Social aspects of digital libraries: A theoretical exploration and research agenda Howard Rosenbaum...

Social aspects of digital libraries:A theoretical exploration and research agenda

Howard [email protected]

December 11- 12, 2008

Rosenbaum: Social Aspects of Digital LibrariesSchool of Library and Information Science @ Indiana University

Social aspects of digital libraries

I. About digital libraries (DLs)

• Origins

II. A critical look at social research on DLs

• What’s being done

• What’s not being done

III. A research agenda for DLs

• What we should do

IV. Social informatics and DLs

• DLs as a computerization movement


I. About digital libraries

Digital libraries are organizations that provide the resources, including the specialized staff, to select, structure, offer intellectual access to, interpret, distribute, preserve the integrity of, and ensure the persistence over time of collections of digital works so that they are readily and economically available for use by a defined community or set of communities.Waters, D. (1998) What are digital libraries. CLIR Issues, 4 www.clir.org/pubs/issues/issues04.html#dlf



Digital libraries are a set of electronic resources and associated technical capabilities for creating, searching, and using information … they are an extension and enhancement of information storage and retrieval systems … and exist in distributed networks.

Digital libraries are constructed – collected and organized – by (and for) a community of users and their functional capabilities support the information needs and uses of that community.Borgman, C. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press. 17-18.



The field of digital libraries has always been poorly-defined… “Digital libraries”: this oxymoronic phrase has attracted dreamers and engineers, visionaries and entrepreneurs, a diversity of social scientists, lawyers, scientists and technicians. And even, ironically, librarians – though some would argue that digital libraries have very little to do with libraries … or the practice of librarianship. Others would argue that the issue of the future of libraries … forms perhaps the most central of the core questions within the discipline of digital librariesLynch, C. (2005). Where Do We Go From Here? The Next Decade for Digital Libraries. D-Lib Magazine, 11(7-8). www.dlib.org/dlib/july05/lynch/07lynch.html



DLs have a rich history that pre-dates the web

Lynch traces the key ideas underlying the field to the turn of the 20th century

Visions of technologically enabled knowledge organization

Engineering and technical developments in the 1960s

Commercial information services, library automation, document structuring and manipulation, HCI work

Z39.50 and distributed search in the 1980s

The field was jump-started by government funding in the 1990s


Large scale DLs came from the government

Two NSF-ARPA-NASA Joint DL Initiatives awarded ~$50 million to fund research projects developing new technologies for DLs in mid to late 1990s

DLs were defined as a technological phenomenon

The working definition: “storehouses of digital information available through the net”

Goal: to advance the collection, organization and storage of digital information

Also: make it available for searching, retrieval and processing via networks - in user-friendly ways



This programmatic funding shaped and legitimized the field

A reasonable path for academic researchers and graduate students

They developed and studied DL prototypes focusing the underlying technologies and social implications surrounding these systems

It also seeded a research community with journals and conferences

Became interdisciplinary and international

ACM and IEEE sponsored conferences




There are actually two main streams of R&D on DLs:

One is technology-intensive and heavily funded

This work occurs in academic settings and focuses on technical issues involved in digitizing, storing,

organizing, and providing access to DL content

Another is low technology and is done on a shoestring

This work is taking place among librarians and information professionals in public and K-12 school libraries

As they offer internet services to their patrons, they are building “public” DLs



ExamplesUC Berkeley Digital Library project elib.cs.berkeley.edu/

Goal: to develop technologies for intelligent access to massive, distributed non-text collections

Social goal: to support “collaborative knowledge” work of distributed users

UC Santa Barbara Alexandria Digital Library Project alexandria.sdc.ucsb.edu/

Goal: users access and manipulate geographically-referenced information in a distributed set of digital collections



U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Digital Library Initiative: Federating Repositories of Scientific Literature dli.grainger.uiuc.edu

Goal: to provide federated search across publisher collections by searching multiple views of a single virtual collection

University of Michigan Digital Library Project www.si.umich.edu/UMDL/

Goal: to provide a decentralized infrastructure that lets patrons and publishers work together within a single

library



Stanford University Digital Libraries Project dbpubs.stanford.edu:8091/diglib/

Goal: to provide access to a vast array of Web topics by focusing on interoperability of networked information

sourcesCarnegie Mellon’s Informedia Digital Video Library www.informedia.cs.cmu.edu/

Goal: to improve search and discovery of digital videos through full-content and knowledge-based search and

retrieval via desktop computer and metropolitan area networks


DLs are also important outside of universities

Public libraries use DLs to address the digital divide

Develop useful content, and applications that meet the needs of low income and underserved populations

