Cultural construction of dis/misinformation

I’ve discussed previously how dis/misinformation is socially produced and consumed. However, there are cultural nuances to dis/misinformation that are worth exploring. Culture can be defined as the collective attitude of a group of people. My personal understanding of culture comes from Hofstede, who describes culture variously as the “collective programming of the mind” and as the “software of the mind” which allows us to determine which social groups a person might or might not belong to (2011, 2010). Dis/misinformation can become embedded in this collective programming and persist easily, often with unfavourable consequences. Such dis/misinformation can be further perpetuated through social homogeneity (Torres, Gerhart, & Negahban, 2018). 

Elsewhere, cultural disinformation is practised (often at scale) for entertainment. Internet trolls are a “manifestation of everyday sadism,” who create disinformation because they enjoy the controversy that it generates (Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014, p. 97). Unlike social disinformation, this form of cultural disinformation is easy to identify as it is often at odds with established scientific or social consensus - it exists to be provocative. Nonetheless, disinformation of this kind easily establishes itself as ‘fact.’ So what do we do about it? Swire and Ecker (2018) recommend six mechanisms by which cultural disinformation in mass media can be countered, including: 

• Providing factual alternatives, 
• Boosting retrieval of retraction information, 
• Using refutation as an educational tool, 
• Building credibility, 
• Providing self-affirming corrections, and 
• Fostering scepticism. 

I think there is a place for us to use these strategies in metaliteracy-building activities to help our users identify and avoid dis/misinformation. At the very least, making an effort to inculcate scepticism can’t hurt. Wouldn't you agree?

Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016

Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind : intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Culture’s consequences : comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Swire, B., & Ecker, U. (2018). Misinformation and its correction: Cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. In E. A. Thorson, B. G. Southwell, & L. Sheble (Eds.), Misinformation and Mass Audiences (pp. 195–211). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Torres, R. R., Gerhart, N., & Negahban, A. (2018). Combating fake news: an investigation of information verification behaviors on social networking sites. 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 2018, Honolulu, 3976–3985. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10125/50387

Social construction of dis/misinformation

The presence of dis/misinformation in the knowledge economy then presents several social issues with untoward effects for public health, industry, and political discourse. As I've said before, It’s my observation that the dissemination and consumption of dis/misinformation is a social act.

Photo by Chris Barbalis on Unsplash

Misinformation about health and medicine abounds in the digital environment. Examples of this include, antivaccination campaigns, the popularity of homeopathy despite scientific consensus, and sensationalist claims about the efficacy of unorthodox treatments. In a study of Pinterest, Guidry, Carlyle, Messner, and Jin (2015) found the majority of information shared about vaccination on the social media platform was misleading. In an analysis for The Independent, Forster (2017) found that of the most popular health-related information shared on facebook the vast majority were not only inaccurate or misleading, but also attempted to discredit trust in more authoritative sources of medical information - such as doctors and scientists. The end result of health misinformation is a lack of trust in established healthcare and a decline in rates of reporting, diagnosis, treatment, and most disturbing of all, recovery.

Health information is also susceptible to disinformation when commercial interests are involved, as Kurland (2002) says, “We have seen this with the tobacco, lead paint, petroleum, pharmaceutical, and asbestos industries,” (p. 499). This is part of an increasingly disturbing trend where information is deliberately suppressed, misrepresented, or outright fabricated by industry. Capitalism demands that we take a potentially unlimited resource (such as knowledge, or information) and make it conform to rules for scarcity. Freely accessible and accurate information is a valueless enterprise in a capitalist society. Marshall, Goodman, Zowghi, and da Rimini (2015) discuss how in a capitalist environment it is only when information becomes hidden, restricted, or privileged (regardless of accuracy) that it posses value. And so through the mechanisms of subscriptions, authentication, Digital Rights Management, and the application of intellectual property to information, we encounter a means for profit. The knowledge economy necessitates that information becomes an economic product, but because of this it becomes susceptible to manipulation for increased profit. Working within this system the problem of dis/misinformation could be partially addressed if value is placed not on information, but on accurate information. Elsewhere, the decrying of ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ is an ongoing conversation. In an opinion-piece for Global Policy, Al-Rodhan (2017) suggests a greater public presence from scientists as one of several possible countermeasures. What about a public presence of information professionals? Tarango and Machin-Mastromatteo (2017) further argue that information professionals can contribute to society by becoming knowledge producers in their own right. We might start by producing quality information that can counter dis/misinformation in the social sphere. But I should stress that there are limits to the kinds of information that we can safely and authoritatively comment on. It should also be recognised that not all of us possess the scientific competencies or vocational opportunity necessary for such work.

