Digital Divide: where we live makes a difference

I was not surprised by the results of the study by Gretchen Livingston (2011) regarding home Internet use by Latinos.  It makes perfect sense that income, education, language, nativity and age all contribute to the finding that this group lags behind whites and blacks in terms of technology.

The sampling was relatively small. According to the introduction, 1,375 Hispanic adults were contacted and the only mention I could find about where people lived was the last paragraph on page 12, which states “the prevalence of home internet connections among Latinos does not differ significantly by place of residence. Some 65 percent of suburbanites have a home internet connection, compared to 55 percent of city dwellers and 54 percent of rural residents” (Livingston, 2011).

What I don’t see factored into the findings is availability and cost of various delivery systems. If they were, and the sampling included more rural areas, I think the statistical gaps would be larger. I live in an area where broadband Internet access through the phone company is not an option, and neither Comcast nor Cox Communications services the area so their Internet plans are off the table. This leaves contracting with a satellite or power company if broadband Internet service is what is required, which is more expensive.

In the note at the bottom of page 5 of the report (Livingston, 2011), 35 percent of Hispanic adults do not have a landline telephone, which would at least provide access through a relatively inexpensive dial-up service like EarthLink. But just as cell phones are not equivalent to broadband Internet access via a computer, especially for tasks like filling out a job application for example, dial-up has its limitations. Surfing the web is very slow and often, due to the time it takes to load a page, the connection will time out and you have to start over.

It is encouraging to me that back in 2000, John N. Berry III, Editor-in-Chief of Library Journal, wrote an editorial titled “Bridging All Digital Divides”.  He states, “Every digital divide urgently needs to be bridged, filled in, or closed in whatever way possible”. He concludes with “The mandate for librarians is to find ways to eliminate digital divides in all their manifestations. Ours is among the few professions that have this primary mission. It is both the challenge of our time and the guarantee of our future” (p. 6).

Two years later, John W. Berry (2002) wrote his final message as President of the American Library Association. Titled “Equity of Access: Our Continuing Challenge”, he discussed the work of the task force he set up to “reconceptualize the role of libraries from that of passive safety net to the more proactive notion of providing a springboard that positions libraries to educate the unserved and underserved in the literacy skills that must characterize informed 21st-century citizens” (p. 7).

By focusing on this issue, individuals in leadership positions have helped transform libraries and I am grateful for the progress that has been made trying to level the playing field.

But that field is always in flux and there is still a lot of work to do. I heard a story on NPR recently about changes to the GED that will require a response on the part of libraries as they continue to fulfill that proactive role mentioned by Mr. Berry. According to the report, by 2014, taking the test will become more expensive and it will only be offered on line (Orson, 2012).

Connecticut State Representative Toni Walker, who is also assistant principal of the New Haven Adult and Continuing Education Center, was interviewed for the story. Her assessment was that low-income individuals won’t be able to afford to take the test and, since less than 20 percent of her clientele has a computer at home, they may not be able to figure out how to complete it on their own (Orson, 2012).

The Pima County Public Library system provides GED tutoring at many branches. I have no doubt that they will come up with new ways to overcome this latest hurdle but they will need to hurry: 2014 will be here before we know it.  And I sincerely hope that particular attention is paid to the needs of Latinos so that they don’t fall even further behind.

References

Berry, J.N. (2000, May 15). Bridge all the digital divides. Library Journal, 125(9), 6.

Berry, J.W.  (2002, June/July). Equity of access: Our continuing challenge. American Libraries, 33(6), 7.

Livingston, G. (2011, February 9). Latinos and digital technology, 2010. Pew Hispanic Center. Washington, D.C.

Orson, D. (2012, November 28). Educators worry revamped GED will be too pricey. WNPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2012/11/28/165916695/educators-worry-revamped-ged-will-be-too-pricey

Information Literacy

In a review of the Gartner, Inc. Report titled “The Consequences of Fake Fans, ‘Likes’ and Reviews on Social Networks”, Paula Hane, after describing herself as a media skeptic, states that even she was shocked by the results of this study.

According to the report, by 2014, 10 - 15 percent of social media reviews of products will be faked, paid for by the companies who have a vested interest in selling their goods and services.  Instances are cited of individuals being paid to delete negative reviews and authors using pseudonyms to write reviews of their own books.

This makes information literacy – and the role of librarians – all the more important.

