Anarchy and the role of control in the library

Would students welcome greater collaboration and the illusion of control?
(Image c/o Roberto on Flickr.)

Last week I pondered what a library would look like if the hierarchies were dismantled and, rather than being a library service provided by professionals with a limited amount of engagement in the delivery process by its users, it would be a collaborative process between the two. Professionals would work in partnership with users to provide a truly collaborative library service. The service would neither be controlled by users, not would it be controlled by the professionals, it would be controlled collaboratively, with professionals making the ultimate decisions but with users playing an active, rather than passive, role in the delivery of the service.

When thinking about the possibilities for partnership, I got to thinking about the success of social media. Here are a bunch of services, created by experts, that are then made available to users for free…these services subsequently become incredibly popular. But what makes them so popular with users? Is it simply because they are free (doubtful as many free services never catch on) or is it because, as I would argue, they provide a service the user sees as valuable and that provides them with an “illusion of control”?

All social media provides users with a certain degree of control. You control your privacy, the content you post and, to a certain extent, you control how it works for you. This illusion of control bestowed upon the user is what, I think, helps to maintain loyalty. As long as they feel that there is an element of control, they are content with the service and will continue to use it, building their networks and finding new ways of using the technology. The problem starts when the limits to our control become apparent.

Whenever there is a slight change in service, users tend to take to the social media platform affected and loudly complain about the change, or the loss of control. Take, for example, the continual changes to Facebook’s privacy settings. Initially they were clear and easy to understand then, as the need grew for Facebook to monetise the data it has on users (the data the user has been led to believe they control), so came multiple changes to the privacy functionality. With each change to this functionality came less control and increased dissatisfaction with the service (to the extent that many have left due to the loss of control of their data). Of course, the service still remains incredibly popular, but with each loss of user control the service loses another slither of users.

Similarly, Twitter receives a great deal of criticism from users whenever it reduces the level of control users have on the service. One of Twitter’s great strengths early on was that people could build on it and enhance the user experience (I’m thinking services like Tweetdeck which served a very useful function for many when it was first released…and continues to do so). Other users would then utilise these additional services feeling that they had a degree of control over how they interact with Twitter, they could choose which app they utilised and didn’t need to restrict themselves to ‘official’ applications. However, as with Facebook, there has been a growing need to monetise content/data which has resulted in third party apps rapidly diminishing as Twitter seeks to control content and, therefore, its users. Users increasingly have no choice but to use ‘official’ Twitter applications to make effective use of the service. From making the service one that the users built on and controlled (albeit in collaboration with the people behind Twitter), it has increasingly become one that Twitter fully controls, reducing the role of the user in its development. This, in turn, has led to a low rumbling of discontent amongst service users as the tools that they utilise have gradually been taken away from them, taking control out of their hands and putting it in the hands of the service provider.

More recently, the furore over Google Reader demonstrates the response when a useful service that users can build upon, control and use in a way that meets their needs is taken away from them. Indeed, as one commentator points out, there is now a trend away from user control as services increasingly come to the realisation that money is more important. What we have seen is that services grow quite rapidly on the basis of this illusion, at a key point control is then shifted back to the service creators, away from the service users, which then leads to a (modest admittedly) degree of negative rumbling about the service. In other words, users are fine with the service so long as the illusion remains. Shatter the illusion and people begin to question why they use the service and may even stop using the service altogether.

In terms of social media, therefore, removing an element of ‘control’ from the user can lead to a substantial degree of dissatisfaction with the service. But the key thing to remember is that there was a high degree of satisfaction initially leading to a kind of evangelism, preaching the value of such tools to friends and acquaintances, massively increasing the user base and encouraging others to build tools on top to add value to the service And it was, in my view, the illusion of control that created this sense of devotion and affection for these services.

And perhaps it’s this illusion of control that libraries can take advantage of. Rather than simply handing over the reigns to the user, a degree of collaboration between the user and the service could be developed that empowers the user. Provide the illusion of control whilst also ensuring that the user is permitted to exercise this control within a narrow framework. So, for example, patron driven acquisition (PDA), which has already been utilised in a significant number of libraries, is one component in this illusion of control. Enabling PDA whilst ensuring that the professionals have ultimate control provides the illusion of control, makes for a more responsive service, yet also keeps within permitted boundaries of control.

Another example is cataloguing. I am a big fan of folksonomies as a cataloguing tool in libraries (caveat: whilst information retrieval was my highest scoring module, I am no cataloguer!). Rather than a librarian classifying an item using their terminology and a formal classification scheme, why not enable the users to classify items using their own language? Such a system would be more democratic, less hierarchical and ensure that classification is derived from the users’ language rather than that of an authoritative, hierarchical taxonomic scheme subjectively employed by a librarian. However, the system would have its own limited controls to ensure preservation of the illusion of user control.

