No matter what sector you work in, the threat of job substitution looms large and it is vital that a strong cross-sector message goes out that, across all sectors, there are no circumstances in which volunteers are a suitable replacement for trained professionals.

Is the current government scared of true transparency?

Last week it was revealed that the government had vetoed the release of the NHS risk register, despite repeated failed appeals against the Information Commissioner’s ruling that it should be published.  This decision has prompted a particularly stark warning about the future of the Freedom of Information Act by the Information Commissioner himself.  As The Independent reports:

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham launched a scathing criticism of the decision to exercise the Government’s veto in a report on the case to Parliament.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley deployed it to block an Information Tribunal ruling that he should meet Labour demands to disclose the document.

Mr Graham dismissed his claims that there were exceptional circumstances and that it involved a matter of principle.

“The arguments are deployed in support of what is, in fact, the direct opposite of the exceptional – a generally less qualified, and therefore more predictable, ‘safe space’,” he wrote.

“As such, the Government’s approach in this matter appears to have most to do with how the law might be changed to apply differently in future.”

Indeed, there are very real concerns about the future of the Act, given the government’s obvious disdain for truly transparent governance, rather than the selective transparency that appears to be the preferred policy.

In another interesting development, the Commons public accounts committee has stated that private companies doing business with central government should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act:

In its report on the Work Programme on Tuesday, the committee recommended that the Cabinet Office Efficiency Reform Group (ERG) should extend its work to ensure that taxpayers get better value from companies that depend on central government deals for most of their income.

“There is little transparency over the financial affairs of companies which derive their income solely from government,” says the report. “Where companies depend on public sector contracts for the bulk of their income they can expect their performance, profits and remuneration packages to be subject to proper scrutiny by parliament on behalf of the taxpayer.”

The inclusion of private companies providing services on behalf of the state is long overdue.  If they are providing services and in receipt of tax payers money, then of course they should be subject to Freedom of Information legislation (I would go further and argue all companies should be subject to FoI but this is probably unrealistic).  In fact, this amendment to the legislation is even more important given the existing policies of the current government.

Since taking office, it has been clear that the government wishes to radically reform as many public services as possible, partly to splinter effective opposition (see Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine for a detailed expose of the tactic of economic reform on the back of a “shock”).  By reforming so many at the same time, it results in opposition that focuses on individual reform policies rather than an effective, co-ordinated opposition.  Which is why we are seeing massive reforms on the NHS, the police and education (amongst others).  The problem with these reforms, is that they will push many areas outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.  Indeed, this was noted by Katherine Gundersen over at the UK Freedom of Information Blog last year:

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has written to the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, expressing concern that the public’s rights to information about the NHS are likely to be “increasingly constricted” by the reforms in the Health and Social Care Bill.

Under the reforms, NHS services will be provided either by NHS bodies or by independent providers under contract. The NHS bodies which commission services will themselves be subject to the FOI Act though the independent providers will not. However, the providers will be contractually required to provide information to the commissioning bodies to help them answer FOI requests.

Pushing these reforms through quickly and reducing the power of the Freedom of Information Act (rather than strengthening and widening its scope) will ensure that the electorate are not properly able to scrutinise the policies that are being enacted in their name.  To say this is under-democratic is an understatement.  The government is well aware that if their already controversial polices were truly transparent, they wouldn’t have a chance of passing the legislation.  It appears that the government is desperately trying to ensure that it can push these reforms whilst ensuring that democratic accountability is weakened.  Weakening FoI legislation will make it easier for politicians to get away with policies that are deeply unpopular.  It is clear, therefore, that weakening the Freedom of Information laws as the government appears to be intending, will result in a weakening of our democracy.  At this time of “austerity” when government is taking radical, unpopular action to reform public services, there should be efforts to ensure total transparency throughout.  We should expect nothing less.

Should you waste time worrying about your brand? (Image c/o Todd Klassy on Flickr)

A caveat to start off with. One of my favourite books is No Logo by Naomi Klein. Broadly speaking, I take up positions that could best be described as anti-capitalist. Therefore, as you can imagine, I don’t have much time for marketing or marketing speak.  I guess my view of marketing are best articulated here.  Now that caveat is out-of-the-way, I shall plunge straight into explaining my views on the whole “branding” phenomenon, something that appears to be very much (still) the “hot topic” in library land.

I do not like the idea of “personal branding”.  The term itself is incredibly difficult for me to even contemplate putting to paper (or screen).  I find it a deeply reductionist term. Products are branded, human beings are not.  Turning an individual into a brand simply, to my mind, reduces them to the status of a product or commodity, commodities such as Coca-Cola for example. Coca-Cola is a well-known brand.  It’s been around for over a century and is known across the globe.  It is also (bar the odd ingredient change) broadly speaking unchanged.  The drink itself, the way it has been packaged, very little about it has changed over the years.  It is a constant, unchanging brand.