The Association of College and Research Libraries approved a definition of Information Literacy at the Midwinter Meeting of the American Libraries Association in January 2000, which reads, in part, “information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information” (para 1).

The definition goes on to more fully describe an information literate individual as someone able to

·      Determine the extent of information needed

·      Access the needed information effectively and efficiently

·      Evaluate information and its sources critically

·      Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base

·      Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose

·      Understand the economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally

(Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000, para. 2)

In their article “Providing Health Information to Community Members Where They Are: Characteristics of the Culturally Competent Librarian”, authors Nancy Ottman Press and Mary Diggs-Hobson (2005) suggest that, though the librarian can be a key player in helping community members access health information, it might be more appropriate for them to play a role behind the scenes.  The authors cite several sources to corroborate their belief that individuals who are members of the community being served are the most effective at educating their friends and neighbors.

Assuming that the librarian is not a member of the group being targeted for services, his/her role can be one of training the trainer. As a specialist in information literacy and having a vested interest in ensuring that the community has access to the highest quality, most current, and relevant sources, he/she is in the perfect position to offer workshops and support to individuals working with their respective constituents.

When I was involved in community philanthropy, I had the opportunity to see the train the trainer model work very effectively. For example: the Community Foundation for Southern Arizona (CFSA) funded Pio Decimo/St. Elizabeth’s Health Center fledgling promotoras program.  Women who were leaders in South Tucson were recruited and trained by health professionals to reach out to their neighbors and share information about basic care and other related issues (the need for mammograms, diet and the prevention of diabetes, etc.).  CFSA also funded the Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation (SAAF) to recruit and train gay men living in Nogales, AZ to pass out condoms, do confidential testing, and share other appropriate information when visiting bars on Friday and Saturday nights.  These efforts were much more effective in spreading important health information than if a SAAF or St. Elizabeth’s staff member had conducted the outreach program.

This approach could work very well in Old Marana where the Geasa-Marana Branch Library is located. Because staff is stretched thin and hours are limited, it would be difficult for the librarian to spend time on Sundays at local churches or be available to patients on site at the health clinic. However, he/she could work with groups of clinic and church staff members or program volunteers at the library computer lab, teaching the skills needed to become information literate, and encouraging them to follow-up with him/her as needed on an individual basis.  

By building partnerships with community professionals in a variety of fields, the librarian can strengthen programs, empower individuals, and reinforce the importance of information literacy.

References

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency

Hane, P. (2012, November). Social media news and reviews. Information today, 29(10), 10.

Press, N. & Diggs-Hobson, M. (2005). Providing health information to community members where they are: characteristics of the culturally competent librarian. Library Trends, 53(3), 397-410.

Libraries & the Digital Divide

“The acceleration of the speed of technology can be seen in recent public library history. Almost all public libraries provided access to the Internet a few years after the launch of the World Wide Web, but it took forty years for a majority of libraries to adopt typewriters” (Jaeger, Bertot, Thompson, Katz, & DeCoster, 2012, pp. 2-3).

The digital environment has changed so much over the last few years that Jaeger, Bertot, Thompson, Katz, & DeCoster (2012) believe that we need to reacquaint ourselves with the terms digital divide and digital literacy, and a relatively new concept, digital inclusion, should now enter the lexicon.

Jaeger et al. (2012) define digital divide as the gap between those with access and those without.  The authors have broadened the definition of “have-nots” beyond access to a personal computer and the Internet.  They argue that even if you have dial-up at home, your school or the local library, you should still consider yourself a “have-not” because so much content requires broadband Internet access.  Surveys indicate that while 35 percent of all adults have a smart phone, not all content is compatible with mobile devices (Smith & Zickuhr, 2012). 

As more and more services and resources are available solely online, access becomes critical. “It is important to note that many of the people most affected by the digital divide are traditionally underserved populations, such as people with low income levels, minorities, older Americans, and those living in rural areas who may have the most need for specialized services” (Jaeger et al., 2012, p. 5).

Once you have secured the technology to meet your needs, you must have the knowledge and skills – digital literacy – to access content successfully, evaluate its usefulness and utilize it appropriately (Jaeger et al., 2012).

