University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Shelf awareness: public librarians and diverse collections

(USC Thesis Other)

Shelf awareness: public librarians and diverse collections

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Shelf Awareness: Public Librarians and Diverse Collections
by
Claire Louise Davies

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Claire Louise Davies 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Claire Louise Davies certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Esther Kim
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
Library usage contributes societal value to the community as a public good funded by taxes. This
research aimed to bring to light how the values and beliefs of librarians influence public library
collections in the United States. Libraries have historically emphasized equal access over
equitable inclusion, and collections lack diversity and community representation. White women
dominate librarianship as a profession despite several decades of diversity initiatives by the
American Library Association. The qualitative methodology used was semi-structured interviews
with 12 credentialed public librarians with at least 5 years of professional experience. The study
found that librarians frame the professional core value of intellectual freedom expansively as
neutrality. While using it to defend against a rising tide of book banning, they also use it to
defend the collection’s harmful materials and offensive stereotypes. These findings indicate the
need for revising the profession’s core values and recommendations for practice that include
collaborating with communities in curating collections that foster a sense of belonging and a
suggestion for continuing education for professionals.

v
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my most profound appreciation to the members of my dissertation
committee. They have weathered innumerable challenges these last few years but remained
encouraging and enthusiastic about my research throughout. My chair, Dr. Malloy, and
committee members Dr. Stowe and Dr. Kim are such incredibly inspiring scholars to have on a
team.
I am also thankful for my cohort members, in particular my study group, for their help in
reading draft assignments, illuminating required readings, and immeasurable moral support
during this program. Fight on cohort 16! I am so fortunate to have had the chance to get to know
and collaborate with you. I must give a special mention to Stacey Wayman with whom I am
honored to cross the finish line. Cheers!
I would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of the librarians who gave up their
time to talk to me when everyone’s bandwidth was low. There would be no study without them.
Public librarians are underrated servants of their communities, and it has been a tough couple of
years out there at the service desks.
Lastly, many years ago, I told my husband I would someday love to be able to put ‘Dr.’
in front of my name. It is amazing what you can do when someone believes in you. Thank you
with all my heart, Miles.

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem .............................................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................4
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................5
Definitions............................................................................................................................6
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................10
A History of Libraries in the United States ......................................................................10
Diversity in Librarianship ..................................................................................................14
Intellectual Freedom and Librarianship .............................................................................14
Diversity in Collection Development ................................................................................20
The Problems and Implications of Neutrality ....................................................................24
The Importance of Diverse Books .....................................................................................31
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................33
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................36
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................38
Research Questions ............................................................................................................38
Research Setting.................................................................................................................38
The Researcher...................................................................................................................39
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................40
vii
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................42
Ethics..................................................................................................................................43
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................45
Participants .........................................................................................................................45
Research Question 1: What Are the Values and Beliefs of Librarians Regarding the
Importance of Diversity and Representation in Public Library Collections? ....................48
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions of Public Librarians Regarding the
Extent to Which Their Collection Is Representative of Their Community? .....................66
Summary ............................................................................................................................75
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................76
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................76
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................86
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................87
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................88
References ......................................................................................................................................90
Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol .......................................................................112

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Participants 47
Table A1: Protocol 111

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Without community, there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary
armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a
shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist.
—Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches
Over several decades, numerous library and information science (LIS) scholars and
practitioners have addressed the need for librarians to gain awareness of the importance of
diversity (e.g., Honma, 2005; Kim & Sin, 2008; Leung & Lopez-McKnight, 2021). As publicly
funded entities, the mission of public libraries is to serve the whole community, yet data
demonstrate that many inequities exist in library service. For example, a 2016 Pew Survey found
that 32% of Hispanics and 28% of Black respondents had never visited a public library compared
to 15% of White respondents (Horrigan, 2016). Furthermore, a recent survey of library
employees revealed widespread ableism, lack of understanding, and lack of services for people
with disabilities (Pionke, 2020). Two recent surveys on diversity initiatives in libraries
uncovered inconsistencies in the implementation of diversity initiatives. In a survey by the
Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) most respondents reported that diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) efforts in public libraries were concentrated on recruitment, although not
altogether successfully, with less effort expended on outreach, programs, and collections (OCLC
Research Library Partnership, 2017).
Regarding the diversity of library collections, research suggests that collections generally
do not represent diverse audiences. Studies have revealed that libraries lack quality
comprehensive LGBT collections (Downey, 2013; Goldthorpe, 2007), Native American
materials (Bowers et al., 2017), and are generally deficient in diverse voices (Jorengson &
2

Burress, 2020; Kristick, 2020; Williams & Deyoe, 2014). At the same time, a Library Journal
survey from 2019 found that while there were indeed still gaps in collections, most librarians
were actively seeking out diverse materials for their communities (Vercelletto, 2019). Building
on those findings from the Library Journal survey, this qualitative study focuses specifically on
how public library collections are managed with respect to issues of diversity and community
representation.
Context and Background of the Problem
There are around 17,000 public libraries in the United States, and around 1.35 billion
visits are made yearly. 1.31 billion items are in public library collections around the country
(Institute for Museum and Library Services [IMLS], 2018). Nearly 311 million people live
within a library service area. While public libraries began originally as collections of books, they
have evolved over time and nowadays offer many kinds of physical and digital materials for
borrowing, including nontraditional collections of realia such as cake pans, telescopes, and toys.
Programming at libraries includes traditional storytimes and book groups alongside “STEM”
(science, technology, engineering, and math) events in maker spaces and podcasting studios
(American Library Association [ALA], 2020b).
While the library profession has long lauded ideals of DEI, it remains a largely
homogenous profession dominated by White females. The most recent ALA demographic study
found that 81% of ALA members are female and over 86% identify as White (Rosa & Henke,
2017). The ALA recognizes this as a problem, declaring diversity and diversifying the profession
to be a key action area. Meanwhile, the ALA has responded with initiatives for attracting and
retaining librarians from diverse racial and ethnic minorities through initiatives such as the
Spectrum Scholarships and the Inclusive Internship Initiative (ALA, 2018; Rosa, 2017). Yet
3

there is evidence that such initiatives provide just enough new librarians to replace those lost
through attrition, with librarians from underrepresented groups leaving the field at
disproportionately high rates (Hathcock, 2015). While there is some way to go with recruitment
and retention, the profession also needs to focus on diversity in terms of service provision and
the collections and programs that are offered.
The Freedom to Read Statement issued by the ALA in 1953 addresses the importance of
diversity in collections. It states, “It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make
available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox,
unpopular, or considered dangerous by the majority” (para.8). Many years later the ALA’s
Policy on Diversity in Collection Development included the following statement, “librarians have
a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in collection development. … This
includes materials and resources that reflect a diversity of political, economic, religious, social
minority, and sexual issues” (ALA, 2013, p.14).
Diversity research within LIS has primarily been in academic library settings, with very
little original research focused on public libraries. Much of the research has centered on
diversifying the profession (Adkins et al., 2015; Usherwood et al., 2000). Few studies have
focused on the diversity in collections, or the lack thereof (Hughes-Hassell et al., 2012;
Vercelletto, 2020; Williams & Deyoe, 2014). Additionally, there is an absence of research on the
motivation of diverse communities to use, or not use, their public libraries. Finally, there is scant
research on public librarians’ motivations to create diverse collections, despite this being a core
value of the profession and their perceptions of how diverse their collections are.
4

Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of the study was to ascertain the beliefs and perceptions of public librarians
regarding the importance and extent of community representation, diversity, and inclusion within
their collections. The following questions guided the study:
1. What are the values and beliefs of librarians regarding the importance of diversity and
representation in public library collections?
2. What are the perceptions of public librarians regarding the extent to which their
collection is representative of their community?
Importance of the Study
Traditionally, libraries have emphasized equal access over equitable inclusion. Library
users from marginalized backgrounds relate feeling excluded from library services (Cooke, 2017;
Pateman & Williment, 2013; Sonnie, 2018; Working Together Project, 2008). Many populations
experience barriers to access to some or all library services (Cooke, 2017). Echoing systems of
oppression and exclusion found in wider society, libraries are not serving all people equitably
(Horrigan, 2016; Klinenberg, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2014). While the popular perception is
that libraries are neutral spaces, the lack of DEI in the profession and services has a long history.
This inequity is egregious when libraries aim to function as a public good, relying on taxation for
funding. While the communities served by public libraries are increasingly diverse, the library
profession is predominantly and persistently White, middle-class, middle-aged, and able-bodied
(ALA, 2007a, 2012; Jaeger & Franklin, 2017; Sonnie, 2018; Vinopal, 2016)
This problem is important to address because library usage produces societal value to the
community as a public good. For example, Bhatt (2010) found that library usage increases the
amount of time that children spend reading. Borges Ferreira et al. (2021) public library proximity
5

correlated with lower crime rates. Gilpin et al. (2021), in a study on the effects of capital
investment in public libraries, found that increased library usage improved children’s reading test
scores.
However, library usage has been in sharp decline in recent years, and the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic have significantly exacerbated this trend. The Freckle Report of 2021
found that in the United States, the fall was 31% in the 8 years up to 2018 (Coates, 2021). The
report goes on to assert that the fall in use is attributable to the movement away from the central
mission of libraries to provide print materials in welcoming buildings. The evidence
demonstrates that the decline in use will lead to a disinclination to provide public funds, reducing
the quality of offerings and a further decline in usage. Furthermore, growing numbers of readers
and changing demographics present significant problems and major opportunities for libraries
(Coates, 2021). Libraries need users to survive, and that means providing books that diverse
readers want to borrow.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study applied a constructivist framework informed by a critical librarianship lens.
The constructivist paradigm of inquiry holds that individuals make meanings about the world
through their own subjective experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This worldview is
appropriate for a study that situates the perceptions of public librarians at its core. The umbrella
of critical theory includes approaches such as Marxist criticism, critical race theory (CRT), queer
theory, and the emerging field of critical librarianship, which shares and incorporates these
approaches and others under the broader frame (Bales, 2017; Bohman, 2005). Critical theory
“looks at what is and tries to understand how it came to be that way, what various systems
produce and reproduce in the world, what the stakes might be in accepting something as natural,
6

and how we might imagine systems, structures, objects, and processes differently (Drabinski,
2019, p. 51)”. Several of Solórzano’s (1998) central concepts of CRT can be helpful in this
frame, including the challenge to the dominant ideology, the commitment to social justice, and
the centrality of experiential knowledge.
Critical librarianship interrogates library practices to uncover how ideologies
underpinning social differences such as race, gender, class, and disability influence the
profession’s systems and structures. For example, critical librarians question cataloging and
classification systems that center the dominant narrative and erase or dehumanize the “other,”
such as with the subject heading “illegal aliens” and other biased, outdated, and harmful
terminology (Drabinski, 2019). Above all, critical librarianship “is epistemological, self-
reflective, and activist in nature (Garcia, n.d. para. 1).”
The study utilized a qualitative methodology in line with the constructivist worldview.
Semi-structured interviews were the inquiry method of choice. Semi-structured interviews allow
for some standardization of data but also allow for deviation where beneficial to the research.
Interviews were held over a video conferencing platform and recordings were available for
analysis afterward. Credibility and transferability were managed through member checks and by
being reflexive about the positionality of the researcher and how it might shape the interpretation
of the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Definitions
Biases are the conscious or unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that affect our
understanding, actions, and decisions. Systemic bias is directed by institutions that create or
uphold barriers to individuals. Individual bias is directed by someone from a privileged group
towards members of an oppressed or marginalized group.
7

