Archive

Author Archive

Guest Post: Graduate Research Intern, Ada van Tine, on Libraries & Neurodiversity

December 22, 2017 Leave a comment

Ada van Tine is a Graduate Research Intern in the Program on Information Science, researching the area of library privacy.

 


Our Libraries and Neurodiversity

By Ada van Tine

Andover-Harvard Theological Library Stacks by Ada van Tine

It is a quiet day the library where you work, you find it peaceful. But that is not the case for everyone. One of your patrons, Anna, is an 18 year old woman who falls on the autism spectrum. She needs to do research for her college final paper on W.E.B. Du Bois. She lives with her parents nearby the school and library, but their house is noisy and full of visiting relatives right now. However Anna doesn’t consider the library to be a calm alternative and is very nervous about going to the library because the fluorescent lights highly irritate her, their buzzing endlessly permeating her brain, causing nausea. To cope with this she often does repetitive movements with her hands. In the past, librarians and other patrons have been really awkward with her because of her hand movements and reaction to the lights. But she really needs to get these books for her paper, what will you do as a librarian to help this patron meet her needs? For individuals who are members of a neurominority, libraries can be extremely stressful, upsetting, and in the worst cases traumatic.

In libraries, we understand that we need to accommodate people who are different, but the problem is that sometimes we are not aware of who we might be failing to serve and why. If Anna gives feedback about the library in a suggestion box, the you might well schedule a replacement of the fluorescent lights as part of the library’s renovations. That is a small step toward progress, however we should not wait around for an invitation to make our libraries more bearable, leaving the chance that some patrons might be suffering in silence in the meantime. Librarians need to be radically proactive so as not to make their spaces only welcoming to the part of the population with neurotypical leanings. The solution, however, is not merely a focus on those who are “different” and need some kind of special accommodation.

Rather, the researchers and advocates who talk about neurodiversity now stress that neurodiversity is “the idea that neurological differences like autism and ADHD are the result of normal, natural variation in the human genome.” (Robinson, What is Neurodiversity?) Simply said: all humans fall on neurological spectra of traits, and all of us have our own variances from the norm. For each person in the world there exists a different way of perceiving and interacting with other people and information. For instance, people with dyslexia, people with autism, people with ADHD, and people who have not had a good night’s sleep all perceive the world and the library differently. The concept of Neurodiversity is another way to recognize that.

Furthermore, new research is continually helping us to evolve our ideas about neurodiversity. Therefore, libraries should stay abreast of advancements in technology for the neurodiverse population because they will benefit every patron. “Actively engaging with neurodiversity is not a question of favoring particular personal or political beliefs; rather, such engagement is an extension of librarians’ professional duties insofar as it enables the provision of equitable information services” (Lawrence, Loud Hands in the Library, 106-107). Librarians are called through the ALA Core Values of Access and Diversity to make all information equitably available to all patrons. To not recognize the existence of neurodiversity would be to ignore a segment of the whole society which we are called to serve.

There are immediate ways that your library can better serve a larger portion of the neurodiverse population. For example, below are some relatively low cost interventions:

  • For dyslexic individuals have a small reading screen available. esearch has shown that those with dyslexia can read more easily and quickly off of smaller screens with small amounts of text per page (Schneps).
  • Audiobooks, text-to-speech, and devices that can show text in a color gradient also help dyslexic patrons with their information needs.
  • For people who are on the autism spectrum replace the older fluorescent lights in the library, and don’t focus solely on open collaborative spaces in the library layout (Lawrence, Loud Hands, 105). Also train yourself and your employees to recognize and know how to react properly with autistic individuals who may express non verbal body language such as repetitive movements (Lawrence, Loud Hands, 105).
  • For people with ADHD, have quiet private rooms available so they can better concentrate at the library as well as audio books and text-to-speech programs so that they can listen to their research and reading while doing other things (Hills, Campbell, 462).
  • Train staff to never touch a person who is on the autism spectrum without their explicit permission, be aware of their sensory needs and hold the interview in a quiet place with no background noise such as an office fountain, and with no fluorescent lights. Some people on the autism spectrum are also smell sensitive, so notify staff to refrain from wearing perfume. (http://www.autismacceptancemonth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAM-Sensory-Accomodations.pdf)

New technologies and findings in cognitive science are being developed to better adapt to those individuals who are members of a neurominority. For example, a new reading program is being developed by Dr. Matthew Schneps that combines a reading acceleration program with compressed text-to-speech and visual modifications which has so far proven to drastically increase the speed of dyslexic and non dyslexic readers alike (Shneps). There are many studies on the ways in which modern technology can be used to better communicate with and educate autistic students. The future is hopeful.