Digital inclusion is defined by Jaeger et al. (2012) as the “policies that close the digital divide and promote digital literacy” (p. 3).  There are four components that are the focus of digital inclusion: adequate funding for technology, the physical infrastructure to support the technology, bandwidth, and training in how to use the technology. An example the authors cite to illustrate digital inclusion as policy is the passage of President Obama’s National Wireless Initiative. It is intended to provide high-speed wireless services to most Americans by lowering the requirements for wireless access, which means that you only need a mobile device rather than a computer to get Internet access. 

The authors, (Jaeger et al., 2012), then go on to describe several other government initiatives designed to achieve digital inclusion.  Folded into the Stimulus Bill, for example, was $2.5 billion to build broadband infrastructure in rural areas.

Yet, in some instances, government appears to be stumbling over itself. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established the E-Rate program, which provides all public schools and half of the public libraries in this country with financial support to secure Internet connectivity. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a National Broadband Plan in 2010, which calls for expanding broadband service and suggests that one of the ways it can be paid for is to defund the E-Rate program (Jaeger et al., 2012).   Other instances are cited in the areas of digital literacy that seem equally problematic.

What seems to be missing from many of these well-intentioned programs and policies is an awareness of the role that libraries are already playing in providing access and education. In 2011, there were 16,672 public libraries in the United States of which

·      99.3 percent offered public Internet access

·      64.5 percent reported that they are the only provider of free public computer and Internet access in their communities

·      85.7 percent offered wireless (Wi-Fi) Internet access

·      38 percent offered formal training classes

·      28.1 percent offered one-on-one training

·      78.8 percent helped patrons as the need arose

·      29.5 percent offered online training materials (Smith & Kickuhr, 2012; Jaeger et al., 2012)

If the federal government continues to view the digital divide, digital literacy, and digital inclusion as important policy issues, it will need to include public libraries in the discussion and plans. “No other cultural institutions are prepared to serve the public in the digital literacy and digital inclusion capacities the way public libraries do because of a lack of sufficient public access technology and a lack of the ability to provide education and training related to the Internet” (Jaeger et al., 2012, p. 15).

Three recommendations are put forward:

1)    do not reduce library funding

2)    public libraries need to be brought into the discussion

3)    libraries need to do a better job of advocacy (Jaeger et al., 2012).

Though these recommendations seem very basic, the fact that the authors feel they need to articulate them speaks volumes about the current situation.  Public libraries are dealing with the issues of the digital divide and digital literacy right now, and will be in the future unless they continue to be underfunded and left out of the conversation. 

The most innovative university graduate schools that are training the next wave of librarians have developed programs like the Digital Information Management Graduate Certificate Program (DigIn) and Knowledge River, both at the University of Arizona. DigIn focuses on technology and graduates can offer public libraries and their patrons support for their hardware and software; provide one-on-one training, classes, and answer individual questions; and sit on purchasing and policy committees. Knowledge River provides students with a deeper understanding of the library environment from the perspective of Latino and Native Americans and encourages advocacy on behalf of these underserved, underrepresented populations.

When you combine DigIn with Knowledge River, you are more likely to get professionals who help create cutting-edge projects like those described in “Crossing the Digital Divide”. For example, faced with a crisis, the Menominee people have embraced the latest technology to preserve and teach their culture and language (Benton, 2012). 

You are also more likely to get individuals who will advocate for public libraries, demanding more resources, requesting inclusion when important decisions are being made, and speaking up on behalf of patrons.

The opportunity to help people not only access technology but learn how to use it effectively, which is happening every single day within the public library setting, makes the institution more relevant than ever.  Advocacy is the key to ensuring that this continues in to the future.

References

Benton, S. (2012). Crossing the digital divide. [Electronic version]. Tribal College Journal, 23(3), 15-17.

Jaeger, P., Bertot, J., Thompson, K., Katz, S., & DeCoster, E. (2012). The intersection of public policy and public access: Digital divides, digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public libraries. [Electronic version]. Public Library Quarterly, 31(1), 1-20.

Smith, A. & Kickuhr, K. (2012). Digital Differences. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf

Authentic Voices

“Until the lion starts telling his own story, the stories will always be told from the perspective of the hunter” – old African proverb, related by Stephen Abram (Drake, 2012, p. 1).

Our class visits to the Arizona Historical Society and the Arizona State Museum last semester got me thinking about the stories being told about Native Americans and wondering if those stories were more accurate and robust than the ones I remember from my years in school. It certainly seems to be the case, but this could simply be my perception or wishful thinking so I decided to look for some evidence.

