Article review: Frail, fatal, fundamental: The future of public libraries by Mark Norman

Frail, fatal, fundamental: The future of public libraries by Mark Norman sets out to examine futurist predications against Norman's own opinions and practices in his role managing Rockdale Council’s library services. Norman’s article presents excerpts from a number of papers and talks by futurists and their estimations on the future of public libraries, with a focus on the longevity, useability and survival of public libraries, and suggestions for future collections (including digital), spaces, services (including digital) and structures of public libraries to ensure their survival and relevance. Norman then expands upon, and sometimes counters these estimations with his own, from a self-described “realist” rather than futurist point of view. Norman also discusses the “digital divide” in reference to what services/collections/resources is best for public libraries to tackle this issue. This review will focus on the digital and technological discussions and opinions of Norman in his article.

In the article Norman makes a valid counter-point to Torrone’s assertion that “everyone already has access to the internet”, and Norman's view is echoed by Jaeger, Thompson, Katz and Decoster (2012, p.3) who cite that many digitally disadvantaged communities have internet access through their smart phones, but this platform cannot allow users access to many internet sites that are not mobile compatible, so these users are still disadvantaged. However Norman also completely discounts Torrone’s suggestions of Techshops and HackerSpaces, citing it as too expensive, even though the model could be reworked to suit different budgets and needs of the community, like Glen Ellyn Public Library that set up a maker space by purchasing a 3-d printer at a relatively low cost to increase library usage (Stoll, 2013, p.9). Norman makes a suggestion later in the article that spaces like recording studios should be on the agenda for public libraries, which is, in fact, a similar concept to Torrone’s suggestions of HackerSpaces. 

One of Norman’s critiques of digital content/providers (Overdrive, Bolinda, Wavesound, Freegal) is the assertion that only wealthy libraries can afford to subscribe to these costly services, as well as questioning whether the high cost is justified in relation to the lower loan rates that were identified in the paper. In addition to this, Norman identifies the issues of library ownership (or lack thereof) of the digital items, the resultant temporary nature of the digital content, with special reference to the lack of control on external hosts such as Freegal. However this is no different than other database subscriptions (such as Ebscohost and Gale Health Library) that many public libraries host through their websites.

While it is true that the subscriptions to digital services may be costly, and that at present the e-book and e-audiobook loan rates may be lower than anticipated in the libraries that he identified, he fails to factor in that these are likely emergent collections, and that the collections may need more exposure to the community, dedicated hubs in libraries to allow quick and free downloads, and/or digital literacy classes (with a focus on ebooks/e-audiobooks) to encourage higher usage. In an examination of the Rochester Mills Public Library e-branch, it is seen that digital materials are more than making up for the loss of their print collection circulation, and the new collection has promoted the library to a new section of the community (Hage, 2012, p.13). There are also possibilities for e-book consortia acquisition like the one the Ontario Council of Universities Libraries have bartered (Horava, 2013, p.423-428). 

Norman asserts that a key role of libraries is to provide digital access to those that can’t afford it, thus attempting to bridge the digital divide within the respective communities. However, Norman also postulates that the library’s digital resources should not provide resources for those that can afford it; presumably those that own e-readers, tablet and mp3 devices. This is a narrow view of the role of public libraries in the community, and does not marry with the goal of public libraries to serve the whole of the community, regardless of (perceived) wealth. 

Overall, Norman presents some valid arguments and ideas that are in sync with a ground roots view of public libraries and digital access, collections and spaces, but he misses opportunities to present creative solutions and a broader perspective on these issues.

References

Hage, C. L. (2012). Will a New E-Branch Increase LibraryUsage?. Public Libraries, 51(4), 12-13.

Horava, T. (2013). Today and in perpetuity: A Canadianconstortium strategy for owning and hosting ebooks. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39, 423-428.

Jaeger, P., Bertota, J. C., Thompson, K. M., Katza, S. M.,& DeCostera, E. J. (2012). The Intersection of Public Policy and PublicAccess: Digital Divides, Digital Literacy, Digital Inclusion, and PublicLibraries. Public Library Quarterly, 31(1),1-20. 

Norman, M. (2012). Frail, fatal, fundamental: The future of public libraries. Australian Public Libraries and Information Services, 25(2), 94-100. - See more at: http://reffor.us/index.php#sthash.jjQZtrlz.dpuf

Norman, M. (2012). Frail, fatal, fundamental: The future ofpublic libraries. Australian Public Libraries and Information Services, 25(2),94-100.

 Stoll, C. (2013). Makerspaces: Surveying the Scene inIllinois. ILA Reporter, April, 4-9.