Most days an email pops out on the SLANZA Library listserv asking for suggestions for books for different age groups, abilities, gender, primary and secondary.
 
SLANZA have an amazing resource of Reading Lists that have been around for years. A group from SLANZA Aoraki (Maree Silver, Claudine Tapsell, Zac McCallum, and Sally Brown) have been working to update and refresh these reading lists.
 
Join us for a quick online session to launch our updated SLANZA Reading Lists and to show how easy they are to use.
They are an amazing and exciting resource that are invaluable to not just School Librarians but Public Librarians, English teachers and anyone recommending a book to a young person.
 
Please do share this email with your English teachers, your local Public Librarians, and anyone you think might be interested in finding out about this amazing resource.
​
Zoom details
SLANZA Reading Lists launch Live Zoom
Tuesday 28th June
4pm - 4:45pm
Online
FREE
SLANZA Admin is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
SLANZA Reading List Launch
June 28, 2022 at 04:00 PM New Zealand
 
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/97421735715?pwd=UC9VYm9xTzFyNEh2R1lEUFNsNnc5Zz09
 
Meeting ID: 974 2173 5715
Passcode: 761015

As librarians, we are more aware than most that this is an age when information, the currency we value most highly and have devoted our careers to, is deliberately and shamefully being misused. We are aware that information is being used by people in power to create confusion that they can profit from and to push their own agendas, regardless of their relationship to the truth. When we think about this we often turn to America for examples.  But as Ed Coper shows us in this remarkable book, we could look much closer to home for equally egregious examples of organised lying and attacks on truth and democracy by the rich and powerful.
 
Reading this book is like taking the red pill in The Matrix. It’s chock full of “I can’t believe they did that!” and “How do they get away with that?” moments. It’s hard not to feel that the scale of the problem means we’ve already lost. I’ll admit that halfway through I was feeling quite depressed. But of course, giving up is not an option and the second half does propose some ways we can fight back. As Coper himself points out, even peddlers of disinformation justify their claims as facts. “Wake up, read the research, know the science” they say. No one at least is claiming that truth doesn’t matter, it’s evidence that’s the victim here.
 
The book begins with histories of both information and disinformation1. The broad sweep of this history will be familiar to most librarians, but it’s full of fascinating details that may not. I had no idea for example that during the 1800 American election campaign, supporters of John Adams maliciously spread a rumour that Thomas Jefferson was dead, which helped them to steal the election. Along the way Coper drops in some interesting ideas, like the ‘Orchestra Pit Principle2’ and ‘Astroturfing3’. He’s particularly good on how media monopolies have destroyed local news, and the devastating effects this has on local democracy and on how psychologists employed by social media companies have learnt to cynically manipulate our behaviour. He’s aware too, that access to information has always been privileged, which only makes the current situation even worse. Coper’s view of truth is nuanced. He recognises that truth has always been contested and that “we need to learn to operate in the jungle of competing realities”. But as he says, “without any commitment to the facts… we lose the whole compass steering this grand human experiment”.
 
The conclusion seems to be that “our brains are not geared to find truth, but instead to find each other”. It’s our desire for approval and social connection that drives some of us down the rabbit hole, and if we don’t acknowledge that then we’re not going to be able to do much about it. So, the inevitable question is what can we do? Coper starts with what not to do. No negating, myth-busting or labelling please! He suggests that we “pay more attention to giving less attention”. He uses the analogy of infection control.

We should be inoculating people against disinformation and prebunking rather than debunking. Surely there’s a role for libraries here? 

In the final section, he gives lots of practical advice, which I urge you to read for yourself. The first step he recommends is to “get your friends to buy this book”. So, in that spirit, and because space doesn’t permit me to do it justice, I’ll leave it for you to discover his strategies for ‘changing minds’, ‘winning the story’, and ‘creating a healthier information ecosystem’. Suffice it to say that reading this as a librarian, I’m sure you will come to the same conclusion as I did that our profession has a lot to offer in finding and providing the solutions.
 
Coper’s book is written very much from an Australian perspective, with frequent nods across the Pacific to the US. There are occasional uses of Australian slang and New Zealand appears only twice in the index. None of this detracts or distracts from the importance, utility, or enjoyment of the book, which is extremely well written and admirably readable, despite its heavy content. I can’t recommend it highly enough. Go on, take the red pill4!
 
Rob Cruickshank is a Programming and Learning Specialist at Christchurch City Libraries, and a member of the LIANZA Standing Committee on Freedom of Information.
 

1. Coper distinguishes between misinformation (unintentional), disinformation (deliberate), and malinformation (information may be genuine, but is intended to mislead by removing or changing the context).
   