I discovered a 2012 article by Allison Boucher Krebs, titled “Native America’s twenty-first-century right to know” that gave me some insight into the answers I was seeking.  The author states that in order to really assess if progress has been made, the reader needs to go back and review Vine Deloria Jr.’s paper prepared in 1978 for The White House Pre-Conference on Indian Library and Information Services On or Near Reservations titled “The Right to Know.” In his paper is a To Do List, which Ms. Krebs (2012) summarizes as follows:

Inventory and catalog of existing records in federal possession

Document repositories and access

Development of information services customized for tribal communities

Library and information science education for tribal members

Turnkey digitization capability for tribes

Regional research center

Acquisition funding for repatriation. (p. 177)

Ms. Krebs (2012) states that Mr. Deloria argued that not only is this list based on provisions found in treaties, considered to be documents that bind future generations, but the belief that “as Indigenous peoples we have not only the rights to but also responsibilities for our knowledge” (p. 177).

After walking the reader through a timeline showing how the legislative, judicial, executive and citizen-based or professional organizations have all contributed to moving Mr. Deloria’s agenda forward, Ms. Krebs (2012) then examines two institutions and their activities/missions that are aligned with the To Do List.

She first discusses the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the grants they have made to Indian tribes and organizations that serve and represent Native Hawaiians.  The legislation that established the IMLS states that 1.75% of the funds designated for grants in any given year must be made to tribes and Native Hawaiian groups/projects.  These grants are distributed through non-competitive and competitive processes (Krebs, 2012).

According to Ms. Krebs (2012), IMLS grants have had the kind of impact that all grantors hope for: 

Not only do these funds make projects possible, they also make it possible for these tribal institutions to pilot programs, creating a track record that can attract funding from other federal, state, regional, local agencies, and private foundations. These grants also facilitate the development of collaborative partnerships with a gamut of educational institutions. (p. 184)

She goes on to provide some examples ranging from the preserving, cataloging and digitizing of collections to the archiving and storage of oral histories to the establishment of early literacy programs and the development of educational programs that align with state curriculums.

The IMLS has also invested in grants to help Native American professionals achieve training at the Masters level and sponsored conferences to promote collaboration, delve into issues facing tribal libraries, archives and museums, and encourage networking.  Ms. Krebs (2012) states, “This brief overview of IMLS-funded projects demonstrates the breadth and depth of its impact” (p. 185).

The author then turns to the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI).  Not to be confused with the American Indian Records Repository (AIRR) that primarily holds documents buried 90 feet below ground in a limestone cave in Kansas (ensuring that its collection isn’t very accessible), the NMAI holdings are primarily artifacts. Numbering more than 800,000 items, the NMAI is one of the Smithsonian’s seventeen institutions and has three physical locations: the museum on the National Mall in Washington D.C., the Cultural Resource Center in Suitland, Maryland, and the George Gustav Heye Center in New York City (Krebs, 2012).

Though established by legislation in 1989, the building on the mall didn’t open until 2004.  In those intervening years, the staff and Board held a series of consultations with tribal members and developed the concept of the Fourth Museum, a name for the “ongoing, intangible relationship building and outreach with Indian Country” (Krebs, 2012, p. 187). The essence of the Fourth Museum is represented in the NMAI Repatriation Policy Statement that was adopted in 1991. Pledging to honor the ceremonies, rituals, claims of ownership and the need to access materials along with establishing training opportunities for Native Americans, the policy also states that consent must be obtained by NMAI prior to any decisions being made regarding care, treatment and display of any items.

Ms. Krebs (2012) circles back around to the To Do List since she has clearly demonstrated that this institution has also helped achieve some of the goals outlined by Mr. Deloria.

I found this article very interesting, particularly in light of the fact that both Ms. Krebs and Mr. Deloria were associated with the University of Arizona. The author biography at the end of the article states that Ms. Krebs (2012) earned her MLS as a Knowledge River Scholar at the University of Arizona. Mr. Deloria taught at the University of Arizona in the Political Science Department and, later, at the College of Law (Arizona Board of Regents, 2012).

