Big Data and the Future of Collections Management

[A presentation I gave for Collections Management class. You can follow the clicks in this embedded Prezi to simulate the experience.]



"Big data" is a big buzzword in business and technology circles. If some had asked me a year ago to define big data, I would have talked about credit card and credit score companies. I would have talked about Google harvesting email content. I would have talked about social networking graphs.

[click]

But this sharp increase in data collection is just the first step. The soul of big data is in its use. [click] And the magic of big data is that its use is [click] not predetermined.

To see what I mean, let's take a minute to think about scientific method. [click] Remember this from grade school?

• Form a hypothesis.
• Design an experiment.
• Then: Collect data.
• Analyze data.
• Draw a conclusion.

Big data allows a different approach. [click] Data collection happens first. And here's the key: this data is more or less complete. There's no need to design an experiment to generate some data that's relevant to a specific hypothesis; we just work from all the data! This is a data driven approach to finding patterns, including patterns we never would have hypothesized.

For example [click], when Walmart's analysts searched their sales history for interesting patterns, they found a connection between [click] looming hurricanes and the sale of [click] flashlights! Ok, that's not too surprising. They also found a strong correlation between hurricanes and [click] pop tarts! Who knew? Even individual pop tart purchasers may not have perceived they're part of a pattern; a wider perspective was required. So Walmart did the obvious thing, they waited for a hurricane and shipped truckloads of extra pop tarts to select stores. They sold like hotcakes! Or should I say, like pop tarts before a hurricane? [click]

The authors of the book on which this talk is based wrote:

"Big data refers to things one can do at a large scale that cannot be done at a smaller one." p. 6

Let's see what another retail giant has accomplished with large scale data. [click]

Target sometimes advertises by sending 'targeted' coupons to individual customers. It's like Amazon.com's personalized recommendations. Of course, the better the match between coupons and customer needs, the higher the chance that people will get in their cars, drive to Target, and buy things!

Here's the creepy part. Target's analysts wanted to know if they could identify pregnant customers. So they started with customers who had registered for baby showers and searched for patterns in their purchase histories. It turns out that customers who purchase cotton balls and unscented lotion are more likely to be pregnant, especially if this is followed up by certain vitamins and minerals or over twenty other pregnancy-correlated items. In fact, this progression of purchases can even produce a projected due date! There's even a story about a father who came in to Target upset because his teenage daughter had received coupons for baby cribs. Target knew before he did!

If big data is sounding powerful and a little scary, you've got the right idea. [click]

Now we're ready to talk about big data in the context of public library collections management. [click]

What's the difference between a library and a book store? One difference is that book stores are ultimately about making money, while libraries are ultimately about serving their patrons. As we saw with Target, big data can be used to trade away privacy for profit. It seems inevitable that retail stores will use big data in more and more invasive ways [click]. If this happens, all libraries need to do is maintain their reputation for privacy and their value will grow. It would even make sense for collection development policies to mention a preference for materials of confidential interest.[click]

On the other hand, libraries are very well situated to take advantage of big data techniques. Unlike Walmart or Kmart transactions, every checkout is tied to a loyalty card...I mean a library card. I can't tell you what patterns a team of big data analysts would reveal in library data. But when we find our equivalent to pop-tarts or unscented lotion, we might order more or fewer of certain materials, rearrange items, or set up displays at more effective times.[click] [click]

Obviously, there's some tension between maintaining privacy and using library data to its fullest. We could add a line to due date phone calls: "This is Lincoln Public Libraries. We are calling to inform you that you have an item due on Thursday... and you might also enjoy Surprise Child: Finding Hope in Unexpected Pregnancy!" Yes, that might scare people away. Thankfully, libraries don't need to rely on their own data to take a big data approach. [click]

We can use public data. Even without big data analysis, individual collection managers can (and should!) follow best seller lists, social networking trends, and top news stories. Big data analysis goes deeper. It might be possible to predict the next big things before they make their way to the top. Libraries could be ready to meet demands for the next 50 Shades, not lag weeks behind retail stores. If a historically-themed movie is coming out, it would make sense to review materials on that subject, but only if public interest really is picking up; big data might be able to tell the difference. [click]

In summary, big data is powerful and a little scary. It's not something for the average librarian to use directly, but I believe it is everyone's responsibility to steer the profession between the extremes of neglecting and overusing this technology. We need to adapt to big data, but we also need to adapt big data to our professional ethics.