Censorship is defined as the decision made by a governing authority to suppress, exclude,
expurgate, remove, or restrict public access to a library resource based on a person or group’s
disapproval of its content or its author/creator.
Challenge: An attempt to have a library resource removed or access to it restricted, based
on the objections of an individual or group. Challenges sometimes result in censorship.
Collection development is the process of managing the library materials through
acquisition and deselection, or weeding, based on ongoing assessments of the needs of the
service population. It is generally a professional level activity for trained librarians.
Critical theory is a social theory that focuses on critiquing and transforming society. It
aims to explain social problems, interrogate power and oppression, along with offering practical
solutions. It is an umbrella term that includes CRT and critical librarianship theory, an emerging
field that is sometimes referred to as critical information literacy theory.
Diverse: Involving the representation or composition of various social identity groups in
a community. The focus is on social identities that correspond with imbalances in power and
privilege and contribute to marginalization based on specific attributes including, but not limited
to, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status, religion, spirituality, disability, age, national origin, immigration status,
and language. It is recognized that people have multiple identities and that those identities are
intersectional (APA, 2021).
First Amendment: Part of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution stating, “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Const. amend. I)
8

Intellectual freedom (IF) is defined by the ALA as “the right of every individual to both
seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction” (ALA, 2007b). It is
closely linked to First Amendment rights and is frequently cited in cases of book censorship.
Public libraries: The IMLS defines that a public library is established by law to serve a
community and provides an organized collection of printed or other library materials, paid staff,
and is supported in whole or in part by public funds.
Racial color-blindness is the belief that race should not be considered or even noticed. In
effect the argument is that disparity due to race is no longer prevalent (Bonilla-Silva, 2014)
Social justice focuses on drawing attention to differential power dynamics while
acknowledging historical and institutional inequities.
Stereotype: A set of cognitive generalizations about the qualities and characteristics of
members of a group. Stereotypes simplify perceptions and judgments but are frequently
exaggerated and negative (APA, 2021).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized in five chapters. This first chapter provides an orientation to the
problem of the lack of diversity in public library collections in the United States. This chapter
will additionally frame the context for the study, its purpose and importance, guiding research
questions, the theoretical framework that is used, and an explanation of key terms. Chapter Two
provides a review of the literature associated with diversity and librarianship. Chapter Three
describes the qualitative research design for the study. Chapter Four presents the data, an
analysis of the data, and findings from the research. Chapter Five proffers recommendations for
addressing gaps in community representation in public library collections that may begin to shift
the professional activities of librarians along with the ideals espoused by the profession.
9

10

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to the problem of practice. The
review begins with a history of public libraries in the United States to provide important context.
This is followed by a discussion of the key concepts related to the study, in particular the
professional value of intellectual freedom (IF) and how that concept relates to censorship.
Finally, the implications of the professions’ interpretation of IF and the idea of neutrality in
librarianship and how that relates to collection development are explored.
Following the literature review is a discussion of the theoretical framework that grounds
this research related to the purpose of the study and the research questions. Based on critical
theory and informed by critical librarianship, the major themes from the literature emerge as
concepts in the overall framework.
A History of Libraries in the United States
It is widely agreed that the public library is one of the few truly democratic institutions,
having espoused values of equal access and promotion of lifelong learning. Positioned as “third
place” (neither home nor work) or community haven, libraries are panegyrized as the last
noncommercial and inherently democratic public place (Houghton et al., 2013; Thiele & Klagge,
2021; Wood, 2021). Libraries welcome anyone through their doors and require no payment to
use the resources, services or merely to linger in the air-conditioned quietude. While many
people feared that libraries would be rendered irrelevant by the advent and popularity of the
Internet, library use increased in the first decade of Internet adoption (Scott, 2011). Libraries are
critical stakeholders in their communities. Scott (2011) identified five areas in which libraries
contribute to community building, including serving as a conduit to information and learning,
11

encouraging social inclusion and equity, and fostering civic engagement. Public libraries help
people from birth to old age, offering services from family storytime to 3D printing.
The history of public libraries in America is closely tied with the history of America
itself. Public libraries spread along with the colonies themselves. When a new town would spring
up, so would a library. The precursors to public lending libraries were social libraries. These
were corporations formed by volunteers and funded by subscriptions. One early example from
1731 was Benjamin Franklin’s The Library Company. Franklin wanted members of his debating
society to share and exchange books about the topics they were discussing since books were
expensive and hard to come by. The Library Company was essentially an exclusive drinking club
to which women and Black people were not invited. Often, the exhausted collections of the
social libraries were gifted to the town government that would then financially support it for the
use of its citizens (Aberg-Riger, 2019; Wood, 2021).
With the rise of the affluent classes in the post-Civil War Era, there developed a societal
impetus towards education reform that included libraries. In 1833 the first public lending library
was built in Peterborough, New Hampshire. The first public library in a major city is generally
agreed to be the Boston Public Library, which opened in 1854 with 16,000 volumes available for
borrowing to all Massachusetts residents.
Along with a push toward education reform the country was also being shaped by
segregation. Plessy v. Ferguson, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the
constitutionality of racial segregation, occurred in 1896 and ensured the continuation of the Jim
Crow South for the next half-century. Along with transit systems and schools, early libraries
were highly segregated (Wiegand & Wiegand, 2018). In 1902 when the Atlanta Carnegie library
12

opened for White people only, W.E.B Du Bois observed that it was a public institution that was
excluding fully one-third of the city’s population (Aberg-Riger, 2019).
Different cities implemented segregation differently. Some had one large building
housing both the Black and the White libraries, but with separate entrances, reading rooms, and
collections. Some southern cities had just one library that permitted Black people to come in and
check out books but not to linger. In Memphis, one system would only allow White people
except on Thursdays when only Black patrons were accepted (Creswell, 1996).
Segregation was not confined to the South. Libraries discriminated against Black people
in the North too. A 1934 Baltimore newspaper article pointed out that Enoch Pratt Free Library
had installed separate bathrooms for “colored people” after complaints from whites (Summers,
n.d.). Some cities built separate branches in Black neighborhoods, staffed by Black librarians.
Twelve of these libraries were funded by wealthy steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew
Carnegie and were opened between 1908 and 1924. These were often smaller buildings with less
funding and fewer books but nonetheless became well-used community institutions.
During the Civil Rights Era, protests were common, including sit-ins, particularly
throughout the South. It was not until 1964 that E.J. Josey, a Black librarian and activist, drafted
a resolution to make the ALA oblige state library associations to allow membership for Black
librarians (Brady & Abbott, 2015; Aberg-Riger, 2019; Cooke et al., 2022; Creswell, 1996).
The idea of libraries as White spaces and White property, shaped by White cultural
domination, is central to critical theories that critique the mechanisms by which “White
ideological homogenizing practices sustain the structure of domination and oppression” (Gusa,
2010, p. 465). Whiteness as property was first introduced as a concept by Harris in 1993 when
she theorized that slavery had set up conditions of ownership that was inexorably tied to White
13

identity (Harris, 1993). Brook et al. (2015) in a critique of higher education described how
college campuses have been designed to perpetuate cultural hegemony through incorporating
features from classical architecture and containing representations (statues, portraits, plaques) of
White, male benefactors, charges that equally apply to many public libraries, especially those of
the Carnegie era.
By 1920, there were more than 3,500 public libraries in the United States. Carnegie, who
as a young man had been unable to afford the membership fee to his local library, funded more
than half. Other affluent philanthropists were also funding libraries during their lifetimes or
leaving bequests for public libraries. Branch libraries were established in expanding urban areas,
making it possible for patrons to have access without requiring transportation, thereby removing
the barriers of time and expense. In addition, compulsory schooling raised literacy levels and
contributed to the demand for libraries. The Library Services Act, passed in 1956, provided
federal money for building public libraries over the following 2 decades, and so the 1960s
brought rapid growth in these branch libraries (Brady & Abbott, 2015; Kevane & Sundstrom,
2014; Koontz, 2007). Today federal funding is administered through the IMLS; however, those
contributions amount to less than one percent of total library funding (Jaeger et al., 2013).
Over 80% of public library funding comes from local taxation. As is the case with
schools, this gives rise to considerable disparities in the quality of services, with the poorest
communities suffering disproportionately. Often libraries in those neighborhoods are open for
limited hours, have less-current collections and resources, and fewer services (Aberg-Riger,
2019; Koontz, 2007).
14