Originally presented at a conference in Australia and then published in the Journal of Archeological Sciences, Ms. Krebs’ writing style strikes a very interesting balance. Acknowledging that she can’t get too personal, she starts with a story as a way to introduce herself.  She also recognizes that she is representing to some degree all of the tribes located within the US borders, and she uses the opportunity to educate the audience about the Native American point-of-view as she introduces Mr. Deloria and his To Do List. It reinforced to me the value and importance of having Native Americans speak on behalf of Native Americans.

Due to the current political climate, I am well aware of the danger the institutions she mentioned must be in.  The Republican party and its very conservative faction, The Tea Party, probably has its sights set on eliminating the grant programs developed and administered by the IMLS. Though setting aside 1.75% is nothing compared to its entire budget, to them it probably sounds too similar to affirmative action or an entitlement, “evils” that they feel must be done away with at all costs.

Ms. Krebs (2012) also mentions that the legislative act that established the NMAI stated “priority will be given to Indian organizations with respect to agreements regarding lending of Native American artifacts, sponsoring of traveling exhibits, training and technical assistance. Furthermore, these services may be provided by the Smithsonian Institution at minimal or no cost to Indian organizations” (p. 187). Again, preferential treatment of people of color, especially those who want to retain self-identity, is viewed as unpatriotic and evil by some segments of our society.

Just as state governments are being encouraged by the Far Right to chip away at Roe v. Wade by placing onerous regulations on abortion clinics and closing them one by one, I can’t imagine that there have not been attempts to dismantled these institutions by defunding them piecemeal. We all need to be diligent and react quickly and vociferously when the alarm is sounded before we lose these national treasures, and the progress we’ve made in telling history from the Native American perspective since I was in school.

References

Arizona Board of Regents. (2012). Vine Deloria: Faculty Emeritus/American Indian Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ais.arizona.edu/people/vine-deloria

Drake, M. (2012, September). Up close with Stephen Abram. Information Today, Vol. 29, Issue 8, pp. 1, 32-33.

Krebs, A. (2012). Native America’s twenty-first-century right to know [Electronic version]. Journal of Archeological Science, 12:173-190.

Lessons learned from the Quincentenary

I lingered a few moments at the end of a field trip to the Arizona Historical Museum to ask Mary Ann Ruelas about the Geronimo exhibit. Specifically I wanted to know who they consulted when designing it. She told me that they have many contacts within the local Native American community who help ensure that their archival material is accurately and sensitively displayed.

Then, thinking about the exhibits that had been put together by much larger institutions in recognition of the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ journey to the Americas (aka: Quincentenary) and the controversies that swirled around some of them, I asked her how the Smithsonian, for example, could put together exhibits that seem one-sided or incomplete. Mary Ann thought that possibly they feel that all of the expertise they need is in-house and don’t need to consult others outside the institution which would provide different points-of-view (M.A. Ruelas, personal communication, September 17, 2012).

After four years of work, the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution opened an exhibit in late October 1991 called “Seeds of Change: Five Hundred Years of Encounter and Exchange”.  An article in the Chicago Tribune appearing a few days before the opening described it this way: “The $2.8 million show celebrates 500 years of cultural and biological changes since Christopher Columbus arrived in America. The five seeds that Columbus sowed on both sides of the Atlantic with his voyages to the new world are sugar, corn, the potato, disease and the horse” (Haddix, 1991). 

In materials designed to encourage other institutions to book the travelling exhibit, the tone was light, upbeat and celebratory. It was based on the initial press releases and descriptions produced by the Smithsonian that the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History selected “Seeds of Change” as their next summer “blockbuster”. Usually a very sleepy place over the summer months, the Museum had brought animatronic dinosaurs two years in a row to their facility and was thrilled when the community turned out in droves. They were looking for the next big thing and thought that “Seeds of Change” might just be it.

My husband was employed by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History at the time and shared with me that the Anthropology Department put together a review committee of outside experts, including representatives from the Chumash Tribe, and proceeded to delve deeply into the content. They quickly discovered that the exhibit would have to be modified substantially to accurately reflect the impact the five “seeds” had locally - particularly the “seed” of disease - and backed out.  The public was unaware that any of this was going on and, when the last minute substitute, “The World of Beatrix Potter”, opened, they embraced it, returning again and again.

Pauline Turner Strong (1997) puts forward the argument in an article titled “Exclusive Labels: Indexing the National “We” in Commemorative and Oppositional Exhibitions” that the curators of the “Seeds of Change” exhibit were being strategic in their choices in order to entice audiences to enter the exhibit, and the exhibit itself was largely benign when compared to some others developed as part of the Quincentenary (pp. 43 & 46).