State libraries are developing DLs to provide access to historical and cultural material

DLs for primary schools augment children’s educationDruin, A. (2000). Children Shaping the Future of Digital Libraries. First Monday 5(6)

International Childrens’ DL to “inspire the world's children to become members of the global community”

www.icdlbooks.org/





• Origins










www.hetemeel.com/einsteinform.php


Digital library research has been going on since the late 1990s

Most of the early work was technical

Main questions revolved around the design and development of DLs

Databases, data conversion, middleware

Federating heterogeneous data sources

Working with non-textual data

Innovative search algorithms and interfaces

Working with metadata



The Joint Conference on Digital Libraries is one of the premier venues for DL research

Topic Conference

Education 01 03 04 05 06 07 08

Evaluation/usability 01 02 03 04 07

Uses 01 04 06 07 08

Users 00 01 02 03 04 08

Context 00 01 03 07

These are examples of social research on DLs since 2000



More specifically

Education 01; 03; 04; 05; 06; 07; 08

DLs for education, teaching. learning 01; 04; 05; 06; 07; 08

DL in the classroom 03

DL curriculum 06

Evaluation/usability 01; 02; 03; 04; 07

User studies and user interfaces 07

Cross-cultural usability 02; 03

Measuring reputation of sites 01



Uses 01; 04; 06; 07; 08

Search behavior and personalization 04; 07

How people use features of DLs 08

Usage and relationships 06

End user building of DLs 01

Public use of community info systems 01



Users 00; 01; 02; 03; 04; 08

Understanding information needs and perceptions 04; 08

Users lost in information 08

Studying user behavior 00; 02

Collaboration and group work 04

User interaction 03

DL communities and change 02

Trust and epistemic communities 02

End user building of DLs 01



Context 00; 01; 03; 07

Social networks 07

Managing technical resources and services (but technical) 03

Social practice in design and implementation 00

Managing change on the web 01

Ethnographic study of technical support workers 01




Although selective, this reveals something interesting

The DL in education theme has been part of the conference since the beginning

It primarily focuses on an instrumental view of DLs as tools for improving teaching and learning

The evaluation/usability research is typically based on an individualistic and psychological version of HCI

Research on uses typically conceptualizes “use” as individualistic and context-free

The work in community information systems is an exception (one paper)



The research on users is based on an individualistic and context-free conception of the person

The two papers on collaboration and communities are exceptions

The research on context is the closest to the type of social research that will increase understanding of the social aspects of DLs

Even this work is not using a deep or rich conception of “social”

The work on social networks and the ethnographic study of technical support workers come closest



Argument: research on the social aspects of DLs uses an impoverished conception of the “social”

Also a superficial conception of the “organization”

Why has this happened?

Technological determinism fueled by the two waves of DLI1-2 funding

Early emphasis on solving technical problems and building prototypes

Lack of funding for social research in the DL community

Lack of interest among social scientists



What are the consequences of this situation?

Underestimating the importance of social, political, cultural, and economic factors on DL development, maintenance and use

A lack of understanding of the role of the DL in the organization and in organizational change

Daily routines involved in maintenance and management, changes in work and use practices

Costs of development and maintenance

A lack of understanding of trajectories of success and failure



What are the consequences of this situation?

Developing DLs without a clear sense of purposes and applications

Exception: studies of DLs in education although few examine effects on learning outcomes

Using an empty and stereotypical conception of the “user”

Missing the importance of group and collaborative uses

Exception: the American Memory Project

Not understanding the issue of sustainability




• Origins

II. A critical take: social research on DLs









How can we research the social aspects of DLs with a richer conception of key concepts?

This will require researchers stepped in social science

Social informatics is well suited

The interdisciplinary study of the design, uses, and consequences of ICTs that takes into account their

interaction with institutional contexts Kling, R., Rosenbaum, H., Sawyer, S. (2005). Understanding and Communicating

Social Informatics. Information Today.

This leads to a multilevel research agenda for investigating social aspects of DLs



Basic questions that focus on the nature of DLs

What is a DL?

What are its essential characteristics?

What makes a DL a distinct social and organizational phenomenon?

How do you know when you see one?

What functions does it serve and what roles does it play?

What kind of activities and services are part of a DL?



Micro

How do people actually use them?

What is involved in children’s sense making in DLs

What are the effects of personalization and customized search?

How do people determine information quality and relevance in DLs?

What factors motivate use and non-use of DLs?

How do they support collaboration and group work?

What makes DLs usable?



Middle range

Where should DLs be in organizations?