Now think about yourself as an individual.  You are not a constant.  You change from day-to-day.  The person you are today isn’t the person you were ten, five, even one year ago.  People are complex, they cannot be reduced to one, unifying brand image.  Besides, who would want to be?  Conforming to a particular brand image is dehumanising.  Dehumanising because it is not a natural state for a human being to adopt, for the reasons I have already given.  It is simply not natural to try and adapt your behaviour to conform to an image you wish to project at all times.  Whilst turning oneself into a brand is problematic there is, however, a bigger issue for me around the idea of personal branding.

My biggest concern is that a focus on a “personal brand” can actually do substantial damage to the profession in which such a strategy is employed.  Actions taken by an individual to enhance their brand can, as a side-effect, have a detrimental impact upon the broader profession (emphasis on ‘can‘).  Take, for example, being a vociferous campaigner for public libraries.  You may often say things that are in conflict with superiors within your profession, your peers or the professional body itself.  As a result, you may be seen as nothing more than a trouble-maker, an antagonist causing problems.  This, therefore, would become your brand.  Now, is this a brand image that you would want to cultivate?  An antagonistic trouble-maker?  Probably not.  Who wants to be viewed by others as nothing more than a trouble-maker?  But whilst this “brand” can be seen as damaging to the individual, it can be a good thing for the profession as a whole.  It may not become apparent in the immediate short-term, but over a longer period of time that individual’s actions can have a very beneficial impact upon the profession.  Dissenters and trouble-makers can, after all, be “an organisation’s most valuable asset.”

On the other hand, someone who plugs away and focuses on creating a “positive brand image” which reflects well upon themselves, may create a positive image of themselves amongst their peers, yet will not have a significant impact upon the broader profession because they are unprepared to damage their own “personal brand”.  So focused have they become on creating a positive brand image of themselves, they have been unwilling to upset this image by taking positions that may be unpopular with peers or superiors but will result in long-term benefits. It is, in my opinion, a short-term strategy that will yield some benefits but will have a negligible impact upon the long term future for the profession.

In my view, if you allow yourself to get too sucked in by “what makes you look good” you are in danger of forgetting about what will help the profession overall.  I think of it as a little like neo-liberal Conservative policy over the past thirty years – an ideology focused on what benefits me, rather than what benefits society. Sometimes the things that benefit the “society” (ie the profession) do not benefit you directly as an individual.  Consequently, you may take actions that benefit yourself (your “brand”) rather than “society” as a whole.  Once you get into that mode of thinking as an individual it is hugely damaging, but when you engage in a process of groupthink where everyone acts in that way, you risk damaging the entire profession.

For example, take strike action.  Strikes may reflect badly on the group that is taking the strike action.  In fact, in this country, it is almost invariably the case that it will reflect badly on those taking such action (have you ever encountered positive reporting from the perspective of those on strike?).  However, it is very often the case that the things they are seeking to defend that has led to them taking action will benefit all of us.  The recent petrol tanker situation being a case in point.  Drivers were prepared to strike due to their concerns regarding (amongst other factors admittedly) health and safety.  Whilst the strike action itself had a negative impact on their “brand image”, a successful action leading to a stricter health and safety policy would benefit all of us (we don’t want truck drivers delivering a substance like petrol without adhering to certain health and safety standards obviously).  Short term impact: negative “brand image”. Long term impact: safe transportation on public highways of a highly flammable liquid.

Of course, I am probably mis-reading the whole “personal branding” phenomenon, seeing it purely through the eyes of an anti-capitalist who has no interest in “brands” and marketing, I am sure someone will tell me as much.  However, this is about my perception of personal branding as a strategy.  And my perception is that it is certainly not a good thing.  Personally speaking, I think we would do well as a profession to stop indulging in continuous self-analysis of how we are viewed by those outside the profession.  It does us no favours whatsoever.  The best way to deal with the concerns that this strategy seeks to address is to demonstrate our relevance.  It is through demonstrating our relevance that we will seek to address the concerns that have been thrown around the profession over the past few years (possibly since the year dot).  Not, I’m sorry to say, navel-gazing or a focus on our “personal brand”.

I couldn’t find the time to squeeze them in here, but I would also recommend reading this which I agree with very much (as you can tell) and a post by Lauren here which also sums up my feelings. In fact, I should probably have just posted those two links and not bothered writing this post at all.

The state has more data on its citizens than ever before (image adapted from an original by nolifebeforecoffee on Flickr).

I caught an interesting blog by Jon Baines over at Information Rights and Wrongs yesterday on data protection and the extent of the “database state”.  Jon writes that a data protection officer he knows is being pushed to “encourage greater sharing of information between their public sector organisation and other public sector bodies.”  As he goes on to point out, this push is not only coming from management, it is coming from central government.

Last month, The Guardian revealed that the government is planning to make it easier for public agencies to share information.  According to the report:

Ministers are planning a shakeup of the law on the use of confidential personal data to make it far easier for government and public-sector organisations to share confidential information supplied by the public.

Proposals to be published next month by the Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude, are expected to include fast-track procedures for ministers to license the sharing of data in areas where it is currently prohibited, subject to privacy safeguards.

