Running head: DIGITAL INFORMATION AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES 1

The Effects of Digital Information on Public Libraries and the Public Sphere

Andrea J. McDonald

Western University

Dr. Pyati

9001-001

October 17 2017
DIGITAL INFORMATION AND 2

The Effects of Digital Information on Public Libraries and the Public Sphere

Public libraries have a long-held history as a distributor of public/merit goods to

contribute to the public sphere. It is imperative that library resources are considered public or

merit goods. Public goods are imperative to the creation and maintenance of the public sphere as

a democratic, all-inclusive realm (Habermas, 1964). As information moves from tangible goods

to intangible digital materials, analysis of digital information as a public good or a private good

is essential when considering library functioning. When examining the principles of a public

good and a private good, one can determine that while online information may appear to be a

public good, it should be considered a private good. Digital information is a private good

threatening a public libraries ability to serve the public sphere through its emulation of neoliberal

values.

The question of access arises with digital information. Information cannot truly be public

or merit good when online as not all citizens have access to the internet. Most public libraries

have available internet access for its patrons within the library, however, there is a digital divide

between those who have internet access outside of the library and those who do not. Library

funding has decreased due to the notion that digital technologies and online information are a

substitute for traditional/physical libraries (Ingraham, 2015). Budget cuts limits a libraries ability

to offer new materials, programming, and physical spaces while allowing for less costly digital

replacements. However, if only a portion of a libraries patrons have access to digital information

a divide is created between the population for those who may access library resources and those

with limited accessibility. Habermas describes the public sphere as a realm which access is

granted to all citizens (1964). As there is price attached to online access, access is not granted to
DIGITAL INFORMATION AND 3

all. The library cannot truly serve its entire public body to create meaningful public opinion, and

democratic intent relying on digital and online information. As libraries face increasing budget

cuts, limiting hours, and limited staff there is an appeal to shifting to a highly digital library. The

shift to a digitalized library can decrease costs to accommodate oncoming budget cuts (Halliday,

2001). However, it is imperative for libraries to use digitized materials with caution relying on

traditional physical merit/public goods to better serve the public sphere.

John Bushman, in his article The Library in The Life of The Public: Implications of a

Neoliberal Age, claims our current societys neoliberal dominance has created a feedback loop

where neoliberal values from patrons affects the libraries and the librarys neoliberal practices

affect patrons (Bushman, 2017). Digital information is seen as a shift to accommodating

individual needs rather than the common good for the purpose of democracy (Trosow, 2015).

The neoliberal library patron desires specific and individualized information to fit their distinct

needs, moving farther away from forming public opinion or contribution to the public sphere.

Bushman claims that technology and digital information leads to a tendency of private leisure

forms during times when people are together and an endless construction of the self instead of

representing themselves in everyday life (Bushman, 2017, 62). Libraries must become more

critical of the neoliberal tendencies emulated by digital information and technologies. Librarians

must focus on limiting or erring caution towards the mediation and personalization of

information. There is a balance between presenting the patrons with services they desire and

services that would increase democratic awareness and public opinion which must be met. Public

libraries are stated to currently promote neoliberal self-constructed digital realms, however, must

attempt to divert to previous values of the public sphere highlighted by Habermas.

DIGITAL INFORMATION AND 4

Digital information introduces a level of mediation beyond the library between the

information and the receiver, therefore, it is important to interrogate the medium. Samuel Trosws

argues, in his articles The commodification of Information and the Public Good, that in order for

libraries to protect the public sphere they must resist marketization [and] defend the notion of

information as a public good (Trosow, 2015). However, online information inherently involves

marketized stakeholders. Digitized information relies on major internet corporate bodies such as

Rogers, Bell, and Cogeco to provide access to this information. As libraries address the

information age and begin to move information online a library relies on the interests of the

information provider rather than the public. Access and ownership issues arise with this

dependability. Trosow highlights that librarians need to become more aware of the power

relationships looking at the broader political, economic and social questions (2015, 21) rather

than focusing on issues solely at an institutional level. When looking at how digital information

is accessed it is important to regard the network as a stakeholder in the library. Without the

internet provider online materials are no longer accessible or in the librarys possession.

Habermas describes large organizations as excluding the public sphere whenever possible

(1964, 54) while appearing to support the public. The involvement of corporate bodies within

digital information creates decentralized control within the library ultimately leading to the shift

in information as a private good.

While When defining the public sphere Habermas claims that the public body gathers in

an unrestricted fashion with the guarantee of freedom to express and publish their

opinions(1964, 49). One could argue that digital information platforms offer a wider variety of

opportunities to express and publish opinions. An example of this would be the Toronto-based

company BiblioCommons. BiblioCommons is a non-profit software provider for libraries to

DIGITAL INFORMATION AND 5

create an Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) that allows users to share and save book

preferences, reviews, and library events (BiblioCommons 2017). However, Trosow, would argue

this is a form of customization of libraries. Trosow quotes Bushman to state that libraries as

entertainment centers, as sites of economic (instead of democratic) value, and sites of potential

customer identification are weakening libraries embodiment of the public sphere (2003, 75).

Therefore, as this program is generated towards customization and personal identification within

the library, it is seen to have a negative impact on the public sphere.

A key aspect to digital information as a private good is its ability to exclude online users

through the existence of digital locks, passwords, paid memberships, and ownership and

copyright laws. Habermas claims that all information within the public sphere must be

unrestricted with a guaranteed freedom of expression (1964). However, as neoliberal values

encourages ownership, possession, and individual gain, online information can be guarded with

copyright laws, digital locks, and digital monitoring of usage(Trosow, 2015). Information

becomes commodified through neolbiberal values creating the transition from a public to a

private good. Information is then not built off a collective of information as Habermas describes,

but is built on individual goals and the hoarding of information. This can be seen explicitly with

the restricted access of academic databases.

Academic databases are extremely costly yet are necessary to academic institutions and

can strongly benefit public libraries. Academic publishers can be large scale organizations which

publishes the work of academics. Publishers are known for unfairly compensating

authors/academics for their research to then which they then compile, organize, and sell the

research back to institutions at a large cost. Academic publishers are an example of corporate

bodies appearing to serve the public sphere, however, are mainly serving the organizations best
DIGITAL INFORMATION AND 6

interests (Habermas, 1964). Paid subscription based databases are private goods as they hold a

the scarcity through their high costs. Greater access through the sharing academic resources

creates a better informed and politically engaged public sphere. While the publishers appear to be

doing a service, by organizing information and offering academic praise to authors, they are

commodifying information. It is not only important to have an engaged academic community,

but an engaged overall public. As public libraries funding has decreased it is unlikely that smaller

libraries will be able to afford these information resources. Databases are resources which

include the element both the elements of scarcity and excludability acting as a major threat to a

libraries ability to engage the public sphere.

However, there is movement to create Open Access information. While information

online does holds a sense of excludability, Open Access information initiatives fall on the realm

of a private good with merit good qualities. Open Access initiatives work to combat exclusivity

and scarcity and have been shown to increasing circulation, provide wide spread access, and

increase public knowledge (Willinsky, 2006). Trosow claims that Open Acces policies, fair

dealing policies, [and] data initiatives (2015, 22) aid in possibly reversing the effects of

commodified information on the public sphere.

Digital information is an inherently maketized, excludable, neoliberal resource

threatening public libraries ability to serve the public sphere. Through examining Habermasian

theories, in combination with research found by Trosow and Bushman, it is evident that

librarians must not abandon digital information but re-evaluate current practices in attempt to

better serve the public sphere.

DIGITAL INFORMATION AND 7

References

Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title, Pages From - To.

Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name.