Addressing neurodiversity in our libraries and in our societies is not a solved problem. For example there is research and development being done to reframe digital programs to be viewed as an ever growing ecosystem, never in stasis, so that they may better adapt to every user’s need as well as be transparent about the metadata of programs so that users can know which parts of the system are enabling or disabling their assistive technology (Johnson, 4). There are many steps to take that can help make the library more friendly to a neuro diverse audience, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that we must all plan to change and adapt now and over time to make our society a better, more liveable place for everyone. So that maybe when Anna comes to research the library and staff will be prepared to be a little more welcoming than she expected, and maybe she’ll even want to come back.

What to do next:

 

You may feel overwhelmed by the vast and complicated nature of this important task. The first step is always to educate yourself and get a grounding in basic literature about a subject. Many resources are included in the next section to aid in this discovery process.

You may wish to start off by learning about neurodiversity in general (What is Neurodiversity?,Definition of Neurodiversity). If you’ve identified a specific population need in your community — you may want to dig in deeper with resources specific to that neurominority, here are a few. (Autism Spectrum, ADHD, Dyslexia).

There are some good books and articles specifically about neurodiversity and libraries included in the resources. (Library Services for Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Programming for Children and Teens with Autism Spectrum Disorder,

Loud Hands in the Library, Neurodiversity in the Library).

As it turns out, there is a lack of literature relating to best practices and programming in libraries in reference to neurodiversity. However, to understand and engage with this topic and community librarians should consider attending events and workshops — a number held by advocacy and research organizations are included below. (ADHD, Dyslexia, The A11Y project, International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, The Center for AAC and Autism).

 

Resources

Reference List

The American Association of People with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.aapd.com/about/

Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved from http://autisticadvocacy.org/

The A11Y project. Retrieved from https://a11yproject.com/about

Campbell, I., Hills, K. (2011). College Programs and Services. In M. DeVries, S. Goldstein, & J. Naglieri (Eds), Learning and Attention Disorders in Adolesence and Adulthood (457-466). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Center for AAC and Autism. Retrieved from https://www.aacandautism.com/

Children and Adults with Hyperactive Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Retrieved from http://www.chadd.org/

Eng, A. (2017). Neurodiversity in the Library: One Librarian’s Experience. In The Library With The Lead Pipe, 1.

http://ezproxy.simmons.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.simmons.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lls&AN=124086508&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Farmer, L. S. J. (2013). Library Services for Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Chicago: American Library Association.

How Educators Can Help Autistic People by Sensory Accommodations. Retrieved from http://www.autismacceptancemonth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAM-Sensory-Accomodations.pdf

International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org

International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Retrieved from https://www.isaac-online.org/english/about-isaac/

Johnson, Rick. (2017, Sept 25). Accessibility: Ensuring that Edtech Systems Work Together to Serve All Students. Educause Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/9/accessibility-ensuring-that-edtech-systems-work-together-to-serve-all-students

 

Klipper, B. (2014). Programming for Children and Teens with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Chicago: American Library Association.

Lawrence, E. (2013). Loud Hands in the Library. Progressive Librarian, (41), 98-109. http://ezproxy.simmons.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lls&AN=91942766&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Neurodiversity. Retrieved from http://www.autismacceptancemonth.com/resources/101-3/autism-acceptance/neurodiversity/

Ploog, B. O., Scharf, A., Nelson, D., & Brooks, P. J. (2013). Use of computer-assisted technologies (CAT) to enhance social, communicative, and language development in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, (2), 301. doi:10.1007/sl0803-012-1571-3

Robison, John Elder. (2013, Oct 7). What is Neurodiversity? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-life-aspergers/201310/what-is-neurodiversity

Schneps, Matthew H. (2015). Using Technology to Break the Speed Barrier of Reading. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/using-technology-to-break-the-speed-barrier-of-reading/

Categories: Uncategorized

A History of the Internet : Commentary on Scott Bradner’s Program on Information Science Talk

December 1, 2017 Leave a comment

A History of the Internet : Commentary on Scott Bradner’s Program on Information Science Talk

Scott Bradner is a Berkman Center affiliate who worked for 50 at Harvard in the areas of computer programming, system management, networking, IT security, and identity management. Scott Bradner was involved in the design, operation and use of data networks at Harvard University since the early days of the ARPANET and served in many leadership roles in the IETF. He presented the talk recorded below, entitled, A History of the Internet — as part of Program on Information Science Brown Bag Series:

Bradner abstracted his talk as follows:

In a way the Russians caused the Internet. This talk will describe how that happened (hint it was not actually the Bomb) and follow the path that has led to the current Internet of (unpatchable) Things (the IoT) and the Surveillance Economy.

