CHI is an annual international conference that focuses on human factors in computing systems, also known as human-computer interaction (HCI). At first glance this may not sound like an exciting topic until you realize that you are the human factor in computing systems and you are using interfaces and structures created by HCI research all of the time. Asking your phone how to get to the nearest pizza joint? That’s HCI. Celebrating your step count with your fitbit? HCI again. Typing? Definitely HCI. We rarely spend a day without using the myriad forms of interaction circumscribed by human factors in computing systems. It just doesn’t have a sexy name.
As forces for civic and cultural improvement through learning, libraries have an opportunity, and perhaps a responsibility, to discover and invent novel ways for people to interact with information. If we can leverage our access to knowledge in collaboration with technical giants (Google comes to mind), we may be able to open up new avenues to reach our patrons and improve their lives. That’s the point after all.
This year (2018) was my first time attending CHI and I’m coming at it from a library background so the entire experience was an eye opener. The schedule alone was 95 pages long (without abstracts), and contained topics ranging from interactivity in autonomous vehicles to bio design and existence. There were dozens of concurrent sessions and choosing between “Gender-Inclusive Design: Sense of Belonging and Bias in Web Interfaces” and “Evaluating the Disruptiveness of Mobile Interactions: A Mixed-Method Approach” was no simple task. Instead I skipped the anguish of session indecision and took the easier route: attending a few pre-designed 2-4 hour courses over the week, diving in depth into topics and interacting with my fellow conference-goers to brainstorm questions and solutions and learn about each other’s backgrounds.
One course was especially rewarding. “Mobile UX–The Next Ten Years?” taught by Simon Robinson, Jennifer Pearson, and Matt Jones encouraged us to try and extend our minds beyond the flat dark glassy rectangle that mobile devices seem to be stuck in and explore our other senses within the mobile context.  Matt likened our present experience with mobile devices to the story of Narcissus- A beautiful man finds a perfectly still pool of water that mirrors his face and falls in love with his own reflection, eventually wasting away from lack of food and water as he refuses to leave the flawless image he has found.
Much in the same way that Narcissus was entranced by an idealized self we are entranced by our phones, diving into them and rarely coming up for air. Matt posited an idea-what if our phones got us to put down our phones? No, not just some kind of alert saying that you’ve spent too much time on YouTube (although we discussed those ideas too), but actual apps whose intention is to get us to interact with the real world.
Matt told us a story about his daughter. When she was six or so they had purchased a small GPS driving device. On a trip his daughter, holding the device, piped up from the back, asking “Daddy, where are the bears?”. A little baffled, Matt told her he didn’t know. A few minutes later, after peering out the window for while she asked again “Daddy, where are the bears?”. This time he asked why she thought there should be bears and she explained “It says in half a mile bear right!”. Sure, the interaction is cute, but Matt used it to create a game: every time the GPS told them that there was a “bear” on the right or left he and his daughter had to find something outside the car- a bird, stone, a tree, something in the real world. Interaction and creation define much of what it means to be alive but mobile devices are often real-world isolating and consumptive.  So the question remains: how do we change that status quo? Mobile devices are ubiquitous and convincing people to simply use them less is unrealistic. So how can libraries take a leading role in redirecting energy and time towards experience and action? In a purely digital context we could include local clubs and activity suggestions pertaining to subjects in topic guides. In the more focused area of mobile devices we could encourage and participate in the development of apps that recognize geographic location and ping the user with information relating to local ecology, history, or culture. Something along the lines of “You’re near Thoreau’s cabin, would you like to take a detour to see it?”, or “The woods you’re in may have lady slippers (a rare native orchid), keep an eye out! This is what they look like:
Even better, if the app could include crowd-sourced data people would be able to create content and expand the digital way-signs redirecting to the real world. The app could include preference settings so that the user would only be given notifications about nearby natural phenomena or historical monuments, depending on their interests. Somebody start making this, I want to use it.
Libraries have a pressing need to take HCI into explicit account. Historically librarians have been gatekeepers to information but with the advent of the online public access catalog (OPAC) we threw open the doors to knowledge and invited the world to search for it on their own terms. Except we didn’t. The way that resources are organized within a library is a fairly closed system that requires training to navigate, and while we have made great strides in improving our OPACs and websites so that they are more intuitive for our users there is still work to be done. In order to empower our users to find, evaluate, and use the resources we put at their disposal we need to examine the way that they interact with our systems and modify those systems to improve usability. It’s not enough for the library catalog to knows that a book exists. The patron needs to know too.
Investigating the Evolving Information Needs of Entrepreneurs:
Integrating Pedagogy, Practice & Research
Nicholas Albaugh & Micah Altman
Innovation-driven entrepreneurship is essential and indispensable in the race to solve the world’s major challenges, especially in the areas of health, information technology, agriculture, and energy. MIT is a global leader in this type of entrepreneurship: a 2015 report from the Institute’s Sloan School of Management estimated that active companies founded by MIT alumni produce annual revenues of $1.9 trillion, equivalent to the world’s tenth largest economy. In terms of the curriculum at MIT, over sixty courses in entrepreneurship were taught during the 2016-2017 academic year.