How do DLs fit in to organizational structure and processes?

How are DLs managed and maintained (governance)?

Organizationally (for the long run)?

Technically?

In terms of accounting and costs?

In terms of control and decision making?

What is involved in digital librarianship?



Middle range

What do we know about work practices and DLs?

What do digital librarians and others involved in DLs do?

How do people design and develop DLs?

What social and organizational issues are involved in digital preservation, archiving and curation?

What are the social practices involved in DL use?

The social consequences of DL use and non-use?

The social interactions and relationships in DL use?



Macro

How are DLs changing scientific and other forms of publishing and various forms of scholarship?

How do DLs help maintain epistemic communities?

How are DLs impacting the future of research and public libraries and librarianship?

How do DLs affect learning environments and outcomes?

What is the role of DLs in information infrastructures?

How are DLs affecting digital divides?

What is the role of DLs in social and cultural change?




• Origins

II. A critical take: social research on DLs








IV: Social informatics and DLs

An example of a macro level analysis of DLs

A computerization movement is a social movement

A “collective enterprise to establish a new order of life”

“[It] … takes on the character of a society. It acquires organization and form, a body of customs and traditions, established leadership, an enduring division of labor, social rules and social values – in short, a culture, and a new scheme of life”

Blumer (1951; 8)


Computerization movements depend on collective action

They stand in two relations to the social order

Revolutionary: attempt to change the order

Reform: attempt to change a restricted domain within the order

There are two types

General: societal in scope

Specific: submovements within a general movement



They also involve a

“Struggle over the production and counter-production of ideas and meanings associated with collective action”

Iacono and Kling (1998; 6)

They have trajectories

To persist, they require organizational structures

These allow people to engage in collective action:

“They can raise money, mobilize resources, hold meetings and formulate positions”

(Iacono and Kling, 1995; 5)



Components:

A core ICT or ICTs

Organizational structures: CM organizations

Collective action

Public discourse; technological framing

Ideology and myths: revolutionary and reform

Organizational practices

Historical trajectory

Types: general and specific

Organized opposition: Counter CMs



Recent work by Hara and Rosenbaum expands the concept of CMs with a typology of CMs based on five criteria

External - internal (to organizations)

Market-driven - non-market-driven (impetus)

Wide - narrow (breadth of impact)

Stand-alone - bundled (ICT configuration)

Positive – negative (perceived social impact)

DL as internal, non-market driven, narrow, bundled, and positive Hara, N. and Rosenbaum, H. (2008). Revising the conceptualization of computerization movements. The Information Society, 24(4), 229-245.



As a computerization movement, DLs depend on the social actors and groups whose collective actions shape and propel the movement

Librarians, professional associations, academics, technology writers, journalists, vendors, policy makers, administrators, technical people

It originates in a time and place, gathers momentum, and then follows one of several paths

It has an ideology of revolution or reform based on a deeply held belief that the core ICTs can cause fundamental positive social change



People involved in DLs have an ideology where they engage in

“organized, insurgent action to displace or overcome the status quo and establish a new way of life” (Kling and Iacono, 1994; 17; Iacono and Kling, 1995; 5)

Within a CM, activists and advocates claim that core ICTs will “bring about a new social order”

(Kling and Iacono, 1994; 4)

This is accomplished by technological framing and shaping of public discourse



DLs have a technological frame that contains socially constructed meanings ascribed to specific technologies

It connects relevant actors and the particular ways in which they understand a technology as ‘working’(Iacono and Kling, 1998; 6)

Framing “describes the actions and interactions of actors, explaining how they socially construct a technology” (Bijker, 2001:15526)



While the frame is developing, the ICT that is its focus is interpretively flexible

Over time the frame is built up in professional and public discourse and fixes (relatively), the meaning of the movement’s core ICTs

It shapes public discourse and perceptions and simplifies complex information for external audiences

Technological frames and the public discourse may actually “misrepresent actual practice for long periods of time” (Iacono and Kling, 1998; 8)



The discourse about DLs reflects the “triumphalism of Web 2.0 proponents”

Has been adapted from Web 2.0, which began as a marketing term to sell products and services

Leads to technological determinism

“Contextualized within familiar tropes of treating technology as semiautonomous, monolithic, discrete, and ahistorical”

Changes in libraries are driven by technological innovation

Scott. (2007) Bubble 2.0: Online Organized Critique of Web 2.0



Technological determinism underlies a lot of vendor and evangelist discourse

Leads to a rush to acquire and implement tools

Especially if open source

Entranced by shiny things

How can we use these technologies?