The talk contained a rich array of historical details — far too many to summarize here. Much more detail on these projects can be found in the slides and video above; from his publications, and from his IETF talks. (And for those interested in recent Program on Information Science research on related issues of open information governance, see our published reports.)

Bradner describes how the space race, exemplified by the launch of Sputnik, spurred national investments in research and technology — and how the arms race created the need for a communication network that was decentralized and robust enough to survive a nuclear first-strike.

Bradner argues that the internet has been a parent revolution, in part because of its end-to-end design. The internet as a whole was designed so that most of the “intelligence” is encapsulated at host endpoints, connected by a “stupid” network carrier that just transports packets. As a result, Bradner argues, the carrier cannot own the customer, which, critically, enables customers to innovate without permission.

ARPANET, as originally conceived, was focused on solving what was then a grand challenge in digital communications research: To develop techniques and obtain experience on interconnecting computers in such a way that a very broad class of interactions are possible, and to improve and increase computer research productivity through resource sharing.

Bradner argues that the internet succeeded because, despite the scope of the problem, solutions were allowed to evolve chaotically: ARPA was successful in innovating because it required no peer review. The large incumbent corporations in the computing and networking field ignored internet because they believed it couldn’t succeed (and they believed it couldn’t succeed because its design did not allow for the level of control and reliability that the incumbents believed to be necessary to making communications work). And since the Internet was was viewed as irrelevant, there were no efforts to regulate it. It was not until after the Internet achieved success, and catalyzed disruptive innovation that policymakers deemed it, “too important to leave to the people that know how it works.”

Our upcoming Summit supported by a generous grant from the Mellon Foundation, will probe for grand challenge questions in scholarly discovery, digital curation and preservation, and open scholarship. Is it possible that the ideas that could catalyze innovation in these areas are, like the early Internet, currently viewed as impractical or irrelevant? .

Categories: Uncategorized

Safety Nets (for information): Commentary on Jefferson Bailey’s Program on Information Science Talk

November 7, 2017 Leave a comment

Jefferson Bailey is Director of Web Archiving at Internet Archive. Jefferson joined Internet Archive in Summer 2014 and manages Internet Archive’s web archiving services including Archive-It, used by over 500 institutions to preserve the web. He also oversees contract and domain-scale web archiving services for national libraries and archives around the world. He works closely with partner institutions on collaborative technology development, digital preservation, data research services, educational partnerships, and other programs. He presented the talk recorded below, entitled, Safety Nets: Rescue And Revival For Endangered Born-digital Records — as part of Program on Information Science Brown Bag Series:

Bailey abstracted his talk as follows:

The web is now firmly established as the primary communication and publication platform for sharing and accessing social and cultural materials. This networked world has created both opportunities and pitfalls for libraries and archives in their mission to preserve and provide ongoing access to knowledge. How can the affordances of the web be leveraged to drastically extend the plurality of representation in the archive? What challenges are imposed by the intrinsic ephemerality and mutability of online information? What methodological reorientations are demanded by the scale and dynamism of machine-generated cultural artifacts? This talk will explore the interplay of the web, contemporary historical records, and the programs, technologies, and approaches by which libraries and archives are working to extend their mission to preserve and provide access to the evidence of human activity in a world distinguished by the ubiquity of born-digital materials.

Bailey eloquently stated the importance of web archiving: “No future scholarship can study our era without considering materials published (only) on the web.” Further, he emphasized the importance of web archiving for social justice: Traditional archives disproportionately reflect social architectures of power, and the lived experiences of the advantaged. Web crawls capture a much broader (although not nearly complete) picture of the human experience.

The talk ranged over an impressively wide portfolio of initiatives — far too many to do justice discussing in a single blog post. Much more detail on these projects can be found in the slides and video above, Bailey’s professional writings, the Archive blog, and experiments page, and archive-it blog for some insights into these.