Discovering, accessing, and integrating information is critical to the success of innovation-driven entrepreneurship and it is part of the Libraries’ core role to improve the foundations for discovery, access, and integration. The presence of a vibrant community of entrepreneurs provides an opportunity to delineate and understand the information skills, needs, and challenges of students and researchers engaged in entrepreneurial ventures. This understanding can inform strategies and methods to address these challenges and aid in the design of innovation methods of library instruction which move beyond small group lectures.
In this blog post, we are going to report on the background and preliminary results of a project designed to answer these questions. There were three stages to this project: background research to identify the information related skills of entrepreneurs, the design of a survey instrument, and the surveying of MIT’s delta v accelerator program.
Initial Steps & Background Research
This was a group effort. Nicholas Albaugh (Librarian for Innovation and Entrepreneurship) did most of the heavy lifting — performing both the ‘bench’ work identifying what was known about information use in entrepreneurship, interacting with the students and the class, and creating a first draft of communications. Micah Altman (Director of Research) provided overall scientific guidance, co-lead in conceptualization, developed the research design and methodology, performed the quantitative analysis, and provided critical review. Shikha Sharma, Business and Management Librarian, and Karrie Peterson, Head of Liaison, Instruction, and Reference Services, contributed to the conceptualization of the project and provided critical review.
During the first few months of the project, the four of us met roughly once a month to develop a prospectus outlining the research questions, methods, desired outcomes, and key outputs.
After this prospectus was completed, we wanted to build on previous work by identifying existing frameworks outlining the information skills necessary for entrepreneurial success and entrepreneurial competencies more broadly.
To identify these frameworks, we conducted background research in the business and library literature using three databases: Business Source Complete, ABI/INFORM Complete, and Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts.
The primary article in terms of identifying key information-related skills for entrepreneurs was “21st Century Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities and Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Model for Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Education” by Trish Boyles. This delineated three broad categories of entrepreneurial competencies, cognitive, social, and action-oriented. The key information-related skills fell in the cognitive category, in particular:
A habit of actively searching for information
The ability to conduct searches systematically
The ability to recognize opportunities when not actively looking for them by recognizing connections between seemingly unconnected things
In addition to a general framework regarding the information-related skills of entrepreneurs, we wanted a more general framework for entrepreneurial competencies. The premier text for this is Bill Aulet’s Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 Steps to a Successful Startup. It is the textbook for the delta v program and its author is the Managing Director of the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, one of the key parts of MIT’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Outside MIT, it has been translated into eighteen languages and serves as the text for three, web-based edX courses taken by hundreds of thousands of people in countries all over the world.
MIT delta v
We decided to survey MIT’s delta v accelerator program, as it is widely considered the capstone entrepreneurial experience for students here on campus. Participants in the program work full time over the course of the summer on the following goals:
Defining and refining their target market
Conducting primary market research about their customers and users
Running experiments to validate or invalidate hypotheses regarding potential customers
Building and nurturing their founding team
The goal of the survey was to identify which stage of the information gathering phase of the delta v program was most time consuming and which part of that process was the most challenging. We were also interested in learning what resources and tools they used during these stages and processes and what tools they would have preferred to use. We also sought to identify specific information needs of those participating in the delta v programs in order to inform solutions going forward.
Our survey consisted of six multiple-choice questions and 5 open-ended questions. The multiple-choice questions addressed the following points:
Time spent on market analysis vs. business model development and the most challenging part of each process
The relative challenge of identifying and evaluating sources and extracting and analyzing information
Resources, tools, and methods used to locate, extract, and collect information
The open-ended questions addressed:
The most useful tools they used when seeking, collecting, and analyzing information and why
What existing tools would have been useful to them
The biggest surprises they encountered during this process
We launched a pilot version of this survey at the conclusion of the program in September 2017, in which six students participated.
Some suggestive patterns emerged: All of the entrepreneurs surveyed reported that market analysis was the most time-consuming phase involving seeking, collecting and analyzing information; and all of them used a library resource in their search for information. Further, nearly all of the entrepreneurs found evaluating sources of information, and summarizing, analyzing and mining those sources challenging or very challenging — and almost all relied on manual copying and pasting to extract or collect information they discovered.
We plan to survey a larger group of MIT delta v students during the upcoming summer 2018 cohort of the program. This larger data set will allow us to draw more generalizable conclusions regarding the information-related skills necessary for entrepreneurial success.
Katie Montgomery is a Graduate Research Intern in the Program on Information Science, researching the areas of usability and accessibility.
by Katherine Montgomery
Research libraries are catalysts for interaction with and creation of knowledge. As information and interactions with it become increasingly digital, librarians are increasingly concerned with the way that computers and humans interact. 
The Computer Human Interface group of the ACM is a group of professionals devoted to studying these interactions. Their annual conference, CHI, is a place where people share the state of the art, and learn to use the state of the practice. CHI itself isn’t a standard library conference but it addresses many of the concerns of librarians in a broader context. For example, focal points include digital privacy (which libraries work to protect), improving UX in virtual and physical realms, gamifying learning interactions, and addressing the pitfalls of automation. The conference is also packed with people the library serves, i.e. academics.