Diversity in Librarianship
Professional librarians have graduated from an ALA-accredited master’s program in LIS.
However, despite several decades of diversity initiatives from the ALA, librarianship remains a
homogenous profession, dominated by White women. The 2012 Diversity Counts Survey of
professional librarians revealed that 88% were White, 5% African American, 3% Asian/Pacific
Islander, 3% Hispanic, and less than 1% Native American or multiracial (ALA, 2012). A 2017
survey of ALA members states that 81% are female, with 87% identifying as White (Rosa &
Henke, 2017). Significantly, the representation of African Americans and minorities is slightly
better in the paraprofessional and support positions, suggesting that the MLIS remains a
significant barrier to diversity.
Tackling issues of equity and diversity in libraries and librarianship is challenging but
necessary. Honma (2005) pointed out that the profession has a “tendency to tiptoe around
discussing race and racism” (p. 12). Caidi and Dali (2015) agree that the field needs to have
courageous conversations around more than merely diversity initiatives aimed at hiring and
retaining more people of color in the profession.
Intellectual Freedom and Librarianship
The American Library Association and The Library Bill of Rights
The ALA, founded in 1876, lays claim to the oldest library association in the world. From
its inception, the ALA defined the role of librarians in selecting materials, presenting all
viewpoints, and opposing censorship through the promotion of intellectual freedom (IF). It lays
out the professional code of ethics and guides library policies.
There is a tendency for librarians to believe that the concepts that form the foundation of
their professional ethics (and often take the form of moral imperatives) have been fundamental
15

from the beginning, when in fact, these concepts have evolved with changing cultural, societal,
and political norms. Moreover, the core concept of IF is a relatively new value. Although,
unhelpfully, the ALA itself has never defined the term, it undeniably finds its roots in the First
Amendment (Ratcliffe, 2020). The Library Bill of Rights (LBR), adopted by the ALA in 1939,
“serves as the library profession’s interpretation of how the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution applies to libraries” (ALA, 2010, p. xix).
In general, the LBR is a broad interpretation of the freedoms of speech and the press to
include IF, “a freedom of the mind, a personal liberty and a prerequisite for all freedoms leading
to action” (OIF, 2010, pp. xvii–xviii). The ALA assumes a critical role for libraries in defending
against threats to the First Amendment. They stated that libraries function as “centers for
uninhibited intellectual inquiry … [where] librarians have taken upon themselves the
responsibility to provide, through their institutions, all points of view on all questions and issues
of our times, and to make these ideas and opinions available to anyone who needs or wants them,
regardless of age, background, or views” (OIF, 2010, p. xviii). Library scholars and practitioners
regularly reiterate the value of IF as a core value of librarianship, and it would be hard to
overstate the importance of IF in LIS (Gorman, 2000; Harkovitch et al., 2003; Knox, 2011;
Morrissey, 2012; Oltmann, 2016, 2017, 2019).
The LBR has undergone numerous revisions throughout the years, including a major
rewrite in 1948, expanding the document’s scope. In the 1950s, during the Communist Red
Scare, it was revised in response to a call for labeling of propaganda with the first official
opposition to labeling (Knox & Oltmann, 2018). A further amendment in 1961 stated “the rights
of an individual to the use of a library should not be denied or abridged because of his race,
religion, national origins, or political view” (Magi & Garnar, 2015). A few years later, in 1967,
16

they added in “social views” and “age”; thus, the right to IF applies equally to children. In the
1970s and 1980s, a further revision was reworded as to apply to all discrimination. Over the last
70 years each revision of the LBR has been a response to shifting social, political, and cultural
climates and changes in the function and estimation of libraries and librarians (Krug & Morgan,
2015; Ratcliffe, 2020). The LBR and the understanding of IF are comprehensive and intended to
mitigate any kinds of concerns, challenges, and situations.
Criticism has been leveled at the LBR for being ambiguous, idealistic, and lacking a solid
philosophical foundation (Baldwin, 1996; Frické et al., 2000; Wiegand, S.A., 1996). For
example, Wiegand declared, “the document remains rhetoric mixed with reality … at times
unhelpful and at other times downright misleading” (p. 79), arguing that it would never hold up
to legal challenge and is primarily written to inveigle librarians. At the same time, Frické’s
(2000) critique points out that these flaws lead to problematic situations over the blanket
approach to anti-censorship when competing values are in place. As he sees it, one consequence
of the ALA tending towards a rights-based position is that librarians are compelled to collect
such materials as books with offensive, racist stereotypes and other items that might be
reasonably considered objectionable or even dangerous. Oltmann (2016) agreed that the lack of a
theoretical basis weakens arguments for IF rendering the concept open to misapplication.
In 1940, the ALA created the Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) to recommend
policies concerning IF and matters involving violations of the LBR. The ALA established the
OIF) in 1967. The OIF is charged with implementing IF policies as laid out in the LBR. They
support librarians during challenges to library materials and have collected and published
statistics on banned and challenged books since 1990 (Asato, 2011).
17

Intellectual Freedom and Censorship
While the initial focus of the LBR was concerned with access to collections and services
such as meeting rooms, censorship of materials garnered attention in early iterations of the bill.
The ALA defines censorship as a “change in the access status of material, based on the content
of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include
exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes” (OIF, 2010, p. 417). Some historians
of LIS claim that the LBR and its focus on the perils of censorship was a reaction to the wave of
banning of published materials, including Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, during the late
1930s, but there was obvious concern for IF among librarians before that (Campbell, 2014; Krug
& Morgan, 2015; Ratcliffe, 2020).
The concept of IF is frequently advanced to defuse attempts at censorship and in fact is
framed in LIS as a counterpoint to censorship. For example, in 1973, the IFC issued an
interpretation of the LBR related to censorship of library materials for alleged racism, sexism, or
other -isms. It claims that increased attempts to suppress racist or sexist materials to be
conceivably related to an increase in awareness of civil rights and that in response to such
awareness libraries are being asked to remove materials with offensive stereotypes or misleading
images. They caution against the social justice leanings of librarians:
Complaints that library materials convey a derogatory or false image of a minority strike
the personal social consciousness and sense of responsibility of some librarians who —
accordingly — comply with the requests to remove such materials. While such efforts to
counteract injustices are understandable, and perhaps even commendable as reflections of
deep personal commitments to the ideal of equality for all people, they are — nonetheless
18

— in conflict with the professional responsibility of librarians to guard against
encroachments upon intellectual freedom (Magi & Garnar, 2015).
Intellectual Freedom and Book Challenges
Adherence to IF principles is the reason why libraries generally oppose challenges to
library materials. Challengers usually want an item removed from a library, or sometimes the
request is to move the item to a different or restricted location in the collection (Oltmann, 2017;
Oltmann et al., 2017). The ALA sees challenges to materials as a threat to freedom of speech and
choice. When a challenge occurs, ALA recommends a formal hearing and is strongly opposed to
removing or relocating items based on patron concerns (ALA, 2016).
Oltmann’s qualitative study of public library directors in Kentucky examined librarians’
experiences around book challenges. Most had a process and a policy in place to address these
“requests for reconsideration” based on ALA guidelines that involved handing the patron a form
and referring the matter to the director. In this study, respondents reported challenges at different
rates ranging from rare (no challenges in the last 5 years) to frequent (a few times every month).
The most common reason for challenges in this study was sex or sexuality, with some concerns
expressed over language, presumably in children’s materials (Oltmann, 2016).
Of course, it should be appreciated that the challengers themselves often do not consider
themselves engaged in censorship; their motives are generally apolitical and an effort to simply
‘do the right thing’ in the face of offensive material. Frequently, challengers believe they are
protecting others, especially children (ALA, 2016.). Further, most challengers disagree with the
broad ALA stance on censorship, arguing that moving books, labeling, or restricting access is not
censorship (Knox, 2014). This contrary characteristic of the definition of censorship is further
evidence of the necessity for a solid theoretical and philosophical underpinning to an explicit
19

definition. However, a growing wave of politicized challenges are creating a currently
contributing to a new culture war.
Librarians are afraid. In early 2022, the news was increasingly full of stories about
successful book bans and tales of confrontation between organized political groups and library
staff. Among the most frequent targets are books about race, gender, and sexuality, like George
M. Johnson’s All Boys Aren’t Blue, Jonathan Evison’s Lawn Boy, Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer,
and Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye. The advocacy group No Left Turn in Education maintains
lists of books it says are “used to spread radical and racist ideologies to students,” including
Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, and Margaret Atwood’s The
Handmaid’s Tale” (Harris & Alter, 2022. para.2). Additionally, in March 2022, an Oklahoma
lawmaker likened librarians to cockroaches (Natanson, 2022). Speaking in front of the Tennessee
legislature in February 2022, country singer John Rich compared teachers and librarians to
pedophiles trying to kidnap children in vans (Blanco, 2022).
Librarians and Self-Censorship
As Harkovitch et al. (2003) stated, “Believing in intellectual freedom is easy, practicing it
is not” (p. 367). Self-censorship occurs when librarians censor their behavior, such as not
purchasing a particular item, relocating or hiding materials, or otherwise affecting the availability
of materials for check out (Monks et al., 2014). Downey (2013) pointed out that self-censorship
is problematic because it is almost impossible to prove. Items in libraries go missing for any
number of reasons not just, “because the librarian objected to the content, or anticipated
controversy and wanted to avoid it, and preemptively censored her own selection” (p. 104).
Some research exists on the problem of librarian self-censorship (Downey, 2013; Moody,
2004; Oltmann, 2016). Several studies have produced data that surmise selection bias in
20

collection development (Harmeyer, 1995; Lowenthal, 1959). For example, research conducted
by School Library Journal in 2016 revealed that nine out of 10 elementary and middle school
librarians and seven out of 10 high school librarians admitted to having not purchased books that
were on potentially controversial subjects. That number was up from the previous survey
conducted in 2008 (Rosa, 2017).
In Oltmann’s 2016 qualitative study of public library directors in Kentucky, a large
proportion admitted that they were aware of the problem of staff not selecting items they
believed might prompt concerns from patrons. There was also a report of library staff hiding a
children’s book because they disagreed with its contents (Oltmann, 2016). A study of book
challenges in Alabama that revealed unexpectedly low numbers of reported challenges posited,
“that may reflect a cautious, even timid approach to collection development … [with librarians]
avoiding contentious or potentially controversial items” (Oltmann et al., 2017, p. 288). Such
actions reflect the personal biases of librarians and conflict with the professional ideals of IF.
Diversity in Collection Development
The ALA Code of Ethics operates as the profession’s Hippocratic Oath. It states that
librarians should provide unfettered access to information, oppose all attempts at censorship, and
protect patron privacy. A statement in the code of ethics going back to 1930 calls for books to
represent “all phases of opinion and interest rather than the personal tastes of the librarian or
board members.” This wording indicates clear support for the importance of IF around
collections and access to materials. Subsequent iterations have always included mention of the
importance of representation and access.
In 1982, the ALA approved a new interpretation of the LBR entitled Diversity in
Collection Development. The document discusses a history of censorship based on cultural and
21