Photo by Kim Gorga on Unsplash

Disinformation from industry has also affected political discourse, such as global campaigns of disinformation from oil and gas corporations surrounding climate change (Brown, 2017). Van der Linden and colleagues (2017) were able to inoculate against dis/misinformation about climate change by pre-emptively highlighting false claims and refuting potential counter-arguments to create “attitudinal resistance.” It might be possible to use this method at point-of-service, during information enquiries by first drawing attention to the prevalence of dis/misinformation related to the query. However, I’m skeptical of the practical value of such an intervention, and if it would be well received. We have an ePrivacy Directive (2002), why not an eLiteracy one? What if websites and news media were required to display a message stating that some of the information contained therein may be economically motivated, personal opinion, inaccurate, or misleading?

Political discourse is especially susceptible to dis/misinformation, despite efforts to curb this. In the US, fact-checking organisations have been used to assess the accuracy of political statements since the late 1980s. Fact-checking and mythbusting organisations are useful tools for information professionals to employ when identifying socially mediated dis/misinformation. These organisations have for some time been effective at highlighting dis/misinformation in social and political spheres, often in real-time. However, Poulsen and Young (2018) note that fact-checking organisations failed in the face of misstatements (deliberate or otherwise) from the 2016 American electoral campaign because they could not keep up with the speed nor the volume of dis/misinformation at the time. Information literacy is “about taking time” to make discreet, informed decisions. The key takeaway here is that if we want to help in the identification and avoidance of dis/misinformation in political discourse, we will need to first address these new obstacles of scale and speed. In intelligence organisations political disinformation is known as PSYOPS (short for psychological operations), while military think tanks have christened the rise of digital disinformation as the ‘weaponized narrative’ (Allenby, 2017). The weaponized narrative as a tool for use in the political sphere is chillingly summarised by Carole Cadwalladr (2018);

In 2014, Steve Bannon – then executive chairman of the “alt-right” news network Breitbart – was Wylie’s boss. And Robert Mercer, the secretive US hedge-fund billionaire and Republican donor, was Cambridge Analytica’s investor. And the idea they bought into was to bring big data and social media to an established military methodology – “information operations” – then turn it on the US electorate.

This type of disinformation is difficult to identify because supported by powerful organisations and elaborate systems, it is has been designed to appear legitimate. It appears so genuine, its “ability to publish untruths and half-truths in peer-reviewed journals is destructive of the public’s capacity to make informed judgement,” (Kurland, 2002, p.499). Of the literature I’ve come across, none have attempted to describe how this particular type of disinformation can be countered, by anyone - let alone librarians. But I think that we should recognise that the consumption of dis/misinformation of any kind is a social activity. Any attempt to remedy it should be a social undertaking. Apportioning blame and responsibility to infrastructure, systems, and platforms overlooks this completely.

Allenby, B. R. (2017). The age of weaponized narrative: Or, where have you gone Walter Cronkite? Issues in Science and Technology, 33(4), 65–70.

Al-Rodhan, N. (2017, July). Post-truth politics, the fifth estate and the securitization of fake news. Global Policy. Retrieved from https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/07/06/2017/post-truth-politics-fifth-estate-and-securitization-fake-news

Brown, D. A. (2017). The enormity of the damage done by the climate change Disinformation campaign as the world struggles to implement the Paris agreement. In L. Westra, J. Gray, & F. T. Gottwald (Eds.), The role of integrity in the governance of the commons: Governance, ecology, law, ethics (pp. 125–139). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54392-5_8

Cadwalladr, C. (2018, March 18). “I made Steve Bannon”s psychological warfare tool’: Meet the data war whistleblower. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

Forster, K. (2017) Revealed: How dangerous fake health news conquered Facebook. The Independent. Retreived from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/fake-news-health-facebook-cruel-damaging-social-media-mike-adams-natural-health-ranger-conspiracy-a7498201.html

