Rainie began by noting that the technology revolution has changed patron expectations of public libraries and experiences with libraries in five different ways. These expectations and experiences have undergone an evolution driven by patrons’ (1) engagement or need, (2) life stage, (3) life stressors, (4) demographics, and by (5) library innovations. Librarians find it challenging to meet user expectations to both retain traditional services while embracing new service innovations, which can create a “world full of pain,” for librarians.

Pew data found that 53 percent of Americans aged 16 or older visited a public library in the previous year. Women account for 59 percent of library users with parents of minors accounting for 63 percent of overall use. Somewhat surprisingly, among seniors 65 or older, only 40 percent reported visits. Sixty-three percent of library visitors have some college education. Based on the data, Rainie suggested that libraries may want to “romance the moms” among their potential users.

What do library users do when they visit public libraries? The top three reported activities were borrowing books (73 percent), browsing books/media (73 percent), research (54 percent), and get help from a librarian (50 percent). Interesting demographic data characterized some of these activities. For instance, people under age 30 were more likely to do research. African Americans, especially seniors, were among those most likely to request assistance from librarians. Younger people were more likely to use a library for activities like reading, studying, and listening to music. Rainie also presented information on how patrons virtually interact with libraries, specifically through websites. This data closely matches the in-person data in that the website users tend to have higher incomes, more education, and many were parents of minor children.

Rainie sketched a landscape for libraries that has been shaped by three broad technical revolutions and suggested how libraries might respond to them. The first was increased use of broadband Internet from 4 percent of Internet users in 2001 to 68 percent currently. Among the consequences for libraries is that more than 70 percent of Internet users report being content creators. The Internet has enabled them to be publishers and broadcasters. More people exist in a more public sphere that constitutes a “fifth estate” beyond the traditionally impartial fourth estate of traditional journalism. One consequence is that “we argue about much more now.” Libraries, Rainie said, have a potential role to play as they become the commons for many of these conversations which create a need for fact checking, synthesis, and critical thinking.

The second revolution was the advent of mobile devices. As of 2012, 91 percent of the adult population has a mobile device; 56 percent being smart phones. Rainie amusingly noted that smart phones are used for “snacking,” while tablets are used for more leisurely activities. For librarians, use of mobile devices means that multitasking or “continuous partial attention” has become the norm among patrons who also require real-time, just-in-time searching which libraries can support. Smart phones also connect the real world more closely with the data world.

The third revolution was social networking, an incredibly powerful community tool with 61 percent of adults now engaging in it. Seniors, for instance, can now stay in closer touch, not only with their current friends and family members, but also other individuals from different stages of their lives. They have “resurrected” old friendships or “restored latent ties.” Groups that could not have existed in the past are formed by strangers with similar interests or circumstances, such as medical conditions. Preferences among Internet users using social media vary. Facebook use is at 68 percent; Twitter at 18 percent; and Pinterest at 15 percent according to Pew. Facebook is the largest social network and still growing. Users do, however, at times “take a leave of absence” from Facebook. Interestingly, Twitter users “have all the hallmarks of influencers.” Twitter and other social networks have become more trusted than most institutions. The only local institutions retaining trust are firefighters and librarians (nationally, only the military retains trust). Librarians need to continue to interject themselves in the processes of determining validity and meaning while also providing traditional roles via new media.

Rainie concluded that while people can do things on their own that were previously impossible before these technical revolutions, they hate noise, interruptions, and junk. The relationship between abundance and scarcity has flipped. The new scarcity is not information, but time. Librarians have potential to give people something worthwhile—efficient but meaningful experiences—just as they have in the past. Even given the context of the digital age, librarians’ goals have not changed fundamentally. Serving diverse people with different needs and expectations is “familiar territory” to librarians. The library may mean different things at different life stages for individuals and among demographic groups. But awareness of what the library offers remains a gap for potential library users. Only one-fifth of users report knowing what is available. Those who know, or who learn, what libraries offer may experience librarians as “teachers, coaches, and trail guides” in this emerging world.

Emily Ford is the Urban and Public Affairs Librarian at Portland State University and blogs at the influential “In the Library with the Lead Pipe” (www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org).

There’s nothing like piles of data to overwhelm you. And there’s nothing like looking at what those data say to make you feel like a statistic. This is what happened to me with respect to the Pew Internet Libraries reports. After reading the reports and hearing Rainie’s presentation I felt uncomfortably cataloged and sorted. My descriptors? Thirty-something, female, owner of multiple computer, mobile, and reading technologies, heavy library user, and information snacker. Women are reported to be more likely to use libraries and be heavy readers, and my combined demographic traits: being an educated, white, 30-something female makes me more likely than any other user-type to own an e-reader or tablet. Although this certainly reveals something about me, it does not fully capture my story. No bundle of descriptors could. Surely there is more to my story.

As good librarians, we know the limits of cataloging. We know that the pace of change for cataloging rules and creating new headings far exceeds the pace of our information world. We also know that the resources to which we provide access and for which we aim to facilitate creation are not born in vacuums. Rather they are influenced by surrounding circumstances and contexts; social, political, and economic factors being part of their greater story.

Rainie’s presentation and the Pew Reports offered me no answers, but, instead prompted me to ask more questions. Why? Why do African Americans and Hispanics report using research help more than whites? Why are African Americans and Hispanics more likely to find libraries more important to their communities than do whites? Why are women more likely than men to visit the library? Any conceivable answer I have to these questions makes me uncomfortable. It does so because my answers are not based in my knowledge, but in my assumptions and in my socially acquired prejudices.

The data leads me to assume that African American and Hispanic cultures value community goods more than white cultures. Instead of small family units, I understand these cultures as valuing larger community groups such as extended families, church groups, and neighborhoods, more than Caucasians. Hispanics and African Americans may look to their larger communities as bearers of the public goods more often. Or maybe it’s because a disproportionately large percentage of the United States’ African American and Hispanic population is poorer than Caucasians. One could conclude that Pew survey findings reflect these cultural values and social inequities. I also assume that women use libraries more because it is women who sacrifice their careers to parent and who are more involved in their children’s education. Yet I don’t know that any of this is true. I only have assumptions as to why the Pew Report data show what they show.

While the Pew data points to some interesting thought exercises, I would approach with caution. Why? Precisely because it has no social context. Libraries do not exist and provide services within a series of data points, but within unique communities. No public opinion data set will ever 100 percent accurately portray each community’s needs or wants. What patrons in Portland, Oregon want and need, may be completely different from the desires and needs of patrons in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Each community faces its own challenges and has its own identity. As librarians do we really want to base our innovations and service priorities on such broad sweeping statements? What other data needs to be gathered? What other information should we know, and how do we get to understand and know the social contexts within our communities that can guide our work to innovate and transform libraries and services so that our patrons and our libraries can continue to evolve? Any answers to “why” questions should be based in social, political, and economic contexts. Because Pew Reports cannot provide local contextual framing, librarians should examine their unique community frames to try and answer the why questions elicited by the Pew Reports. Librarians will find interesting answers, and some answers may tell stories that we find unacceptable. When this is the case, the onus should be on us to do what we can to change those stories.

Marie L. Radford is an internationally known scholar and visionary and Chair of the Library and Information Science Department in the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University, New Jersey.

Joyce Valenza, librarian at Springfield Township High School, PA maintains a creative website (http://springfieldlibrary.wikispaces.com) and blogs at Neverending Search (http://joycevalenza.edublogs.org).

Much of Lee Rainie’s talk continues to resonate, but interpreting the data presents lingering questions, many having to do with young people and a qualitative story that we have yet to explore.