In completing one of my assignments on information organisation and retrieval [PDF], I looked at how folksonomies could be deployed in libraries with particular reference to Delicious, a tool that allows users to categorise articles on the internet (quite effectively until it experience a serious decline). Picking an article by Peter Merholz, it was clear that whilst there was a wide range of tags applied, there appeared to be a general consensus amongst users about the subject of the text. Bookmarked (at the time) by 56 Delicious users, it had 61 different tags applied to the item. However, what was clear was that after the first three tags applied there was a steep drop off in popularity of the remaining tags. What emerged was a consensus around three main tags: “metadata”, “tagging” and “folksonomy”. What this suggests is that not only did users identify common themes, but that it is possible to develop a controlled vocabulary at a certain point which could then be utilised to ‘encourage’ users to tag the item in a particular way. This could be achieved by either adding the most common tags by default to the user’s classification, or by indicating that they are “suggested tags” (as it does on Delicious). This ensures that there is a certain degree of ‘control’ whilst also enabling the user to add further tags that are relevant to them. As I concluded in my assignment:

This combination of controlled vocabularies and user-based tagging is not only useful for indexing information materials on the internet, it could also be use to allow library users to search photos within library collections, as well as books that are available through the OPAC. User-based tagging does have its limitations, but in combination with the principles of a controlled vocabulary, the possibilities of providing a service more relevant to the end user should outweigh any concerns about its application.

As with social media, giving the user illusion of control over elements of the service may increase their engagement, increase their loyalty and turn them into evangelists for the service. Working in collaboration with users to a greater extent may result in substantial benefits for both user and service. They buy into a service that is much more responsive to their needs, able to adapt and create more flexible services, and the service builds loyalty and increased usage. But, do users really want this level of collaboration? Are they happy for the service to determine how they interact with it, with limited input other than when the library permits it? Or do they actually want more input and a greater sense of ‘control’ of the resources they are using? I guess it would be ironic to impost a system of collaboration upon users if they had no interest in collaborating with the service. But then again, maybe they would be interested in closer collaboration…

Anarchy! In the library!

16 Replies

Should libraries be more…anarchistic?
(Image c/o seven resist on Flickr.)

One of the things I have been mulling over for some time now, is the idea of overturning the hierarchical structures in libraries. That sounds rather grand…probably grander than it actually is. I guess what I have been pondering is whether we can turn the library service from being run in a ‘top down’ fashion to one that is more of a collaboration with users. One where the professionals and the users work in tandem rather than professionals selecting resources and then telling the user what is available and how to use it.

It’s hardly a radical idea, much of what would constitute a non-hierarchical library service is already in action. Take patron driven acquisition (PDA) for example. PDA is, essentially, a method by which materials are purchased for the library based on known patron demand. This has been used in a number of academic libraries already and is probably no longer the radical new idea that it was when it was first rolled out. However, the idea is not restricted to academic libraries, teenagers have also been involved in the stock purchasing process in public libraries (again, not something massively new despite the spin in Surrey’s press release). But what if this level of involvement by users in the purchasing process was extended across the whole of the library? From books to databases to equipment…could this even work?

Instead of the library saying to the user we have purchased this resource for you, why not ask them what resources we should purchase, which we should stop subscribing to and which we should expand? Rather than making the library a hierarchy with the professional librarian sitting at the top, occasionally seeking feedback from the library user, why not make it a collaboration between user and professional? Why not build a library service where the professional and the user are equal partners in the process?

I’m not even clear myself how a non-hierarchical library would operate or whether it is even feasible to enable a situation whereby both the user and the professional have equal control over the library service, how it is delivered and what resources it makes available. Could you ever, in either public, academic or school libraries, allow the user to have complete equal say in the running of the library service? Is it possible for user and professional to work in real partnership? How would it work if such a relationship was developed? Maybe some people feel that their library service already works fully in partnership with its users.

But it’s not just in terms of working in partnership with users, a non-hierarchical library wouldn’t levy fines for late returns (what is more hierarchical than inflicting a punishment on a user to control and influence behaviour?). Again, this is not a new idea (this article on the initiative dates from 2006), there is nothing radical or revolutionary about introducing such a system. But it is another step towards creating a hierarchy free library service. One in which the service is not seen so much as us (the professionals) and them (the users), but as an equal partnership, with no divide between the two and no hierarchy to assert authority.

Sorry, this has been a bit of a rambly post, but I’d be interested to hear what other people think. Can we develop a true, hierarchy free library service? Are we already working in true partnership with users? Do we require a hierarchy to ensure an effective library service? Would ceding control to library users diminish the service, or would it enhance it? Is it fair to say that we (as professionals) still ‘own’ the service and should we continue to do so? I’d be interested to hear what other people think…not least because it will help my vague pondering.

Why Gove represents a strain of right-wing authoritarianism

Leave a reply

Michael Gove – leading voice on the authoritarian right? (Image c/o Conservative Party on Flickr.)

Sometimes you have to wonder whether Michael Gove is a professional troll who has suddenly risen to the role of Education Secretary by accident. Indeed, he has appears to have turned trolling into an art form if today’s article in the Daily Mail is anything to go on. It is perhaps without any doubt the finest piece of ad hominem trolling by any Education Secretary. It is certainly based on the most shoddy of arguments (Gove even employs childrens’ responses to a survey asking who Churchill was…now, maybe it’s just me, but if I was at school and someone asked me that question, I would certainly take the proverbial). But then, this is something we have come to expect of our beloved Education Secretary.