Guidry, J. P. D., Carlyle, K., Messner, M., & Jin, Y. (2015). On pins and needles: How vaccines are portrayed on Pinterest. Vaccine, 33(39), 5051–5056. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VACCINE.2015.08.064

Kurland, J. (2002). The heart of the precautionary principle in democracy. Public Health Reports, 117(6), 498–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50194-2

Marshall, J. P., Goodman, J., Zowghi, D., & da Rimini, F. (2015). Disorder and the disinformation society: The social dynamics of information, networks and software. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315693460

Poulsen, S., & Young, D. G. (2018). A history of fact checking in U.S. politics and election contexts. In B. G. Southwell, E. A. Thorson, & L. Sheble (Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences (pp. 232–248). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Tarango, J., & Machin-Mastromatteo, J. (2017). The role of information professionals in the knowledge economy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

What is dis/misinformation?

This is a series of commentaries and reflections on the phenomena of dis/misinformation. Further posts include discussion on the social construction of dis/misinformation, and the cultural construction of dis/misinformation, an exploration of important legal issues in dis/misinformation, and a consideration of the ethical issues in dis/misinformation.

---

One defining characteristic of post-modern life is the omnipresence of communication. The presence of dis/misinformation in this environment is an increasingly worrying phenomenon. Misinformation is defined as information misrepresented. It can carry factual errors or inaccuracies, subjective statements, and is sometimes out of date (Southwell, Thorson, & Sheble, 2018). It is believed to be true both by those who produce it and those that share it. On the other hand, disinformation is misinformation that has been purposefully created to deceive its eventual consumer. In descriptive terms, we could say that the difference between misinformation and disinformation is one of intentionality.

Photo by Kayla Velasquez on Unsplash

Both terms and their definitions presume that truth has an objective reality. However, speaking specifically about critical information research, Stahl (2006) writes that “truth can never be an objective description of an external reality. All perception is always value-laden and based on individual and collective prejudices,” (p. 90). This reflects Nietzsche’s concept of perspectivism and Foucault’s ‘regime of truth,’ both of which theorise that reality cannot be separated from human experience. I was interested to read Ian Clark's (2016) thoughts on this, especially alongside a quote from Edward Carr; “The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy,” (2001, p. 6). I would agree that truth is a socially constructed phenomenon, but I think it helps us to deal with the issue more practically if we recognise that for many people, truth has an objective quality.

The ‘information society’ is the result of a multitude of communication technologies diffused into all aspects of existence in post-industrial life. When the production, dissemination, and consumption of information underlies all aspects of society, it becomes commodified, which is where the concept of the ‘knowledge economy’ arises. Dis/misinformation exists comfortably in the information society because it is socially constructed, and socially consumed (Marsh & Yang, 2018; Srinivasan, Finn, & Ames, 2017). This makes it difficult for mediators of information (such as information professionals) to involve ourselves because we are not party to the social aspects of information production and consumption, generally our primary function is an economic one.

As a profession, our efforts have largely been reactive. Instructional events such as like those advocated by Batchelor (2017) which include community events and credit-bearing courses fail to address the deeply social and economically-motivated nature of modern information transactions. Libguides on fake news and ‘post-truth’ don’t (and can’t) acknowledge the role that capitalism and an increasing fascist media machine play in our social information consumption. It is unrealistic to ask individuals to apply the ‘CRAPP test’ to every social media interaction they encounter, for example. Like Clark (2017) summarises, “this is a rather inadequate way of evaluating information and, for me, rather plays into the notion that the quality of the information can be assessed by following a simple check-box exercise. I don’t think this is realistic, useful or a desirable approach to take when critically appraising an information source.” 

Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash

So rather than being reactive, I would argue that our efforts are more usefully directed towards proactive interventions. The need for this has been widely acknowledged, for example in the Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper which asserts that:

We want to ensure that schools develop children’s critical thinking skills so that young people are better able to recognise intentionally misleading information. In the long-term, giving our young people the tools they need to assess material online will be the single most effective antidote to fake news (HM Government, 2017, p. 26, the emphasis is mine).