Before the election, the Tories gave a clear commitment to “roll back the advance of Big Brother”.  Indeed, their manifesto stated:

The database state is a poor substitute for the human judgement essential to the delivery of public services. Worse than that, it gives people false comfort that an infallible central state is looking after their best interests. But the many scandals of lost data, leaked documents and database failures have put millions at risk. It is time for a new approach to protecting our liberty.

It is clear that they have now u-turned on this policy and are actually expanding the extent of the “database state”.  As the aforementioned Guardian article goes on to state:

Despite the coalition government’s pre-election promises to roll back the database state, the growth of internal Whitehall databases has quietly continued apace in the last two years. A newly created “drug data warehouse” has been set up containing anonymised details of more than 1 million individuals who use illicit drugs.

I find these developments deeply concerning in the current economic and political climate.  Such policies may seem harmless and benign in a stable environment, but these are not stable times.

In times of severe depression, there is always a very real risk that people will flock to extremes to seek answers.  If people do not feel that the government is on their side when they are losing their jobs or feeling the effects of the depression, they will look towards those who are on their side (or at least appear to be).  This simple principle has been demonstrated with the recent election in Greece and the rather disturbing results that emerged from a country in the grip of crisis.

Whilst all eyes were on France and the victory of Hollande, in Greece it emerged that a far-right, anti-immigration party had won a large enough percentage of the vote to gain a seat in the Greek parliament.  For 5-7% of voters, Golden Dawn appeared to be on their side.  For this section of Greek society, a far-right party did have the solutions to resolve the economic difficulties the country is experiencing.  Many Greeks felt that the government was not on their side, not listening to their concerns and subsequently they turned to extremists who (apparently) were.

We are, at present, a long way off this situation and certainly there is no immediate sense that a far-right party will gain a seat in parliament (although I often feel we are teetering on the brink).  However, whilst the implications of the economic crisis are not clear, it is difficult to maintain absolute confidence that fascist parties won’t gain a foothold.  Certainly, if people feel that the governments are not on their side through the crisis there is a danger they could be persuaded by extremist parties that are otherwise consigned to the margins.  But what is really concerning is the extent to which recent governments have put the mechanisms in place for a truly efficient fascist state.

For many years now, we have had security cameras on every street corner ostensibly to ‘protect’ us as citizens.  Indeed, there are presently around 2 million CCTV cameras on UK streets, more than any other country in Europe, despite the lack of clear evidence they have had a significant impact on solving crime.  It is easier than ever before to monitor citizens and track their movements.  Whilst there are movements against the widespread use of CCTV, for many such technology has been broadly accepted (if not welcomed in some cases) as part of the mechanisms required to tackle crime.  The extent of public surveillance and the growth of the “database state” should concern us all in such unstable times.

Going back to the issue of data collection, Jon writes in his excellent blog post:

In a non-liberal state, however, similar information that has possibly been innocently, or naively, collated, can be misused in horrendous ways: so, in 1940s Holland, municipal registers were used by the Nazis to identify and persecute Jews, trade union membership listsused to persecute organised labour and public health and crime records used to persecute the disabled and criminals.

He concludes:

Data-sharing can have enormous and beneficial implications, but we need to exercise caution. We mustn’t amass personal data just because we can. We mustn’t use that data for purposes which were not envisaged when we gathered it. And we mustn’t retain that data just because we can’t be bothered to think what to do with it after its usefulness has passed.

Indeed, data-sharing does provide many benefits, but we must not abandon basic principles designed to protect the individual.  Furthermore, despite the fact that the above principles are enshrined in the statutory Principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (as Jon states), this does not mean we shouldn’t have concerns about the extent of information held by the state on individuals and the extent to which the database state is expanding.  Many of the mechanisms that are currently in place would make for a highly efficient fascist state.

I have often heard those who defend CCTV and the expansion of the “database state” employ the “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear” argument.  That’s all well and good but you are not the one that defines what is right or wrong.  They are.

Bridging the digital divide can enrich democracy and society (image c/o yohanlincoln on Flickr).

Recently I wrote a series of posts looking at some of the data in relation to the digital divide and which groups in society are most affected by a lack of access to the internet. However, whilst identifying the nature of the divide and which groups could be identified as ‘information poor’, the reasons for addressing the depth of the divide have not really been addressed. There is a divide, but why does it need addressing and why are attempts to address it under threat?

As the data in my previous posts confirmed, it is generally (but not exclusively) the low paid and the most vulnerable in society who are presently on the wrong side of the digital divide and can be therefore described as ‘information poor’. Differences in income certainly play a crucial in consolidating the depth of the existing divide. Those with gross weekly earnings below £200 per week are significantly less likely to have accessed the internet at all compared to those earning over £500 per week. Likewise, the over 65s and the housebound are significantly less likely to have ever used the internet than other sections of society. Furthermore, it would appear that whilst many within these groups would state that the costs of having an internet connection at home are too high, it seems logical that many would also fall within the 50% of those who claim that they “don’t need the internet”.  Not to mention the proportion who believe they lack the skills. But why specifically should we be concerned about this?

