Bobcatsss Presentation


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bobcatsss Presentation

  1. 1. Making Public Information Meaningful:libraries and democratic engagement in the digital age Lauren Smith PhD Research Student University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland twitter: @walkyouhome BOBCATSSS Conference, Amsterdam rd th 23 - 25 January 2012
  2. 2. Considerations● Citizenship and Democratic Engagement● Online Information● Political Information-Seeking● Online Engagement● Impacts and Barriers● Solutions / Interventions
  3. 3. Citizenship● Citizen “one who has a share in both the ruling and being ruled” (Aristotle)● Status + Rights + Duties● “Citizenship describes the relationship between the citizen and the state and the need for citizens to understand the political and economic processes, institutions, laws, rights and responsibilities of our democratic system.” (Institute for Citizenship, 2012)● “A good democratic system attempts to ensure informed and reflective decisions.” (Sunstein, 2001)
  4. 4. Democratic Engagement● “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern” (Tapia & Ortiz, 2010)● “individual and collection involvement in public affairs” (Norris, 2001 in Tapia & Ortiz, 2010)● Synonyms: ● political participation ● citizen participation ● citizen involvement ● popular participation ● public involvement ● citizen engagement Indicators of Democratic Engagement (Canadian Index of Wellbeing, 2010)
  5. 5. Democratic / Political / Civic Engagement● Voting in elections● Signing petitions● Donating money to campaigning organisations● Taking part in a protest or demonstration● Joining a campaigning organisation● Joining a political party● Donating money to a political party
  6. 6. Democratic Deficit● Democratic deficit in UK (Demos, 2008) and worldwide (Hill, 2009; Print, 2007)● Democratic engagement low and in decline (Hansard Society, 2009; Demos, 2008; Coleman, 2005)● 2010 general election turnout: 65.1% of the eligible voter population
  7. 7. Importance of Engagement● Address democratic deficit● Democratic engagement and participation fundamental to successful democratic societies (Uitermark & Duyvendak, 2008)● People more likely to discuss with peer groups and others● Increased hetereogeneity● Increased understanding of others points of view● More realistic view of politics – disenchantment less likely (Hay, 2003)
  8. 8. Digital By Default● “Simplifying the user experience of digital public services by making all of government’s transactional services available through Directgov” (Cabinet Office) ● Citizens Advice Bureau warns against “premature withdrawal of non-digital channels” (Citizens Advice Bureau, 2011) ● Risk of “dissuading those who are not computer literate from being tax compliant”. House of Commons’ Treasury Sub- Committee, 2011, in Citizens Advice Bureau, 2011)
  9. 9. Citizenship InformationType A (First-Principle Justiciable)1. Electoral information2. Legal (statutory) information3. Etc. (essential health information?) Type B (Second-Principle Justiciable) 1. Domestic political news 2. Foreign political news Type C (Nonjusticiable) 3. STM information (scientific, 1. Soft news technical, medical) 2. Entertainment 4. Etc. 3. Etc. (Steele, 1998 in Duff, 2011)
  10. 10. Political Information-Seeking● 40% of Internet users have looked for political news and information on the Web (Cornfield & Rainie, 2003)● Using internet because newspapers and television not sufficient Finding out Finding out Contributing Taking part in about a where and money to a political candidates when to vote candidate conversations voting history
  11. 11. Online Engagement● 70% of respondents agree that the internet makes it easier for them to participate in civic and political activities● 49% agree that they would generally prefer to use the internet to participate in civic and political activities Hansard Society (2010)
  12. 12. Benefits of Online Engagement● Increased access to information and discussion fora● More convenient● Privacy (?)● Exposure to political difference: ● People better able to explain reasons for political opinions ● People have increased tolerance / understanding of others’ views ● People have better idea of distribution of public opinion – sense of legitimacy for democratic outcomes (Duff, 2011)
  13. 13. Benefits of Online Discussion● Anonymity, testing out new identities (Borgida & Stark, 2004)● Discussion aids construction of self / community / culture (Turkle, 1997)● Greater willingness to express less socially desirable opinions (Evans et al., 2003)● Political discussion results in better informed decisions, changed positions (Price & Cappella, 2001)● Increased social trust and community participation (Price & Cappella, 2001)
  14. 14. Problems With Online Engagement● Risk of selective exposure: “True democracy thrives when people seek out new information and ideas rather than information that only bolsters their current beliefs and attitudes”. (Sunstein, 2001, in Borgida & Stark, 2004) ● However, little evidence that people are using the Internet to actively seek or avoid political difference. (Brundidge, 2010)● People with high levels of knowledge/engagement more likely to participate (Price & Cappella, 2001)
  15. 15. Online vs. Offline● Just a “new way of doing old things” (Tyler, 2002) ● Does the internet defy what we know about real life psychological & social structures? (Brundige, 2010) ● Political psychology doesnt alter between online/offline● “An inclusive information society essentially is a society where everyone has the information that they need, digital or otherwise” (Duff, 2011)