societal mores, such as racism or sexism, giving examples that include non-selection or removal
of materials. It acknowledges that librarians’ selection decisions can be influenced by factors
such as avoiding controversy or the belief that certain minorities are not present in the
community and so those diverse materials would have no audience. The document goes on to
suggest that librarians are professionally obligated to provide an inclusive collection. “Access to
all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly
exclude materials even if offensive to the librarian or the user” (para 2). The interpretation states
explicitly that balance in a collection does not mean provision of equal shelf space, but a
reflection of diversity, and re-invokes the First Amendment as support for the concept of IF. It
concludes emphatically, “toleration is meaningless without tolerance for some consider
detestable. Librarians cannot justly permit their own preferences to limit their degree of tolerance
in collection development, because freedom is indivisible” (para 6).
Book Challenges and Diversity
According to the records of the OIF, the majority of challenged books are diverse books
— those with diverse characters or narratives driven by diversity. Frequently challenged books
over many years include And Tango Makes Three, a children’s book about two male penguins
who make a family together, challenged for including homosexual themes. The Hate U Give, a
young adult book inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement is challenged for drug use,
profanity and offensive language, and Melissa, a book for elementary school children, was
challenged and banned because it includes a transgender child (ALA, 2019; Kimmel &
Hartsfield, 2019). In the ALA list of top 10 banned books from 2020 we see books that are
challenged for believing to include divisive language and anti-police sentiments (All American
Boys, by Jason Reynolds and Brendan Kiely, and Something Happened in Our Town: A Child’s
22

Story About Racial Injustice by Marianne Celano, Marietta Collins, and Ann Hazzard and
illustrated by Jennifer Zivoin). A recent addition to the top 10 list was Ibram X. Kendi’s
Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You which was challenged because of the author’s public
statements, and that it “does not include racism against all people” (ALA, 2020a, para.2).
Research indicates that diverse books are disproportionately challenged in libraries.
However, this is hard to confirm for several reasons, including a lack of data on the number of
books written by diverse authors. In addition, unless visibly diverse, some authors are not open
about their diverse identities (ALA, 2020b). “Own voices” materials are those that not only
feature characters or narratives that feature members of a diverse cultural group but are also
authored by an individual who identifies with that group. This solidifies the idea of cultural
authenticity and counters harmful cultural appropriation (Vercelletto, 2020). According to Hsieh
(2018), cultural authenticity allows readers to see a reflection of genuine lived experiences
instead of stereotypes or misrepresentations.
There is some evidence for inequity in challenged materials. Some studies have
suggested that in terms of racial identity, 80% of all the books published in the United States are
overwhelmingly White, and yet books by authors of color are more than twice as likely to be
challenged (Hughes-Hassell, 2013; Oltmann, 2017). LGBTQ+ themes in children’s books are
consistently on the list of the most challenged materials (Kimmel & Hartsfield, 2019). Inclusion
of racist slurs and racists stereotypes is a common reason for books to be challenged. One
example, Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, has appeared on the ALA lists
since they began (ALA, 2020a).
23

The Seuss Six
Challenges that involve materials’ harmful or offensive portrayals of marginalized
populations can be especially problematic for librarians, touching on the collective conscience
and sense of social justice of many (Krug & Morgan, 2015). For example, the recent controversy
over racist stereotypes in several Dr. Seuss titles is not new. Ishizuka and Stephens (2019)
researched how, and to what extent, White characters and characters of color are portrayed in 50
of the books. They found ample evidence of orientalism, exotification, stereotypes, and
dehumanization in illustrations of characters of color and discuss implications to the formation
and reinforcement of racial biases in the children exposed to them:
A long history of research shows that text accompanied with imagery, such as books with
pictures, shapes children’s racial attitudes. When children’s books center Whiteness,
erase people of color and other oppressed groups, or present people of color in
stereotypical, dehumanizing, or subordinate ways, they both ingrain and reinforce
internalized racism and White supremacy (p. 115).
They subsequently pushed for the National Education Association’s Read Across America to
reconsider their 20-year focus on Dr. Seuss and his books.
Most recently, the Seuss family requested that a handful of titles no longer be printed
(Lamb, 2021). “These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” said the
statement from the Dr. Seuss Foundation (Telford, 2021, para.2.). The response from libraries
appears to be in line with ALA guidelines. According to an article in Business Insider, shortly
after the statement was issued. “Brooklyn Public Library stands firmly against censorship, so
while we do not showcase books with outdated or offensive viewpoints, we do not remove them
either, using them instead as a springboard for conversations about healing and moving forward”
24

(Shalvey, 2021, para.15). Within days most libraries had long waitlists for the titles.
Nevertheless, of course, those copies will eventually wear out and will not be able to be replaced.
The Problems and Implications of Neutrality
The Problem of Neutrality
The LIS conception of IF has drawn criticism for being the antithesis to social
responsibility or social justice. The focus on IF as conceptualized by the ALA applies a principle
of neutrality as a professional commitment that is inherently problematic for many who advocate
for social justice issues (Knox, 2020; Mathiesen, 2015; Scott & Saunders, 2021; Shockey, 2016).
Although there is no actual mention of neutrality in any of its standards or guidelines, there are
assumptions about neutrality in IF as either objective provision of information or, conversely, as
standing for not taking a position on controversial issues (Scott & Saunders, 2021).
Shockey (2016) posited that ALA control over LIS curriculum (through accreditation) is
mainly to blame for this situation. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that credentialed librarians
hold stronger allegiances to the ALA principles of IF than non-degreed library staff, their
professional ethics trumping even their own conflicting beliefs at times (Oltmann, 2019;
Wickham & Sweeney, 2018). The controversy around IF, censorship, and neutrality is intense
since it gets at the heart of professional ethics and responsibility. Scott and Saunders (2021)
argued that librarians make decisions around the content of materials based on judgment
constantly, not just with collection development but also displays and programs. In answering
reference questions, librarians are making judgments about credibility and authority. They point
out that aiming for objectivity is not the same as neutrality.
Two experiments in the literature are revealing. Researchers who approached reference
librarians inquiring about materials to learn how to make a bomb found that not one librarian
25

objected. The researchers speculated that librarians’ commitment to their professional ethics
outweighed any sense of responsibility to society (Dowd, 1989; Scott & Saunders, 2021). In a
very recent study, Scott and Saunders surveyed 540 librarians across the United States on the
notion of neutrality in the profession. The majority strongly agreed with the statement “neutrality
is an important professional value in the library field,” and “librarians should remain neutral in
the provision of library services,” although they were inconsistent when defining neutrality or
agreeing on what librarians should be neutral about.
Neutrality As Color-Blindness
The concept of neutrality is sometimes framed as a way to bypass implicit and explicit
bias; in fact, LIS often uses the alternative terms “objective” or “unbiased.” Scholars of critical
theory, especially CRT, argue that the notion of neutrality framed this way is tantamount to
color-blind ideology, what Leung and Lopez-McKnight (2021) preferred to call color
evasiveness. They assert that implicit and explicit bias is inherent in the human condition, and
thus the goal of neutrality is disingenuous in that it is impossible. The concept of neutrality,
while conceived of as providing equity, upholds bias because it upholds the status quo (Chiu et
al., 2021).
Neutrality as a framework for library work is used as a means to bypass all forms of
implicit and explicit bias … but because explicit and implicit bias is inherent to the
human experience, this is not achievable. To argue for neutrality or objectivity as the
framework for all library activities is to leave workers and institutions with the
impossible task of providing a one-size-fits-all service to the public with subjective
guidelines, which actually works to perpetuate harmful behavior. (p. 56)
26

For CRT scholars in LIS, neutrality equates to unacknowledged Whiteness, which
reinforces the homogeneity of the profession and the racist history of libraries (Brook et al.,
2015; Drabinski, 2019; Espinal et al., 2018; Honma, 2005; Leung & Lopez-McKnight, 2021).
Neutrality and Collection Development
Chiu et al. (2021) argued that library collections represent the key CRT concept of
Whiteness as property and that framing collection development in terms of neutrality thwarts
meaningful discussion about equity in collections, “historically, it is in collection development
that morality conflates with neutrality” (p. 63). The neutral frame holds that all viewpoints are
equally valid and deserve equal space in the collection, and by extension scaffolds the First
Amendment frame that all book banning is bad since it disturbs the balance that neutrality brings.
Neutrality and Social Justice
Despite the written policies and guidelines from the ALA, there continues to be tension
around definitions of IF and censorship. Knox and Oltmann (2018) interviewed librarians on
these issues. They found some librarians using an expansive definition of censorship in line with
the ALA, where some librarians preferred a narrow definition similar to arguments used by
would-be book banners. Knox and Oltmann identified a long-standing tension between concepts
of social justice and IF that arises from incongruent perspectives and priorities. Centering IF,
they argue, means certain opinions are not heard, while centering social justice elevates the
voices of the marginalized. They contend that this argument is intrinsically about the future
direction of librarianship.
In a similar vein, Mathiesen (2015) suggested that librarians value neutrality because of
valuing equality and social justice and that information is a social justice issue, a fact that
intersects with the mission of libraries to provide equal access. Researchers in LIS have studied
27