Access to information is a key requirement for a fully functioning democracy. Without such access it is difficult for the electorate to know what our elected representatives are doing in our name at the heart of government. The growth of the internet, particularly sites such as They Work For You and What Do They Know, has made more information about the political process available than ever before.  This means, of course, that there is far more information to be consumed by those wishing to get engaged in the political process or to better understand political issues.  A report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project in 2004 found that:

Those with high-speed internet connections at home are more reliant on the internet for news on the average day than dial-up users. Broadband users have a more varied mix of news media than other respondents. Of the news sources we asked about, broadband users seek out about 3 on the average day, while dial-up users turn to 2.7 sources, and non-users try 1.7 sources.

The implication is clear. Those that are connected seek more information on current affairs than those without. With the range of news sources available at a click of the mouse, it is perhaps unsurprising to know that those with a connection investigate more resources. Those without will rely on their (often entirely one-sided) daily newspaper or the broadcast media, neither of which will obviously present a comprehensive range of views, opinions or, indeed, facts. Greater access to the internet means a better informed electorate. Or does it?

Another study by Pew back in 2007 revealed the following (via Walk You Home):

Whilst there has been increased knowledge in certain areas, certainly very many areas demonstrated that the %age of Americans who knew certain key political facts had actually declined. The key difference between 1989 and 2007 being the growth of the internet of course. It would not be unreasonable to assume that with the growth of the internet would come greater awareness of a range of political issues. Keeping in mind, of course, that the earlier Pew report in 2004 (three years before the above survey) revealed that those with a broadband connection consulted almost twice as many news sources as those without a connection. However, there is one key difference between 2004 and 2007: the growth of social networking. Is it possible that the development of Facebook, Twitter et al have impacted upon the range of news resources any individual consults? Are they spending less engaging and more time networking?  Or is engagement in social networking leading to individuals being exposed to far more sources than they would have otherwise?  The internet of 2004 was very different to that in 2007. Of course, this is entirely speculation but one wonders what the impact of social networking has actually been on engagement in political issues and the extent to which it has enhanced or diminished exposure to a variety of news sources.

There are also, of course, economic benefits available to those with an internet connection. As anyone reading this will know, online retailers such as Amazon and Play have allowed people to purchase goods at much lower prices than those offered on the high street (which in turn has led to many high street retailers collapsing, impacting upon those who are not connected and have no option but to rely on the high street). And it is not just retailing, price comparison sites have enabled consumers to make substantial savings on insurance and utilities with one study in the US suggesting as much as 20% savings. Obviously it goes without saying that with such savings available those that earn less than £200 gross weekly income would substantially benefit from access to the internet. They are, without doubt, saddled with higher costs than perhaps could be available to them if they had access to an internet connection.

As well as economic benefits, there are substantial educational advantages available to those with an internet connection. A report commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills, for example, revealed that there is a significant “positive relationship” between pupils’ use of ICT and educational attainment. Furthermore, The e-Learning Foundation claimed that:

…children without access to a computer in the evening are being increasingly disadvantaged in the classroom. Research suggests that 1.2 million teenagers log on to revision pages every week and those using online resources were on average likely to attain a grade higher in exams.

The charity cites BBC research in which more than 100 students used the BBC Bitesize revision materials before their GCSE examination. The children were found to have achieved a grade lift compared to those who did not use the online revision guides. The BBC study says: “This is compared to factors such as teacher influence, which was found to produce no significant difference.”

There is, therefore, a clear link between education attainment and home internet access.

What we see, therefore, is a clear divide between those children who have an internet connection at home and those who do not. Given that, as the figures revealed, a significant proportion of those on the lowest incomes either do not have an internet connection at home or have never used the internet, it is difficult to see how the children of those on lower incomes can break the cycle. With the potential impact a lack of access will have on their educational attainment, it is likely this will have a subsequent effect on the development of their skills which will then have a knock-on effect in terms of their ability to make use of the internet, even if they were to obtain a home connection in adult life. For without basic literacy skills how can we possibly expect an individual to be able to utilise the internet to their advantage? Indeed, the current literacy levels in the UK suggest that there are a great many people out there that need skilled support in order to take full advantage of the internet.

These are just a few reasons why there is (still) a pressing need to address the digital divide. It is depressing that after over ten years since the launch of The People’s Network we are still reflecting on the gap between the information haves and have-nots. Of course, a significant reason why we still need to consider these factors is that public libraries, for so long a key institution in getting people online and closing the digital divide, are under serious threat of closure. And not just closure, many libraries are being forced on community groups to be staffed by volunteers. There is not only a divide in terms of access, but also a divide in terms of skills. What is required is skilled support to ensure that the unconnected can get connected and reap the benefits the rest of us take for granted. Of course, there is still a degree of persuasion required. When many still do not consider that they need the internet (despite the various advantages outlined here) there is a need to convince them of the benefits access to the internet provides for them. Race Online 2012 also attempted to address this question, but there is still much work to be done, particularly when 5.7 million households do not have an internet connection.