Provocatively headlined “I refuse to surrender to the Marxist teachers hell-bent on destroying our schools”, it is a predictably tedious diatribe accusing opponents of his education reforms as far-left extremists who want to prevent the educational development of the poorest children in our society. Of course, the fact that perhaps they might have a slightly different perspective to Mr Gove on how to achieve better educational attainment, does not even enter into the equation. Because, as far as Gove is concerned, he is right and everyone else is wrong. This, in my view, gets to the very heart of a myth perpetuated about left and right. The myth that left=authoritarian and right=libertarian.

There is an increasing trend amongst some sections of the right to portray the right-wing as representing individual liberty, and the left-wing as a force for authoritarianism (so much so, that even Hitler is painted by some extremists as a left-wing dictator – I often ponder whether it is worth my while explaining why that is utter nonsense). But the history of Gove as Education Secretary underlines the extent to which the right is afflicted by a deep-running vein of authoritarianism.

Gove is a textbook right-wing authoritarian. In 2011, he faced accusations that he was trying to circumnavigate Freedom of Information legislation by allegedly using private emails to conduct government business. In the face of such allegations, Gove’s Department sought to argue that private emails “do not fall within the FOI Act“, effectively defending the practice of using them to avoid the scrutiny of office that the Act provides (albeit to a limited degree). So vigorously was Gove’s intention to fight his Department’s obligation to conduct its affairs in a transparent manner, he even sought to appeal against the ruling of the Information Commissioner’s Office (before eventually backing down when it became clear that the Cabinet Office took a somewhat different view).

It isn’t only over private emails that Gove has clashed with the ICO. Only last month, the Education Secretary complained that the ICO was effectively facilitating “the targeted intimidation of brave people acting on noble motives” in demanding transparency around the groups who have applied to join the government’s controversial free schools programme. That Gove has continuously fought rulings made by the ICO reveals a great deal about his concerns for transparent governance and the right for the public to be informed as to his Department’s activities. Concealing information from the electorate is not the mark of libertarian, it is the mark of an authoritarian who believes that their policies and activities should not be scrutinised by those whose lives are affected.

It’s not just in terms of his attitude to transparency that reveals the inner authoritarian in Gove. His aggressive pursuit of academies also demonstrates a drive to impose his will on head teachers and local communities. His department’s treatment of Downhills primary school in Tottenham is just one example of many where schools are being presented with a ‘choice’ between accepting an ‘academy order’ from the Education Secretary, or governors must vote for academy status. Some choice. Indeed, as the head himself explains, a move towards academy status is itself a move from democracy to authoritarianism:

“We have a democratically elected governing body, a democratically elected local authority. If you are dissatisfied with the performance of the school you have the right to un-elect these governors, un-elect these local authority councillors. In an academy, that is not the case.”

And, lest we forget, the Tory Education Twitter account which has been used to attack opponents of the government’s education policies, smearing anyone who dares to criticise the actions of Gove and his department. As is the Gove way, where there is criticism, there is an opportunity to smear and abuse rather than listen and engage.

Gove’s disdain for freedom of information legislation (legislation that should be respected by anyone who believes in liberty) and his drive to impose his will reveal a deep-seated authoritarianism. He treats the public right to know with utter disdain and, regardless of circumstances, will force others to bend to his will. If the teachers complaining about his policies are ‘Marxists’, then one could logically argue that Gove is no better than a Stalinist, asserting the primacy of his position over those affected by his policies. But it’s not just Gove afflicted by authoritarian tendencies on the right.

Only yesterday it was revealed that the fifth largest party in England, UKIP, intend to stop benefits claimants from purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. It’s hard to think of something more authoritarian than dictating to people how to spend their money. And it’s depressing to note that many supporters of such an authoritarian policy fail to grasp that it is ultimately our money. It would appear that would UKIP are suggesting is that the day after someone loses their job, they will be issued with an edict outlining exactly what they can or cannot spend their benefits on, regardless of the paying national insurance contributions throughout their working lives. The fact that there are very few people who could possibly be classed as ‘living a life on benefits‘ is neither here or there to UKIP. If you are unemployed the state should dictate how you spend your money. Anyone who argues that UKIP are a libertarian force in the UK clearly has a tenuous grasp on liberty and freedom.

In many respects, it seems madness to reinforce the point, not least because of the weight of historical evidence, but the right is as capable of authoritarianism as the left. Politicians such as Gove may like to smear their opponents as authoritarian, educational ‘Marxists, but they also represent a strain of authoritarianism. Whilst they wrap themselves in words of liberation, they remind us that whilst there is a strain of authoritarianism on the left, the right is not un-afflicted by a tendency to impose its will and assert the primacy of the offices of the state over that of the individual.

Facilitating consent: whither the radical librarian?

3 Replies

The ‘book bloc’ at the 2011 March for the Alternative (image c/o Julian Stallabrass on Flickr).

