I listened to an interesting little piece on Radio 4 this morning about the purpose of public libraries. It's available on Listen Again here if anyone is interested
( Read more... )
I think you have done your maths wrong - the 18% is 18% of the 17% of the total population who don't have internet. So, roughly, 3% of the total population of London. And some of that 3% will be people who have access to internet, just not at home, i.e. students/people who have access to internet at work. It seems a bit silly to me to be designing a whole service around 3% of the population at the most, and more likely 2%. Like I say in the footnote, I don't dispute that, in some areas, internet be a very useful service for libraries to provide; I'm just far from convinced that it should be the #1 priority for all libraries everywhere as seems to be the stated goal.
I don't think that, when people say that they want "more books", they mean that they want more reference books; I think they mean more novels. I used to work on the main survey for the DCMS and so looked through a LOT of people's comments on libraries and this was the main thing that came across. The Radio 4 piece said - and this chimes with my anecdotal feeling - that the total book stock in libraries has declined rapidly over the last 10-20 years.
I did do the maths wrong, but not where you thought! I wasn't talking about London specifically - the national percentage is 73% of households connected, which means 27% without internet, and 18% of that is 4.86% of the population. So 5% rather than 16%, because I am an idiot. And you're right that some of those will have internet at work or school, but perhaps not as many as you assume; my current job is the first time I've ever had actual internet access at work, though my jobs have always involved extensive computer use. I would guess that people who fall into the "can't afford internet" category are more likely to be in the kind of job where they don't have internet access at work either, but that is only a guess on my part.
But even if all of the 5% don't have internet at work or school, it still seems to me to be a bit daft to base the entire library service around their needs.
Plus, I do think that it should be more regional. Like I say, I'm sure that there are some libraries where the most important work that they can do centres around the internet but I'm equally certain that there are a lot of libraries that don't need to focus on it to the extent that they do. I have, however, never run across a professional librarian who doesn't think that the absolute #1 priority for all public libraries should be the internet.
I don't think that, when people say that they want "more books", they mean that they want more reference books; I think they mean more novels. I used to work on the main survey for the DCMS and so looked through a LOT of people's comments on libraries and this was the main thing that came across. The Radio 4 piece said - and this chimes with my anecdotal feeling - that the total book stock in libraries has declined rapidly over the last 10-20 years.
Reply
Reply
Plus, I do think that it should be more regional. Like I say, I'm sure that there are some libraries where the most important work that they can do centres around the internet but I'm equally certain that there are a lot of libraries that don't need to focus on it to the extent that they do. I have, however, never run across a professional librarian who doesn't think that the absolute #1 priority for all public libraries should be the internet.
Reply
Leave a comment