Thank you. [click]

On "Filtering and the First Amendment"

Since Deborah Caldwell-Stone's American Libraries article "Filtering and the First Amendment" covers similar ground to my earlier essay "Public Forum Doctrine in U.S. v. American Library Association," I'd like to do some friendly nit-picking.

Quick Background

In the United States, public and school libraries are bribed (rather than coerced) into filtering Internet access for minors. This is done through CIPA, the Children's Internet Protection Act. In 2003, the constitutionality of CIPA was challenged but upheld in U.S. v. American Library Association.

Clarity

Caldwell-Stone's article is helpful because misconceptions about the requirements of CIPA are indeed widespread:

"Often, it is because the institutions and individuals responsible for implementing these policies misunderstand or misinterpret CIPA and the Supreme Court decision upholding the law. Among these misunderstandings is a belief that an institution will lose all federal funding if it does not block all potentially inappropriate sites to the fullest extent practicable, or that the Supreme Court decision authorized mandatory filtering for adults and youths alike. Another mistaken belief is that it does not violate the First Amendment to impose restrictive filtering policies that deny adults full access to constitutionally protected materials online." (Caldwell-Stone, 2013)

I appreciate the way she raises awareness that CIPA policies aren't legal requirements and that no library's filtering has been judged too lax to qualify. If a library doesn't want to filter, they don't have to filter! If a library wants to filter lightly, they can still collect CIPA funds.

Not So Clear

My nit-picking concerns the last sentence of the quote above. Caldwell-Stone is correct that US v. ALA did not authorize mandatory filtering for adults, but the Supreme Court didn't forbid it either. Legally, it's an open question. Caldwell-Stone evidently feels strongly that such filtering violates the First Amendment (a very respectable position to have!), but it's easy for readers to be misled when legal facts and legal hopes are presented in parallel phrases.

This bit is also problematic:

"Does CIPA itself, or the 2003 Supreme Court opinion, actually authorize a library to limit an adult’s access to constitutionally protected speech? A close reading of the district court’s opinion reveals that it fails to address the Supreme Court’s directive: Libraries subject to CIPA should disable filters for adult users to assure their First Amendment rights." (Caldwell-Stone, 2013)

The Supreme Court gave no such "directive." There was no majority opinion (at all), and no such directive can be found in the plurality opinion. In fact, none of the six judges concurring in judgment said so. The Court's language is along these lines:

"Assuming that such erroneous blocking presents constitutional difficulties, any such concerns are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled." (US v. ALA, Opinion of the Court)

Note the qualifier "assuming." The Court isn't taking a position on whether or not "such erroneous blocking presents constitutional difficulties." Suppose it were a problem for libraries to block constitutionally protected speech: easy disabling would be an antidote. Suppose it weren't a problem to block such speech: now it's an unnecessary antidote. Since this specific case didn't hinge on the constitutionality of "such erroneous blocking," the judges didn't—and couldn't—rule on the issue.

Another concurring judge wrote:

"If some libraries do not have the capacity to unblock specific Web sites or to disable the filter or if it is shown that an adult user’s election to view constitutionally protected Internet material is burdened in some other substantial way, that would be the subject for an as-applied challenge, not the facial challenge made in this case." (US v. ALA, Kennedy's concurrence)

It's entirely reasonable to conclude that a library with mandatory filtering for adults might be judged as violating First Amendment rights, just as a state denying same-sex marriage licenses might be judged (very soon, one hopes) to be violating equal protection rights. Then again, either of these situations might be judged to be constitutional.

One last concurring judge:

"Perhaps local library rules or practices could further restrict the ability of patrons to obtain 'overblocked' Internet material. [...] But we are not now considering any such local practices. We here consider only a facial challenge to the Act itself." (US v. ALA, Breyer's concurrence)

Hopefully it's clear at this point that mandatory Internet filtering for adults is not clearly unconstitutional or constitutional. I applaud Caldwell-Stone for her explanations and her advocacy; I just wish she would separate the two a little more explicitly.

References

Caldwell-Stone, D. (April 2, 2013). Filtering and the first amendment. American Libraries. Retrieved from http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/features/04022013/filtering-and-first-amendment

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).