Last night I watched the live stream of Noam Chomsky in conversation with Jonathan Freedland at the British Library (YouTube clip embedded below). Billed as an introduction to the upcoming exhibition, ‘Propaganda: Power and Persuasion’, it was a rare opportunity to listen to the thoughts of perhaps one of the most influential political activists of the post-war era. Indeed, Chomsky has probably been the biggest influence on me in terms of how I view the state, the use of state power and the role of the media (alongside Naomi Klein, whose No Logo and Shock Doctrine have also had a substantial impact upon the way in which I view the world).

One of the main themes in Chomsky’s work is the role of the media and how it reinforces the actions and beliefs of the intellectual class. Information is a tool used and abused by the state and the intellectual class to reinforce agendas and to encourage a certain world view amongst its citizenry. The media itself plays a critical role in reinforcing these agendas. As Chomsky himself notes here:

Now the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media. That means The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.

And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

The New York Times is certainly the most important newspaper in the United States, and one could argue the most important newspaper in the world. The New York Times plays an enormous role in shaping the perception of the current world on the part of the politically active, educated classes. Also The New York Times has a special role, and I believe its editors probably feel that they bear a heavy burden, in the sense that The New York Times creates history.

The media, a prime source of information for much of the population, is designed to serve the interests of the elites. It then follows, obviously, that the media applies a filter to information, selecting what information reinforces existing structures, and filtering out that which damages those same structures.

Of course, given that it was a discussion about information and propaganda held in the British Library, libraries themselves entered the discussion (Chomsky argued that the establishment of the public library network had a far deeper, more profound impact on society than the introduction of the internet). Which got me thinking about librarians, the profession and the institution of the library.

It is clear to me that the role of the librarian in society is a radical one. We provide access to information in a society that is subjected to both filtered information from the media, and growing corporate control of the flow of information. With the growth of neo-liberalism, the institution of the public library has increasingly become a radical idea. After all, in a neo-liberal society, everything has its price, including information. An institution that provides free access to anything in a neo-liberal society is by default an anomaly and a radical one at that. It therefore follows that the role of the librarian is equally radical. After all, a professional librarian provides access to information without discrimination, a dangerous concept in any society where information is majority controlled either by the state or by corporate interests.

It is interesting to note, however, that the radical roots of the profession are often hidden away. Increasingly, they are hidden away under a mountain of corporate speak and superficial obsessions. In some way this is understandable. Market forces have been imposed on much of the sectors in which librarians operate. Where they have been imposed, it is natural to assume the mantras of the neo-liberal elites. After all, an animal rights activist will not refuse a gun if dumped in the middle of the African plains. But sometimes I wonder if amongst the corporate language, the core principles of the librarian aren’t being lost.

I often despair when librarians warmly enthuse about Amazon. Primarily, this despair stems from the belief that a company like Amazon transparently does not share the values that we espouse as a profession. They are a corporate entity who, like all corporate entities, does not put benevolence at the core of its business. They are motivated by profit. And if that profit comes from majority control of one of the means by which we obtain information, then they will seek to consolidate control. Not only are their intentions anti-competitive, but they also do severe damage in terms of access to information.

I also tend to disagree with those who do not believe that values should be at the centre of the profession. For me, without values we have no right to consider ourselves ‘professionals’. Indeed, anyone who signs up to the professional body also signs up the professional values that it espouses. Personally speaking, I cannot understand how it is possible to sign up to a set of professional values and subsequently view them as an optional extra.

From my point of view, the profession stands for providing access to information to enable an informed citizenry, standing against the tide of corporatisation of information and the radical assault on the notion of free and equitable access to that information. In a way it is sad that arguing for the very things that are the foundation of the profession is, in some way, seen as ‘radical’. But then, if it makes us ‘radical’ in arguing for equitable access to information and ensuring consolidation of an informed citizenry, so be it.

Royal Charter for press regulation: what does it mean? I have no idea…but neither do the politicians

Leave a reply

So, the press regulation deal has finally been done. Hooray! But wait. What does it all mean? Well, to be honest, I have no idea. There has been a lot of debate online as to what this Royal Charter actually means (it’s not legislation of course, oh no). Most of this was sparked by a section of the proposals that were revealed last night:

SCHEDULE 4
INTERPRETATION
Key definitions
1. For the purposes of this Charter:

a) “Regulator” means an independent body formed by or on behalf of relevant publishers for the purpose of conducting regulatory activities in relation to their publications;

b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

a. a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or

b. a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine)

That last bit is key, as the implication is that the Charter will impact upon bloggers as well as newspapers. As Cory Doctorow put it this morning:

In a nutshell, then: if you press a button labelled “publish” or “submit” or “tweet” while in the UK, these rules as written will treat you as a newspaper proprietor, and make you vulnerable to an arbitration procedure where the complainer pays nothing, but you have to pay to defend yourself, and that will potentially have the power to fine you, force you to censor your posts, and force you to print “corrections” and “apologies” in a manner that the regulator will get to specify.

