Author Archives: drlynrobinson

Unknown's avatar

About drlynrobinson

Academic, Londoner. She/Her

Time for the blue whale

Posted on by

Text developed from my presentation with Ludi Price, (@LudiPrice) for the CDP25 Career Development Day on Thursday 26th Feb 2015, in London.

Introduction
The title of this text draws on the analogy with the Natural History Museum’s recent move to replace their iconic, and much loved (plastic) dinosaur skeleton, which greets visitors to the museum, with the real skeleton of a blue whale. The rationale is that although the dinosaur, affectionately known as Dippy, has been there a long time and evokes many fond memories, there is the question of whether it continues to be representative of the museum’s vision for promoting humankind’s contemporary, ecological challenges, and our hopefulness for the future. The blue whale is not yet extinct, and can embody values connected to aspirations of a bright and harmonious future for our planet, rather than those of prehistoric times. Whilst nobody is claiming that the dinosaur skeleton has not served us well, it may now be appropriate to redefined old paradigms, and to offer a more plausible platform from which inhabitants of the 21st century can build their relationship with the natural world, and indeed, their memories of London.

So too, perhaps, it is time for a re-evaluation of what we mean by  “librarianship”. A brief examination of relevant academic curricula and job specifications (UK/US), and of course, the Google zeitgeist, (search for ‘is librarianship dead?’), provides us with evidence that librarianship could be morphing into the soggier end of computer science, and that the need for anything resembling traditional library/information skills in a world of mobile interfaces and big-data analysis, has all but disappeared.

From those of us positioning ourselves within the field, there has always been a sense of dissatisfaction with the status afforded to the discipline and practice of librarianship, and the related information professions, but there is now a renewed impetus for redefinition spearheaded by the actions of a wider community. It is protagonists from other disciplines who are blending into, and consequently diluting, our universe. Even core components of librarianship such as information organisation and access are proving attractive to a wider audience, as we hear that ‘everyone is an information specialist now’. This is somewhat similar to the crisis felt by information science as few decades ago, as one of its core facets, information retrieval, mostly packed up and left for the domain of computer science.

If we believe that our discipline should survive as a unique domain, we may have to replace the beloved dinosaur definition of librarianship with a new entity. I doubt I am alone in thinking that a 21st century understanding of librarianship needs to push the information perspective further into related disciplines than is perceived by onlookers, many of whom are looking from within the profession.

The view that librarianship keeps collections of documents in a place called the library and that information science is concerned with looking things up for people using such collections, undoubtedly still has appeal. However, if we are to redefine the meaning of our professional moniker, I would like to suggest the combined definition of library and information science  (LIS) that we use at City University London, (Robinson 2009), which considers that LIS is concerned with the information communication chain. LIS works to an overall understanding of the procedures contributing to the journey of ‘information’ from its creation to its use.

creation > dissemination > management > organization/retrieval > use

The terms in the model can be readily expounded upon, but at a glance are seen to encompasses changes in authorship, publishing, management and policy, description/retrieval, information architecture and human information behaviour. In the current, rather gloomy climate, this model is worth revisiting, as it emphasises the scope of library and information science. Also worth reiterating is the concept that LIS underpins civilisation. Recorded knowledge is the basis of our society. Witness the continued presence in the news of book burning and destruction of libraries (Fadhil 2015).

To support the view that librarianship is not dead, but changing, here are seven modern problems, distilled from the wider news environment, which can be placed within the information communication chain, and which, should LIS professionals wish it, provide routes via which the information perspective can contribute to related disciplines.

• Privacy/Freedom of Information
• Digital Legacy
• Digital Preservation
• Future of the Document
• Information Literacy
• Information Organization and Access
• Library as a Physical Space

Privacy and Freedom of Information
Individual privacy battles against constant erosion, as social media goes into overdrive to gain person details to feed advertising revenue. Increasingly, use of social media engenders an almost blasé approach to privacy, in that it becomes seen as a necessary evil. Access to personal communications by government intelligence agencies is perhaps resisted more, but the number of our conversations, emails, texts, photos, videos, purchases and search histories which are committed to the network in perpetuity keeps on increasing. (MacAskill E, Borger J, Hopkins N, Davies N and Ball J, 2013)

On the opposite side, the right to find out about financial dealings or decisions which should be of public concern, is often fraught with difficulty, see Shear MD, 2015 for a discussion on Hilary Clinton’s use of personal email to avoid disclosure of state correspondence.