Though, it must be said with this particular issue, our government has a tendency to promise one thing and deliver something else entirely. In the next few posts I'm aiming to break down dis/misinformation further by interrogating the social cultural, legal and ethical issues surrounding the phenomenon. I also want to explore our role as information professionals in this environment. Dis/misinformation is clearly a problem in contemporary society, and we have some professional responsibility to address it. But I want to find out exactly what that responsibility entails.

Batchelor, O. (2017). Getting out the truth: The role of libraries in the fight against fake news. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-03-2017-0006

Carr, E. H. (2001). What is history?. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Clark, I. (2017) Fake news and the magic bullet. Infoism, http://infoism.co.uk/2017/07/fake-news-magic-bullet/

Clark, I. (2016) Information literacy won’t save us; or, fight fascism, don’t create a LibGuide. Infoism. http://infoism.co.uk/2016/12/information-literacy/

Marsh, E. J., & Yang, B. W. (2018). Believing things that are not true: A cognitive science perspective on misinformation. In B. G. Southwell, E. A. Thorson, & L. Sheble (Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences (pp. 15–34). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Srinivasan, J., Finn, M., & Ames, M. (2017). Information determinism: The consequences of the faith in information. Information Society, 33(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1248613

Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A., & Sheble, L. (2017). The persistence and peril of misinformation. American Scientist, 105(6), 372. https://doi.org/10.1511/2017.105.6.372

Stahl, B. C. (2006). On the difference or equality of information, misinformation, and disinformation: A critical research perspective. Informing Science, 9, 83–96.

Exploring bibliotherapy

I think one enduring quality among folks that I have met working in Libraries is that we chose our profession because of a desire to help others. What I find particularly rewarding in my own work is using information to empower people to help themselves. Academic Libraries are particularly good at doing this in scholarly settings, but the value that they can bring to the personal lives of their users is often overlooked.

Tamarcus Brown

I came to be involved in bibliotherapy in a rather round-about way. But I was quick to recognise the value that it can add to Library users everywhere. Bibliotherapy is the use of reading for therapeutic purposes. This might include shared reading (such as book clubs and reading groups), reading events (such as poetry readings, and other events featuring the spoken word), and self-help reading. There is a growing body of clinical evidence to suggest that reading for self help can be an effective treatment for common conditions and life-stressors.

At least one in three people will struggles with their mental health at some point in their lives, but I'm sure it's something that almost all of us will encounter. And we all experience the pain of self-discovery, stress, and major life transitions at one point or another. Sometimes simultaneously. Libraries have a wealth of support material that users can turn to when dealing with difficulty.

Let me be the first to say quite clearly that this isn't a new or original idea. I didn't come up with this all on my own! Using self-help reading in academic libraries has been practised elsewhere for some time. But I thought it was something that we could do ourselves that would have a positive benefit to our users, and with minimal investment. I spent some time investigating bibliotherapy initiatives from elsewhere and doing quite a bit of benchmarking. Colleagues involved in mental health services at the University were incredibly supportive, as was my manager. I was able to make a case for turning my idea into a small project, with time and a budget attached. Which made Getting Stuff Done so much easier.

It was important to me that the collection of items included not only self help reading, but also works of fiction, graphic novels, music, films and documentaries, and even apps. Not everyone has the time, inclination, or ability to read a dense tome. As well as this, a lot of the material in our collection that deals with mental health is written from a practitioner perspective, and is of little value to the individual. So fiction and autobiographies needed to be represented in our recommended reading as well. And while we had plenty on depression, stress and anxiety, I was somewhat saddened to discover that our collection had almost nothing on bullying, AD(H)D, or LGBT+ identity for example. (what did it say about us that we hadn't thought to include these subject areas until now?)

But I did it! And I'm proud of the result. Soon I will begin collecting data to see whether or not the initiative has been "successful" or not. A difficult thing to measure. At best I will be able to show that whether or not our users have engaged with the resources. After all, it's difficult to put a value on mental health or to quantify it in any way.

Ruminating on the London International Book Fair, and the Research and Scholarly Publishing Forum

Earlier this year I had the wonderful opportunity to attend the London International Book Fair. And while it was indeed wonderful, and I met some wonderful people, a lot of the talks I attended left me feeling angry. Months later, I'm still angry. Read on, and discover why.