A ‘jam’ or a ‘hackathon’ is distinguished by teams of relative strangers coming together to tackle specific problems in a focused and creative way within a limited time frame. The event fosters personal connections, concrete learning, pride in the product, and has the potential to generate real life changes. Libraries aim to nurture precisely these elements and would do well to look to hackathons and jams and adapt their structure to empower patrons. Here at the MIT libraries, we aim to create and inspire hacks in the great MIT tradition of using ingenuity and teamwork to create something remarkable.
Attending the Science Jam is a great way to start CHI, especially if you’re coming from a library background. The Science Jam enables you to interact with your prototypical patrons on problems that interest both of you and in a fashion that familiarizes you with patron needs. The Science Jam itself is a way to hack the conference. 
This is the first year they’ve run the program, and if you’ve never heard of a Science Jam before here’s the lowdown: it’s essentially a hackathon for scientists. You form teams, come up with a problem, pose a question, create a hypothesis, design a test, run the test, analyze your results, and present your study, all in 36 hours. About 60 people attended this year’s jam. We formed ten teams, broke into two rooms (so we could use each-other as test subjects the next day without contaminating our sample with knowledge of the study), and began the stimulating and occasionally frantic process. My team tackled privacy. Our initial problem? People share other people’s data without thinking about it or even realizing it. Our question was, how could we change this behavior? In order to create something testable we quickly honed the question to a much more specific issue and hypothesis. When people attend large conferences, or festivals, or concerts, or other public events they often take pictures that focus on a screen, or a float, or a stage, but include strangers in the foreground or to the sides. They then upload those pictures to their social media accounts where, even if they aren’t tagged, those strangers are vulnerable to facial analysis software and the eyes of the public. We hypothesized that if given cues that they are sharing the faces of strangers people might change their behavior by altering the photo to obscure those faces. Our initial hope was to create a digital interface but time and tech constraints limited us to a paper prototype. We took photographs which contained bystanders but were focussed on a different element, in this case a sign or a presenter with slides. We gave our participants the choice of selecting one of these photos to hypothetically upload to their social media account (we asked the participants to imagine that these were pictures they had taken). After selecting the photo they were presented with an upload interface with the option to go back and select another photo, crop the image, or upload the photo. However, these were given to three different groups with three additional caveats. The first group was given no textual cues as to the presence of potential bystanders in the photo (our control). The second group was given textual cues that there were potential bystanders in the picture, ie “this photo may contain two people, inside, standing up”. The third group was given visual cues that there were potential bystanders, ie blown up images of the faces beneath the main image.
These images were used with the express permission of the people they depict
For the most part, people uploaded the pictures anyway, not bothering to crop out the bystanders and not expressing concern for privacy in the follow-up questionnaire. The cues didn’t make a significant difference between behaviors, but we were surprised that such a technologically enlightened group didn’t take measures to protect people’s privacy more. Of course, our test group only contained 15 people (five per scenario), our prototype was on paper, and there were a number of other potential issues with our methodology, but the question and premise remain sound. How can we help people be aware of the fact that they may be violating other people’s privacy when uploading photographs to social media? And how do we help them alter that behavior?
The next day I attended a presentation given by Roberto Hoyle about his work testing the efficacy of various photo alterations in protecting privacy. Afterwards, we got to talking and posited an idea. What if Facebook added a feature to their image upload interface that asked a simple question: “Do you want to protect the privacy of the people you don’t know in this picture?”. If the person said yes then Facebook could auto-blur the faces it didn’t recognize as friends. The blur feature could be removed or modified, but it would bring the issue to the attention of the user and make it easy (and hopefully aesthetically pleasing, or at least acceptable), to obscure the faces of strangers.
While we agreed it was probably a moon shot I decided to go down to the exhibition hall and talk with the Facebook folks at their booth. I was met with a combination of skepticism and interest. Since then I’ve been in touch with a couple people at Facebook advocating for the idea. If your Facebook interface changes you’ll know it’s been a success. If not? Then the benefits are exclusively mine. Because of the Science Jam I had the opportunity to meet and work with people I would otherwise have never known, pursue meaningful ideas, improve my teamwork, practice scientific testing and analysis with a tight deadline, exercise my presentation skills, and make friends ahead of the conference itself. Libraries could benefit from implementing a similar model ahead of extended programming. Doing a week of events on graphic novels? Include a Cartoon Jam where people can come in, team up, generate ideas, produce some sketches and storylines, and share them with each other! Running a summer of gardening programs? Engage a couple of professionals in your area and encourage patrons to bring in photographs of their trouble gardens (lots of shade, rocky, hot, snow spill), form groups, hit the books, and pick each other’s minds for solutions. Trying to get the library more involved with the school letterpress? Collaborate with the experts there and run a Book Jam , challenging your students to connect e-readers and the early practice of printing. There are any number of ways that Libraries can take advantage of the Jam/hackathon model to engage their patrons and further the goal of becoming hubs for creation, not just consumption.
Excited? Inspired? Ready to work up a plan for your own hackathon or Jam? Take a look at the resources below and get cooking.