If this were the case, anyone tweeting or blogging on anything that could be classed as “news-related material” (say, library closures for example) would be subject to the regulator established by the Royal Charter. Or would it?

Truth is, it appears that nobody really knows the full implications of what has been agreed. I certainly don’t (not that it’s a specialist area of mine anyway) and I rather suspect that even the politicians who thrashed out this deal don’t really know either, which should hardly fill us full of confidence. As if to demonstrate what a mess this legislation is, I pulled together some of the blog posts and tweets published this afternoon in response to the announcement that a deal had been agreed:

So, it’s a bit difficult to say at present what this all means (which then begs the question “why write a blog post on something that isn’t very clear at the time of writing?” – because I can I guess is the best answer I can come up with right now). The worst case scenario is that bloggers (without the funding of the big newspaper groups) will be subject to punishment from a regulatory body that was initially designed to tackle the excesses of the press. The best case scenario is that those who do blog and tweet will have to be even more conscious of the implications of what they ‘publish’ online. And that’s probably not a bad thing in the scheme of things.

However, what this process has revealed above all else, once again, is the extent to which politicians do not grasp the internet and how it operates. For those who watch political developments closely in these matters, this comes as no surprise. For everyone else, this should be a wake up call that at any moment, we could find we have a far more restricted, far more controlled internet than we have at present. It is incumbent on all of us to be vigilant and to prepare for any future illiberal assault on the internet. If there is one thing we can be sure of, it’s that the government does not like what goes on online and they won’t tolerate it forever.

UPDATE (19/3/13)

Further to this, a couple of additional posts (I’ll also add these to the Storify above).

Don’t Panic about the Royal Charter. Panic Now! by Jon Baines

Leveson: Bloggers and the Royal Charter by Paul Bernal

No, nothing wrong with our print media at all…

Leave a reply

The need for information: are the free market and freedom of choice incompatible?

Leave a reply

Are we truly free in a free market economy?
(Image c/o Daniel Lobo on Flickr.)

The notion that capitalism and free choice go hand in hand seems to be incontrovertible. For decades we have been led to believe that the two are interdependent. Freedom of choice and individual liberty are only possible in a capitalist society built on the foundations of a free market. As Milton Friedman, the arch-capitalist and God to the economic far-right, once claimed:

“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

According to the Friedmanite far-right (and let’s not kid ourselves, Friedmanites are on the far-right), true individual freedom is borne out of a free market. Without such an economic model, there is no freedom, no liberty, no freedom to choose – at least, that’s as they would have it.

It speaks volumes for the times we live in that this ideology is accepted as a given. As we know the dogma of the economic far-right has been broadly accepted as the only theory in town. There are slight deviations from the ideas and models outlined by Friedman and his acolytes, but they are slight. Both the centre-left and the centre-right have adopted the language and ideology of the far-right economists, pushing the notion that if we are to be a truly free society, we need to consolidate the free market economy. But is this really the case? Are we a free society under a free market model?

Fundamental to any definition of freedom is the ability for the individual to be able to choose freely. Without freedom of choice, you have a fairly limited freedom. But to be able to choose you need to have the tools at your disposal to make informed choices. You cannot make a choice if you do not understand the nature and implications of the choices that you make. The ability to choose freely is, therefore, central to any notion of liberty.

I recently stumbled across a blog post by Puffles that underlines a key issue regarding choice:

For ‘choice’ to work, you need the means to exercise it. In neo-liberal world, this particularly means having the money. But it also means having the information, knowing how to use/interpret it and also having the time to do so.

In a free-market economy, true liberty is dependent on both income and access to information. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that if you have the means at your disposal to access information that you are also in a position to interpret and utilise that information in order to make free, informed choices. Of course, all of this is dependent on whether the information is available to make those choices in the first place. Very often, the information we need to make rational choices is not publicly accessible.

Whilst it is often suggested we live in an ‘Information Age’, in many respects we still face familiar barriers in terms of the control of the flow of information. Whether it is the state or corporate interests, there still exists forces which attempt to disrupt the flow of information, preventing the development of a fully informed citizenry able to make rational choices. Indeed, in a capitalist economy it is in the interests of both the state and corporations that we do not enter a state of total transparency where citizens have access to information and therefore can make informed choices. The consequences for both corporations and the state of a society entirely transparent would be devastating.

The exposure of the pharmaceutical industry in Ben Goldacre’s Bad Pharma is a case in point. In his book, Goldacre reveals the extent to which ‘unflattering’ negative results are buried by the industry. In fact, as Goldacre points out, ‘trials with positive results are about twice [as likely] to be published as trials with negative results’. As Goldacre wrote in the Telegraph last year:

“…drug companies can hide information about their drugs from doctors and patients, perfectly legally, with the help of regulators. While industry and politicians deny the existence of this problem, it is widely recognised within medical academia, and meticulously well-documented. The current best estimate is that half of all drug trials never get published.”