London Book Fair Insights Seminar Series

Copyright: Still Encouraging Learning

This seminar was programmed by Cambridge University Press and presented by William Bowes (General Counsel and Company Secretary of Cambridge University Press and Chair of Publishers Association's International Board) and Mandy Hill (Managing Director Academic of Cambridge University Press).

William Bowes began the session by speaking about how recent amendments to copyright legislation around the world are threatening the bottom line for publishers. Bowes went on to criticise copyright exceptions for educational work. Open Access was mentioned as contributing factor in the decline of academic quality assurance. Mandy Hill echoed Bowe’s sentiments, stating that “We invest hugely in commissioning, reviewing, producing, marketing content. If it’s all free, we can’t afford that.” To publicly claim all this whilst decrying the rise of “fake facts” and “fake news” very nearly prompted me to spontaneously combusted with rage. I questioned how exactly what they had been talking about encouraged learning and the response was essentially that when it comes to copyright we have three choices in the way the market is governed. According the Bowes, we can continue with the free-market status quo which “for three hundred years has been successful in promoting learning.” We can move towards a state-funded model of academic publishing (complete with all the scary socialist overtones about freedom of press and speech), or we can rely on philanthropy. That’s me told.

Connecting Readers to Content and Keeping Their Interest

This seminar was programmed by Ingenta and featured a panel discussion with Duncan Campbell (Director of Digital Licensing and Sales Partnerships at Wiley), and Lara Speicher (Publishing Manager at University College London Press).

Ingenta began the session by giving out a branded freebies to everyone. However the panel discussion actually proved to be quite interesting with as little intrusion from commercial interests as possible. Lara Speicher spoke about UCL’s move towards Open Access publishing and how this has actually improved their distribution. Books that in print would sell less than 20 copies, are being downloaded and read thousands of times in countries all over the world – increasing the reach of UCL scholarship. Duncan Campbell spoke about how Wiley in particular is interested in using AI to customise and personalise user experiences. The recent acquisition of Meta by the Chan Zucherberg Initiative was discussed. They are also looking at ways to move beyond the PDF and make content available in all kinds of useful formats. Speicher piped up and said that for the moment, UCLP would not be investing outside of the PDF.

Research and Scholarly Publishing Forum

Welcome

Jacks Thomas (Chair of The London Book Fair), Stephen Lotinga (CEO, UK Publishers Association), Mandy Hill (Managing Director Academic of Cambridge University Press), Helen Dobson (Scholarly Communications Manager, University of Manchester).

Lotinga opened by saying that the UK amounts to 10% of downloads and 12% of citations, despite only publishing 4% of research globally. This is worth £1.1 billion in revenue for academic publishers. According to Hill, the success of British research is due to the credibility, authority, and exemplary quality brought to the table to publishing houses. Apparently authoring the journal content is easy, but publishing it is very, very difficult… Hill summarised by saying that the future of academic publishing lies in “continuing to support the needs of researchers,” and that customers will continue to demand more for less money in return.

Keynote

Kenneth A. Armstrong is Professor of European Law at the University of Cambridge.

Armstrong’s talk was mostly a shill for his forthcoming book Brexit Time: Leaving the EU - Why, How and When, but he was able to provide some interesting commentary on how Brexit might influence publishing, and scholarly publishing in particular. The UK will not be participating in Horizon2020 funding anymore, which will impact the funding that research-active universities receive. Furtehr devaluation of the GBP will make it difficult for universities (read, Libraries) to purchase subscriptions. Armstrong also noted that Brexit is a fast moving topic, and that academic debate has occurred largely outside of the traditional publishing processes, largely because those processes are too slow-moving. This has seen a proliferation of blogs and media commentary from scholarly sources. Hill stepped in at this point (actually lept onto the stage and interrupted Armstrong's talk!) to argue that “we’re publishers, not journalists!” and as such provide so much more in terms of quality…

What next? The Future of Open Access in the UK

Panel discussion featuring Alicia Wise (Manager Universal Access, Elsevier), Liam Earney (Director of JISC Collections), and Chris Banks (Director of Library Services, Imperial College London).