Current research in the Program on Information Science focuses on how measures of attention and emotion could be integrated into these interactions.
CHI will be in beautiful Scotland next year. Attend the Science Jam. You won’t regret it. Oh, and if you want to check out some of the documentation from this year’s Science Jam take a look at #ScienceJam #CHI2018 on Twitter.
Micah Altman, Alexandra Wood, David R. O’Brien, and Urs Gasser, “Practical approaches to big data privacy over time,” International Data Privacy Law, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx027.
The collection of personal information has become broader and more threatening than anyone could have imagined. Our research finds traditional approaches to safeguarding privacy are stretched to the limit as thousands of data points are collected about us every day and maintained indefinitely by a host of technology platforms.
We can do better. Privacy is not the inevitable price of technology. Computer science research provides new methods that protect privacy much more effectively than traditional approaches.
And research practices in health and social sciences show that it possible to strike a good balance between individual privacy and beneficial public knowledge.
Ada van Tine is a Graduate Research Intern in the Program on Information Science, researching the area of library privacy.
Our Libraries and Neurodiversity
By Ada van Tine
Andover-Harvard Theological Library Stacks by Ada van Tine
It is a quiet day the library where you work, you find it peaceful. But that is not the case for everyone. One of your patrons, Anna, is an 18 year old woman who falls on the autism spectrum. She needs to do research for her college final paper on W.E.B. Du Bois. She lives with her parents nearby the school and library, but their house is noisy and full of visiting relatives right now. However Anna doesn’t consider the library to be a calm alternative and is very nervous about going to the library because the fluorescent lights highly irritate her, their buzzing endlessly permeating her brain, causing nausea. To cope with this she often does repetitive movements with her hands. In the past, librarians and other patrons have been really awkward with her because of her hand movements and reaction to the lights. But she really needs to get these books for her paper, what will you do as a librarian to help this patron meet her needs? For individuals who are members of a neurominority, libraries can be extremely stressful, upsetting, and in the worst cases traumatic.
In libraries, we understand that we need to accommodate people who are different, but the problem is that sometimes we are not aware of who we might be failing to serve and why. If Anna gives feedback about the library in a suggestion box, the you might well schedule a replacement of the fluorescent lights as part of the library’s renovations. That is a small step toward progress, however we should not wait around for an invitation to make our libraries more bearable, leaving the chance that some patrons might be suffering in silence in the meantime. Librarians need to be radically proactive so as not to make their spaces only welcoming to the part of the population with neurotypical leanings. The solution, however, is not merely a focus on those who are “different” and need some kind of special accommodation.
Rather, the researchers and advocates who talk about neurodiversity now stress that neurodiversity is “the idea that neurological differences like autism and ADHD are the result of normal, natural variation in the human genome.” (Robinson, What is Neurodiversity?) Simply said: all humans fall on neurological spectra of traits, and all of us have our own variances from the norm. For each person in the world there exists a different way of perceiving and interacting with other people and information. For instance, people with dyslexia, people with autism, people with ADHD, and people who have not had a good night’s sleep all perceive the world and the library differently. The concept of Neurodiversity is another way to recognize that.
Furthermore, new research is continually helping us to evolve our ideas about neurodiversity. Therefore, libraries should stay abreast of advancements in technology for the neurodiverse population because they will benefit every patron. “Actively engaging with neurodiversity is not a question of favoring particular personal or political beliefs; rather, such engagement is an extension of librarians’ professional duties insofar as it enables the provision of equitable information services” (Lawrence, Loud Hands in the Library, 106-107). Librarians are called through the ALA Core Values of Access and Diversity to make all information equitably available to all patrons. To not recognize the existence of neurodiversity would be to ignore a segment of the whole society which we are called to serve.
There are immediate ways that your library can better serve a larger portion of the neurodiverse population. For example, below are some relatively low cost interventions:
For dyslexic individuals have a small reading screen available. esearch has shown that those with dyslexia can read more easily and quickly off of smaller screens with small amounts of text per page (Schneps).
Audiobooks, text-to-speech, and devices that can show text in a color gradient also help dyslexic patrons with their information needs.
For people who are on the autism spectrum replace the older fluorescent lights in the library, and don’t focus solely on open collaborative spaces in the library layout (Lawrence, Loud Hands, 105). Also train yourself and your employees to recognize and know how to react properly with autistic individuals who may express non verbal body language such as repetitive movements (Lawrence, Loud Hands, 105).
For people with ADHD, have quiet private rooms available so they can better concentrate at the library as well as audio books and text-to-speech programs so that they can listen to their research and reading while doing other things (Hills, Campbell, 462).
New technologies and findings in cognitive science are being developed to better adapt to those individuals who are members of a neurominority. For example, a new reading program is being developed by Dr. Matthew Schneps that combines a reading acceleration program with compressed text-to-speech and visual modifications which has so far proven to drastically increase the speed of dyslexic and non dyslexic readers alike (Shneps). There are many studies on the ways in which modern technology can be used to better communicate with and educate autistic students. The future is hopeful.