Libraries have always been primarily concerned with providing free access to information. As such, they have a key role in providing access to the internet for the general public, ensuring equality of access to information across the board. If libraries do not provide this service what institution will? Sure, corporate providers may offer internet access to the general public, but that will be at a cost and those on the lowest incomes who are currently excluded are not likely to divert resources to use an internet cafe or equivalent. If substantial support is required (don’t forget 56% of working-age adults have literacy levels below a good GCSE pass) who will provide it? The commercial provider? If so, at what cost? No, if we want to ensure that the digital divide is closed and opportunities are truly available to all, our public libraries must remain in the front line. It is arguable that they have fallen short to a degree, but they still offer the best opportunity for providing the support required to close this divide. This means properly funded libraries with skilled support to ensure that those that need it have it. It is only through proper funding and support that we can close this divide and, with it, enrich our democracy, raise educational attainment and strengthen our economy. Bridging the digital divide not only benefits the excluded, it benefits society as a whole.

No, she would not be appearing before the media to comment as it would be inappropriate given her role on the Select Committee. However, shortly before stating that she would not be doing any media, she tweeted:

This seems ludicrous at best and rather suggests, once more, that many simply do not ‘get’ Twitter. It makes no sense to argue that you will not appear before the television media to comment, in front of an audience in the low millions, but feel free to comment publicly on a medium that reaches hundreds of millions instantly. Twitter, indeed any online social media, is part of the media landscape.

So yes, she might not have appeared on Newsnight et al, but she has certainly made her views on this matter very public (which is ill-advised in any case given the circumstances). Twitter is not a private network. Publish your comments on there, and you might as well ring up a journalist or sit in a studio. It is, after all, social media.

UPDATE

I should add that Louise Mensch has argued that her tweets have been mis-interpreted.  Maybe so, but it is still difficult to understand why a Select Committee member is prepared to publicly declare that Jeremy Hunt has not behaved improperly.

Books are not being removed by overly sensitive "politically correct" librarians (image c/o barbera* on Flickr).

Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph revealed that a number of items have been removed from library shelves due to “racism, blasphemy, glorifying violence and poking fun at fat people.”  One of the more interesting aspects of this story is that the source of the ‘survey’ was not revealed by the newspaper.  You’d think they would be happy to name the source but no, apparently not.  The information I have, however, is that this “survey” was actually a freedom of information request made to local authorities across the country.  Subsequently, this raises a number of questions in terms of both the Act itself, the media and, indeed, libraries and librarians.

First of all, this story does demonstrate one of the big weaknesses of the Freedom of Information Act in terms of the way it is used.  Information such as that revealed here is all well and good, but without context it means almost nothing (save a cheap headline).  What this story fails to point out is that whilst these books have been removed, they are highly unlikely to have been removed permanently.  In many cases, books are removed, policies and colleagues are consulted, before an approach is decided upon.  In the case of children’s fiction, it might be a case of moving it to the teen section.  For example, I was once in receipt of some Manga comics that appeared to be for children (indeed they were labelled as such by the supplier).  However, I found that the comics contained nudity and were, therefore, unacceptable for the children’s library.  They were subsequently ‘removed’ and placed in a backroom area whilst we decided what to do with them.  This would equally happen if a parent made such a complaint.  But they would end up back on the shelf in the library in one way or another (possibly in a ‘teen’ or ‘young adult’ section).

This is why a carefully worded FoI (and equally careful reporting) is critical.  Without it we end up with ill-informed pieces that suggest an apparent scandal based on a “survey” but which also neglect to give readers the context in which to understand the full story.  The story will seem genuine and authentic due to the nature in which it was obtained (and of course it will be genuine) but it will lack substance.  Freedom of Information can lead to lazy journalism and cheap headlines, as is the case here.  It is important to emphasise ‘can’, it is still an essential tool that demands protection.

As well as careful submission of a request and ensuring the appropriate context is provided for readers (if nothing else but to help them make their own minds up about the story), it also begs the question whether this is a productive use of taxpayers money.  A Freedom of Information request pulled together for a cheap sensationalist headline would result in every authority spending time and money trying to deal with the request.  Whilst the money spent at each authority may be relatively minor (probably very much so), it is still money that would be best spent on delivering the service rather than delivering a story for the press (one could call this state sponsored news of a sort – it is the state that has actually paid to enable the newspaper to carry the story).  What makes this more ironic is that it appears this survey may have been conducted by the Sunday Telegraph, a paper normally so keen to highlight waste in either local or national government.

Now, this is not to say that such requests should be prevented, or indeed that the Freedom of Information Act is a bad thing.  I would certainly never support such an argument.  However, it does demonstrate how journalists either do not make appropriate use of the legislation or that they do so to create headlines that they already had in mind before submitting the request.  After all, what are the chances that someone at the Telegraph has already decided that there was an issue around banned books and wanted to “create” the evidence to support it?  What better way to “create” such evidence than a FoI request that lacks context and is worded in a way to support the hypothesis that had already been formulated?

No, this is not about watering down essential FoI legislation, it is about being aware of how to use the legislation effectively and how to be aware of the ways in which the information is manipulated.  After all, Freedom of Information Act or not, newspapers will still try to twist information to support their agenda.  That is the way in which the national press operate, and that is not likely to change any time soon.

