Can libraries weather the closing of the digital divide?

I work in a library so I will often relate what we talk about in class to libraries.  Libraries certainly play a part in the digital divide.  They help provide access to those who do not have access.  However, libraries provide a temporary solution, not a permanent one.  The permanent solution, and usually the goal of those addressing the digital divide, is that everyone has the technology to access the internet in their own home.  That solution, however, is well outside the bounds of what libraries do.  Libraries can't provide computers and internet to everyone in their home.  So libraries help bridge the digital divide, but they are not (nor will be) responsible for closing the gap.

That in itself is not my argument, but an assumption of it.  I wondered what would happen to libraries as the digital divide narrows and eventually is gone.  My initial thought was that as more people get computers and internet access in their home the libraries patronage would drop.  That was going to be my argument, but as I started to think of arguments against this idea, I eventually persuaded myself that libraries won't see a substantial drop in patronage as more users gain internet access in their homes.

I'll start with the why someone would think that libraries will lose patrons as they get their own personal internet access:

• Computer and internet usage has become one of the primary services in libraries, particularly to the low-income patrons who do not have personal access.  In fact, 45% of all library patrons use the libraries computers to connect to the internet according a 2010 U.S. IMPACT study on the impact of library computer and internet services.  If all patrons had internet access in their homes, libraries could stand to lose a substantial portion of their users.

Really, that's about it.  It was my initial reaction and so it could be the initial (and perhaps permanent) reaction of others.  But as I began to think about how the library is valuable and researched, I came to a different conclusion:  even if everyone had their own internet access, the library would still be valuable and would not lose substantial patronage.  Here's why:

• The same U.S. IMPACT study also found that of the library users that accessed internet (45% of all users), 75% of them had internet access elsewhere.  Admittedly, elsewhere could be at work or a friends house, but this still shows that people use the library (and its internet access) despite having home connections. Some of the reasons given for this in the study were the increased speed of the library's connection, not having to compete for internet time at home with other, and the library's quiet environment.
• Libraries provide value elsewhere.  Libraries provide a full range of services aside from computer and internet access.  Just because someone doesn't need to use a library computer that doesn't mean they won't use the library at all.
• Libraries can still provide technology value.  Even though users have home computers and internet access they may not have certain hardware or software that the library can provide.  Video editing software, copy machines, and projectors are just a few examples.
• Libraries can (and have been) adapting to user needs to provide value. The digital divide won't disappear overnight, it will be gradual.  Even if it is foreseeable that users will slowly no longer need computer and internet access, libraries can provide services users do need instead.  It wouldn't be the first time libraries have eliminated or severely scaled back services that were no longer in demand (think microfilm, CD-ROM databases)

So I think it's clear that the closing of the digital divide won't spell doom for libraries.  They will however need to be vigilant.  There will probably be a small segment of users who won't see as much value in the library when they gain personal internet access, but the library can mitigate that through other services and developing new services by being continually attuned to user needs.

Reflections: Digital Divide

Last weeks class was all about the digital divide: what is it, why it happens, who it affects, where it is in effect, and how we can  overcome it.  The concept of a digital divide is not a new one to me, but I learned much more about it through the lecture.

The most interesting part of the class, to me, was the wealth of statistics that were shared concerning the digital divide. I appreciated seeing up to date data on internet and broadband access, but I wasn't surprised by the information: generally, lower income and rural people have less/slower access than their wealthy/urban counterparts (that's what the digital divide is).  There were some statistics, though, that I wouldn't have predicted.  First, while households with householders over 65 use the internet significantly less than younger age groups, the householder age ranges of 16-44 and 45-64 have relatively the same access.  This shows that perhaps computers & internet have become a necessity for younger and older Americans alike, and that we may see more people having access in the coming years just due to the fact that those who use the internet now are getting older.

One statistic that was particularly interesting concerned the reasons for not having home internet access.  It seems that one of the assumptions behind the digital divide discussion is that internet access is a good thing that people should have and that if people don't have internet access it is because of some barrier to access that must be overcome.  Most would guess that the primary reason people don't have home internet access is because of the cost (especially given that lower income Americans have a much lower rate of internet access).  However, 47% report that the main reason for not having internet access is because they don't want it or don't need it.

What does this do to the basic digital divide discussion?  Does this mean that we (as information professionals or at least those who do have internet access) need to change their perceptions?  Is that part of the goal?  I do believe that everyone can be better of with internet access, but I feel it is presumptuous to try to force technology on people.  Or is this not the case?  Is the goal then not to achieve 100% internet access for everyone, but to achieve roughly 92% usage and 8% who don't want it?  I guess, practically, the goal is for everyone that wants access to have it and eventually those who don't want it will "see the light", eventually leading to 100% access.