows staff to develop the skills needed for the new information environment.

The third step the libraries have taken is to change the use of the physical libraries. Previously an important use for the libraries was for storage of library items. At the University of Texas this purpose has changed – libraries are now primarily places to meet and exchange ideas; Heath uses the term ‘agora’, a Greek word referring to a meeting and a market place –reflecting the dynamic, conversational, collaborative places of exchange that libraries have become.
Little used physical stock has been moved to remote storage; partnering with Texas A&M University to share a storage facility has enabled cost savings while allowing the physical spaces to be better utilised by the student body.
While Heath does not mention this, the ability to efficiently store and retrieve library materials is facilitated by ‘disruptive technologies’ associated with logistics and warehousing, such as RFID and warehousing management systems.

Heath believes that a first class research library must do two things – to provide all the specialised information to faculty found in other pre-eminent universities around the world; and to make significant contributions to scholarship in particular areas, by identifying, preserving and making resources available. So the resources available must be complete – and mirror major collections nationally and internationally. In addition, they need to have points of difference – and he points to the major contribution to scholarship made by unique collections developed by the University of Texas. These ambitions have to be managed within an environment of increasing budget pressure and changed information provision. Although Heath does not state it explicitly, purchasing has changed radically for libraries – where previously there was acquisition of physical items, there is now contractual agreements to ensure access to the resources required by the university. So, staff at the University of Texas have developed skills at managing the budget through negotiation with vendors. These negotiations have similarly been affected by disruptive technologies - no longer do libraries just acquire physical resources – they now negotiate a lease or contract for the use of virtual resources – a much different and more dynamic model of enabling access to resources than previously.

The University of Texas has also facilitated enquiry beyond the confines of the library by embedding discovery tools in the interface – for example, an easy link to Google Scholar.
The University has also pooled resources with other universities within Texas – so dissertations from the Universities of Texas are available via federated search to all members of the State’s universities.
The University has a commitment to preserves and make available information on human rights abuses – so has taken on a curatorial role in recording human rights abuses. Disruptive technologies allow the University to locate, harvest and preserve this information.

Heath outlines the techniques the University of Texas libraries have adopted in the face of massive changes – mainly brought about by the disruptive technologies. The focus he maintains is to ensure the libraries fulfil their obligations to help students develop the skills to discover and analyse; and to help faculty to utilise the whole world of information available to them.

The methods used have focussed on the user, on partnering, both within the university and also with other universities – as a way of providing services in a more relevant, cost effective way. Staff has been asked to change and adapt to this dynamic and changing environment. He ends on an optimistic note pointing to the strengths of the profession, and the opportunities presented in a “vastly expanded and increasingly unfamiliar information universe.” (p.531)

‘All that glisters is not gold’ – Web 2.0 and the librarian by Paul Anderson

Paul Anderson writes a cautionary editorial on the need for theoretical analysis in order for libraries to properly and fully exploit the value of changes to technology exemplified in “Web 2.0”.
Paul Anderson has a professional interest in the development of standards and protocols within computer science – his undergraduate degree is in computer science and he is currently the Technical Editor of JISC Technology and Standards Watch. It is from this perspective that he writes about the need for the library sector to develop theories and analysis around the term ‘Library 2.0’.

In the editorial, Anderson discusses the term Web 2. 0 and its origin in 2004 as a somewhat nebulous term to encapsulate the activities surrounding the Web after the dot.com bust. From this beginning ideas surrounding the characteristics of Web 2.0 have developed, and Anderson proposed a three-pronged framework which could be used to analyse Web 2.0 (Anderson 2007):

1) The visible or obvious aspects of Web 2.0 which have captured the imagination of all – those aspects that allow for user generated content and changed social connections, such as wikis, blogs, social networking applications.
Enthusiasm for Web 2.0 does seem to be based around this first part of Anderson’s framework – for example, the State Library of NSW runs an online learning course entitled Learning 2.0 – in reference to Web 2.0 - that concentrates entirely on the visible aspects of Web 2.0 – such as blogs and microblogs, tagging and mashups (http://nswpubliclibrarieslearning2.blogspot.com/).

2) The characteristics of Web 2.0 developments outlined by O’Reilly (2005). These characteristics help define Web 2.0 and exploit the potential benefits of it. The characteristics are:

Individual production and user generated content
Individuals create content, rather than being the passive recipients of it. An example is the microblogging via Twitter that reported on the Iranian elections in 2009.

Harnessing the power of the crowd
This refers to collaboration and information-sharing between individuals made possible by the Internet, and also the rise of communities around this shared information. An example is vinylfanatics.com (http://vinylfanatics.com/forum/) which includes reviews, opinion pieces, a forum and advertisements.

Data on an epic scale
A huge amount of data is now available online which is then aggregated by organizations to give them a competitive advantage – and those services which make vast amounts of information easily accessible will be utilised the most. An example is Australian Property Monitors http://apm.com.au/ which aggregates information concerning real estate.

Architecture of participation
Web 2.0 services are designed for ease of use, and to improve and enable mass participation. In addition, the service improves with use, which is a function of the architecture of the service. So, for example Google can prompt search terms to users based on that user’s previous preferences, as well as other users’ search preferences.

Network effects
As more people join a service, the value of the network increases for existing users. For example, when Facebook only had two members, the value was fairly limited. As each person joins, the value of the network increases.

Openness
Web 2.0 is driven by open source software, which is modified on an ongoing basis. It works with freely accessible data. The best known is Linux, but there are many others – such as those listed on the ICT website: http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/PracticeNote.3182.html


3) The third corner is the standards and technologies that are developing via the World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/) which allow technical development that can be widely utilised according to shared standards.


Anderson posits two roles for librarians in the new era of Web 2.0 – the first, a somewhat feeble reference to librarians’ public sector ethos as a chief contribution in building technologies of the future – as opposed to the contribution of technical skills which many librarians possess. The second role, once a theoretical analysis of the term Library 2.0 has been established, would allow libraries to ‘develop robust critical faculties and evaluative practices for new, libraries-based Web 2.0 services’ (p.196).

In Anderson’s review of ‘Library 2.0’ he finds no agreed definition or analysis; it is simply a term that has been bandied about with enthusiasm. However, the editorial does not make clear why Anderson believes Library 2.0 needs to be analysed and theorised; if Web 2.0 technologies will be utilised to create a new vision of information access and community meeting, then surely the term could simply refer to a library that has embraced Web 2.0 potentialities with the theoretical underpinnings associated with Web 2.0?