Banks began by summarising that the HEFCE policy changes can be said to supersede the Finch Report because it applies to any researcher – not just funded researchers. She pointed out that at the moment multi-funder, multi-institution collaboration makes policy compliance hellish. For example, Imperial College London spends about £6 million in subscriptions. But to make all of their research outputs open access through APCs would cost £18 million. She then went on to point out that there is a definite and provable citation advantage to publishing Green Open Access (and I nearly cheered). She finished by saying that a flipped model won’t be possible in the UK unless there is a transition to Open Access globally. Wise waffled on a bit about all the good work that Elsevier do in Open Access and how they’re a big supporter of the Access to Research initiative in public libraries. She also said that Gold Open access means that the publishing costs are paid up front, and then shortly after complained about how the definitions of Open Access are still in flux and uncertain... Interestingly, Wise did say that Elsevier want to move away from being a publisher and towards being an “information analytic company.” Earney spoke about the need to plan for Open Access monographs post REF2020, and that while cost may be a factor, having systems in place to support the disparate Open Access policies. He finished by saying that public discussion has been moving away from Open Access towards Open Science and Open Research instead.

Market and Policy Developments: Europe

Presented by Rob Johnson (Founder, Research Consulting)

Johnson began by highlighting the fact that while the EU are asking for immediate (ie. Gold) Open Access to research as the default by 2020, the complications provided by Brexit may see us moving towards Green Open Access as a financially achievable alternative. Many researchers in Southern Europe can’t afford to pay APCs despite the fact that most of European countries favour the Gold/APC model. Johnson was quick to point out the increasing access does not increase revenue. The average journal article in a traditional publishing model nets the publisher anywhere between £4,000 and £5,000. Meanwhile, the average APC nets the publisher £1,000 - £2,000 per article.

Market and Policy Developments: Asia

Presented by Lyndsey Dixon (Regional Journals Editorial Director for Asia Pacific for Taylor & Francis)

Dixon highlights that while for many academics in Asia publishing in English-language journals is a matter of prestige, recent government policy in China has seen an increasing pressure on academics to publish in their own language. China is responsible for 20% of published academic research globally, and many other Asian countries are set to increase their share. Korea leads the world in their research and development spend (as a percentage of GDP, which is currently 4%). In Asia openness in scholarly publishing has been largely driven by high-profile cases of fraud and academic misconduct. Dixon noted that there was little guidance for ECRs in Asia, and this could be an area for opportunity for publishers.

Market and Policy Developments: America

Presented by Vivian Berghahn (Managing Director and Journals Editorial Director Berghahn Books)

Berhahn’s talk was depressing, but it’s hard to put a positive spin on the news she delivered. She highlighted the currently political climate in the US as one that promotes anti-science rhetoric. In particular the Secretary for Education hasn’t addressed Higher Education at all, and so Berghahn warned to expect a skills shortfall from US graduates in the coming years. Endowments for culture, art and education will be cut by more than 40%. However, if you’re research is in the area of coal, oil, or gas, then you can expect to see increased funding. Berghahn noted a growing inequality in terms of access to research, access to APCs, and access to repository infrastructure. For the Library market this means that collections are more responsive than before with an emphasis on ebooks. About 60% of US academic libraries anticipate making cancellations in the coming year due to financial pressure. Interestingly, 70% of academic libraries in the US have an e-only policy for their journal collections.

The Rise of the Researchers

Panel discussion chaired by Tracey Armstrong (Copyright Clearance Center), and featuring Sybil Wong (Head of Partnerships & Marketing, Sparrho), Frederick Fenter (Frontiers), and John Inglis (bioRxiv and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press).

I was really irritated by the way that both Fenter and Inglis behaved towards Wong during this panel discussion. There were a lot of disparaging remarks and generalisations made about ‘the youth’ and early career researchers – without actually using the words ‘early career researchers.’ Fenter made a comment about how “the younger generation of academics have grown up surrounded by information,” and how they see the publishing process as “almost adversarial.” He then went on to say that the journal article is an artificial construct, and that publishing in high impact journals is not an indicator of quality – a tough audience to sell that particular point to. He said that initiative such as ScienceMatters, PeerJ, and PLOS are the direction of travel.

Inglis then pronounced that incentives for researchers to change their publishing behaviours will have to be driven by policy (really!?). Traditional publishers will need to prepare their content in such a way so as to support text data mining as this is an area of growth at the moment. The acquisition of Meta by the Chang Zuckerberg Initiative was mentioned again.