These issues of security of personal details and of openness have long been within the remit of library and information workers. Although technology has catapulted them onto a much bigger stage, LIS should have a key role in development of local, institutional, national or international policy, and in education to promote understanding of the implications we face.

Digital Legacy
Here we come face to face with digital ghosts. Once someone dies, what happens to their online presence? There have been calls for digital legacies, which state what happens to social media accounts when the owner dies. Facebook has recently allowed relatives to say what happens to a Facebook account for example. There are really two issues, firstly what happens to a personal digital presence, and secondly what happens to digital equity, such as ebooks or CDs. These, essentially archive queries fall within the remit of library and information science, and yet the game is played out by social media companies and funeral policy makers. See my previous post, for further consideration of digital legacies.

Digital Preservation
The potential loss of our digital heritage is often in the news. It is something that concerns many organisations, from national libraries to local societies. Each of us is concerned with the preservation of our own electronic resources. Somewhat linked to the concerns of digital legacies, we need to understand how we can organise, locate and keep safe, our digital documents. This is a modern twist on a core aspect of librarianship, and yet the main decision makers are from other, largely computing, industries and government. See Pennock M, 2015.

Future of the Document
The changing nature of the document has been of interest for librarianship from the earliest days of writing. Tablets, papyri, codices, printed works, electronic books for example. The incorporation of videos and CDs into library collections heralded a move to hybrid libraries and the management of collections of both print and digital materials. Latterly, we have all digital collections such as Europeana and the Digital Public Library of America.

But document forms evolve continuously, and the emergence of augmented and virtual reality technologies is challenging how we define a document. I have written previously on the concept of immersive documents, wherein the reader perceives a scripted unreality as reality. This builds on the ideas of many other writers, to elucidate an original view of VR from the lens of library and information science. We should be concerned with the description, storage and access, preservation, and use of these new documents. The input from LIS so far, however, has minimal, with the majority of the news coming from the technology industry and creative writers.

The domain of fan-studies is also relevant here. Yet again, very little interest in fan works from the LIS community. (Work with @LudiPrice on information behaviour of fans seeks to address this).

Let us also consider datasets; these newer forms of documents, accompanied by their analysis and curation processes (data visualization, data analysis, data mining and data curation)  are also well within the scope of LIS.

Information Literacy
There is a large body of literature from, and obvious connection with, the LIS community in regard to information literacy. However, the question remains could more be done? Every school and higher education institute now faces the need to ensure students are information literate. Beyond this, everyone needs to be information literate. There is also the link between information literacy and information poverty, and inverse correlation with the latter for economic growth and development. The role for LIS professionals is surely enormous. And yet, we seem a little reluctant to take on responsibility for communicating the basis of our discipline to others. Alternative fields such as educational technology, and distance learning providers have become key players in promoting information literacy.

Information Organisation and Access
Many documents are now born digital, and the move from bibliographic data, to meta-data and linked data is widely accepted. This work is about describing documents, and as such of primary interest to the LIS community.

Furthermore, the questions of discovery, and of the design and implementation of digital library platforms require significant knowledge of information resources and human information behaviour. However, design of library and information systems is increasingly attracting those with computing skills, and we have to consider the need for LIS to take on a more technological component.

Library as a Physical Space
The role of the library within society has been a fundamental tenet of library and information science for thousands of years. In the digital age, when remote access removes the need for a physical space, what purpose could the library serve? Is this question best left to politicians, publishers and e-book sellers? Does the LIS community have an opinion? (Morris S and Flood A, 2015).

Conclusion
Neither library and information science as an academic field, nor librarianship as a practice are dead. The skills and resourcefulness of members of our discipline are ideally suited to address the problems raised and faced by the 21st century information society. We do need to re-examine how we define and promote our theory and practice. There is obviously a need for a more technical foundation, to reflect the prevalence of digital information systems in our world today. However LIS addresses wider concerns than those solved by coding and programming. We suggest that the information communication chain model still serves us well as the basis from which our concept of LIS can evolve, and that we would be wise to focus on how we embody generic resilience for the future, rather than continuing to solely emphasize what we have done in the past. Time then, to bring in the blue whale.

