The Digital Divide - OLJ Post

I’ve been interested in the digital divide since I first heard the term when I began my MIS. It is part of the reason that I undertook this unit as I am not a social networker myself and assume that helping patrons who find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide would be a large part of my duties if I were to work in client services. I had to learn if I was going to teach!

“Commonly, the digital divide is defined as the gap between those who do and do not have access to computers and the Internet” (van Dijk, 2006, p.178). In its early inception the concept of the digital divide was concerned only with access. Mossberger, Tolbert & Stansbury (2003) posit that this is only one of four facets of the digital divide: the access divide, the skill divide, the economic opportunity divide and the democratic divide. Others have also suggested that the digital divide is multi-faceted and even expand further the work of Mossberger, et al. such as van Dijk’s (2005) classification of multiple access divides: motivational, material, skill and usage. This illustrates that the internet is no longer a luxury and those that lack access to it are at a disadvantage in today’s networked society.

Bertot, Jaeger, McClure, Wright, & Jensen, (2009) are mainly concerned with access which is only one facet if the digital divide and the one libraries are already addressing albeit sometimes at a disadvantage. Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison & Weigel (2006) concern themselves with more than surface provision of access to networked computers. They also address the skill divide. Furthermore, when Jenkins et al. (2006) illustrate the need engage in the networked society, they are talking about the foundations of digital citizenship. “Digital citizenship is the ability to participate in society online” (Mossberger; Tolbert & McNeal, 2008, p. 14). Participating in society online is more requires a specialised information literacy that goes beyond what was necessary only 5 years ago. Web 2.0 technologies are increasingly multimedia technologies and those not already well practiced in their use fall further behind every day which is why van Dijk (2005) labels the “deepening divide” to the digital divide.

Libraries and librarians are imperative in addressing the inequities of the digital world and not only because they provide free access to it. Libraries and the librarians that work in them offer programs based on the needs of their clients and today their clients need programs that revolve around effective IT use and that include more than basic skills. Today’s library needs to be teaching Web 2.0 technologies like the ones we have been using throughout this semester and to do so they need to be confident with them themselves. While I might not be quite there yet, I think that this course has given me a solid foundation to build upon.

Works Cited

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., McClure, C. R., Wright, C. B., & Jensen, E. (2011). Public libraries and the Internet 2008-2009: Issues, implications, and challenges. First Monday, 14(11), 14(11). Retrieved May 2013, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2700/2351

Jenkins, H. C. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved May 2013, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Prss.

van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.

Its Wat Da Kool Kidz R Doin'

Pardon the grammar and lack of time spent on this post but assignment time has rolled around again and I'm not wasting my best for one that isn't one of da big 3.

Seriously though, I'd rather post another reason to add to Burkhardt's 4. Libraries today have customers that never walk through the doors of their buildings. The virtual branch is their only contact with the library and social networks provide an annex to the virtual branch where patrons and staff can informally hang and (pardon the horrid and poorly used pun) partake in java. We meet the patrons in this annex and involve ourselves in Burkhardt's other four 4 reasons for engaging in the first place. In a networked world the virtual branch and its users have to be treated with the same care we give the physical branch. We can't ignore our customer just because we didn't see the walk through the doors.

And if that cant convince you why we should bother with social networking then do it because its wat da kool kidz r doin'! Which is the same reason I'm getting a neck tattoo of a My Little Pony character (Pinky Pie or Rainbow Dash: decisions, decisions) and piercing my belly-button with a Lockwood lock. So, get off your apathetic gen-x butt, stop watching awesome cartoons for five minutes and join up.

Librarian 2.0 = The Sexy Librarian

This is the image of Librarian 1.0: bespectacled, hair in a bun, advancing in years and waiting for anything cracking 3 decibels so she can give it the harshest of shushes. She likely dies as she sends out late fines and roams the stacks as a ghost à la Ghostbusters' opening scene.

(Scary stuff and I don't think I can pull off the Bun)

This is the image of Librarian 2.0: the hair is loose, the clothes are tight and the shush is bordering on erotic. She dies in the throws of passion while attempting some of the more physically demanding moves she read in the digital copy of the Kamasutra her library holds (ISBN 0973338644). She haunts nobody and heaven gets a new angel.

(Much sexier and still bespectacled)

So, what talents does this sexy wench of the stacks possess that makes her so superior to Librarian 1.0? A freewheeling attitude and a willingness to try new things (even though she probably should have left the Kamasutra positions requiring the flexibility of a contortionist alone). She openly defies library convention to better serve the users and she does all this while wearing a garter and suicide heels. She plays in the users sandbox and not only uses their toys (rss, wikis, etc) she does so in ways they never imagined and is able to teach them a thing or two.You need to smoke a cigarette after you read her blog and you keep trying to put yourself in a relationship with her via the library's facebook page that she updates often. She is always pinterested in the latest trends but she still tweets about the classics. The library's flickr photos are tagged by the teenage boy users for how much cleavage you can see in them and there's that video from the Christmas party where she got a little tipsy and a lot naked that is circulating on the less reputable site of the web. She's almost the perfect woman - a chef in the kitchen (learned from the books in 641.5), a maid in the living room (learned from the books in 648.5) and a whore in the bedroom (though sadly the books in 307.6 will be the death of her) - although she still does have the annoying habit of taking pictures of her food and uploading them on instagram.

As good as the sexy Librarian 2.0 sounds, she is just as big a myth as the spinster Librarian 1.0 illustrated above her. The truth is the terms library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 are "meaningless because the term suggests that the changes in libraries are radical, when they are actually evolutionary. Librarians in the past have sought out the newest technologies and sought to provide good customer service. [...] libraries have evolved many times as the communities they serve have changed. When librarians embrace the changes in technology and society to find new and more effective ways to serve their patrons, they are not acting in brand-new 2.0 ways, they are simply being good librarians.” (T. Scott Plutchak as cited in Black, 2007, pp. 10-11).

It doesn't mean we can't be sexy although if you intend to go for the ideal illustrated above, I suggest you limber up before trying out the most difficult positions in your freshly checked out copy of the Kamasutra. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be embracing the new technologies that can improve library service. It just means that the essential knowledge is an evolving knowledge that keeps up with whatever can improve the library, the skills too are ever evolving to incorporate the new into the still relevant old and the attributes are a the sexy librarian's freewheeling attitude and willingness to try new things. I've seen some great ideas that I consider library-novas (the term I'm throwing out for the evolved library) that have nothing to do with Web 2.0 since beginning this degree. There are great advances in personal service like roving reference or the removal of the reference desk altogether like UNSW has done so the librarian is front and centre to greet you and ask if you need assistance as you walk through the door (Bailin, 2011). I'd hate to see great ideas like those passed up in favour of something just because it has a 2.0 tacked onto the end.

References:

Bailin, K. (2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at the University of New South Wales. Australian academic & research libraries, 42(4), 342-359.

Black, E. L. (2007). Library 2.0 and beyond: Innovative technologies and tomorrow's user. (N. Courtney, Ed.) Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.

(And because I couldn't help myself: the sexiest librarian I've ever seen!)

(And the librarian I'll likely become)