A unified argument ran through the Bailey’s presentation. At the risk of oversimplifying, I’ll restate the premises of the argument here:

  1. Understanding our era will require research, using large portions of the web, linked across time.
  2. The web is big — but not too big to collect (a substantial portion of) it.FOOTNOTE: Footnote
  3. Providing simple access (e.g. retrieval, linking) is more expansive than collection;
    enabling discovery (e.g. search) is much harder than simple access;
    and supporting computational research (which requires analysis at web-scale, and over time) —
    is much, much harder than discovery.
  4. Research libraries should help with this (hardest) part.

I find the first three parts of the argument largely convincing. Increasingly, new discoveries in social science are based on analysis of massive collections of data that areis generated as a result of people’s public communications, and depends on tracing these actions and their consequences over time. The Internet Archive’s success to date establishes that much of these public communications can be collected and retained over time. And the history of database design (as well as my and my colleagues experiences in archiving and digital libraries) testifies to the challenges of effective discovery and access at scale.

I hope that we, as research libraries, will be step up to the challenges of enabling large-scale, long-term research over content such as this. Research libraries already have a stake in this problem because most of the the core ideas and fundamental methods (although not the operational platforms) for analysis of data at this scale comes from research institutions with which we are affiliated. Moreover if libraries lead the design of these platforms, participation in research will be far more open and equitable than if these platforms are ceded entirely to commercial actors.

For this among other reasons, we are convening a Summit on Grand Challenges in Information Science & Scholarly Communication, supported by a generous grant from the Mellon Foundation. During this summit we develop community research agendas in the areas of scholarly discovery at scale; digital curation and preservation; and open scholarship. For those interested in these questions and related areas of interest, we have published Program on Information Science reports and blog posts on some of the challenges of digital preservation at scale.

Categories: Uncategorized

Labor And Reward In Science: Commentary on Cassidy Sugimoto’s Program on Information Science Talk

October 6, 2017 Leave a comment

Labor And Reward In Science: Commentary on Cassidy Sugimoto’s Program on Information Science Talk

Cassidy Sugimoto is Associate Professor in the School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University Bloomington, where researches within the domain of scholarly communication and scientometrics, examining the formal and informal ways in which knowledge producers consume and disseminate scholarship. She presented this talk, entitled Labor And Reward In Science: Do Women Have An Equal Voice In Scholarly Communication? A Brown Bag With Cassidy Sugimoto, as part of the Program on Information Science Brown Bag Series.

In her talk, illustrated by the slides below, Sugimoto highlights the roots of gender disparities in science.

 

Sugimoto abstracted her talk as follows:

Despite progress, gender disparities in science persist. Women remain underrepresented in the scientific workforce and under rewarded for their contributions. This talk will examine multiple layers of gender disparities in science, triangulating data from scientometrics, surveys, and social media to provide a broader perspective on the gendered nature of scientific communication. The extent of gender disparities and the ways in which new media are changing these patterns will be discussed. The talk will end with a discussion of interventions, with a particular focus on the roles of libraries, publishers, and other actors in the scholarly ecosystem..

In her talk, Sugimoto stressed a number of patterns in scientific publication:

  • Demise of single authorshop complicates notions of credit, rewards, labor, and responsibility
  • There are distincted patterns of gender disparity in scientific publications: Male-authored publications predominate in most field (with a few exceptions such as Library Science); women collaborating more domestically than internationally on publication; and woman-authored publications tend to be cited less (even within the same tier of journals).
  • Looking across categories of contribution — the most isolated is performing the experiment. And Women are most likely to fill this role. Further, if we look across male-and-female led teams, we see that the distribution of work across these teams varies dramatically.
  • When surveying teams — women tended to value all of the forms of contributions more than men with one exception. Women judge technical work, which is more likely to be conducted by women, as less valuable.
  • Composition of authorship has consequences for what is studied. Womens’ research focuses more often than men on areas relevant to both genders or to women.

Sugimoto notes that these findings are consistent with pervasive gender discrimination. Further, women as well as men frequently discriminate against other women — for example, in evaluation of professionalism, evaluation of work, and in salary offers

Much more detail on these points can be found in Sugimoto professional writings.

Sugimoto’s talk drew on a variety of sources: publication data in the Web of Science; from acknowledgement and authorship statements in PLOS journals. Open bibliometric data, such as that produced by PLOS, the Initiative for Open Citation, and various badging initiatives can help us to more readily bring disparities to light.

At the conclusion of her talk, Sugimoto suggested the following roles for librarians:

Sugimoto’s talk drew on a variety of sources: publication data in the Web of Science; from acknowledgement and authorship statements in PLOS journals. Open bibliometric data, such as that produced by PLOS, the Initiative for Open Citation, and various badging initiatives can help us to more readily bring disparities to light.