Preceding “Seeds of Change” was an exhibit titled “First Encounters: Spanish Explorations in the Caribbean and the United States, 1492-1570.” It opened at the Florida of Museum of Natural History in 1989 and the focal point was a two-thirds scale replica of Columbus’s ship La Niña.  The author tells us that “schoolchildren visiting the exhibition took the role of explorers, boarding the ship and shooting imaginary Indians on shore. Despite its invocation of the seemingly inclusive and dialogical concept of ‘encounters’ in the exhibition’s main label, the theme of “First Encounters” was exploration, and its collective subject, its ‘we’, was clearly Euro-American” (Strong, 1997, p. 47).

Russell Means and others protested the exhibit, causing museums that had planned to show it to cancel.  By the time it arrived in Albuquerque, the materials had been edited to present the Native American perspective.  The Science Museum of Minnesota, however, took it a lot further and actually embedded a counter exhibit they called “Native Views: From the Heart of Turtle Island” into “First Encounters”. Though a few new items were added to the exhibit from their own collection, the “Native Views” exhibit consisted primarily of additional labels.

Dr. Strong (1997) shared a few examples:

“What is offensive about First Encounters?” asked a counter-label beside the replica of the Niña. It answered: “For many Euro-Americans this replica of the Niña is a source of pride. For indigenous people, the Niña symbolizes death and destruction.”

Beside a life-size portrayal of the exchange of trade goods, a similar counter-label objected to presenting indigenous people in a case like an exotic, extinct species thereby calling into question the presuppositions underlying natural history museums in general. (pp. 51-52)

Dr. Strong (1997) calls this type of labeling polyphonic, and states that the reason she liked this approach was the fact that the labels were side-by-side. “This proved to be an extremely effective strategy for voicing alternative truths, stimulating dialogue and encouraging critical thinking about the basis of any institutional claim of truth” (p. 52).

According to Dr. Strong (1997), the Native American artistic responses to the Quincentenary were tobacco, alcohol, gunpowder, gold and land.  Peter Davis (2000) concurs, noting that leaving out tobacco from “Seeds of Change” was a major oversight (p. 314).  Assuming that the National Museum of Natural History had access to some of the Native American artistic artifacts that Dr. Strong refers to, it might have been interesting to have selected these five “seeds” and interpreted them from both a Native American and Euro-American perspective. It might also have been wise to consider going deeper on fewer “seeds” rather than try to cram too much into one exhibit.

The fees associated with “renting” a travelling exhibit can be quite steep, not to mention the packing and shipping costs the institution has to bear when it is time to send it on to the next location. Many museums, like the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, don’t have the financial resources or the time required to incorporate major changes into an exhibit that is supposed to come ready-to-display-right-out-of-the-box or mount a counter exhibit.  Polyphonic labeling may be a more cost-effective answer to this dilemma that smaller museums can adopt but, in my mind, a better solution would be for the major institutions to be more proactive, involving diverse voices in exhibit development the moment an idea begins to take shape.

References

Davis, P. (2000). Museums and the promotion of environmental understanding and heritage conservation. In MacManamon, F. and Hatton, A., (Eds.), Cultural resource management in contemporary society: Perspectives on managing and presenting the past, (pp. 310-318). New York: Routledge.

Haddix, C. (1991, October 21). Seeds of change: New Smithsonian exhibit dwells on exchange of foodstuffs after 1492. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-10-24/entertainment/9104050954_1_corn-exhibit-christopher-columbus

Strong, P. (1997). Exclusive labels: Indexing the national ‘we’ in commemorative and oppositional exhibitions. Museum Anthropology, 21(1), 42-56.

Libraries: the next generation

When I tell people that I am enrolled in the University of Arizona/School of Information Resources and Library Science with hopes of becoming a public librarian, some of them look at me like I am crazy. I have been asked more than once “Why are you doing this? Libraries are obsolete.”

Yes, technology has certainly changed the way information is accessed, but that does not mean public libraries are no longer relevant. It does mean, however, that they must rethink their role and position within the community. Changes to the traditional way of doing business must be made or many of them will become a thing of the past.

