Missingham makes a case for securing high speed internet access for all Australians, and leverages this argument by providing an example of how public libraries are improving the situation, through a nationwide opt-in consortium, providing access to online subscriptions to important databases. She does however, identify that this one example is not enough to rectify the problems of bringing Australians into the era of digital citizenship. Missingham also cites emotive evidence arguing for the increasing need, for this high speed, broadband access. As this reviewer is herself, a librarian, who is highly aware of the current issues, and supports the need for affordable, reliable broadband access, Missingham is already preaching to the converted. There are however, some potential assumptions made. This review will attempt to comment and critique the points raised.
The overall lack of cited evidence from the vast body of library related research literature on digital citizenship, the perceived digital divide or the two tier system in Australia, with regards to the information rich and the information poor is this reader’s first criticism. Included, is cited evidence from submissions to the Government’s Inquiry into the Role of Libraries in the Online Environment. While these submissions are, of course valid real world, opinions, which can be accessed, via the URL given in the reference list of Missingham’s article, the report, which was written as a result of these submissions, is itself a Government report, which has not gone through the rigorous peer review process.
The lack of cited research literature may in fact be explained by the origin of the paper- it was originally a presentation to the ALIA Public Libraries Summit, where it can probably be assumed that the audience were in fact already aware of the supporting body of research literature. Regardless, there is a lack of this evidence in the published paper itself. One only needs to do a quick scan of the literature to see that there is indeed a body of the literature that supports the idea of a digital divide (see Bertot, 2003; Foster, 2000; Mossberger, Tolbert & McNeal, 2008) and corroborates the fact that there is indeed an infrastructure difference between those who live in the country and those who do not, in the Australian context. There is also a body of literature, which suggests that the digital divide concept is far too simplistic to describe the barriers to Internet use in Australia (Willis & Tranter, 2006) This however goes beyond the scope of this review.
There is the implication that this reader takes from reading Missingham’s paper, that the author stakes her argument, advocating for high speed internet access, on the need for Australians to become digital citizens and to “participate in the digital world” (Missingham, p. 387). It is not clear from Missingham’s paper what she (or the literature) defines as a digital citizen. It is not until the conclusion of her paper that she refers to the link between digital citizenship and social inclusion. Warshauer (2003 in Mossberger et al, 2008) suggests that digital citizenship encourages what has “elsewhere been called social inclusion” (p. 1). In her paper, Missingham provides a ‘first principles’ demonstration on how social inclusion principles relate firsthand to digital citizenship in the Australian context, by citing the Government’s social inclusion website. This serves as her final argument, for the need to provide all Australians with high speed internet connectivity.
Missingham uses the public library initiative to provide access to several databases for Australians on an opt-in basis for public libraries, as an example of what public libraries are doing to advance Australian’s digital citizenship. If we consider other definitions (or other facets) of digital citizenship, further questions are raised, which lend support to Missingham’s argument for the need for more funding. If we refer to a definition of the digital citizen from Mossberger, et al. (2008), they refer to digital citizens as those who use the Internet “regularly and effectively”. This presumably relates to a certain technical proficiency with using the Internet. The Missingham article touches on the point that “country libraries don’t seem to provide training for internet use: they don’t have enough staff” (2009, p. 389).
If there is a lack of staff or lack of learning opportunities to teach people the information literacy skills on how to access this information, more funding needs to be made available, which is one of the recommendations made by Missingham for public libraries to provide training to support use, of which requires Government funding. (2009, p. 397). A strong argument supporting the need for additional funding is cited in the article, via one of the submissions made to the Inquiry into the Role of Libraries in the Online Environment, where “funding in New South Wales is over 50% less than any other State” (Field, 2002 in Missingham, 2009, p. 389). Where, however, is the cited evidence for this statistic? This relates back to this reader’s original criticism of the lack of overall evidence from the research literature.
Missingham cites reasons for the importance of access to quality information, and for the provision of programmes which develop successful literacy skills. By reading between the lines, it appears that Missingham goes on to argue that increasing access to the internet via high speed connectivity will aide in increasing literacy, and uses evidence to support her argument. The evidence, however appears to be somewhat weak, at best. She cites an Australian Bureau of Statistics report on adult literacy. While public libraries are ‘active in the delivery of such programs’ (2009, p. 396), there appears to be a weak correlation between those people who scored on or above the minimum literacy score for people to meet the complex demands of everyday life, with those who used the internet. Missingham is arguing that more people who are on or above the minimum literacy level were more likely to have used the Internet. This is a statistic that immediately adds weight to the argument for the need for high speed internet connectivity, yet there is no indication that there is in fact this correlation. Perhaps there are other influences in these people’s lives, that are not directly attributed to Internet effects, which are improving their literacy levels. It is unclear from Missingham’s article, where this information was extrapolated from.
Missingham then goes on to discuss the barriers that exist which prevent Australians from participating in the digital economy. Connectivity (and the associated lack of infrastructure) is one major barrier she cites. She mentions the Government’s National Broadband Network initiative, which is committed to enabling the majority of Australians be connected to high speed internet. It may be fitting that the one year anniversary of the Government’s announcement of the National Broadband Network has just passed. Articles published in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian on the anniversary of the announcement, raise questions on the success of the initiative by citing the challenges that continue to stall the roll out, as well as the millions of consultative dollars spent on the initiative.
In conclusion, Missingham provides a good overview of the barriers and issues that continue to face Australians in their bid to become “digital citizens”. However, the lack of cited evidence from the body of research literature is of great concern. Despite this, it is clear that there continues to be a need for Australians to access good quality information, in order to be informed, socially included citizens. Missingham cites the ERA public library consortium initiative as one way in which libraries can assist, but concludes that more needs to be done, in the way of a National Broadband Network. It is apparent that there is still a long way to go, judging by the passing of the one year anniversary since the announcement of this network, with as yet, no network in sight.
Other links
Note: My reading for this assignment fueled my interest and led me to the exploration of many varied and interesting avenues. While related, these are beyond the scope of this assignment. To see where my reading got me- check it out here:
Government role in high speed internet + reprisals of the proposed internet filter
- What is the role that the Government plays in the provision of high speed internet? Chang, Lee and Middleton (n.d) identified four areas which have been constraining broadband development in Australia. To check out the original article, click here.
- An editorial in the Australian suggests that the Government itself could in fact be hindering the rollout of the NBN with its proposed internet filter.
- Hungry beast video- how the internet filter (won’t) work:
- Google has expressed concerns over the proposed filter and “will not ‘voluntarily’ comply with the Government’s request that it censor YouTube videos in accordance with broad ‘refused classification’ (RC) rules” (Moses, 2010)
- Bertot, J.C. (2003). The multiple dimensions of the digital divide: more than the technology: 'haves’ and ‘have nots’. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 185-191.
- Chang, S., lee, H., & Middleton, C. (n.d.). The Deployment of Broadband Internet in Australia: Areas for Attention and Implications from Canada and Korea. Retrieved April 7, 2010 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.9546&rep=rep1&type=pdf
- Foster, S.P. (2000). The digital divide: some reflections. International Information & Library review,32, 437-451
- Illic, D. (2010). How the internet filter (won’t) work. Retrieved April 7, 2010 from http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/how-internet-filter-wont-work
- Moses, A. (2010). Google baulks at Conroy’s call to censor YouTube. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from www.smh.com.au
- Mossberger, K., Tolbert, V.J., & McNeal, R.S. (2008). Digital citizenship. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Willis, S. & Tranter, B. (2006). Beyond the digital divide: Internet diffusion and inequality in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 43-59
No comments:
Post a Comment