So, books are not being banned in libraries.  There is no effort at censorship on the part of either librarians or library authorities.  There is care and there is consideration about how to address these concerns (as you would expect), led by professionally trained staff who are fully aware of their duties as professionals.  By and large, books are returned to shelves and are not permanently removed on the basis of a complaint from one individual. They are removed to consider how best to ensure that the book remains available whilst taking into account any legitimate concerns that an individual might have.  In short, there is no story here, merely an agenda.

As an aside, I might also point out that whilst librarians have a tendency to overdo the self-analysis, concerned about how they might be viewed by the broader public, it is issues such as this that cause real damage.  Stories such as these create the impression of state-employed do-gooders who will happily censor works that they deem offensive or not befitting of library users (regardless of whether this goes against professional ethics).  This is highly damaging not only to the perception of libraries amongst the public, but also the perception of the profession.  Ironically, whilst this story actually reveals the very real and very serious concerns about handing libraries over to untrained professionals, it is also by planting perceptions such as these that the profession will be seen as an unnecessary interference, acting as undesired state censors.  You can only imagine what the forces of neo-liberalism would make of that.

UPDATE

I should add (as I perhaps did not make it clear) that I am not opposed to Freedom of Information requests for the kind of information that is presented here.  I am, on the other hand, concerned when information is gathered to suit a pre-determined agenda and presented with little or no context.

Furthermore, it is also worth pointing out the coverage in the Express, which claimed:

“Complaints investigated by library staff often ended with the offending book being removed from the shelves or to an area out of the reach of children.”

Before adding:

“A total of 98 library authorities listed 150 complaints about children’s books received in the last five years.”

What is not clear is how many of these complaints led to removals, how many were permanent removals (rather than temporarily whilst decisions were taken) and how many were simply moved to another section. Not only does the information lack in context, it is clear that the information has been selectively reported, again to support the pre-determined agenda.  It would be far better for there to be complete transparency about the nature of the request (or “survey” as they call it) and the data that it obtained.  It is only with complete transparency (by both the local authorities and the media) that we can truly know the extent of the problem (if indeed there is one).

Do we address the exclusion? Or do we leave them be? (Image c/o ...-wink-... on Flickr)

Up until now, I have been particularly focusing on the groups of people currently excluded as a result of being the wrong side of the digital divide. Those that are at the lower end of the wage scale, the over 65s and the disabled who do not have the advantages the rest of us take for granted. But, whilst there is exclusion evident amongst these particular groups, what are the broader reasons for a lack of internet access? Luckily, the Office for National Statistics also produce data on the specific reasons why people do not have an internet connection and I think it makes for interesting reading.

As you can see from the chart below, 50% of respondents who did not have an internet connection claimed they did not have one because they “don’t need the internet”. Interestingly, this attitude also seems to be reflected in other nations. The recent Pew report in the US, for example, revealed that 48% of non-internet users do not think that the internet is “relevant to them”. An interesting coincidence, and one that suggests that there is a common issue here that needs solving. Either there has been a problem articulating the benefits that come with possessing an internet connection, or people are aware of the benefits but do not think they are a sufficient reason to connect. Perhaps, dare I say, the dominance of social media has left many people feeling that the internet is all about people sharing amusing pictures of cats or causing trouble and the significant benefits are overlooked?

The reasons given for not having internet access at home

There is no doubt there are significant advantages for those that are connected, so why is it that such a high proportion of non-users remain unconvinced that the internet is for them? Again, this is possibly an area where libraries can play a bigger role in getting the unconnected connected. But how do they do that? How do you convince people who are adamant that the internet isn’t for them that there are actually advantages and that it is for them? Or is it not actually that important? If people don’t see the advantage, maybe we shouldn’t try to persuade them that they should. Personally, I think we most definitely should try to persuade and support them, but how?

Another key statistic that emerges is, of course, the cost factor. 32% of non-users said that they did not have household internet because either the equipment or connection costs were prohibitive. Perhaps unsurprising when we consider the statistical relationship between non-use and income. That’s 32% of non-users who either rely on, or would benefit from, free internet access at their local library. Take away the provision of free local internet, and it is unclear how this 32% would take advantage of the benefits an internet connection provides. The fact that cost is a consideration suggests that paying in an internet cafe or alternative establishment would not be a satisfactory option. It’s the local library with free access or no connection at all.

Furthermore, around 20% of non-users claim that a lack of skills is preventing them from accessing the internet. This underlines the need for skilled support to be provided for those that are not connected. As my previous post showed, the provision of skilled support can have a substantial impact on an individual’s confidence. Where once they were scared of trying to learn how to use the internet on their own, they can become confident users taking full advantage of the access available to them. But they must have the skilled support there in order for them to do so. Without the initial support it is unlikely that many of those who believe they lack the skills will ever get connected.