References
Fadhil M (2015). ISIS destroy thousands of books and manuscripts in Mosul libraries. The Guardian, 26th February 2015. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/26/isis-destroys-thousands-books-libraries

MacAskill E, Borger J, Hopkins N, Davies N and Ball J (2013). GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world’s communications. The Guardian June 21st 2013. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

Morris S and Flood A (2015). Birmingham turns page on glittering new library as staff and hours slashed. The Guardian, 10th December, 2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/10/birmingham-turns-page-glittering-new-library-as-staff-hours-slashed

Pennock M (2015). Preserving our Digital Heritage: How are we really doing? British Library Collection Care Blog. 23rd February 2015. Available at: http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/collectioncare/2015/02/preserving-our-digital-heritage-how-are-we-really-doing.html

Robinson L (2009). Information Science: the information chain and domain analysis. Journal of Documentation vol 65(4), 578-591.

Shear MD (2015). Obama says he didn’t know Hillary Clinton was using private email address. New York Times, 7th March 2015. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/us/obama-says-he-didnt-know-hillary-clinton-was-using-private-email-address.html?_r=0

Digital Inheritance: preserve, profit or delete?

Posted on by

When you die, who gets your Facebook?

This may seem a silly, or meaningless, question, but it is starting to take on a deep significance. There has been an increasing number of reports over the past couple of years of bereaved relatives facing real difficulty trying to get access to the social media accounts of the deceased, or of trying to inherit their digital collections of books, photographs, and music. Even if passwords are available, there may not be full control over accounts and materials. And, there are even new questions of etiquette: if a deceased friend’s social media presence remains after they are gone, at what point is it acceptable to unfriend them? There is no doubt that ‘digital hauntings’ – continuing appearances on an individual’s profile in digital media long after their demise – can be source of genuine distress to the bereaved.

These points were discussed in an article on the technology section of the BBC news website [ Plea for people to create ‘digital legacy’ letter], which reported suggestions that people should be encouraged to leave a sealed ‘digital legacy’ letter, including the passwords giving access to all their digital services, and instructions for what should be done with the material in them. The article was prompted by research carried out for the Cooperative Funeralcare organisation, which showed that many people had encountered difficulties in dealing with the digital affairs of a deceased relative.

Suggestions along the same lines have been made in the past year by a number of organisations, from Saga to the Law Society. We have even seen the emergence of companies, such as Planned Departure in the UK, whose whole business is providing advice on the creation of such documents.

There are essentially two issues. First, the need of bereaved relatives to have access to, or to be able to delete, the personal memories instantiated in social media. Second, the desire of surviving relatives to inherit digital books, music, games, etc. which may have a considerable monetary value. There may also be financial value in ‘digital property’ such as domain names registered to an individual, and this financial element will increase greatly if digital currencies such as Bitcoin get greater usage.

The law, unfortunately, is far from clear on these matters. Individual social media accounts are generally regarded as personal by the providers, who mostly choose not to give access to anyone other than their deceased owner. If you have a collection of paper diaries, printed photographs, printed books or CDs, it is clear what happens to them on your death. Not so if your personal accounts, photos, books and music are kept in digital form in a service such as Facebook or iTunes. Living purchasers of Amazon e-books found this out when the company removed books from their Kindles without notice. And Apple, for one, has maintained that its iTunes accounts are personal to an individual and cannot be inherited.

The desire to allow ones’ digital presence to live on, transferred to others, is an interesting counterpoint of the idea of ‘digital suicide’, the ability to delete entirely one’s digital footprint. Both seem equally difficult to arrange, and – along with perennial concerns about privacy – indications of the difficulty of establishing control over personal presence in the digital world.

The technology companies are, perhaps rather belatedly coming to terms with this issue, with Google and Facebook, among others, both now offering users a degree of control; stipulating, for example, whether an account should be deleted on their death, or some degree of control passed to a named person. However, without some consistency between services, things will remain difficult for the bereaved. Another issue is the sheer number of online sites and services; how many of us keep track of our digital footprint? As a number of commentators on the BBC news site suggested, it may be more important to worry about the inability of companies to deal with things like electricity bills when a customer dies, before we get concerned about digital legacy. But as our lives are lived more and more online, this problem is only going to become more urgent and far-reaching.

