just a note on something I read this week concerning the digital divide.
A study from Tufts University suggests that the digital divide is getting larger because educated middle and upper-middle class parents and their children spend more time online and, therefore, are more informationally literate than their economically depressed counterparts. I saw a few comments like, "You left off 'Moron'" and "...might as well say the poor are stupid, after all, they're not smart enough to read your report." I can't say I disagree but, at the same time, it stands to reason that if you spend more time online you might get better at what you're looking for and be able to discern legit info from bogus.
Someone else said something like, "you have to want to learn no matter how much you practice" and that's true to a point. For instance, let's say you spend hours upon hours online but it's all at Target or iTunes or, dare I say, some two-bit porn site. I can see where one would be limiting their knowledge increase. But there are those people out there who surf for the sake of finding out new things, learning exciting stuff they didn't know about - those people are absolutely capable of putting their practice to good use.
I have a friend who devotes several hours on Saturday mornings to surfing - she looks at all kinds of stuff; from cars to bird houses to medical symptoms and their treatments and back to cars again. Over the years as I've watched her grow into this routine, I've seen her become much more savvy about sites and their information. She's not particularly well off financially (though she is not in poverty) and, though she has been in a professional position for her entire adult life, she has only a high school degree. But she loves to learn!
So, a lot of the results of being information literate must surely be based on the individual - and that goes for the digital divide as well. Maybe some backwoods library somewhere still doesn't offer internet access to their patrons but, most do, even in limited hours. Anybody of any economic background can most certainly get the access if they want it. So, it makes me wonder if part of the digital divide dilemma isn't up to us librarians to fix. Maybe we've been thinking about it all wrong; maybe it's like any other "service" you have to advertise. Would you buy a new model car from a maker you've never heard of? Or ask your doctor about some over-priced medication if you didn't see it advertised on tv? Or take your kids to the county fair if you didn't know it was in town? Would you take your kids to a gaming event at the public library if somebody told you about it and and showed other people there having fun that looked like you? Maybe....
From my own experience I can say that I never found a library, any library, particularly inviting. Every image I've ever seen (until very, very recently) has shown only well-to-do, particularly of the Caucasian persuasion, quiet, book-entranced kids. If you're smart and you like to read but hanging out with stuffy white kids ain't your thing, then why would you want to go hang out someplace like that? I wouldn't and I didn't. And I can't think of a single instance when a library system or a librarian ever tried to change my mind until I got to college. It's only been recently as a younger generation of librarian has come into the workforce that new ways of reaching people are really happening - like gaming for instance. Using that approach then reaching the public in a way they respond to i.e. advertising (billboards, TV and radio spots, print ads, etc.), maybe the next kid that likes to learn but hates being stuffy and homogeneous won't feel like an outsider like I did.
Now I'm just sounding sad and pathetic. Enough!
A study from Tufts University suggests that the digital divide is getting larger because educated middle and upper-middle class parents and their children spend more time online and, therefore, are more informationally literate than their economically depressed counterparts. I saw a few comments like, "You left off 'Moron'" and "...might as well say the poor are stupid, after all, they're not smart enough to read your report." I can't say I disagree but, at the same time, it stands to reason that if you spend more time online you might get better at what you're looking for and be able to discern legit info from bogus.
Someone else said something like, "you have to want to learn no matter how much you practice" and that's true to a point. For instance, let's say you spend hours upon hours online but it's all at Target or iTunes or, dare I say, some two-bit porn site. I can see where one would be limiting their knowledge increase. But there are those people out there who surf for the sake of finding out new things, learning exciting stuff they didn't know about - those people are absolutely capable of putting their practice to good use.
I have a friend who devotes several hours on Saturday mornings to surfing - she looks at all kinds of stuff; from cars to bird houses to medical symptoms and their treatments and back to cars again. Over the years as I've watched her grow into this routine, I've seen her become much more savvy about sites and their information. She's not particularly well off financially (though she is not in poverty) and, though she has been in a professional position for her entire adult life, she has only a high school degree. But she loves to learn!
So, a lot of the results of being information literate must surely be based on the individual - and that goes for the digital divide as well. Maybe some backwoods library somewhere still doesn't offer internet access to their patrons but, most do, even in limited hours. Anybody of any economic background can most certainly get the access if they want it. So, it makes me wonder if part of the digital divide dilemma isn't up to us librarians to fix. Maybe we've been thinking about it all wrong; maybe it's like any other "service" you have to advertise. Would you buy a new model car from a maker you've never heard of? Or ask your doctor about some over-priced medication if you didn't see it advertised on tv? Or take your kids to the county fair if you didn't know it was in town? Would you take your kids to a gaming event at the public library if somebody told you about it and and showed other people there having fun that looked like you? Maybe....
From my own experience I can say that I never found a library, any library, particularly inviting. Every image I've ever seen (until very, very recently) has shown only well-to-do, particularly of the Caucasian persuasion, quiet, book-entranced kids. If you're smart and you like to read but hanging out with stuffy white kids ain't your thing, then why would you want to go hang out someplace like that? I wouldn't and I didn't. And I can't think of a single instance when a library system or a librarian ever tried to change my mind until I got to college. It's only been recently as a younger generation of librarian has come into the workforce that new ways of reaching people are really happening - like gaming for instance. Using that approach then reaching the public in a way they respond to i.e. advertising (billboards, TV and radio spots, print ads, etc.), maybe the next kid that likes to learn but hates being stuffy and homogeneous won't feel like an outsider like I did.
Now I'm just sounding sad and pathetic. Enough!
Posts
2 comments:
Hey, don't be knocking porn now. ;)
I've learned a great deal about male enlargement pills... and, um... pop-ups that won't go away.
you know I find that librarians are not always approachable in public libraries I've visited as well...
Post a Comment