Considering the extent to which non-users are unconnected due to financial or confidence reasons, it is not hard to see quite how important the role of the public library is in getting people online and helping them to navigate through the internet. It is crucial that internet access is provided free of charge to users and that there are skilled staff available to support them. Take away either of these factors and it is hard to see how the gap between the excluded and the connected can ever be bridged. Whilst libraries have played a key role since the introduction of the People’s Network, it is clear there is still much work to be done. Libraries are and should be central to bridging the digital divide, but it is difficult to understand how this can take place when funding is being cut, staff are being made redundant and libraries are closing. So, have we decided that those who think the internet is “not for them” are right? In many respects, it seems the government already have.

.

Libraries have an important role in getting the housebound online (image c/o William Hook on Flickr).

In my last post I wrote about the relationship between income and the digital divide and the importance of providing access and support for those less financially secure that the majority of those that are connected.  As the statistics demonstrated, there was a substantial difference in terms of internet access between the low and the high paid. But it is not just the low paid that are victims of this divide, it also impacts upon the disabled and the over 65s.

The latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reveals that 71% of the over 75s and 40% of the 65-74 age group have never used the internet.  This drops dramatically when you hit the 55-64 age group (18.7%).  Clearly a substantial proportion of the population aged over 65 have never used the internet.  There may well be a whole host of reasons why this is the case.  My father, for example, is in his 70s.  Whilst he has a computer, he does not have internet access and has no interest in getting connected.  If he needs anything at all he usually gets either myself or another member of the family to do it for him.  Of course, we have tried to encourage him to get online, but he is simply not interested.  The internet isn’t for him.

A substantial proportion of the over 65s have never used the internet (statistics c/o Office for National Statistics).

It’s not clear how many people of my father’s generation take the same attitude towards the internet, but I’m sure he is not alone. Which begs the question: should we expend energy trying to convince them that they do need to connect to the online world?  Or should we just accept that they are never going to be interested in using the internet?  Personally, I very much believe that they should be convinced of the benefits.  Because, as with lower wage earners, there are substantial financial benefits to be had for a section of society that would truly benefit from them.  The difficulty is in convincing them of these benefits.

But the question is, how we do we get them connected and teach them the skills they need?  Personally, I think libraries have been quite good at addressing this.  Silver surfer sessions have been successful in bringing the internet to the over 65s, getting them connected and showing them how to complete basic tasks like send an email or watch a video.  Although, admittedly, the statistics suggest there is still much to be done.  However, as with low wage earners, it is unclear what support would be available for the over 65s if their public library closed or was unable to provide this service.  The lack of a local service is particularly important for this age group as for some (certainly the over 75s) travelling to the next nearest library could present real difficulties.  With no local library, how is the divide between the over 65s and the rest going to be addressed?  And this is before we even consider those that are housebound.

Ensuring that the housebound are not forgotten in the race to get people online is a particularly tricky issue.  How do we ensure that the housebound have access to the same degree of access and support as those that are able to visit their local public library?  A recent pilot involving Birmingham City and Devon libraries demonstrated the extent to which public libraries can assist the housebound in connecting to the internet.  According to a report written about the pilot:

This evaluation report clearly demonstrates the impact of the intervention on the lives of housebound people, and the role that staff and volunteers can play as informal intermediaries in supporting them to take their first steps online. It provides evidence that despite some initial technical challenges initially, the expectations of stakeholders were not only met but in many cases exceeded, as the participants for the most part grasped the new opportunities that getting online offered them.

The report refers to numerous case studies demonstrating the impact that these opportunities had on individuals.  Ivor, for example, initially wished he hadn’t signed up for the project as he didn’t want to “look like a fool if he couldn’t get the hang of it”.  However, after receiving support he found:

“I could search the web for anything I want, I can transfer anything into Favourites, I’ve spoken to me friend on Skype … I can email, I can answer emails, I can research Google Earth…First thing I do when I come in is switch it on…

“I’ve gone from wishing I hadn’t signed up to loving every minute. I use it all the time! I just want to keep exploring. I don’t want to run before I can walk and I would like a printer I think.”

Clearly, that support and “intensive” training paid substantial dividends in Ivor’s case (and indeed the others that took part in the pilot).  Without such support it is unlikely that he would have gained the skills and confidence that the pilot clearly gave him.  Pilots such as this can play a key role in ensuring that the housebound are not excluded and left behind by the connected.

Of course, such schemes can also produce significant benefits for the disabled.  Again going back to the most recent ONS statistics, it appears that 34.5% of those classed as DDA disabled have never accessed the internet.  Under the Disability Discrimination Act, a disability is defined as:

…a person with ‘a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and longterm adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.’

This includes anyone affected by sensory impairments, learning difficulties or anyone suffering impairments with recurring effects (epilepsy, depression, rheumatoid arthritis).  Whilst the ONS figures do not break down into types of impairment, there is clearly a sizeable proportion of those coming under the DDA who have never accessed the internet and, again, there is a need to find ways of addressing this to ensure that those with such impairments are not left behind.

As with the over 65s, home visits by library staff can go a long way to addressing the extent of the divide for those that are housebound due to disability.  But, of course, this relies on the fact that there are trained staff with the resources to do so.  Without trained staff, without resources and without libraries themselves it will become increasingly difficult to ensure that the disabled are not left behind in the rush to get connected.  Closing public libraries, withdrawing funding and eradicating suitably trained staff will only consolidate the existing divide, leaving the over 65s and the disabled far behind in the race to get online.