2.  Coper explains this with a quote from Nixon and Reagan media advisor Roger Ailes: “If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, “I have a solution to the Middle East problem,” and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?”
3.  Making a false impression of widespread support for a policy, person, or product by using multiple fake online identities.
4.  For another red pill, check out The Coming Storm, a podcast from the BBC about the conspiracy theories that eventually led to the storming of the US Capitol building, their origins, and how they spread.

How much of the research published by our universities is free to read, do you think? The short answer is less than half[1]. 
Many people seem to react to this with: “That’s better than I thought.” This is terrible. It indicates an acceptance that the system for disseminating our work is inherently a closed one for those with the privilege of access. In fact, only about half of what is free-to-read (about one-quarter of all publications) is open at the point of publication from a publisher’s website. The other half is made available later, often via a repository, whether this is run by an institutional or is a disciplinary one like arxiv.org or PubMed. 

In the April issue of Library Life, the LIANZA Standing Committee on Freedom of Information column highlighted the infodemic and misinformation as pressing issues. These are issues not only for those of us who work in the knowledge sector but also for anyone who wants access to reliable, verified information. Clearly, we have a problem if more than half our work is only accessible to those who study and work in large organisations who can collectively afford tens of millions of dollars per annum in subscription costs. What about our government agencies, policymakers, teachers, health practitioners, businesses and innovators? Not to mention citizen scientists, marginalised groups, or patrons of public libraries and archives.

HOW DO WE MAKE MORE OF OUR WORK AVAILABLE? 
Many open access journals do not charge for publication or access. Sometimes known as Diamond journals, these are often run independently and on a shoestring budget and many are run out of university departments. These are often high-quality and/or publish research on themes relevant to New Zealand. Not being associated with the large academic publishers means, however, that they often lack the prestige researchers seek.

Other open access journals charge what are known as author processing charges (APCs), where researchers pay the publishers a fee to make their publication open access. In some cases, all the articles in these journals are open access and all incur an APC. This can act as a barrier to some researchers, but some will pay, or have it covered by a funder, because they recognise the importance of removing barriers to access of their work. 

There are also journals that are normally subscription-based – not open access – that offer the option for researchers to pay an APC for that particular article to be made available without the paywall. These are often the same publishers that charge libraries subscription fees while collecting APCs from researchers – these hybrid journals are often accused of ‘double dipping’.

One effect of the APC model is that some of the cost of access to research has been shifted from libraries to the researchers. In New Zealand we are just beginning to see efforts to assess how much is being paid by researchers in total, on top of what libraries pay (estimated at around USD2.7 million in 2019). And recently university libraries have begun shifting their subscription model with some publishers to what are known as ‘Read and Publish’ agreements. These are a mechanism to bundle payment of subscriptions (read) and APCs (publish) together. This gives researchers the option to publish open access immediately on acceptance without any additional APC cost. These agreements can mitigate the ad hoc approach to open access, where some individual researchers can fund APCs, and some cannot. However, they do not always lead to overall decreases in cost or even cost-neutral outcomes. For some, these agreements are problematic because they leave publishers in the driver's seat and further strain library budgets. 

The APC model has also been hijacked by ‘predatory publishers’. These publishers charge researchers APCs to publish in their journals and, although they appear to have peer review and editing services, these are often poor or non-existent. The fact that they are open access is incidental to the fact that they are poor or dubious publications. There are plenty of good open access journals that researchers want to publish in, just as there are plenty of good and bad subscription publications. Nevertheless, predatory publishers certainly tarnished the reputation of open access as a model in its early days and we still hear researchers say open access journals are lower quality.
Finally, it’s often forgotten that there are plenty of ways to make research accessible without cost outside the traditional publishing system.

During the COVID pandemic, pre-print servers also became more widely used, pre-prints being an early version of a paper before it is peer-reviewed. While pre-prints have been standard practice in some disciplines for many years, their use during the pandemic skyrocketed since speed of publication was paramount to scientific and policy responses. Researchers publish pre-prints to make their research available to others before it goes to a journal for formal peer-review and publication as a way of eliciting feedback outside of the traditional, closed peer-review system. Pre-prints are not considered the same as the post-peer review version, and most publishers accept that researchers may make their research open this way. However, it is important for anyone reading a pre-print to know that this version has not been formally peer-reviewed.

OPEN ACCESS INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES
Finally, institutional repositories support open access by giving our researchers a place to post open versions of their work, within the limits set by copyright. Sometimes called green open access, most publishers will allow the deposit of the peer-reviewed version of a publication, known as the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM), into an institutional repository. Usually, this will not include publisher formatting, page numbers, typesetting etc but contains the same substance. In rarer cases the final published version may be made available through an institutional repository. Publishers will frequently insist on an embargo period, commonly 12 months but this can be higher or lower. The institutional repository record will also need to include a link to the published version and statements acknowledging the conditions under which the institutional repository copy is being made available. Institutional repositories also play a key role in making non-traditional research outputs openly available, including theses, performances, conference posters, reports, and the like.  Importantly, while you may not get the quick turnover of an unmoderated pre-print server or scholarly networking site like ResearchGate, institutional repositories are managed by academic libraries to ensure that all research is accurately described, from legitimate researchers, and made available legally. 