When Wong was finally able to get a word in edgewise, she made an interesting observation about how early career researchers don’t view the publishing process as an articulated whole, but instead as discreet parts; data, figures, peer-review etc. I would have liked to have heard more about this but then Fenter started talking again. He finished with a comment about how “maybe the arrival of Big Data will justify the use of the word ‘Science’ in ‘Social Science’,” and I could have cried.

Planning a CryptoParty

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was passed by both houses of parliament and enacted by the Queen late last year. This act specifically sets out the extent to which the government can interfere with the privacy of people living and working in the United Kingdom. Internet providers will now retain records of which websites you visited for the last year and will have to provide these to government officials without a warrant if asked to do so. For the first time it is now a criminal offence for someone working for an internet provider to disclose that information has been requested by the government. Icky right?

In libraries, a user’s right to privacy is one of the core professional values.  In 2015, among other privacy-related recommendations, The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions statement on privacy in the library environment recommended that;

Library and information services should support their users’ ability to make informed choices, take legitimate actions and weigh risks and benefits in their communications and use of services on the Internet.

Data protection and privacy protection should be included as a part of the media and information literacy training for library and information service users. This should include training on tools to use to protect their privacy.

The education of library and information professionals should include data and privacy protection principles and practices in a networked environment.

I felt that I had a professional duty to explore this further and look at ways that I could empower the people I work with to take the initiative for their own privacy and information security. So in December last year I began to think of ways in which I could give the issue of privacy more attention in my professional activities. This led me to consider hosting a CryptoParty as part of my wider library training programme. CryptoParties are decentralised social events where participants can explore different aspects of encryption and information security in a relaxed and nonthreatening environment. Rather than being events for hackers, pen-testers, cryptographers, and general tech-types, these events are for people who maybe don’t know much about information security, but would like to learn more.

I did a sweep of the information already available. It turns out we didn't have any official guidance on say, encryption, that could be readily promoted to a lay audience. So I had to draft an awful lot of help material from scratch. In doing this I found A DIY Guide to Feminist Cybersecurity, Security In-A-Box, and Me and My Shadow useful for plain-language descriptions of information security concepts. I've stripped any institutional info and uploaded them here so feel free to reuse/re-purpose;

Safe Browsing

Safe Encryption

Safe Digital Behaviour

Safe Passwords

The document about backups is entirely institutional, so I haven't included it here. After drafting all the material then we chose a date, organised catering, and set to promoting the thing. 

When floating the idea, I was told in no uncertain terms that I would not be allowed to discuss certain topics as they directly contravene my organisations various information security policies – specifically anonymization. This meant that I couldn’t talk about services such as Tor, or systems such as Tails. While understandable from an organisational point-of view, I felt hampered by this attitude. In fact, this was the first time I've ever felt that my professional values conflicted with those of my employer. 

The people who have the most to gain for your good idea will be the quickest to throw obstacles into your path. In a previous post I gave the following piece of advice; "Don't ask for permission to do great things. Ask for resources." Well, in this instance I felt compelled to ask for permission first. I work for an organisation that has information security set firmly on the strategic agenda. There are people in my department who are responsible for promoting issues relating to information security to staff and students. I really didn't want to step on their toes. There are also student groups specifically dedicated to this issue so getting them involved made sense. And, hey, the more people involved the easier the whole thing would be, right? Wrong. Promised information never materialised. Quite a few folks pulled out at the last minute. While some of the interventions were helpful, others were not and in the end balancing everyone's differing points of view and commitments proved stressful. All in all, it took FIVE MONTHS to plan and deliver the event. 

Will I do this again? Yes, but I think that making the next event localised will give me more control and bizarrely, less stress. In the end we had conversations with about 50 staff and students (mostly students) about privacy online and information security. It's a worthwhile endeavour, but just takes a little more effort than the other library skills development events.

Ten Librarian Life Lessons (Number nine will SHOCK you!)

I was recently invited to speak to a group of folks from the ELISA Collaborative ACLIP Programme on the theme of innovative work in general. I could of given a dry presentation about my job, but I thought I would experiment with something a little more exciting.

It can be difficult to translate lessons from one type of Librarianship to another - some of the things I've learned in order to support Chemistry for example, are of little use anywhere near Law Librarianship. So rather than specifically talk about what's it's like to work as an academic Librarian in the applied sciences (I tell people I work with all the "-ologies") I thought, why not talk about the type of thinking I use in my work? And in the age of the BuzzFeed list, lets make it exciting with some pretty, but rather meaningless pictures!