how libraries promote social justice and the ways that library collections can support social
justice work (Jaeger et al., 2015; Jaeger et al., 2016). Social justice is one of the central tenets of
CRT and other related critical theories (Bell, 1995; Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Crenshaw, 1995;
Delgado, 1989; Dunbar, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1998).
After pressure from membership in light of the murder of George Floyd in 2021, the
ALA issued a Resolution to Condemn White Supremacy and Fascism as Antithetical to Library
Work and charged a working group to “review neutrality rhetoric, and identify alternatives”
(ALA, 2021 p. 2). As of the time of writing, the options on the table are radical empathy, trauma-
informed response, and cultural humility (ALA, 2022).
Librarian Support for Intellectual Freedom
Although an essential tenet of the library profession, very little research has been
undertaken on librarians’ perceptions and beliefs regarding IF, particularly in the United States
(Dresang, 2006; Knox, 2014; Oltmann, 2016), the scant research in this area tends to focus on IF
and Internet filtering for pornography. As an example, the Harkovitch et al. (2003) survey of
public librarians in Seattle found that most agreed with the ALA Code of Ethics, even though
more than one-third felt it conflicted with their personal beliefs. Oltmann (2016, 2019) has
conducted several studies on the question of collections in her surveys of public librarians in the
Midwest. In her 2016 study in the state of Ohio, she found robust agreement with principles of IF
despite almost 40% reporting a level of conflict between personal and professional values. She
found very much the same in her broader survey of the Midwest, recalling Busha’s earlier work
in that location (Oltmann, 2019a).
In Oltmann’s qualitative study of public library directors in Kentucky, participants
generally made a direct connection between IF and diverse collections. They believed that
28

principles of IF gave them the justification and explanation for diverse collections. One
respondent discussed the importance of balance in the collection, including “everything from
political issues to religious issues to issues of the day to making sure the minorities in our
community are being taken into consideration” (Oltmann, 2016, p. 308). Library directors used
IF principles as tools in their justifications to patrons who questioned materials. They believed
that practicing IF helped them more completely serve their communities.
Diversity in Collections
While the majority of public libraries surveyed in Library Journal’s Diverse Materials
Survey (Vercelletto, 2019) claim they make a point of purchasing diverse materials, many
studies are still finding a lack of diversity on the shelves. Hughes-Hassell et al. (2012) examined
school library collections for adequate representation of LGBTQ+ materials. They found them
seriously lacking in all areas, with particular deficits noted in such areas as sexual health,
bullying, or gay rights, along with a dearth of biographies on LGBTQ+ individuals. Tjoumas
(1993) conducted a survey of public library holdings of Native American literature for young
people and found very little, even in institutions located in areas with large Native American
communities. Williams and Deyoe (2014) researched youth collections of more than 5000
libraries for diverse titles using a checklist they constructed from book awards and
bibliographies. They then compared titles with holdings listing in OCLC WorldCat records. They
found that, while there were significant variations across library type and region, all the libraries
were under-collecting in diverse titles, some having none of the materials they looked for. The
Library Journal survey found that while 73 percent of librarians consider diverse collections a
personal goal, only 53 percent had a formal policy stating this (Vercelletto, 2019).
29

Several scholars argue that library collections are sites of social power (Lugo Vázquez,
2021; Wickham & Sweeney, 2018). Lugo Vázquez (2021) made the argument that:
collections portray and carry the past, present, and future of White hegemonic structures
and racial inequalities of society and libraries. While library workers and those in charge
of developing the collection come and go, collections are steadier and are more
representative of society’s ideologies. (p. 180)
Wickham and Sweeney’s 2018 case study of a southern, rural public library’s youth
collections questioned collection development policies and practices. They found evidence of
color-blind selection policies and determined that collection development and maintenance
practices contributed to structural racism resulting in an overrepresentation of White authors and
books that centered characters and narratives that reflect White privilege. They suggest this is
unsurprising as:
Library collections are sites of culture and politics that are institutionally produced and
reproduced. They represent significant financial investments for a community and result
in a sense of communal property that has been built over time and through the accretion
of thousands of decisions. In this way, collections carry the past forward and provide the
informational foundation for patrons’ identity, future decision-making, and discovery.
Collections should be thought of as structural features of the library institution, since they
transcend both individuals and time.
In the same way that public policy shapes access to public resources such as
financial aid or housing, so too do library collection development policies shape access to
information about the world by crafting the landscape of the collection. Collections
convey whose lives, experiences, and knowledge are valued based on the kinds of
30

representations available. Collection development policies that have historically
privileged Whiteness can create information resource gaps between White and minority
racial groups that have long-term compounding effects. (Wickham & Sweeney, 2018, pp.
90–91)
Wickham and Sweeney’s case study of a public library uncovered a dated collection
managed by nonprofessional support staff. While researching the children’s collection, they
found many items that included overt racist tropes, tokenism, and narratives driven by color-
blind ideology. In a community where over 60% of residents were African American people of
color authored only about 2% of picture books. When analyzing the juvenile biography
collection, over 84% were biographies of White people. Ample evidence, they argued, to
conclude that the library is transmitting Whiteness.
Bowers et al. (2017) reviewed the holdings of the University of Denver, where they
found significant gaps in materials related to Native Americans of the area. While
acknowledging the difficulty of collecting materials from communities that are based in oral
tradition rather than written historical record, they recognize
the importance of the counternarrative and its ability to counter the erasure of the
marginalized culture by the dominant culture … [and] can hold emotional power for the
communities who can discover themselves existing in archives where they did not
previously feel seen. (Bowers et al., 2017, p. 163)
They also remind White librarians of the importance of avoiding paternalistic attitudes towards
marginalized communities in collecting relevant materials to avoid continuing the history of
White supremacy.
31

A study from 2021 found that while librarians were committed to collecting a “diverse set
of views,” there was no mention of “diverse books” or “diversity in books” from over 500
librarians surveyed (Scott & Saunders, 2021). This may reflect problems with the catch-all
definition of diversity that tends to deflect from tough conversations around White supremacy
and structural racism (Ahmed, 2007).
The Importance of Diverse Books
Every reader his book, every book its reader
—S. R. Ranganathan, The Five Laws of Library Science
Many scholars have restated Bishop’s concept of books as both windows and mirrors
(Bishop, 1990). Diverse books allow individuals from diverse communities to see themselves
reflected in their reading. This concept is emphasized in the We Need Diverse Books vision
statement for “a world in which all children can see themselves in the pages of a book” (WNDB,
n.d.). As windows into other people’s lived experiences, books can build cultural competence
and foster acceptance and empathy (Naidoo, 2014; Oltmann, 2017; Wickhman & Sweeney,
2018; Williams & Deyoe, 2014).
The ALA statement on diverse collections specifies “librarians have a professional
responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in collection development” (para. 3). Going further
than the idea of community representation is the recommendation that even if a library is serving
a relatively homogenous community, there is an imperative to provide diverse materials and not
selecting materials about or by minorities because it is thought these groups or identities are not
represented in a community is unsound. (ALA, 2006).
Youth who are questioning or identify as LGBTQ+ can struggle with feelings of isolation
and alienation. Library books that feature teen protagonists with similar experiences provide
32

support and legitimization, allowing them to see themselves as valued (Hughes-Hassell et al.,
2012; Williams & Deyoe, 2014). In addition, reading about other lived experiences fosters
acceptance and empathy (Oltmann, 2017; Williams & Deyoe, 2014). The Association for Library
Service to Children white paper asserts the importance of diverse literature for several explicit
reasons, including representing characters with similar experiences and emotions and promoting
cultural competence (Naidoo, 2014). Williams and Deyoe (2014) pointed out that with the
population diversifying quickly it is also in the best interests of libraries to provide diverse
collections to stay relevant.
Arguably, part of the problem is a dearth of diverse literature being published for libraries
to collect (Tyner, 2021; Williams & Deyoe, 2014). Although, in a recent survey by Library
Journal, only 12 percent of respondents claimed to have difficulty finding diverse materials
(Vercelletto, 2019). Frequently when diverse characters are included in books, they are
inauthentically presented reinforcing damaging stereotypes (Williams & Deyoe, 2014).
Diversity Audits
An international survey from 2017 found broad support for diversity in collections. For
example, 72% of respondents claimed that they were using or planned to use DEI goals in
collection development (OCLC Research Library Partnership, 2017). However, in 2019 Library
Journal’s Diversity Survey found only 9% of respondents reported conducting a diversity audit,
with another 14% planning to do so (Vercelletto, 2019). Diversity audits seek to assess
collections for inclusivity in terms of representations of race, gender, sexual orientation, ability,
and other traditionally marginalized perspectives, by providing data that illuminates the
homogeneity of a library collection and identifies gaps in the representation of different groups
33

and cultures. This can be a massive undertaking for overburdened public service staff, so each
organization finds its own inroads and priorities (Jensen, 2018).
Rather than attempting to audit all 450,000 items in their collections, Skokie Public
Library began with smaller high areas and analyzed the materials used in storytimes, book
discussions, and movie screenings. They reasoned that “at the very least libraries have an
obligation to make sure that we are not highlighting or promoting these works in any way that
contributes to a culture that is harmful for some of our patrons” (Mortensen, 2019, p. 28).
Starting small is at least starting, and organizations report that the exercise raises awareness of
the issues that have an effect on programming, purchasing, displays, and other facets of library
work. It also gives data on a baseline to measure improvements moving forward (Mortensen,
2019). Mortensen (2019) added an important caveat, “An audit does not erase the need for
publishers to champion writers from marginalized groups, nor will it necessarily catch a book
that features diversity but includes stereotypes or inaccuracies” (p. 31)
Diversity audits are a tempting means to attempt to benchmark and impose accountability
measures; however, there are unresolved issues. Definitions of what constitutes diversity and
how constructs are applied and by whom is problematic. Subject headings applied during
cataloging are at best out of date, and at worst offensive. Efforts by heterogeneous librarians to
assign diverse identifiers to materials or authors has the potential to cause unintended harm.
Conceptual Framework
This study uses the theoretical framework of critical postmodern theory. Critical theory
has its roots in critical legal studies and is an umbrella for a number of associated theories.
Scholars associate the beginnings of critical theory with the Frankfurt School, although in the
broader sense it encompasses a range of approaches including neo-Marxism, neo-feminism,
34