Goldacre adds:

“…while regulators should be helping to inform doctors, and protect patients, in reality they have conspired with companies to withhold information about trials. The European Medicines Agency, which now approves drugs for use in Britain, spent more than three years refusing to hand over information to Cochrane on Orlistat and Rimonabant, two widely used weight loss drugs. The agency’s excuses were so poor that the European Ombudsman made a finding of maladministration.”

The free market, with its insistence on light touch regulation or ineffective regulators, enables an environment where information about trials is withheld from doctors, professionals who rely on information to make crucial decisions affecting the lives of their patients. Where there is regulation, it is so loose as to allow regulators to conspire with those they are supposed to be regulating. By withholding this information, not only are doctors not able to make the appropriate choices, but patients’ lives are put at risk. And for what reason? Because it would damage corporate profit, as Cory Doctorow underlines in an article on Goldacre’s book:

Paroxetine, a drug that was known to be ineffective for treating children, which had a risk of suicide as a side-effect, widely prescribed to children, because GlaxoSmithKline declined to publish its research data after an internal memo stated “It would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of paroxetine.

In a free market system, control over the flow of information is paramount. Transparency may enable true freedom of choice, but it can also damage business interests and profits. In a free market system, if access to information can damage profits, access must be controlled and the flow of information must be restricted. Where access to information is controlled, freedom of choice clearly cannot be possible. For how can one make a truly ‘free’ choice if one does not have the information at one’s disposal to make that choice effectively?

The food industry is another example of the gap between what free market advocates claim and the reality of liberty in a free market economy. For several years there have been calls to better regulate the food industry. Ultimately, all previous attempts have failed because corporations have argued very strongly that any such regulation would actually hurt consumers rather than ensure they are better informed. As a result, instead of ensuring strictly applied regulations, governments have encouraged voluntary systems that they believe are sufficient to protect the consumer and provide the information they require to make those informed choices.

As I wrote back here, intense efforts were made by the food industry to prevent the EU from introducing a mandatory traffic light system, a system that would have enabled the consumer to make a more informed choice about the food they bought. Rather than adopt a system that would provide the consumer with more information, the food industry spent €1bn lobbying to maintain the status quo. Again, the reasoning is clear. Regulation designed to make the industry more transparent will hurt profits and so, as with the pharmaceutical industry, the needs of the business come before the needs of the consumer. With government unwilling to legislate, corporations will ensure that their profits are protected by resisting any call for transparency. Strictly appplied regulation can enable corporate transparency, the free market prevents it. In essence, the free market inhibits the individual’s freedom of choice by placing corporate profit above transparency.

Is the free market compatible with genuine freedom of choice? I would argue that it is not. It is clear that transparency is a threat to corporate interests and, therefore, it is crucial that citizens are not prevented from accessing information with which to make informed choices – a mark of true liberty. You cannot exercise freedom of choice if you do not have access to the information with which to make that choice. In order to do so, you must have both access to information and the means with which to understand it. If corporate interests are unwilling to provide such information to ensure informed choices, it is incumbent on government to ensure that information is made available via the levers available to them. The introduction of strictly applied regulation, enforced transparency across the corporate sector and the death of far-right free market economics will enable true freedom of choice. The free market never can.

Engaging students: obtaining and using feedback in libraries and universities

Leave a reply

Stuttgart Library (image c/o volzotan on Flickr).

A couple of months back I was privileged to be invited to speak at a CPD25 event in London on engaging with students and obtaining feedback. As a result of my background in a range of public facing management roles in both the private and public sectors, I was more than happy to share some of my perspectives on this particular aspect of service delivery. In this case, I was asked to present something on how social media could be utilised in obtaining feedback and engaging with users.

Engaging Students: Obtaining And Using Feedback In Libraries And Universities explored a range of different aspects of university and library engagement with students. As well as my presentation on social media and student engagement, there were sessions on Anglia Ruskin’s Customer Service Exellence (CSE) and “Tell Us” feedback scheme; the University of Leicester Library’s award winning approach to engaging with students and the University of East London’s International Student Barometer.

Anglia Ruskin’s renewed focus on student engagement and obtaining feedback emerged as a result of disappointing student survey results. Recognising a clear need to act, a working group was formed which ensured that every faculty and support service was represented. This was an important move as it ensured that staff across the university were engaged and involved in the move to address the survey results.

A number of tools were employed by Anglia Ruskin as a result of the focus provided by the working group. Amongst them were students acting as ‘mystery shoppers’, visiting the library and completing a survey on their experiences (and paid £15 for their trouble!) and a student charter outlining expectations which is monitored and reviewed across the year. In 2009, they launched their “Tell Us” feedback scheme which encouraged students to feedback on their experiences of using the library service by completing a form and posting it in one of numerous post boxes placed around campus.

Whilst the response was initially slow, the introduction of webforms and a telephone number (as well as an email address and the paper form) and the promotion of the service during National Customer Service Week, led to a big increase in uptake by students. The latter in particular encouraged students to provide face-to-face feedback and did much to raise awareness of the scheme. So much so that, in 2011, over 500 forms were submitted over the course of a week. Last year, around 500 forms were also submitted over a three day period.