So given all New Zealand universities, and many polytechnics, provide this green open access service to their researchers, you would expect New Zealand to have high rates of open access, if not through paying APCs, then through uploading AAMs to their institution’s repository. This is not the case. Even though the majority of those paywalled articles we mentioned at the top of this article could have been deposited legally in line with publisher policies in a non-commercial repository. New Zealand lags behind many countries, including Australia, in regard to open access mandates and significant funding for infrastructure to support open access. 


[1] Note that here we’re talking about journal articles. This is only part of what our universities produce but articles make up by far the largest slice of our publications and are the focus of this article. For more see: White RKA, Angelo A, Fitchett D, Fraser M, Hayes L, Howie J, Richardson E, White B. 2021. Only two out of five articles by New Zealand researchers are free-to-access: a multiple API study of access, citations, cost of Article Processing Charges (APC), and the potential to increase the proportion of open access. PeerJ 9:e11417 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11417  

Shiobhan Smith is the Associate University Librarian (Customer Experience) at the University of Otago. She has over 17 years’ experience working in academic libraries, including roles educating researchers on open access and supporting the use of OUR Archive, the University of Otago’s institutional repository. ​

​Many of us take for granted our access to technology. It has become a foundational cornerstone of everyday life integrating itself into how we work, live, and play. However, this brings with it an assumption that we are all equal in the digital space. Working in public libraries most of us know this is not the reality.
 
The socio-economic inequities that exist within our communities have created digital inequities that if left unaddressed, will further exclude, and isolate our most vulnerable communities and impact on their ability to participate fully in our society. The cost of an internet connection and a suitable device is a big enough obstacle, add to that a lack of trust, motivation and/or skills then the barriers to digital participation can seem almost insurmountable.
 
Every New Zealander should have a clear and appropriate pathway to participating in digital life. This is not just an opinion. A UN report on digital inclusion states that the “[a]ccelerated pace of digital transformation risks increasing the social exclusion of already vulnerable groups who are not digitally literate or connected. In 2016 they passed a resolution declaring access to the internet a human right. So why six years later are New Zealanders still experiencing these barriers to access?
 

​THE AFFECTS OF DIGITAL INEQUITY
According to the last New Zealand Census, 86.1% of New Zealanders had household access to the internet. The pandemic has further exposed the realities of the digital divide, this was experienced first-hand by many library staff who stepped up to support people accessing vaccine passes and the COVID-19 app. The real-life impact of digital inequity can mean a family choosing between the internet for children to do their homework or feeding the family. People can feel forgotten, frustrated, and overwhelmed. 
 
Lack of digital access and digital literacy skills can significantly reduce a person’s opportunity to participate in 21st Century life and further divides our society. Something we saw manifest in the recent Wellington protests at Parliament where misinformation played a key role. By supporting digital equity we can ensure everyone can access support and information, empowering and assisting people to make informed choices and maximise opportunities that support their health and wellbeing, employment, education, social connection, financial independence and civic participation. Māori data sovereignty is also an area of growing interest and urgency, rooted in Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi, Article II, it is focused on ensuring Māori sovereignty in the digital realm, which is intrinsically linked to digital equity in Aotearoa.
 
There has been lots of research and debate about digital equity over the years, but little progress has been made. The reality, especially in the wake of the pandemic is that there are many issues competing for people’s attention and budget, so why should digital equity be a top priority? With the rapid increase in digital enablement/digital transformation strategies across the banking and service sectors, local and central government, and in health and education shifting more services and support online, our most vulnerable people and communities are increasingly at risk of being left behind. Within a three-month period in 2020, Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) volunteers recorded 4,379 client interactions where digital exclusion was identified. Libraries have often been the ‘go-to solution’ for digital support to help fill this gap and whilst there is no doubt, that they play a critical role in supporting digital equity, they cannot do it alone. We are all accountable for ensuring that we leave no one behind.
 

​THE SOLUTIONS TO DIGITAL INEQUITY
So what is the solution? A holistic approach that seeks to permanently remove the barriers to achieving digital equity and creates sustainable solutions is required to achieve any real impact. Such an approach depends on strong strategic collaborations between central and local government, NGOs and grassroots community organisations with a long-term commitment to providing funding. This is not a problem one government ministry, department or organisation can solve on its own, it calls for mutual accountability and systems thinking approach to finding solutions that work for everyone. There is a growing movement and evidence base building around this issue through organisations such as Digital Equity Coalition of Aotearoa (DECA), highlighting the need for change, and providing insights into how we can collectively achieve digital equity. However, the main obstacles we face to achieving sustainable change are a lack of clear strategic direction and policy guidelines, a lack of coordination, and limitations on funding.
 