  • Use and promote open access in training sessions
  • Provide programming that lessens barriers to participation for women and minorities
  • Advocate for contributorship models which recognize the diversity of knowledge production
  • Approach new metrics with productive skepticism
  • Encourage engagement between students and scholars
  • Evaluate and contribute to the development of new tools

Reflecting the themes of Sugimato’s talk, the research we conduct here, in the Program on Information Science is strongly motivated by issues of diversity and inclusion — particularly on approaches to bias-reducing systems design. Our previous work in participative mapping aimed at increasing broad public participation in electoral processes. Our current NSF-supported work in educational research focuses on using eye-tracking and other biological signals to track fine-grained learning across populations of neurologically diverse learners. And, under a recently-awarded IMLS award, we will be hosting a workshop to develop principles for supporting diversity and inclusion through information architecture in information systems. For those interested in these and other projects, we have published blog posts and reports in these areas.

Categories: Uncategorized

Guest Post: Building Trust: A Primer on Privacy for Librarians

August 6, 2017 Leave a comment

Margaret Purdy is a Graduate Research Intern in the Program on Information Science, researching the area of library privacy.


.

Building Trust: A Primer on Privacy for Librarians

Privacy Protections Build Mutual Trust Between Patrons and Librarians

Librarians have accepted privacy as a central tenet of their professional ethics and responsibilities for nearly eight decades. However, by 2017, privacy as a human right has been simultaneously strengthened and reaffirmed, defended and rebuffed, but rarely do we as librarians take the time to step away and ask why privacy truly matters and what we can do to protect it.

The American Library Association and the International Federation of Library Associations have both asserted that the patrons have the right to privacy while seeking information.1 The ALA in particular brings up the notion of privacy allowing for intellectual freedom – the ability to consume information and know they will not face repercussions such as punishment or judgments based on what they read. Librarians are in the business of disseminating information in order to stimulate knowledge growth. One major stimulus for such growth is the mutual trust between the library and the patron – trust that the patron will not use the knowledge in a destructive way, and trust that the library will not judge the patron for information interests. Ensuring patron privacy is one way for the library to prove that trust. Similarly, the IFLA2 emphasizes the right to privacy in its ethics documentation. In addition to the rights of patron privacy that the ALA ensures, the IFLA also allows for as much transparency as possible into “public bodies, private sector companies and all other institutions whose activities effect [sic] the lives of individuals and society as a whole.” This is yet another way to establish trust between the library and its patrons, ultimately ensuring intellectual freedom and growth of knowledge.

Globally, internet privacy and surveillance are also matters that are currently getting much more notice and debate, and government regulations, such as the EU General Protection of Public Data (GDPR)3, are working to strengthen individuals’ abilities to control their own data and ensure it does not end up being used against them. The GDPR is slated to go into effect in 2018 and will broadly protect the data privacy rights of EU citizens. It will certainly be a policy to watch, especially as a litmus for how effective major legislation can be in asserting privacy protections. Even more practically, however, is that the GDPR protects EU citizens even if the one collecting data is outside the EU. This will potentially affect many libraries across the United States and the world at large, as there is an added level of awareness required to ensure that any collaboration with or service to EU citizens is properly protected.

Libraries Face a Double-Barreled Threat from Government Surveillance and Corporate Tracking

In addition to the ALA and IFLA codes of ethics that ensure librarians work to ensure patrons’ rights to privacy, multiple governmental codes deal with the right to information privacy. In the United States, the fourth amendment protects the right to remain free from searches and seizures, and has often been cited as a protection of privacy. Similarly, federal legislation such as FERPA, which protects the privacy rights of students, and HIPAA, which protects medical records have reasserted that privacy is a vital right. Essentially every US state also has some provisions about privacy, many of which directly relate to the right to privacy in library records.4

However, in recent years, many of the federal government’s protections have begun to slip away. Immediately after 9/11, the USA PATRIOT Act passed, allowing the government much broader abilities to track patron library records. More recently, as digital information became easier to track, programs such as PRISM and other governmental tracking arose. Both of these government programs directly threaten the ability for library patrons to conduct research, information-seeking, and more in privacy.