Addressing neurodiversity in our libraries and in our societies is not a solved problem. For example there is research and development being done to reframe digital programs to be viewed as an ever growing ecosystem, never in stasis, so that they may better adapt to every user’s need as well as be transparent about the metadata of programs so that users can know which parts of the system are enabling or disabling their assistive technology (Johnson, 4). There are many steps to take that can help make the library more friendly to a neuro diverse audience, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that we must all plan to change and adapt now and over time to make our society a better, more liveable place for everyone. So that maybe when Anna comes to research the library and staff will be prepared to be a little more welcoming than she expected, and maybe she’ll even want to come back.
What to do next:
You may feel overwhelmed by the vast and complicated nature of this important task. The first step is always to educate yourself and get a grounding in basic literature about a subject. Many resources are included in the next section to aid in this discovery process.
Campbell, I., Hills, K. (2011). College Programs and Services. In M. DeVries, S. Goldstein, & J. Naglieri (Eds), Learning and Attention Disorders in Adolesence and Adulthood (457-466). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ploog, B. O., Scharf, A., Nelson, D., & Brooks, P. J. (2013). Use of computer-assisted technologies (CAT) to enhance social, communicative, and language development in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, (2), 301. doi:10.1007/sl0803-012-1571-3
A History of the Internet : Commentary on Scott Bradner’s Program on Information Science Talk
Scott Bradner is a Berkman Center affiliate who worked for 50 at Harvard in the areas of computer programming, system management, networking, IT security, and identity management. Scott Bradner was involved in the design, operation and use of data networks at Harvard University since the early days of the ARPANET and served in many leadership roles in the IETF. He presented the talk recorded below, entitled, A History of the Internet — as part of Program on Information Science Brown Bag Series:
Bradner abstracted his talk as follows:
In a way the Russians caused the Internet. This talk will describe how that happened (hint it was not actually the Bomb) and follow the path that has led to the current Internet of (unpatchable) Things (the IoT) and the Surveillance Economy.
The talk contained a rich array of historical details — far too many to summarize here. Much more detail on these projects can be found in the slides and video above; from his publications, and from his IETF talks. (And for those interested in recent Program on Information Science research on related issues of open information governance, see our published reports.)
Bradner describes how the space race, exemplified by the launch of Sputnik, spurred national investments in research and technology — and how the arms race created the need for a communication network that was decentralized and robust enough to survive a nuclear first-strike.
Bradner argues that the internet has been a parent revolution, in part because of its end-to-end design. The internet as a whole was designed so that most of the “intelligence” is encapsulated at host endpoints, connected by a “stupid” network carrier that just transports packets. As a result, Bradner argues, the carrier cannot own the customer, which, critically, enables customers to innovate without permission.
ARPANET, as originally conceived, was focused on solving what was then a grand challenge in digital communications research: To develop techniques and obtain experience on interconnecting computers in such a way that a very broad class of interactions are possible, and to improve and increase computer research productivity through resource sharing.
Bradner argues that the internet succeeded because, despite the scope of the problem, solutions were allowed to evolve chaotically: ARPA was successful in innovating because it required no peer review. The large incumbent corporations in the computing and networking field ignored internet because they believed it couldn’t succeed (and they believed it couldn’t succeed because its design did not allow for the level of control and reliability that the incumbents believed to be necessary to making communications work). And since the Internet was was viewed as irrelevant, there were no efforts to regulate it. It was not until after the Internet achieved success, and catalyzed disruptive innovation that policymakers deemed it, “too important to leave to the people that know how it works.”
Jefferson Bailey is Director of Web Archiving at Internet Archive. Jefferson joined Internet Archive in Summer 2014 and manages Internet Archive’s web archiving services including Archive-It, used by over 500 institutions to preserve the web. He also oversees contract and domain-scale web archiving services for national libraries and archives around the world. He works closely with partner institutions on collaborative technology development, digital preservation, data research services, educational partnerships, and other programs. He presented the talk recorded below, entitled, Safety Nets: Rescue And Revival For Endangered Born-digital Records — as part of Program on Information Science Brown Bag Series:
Bailey abstracted his talk as follows:
The web is now firmly established as the primary communication and publication platform for sharing and accessing social and cultural materials. This networked world has created both opportunities and pitfalls for libraries and archives in their mission to preserve and provide ongoing access to knowledge. How can the affordances of the web be leveraged to drastically extend the plurality of representation in the archive? What challenges are imposed by the intrinsic ephemerality and mutability of online information? What methodological reorientations are demanded by the scale and dynamism of machine-generated cultural artifacts? This talk will explore the interplay of the web, contemporary historical records, and the programs, technologies, and approaches by which libraries and archives are working to extend their mission to preserve and provide access to the evidence of human activity in a world distinguished by the ubiquity of born-digital materials.
Bailey eloquently stated the importance of web archiving: “No future scholarship can study our era without considering materials published (only) on the web.” Further, he emphasized the importance of web archiving for social justice: Traditional archives disproportionately reflect social architectures of power, and the lived experiences of the advantaged. Web crawls capture a much broader (although not nearly complete) picture of the human experience.
A unified argument ran through the Bailey’s presentation. At the risk of oversimplifying, I’ll restate the premises of the argument here:
Understanding our era will require research, using large portions of the web, linked across time.
