Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/30367
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Elaineen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMcMenemy, Daviden_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-30T01:01:26Z-
dc.date.available2019-10-30T01:01:26Z-
dc.date.issued2020-09en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/30367-
dc.description.abstractAcceptable Use Policies (AUPs) are documents stating the limitations users must agree to when first accessing information and communications technologies (ICTs) in organisations, such as employers, educational institutions and public libraries. AUPs lay out the parameters of acceptable use expected of someone accessing the ICT services provided, and should state in clear and understandable terms what behaviours will attract sanctions, both legal and in terms of restricting future access. Utilising a range of standard readability tests used to measure how understandable documents are, the paper investigates how readable the AUPs presented to public library patrons in the UK are in practice. Of the 206 AUPs in use across the local government departments who manage public library services 200 were obtained and subjected to a range of readability testing procedures. Four readability tests were used for analysis: the Flesch Reading Ease, the Coleman-Liau Index, the Gunning Fog Index and the SMOG Grade. Results for all four readability tests administered on all AUPs raise significant questions. For the Flesch Reading Ease score only 5.5% of AUPs scored at the standard readability level or higher (60+), and 8% scored at a very high level of difficulty akin to a piece of scientific writing. Similarly, for SMOG, only 7.5% of the 200 AUPs scored at the recommended level of 10. Likewise, very few AUPs scored at levels recommended for a general audience with either the Gunning Fog Index (11.5%) or the Coleman-Liau Index (2%). With such variability in readability, the fitness for purpose of the average AUP as a contract patrons must agree to can be called into question. This paper presents the first ever analysis of the readability of library AUPs in the literature. Recommendations are made as to how public library services may improve this aspect of practice.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_UK
dc.relationRobinson E & McMenemy D (2020) 'To be understood as to understand': A readability analysis of public library acceptable use policies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52 (3), pp. 713-725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619871598en_UK
dc.rightsRobinson E & McMenemy D, 'To be understood as to understand': A readability analysis of public library acceptable use policies, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52 (3), pp. 713-725. Copyright © The Authors 2019. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications. Reuse is restricted to non-commercial and no derivative uses. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619871598en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectAcceptable useen_UK
dc.subjectdigital citizenshipen_UK
dc.subjectequity of accessen_UK
dc.subjectinformation policyen_UK
dc.subjectpublic librariesen_UK
dc.subjectreadabilityen_UK
dc.title'To be understood as to understand': A readability analysis of public library acceptable use policiesen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0961000619871598en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleJournal of Librarianship and Information Scienceen_UK
dc.citation.issn1741-6477en_UK
dc.citation.issn0961-0006en_UK
dc.citation.volume52en_UK
dc.citation.issue3en_UK
dc.citation.spage713en_UK
dc.citation.epage725en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusAM - Accepted Manuscripten_UK
dc.contributor.funderEconomic and Social Research Councilen_UK
dc.citation.date28/08/2019en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationEconomicsen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Strathclydeen_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85071636363en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1454774en_UK
dc.date.accepted2019-07-21en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-07-21en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2019-10-29en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionAMen_UK
local.rioxx.authorRobinson, Elaine|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMcMenemy, David|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|Economic and Social Research Council|http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2019-10-29en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/|2019-10-29|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameRobinson_McMenemy_JLIS2019.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1741-6477en_UK
Appears in Collections:Management, Work and Organisation Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Robinson_McMenemy_JLIS2019.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version477.48 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.