queer theory, CRT, critical disability theory, and the emerging field of critical librarianship or
critical library work (Bales, 2017; Ortiz & Jani, 2010).
Critical theories have a focus on critiquing and changing society rather than merely
explaining it. Critical librarianship has emerged as an offshoot of other critical theories. The
central idea is to use critical theory to interrogate the historical, political, and social
underpinnings of assumptions and practices within the profession (Drabinski, 2019; Leung &
Lopez-McKnight, 2021). Critical librarians concern themselves with understanding power in
library structures and systems, questioning whose voices are left out. Followers are dedicated to
bringing social justice principles into LIS and library work to disrupt structural inequalities and
White supremacy. According to the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a
division of ALA, critical librarianship includes “engagement with diversity, information ethics,
access to information, commodification of information, labor, academic freedom, human rights,
engaged citizenry, and neoliberalism” (Garcia, n.d. para.6).
For many, the critical librarianship movement is seen to have an unapologetic activist and
social justice orientation (Barr-Walker & Sharifi, 2019; Beilin, 2018; Ferretti, 2021). The
movement has garnered a good deal of attention and is gaining momentum as talk of critical
scholarship moves into mainstream discussion. Most of the focus of critical librarianship has
been on pedagogy in schools of LIS but critical scholarship is also growing in areas such as
cataloging and classification and questions of access (Ferretti, 2021). As an emerging field of
study, the theory behind critical librarianship remains largely nebulous in direction and, as with
other critical theories, the movement appears mostly concerned with practical application. As
Beilin (2018) stated, “It is difficult for librarians and/or LIS scholars as a group to agree on what
the primary or defining characteristics of critical librarianship are” (p. 195). This is further
35

expression of the continued tension between theory and practice that undergirds LIS discussed
throughout this chapter. A few scholars of LIS have introduced the notion of informational
justice, defined as the just treatment of people as seekers, sources, and subjects of information, as
a related concept (Mathiesen, 2015).
The concepts of CRT are helpful for this research, when applied broadly at the
intersections with other marginalized communities outside of the Black/White binary that centers
race and racism. In researching questions of diversity, the framework needs to incorporate a
critical approach that focuses on all subordination based on identities and that centers and uplifts
the voices of communities of color, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities (broadly defined to
include physical, sensory, cognitive, intellectual, or developmental disabilities), immigrants, and
other ethnic, cultural and religious minorities. Social justice is a key theme of CRT and many
other critical theories and has a role in shaping the framework of this research.
One of the principles advanced by critical librarians leans on the CRT tenet of counter-
storytelling. CRT stresses the importance of counter-storytelling as centering the stories of
marginalized people (Delgado, 1989). Hughes-Hassell (2013), among others, argues that diverse
library collections are positioned to provide counter-stories to the dominant narrative and “make
the oppression and victimization of people of color and indigenous peoples visible – visible to
themselves and to the majority culture” (p. 225). Additionally, the idea of revisionist history was
important in this chapter as far as possible when reviewing the literature on the history of
libraries. Much of the history of libraries, as with history writ large, has been written from the
dominant perspective.
Critical theories are constructivist in nature and concerned with the relationships between
culture, ideology, and power: how they are produced, reproduced and changed. Since culture,
36

ideology, and power are constantly evolving affecting the ways in which people construct
meaning, form their identities, and interact with each other.
Under the lens of critical theory, institutional arrangements are socially constructed
mechanisms that regulate and create norms for social interaction. They are a reflection of the
beliefs and values of dominant societal groups and inherently reflect bias (Delgado & Stefancic,
1997). In turn, the library as a cultural institution, including professional organizations,
influences the perceptions and practices of the individual librarian through transmission of
professional ideals such as IF and neutrality. The librarian has influence over the library’s
collection. A feedback loop functions to perpetuate the continuous and iterative cycle that shapes
both the culture and practices of the profession. In order to interrupt the cycle reflexive critique
and disruptive practices must reveal the power imbalances inherent in society.
Conclusion
In sum, intellectual freedom is a core value of the library profession yet there is a lack of
clarity in defining it and in how to apply it to library work, especially library collections. Public
library collections are community property, funded by local taxation. Yet they largely represent
the dominant voices. Authentic representation is challenging in the face of a neutral and broad
anti-censorship position. Librarians value ideals of social justice but are simultaneously
hampered by the professions’ reliance on objectivity. When engaged in collection development
librarians are cautioned to be alert for implicit bias, yet there is evidence that self-censorship is a
problem, whatever the motivation.
Philosophical problems for the profession are muddying the waters of the practical work
to be done. Diverse collections benefit the community by providing materials that act as mirrors
and windows and provide counter-stories to the dominant ideology. Diversity audits are one way
37

that librarians have tried to bring awareness to the gaps in public library collections but are not
without issues.
38

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the beliefs and perceptions of public librarians
regarding the importance of and extent of community representation, diversity, and inclusion
within their collections. A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in line with the
underlying constructivist paradigm was designed to draw on tenets of critical librarianship. This
chapter outlines the methodology of the research.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What are the values and beliefs of librarians regarding the importance of diversity and
representation in public library collections?
2. What are the perceptions of public librarians regarding the extent to which their
collection is representative of their community?
Research Setting
This inquiry took place in the field of librarianship. The stakeholders of interest for this
study were public librarians in the United States. According to the most recent Public Libraries
Survey from the IMLS, there are 16,607 public libraries and 671 bookmobiles operating in this
country. The total number of full-time employees working in public libraries is 143,882, with
34,006 of those being librarians with an ALA-accredited MLIS degree (Pelczar et al., 2021). To
get a sample of librarians’ perceptions and activities, a typical purposeful sample was selected in
order to understand the average librarian (Patton, 2015). The participants for the study were
chosen from volunteers via a library worker social media group with over 10,000 members.
Criteria for inclusion consisted of those librarians with ALA-accredited MLIS degrees and at
39

least 5 years of professional experience that includes collection development and maintenance
responsibilities.
The Researcher
Positionality was important to consider in designing and conducting this research. Critical
self-reflection regarding how the researcher’s worldview, biases, and assumptions might affect a
study is an essential strategy for maximizing credibility and trustworthiness. Importance should
be placed on transparency around how the researcher affects or is affected by the research. Self-
reflection was vital throughout the project to mitigate any influence of my worldview on the
research and findings. According to Saunders (2019), researchers often bring their own values
into their research. No matter what participants reveal during the interview process, the
researcher must remain non-judgmental, sensitive, and respectful of the participants.
As a White woman, I represent the homogenous dominant group that is librarians and had
to be mindful not to center themselves in the work. As a librarian and the research instrument,
and yet with no professional ties to the participants, I effectively functioned as an “outsider
insider” (Patton, 2002). Potential power liabilities exist since librarianship is a small and tight-
knit profession, particularly at the national level, so this possibility had to be considered. In
reflecting on my identity as a White woman, I undoubtedly benefit from the diversity deficit in
terms of opportunities and privilege in librarianship and higher education. However, as a library
leader, I am committed to being part of the solution to this deep-seated problem. There are only
benefits to diversifying the profession and raising awareness of who is being well served by their
public service and who is further marginalized. As McIntosh points out, studying systems of
privilege strengthens compassion and refills our “banks of privilege” (TED, 2012).
40

I was born and raised in the United Kingdom living there for 3 decades before
immigrating to the United States, and as such I was not enculturated in the same heavily rights-
based culture as the respondents in this study. The UK has several laws against hate speech and
freedom of speech does have restrictions. This is a small, but salient, part of my social identity
that informs my worldview and relates to this study.
Data Sources
The qualitative method of choice for the study was exclusively semi-structured
interviews.
Interviews
This study utilized semi-structured interviews. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
most qualitative interviews are semi-structured in design, allowing for the associated qualitative
paradigm that assumes individuals define their world in unique ways. In addition, a semi-
structured design can provide balance in eliciting the rich data needed for the study, with a
relatively inexperienced interviewer.
Participants
The target population for the study was public librarians who have responsibility for
collection development. Therefore, it was appropriate to interview them to understand their
perceptions of their collections as well as their beliefs and values around collection development
activities regarding the representation of marginalized populations within the community they
serve.
A convenience sample of 12 public librarians was recruited using social media. A
Facebook group (Library Think Tank) with 46,500 members was solicited for people willing to
participate. The study used a criterion-based purposeful sample to elicit rich data relevant to the
41

research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Having a purposeful approach to sampling was
also intended to achieve diversity of geographic location. The criteria were typical professional
librarians who work at public libraries and are responsible for some aspect of collection
development or management. Further criteria included professionals who hold an ALA-
accredited MLIS degree and at least 5 years of experience so that rich and valuable data could be
elicited from a small sample.
Instrumentation
As a librarian, I used my professional knowledge and experience to design an interview
protocol that accurately taps into the respondents’ perceptions. The interview protocol was
standardized and mostly made up of open-ended questions with some demographic questions for
context. Suggested prompts were built into the protocol that assisted with probing for particulars.
Relatively descriptive questions were asked at the beginning of the interview to set a neutral tone
before moving on to the more subjective ones. It was expected that the respondent would have
eased into the experience and felt more comfortable answering the more value-laden questions
(Patton, 2002). Truly open-ended questions made up the bulk of the questions and worked to
uncover how the librarians felt about representation in the collection and their professional
responsibility to IF principles. The instrument was designed with plenty of room for the
librarians’ experiences to shape the interview process.
Asking the participants about a specific well-known example of controversial stereotypes
in classic children’s literature (the Dr Seuss controversy mentioned above) was intended to draw
out how, if at all, the respondents resolved their personal feelings about potentially harmful
materials and their confounding professional obligations to IF and diversity. This relates back to
the conceptual framework and research questions. See Appendix A for instrumentation.
42