Not: how will these technologies help meet needs or improve services

What are the costs of the implementation and use of DL technologies?



Also leads to technological utopianism

The transformative power of technology brings about positive social change

Often accompanied by an assumption that this is inevitable

DLs as involving “collaborative uses of technologies” with “participatory, egalitarian, and democratic

potential”

DLs make their host organizations relevant by empowering users who will shape the organization

Scott (2007)



The discourse about DLs is decidedly utopian

Another example of of exuberant irrationality around different types of Web 2.0 technologies

User control as a “paradigm shift” affecting the people who use it socially, culturally, and politically

How the discourse is shaped

Evangelist forecasts and predictions, hyperbolic advertising and marketing, fictional narratives, and popular news stories regarding technologies

These become evidence for cultural projection about organizational transformation



There are also problems with the term

Describes “a cluster of new applications and related online cultures”

It has conceptual unity to the extent that we can find significant shared socio-technical characteristics

Utopian claims: “reworking hierarchies, changing social divisions, creating possibilities and opportunities, informing us, and reconfiguring our relations with objects, spaces and each other”

Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2007). Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations. Sociological Research Online, 12(5) www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html



To sum up:

“Digital library” is a contested term:

Can easily lead to a technological determinist conception of 21st century libraries

Turning librarians into technicians ~or~ moving you further back from your patrons

Moves library space into the network and away from physical space

Library management becomes influenced by the “wisdom of the crowd”



What is the sociotechnical context in which this CM is unfolding?

DL users operate in an “attention economy”

Information consumes attention so a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention (Simon)

A “fundamental economic characteristics of Web 2.0 is the distribution of production into the hands of the many and the concentration of the economic rewards into the hands of the few”

Nicholas Carrmedia.urbandictionary.com/image/large/adhd-18223.jpg



These participants seem to be happy because of their interest in pursuing self-expression or socializing and do not seem interested in making money

It is clear that the economic value of each individual contribution (blog entry…) is trivial

However, when these activities are aggregated on a web-wide scale the business becomes lucrative

They operate happily in an attention economy while the owners of the services operate happily in a cash economy



The attention economy does not operate separately from the cash economy

It is simply a means of creating cheap Iinputs for the cash economy

As we rush to implement DLs, the effect is to broaden the base of the attention economy

The unintended effect is to increase the flow of capital to the owners of these means of

production

Digital librarian - the capitalist tool!www.quarterman.com/images/learnenglish-central-stories-animal-farm-330x220.gif



Conclusion: comments about the future of DLs as a CM can be divided into those dealing with infrastructure, organizations, education, and society

IT: There are choices to be made about the types of tools to use in building DLs

There is considerable risk in committing institutional resources to building a sustainable DL infrastructure with proprietary tools

Web 2.0 applications tend to have a short lifespan

However, open source tools come with a cost

Are these tools free as in kittens or free as in beer?



Organizations: There are choices to be made about the ways in which DLs will be managed in the long run

They begin as research projects guided by Pis who are often neither managers nor librarians

What will be the processes of governance and control that sustain DLs over time?

What are the best ways to ensure that curation and preservation efforts are effective?

How will organizations balance accessibility and exclusivity in DLs?

We have much to learn about the economics of DLs



Pedagogy: There will be unintended consequences for DLs if computing takes place in the cloud

Who owns and can access the data?

If collaboration is a root metaphor of Web 2.0 (Milliron), the individualist metaphor at the root of much of educational practice is bankrupt

The individual learner is at odds with the deep sociality of the web

Companies outsource problem solving (Netflix, InnoCentive)

How will this affect the role of DLs in education?



Society: What will be the social role of DLs?

The success or failure of DLs will depend on the extent to which they fit into the institutional world around them

DLs may be disruptive technologies in a number of ways

Issues of audience, economics and control

The production and authentication of professional knowledge

They may become important boundary objects

Playing an important role in memory practices



Maintaining DLs

We need to educate DL patrons and ourselves about

Ownership and uses of data and information

The intricacies of copyright and the protection of IP

Current conception of privacy

The intended and untended consequences of technology implementation and use

The ethics of this new information environment

The economics of this new socio-technical environment


www.slis.indiana.edu/hrosenba/www/pres/taiwan_08/taiwan_08.htm

Howard [email protected]

December 11- 12, 2008

Social aspects of digital libraries:A theoretical exploration and research agenda

Social aspects of digital libraries: A theoretical exploration and research agenda Howard Rosenbaum...

Documents

Transcript of Social aspects of digital libraries: A theoretical exploration and research agenda Howard Rosenbaum...