Ten Librarian Life Lessons

I think it might be something that professional women struggle with, but we have a tendency to phrase everything as a question. In a way, we’re almost always asking for permission. I feel this devalues our ideas, reduces the chances that we'll succeed, and diminishes our self-confidence. I guess what I’m saying is that we need to be more assertive, not just in how we communicate, but also in how we show ownership of our ideas.

I work in a very project-oriented environment. If something isn't part of a "project" then it tends to fall by the wayside. One thing that I like about the different projects I've been involved with over the years is that they keep me sane. They are opportunities to do and learn new things, and to work with different people. They are also a means of recognition. Unfortunate as it is, I've found that people very rarely get kudos for business as usual.

It’s important to keep a record of the good work you do, and to be proud of it. Share your successes in internal newsletters, on social media, at knowledge sharing events, seminars, conferences etc. You might feel like you’re boasting sometimes, but there are desperate people out there who need you as their inspiration! There's also your boss, who needs to hear about the good work you're doing.

Try stuff out once in a while. Not everything you do is guaranteed to work amazingly, and a good manager will already know this. Librarianship is one of those professions that lends itself well to reflection, and what is reflection if not contemplating your mistakes, learning from them, and improving for next time?

Sharing your failures, expected and unexpected is also okay. In science, a null results describes the outcome of an experiment where the result does not support the hypothesis. Well, it's actually a little more complicated than that, but you get the general idea. Even if they're frequently overlooked in favour of experiments with sexy p values, null results are still incredibly important. Others can still learn from them!

When we attribute our professional successes to luck, we're devaluing all the hard work that went into achieving them. You're not lucky, you're a hardworking information professional! I also think that success if largely down to making your own opportunities. Respond to the call for speakers/papers. Network and know who to ask with when you need something. If you see a gap service or resource provision that you could fill, don’t wait for someone to come along a do it for you, or even worse – give you permission!

Management types understand management-speak. If you want them to understand the needs of your service, then frame your discussion in a way that they will understand it. An example of this is using 'strategic language' or linking what you do back to organisational strategy. If you can show how your service/idea/resource supports the organisational strategy, then you are demonstrating its value.

But this is as much about respect, as it is playing the game. Something I've noticed about my teaching is that I have a 'teacher voice.' It's a voice that I use when I'm trying to be patient, and I've realised that it sometimes borders on condescending. That realisation alarmed me. Diction, clarity, and tone are all well and good, but what about authenticity? I now make a point of speaking with students not at them.

I have had colleagues who are obsessed with their particular user-group. They only help staff for example, or academic staff, or academic staff who are externally funded. I’ve never found limiting who benefits from my services to be a good thing. That's probably because I'm a Librarian, and Libraries are for everyone, after all. That said, be aware of stepping into others' territories, or ‘stealing’ their customers. When this happens, ask ‘what can we collaborate on?’ Do get the people around you involved though! Learn from them, share your own ideas.

Two of my favourite phrases are ‘all are welcome’ and ‘the more the merrier.’

There’s this mistaken idea that Librarianship is a neutral profession. Information, and the people who possess, trade, and share it can never be truly neutral. What we do is incredibly political and it’s important to remember that, treasure, defend, and be proud of it.

I told you it would be shocking! It is a strange thing for an academic Librarian to say, but my personal opinion is that a heavy emphasis on qualifications and accreditation is elitist, as it tends to privilege a particular group of people over others. However, postgraduate qualifications are meaningful to those who make hiring decisions. So is accreditation, such as ACLIP, MCLIP, AHEA, and FHEA.

Duh. Lots of little changes, and some big ones too. This may mean finding a new job. Actually, chances are it will mean finding a new job. But it could also mean learning new skills, or a completely different way of working. The library and information professions are headed for lots of change, and you’ll only survive it (and have any chance of enjoying it along the way) if you can adapt and be flexible.

So there you have it. Librarianly life advice, from someone who has yet to hit thirty! I won't finish this post off with a bunch of OMG and LOL buttons, but if you did feel like sharing your own advice in the comments or on twitter, please do!