We've been talking about web sites in the last two posts.  I started off by begging the question, should  rural libraries have web sites?  Like Marshal Breeding, I, too, took for granted that libraries have web sites.  Yet as Marshal pointed out, the fact is many do not even have a web catalog.

Now I've asked those of you who are lurking out there to consider how libraries add value for patrons.  In a little while you'll see why, but first, it is time deal with the overlooked question: do our rural libraries need web sites? 

Many would say no.  Our rural areas may not have adequate infrastructure. Perhaps many people in our service population won't be able to access us anyway. Besides, it can be expensive and complicated to run. It might not be worth the bother for a small staff or even One Person Library (OPL) to handle.

On the face of it, those are pretty good arguments against a web site.  Let's think about this...

It is safe to say that my audience here is made up of web-savvy and experienced Internet users; certainly we know of some really useful things on the Internet. I've asked you to think about how a web site can add value for patrons, and you know.  You've all probably thought of a number of ways that you use the 'net to enrich yourselves. We save money on purchases; we find those rare and hard-to-find items. We find useful information--sometimes very important information--almost on-demand. The web brings us myriad educational opportunities from the one minute discovery to a full advanced degree. In short, the web can make a major contribution to the quality of life for the average web user.  Businesses and organizations have adapted and use the web to extend their activities and reach larger audiences. A business web site is a standard marketing tool these days.

So we know that the web has an effect on the lives of its users. We also know that it creates an advantage for enterprises that employ it.  Yet if we choose not to follow through, and deliver it in rural America, we are denying it for our enterprise and to some extent to our public. But to what extent?

There can be no doubt that rural America is less connected than its urban counterpart, primarily because corporations find it unprofitable to extend infrastructure there. 

A 2009 article "Home Internet Access in US: Still Room for Growth" (1) cites conclusions in a recent study (December 2008) conducted by the Nielsen Company.  It does point out that rural areas are less connected, particularly in the south:  "The East South Central region (Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky), had the highest number of households with no internet access – 26%"  That should come as no surprise considering three of the four states are part of what we know as Appalachia, an area long known for its poverty and which contains areas of terrain that are inhospitable to infrastructure deployment.

Nonetheless, there are many rural areas that do have Internet service. The same Nielsen study indicates that over 80% of American homes have computers, and nearly all of them (92% of them) have an Internet connection.  Considering that a region like Appalachia can skew the results a bit,  we can consider that the rest of rural America might fare better.  For argument's sake let's assume that the 26% figure cited for the least connected area is the norm for all rural areas. That still means that 74% of households in rural areas have Internet access!

Similar results were also reported by Park Associates as cited by webpronews.com (2). Moreover these findings get at the heart of the digital divide by providing statistics that indicate a lot are disconnected because they don't see a reason to be connected. The unfortunate result is that they are becoming an anachronistic minority as simple tasks like creating electronic documents and using email become commonplace and expected forms of literacy.

Since 2004, virtually all public libraries (95%) have been connected to the Internet, according to the Gates Foundation (3). So we have connections, and we have a significant portion of our service populations connected.  Furthermore, those who are not connected may be aware of and using our library connections as the same article cited that 14,000,000 Americans regularly use these public access computers.  To be fair, in 2004 a number of connected libraries were not well-suited to sustain that connectivity, however great strides have been made over the last five years with Webjunction, Gates grant computers, and State Library and consortial support.

Now, citing a few reports does not constitute rigorous research, but then rigorous research is not the point of this blog.  Let those who feel so motivated go forth and find out more.  I think it fair to say that there is reason enough to believe that a major-- if not majority--portion of most rural service areas could use a library web site if one was available through its public library. I also believe it to be relatively self-evident that trends are toward an increase in "connectedness" and an increase in the necessity for digital literacy and that libraries need to be very visibly involved.

It does not appear that connectivity is as much of an issue as it once was. That leaves cost and complexity to be considered.  Let's consider these next time. ~dd



1. Home Internet Access in US: Still Room for Growth. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2009, from
        http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/home-internet-access-in-us-still-room-for-growth-8280/nielsen-internet-access-household-income-february-2009jpg/
2. Sachoff, M. (n.d.). 18% of U.S. households have no Internet access. WebProNews. Retrieved
        October 5, 2009, from http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/05/14/18-of-us-households-have-no-internet-access

3,  Oder, N. (2004, April 1). Gates Report: Progress but Caveat.. Library Journal, 129(6), 16-17.