Data Collection Procedures
Interviews took place over the Zoom online platform and lasted 45–60 minutes.
Interviews were recorded, and the built-in transcription tool was used to capture accurate data as
recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). This method also allowed participants to be
geographically remote from the researcher as necessary for a varied and representative sample of
librarians.
Data Analysis
Data analysis followed Creswell’s (2014) model. The model comprises six stages that
build on each other deductively. The first stage involves organizing and preparing the data for
analysis. In this case, the built-in transcription tool in the Zoom platform was utilized. The
second stage involved exhaustively reading through all data followed by an interrogation of the
data to identify emerging patterns and/or themes. I employed the NVivo™ computer-assisted
qualitative data analysis software to code the data into general themes and iteratively into
categories. From there, narrative descriptions of categories were generated to aid in interpreting
the data. As recommended by Corbin and Strauss (2015), several passes of the data were
necessary in order to extract open and axial codes for constant comparison in order to help in
evaluation.
Validity and Reliability
Several strategies were employed to address the issues of validity and reliability. The
most straightforward plan for ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of the study was
member checking. This is where the researcher solicits feedback on the findings as they emerge
to rule out any misinterpretations or misunderstandings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I discussed tentative findings with peers and all respondents were invited to
43

review the interview transcripts. Finally, all participants were offered a copy of the completed
research paper. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also suggested that adequate engagement in
collecting data is another strategy and one that I made every effort for as part of a reflexive
process. They recommended that data collection continue until saturation is reached, in other
words, when nothing new emerges from the data collection. While the sample for this study was
small this point was well met with the data.
Additionally, for confirmability, I committed to a robust audit trail, a detailed account of
the process and decisions taken during data collection is open to scrutiny if needed. The use of a
standardized instrument (Appendix A) is recommended by Patton (2002). Finally, interview
questions that elicit rich, thick descriptions providing sufficient description for the research
context built out the plan for ensuring a rigorous study that sought to address transferability.
Ethics
Researchers are obliged to ensure ethical practices when conducting interviews for
research (Glesne, 2011). Procedures adhered to University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board guidelines and the researcher was mindful of ethical issues such as avoiding
power imbalances and treating all participants the same (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
voluntary nature of participation was emphasized, and informed consent was obtained prior to
data collection. The purpose of the research was explained via an information sheet provided
before the scheduled interview. The information sheet included a reminder that the participant
was free to leave the study at any time. All recordings, notes, and other communications were
de-identified, and the names of participants were omitted or changed prior to any publication. I
obtained permission to record the interaction at the beginning of every interview. Raw data were
stored on a password-protected hard drive as recommended (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
44

Member checking formed an integral part of the process for ensuring reliability and
ethical integrity. Each participant was provided a copy of a transcript of the interview and
allowed to confirm their responses. They were also offered a copy of the final report. I
maintained a robust audit trail, with transcripts of the interviews available for interrogation.

45

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the beliefs and perceptions of public librarians
regarding the importance and extent of community representation, diversity, and inclusion within
their collections. The qualitative study used a theoretical framework of critical postmodernism to
interrogate the historical, political, and social underpinnings of assumptions and practices within
the library profession. The following questions were proposed to guide the study:
1. What are the values and beliefs of librarians regarding the importance of diversity and
representation in public library collections?
2. What are the perceptions of public librarians regarding the extent to which their
collection is representative of their community?
Findings were substantiated by an analysis of data collected through semi-structured
interviews with 12 public librarians who have some responsibilities for collection development.
Interviews were conducted via video conferencing to mitigate geographical limitations and
COVID-19 social distancing restrictions that were in place nationally at the time of data
collection.
Participants
The participants involved in the study were 12 librarians from different public libraries in
the United States. The researcher recruited credentialed librarians with at least 5 years of
professional experience that included some responsibility for collection development. While
participants self-selected to participate in the research, the resulting sample was nonetheless
information-rich and heterogenous by library size and geographic location. The librarians have
been assigned pseudonyms for this study, as presented in Table 2 to protect their anonymity. The
librarians represented a variety of work roles, including youth services, reference and readers’
46

advisory, collection and bibliographic services, and one librarian was retired. Their collection
responsibilities varied by degree of autonomy and format collected, ranging from selecting and
deaccession of one format for multiple branches, to weeding one collection area and forwarding
patron or replacement requests to a centralized department for purchase. The librarians varied in
terms of career length from 5 years to almost 40 years, and their ages ranged from late twenties
to early seventies. Many of the participants said that they lived in heavily conservative
communities, yet most said their communities were diverse.
Participants were not selected based on their personal demographic information, but some
identity features were noted, given that a person’s lived experience will influence their
worldview. One participant was male, with the rest female. Participants were asked if they
personally identified with any marginalized communities. Four respondents self-identified as
part of the LGBTQ+ community and three self-identified as people of color. To maintain
confidentiality, names of librarians and libraries have been replaced, and location is identified at
the state level only.

47

Table 1
Participant Demographics
Pseudonym Location
Demographic
characteristics
Avery CO Female
White
Billie NH Female
White
Casey NV Male
Person of color
LGBTQ+
Drew SC Female
White
Elliot FL Female
Person of color
Frankie SC Female
White
Gene CA Female
White
LGBTQ+
Harper IL Female
White
Izzy CO Female
White
Jo SC Female
White
Kendall WA Female
White
LGBTQ+
Lee AZ Female
Person of color

48

While there was some overlap of data around the two research questions this is
understandable since the conceptual framework speaks to the interplay and feedback loop
between the conceptual elements. Nonetheless, for organization, the two research questions are
presented with the data analysis that supports it most clearly.
Research Question 1: What Are the Values and Beliefs of Librarians Regarding the
Importance of Diversity and Representation in Public Library Collections?
The study protocol was designed to uncover librarians’ values and beliefs about the
importance of diversity and representation in the collections they manage and how those values
might affect their decision-making around selecting and deselecting materials. The research
uncovered the ways in which the professional principle of intellectual freedom operates in
practice and how much librarians’ personal and professional values align. There were several
findings around librarians’ values and how those values influence decisions about collections.
Finding: Librarians Strongly Identify With Professional Values of Intellectual Freedom
Core Values and Professional Pride as Well as Champions of Diversity
The data showed that the librarians aligned with the professions’ core values. Just as
Oltmann (2016) found, respondents made a direct connection between intellectual freedom and
diverse collections. There was a conditioned understanding of intellectual freedom (IF) as
conceived of by the ALA and presumably shaped by LIS curricula based on the staple textbook
The Intellectual Freedom Manual compiled by the ALA OIF. The librarians generally conflated
IF with First Amendment rights and framed it in expansive terms. Casey asserted, “We try to do
our best to represent all types of materials.” All the librarians framed IF in terms of First
Amendment rights and alluded to an equivalency even if they did not explicitly declare it. It was
clear from the interviews that the librarians strongly identified their professional obligations with
49

their patrons’ constitutional rights. Izzy was the only one to refer explicitly to the First
Amendment, but all of the librarians talked about censorship as undesirable.
All the librarians had an attitude of professional pride when discussing their
responsibilities around intellectual freedom. Avery stated directly, “One of the things I’m most
proud of in being a librarian is that we fight for intellectual freedom.” They asserted a passion for
intellectual freedom and added, “Knowing that we’re champions [of that] has meant a great deal
to me.” Drew agreed: “I think it [IF] is a very strong commitment that we have to our community
as librarians and for me myself, but especially as degree-holding librarians, I think that’s
extremely important to us” and went on to reference Ranganathan’s laws as support. Jo also
invoked Ranganathan—the sine qua non of LIS curricula—during the discussion. Jo was
forthright, “When I came out of library school, you know I came out breathing fire, and I was
ready to fight censorship wherever I found it!” whereas Billie’s passion for intellectual freedom
was what drew them to switch to a career in librarianship after seeing a discussion on television
about intellectual freedom.
The respondents also all considered themselves advocates for diversity. Avery’s pride
was evident when they talked about how they had joined the DEI committee and attended LGBT
book discussions. They communicated a great depth of knowledge about niche communities and
talked about having younger friends, non-binary friends, and so on, mainly to set themselves
apart from the conservative community where they worked. For example, “One of the things that
young friends told me is how much manga has changed … there was dinosaur sex and then there
was tentacle sex.” They were critical of one supervisor for claimed they were open-minded, but
“you aren’t talking to young people … you don’t know what a furry is!”
50

Two of the librarians talked about how their response to attacks on diversity was to
double their efforts, almost as a provocation. If someone attacked their Pride display, they added
more rainbows: “These teens were destroying our displays. They were tearing up the paper
displays. They were hiding the books around … and because that was happening, we doubled
down, and we made it bigger, and we made it better.”
The librarians frequently communicated how much work they had done in the name of
diversity. They talked with fervor about their efforts for diversity: “I do my best not just to order
but to recommend books featuring LGBT romance.” “I’m the reason we’ve made some policy
changes.” This passion signaled that the librarians very much aligned their sense of self with
defending their communities whether from attacks on the First Amendment or in defense of
social justice, almost as super-heroes. Elliot expounded that they had come to librarianship as a
profession because of idolizing DC Comic’s Batgirl.
In an echo of the superhero trope, the respondents frequently appeared to feel like they
were fighting the good fight alone, or at least doing a better job than their colleagues do. “I know
that when I put up a romance display, I’m putting a bunch of gay romances on there — I know
other people aren’t doing that,” said Jo. This sentiment appears to add to the construct of
librarians as champions for the diversity cause. Another example was the librarian who, when
asked by a local daycare teacher to select a few books for them to pick up, pointed out that while
they would always make a point of including diverse titles. At the same time, they added that
their coworkers would likely not, “unless someone asked for diverse books, they wouldn’t think
they would want them,” and so would intentionally not include them.
In analyzing the data, it became apparent that the librarians mostly kept the conversation
around LGBTQ+ materials, as opposed to race and ethnicity, whether from a sense of comfort
51

with those materials, or because they were seen as less problematic in some way. The
demographics of the librarians included equal numbers of those from the LGBTQ+ community
and people of color. There was very little discussion about other marginalized communities such
as people with disabilities, immigrants, and so on, although they were not entirely ignored. This
exposed opportunities for further work.
Finding: Librarians Lean Into Their Professional Values to Defend Book Challenges
An expansive or inclusive framing of intellectual freedom was used to defend against
book challenges from the outside. Self-censorship by other librarians was treated similarly.
However, oblique censorship based on notions of literary quality was viewed differently.
Book Challenges and Bans
Book banning is a constant current news story. The librarians were all keen to talk about
recent book challenges or book banning. As with previous studies, most of the respondents’
organizations had a process and policy to address book challenges. The respondents were all able
to confirm the presence of a formal collection development policy (CDP) that spelled out the
process for a request for reconsideration that was developed in line with ALA recommendations.
They all agreed that any complaints or challenges they were aware of rarely went as far as to
begin the formal procedures. Most often, the complainant just wanted to be heard. In quite a few
instances, the process was never triggered because the complainant had not read the material,
therefore ruling their complaint out. However, this knowledge did not assuage concerns the
librarians had over the rising tide of complaints in the current climate.
Many of the librarians expressed fear, either their own or their coworkers, that book
challenges were increasingly inevitable “because you know when people hear about things in
other places.” Most of the librarians reported that the current climate had prompted their
52