The web is big — but not too big to collect (a substantial portion of) it. 
Providing simple access (e.g. retrieval, linking) is more expansive than collection;
enabling discovery (e.g. search) is much harder than simple access;
and supporting computational research (which requires analysis at web-scale, and over time) —
is much, much harder than discovery.
Research libraries should help with this (hardest) part.
I find the first three parts of the argument largely convincing. Increasingly, new discoveries in social science are based on analysis of massive collections of data that areis generated as a result of people’s public communications, and depends on tracing these actions and their consequences over time. The Internet Archive’s success to date establishes that much of these public communications can be collected and retained over time. And the history of database design (as well as my and my colleagues experiences in archiving and digital libraries) testifies to the challenges of effective discovery and access at scale.
I hope that we, as research libraries, will be step up to the challenges of enabling large-scale, long-term research over content such as this. Research libraries already have a stake in this problem because most of the the core ideas and fundamental methods (although not the operational platforms) for analysis of data at this scale comes from research institutions with which we are affiliated. Moreover if libraries lead the design of these platforms, participation in research will be far more open and equitable than if these platforms are ceded entirely to commercial actors.
For this among other reasons, we are convening a Summit on Grand Challenges in Information Science & Scholarly Communication, supported by a generous grant from the Mellon Foundation. During this summit we develop community research agendas in the areas of scholarly discovery at scale; digital curation and preservation; and open scholarship. For those interested in these questions and related areas of interest, we have published Program on Information Sciencereports and blog posts on some of the challenges of digital preservation at scale.
Labor And Reward In Science: Commentary on Cassidy Sugimoto’s Program on Information Science Talk
Cassidy Sugimoto is Associate Professor in the School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University Bloomington, where researches within the domain of scholarly communication and scientometrics, examining the formal and informal ways in which knowledge producers consume and disseminate scholarship. She presented this talk, entitled Labor And Reward In Science: Do Women Have An Equal Voice In Scholarly Communication? A Brown Bag With Cassidy Sugimoto, as part of the Program on Information Science Brown Bag Series.
In her talk, illustrated by the slides below, Sugimoto highlights the roots of gender disparities in science.
Sugimoto abstracted her talk as follows:
Despite progress, gender disparities in science persist. Women remain underrepresented in the scientific workforce and under rewarded for their contributions. This talk will examine multiple layers of gender disparities in science, triangulating data from scientometrics, surveys, and social media to provide a broader perspective on the gendered nature of scientific communication. The extent of gender disparities and the ways in which new media are changing these patterns will be discussed. The talk will end with a discussion of interventions, with a particular focus on the roles of libraries, publishers, and other actors in the scholarly ecosystem..
In her talk, Sugimoto stressed a number of patterns in scientific publication:
Demise of single authorshop complicates notions of credit, rewards, labor, and responsibility
There are distincted patterns of gender disparity in scientific publications: Male-authored publications predominate in most field (with a few exceptions such as Library Science); women collaborating more domestically than internationally on publication; and woman-authored publications tend to be cited less (even within the same tier of journals).
Looking across categories of contribution — the most isolated is performing the experiment. And Women are most likely to fill this role. Further, if we look across male-and-female led teams, we see that the distribution of work across these teams varies dramatically.
When surveying teams — women tended to value all of the forms of contributions more than men with one exception. Women judge technical work, which is more likely to be conducted by women, as less valuable.
Composition of authorship has consequences for what is studied. Womens’ research focuses more often than men on areas relevant to both genders or to women.
Sugimoto notes that these findings are consistent with pervasive gender discrimination. Further, women as well as men frequently discriminate against other women — for example, in evaluation of professionalism, evaluation of work, and in salary offers
Much more detail on these points can be found in Sugimoto professional writings.
Sugimoto’s talk drew on a variety of sources: publication data in the Web of Science; from acknowledgement and authorship statements in PLOS journals. Open bibliometric data, such as that produced by PLOS, the Initiative for Open Citation, and various badging initiatives can help us to more readily bring disparities to light.
At the conclusion of her talk, Sugimoto suggested the following roles for librarians:
Sugimoto’s talk drew on a variety of sources: publication data in the Web of Science; from acknowledgement and authorship statements in PLOS journals. Open bibliometric data, such as that produced by PLOS, the Initiative for Open Citation, and various badging initiatives can help us to more readily bring disparities to light.
Use and promote open access in training sessions
Provide programming that lessens barriers to participation for women and minorities
Advocate for contributorship models which recognize the diversity of knowledge production
Approach new metrics with productive skepticism
Encourage engagement between students and scholars
Evaluate and contribute to the development of new tools
Reflecting the themes of Sugimato’s talk, the research we conduct here, in the Program on Information Science is strongly motivated by issues of diversity and inclusion — particularly on approaches to bias-reducing systems design. Our previous work in participative mapping aimed at increasing broad public participation in electoral processes. Our current NSF-supported work in educational research focuses on using eye-tracking and other biological signals to track fine-grained learning across populations of neurologically diverse learners. And, under a recently-awarded IMLS award, we will be hosting a workshop to develop principles for supporting diversity and inclusion through information architecture in information systems. For those interested in these and other projects, we have published blog posts and reports in these areas. Read more about Labor And Reward In Science: Commentary on Cassidy Sugimoto’s Program on Information Science Talk
Margaret Purdy is a Graduate Research Intern in the Program on Information Science, researching the area of library privacy.