2014 (ICYMI)

Posted on by

Notably absent from the cards which I received over the current festive season, were the ‘round robin’ letters that used to give me a potted summary of what had been happening in the lives of my friends and relatives, (notably the accomplishments of their offspring) over the past year. These notes were a great source of delight, although mischievous delight in some ways, as I unpicked the gloss to guess at the reality beneath the veneer of the perfect lives portrayed in the endless round of promotions, new houses and exam successes. Nowadays, all of the children have reached the age of adulthood, so they are less fruitful sources of ‘news’ for their parents, but most obviously, the regular ping of updates from social media has alleviated the need for the annual news missive. The creative talent required to concoct superlative, social media statuses for the festive season is usually beyond most of us, as we are exhausted by the need to star in our own lives the entire year round – so unless something astonishing happens (hopefully good rather than catastrophic!), the end of the year is celebrated not only by the vestiges of pagan tradition, but by wholesale summary and review posts. An outpouring of “In Case You Missed It” headlines.

The summary and review posts are also evident in the professional realm, and although my experience with social media is mostly limited to Twitter, it is clear that the turn of the year demands fierce promotion of what happened over the past 12 months. This manifests in posts labelled ‘highlights’, ‘top 10 best moments’ ‘top 10 worst moments’ and so on, and although I remember end-of-year reviews from the analogue world back in the day, (Number 1 hit records from Top of the Pops!) the pervasiveness of contemporary digital culture means we are now exposed to summaries and reviews of just about everything, from everyone we know. Because we can count it, we do.

Two things trouble me about this – the first is of little consequence, and is that with a few exceptions, I find these summaries tedious. I read the news/articles the first time around, and if I didn’t have time for something then, I certainly don’t over the festive period.

The second concern is metrics. Many of the summaries include numbers. Numbers of posts, followers, mentions, likes and downloads. Irrespective of meaning, measurement is implicit in any quantitative dialog, and the ease with which social media statistics are generated, encourages the feeling that more equals better.

The academic community has recently been treated to REF exercise, the metrics of which have generated much critique from more informed minds than mine. Nevertheless, academia, like the health service and other state-funded operations, faces increasing competition for increasingly limited resources, and so some way has to be found to ‘rank’ achievements, and to quantify ‘academic output’. Whilst I would like to argue that it is impossible, not only undesirable, to reduce academic/creative ability (which is wide and varied) to a number, numbers are increasingly the way in which we are judged. One problem with assigning numbers to aspects of our work (outputs) is that most of us, very sensibly, choose to focus our creative and research energy solely on the game of getting as high a number as possible for the criteria listed. It doesn’t matter if grant applications are unsuccessful, count the number of applications made

Relatively few of my immediate colleagues engage with social media, and so have yet to enter the arena for what are broadly referred to as altmetrics. But this will doubtless change as ways to count every utterance we make become more widely known.  I have colleagues from a wider pool of acquaintance who already promote the number of hits to videos of their lectures as a measure of credibility, even though it could also be a measure of how many students don’t think that their lectures are worth turning up to. This is not to say that numbers are always irrelevant or misleading. I am a known advocate of social media as channels of communication, and of course improving access to research, ideas and communities is beneficial to all. The thinking behind the numbers needs to be understood, but context is rarely immediate from altmetric visualisations. I am certainly not the first or only person to highlight that the attempt by everyone and their mum to achieve cult status by numbers, is, with the exception of one or two highly talented and/or lucky individuals, meaningless. If we are all celebrities, who is left in the audience? I come back to the contemporary need to star in our own lives, the measure of which seems to be large numbers of followers, and mentions of our ‘outputs’, on various social media channels, such as hits on shared decks of slides, references to blog posts and links to video uploads. I wonder, really, what any of this means, when so many of us are employing the same strategy. Perhaps what is needed is more discussion around what is meaningful ‘impact’.

In the current climate, many of us seem increasingly driven, even when we have nothing new to say, to communicate regardless. It’s a bit like going down the rabbit hole isn’t it? A fantastically busy journey at the end of which, when we wake up, nothing much has happened.