Businesses have also learned ways of tracking their users’ behaviors online, and using that data for practices such as targeted advertising. While the vast majority of this data is encrypted and could not be easily brought back to personally-identifiable information, it is still personal data that is not necessarily kept in the most secure way possible. And while breaches do happen, even without them, it is not out of the question for an experienced party to be able to reconstruct an individual from the data collected, and to know not only that individual’s browsing history and location, but also potentially information such as health conditions, bank details, or other sensitive information.

While this information is often used for simple outreach, including Customer Relationship Marketing, where a company will recommend new products based on previous purchases, it can also be used in more invasive ways. In 2012, Target sent out a promotional mailing containing deals on baby products to a teenage girl.5 Based on their data they had tracked about her purchases, the algorithm had determined, correctly, that she was highly likely to be pregnant. While this story received extensive media attention, businesses of all types, including retailers, hotels, and even healthcare systems participate in similar practices, using data to personalize the experience. However, when stored irresponsibly, this data can lead to unintentional and unwanted sharing of information – potentially including embarrassing web browsing or shopping habits, dates that homes will be empty for thieves, medical conditions that could increase insurance rates, and more

Growing Public Concern

One of the most pressing risks to privacy protections currently is user behavior and expectations. With the information industry becoming much more digital, information is becoming easier to access, spread, and consume. However, the tradeoff is that users, and the information they view, is much easier to track, by both corporate and government entities, friendly or malicious. Plus, because much of the tracking and surrendering of privacy, including the ability to save passwords, CRM, targeted algorithms, and more, make it more convenient to browse the internet, many patrons willingly give up the right to privacy in favor of convenience.

A recent poll6 showed that between 70% and 80% of internet users are aware that practices such as saving passwords, agreeing to privacy policies and terms of use without reading them, and accepting free information in exchange for advertising or data surrendering is a risk to privacy. However, a large majority of users still participate in those practices. There are several theories as to what causes users to agree to forgo privacy, including the idea that the accepting the risks make browsing the internet much more convenient, and users are hesitant to give up that convenience. Another theory is that there really is no alternative to accepting the risks. Many sites will not allow use without acceptance of the terms of use and/or privacy policy. A 2008 study7 calculated how much time users would spend reading privacy policies were they to actually read all of them, and found that, on average, user would spend nearly two weeks a year just reading policies, not to mention the time taken to fully understand the legalese and complicated implications.

Another similar poll8 shows that more than half of Americans are concerned about privacy risks, and over 80% have taken some precautionary action. However, most of that 80% are unaware of more that they can do to protect themselves. This is true for both government surveillance and corporate tracking. The public has similar levels of awareness and concern about both, but are unaware of how to better protect themselves, and thus, are more likely to allow it to happen.

Best Practices for Librarians

 

Given the increasing public concern and awareness, as well as the longstanding history of librarians’ focus on privacy, librarians have a perfect opportunity to intervene and re-establish the trust from users that their information will not be shared and to meet the professional ethical model of always protecting privacy. There are nearly endless resources that can outline in great detail what librarians should do to defend their patrons against attacks on privacy, whether that comes from government surveillance or corporate tracking. Some of these involve systematic evaluations of all touchpoints in the library and recommendations for implementing best practices. These exist even for areas that do not seem like obvious ways for privacy to be violated, such as anti-theft surveillance on surrounding buildings, or through third-party content vendors.

By dedicating library resources to systematically check for privacy practices, librarians can take some of the burden of inconvenience off of the individual patron. Many of these best practices involve taking the time to change computer settings, read and understand privacy policies, and negotiate with vendors, which few, if any, individuals would do on their own. With the muscle of the library working on it, though, the patrons will still benefit, without needing to dedicate the same amount of time. This serves a dual function as well, as in addition to actual steps to protect patrons, librarians can also serve as an educational resource to help patrons learn simple steps to take to protect their personal systems.

Some examples of protectionary moves are to create policies on library computers that ensure that as little information from user sessions is saved. There are several incredibly simple steps that, while they reduce the convenience slightly, ensure users a safe and private experience. This includes, settings that clear cookies, the cache, and user details after each session (also known as “incognito mode”); or the clearing of patron checkout records once the book is returned.

In addition to those tweaks, the ALA and LITA offer checklists of privacy best practices to systematically implement in libraries. These cover everything from data exchanges, OPACs and patron borrowing records, protection for children, and more in great detail. NISO also provides overarching design principles for approaching library privacy in a digital age. Additionally, there are recommended security audits, many of which Bruce Shuman mentions in his book, Library Security and Safety Handbook: Prevention, Policies, and Procedures.