Building Trust: A Primer on Privacy for Librarians
Privacy Protections Build Mutual Trust Between Patrons and Librarians
Librarians have accepted privacy as a central tenet of their professional ethics and responsibilities for nearly eight decades. However, by 2017, privacy as a human right has been simultaneously strengthened and reaffirmed, defended and rebuffed, but rarely do we as librarians take the time to step away and ask why privacy truly matters and what we can do to protect it.
The American Library Association and the International Federation of Library Associations have both asserted that the patrons have the right to privacy while seeking information.1 The ALA in particular brings up the notion of privacy allowing for intellectual freedom – the ability to consume information and know they will not face repercussions such as punishment or judgments based on what they read. Librarians are in the business of disseminating information in order to stimulate knowledge growth. One major stimulus for such growth is the mutual trust between the library and the patron – trust that the patron will not use the knowledge in a destructive way, and trust that the library will not judge the patron for information interests. Ensuring patron privacy is one way for the library to prove that trust. Similarly, the IFLA2 emphasizes the right to privacy in its ethics documentation. In addition to the rights of patron privacy that the ALA ensures, the IFLA also allows for as much transparency as possible into “public bodies, private sector companies and all other institutions whose activities effect [sic] the lives of individuals and society as a whole.” This is yet another way to establish trust between the library and its patrons, ultimately ensuring intellectual freedom and growth of knowledge.
Globally, internet privacy and surveillance are also matters that are currently getting much more notice and debate, and government regulations, such as the EU General Protection of Public Data (GDPR)3, are working to strengthen individuals’ abilities to control their own data and ensure it does not end up being used against them. The GDPR is slated to go into effect in 2018 and will broadly protect the data privacy rights of EU citizens. It will certainly be a policy to watch, especially as a litmus for how effective major legislation can be in asserting privacy protections. Even more practically, however, is that the GDPR protects EU citizens even if the one collecting data is outside the EU. This will potentially affect many libraries across the United States and the world at large, as there is an added level of awareness required to ensure that any collaboration with or service to EU citizens is properly protected.
Libraries Face a Double-Barreled Threat from Government Surveillance and Corporate Tracking
In addition to the ALA and IFLA codes of ethics that ensure librarians work to ensure patrons’ rights to privacy, multiple governmental codes deal with the right to information privacy. In the United States, the fourth amendment protects the right to remain free from searches and seizures, and has often been cited as a protection of privacy. Similarly, federal legislation such as FERPA, which protects the privacy rights of students, and HIPAA, which protects medical records have reasserted that privacy is a vital right. Essentially every US state also has some provisions about privacy, many of which directly relate to the right to privacy in library records.4
However, in recent years, many of the federal government’s protections have begun to slip away. Immediately after 9/11, the USA PATRIOT Act passed, allowing the government much broader abilities to track patron library records. More recently, as digital information became easier to track, programs such as PRISM and other governmental tracking arose. Both of these government programs directly threaten the ability for library patrons to conduct research, information-seeking, and more in privacy.
Businesses have also learned ways of tracking their users’ behaviors online, and using that data for practices such as targeted advertising. While the vast majority of this data is encrypted and could not be easily brought back to personally-identifiable information, it is still personal data that is not necessarily kept in the most secure way possible. And while breaches do happen, even without them, it is not out of the question for an experienced party to be able to reconstruct an individual from the data collected, and to know not only that individual’s browsing history and location, but also potentially information such as health conditions, bank details, or other sensitive information.
While this information is often used for simple outreach, including Customer Relationship Marketing, where a company will recommend new products based on previous purchases, it can also be used in more invasive ways. In 2012, Target sent out a promotional mailing containing deals on baby products to a teenage girl.5 Based on their data they had tracked about her purchases, the algorithm had determined, correctly, that she was highly likely to be pregnant. While this story received extensive media attention, businesses of all types, including retailers, hotels, and even healthcare systems participate in similar practices, using data to personalize the experience. However, when stored irresponsibly, this data can lead to unintentional and unwanted sharing of information – potentially including embarrassing web browsing or shopping habits, dates that homes will be empty for thieves, medical conditions that could increase insurance rates, and more
Growing Public Concern
One of the most pressing risks to privacy protections currently is user behavior and expectations. With the information industry becoming much more digital, information is becoming easier to access, spread, and consume. However, the tradeoff is that users, and the information they view, is much easier to track, by both corporate and government entities, friendly or malicious. Plus, because much of the tracking and surrendering of privacy, including the ability to save passwords, CRM, targeted algorithms, and more, make it more convenient to browse the internet, many patrons willingly give up the right to privacy in favor of convenience.