As well as encouraging feedback, Anglia Ruskin also communicated with students to demonstrate that they were acting on the feedback they had received through a “you said…we did” service. However, as well as communicating the things they did do, they ensured that if they weren’t able to act on the feedback provided, the reasons for their inability to act were explained clearly. By doing so, it ensured it addressed the potential for a perception that the some concerns were ignored.

Overall, the scheme appears to have been a great success in both obtaining feedback and in engaging with students. However, Anglia Ruskin do not appear to be resting on the laurels and are conscious of the fact that without ‘freshening’ things up a little, the posters and activity can become ‘wallpaper’ and, as a result, are currently looking at ways in which they can freshen things up. It will be interesting to see what they come up with!

The David Wilson Library, Leicester University (image c/o AJC1 on Flickr).

Following Anglia Ruskin’s “Tell Us” scheme, Jo Aitkins of University of Leicester Library talked about how an award winning library obtains and users student feedback. The University’s library team was named as “Outstanding Library Team of the Year 2012” in the Times Higher Education Leadership and Management Awards and so clearly their perspective on engagement and obtaining student feedback was a very valuable one. Indeed, their scores in student surveys (90%) underlined the extent to which other institutions can learn from their approach.

In terms of ensuring that there is a high degree of engagement with students, focus groups are run with departments across the university to talk to students and obtain their feedback. Sometimes the feedback will focus specifically on the department itself, sometimes on the library and that dialogue has, according to Jo, been a big help in understanding the needs of their students and users and, most importantly, taking action to address these needs.

For example, one of the complaints from students was that there wasn’t enough books (a familiar complaint!) so the library invested in a significant volume of ebooks and ran a “more books” campaign, asking students to advise what books they haven’t got and then purchasing them as appropriate. Again, listening and understanding the problem was not enough, being seen to deal with the feedback was absolutely key to their strategy. If feedback exercises are conducted without any tangible for the student at the end of the process, the effort put into obtaining feedback is wasted.

Feedback was obtained from students in a wide variety of ways. The team meet regularly with the President of the Student Union (on a termly basis) to consult on whether the library is meeting the needs of students, library website statistics were analysed to understand what they are using and how and mystery shoppers have also been utilised (students or staff from other university libraries). They have also introduced “happy cards” which are handed to students when dealing with queries to provide feedback.

As with Anglia Ruskin, Leicester make a concerted effort to communicate with students what they have done to address feedback to ensure both that students are clear on what the Library has done to address the feedback they have received, and to demonstrate that engaging in the feedback process is worthwhile and benefits them. And, as with Anglia Ruskin, they are aware that there is a need to renew and refresh the approach, employing new techniques to encourage feedback so that it the feedback service isn’t overlooked by students.

Next up, Niru Williams of the University of East London talked about the International Student Barometer. Whilst this wasn’t directly relevant for my role, it was interesting to hear how UEL ensures that international students are not forgotten about when it comes to feedback and engagement, particularly as they had won the ‘Outstanding International Strategy Award’ at The Times Higher Education Leadership and Management Awards 2012.

In terms of the strategy employed at UEL, the International Student Barometer (ISB) was independently surveyed by i-Graduate which surveys the entire international student journey through a confidential online questionnaire which is customised and adapted according to the needs of each institution. The information obtained from this questionnaire is then benchmarked globally, nationally and regionally, reviewing all aspects of the student experience. At UEL, they have also requested that the data is broken down by schools to enable them to clearly identify any issues across the university.

The information taken from the questionnaire then fed into school and service plans, whilst also ensuring that the whole team were engaged and were given ownership of certain aspects of the scheme. As a result of their work with the ISB, awareness has been raised across the institution of its importance which obviously has a knock-on effect in terms of a greater focus on the needs of international students and resulted in greater engagement in the process by academics and support staff.

After Nia, it was my turn to speak about using social media to engage and obtain feedback. If you are interested in finding out what I had to say, you can read a bit more about it on my earlier blog post (I’m obviously not going to go into it in great detail here!).

Overall, it was a really interesting and thought-provoking event which gave me plenty to mull over on the way home. Personally speaking, I think it is so important to do more than just listen to students. It is all about both engaging with students and also communicating with them in a way to demonstrate that their feedback is listened to and, where possible, action is taken to address aspects of the service that they are not happy with (and if it is not possible to do so, then the reasons why not should be explained openly and honestly). Engaging with students and creating a truly user-centric library service in higher education has never been more important than it is now given the nature of the environment the government has imposed on all of us. I don’t like this imposed environment, but whilst we are stuck within it we need to make every effort to ensure that we work closely with students to ensure we meet their needs.

Many thanks to both Peter Williams (UEL) and Judith Wells (Anglia Ruskin) for inviting me along to talk about social media, student engagement and building a better library experience.

Designing a better library experience

Leave a reply

A few weeks back I was asked by a CPD25 Task Group member if I would be willing to talk about the use of social media as a tool for engaging with students and obtaining feedback, primarily as a result of this blog post I wrote a while back. The presentation would be one of four looking at how universities and libraries can obtain feedback from students. Other presentations included a representative from Anglia Ruskin talking about their ‘Tell Us’ scheme, Jo Aitkins from the award winning University of Leicester and Niru Williams (University of East London) on the International Student Barometer (I’ll try to write all of these up at some point).