  16. 16. Political Discussion Network Heterogeneity Geographical Communicative Space Space “Political” Private / Public Space Space Brundidge (2010)
  17. 17. Information Literacy● Information-seeking competence as a sociopolitical skill● Critically scrutinizing questions: ● Who produces what print and electronic publications, and for whom? ● Which institutions, corporations, and individuals are supporting publishing in terms of financial and political support? ● Who takes part in the process of information decontextualization, relocation, and recontextualization? (Pawley, 2003)
  18. 18. Information-Seeking Behaviour ● How do people look for information about political issues? ● What forms does the information take? ● Newspapers ● Television ● Radio ● Blog posts / forums ● Discussion with peers ● Formal education (citizenship)
  19. 19. Barriers to Access● Digital divide(s) (Barzilai-Nahon, 2006 in Duff, 2011; Sunstein, 2001)● Library closures and funding cuts● Library policy – unwillingness to get involved in political issues● Information poverty● Information literacy● Age, disability, health, medical conditions, lack of skills, or not being able to afford access (Citizens Advice Bureau, 2011)● Social inequalities may be magnified (Jensen et al., 2007)
  20. 20. Rawls-Tawney Theorem● Reinforcement of public library systems● Reversal of attrition in the status and conditions of reference librarians● More generously funded information and media literacy programs in schools at all levels● New models of news-information institutions? (Duff, 2011)
  21. 21. Public Libraries● “Purveyors of fact” (Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, 2010). Physical and electronic information resources● Providing access to the internet● Providing a neutral space for online and offline political discussion with diverse groups● Encouraging serendipitous discovery● Encouraging tolerance of different views● “Library as democratic hothouse” (Madsen, 2009)
  22. 22. Democracy Hubs● Community democracy hubs (Power Inquiry, 2010)● Public library as community commons ● Citizens learn how to “find, evaluate and use the information essential for making decisions that affect the way we live, learn, work, and govern ourselves” (Kranich, 2001) “I helped a person who can barely read register to vote. Without me, they couldnt have participated in our democracy. I hold sessions for people to give their views on local & national government consultations because libraries are one of the few places that hold copies of physical documents and also have computers to submit an online response. The library is a meeting space for the local walking group and Neighbourhood Forum meetings as well as out of hours computer training. Its also the venue for our local councillor drop in service as well as our PCSOs and MP.” (Librarian commenting on Guardian website, 2010)
  23. 23. References● Andersen, J. (2006). “The public sphere and discursive activities: information literacy as sociopolitical skills”. Journal of Documentation, 62(2), 213-228.● Borgida, E. & Stark, E. (2004). “New media and politics: some insights from social and political psychology”. American Behavioral Scientist, 48 (4), 467-478.● Brundidge, J. (2010). “Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks”. Journal of Communication, 60 (4), 680-700.● Cabinet Office (2010). The Coalition: our programme for government. London: Crown Copyright.● Canadian Index of Wellbeing (2010). Indicators of Democratic Engagement. Toronto: Canadian Index of Wellbeing.● Coleman, S. (2005). “e-Democracy: whats the big idea?”. Manchester: British Council.● Demos (2008). "Democratising Engagement”. London: Demos.
  24. 24. ● Duff, A. (2011). “The Rawls-Tawney Theorem and the Digital Divide in Postindustrial Society.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62 (3), 604-612.● Hansard Society (2009). Audit of Political Engagement 6: Political Engagement Indicators. London: Hansard Society.● Hill, C. (2009). “Inside, outside & online”. American Libraries, 40 (3), 38-42.● Institute for Citizenship (2012) “What is Citizenship?”● Jensen, M. Danziger, J.N. & Venkatesh, A. (2007). “Civil society and cyber society: the role of the internet in community associations and democratic politics”. The Information Society, 23, 39-50.● Madsen, M.C. (2009). "The library as democratic hothouse". Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly, 42 (1), 10-11.● Moy, P. & Gastil, J. (2006). “Predicting deliberative conversation: the impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognition”. Political Communication, 23, 443-460.● Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (2008). Generic Social Outcomes.
  25. 25. ● Print, M. (2007). Citizenship education and youth participation in democracy". British Journal of Educational Studies, 55 (3), 325-345.● Sunstein, C. (2001). Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press.● Tapia, A. H. & Ortiz, J. A. (2010). "Network Hopes: Municipalities Deploying Wireless internet to Increase Civic Engagement". Social Science Computer Review, 28 (1), 93-117.● Uitermark, J. & Duyvendak, J. W. (2008). "Citizen participation in a mediated age: neighbourhood governance in The Netherlands". International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32 (1), 114-134.
  26. 26. Images● Library polling station by makelessnoise on Flickr● Public library computer by sillygwailo on Flickr● Global village communications by Combined Media on Flickr● Scales of Justice by Citizensheep on Flickr● Fox News by FastFashn on Flickr All images creative commons attribution licensed