Additionally, the library, already known for educational programs and community-oriented programming could serve as a location to educate the public about the real risks of tracking and surveillance. There is a definite gap between the public’s awareness of the risks and the public’s action to mitigate those risks. While librarians cannot force behavior, and most would not want to, offering patrons trustworthy information about the risks and how to avoid them in their personal browsing experiences helps re-establish privacy as a core value and gives patrons a reason to trust the library. This recent post from Nate Lord at Digital Guardian offers simple and more in depth steps that patrons can take to ensure their digital information is secure. If a library offered some of these in a training course or as a takeaway, it could serve as a valuable resource in narrowing the gap between patron awareness and activity.

Ultimately, privacy is often one of those words that many people give lip service to, but without fully understanding the risks and consequences, the motivation to give up convenience in order to protect privacy is not always there. However, we as librarians, who value privacy as one of the professions’ core tenets have a real opportunity to help protect patrons’ data against these threats. Resources, such as the aforementioned privacy checklists and audit guides, exist to help librarians ensure their library is in compliance with the current best practices. The threats against privacy are growing, and librarians are well-suited to intervene and ensure patron protection.

Recommended Resources

 


References

1. ALA Code of Ethics. (1939). http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/proethics/codeofethics/Code%20of%20Ethics%20of%20the%20American%20Library%20Association.pdf

2. IFLA Code of Ethics. https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11092

3. GDPR Portal (2016). http://www.eugdpr.org/

4. Adams, H. et. al. (2005). Privacy in the 21st century. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.

5. Hill, K. (2012). How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did. Forbes.com. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#1bd0d38d6668

6. Ayala, D. (2017). Security and Privacy for Libraries in 2017. Online Searcher, 41(3).

7. Cranor, L. (2008). The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies. I/S: A Journal Of Law And Policy For The Information Society.

8. Rainie, L., & Rainie, L. (2017). The state of privacy in post-Snowden America. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/21/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/

Categories: Uncategorized

Utilizing VR and AR in the Library Space: Commentary on Matthew Bernhardt’s Program on Information Science Talk

June 27, 2017 Leave a comment

Matt Bernhardt is a web developer in the MIT libraries and a collaborator in our program. He presented this talk, entitled Reality Bytes – Utilizing VR and AR in The Library Space, as part of the Program on Information Science Brown Bag Series.

In his talk, illustrated by the slides below, Bernhardt reviews technologies newly available to libraries that enhance the human-computing interface:

Bernhardt abstracted his talk as follows:

Terms like “virtual reality” and “augmented reality” have existed for a long time. In recent years, thanks to products like Google Cardboard and games like Pokemon Go, an increasing number of people have gained first-hand experience with these once-exotic technologies. The MIT Libraries are no exception to this trend. The Program on Information Science has conducted enough experimentation that we would like to share what we have learned, and solicit ideas for further investigation.

Several themes run through Matt’s talk:

  • VR should be thought of broadly as an engrossing representation of physically mediated space. Such a definition encompasses not only VR, AR and ‘mixed-’ reality — but also virtual worlds like Second Life, and a range of games from first-person-shooters (e.g. Halo) to textual games that simulate physical space (e.g. “Zork”).
  • A variety of new technologies are now available at a price-point that is accessible for libraries and experimentation — including tools for rich information visualization (e.g. stereoscopic headsets), physical interactions (e.g. body-in-space tracking), and environmental sensing/scanning (e.g. Sense).
  • To avoid getting lost in technical choices, consider the ways in which technologies have the potential to enhance the user-interface experience, and the circumstances in which the costs and barriers to use are justified by potential gains. For example, expensive, bulky VR platforms may be most useful to simulate experiences that would in real life be expensive, dangerous, rare, or impossible.

A substantial part of the research agenda of the Program on Information Science is focused on developing theory and practice to make information discovery and use more inclusive and accessible to all. From my perspective, the talk above naturally raises questions about how the affordances of these new technologies may be applied in libraries to increase inclusion and access: How could VR-induced immersion be used to increase engagement and attention by conveying the sense of place of being in an historic archive? How could realistic avatars be used to enhance social communication, and lower the barriers to those seeking library instruction and reference? How could physical mechanisms for navigating information spaces, such as eye tracking, support seamless interaction with library collections, and enhance discovery?

For those interested in these and other topics, you may wish to read some of the blog posts and reports we have published in these areas. Further, we welcome collaboration from library staff and researchers who are interested in collaborating in research and practice. To support collaboration we offer access to fabrication, interface, and visualization technology through our lab.

