An Examination of Academic Library Privacy Policy Compliance with Professional Guidelines

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Pub Date : 2022-09-19 DOI:10.18438/eblip30122
G. Valentine, Kate Barron
{"title":"An Examination of Academic Library Privacy Policy Compliance with Professional Guidelines","authors":"G. Valentine, Kate Barron","doi":"10.18438/eblip30122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective – The tension between upholding privacy as a professional value and the ubiquity of collecting patrons’ data to provide online services is now common in libraries. Privacy policies that explain how the library collects and uses patron records are one way libraries can provide transparency around this issue. This study examines 78 policies collected from the public websites of U.S. Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL) members and examines these policies for compliance with American Library Association (ALA) guidelines on privacy policy content. This overview can provide library policy makers with a sense of trends in the privacy policies of research-intensive academic libraries, and a sense of the gaps where current policies (and guidelines) may not adequately address current privacy concerns.\nMethods – Content analysis was applied to analyze all privacy policies. A deductive codebook based on ALA privacy policy guidelines was first used to code all policies. The authors used consensus coding to arrive at agreement about where codes were present. An inductive codebook was then developed to address themes present in the text that remained uncoded after initial deductive coding.\nResults – Deductive coding indicated low policy compliance with ALA guidelines. None of the 78 policies contained all 20 codes derived from the guidelines, and only 6% contained more than half. No individual policy contained more than 75% of the content recommended by ALA. Inductive coding revealed themes that expanded on the ALA guidelines or addressed emerging privacy concerns such as library-initiated data collection and sharing patron data with institutional partners. No single inductive code appeared in more than 63% of policies.\nConclusion – Academic library privacy policies appear to be evolving to address emerging concerns such as library-initiated data collection, invisible data collection via vendor platforms, and data sharing with institutional partners. However, this study indicates that most libraries do not provide patrons with a policy that comprehensively addresses how patrons’ data are obtained, used, and shared by the library.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective – The tension between upholding privacy as a professional value and the ubiquity of collecting patrons’ data to provide online services is now common in libraries. Privacy policies that explain how the library collects and uses patron records are one way libraries can provide transparency around this issue. This study examines 78 policies collected from the public websites of U.S. Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL) members and examines these policies for compliance with American Library Association (ALA) guidelines on privacy policy content. This overview can provide library policy makers with a sense of trends in the privacy policies of research-intensive academic libraries, and a sense of the gaps where current policies (and guidelines) may not adequately address current privacy concerns. Methods – Content analysis was applied to analyze all privacy policies. A deductive codebook based on ALA privacy policy guidelines was first used to code all policies. The authors used consensus coding to arrive at agreement about where codes were present. An inductive codebook was then developed to address themes present in the text that remained uncoded after initial deductive coding. Results – Deductive coding indicated low policy compliance with ALA guidelines. None of the 78 policies contained all 20 codes derived from the guidelines, and only 6% contained more than half. No individual policy contained more than 75% of the content recommended by ALA. Inductive coding revealed themes that expanded on the ALA guidelines or addressed emerging privacy concerns such as library-initiated data collection and sharing patron data with institutional partners. No single inductive code appeared in more than 63% of policies. Conclusion – Academic library privacy policies appear to be evolving to address emerging concerns such as library-initiated data collection, invisible data collection via vendor platforms, and data sharing with institutional partners. However, this study indicates that most libraries do not provide patrons with a policy that comprehensively addresses how patrons’ data are obtained, used, and shared by the library.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学图书馆私隐政策是否符合专业指引
目标——将隐私作为一种职业价值观与收集顾客数据以提供在线服务之间的紧张关系现在在图书馆很常见。解释图书馆如何收集和使用顾客记录的隐私政策是图书馆围绕这一问题提供透明度的一种方式。本研究调查了从美国研究图书馆协会(ARL)成员的公共网站上收集的78项政策,并检查了这些政策是否符合美国图书馆协会(ALA)关于隐私政策内容的指导方针。这一概述可以让图书馆政策制定者了解研究密集型学术图书馆隐私政策的趋势,以及当前政策(和指南)可能无法充分解决当前隐私问题的差距。方法——内容分析用于分析所有隐私政策。基于ALA隐私政策指南的演绎码本首先用于对所有政策进行编码。作者们使用了一致性编码来就代码的存在达成一致。然后开发了一个归纳码本来解决文本中出现的主题,这些主题在最初的演绎编码后仍然没有编码。结果——演绎编码表明政策符合ALA指南的程度较低。78项政策中没有一项包含从指南中派生的全部20个代码,只有6%包含超过一半的代码。没有任何一项政策包含超过75%的ALA推荐内容。归纳编码揭示了在ALA指南基础上扩展的主题,或解决了新出现的隐私问题,如图书馆发起的数据收集和与机构合作伙伴共享赞助人数据。超过63%的政策中没有出现单一的归纳代码。结论——学术图书馆的隐私政策似乎正在演变,以解决新出现的问题,如图书馆发起的数据收集、通过供应商平台进行的无形数据收集以及与机构合作伙伴的数据共享。然而,这项研究表明,大多数图书馆并没有为读者提供一项全面解决图书馆如何获取、使用和共享读者数据的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evidence Summary Theme: All Things Virtual Call for Applicants for EBLIP Journal: Production Editor Differences Between the Perception and Use of Virtual Reference Services for Complex Questions Experiences, Benefits, and Challenges of Virtual Teamwork for Public Libraries in the US Midwest during the COVID-19 Pandemic Bangladesh Public Libraries' Response to COVID-19 Pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1