My presentation was split into three main parts:

definining the current HE environment
how social media can assist in the challenges this new environment brings
our experiences of using social media at Christ Church.

The final slide contains a list of references made throughout the presentation which hopefully will be of interest. That said, if you would like to see the script, do feel free to drop me a line. One article that isn’t listed but influenced the title of the presentation and reinforced some of my beliefs, was “Students tweet the darndest things about your library - and why you need to listen” [PDF] by Steven Bell of Temple University, Philadelphia. It was this article that led to the discovery of some interesting stats related to Twitter use that are quoted in the presentation and I agree wholeheartedly with his concluding paragraph.

Finally, my presentation touched on some theories around ‘relationship marketing’, indeed they provided the foundation for much of the presentation. If you are interested in this area, I’d really recommend Service Management and Marketing by Christian Grönroos. I used it quite heavily when completing the marketing module on the MSc and I think it has some interesting ideas. That said, ‘marketing’ is a controversial term in LibraryLand, and rightly so. Some of the terminology associated with it is, I think, inappropriate for public sector institutions. Some of the ideas are sound, but certain aspects are not a comfortable fit.

To that end, I came across a fascinating article a couple of days ago exploring this particular area. Marketing and Public Sector Management [PDF] by Kieron Walsh may have been written back in 1994, but I think it is one of the most intelligent articles on ‘marketing’ in the public sector that I have come across. I’ve always been taught never to end a piece of writing with a quote, but I think this is an appropriate point to end on:

Marketing is a dangerous language for the public service to begin to speak, because the way that we think is influenced by the language that we use. However ill-defined the public service ethic may be, we do need to distinguish between the values that guide the public and private sectors. It is already apparent that the language of commercialism fits ill with that of service…If marketing is to be developed for the public realm, then it will need to develop a language that is defined by the specific character of that realm, not negatively, by contrast with the private sector.

The Draft Communications Data Bill – who is the government talking to? (part 1)

Leave a reply

The Home Office (image c/o stevecadman on Flickr).

Back in November I requested a list of meetings that Home Office officials have had with organisations and individuals regarding the draft Communications Data Bill. The request was revised several times due to Home Office claims that the request was too large to deal with (I’m sceptical about that). Sadly, it was revised so much that I had to request information only on meeting held from June 2012 with campaign groups and charities.

After much to-ing and fro-ing, I finally received a response from the Home Office which satisfies my later narrowing down of the request. The Home Office have now confirmed the following meetings since June 2012:

I. Gus Hosein and Eric King (Privacy International) – 28 June 2012.
A meeting with Home Office officials.
No minutes were taken.

II. James Bury and David Tucker from the NSPCC – 26 July 2012.
A meeting with a Home Office officials.
No minutes were taken.

III. Nick Pickles (Big Brother Watch) – 5 September 2012.
A meeting with Home Office officials.
No minutes were taken.

IV. Jim Killock (Open Rights Group) – 6 September 2012.
A meeting with Home Office officials.
No minutes were taken.

V. Nick Pickles (Big Brother Watch) – 14 January 2013.
A meeting with Home Office officials.
No minutes were taken.

And since the narrowing down of my original request:

I. Gus Hosein and Sam Smith (Privacy International) – 5 February 2013.
A meeting with the Security Minister, the Minister for Crime Prevention
and Home Office officials.

II. Jim Killock (Open Rights Group) – 6 February 2013.
A meeting with the Security Minister, the Minister for Crime Prevention
and Home Office officials.

III. Nick Pickles (Big Brother Watch) – 6 February 2013.
A meeting with the Security Minister, the Minister for Crime Prevention
and Home Office officials.

IV. Shami Chakrabarti and Rachel Robinson (Liberty) – 7 February 2013.
A meeting with the Security Minister and Home Office officials.

V. Angela Patrick (JUSTICE) – 13 February 2013A meeting with Home Office officials.

VI. Round Table event chaired by the Home Secretary on 14 February 2013
with:
the Security Minister, the Minister for Crime Prevention, Home Office
officials, Law Enforcement representatives; and
Gus Hosein, Sam Smith (Privacy International);
Peter Bradwell (Open Rights Group);
Nick Pickles (Big Brother Watch);
Rachel Robinson (Liberty);
Angela Patrick (JUSTICE);
Jamie Bartlett (Demos).

VII. Angela Patrick (JUSTICE) – 25 February 2013.
A meeting with the Security Minister and a Home Office official.

It’s interesting that there has been a lot more discussion in the past month than there was in the preceding six months. However, there is no telling at this stage how many meetings have been held with those sitting on the opposite side of the debate. I fully intend on lodging a request for this information as well, although given the time it has taken to retrieve this information, one wonders how useful that will be.

If I do manage to obtain any further information, I’ll be sure to share it here (hence the hopeful ‘Part 1′ in the title).