Categories: Information Science

Creative Data Literacy: Commentary on Catherine D’Ignazio’s Program on Information Science Talk

June 6, 2017 Leave a comment

Catherine D’Ignazio is an Assistant Professor of Civic Media and Data Visualization at Emerson College, a principal investigator at the Engagement Lab, and a research affiliate at the MIT Media Lab/Center for Civic Media. She presented this talk, entitled, Creative Data Literacy: Bridging the Gap Between Data-Haves and Have-Nots as part of Program on Information Science Brown Bag Series.

In her talk, illustrated by the slides below, D’Ignazio points to the gap between those people that collect and use data, and those people who are the subject of data collection.

D’Ignazio abstracted her talk as follows:

Communities, governments, libraries and organizations are swimming in data—demographic data, participation data, government data, social media data—but very few understand what to do with it. Though governments and foundations are creating open data portals and corporations are creating APIs, these rarely focus on use, usability, building community or creating impact. So although there is an explosion of data, there is a significant lag in data literacy at the scale of communities and citizens. This creates a situation of data-haves and have-nots which is troubling for an open data movement that seeks to empower people with data. But there are emerging technocultural practices that combine participation, creativity, and context to connect data to everyday life. These include data journalism, citizen science, emerging forms for documenting and publishing metadata, novel public engagement in government processes, and participatory data art. This talk surveys these practices both lovingly and critically, including their aspirations and the challenges they face in creating citizens that are truly empowered with data.

In her talk, D’Ignazio makes five recommendations on how to help people learn data literacy:

  • Many tutorials on data use abstract or standardized examples examining cars (or widgets) — this does not connect with most audiences. Ground your curriculum in community-centered problems and examples.
  • Frequently, people encounter data “in the wild” without metadata or other context that are needed for constructing meaning with it. To address this, have learners create data biographies — which explain who and how the data was collected and used, and its purposes, impacts and limitations.
  • Data is messy, and learners should not always be introduced to it through a clean, static data set but through encountering the complex process of collection.
  • Design tools that are learner-centric: focused, guided, inviting, and expandable.
  • People like monsters better than they like bar charts — so favor creative community-centered outputs over abstract purity.

Much more detail on these recommendation can be found in D’Ignazio’s professional writings.

D’Ignazio’s talk illustrated two more general tensions. One general tension is between a narrow conception of data literacy as coding, spreadsheets, statistics; and a broader conception that is not yet crisply defined but is distinct from statistical-, information-, IT-, media-, and Visual- literacies. This resonates with work done by our program’s research intern Zach Lizee on Digital Literacy and Digital Citizenship in which he argues for a form of literacy that prepares learners to engage with the evolving role of information in the world, and to use that engagement to advocate policy and standards that enact their values.

D’Ignazio’s talks also highlights a broad general tension that currently exists between the aspiration of open data and data journalism to empower the broader public, and the structural inequalities in our systems of data collection, sharing, analysis, and meaning-making. This tension is very much in play with respect to Libraries and Universities approaches to open access.

Much of academia, and many policy-makers have embraced the potential value of Open Access to content. The MIT libraries’ vision also embraces the challenge of building an open source platform to enable global discovery and access to this content. Following the themes of D’Ignazio’s talk and based on our research, I conjecture that library open platforms could be of tremendous worth — but not for the reasons one usually expects.

The worth of software, and of information and communication technology systems and platforms generally, is typically measured by how much it is used, what functions it provides, and what content/data it enables one to use. However the importance of Library participation in the development of open information platforms goes beyond this. Libraries have not distinguished themselves from the Googles, Twitters and Facebooks of the world in making open content discoverable, or in the functionality that their platforms provide to create, annotate, share, and make meaning from this content: The commercial sector has both the capacity and the incentives to do this — as it’s profitable.

The worth of a library open platform is in the core library values that it enacts: broad inclusion/participation, long-term (intergenerational) persistence, transparency, and privacy. These are not values that current commercial platforms support — because the commercial sector lacks an incentives to create these. To go beyond open access to equity in participation in the creation and understanding of knowledge, libraries, museums, archives, and others that share thesevalues must lead in creating open platforms.

Reflecting the themes of D’Ignazio’s talk, the research we conduct here, in the Program on Information Science, engages with the expanding scope of information literacy, and with inequalities in access to information. For those interested in these and other projects, we have published blog posts and reports in these areas.

Categories: Uncategorized