One way to overcome these obstacles is to create digital equity strategies and apply a digital equity lens to everything we do. The forthcoming release of the Government’s Digital Strategy for Aotearoa is an encouraging step with the stated objective of this strategy being “Te whakaāhei i te puāwaitanga me te taurikura o te katoa o Aotearoa i roto i te ao matihiko. Enabling all of Aotearoa New Zealand to flourish and prosper in a digital world”. Yet to really make a difference we need to create and support an environment that encourages and funds cross-sector collaboration.
 
There are a growing number of examples of this happening both in Aotearoa and internationally. Whanganui and the Far North District Councils have both developed digital strategies with equity at the heart of them and are excellent examples of how collaboration between the public and private sectors working with communities can lead to innovative solutions for sustainable change. The Far North’s Nothing But Net digital strategy won the 2021 Excellence Award for better policy and regulation for its community-led approach and is now informing everything they do including place making. 
 
The UN report ‘Leveraging digital technologies for social inclusion’ (2021) advocates for this whole-of-government and a whole-of-society approach to inform and support the development of strategy and policy, funding, cross-sector/multi-sector partnerships, the community-led co-creation of context-specific solutions and sustainable implementation. 

​THE ROLE OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES TO SUPPORT DIGITAL EQUITY
What does the role of public libraries in supporting digital equity in Aotearoa look like in this partnership model? It is an increasingly challenging landscape to navigate in a world managing the long-term impact of a pandemic. We face new demands and challenges as the pace of digital change increases digital inequity and information poverty. Increasing pressure on already stretched library resources and a rise in internet threats are being managed in the face of ongoing fiscal constraints. 
 

• We need to tell better stories about the work we do and the real impact it has in our communities. There is a wealth of evidence emerging from the NZLPP secondees programme that will clearly demonstrate this. We need to make sure it is seen and heard by people outside of libraries.
• We need to invest in our own digital equity with a focus on digitally upskilling in our library workforce, investing in our technology, and re-examining our resourcing models.
• Public libraries need to have a seat at the table in strategic decision-making at both local and central government levels. We need to ensure our profession is acknowledged for the skills, knowledge and expertise it can bring and the trusted relationships we have with our communities.

 
INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES
A study jointly conducted by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) and Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) identified more than 30 countries worldwide that include libraries in their national broadband strategies and plans. In the UK they established a Library Taskforce which ran from 2015 to 2020 to promote “[public] libraries to national and local government and to potential funders, [creating] a strong and coherent narrative around the contribution public libraries make to society and to local communities”.
 
There are many overseas examples of how strategic, value-driven partnerships with public libraries can have a positive impact on increasing digital equity. By investing in libraries to maximise their role in the digital space, you invest in communities to help realise their potential. Digital You was a collaborative project in the UK between libraries, community organisations and housing providers which saw 7000 residents of Salford receive digital support and equipment. In Croatia public libraries worked with local homeless shelters, rehabilitation centres and the local law centre to train people in digital literacy and help them find work. A federal government COVID-19 response fund in the USA has enabled some public libraries in some states to purchase laptops and wireless hotspots based on a life-time lending model through single-use library cards. Whilst health boards in Australia are training librarians in digital health literacy.
 
By framing digital support around people’s day-to-day lives we can help overcome the key barriers and engage people in a meaningful way. Moving beyond basic digital literacy skills to supporting digital fluency where an individual possesses the technical knowledge, digital skills and social competency to confidently navigate their way through the digital space as a digital citizen. 
 

A NATIONAL STRATEGIC APPROACH IS NEEDED
The PLNZ National Strategic Framework 2020-25 challenges us to go beyond books and understand the key strategic role public libraries have in creating a digitally equitable society. The current New Zealand Libraries Partnership Programme (NZLPP), due to end in June, was a Department of Internal Affairs funded initiative delivered via the National Library in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a clear acknowledgement of the key role public libraries have in supporting our communities. Yet again, however, we can see the negative impact of short-term funding as many of the roles it funded will disappear including the staff and the knowledge and community connection they built. 
 
In 2020 Massey University published “Public Libraries as spaces for Digital Inclusion: Connecting Communities Through Technology'' which clearly articulated how public libraries can support digital equity in the community. To date many of its recommendations have not been embraced and embedded long-term at a strategic level. The map is there for us to follow, now we need strategic commitment, investment, and fellow travellers to join us on the journey towards a more digitally equitable Aotearoa!

Jo Cocker is currently the Digital Literacy Specialist in the Connected Communities Department at Auckland Council. Jo moved to New Zealand in 2013 from the UK. After completing an MSc in Information Management at Sheffield University in 2006, Jo has worked in both public and academic libraries and held positions across public, private and community sectors working in the areas of strategic development, project management and advocacy.