Some are in the fast lane whilst others are left behind (image c/o bottleleaf on Flickr).

The internet has massively changed the information landscape.  It’s development has led to an explosion in the availability of information.  There is more information available to the average citizen now than there has ever been.  However, whilst it is accessible for many, there is still a significant proportion of people who either do not have the equipment or the skills required to take advantage of this development.

Take, for example, the most recent Internet Access Quarterly Update for Q4 published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).  These quarterly reports produce a wealth of information about the state of the digital divide in the UK and if you are interested in understanding the extent of this divide, they make essential reading.  Included amongst this report are internet access statistics in relation to age, gender, disability and earnings.  If you believe that everyone has access to the internet, these statistics provide a welcome reminder that this is far from the case.

The statistics in relation to earnings particularly demonstrate the extent of the divide between those that can be defined as ‘information rich’ and ‘information poor’.  As you can see from the graph below, there is a stark difference between higher and lower wage earners.  As you move up the scale from low to high earners, the proportion of those who have never used the internet (not just do not have access at home, but have never even used the internet) drops dramatically.  So much so that the proportion of people earning over £800 per week who have never accessed the internet dramatically drops to virtually 0% in each subsequent pay scale.

%age of those who have never used the internet by gross weekly wage.

Now, 8% of low earners may not seem a significant figure, but it is still a sizeable proportion considering this represents a section of society that has never accessed the internet. And when it is compared to the proportion of higher earners it is clear that there is a very substantial divide.  But, of course, the higher you go up the payscale the more likely you are to have the funds to be able to afford the equipment.  It is particularly easy for higher earners to assume that everyone has access to the internet or has at least used it.  After all, if everyone around you is connected, why should you believe that there are people out there who are not?  Which perhaps explains why it is always middle-class commentators who argue that libraries are irrelevant in the age of the internet.  Their friends all have a connection so of course that means everyone has.

The nature of this divide raises a number of concerns.  For example, given that 8% of very low earners have never utilised the internet, what is the likely impact of transferring the benefits process online?  In these times of increasing unemployment, this is likely to be a very real issue for many.  Whilst assurances are made that a “minority” of claimants will be dealt with face-to-face, can we be sure that those without access will not be severely disadvantaged due to both a lack of access and skills?  As I mentioned in a previous post, literacy and numeracy levels are such that, even if access was provided there are still barriers to overcome.

This also raises questions about the programme of library closures that are taking place across the country.  For those earning less than £200 per week there are a multitude of concerns that take priority over the ownership of a computer and an internet connection, not least putting food on the table.  As long as their gross income remains so low, it is highly unlikely that they are going to invest in the technology required to connect to the internet.  Furthermore, given their restrictive budgets, it is highly unlikely that they would be prepared to spend any of their money on making use of high street internet facilities if doing so requires payment, no matter how seemingly insignificant the fee.  Which is where libraries come in.

Admittedly, public libraries probably haven’t been as successful as they might be in attracting users from the lower end of the income scale.  However, they do provide free internet access (in most cases) and trained staff to support them.  For people on such a restrictive budget, the local public library is their best and most feasible means of connecting to the internet.  Take that away and there is nothing left for them.  Yes they can pay for access via another service provider (as the free market would expect them to), but when you have a choice between paying the bills and putting food on the table or connecting to the internet, it is not hard to see which side they would come down on (despite the economic benefits of access to the internet – which I’ll come to in a later post no doubt!).

The question for public libraries and library authorities is how to address this problem and how to ensure that they do not further exclude entire communities (and yes, it is depressing that this question is still being posed).  Closing libraries certainly isn’t the answer and will not only lead to entrenching the digital divide, but will also kick the ladder away for many making it harder for the currently disconnected to join the ranks of the “information rich”.  Furthermore, there is a risk of this being entrenched across the generations.  As has been demonstrated, children with internet access at home are at a significant advantage to those without, achieving better grades and, therefore, enhancing their prospects.  For those on low incomes then, the impact of the divide will also be felt by the next generation, destined to remain excluded from the connected majority, harming their future prospects and consolidating their isolation.

Clearly, if as many as 8% of low earners have never used the internet, public libraries have been unsuccessful in getting this particular section of the community connected.  But the failure to attract the socially excluded is something that libraries have particularly struggled with for many years (sub required).  Despite the intentions of the People’s Network to connect the socially and digitally excluded, it is clear that many remain excluded.  But if libraries are closed, how will this problem be addressed?  Will it just result in permanent isolation of the unconnected? Condemning generations to digital exclusion.  Shouldn’t more effort be put into public libraries getting the “information poor” connected?  And, if so, how?  Sophisticated social networking marketing will clearly not have any impact on this section of society.  So what strategies can and should be employed?  Public libraries are in the ideal position to connect the unconnected.  Closing them suggests we have given up and are prepared to accept there will always be the connected and the excluded.