Week Six Weblog

It is amazing how the library has so quickly provided the public with access to online information resources since the "Digital Divide" entered popular discourse. Ten years after the coining of the phrase in a speech by Lloyd Morisette (former president of the Markel foundation (Schement, p. 119) ) 95% of all public libraries have computers for use to explore and participate in the digital world. This is in line with democratic ideals which support a multiplicity of voices within the forum of public discourse to thwart a tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, once the technology was made available and the public showed avid use of it (60% of library users go online (Shement, p. 119)), the "digital divide" was considered "bridged." As a result, policymakers are allowing funding to dwindle. There is an argument that the funding should not become less available; it should shift priority from setting-up the system to maintaining the system. Libraries must provide data that can be used in related and ongoing policymakers' arguments which will result in financial maintenance support.

In the report by the Gates Foundation (Toward an Equality of Access), there are five areas that are in direct need of ongoing assistance (p. 28-30): 1) Hardware and Software Upgrades, 2) Internet Connectivity, 3) Keeping Systems Running, 4) Staff Training, and 5) Keeping Libraries Open. According to this report "severe budget crises have led to state cuts in funding for public libraries across the country" (p. 26). Identifying these key areas in need of continued funding is not enough to elicit policymakers' attention. Schement writes (p. 124), "Libraries...should rely on their continuing community dialogue as a basis for statistically assessing those information resources that potentially contribute to providing access." In other words, data needs to be provided for policymakers that can concretely be used to argue that funding is critical to sustain the system in place. Such data can come from librarians surveying the user community's opinions on specific issues (e.g. the five areas recognized by the Gates Foundation). Once such data is made available to policymakers, it can be interjected into their debates for social betterment and possibly result in a shift of funding back to the public library system.

Shement recognizes that "powerful, quantitative tools for assessing the information resources and needs of...communities" are required to provided such data (p. 124), but she does not explain what those tools are. Assessing a community's needs is a very complex and time consuming task. The range of diversity of communities is immense in the United States, as suggested by the Gates Foundation report (page side on pp. 8, 11, 14, 19, 20, 23, 24, & 30). Therefore, use of the simple catch phrase "Digital Divide" to promote continued funding will not suffice. Data taken from communities representing part of a synergistic whole can promote "digital sustainability." The work of librarians, ethnographers, sociologists and the community itself can provide this data and must do so soon to avoid a "digital disintegration."