The same can be said of museums. There is a lot that librarians and libraries can learn from our cultural counterparts, and I found the assignment to watch segments from the Smithsonian-sponsored conference titled (Re)Presenting America: The Evolution of Culturally Specific Museums (2012) stimulating.  The final panel, titled “A Work in Progress” was particularly interesting. Four individuals representing smaller museums discussed their institution’s mission and what they are doing programmatically to support that mission. Carlos Tortolero, Founder and Director of the National Museum of Mexican Art located in Chicago, IL. was a dynamic presenter. Thirty years ago he got together with a group of friends – all teachers – to create the Museum because there was no place for members of the local community to go to see their own art.  Skeptics said at the time that there is no way you can 1) put a museum in a working-class neighborhood, 2) put an art museum in a working-class neighborhood, and 3) offer free admission.

Despite these naysayers, the National Museum of Mexican Art is considered a world-class museum that is the only Latino-focused museum accredited by the American Association of Museums. It is also an affiliate museum of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. Tortolero stated that it is important for a museum to be a part of the community, not apart from it. To that end, the National Museum of Mexican Art allocates 1/3 of its annual budget to education. After citing some specific examples of their outreach efforts, he summed it up this way: “We are everywhere” (2012).

Additionally, the Museum runs programs on site that have been developed in response to community needs. For example: they register people to vote, they hold an annual Queer Prom attended by students from across the mid-west, and they are involved in health fairs and classes. Mr. Tortolero told the audience that 200 women 55 years of age and older attended a workshop taught by a nurse practitioner on how to do breast self-exams.

This is the same vision I have for libraries, particularly in rural communities, where the network of social service agencies may be non-existent. Through collaboration and innovation, a library in a small community can be a lifeline for its residents.

I tried to find other examples of museums as community partner. There is a wonderful resource titled Urban Network: Museums Embracing Communities (2003) that is the result of a grant funded by the National Recreation Foundation. Edited by Jennifer Amdur Spitz and Margaret Thom, the book documents the process of creating a museum consortium, the programs each member developed to reach new audiences, and the lessons learned. The synthesis of key steps summarized in Figures 1 – 6 in Section III, titled Program Development Blueprint, and Section 4 on Evaluation, particularly the discussion about creating and sustaining relationships, is the best I’ve seen on these subjects without being overly long or academic (pp. 26, 28, 32, 34, 42-48).

That being said, I was disappointed in the case studies found in Section 5. They seemed so pedestrian: staying open late on a Saturday night once a month and waiving the fee (pp. 50-57); giving free admission tickets to local nonprofit organizations to distribute (pp. 84-89); inviting a dance troupe to teach classes in an art museum (pp. 90-97). Don’t get me wrong – these are all wonderful activities but, at least based on the descriptions, they weren’t as cutting-edge as I’d hoped they’d be.  Then again, all of the participating museums were big institutions in large cities, including The Field Museum (Chicago), The Brooklyn Museum of Art and The American Museum of Natural History (New York), The Exploratorium and the Oakland Museum of California (San Francisco By area). Given their histories, these activities probably are cutting-edge.

I know more examples are out there; I just need to keep looking and networking with colleagues. Ultimately, however, I think the difference between a traditional museum and one that might be considered more of a cultural center is leadership. Based on my experience with non-profit organizations, those that are doing remarkable work have a leader like Carlos Tortolero: someone with integrity, a vision, passion and willingness to do things differently if required; the skill to bring people together; value whatever gift they bring to the table, whether it is time, talent and/or treasure, and to inspire collaboration; and the ability to listen and respond based on what he/she hears with creativity and enthusiasm.

Here’s hoping I get the opportunity to work with someone like Mr. Tortolero in a public library that, without losing sight of its mission, plays a meaningful role in the lives of the community’s residents.

References

Simon, N. (2010, October 24). Community Museums and Museum Communities. (Web log comment.) Retrieved from http://www.shareable.net/blog/top-10-open-participatory-museums-redefining-how-public-engages-culture.%20

Smithsonian Institution. (2012). Introduction. (Re)Presenting America: The evolution of culturally specific museums. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCGwilzYlDk.

Smithsonian Institution. (2012). Panel: A work in progress. (Re)Presenting America: The evolution of culturally specific museums. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRKV20LDVsY&feature=relmfu

Spitz, J. & Thom, M. (Eds.) (2003). Urban network: Museums embracing communities. Chicago, IL: The Field Museum.