Another similar poll8 shows that more than half of Americans are concerned about privacy risks, and over 80% have taken some precautionary action. However, most of that 80% are unaware of more that they can do to protect themselves. This is true for both government surveillance and corporate tracking. The public has similar levels of awareness and concern about both, but are unaware of how to better protect themselves, and thus, are more likely to allow it to happen.
Best Practices for Librarians
Given the increasing public concern and awareness, as well as the longstanding history of librarians’ focus on privacy, librarians have a perfect opportunity to intervene and re-establish the trust from users that their information will not be shared and to meet the professional ethical model of always protecting privacy. There are nearly endless resources that can outline in great detail what librarians should do to defend their patrons against attacks on privacy, whether that comes from government surveillance or corporate tracking. Some of these involve systematic evaluations of all touchpoints in the library and recommendations for implementing best practices. These exist even for areas that do not seem like obvious ways for privacy to be violated, such as anti-theft surveillance on surrounding buildings, or through third-party content vendors.
By dedicating library resources to systematically check for privacy practices, librarians can take some of the burden of inconvenience off of the individual patron. Many of these best practices involve taking the time to change computer settings, read and understand privacy policies, and negotiate with vendors, which few, if any, individuals would do on their own. With the muscle of the library working on it, though, the patrons will still benefit, without needing to dedicate the same amount of time. This serves a dual function as well, as in addition to actual steps to protect patrons, librarians can also serve as an educational resource to help patrons learn simple steps to take to protect their personal systems.
Some examples of protectionary moves are to create policies on library computers that ensure that as little information from user sessions is saved. There are several incredibly simple steps that, while they reduce the convenience slightly, ensure users a safe and private experience. This includes, settings that clear cookies, the cache, and user details after each session (also known as “incognito mode”); or the clearing of patron checkout records once the book is returned.
In addition to those tweaks, the ALA and LITA offer checklists of privacy best practices to systematically implement in libraries. These cover everything from data exchanges, OPACs and patron borrowing records, protection for children, and more in great detail. NISO also provides overarching design principles for approaching library privacy in a digital age. Additionally, there are recommended security audits, many of which Bruce Shuman mentions in his book, Library Security and Safety Handbook: Prevention, Policies, and Procedures.
Additionally, the library, already known for educational programs and community-oriented programming could serve as a location to educate the public about the real risks of tracking and surveillance. There is a definite gap between the public’s awareness of the risks and the public’s action to mitigate those risks. While librarians cannot force behavior, and most would not want to, offering patrons trustworthy information about the risks and how to avoid them in their personal browsing experiences helps re-establish privacy as a core value and gives patrons a reason to trust the library. This recent post from Nate Lord at Digital Guardian offers simple and more in depth steps that patrons can take to ensure their digital information is secure. If a library offered some of these in a training course or as a takeaway, it could serve as a valuable resource in narrowing the gap between patron awareness and activity.
Ultimately, privacy is often one of those words that many people give lip service to, but without fully understanding the risks and consequences, the motivation to give up convenience in order to protect privacy is not always there. However, we as librarians, who value privacy as one of the professions’ core tenets have a real opportunity to help protect patrons’ data against these threats. Resources, such as the aforementioned privacy checklists and audit guides, exist to help librarians ensure their library is in compliance with the current best practices. The threats against privacy are growing, and librarians are well-suited to intervene and ensure patron protection.
In his talk, illustrated by the slides below, Bernhardt reviews technologies newly available to libraries that enhance the human-computing interface:
Bernhardt abstracted his talk as follows:
Terms like “virtual reality” and “augmented reality” have existed for a long time. In recent years, thanks to products like Google Cardboard and games like Pokemon Go, an increasing number of people have gained first-hand experience with these once-exotic technologies. The MIT Libraries are no exception to this trend. The Program on Information Science has conducted enough experimentation that we would like to share what we have learned, and solicit ideas for further investigation.
Several themes run through Matt’s talk:
VR should be thought of broadly as an engrossing representation of physically mediated space. Such a definition encompasses not only VR, AR and ‘mixed-’ reality — but also virtual worlds like Second Life, and a range of games from first-person-shooters (e.g. Halo) to textual games that simulate physical space (e.g. “Zork”).
A variety of new technologies are now available at a price-point that is accessible for libraries and experimentation — including tools for rich information visualization (e.g. stereoscopic headsets), physical interactions (e.g. body-in-space tracking), and environmental sensing/scanning (e.g. Sense).
To avoid getting lost in technical choices, consider the ways in which technologies have the potential to enhance the user-interface experience, and the circumstances in which the costs and barriers to use are justified by potential gains. For example, expensive, bulky VR platforms may be most useful to simulate experiences that would in real life be expensive, dangerous, rare, or impossible.
A substantial part of the research agenda of the Program on Information Science is focused on developing theory and practice to make information discovery and use more inclusive and accessible to all. From my perspective, the talk above naturally raises questions about how the affordances of these new technologies may be applied in libraries to increase inclusion and access: How could VR-induced immersion be used to increase engagement and attention by conveying the sense of place of being in an historic archive? How could realistic avatars be used to enhance social communication, and lower the barriers to those seeking library instruction and reference? How could physical mechanisms for navigating information spaces, such as eye tracking, support seamless interaction with library collections, and enhance discovery?