organizations to update their CDP or tighten up their request for reconsideration procedures in
anticipation. As Jo pointed out, “you know you don’t want to have your challenge policy dated
the day you get your challenge.” Several others reported recent staff training on dealing with
challenges or expressions of concern. Harper said:
We are expecting fully for there to be challenges to materials. Definitely, in the school
libraries, and you know, as a public library being aware of this, we’re trying to prepare
ourselves for this also. So, just trying to have kind of, I guess, prepared statements, you
know, talking points for staff who are on desk who may be confronted by people directly,
so they’re not taken entirely off guard. Often these people [are] filming them.
Jo remarked, “Right now challenges are the new hotness, and we are prepared. Oh yeah, very
fashionable,” explaining that they had approached their administration to request staff training
“because people are scared. People are really worried about it. … We are 100% expecting it to
happen here.”
Elliot also talked about creeping concern at their organization, “simply because there’s so
much on social media and you know hearing about some of those librarians who’ve lost their
jobs because they would not remove those books. Look at Maus! Look at Gender Queer! Those
have been attacked!” In 2021 Gender Queer topped the ALA’s 10 most challenged books list for
LGBTQ content and because it was considered to have sexually explicit images. A Texas public
librarian was fired for refusing to remove this book and others from the library’s shelves. In
February 2022, a Tennessee school board voted to pull the Pulitzer Prize-winning Holocaust
graphic novel Maus from the shelves. All respondents were aware of this rising tide of book
banning nationwide.
53

Acts of Self-Censorship
While the librarians were all very clear about the danger of outside censorship a notable
exception is the act of self-censorship, which very much falls outside professional ethics. As
found in the Library Journal survey (Vercelletto, 2019), librarians in this study talked about self-
censorship as a response to the perceived threat of potential challenges. There was evidence that
librarians are censoring their behavior by not purchasing items, relocating or hiding materials, or
otherwise affecting the availability of materials. One librarian reported,
[A coworker] told me when a new book came in—she was very proud of this—that if the
bodice ripper was too explicit, she would take those out of the new book display and put
them on the shelves. … They were always just terribly concerned parents would see this
and object.
They also suspected that coworkers at other branches would “discard books where they thought
the covers were too dirty.” Billie reported, “I know I have staff that are probably a little
concerned about, you know, with all the challenges that are happening now. I know that they feel
that the answer to that is to hide those books,” substantiating this by divulging an occasion when
a coworker recognized some regular patrons as being very conservative and proactively hid some
controversial books from display before they encountered them. Billie talked about coworkers,
particularly at the rural branches of her organization, that were not putting materials on displays
and even going so far as to hide them.
Sometimes self-censorship took the form of moving the items to a different collection or
location in the library. Many of the respondents could talk about books that had been moved,
typically from the young adult collection to adult. Gene talked about a complaint from a patron
about a juvenile nonfiction book about body parts with “anatomically correct pictures of a boy’s
54

and a girl’s body” that got moved to the ‘parenting collection.’ When questioned about the
location and accessibility of the parenting collection, which they said was in a little side room
out of the way. They shared, “it’s not a very high circulating collection in general, so that kind of
book that gets placed in the parenting collection may as well have been weeded and pulled
because nobody’s going to see it anyway.” Two of the librarians commented that some older
problematic materials, such as Huckleberry Finn and Little House on the Prairie, had been
moved to the classics section.
Other less ambiguous sources of censorship came from elsewhere within the librarians’
organizations. Those that reported them roundly condemned these instances. Gene talked about
the older generation of librarians at her organization that were resistant to publishing library
marketing materials in Spanish and had argued against adding to the foreign languages
collection. They also mentioned that just after the George Floyd murder, the marketing
department decided against publishing a flyer that featured an image of a Black family. Frankie
talked about their administration vetoing a Black Lives Matter display after police shot a Black
man in that community. Avery was incensed by the programming department at their
organization, declaring that they did not think their community would attend diverse programs
and that “we didn’t want to have any summer reading books with brown children on them
because that would offend people in our district.” The librarians felt that these actions were
sometimes a result of ignorance, but often because that is where community challenges typically
began. The library workers were avoiding confrontation by self-censoring.
The librarians were assured about self-censorship practices as problematic when it was
being practiced by coworkers and openly condemned it as counter to professional ethics. The
55

issue of potential self-censorship in their own actions was discussed in terms that were more
ambiguous. For example, Gene said the prospect of book challenges was:
In the back of your mind when you’re ordering things or when you’re planning programs,
yes. There are times when I’ll look up a book on LGBT heroes, and [I know] I am going
to get some pushback on ‘where are all your books about the straight heroes’ because
[sigh] people!
Self-censorship was not always wholly a response to the fear of an outside challenge but
related to librarians’ values as to appropriateness or quality. Referring to an anti-trans book, Jo
did not hesitate when they declared, “I’m going to censor the hell out of it,” meaning that they
were not going to display it or promote it in any way. In other cases, self-censorship by librarians
was less apparent and subsumed under other justifications. When Billie removed a fat-shaming
book from the collection, they did it under the justification that it was old and “mediocre.” They
also did not purchase a fairy tale book that a patron requested. They were aware that according to
reviews, it contained racist stereotypes, but their official justification was that there were other
fairy tale books available and no room in the collection for more. The respondents generally did
not recognize the paradox between self-censorship (their coworkers or their own) and the
professional regard for quality.
Quality of Materials
Quality came up as an important theme in most of the interviews. The librarians all felt a
sense of professional responsibility to provide quality materials for their community. The
inference was that their education and professional credential mandated them to make judgments
on the quality of materials. This notion of quality was discussed in two different senses. Physical
quality mattered for two of the librarians. They stated it was a consideration in selection. Self-
56

published books are often lower quality with substandard bindings and less robust covers. This
gives them a shorter lifetime and makes them harder to display than a hardbound book from a
large publisher because they tend to degrade pretty quickly: “I can put that Stephen King on
display for the next 50 years because it’s made better.”
Quality as literary merit, particularly in the case of fiction, was mentioned in some way
by all the participants as a traditional criterion for selection. In the same way, the librarians
referred to accuracy and authority when assessing nonfiction materials. In assessing literary
merit, librarians traditionally rely heavily on professional reviews to indicate an item’s
worthiness. Professional reviews are found in trade publications such as Kirkus, Library Journal,
Publishers Weekly, etc. Indeed, the use of reviews is often mentioned in collection development
policies in outlining selection criteria. When Gene described their organization’s selection
policy, they said, “When we order, we do look at Kirkus and Library Journal to make sure we’re
ordering quality materials.” Elliot concurred with “making sure we’re selecting books that are
actually good. … I do a lot of checking reviews to see if the authors are considered to be, you
know, good authors.” Professional reviews are also frequently referred to when defending a book
challenge. Regarding the growing availability of diverse materials, Avery remarked that
“anytime a new market opens up, you get some lousy books.”
The concept of quality was used to justify deaccession as well as selection. Nonfiction
items are routinely weeded for being out of date. “There’s nothing worse in my eyes than seeing
shelves that are packed with obsolete material,” maintained Casey. Drew took on weeding for the
whole district because
57

sometimes you’ll have books that [are about] … topics where it’s older, and you’re like,
you can’t be keeping this and so I’ll pull them from another location because I’m like,
“Guys you can’t … we can’t … have this on our shelves.”
Such framing was also used to conveniently address challenges: Billie discussed a request for
reconsideration that they had received over a book faulted for body shaming. After
consideration, the book was removed from the collection, but on the basis that it was “mediocre”,
although Billie acknowledged the original complaint was legitimate.
The Influence of Format
Format (i.e., digital or physical) is closely tied with quality in this second meaning.
Digital media is often bought as packages and not curated by public librarians like the physical
materials are. The quality of the materials is often questionable, with self-published items and the
like. In February 2022, several public librarians pointed out that several extreme right-wing
books were available for download on one commonly purchased platform. These items included
Holocaust denial books and a sympathetic biography of Hitler. These items were removed by the
vendor shortly after, and an apology was issued (Enis, 2022).
As referred to earlier, format also affects accessibility and browsing, especially digital
formats. Still, Avery could see a positive angle, speculating that some patrons appreciate the
anonymity of digital books:
I bought books that I basically say were soft porn or whatever. But that stuff I’d buy on
Overdrive [digital] and … books [that] did not circulate in the physical collection did
well online, so I think I just decided that well people must want the privacy.
Browsability, or discoverability, of print formats, was noted by two of the librarians as a
version of self-censorship. Searching for digital materials can be challenging–one of the
58

respondents said their collection included 12 different platforms for electronic books, all of
which required searching separately. Digital materials also require a level of digital literacy,
available devices, and access to Wi-Fi. However, the fact that patrons are unlikely to stumble
across offensive materials while browsing was seen as an additional benefit for some of the
librarians:
It’s like levels of closeness, you know, digital is different than a print book, is different
than a graphic novel. … So, digital I feel like is far enough removed, it’s there if people
want it, but it’s not easily discoverable, at least not in our system.
Izzy also commented on this:
For me, dealing with digital, you don’t have that adjacency there … it’s kind of an
interesting thing because when you’re cataloging something for a physical collection,
you’re deciding it goes over there, it doesn’t go over here. You’re making a decision; we
don’t have that layer being added in our digital collection.
To illustrate, they used an example of a book challenge from a local science scholar who
objected to an unscientific book on climate change. The item was retained and defended because
it was not in the science section of the stacks, “We’re not pretending it’s, you know, a science
book; it’s definitely over in this [non-science] area.”
Finding: Librarians’ Professional Values Create Tensions Around Definitions of Harm.
The concept of harm came up quite frequently in the responses. However, there was a
lack of congruence around what constituted harm. Harm as misinformation (absence of literary
quality) was conceptualized differently than harm as offense.
59

Judgments on Harm
The framing of literary quality collides with the concept of harm, which was a theme
throughout the data. Harper talked about harmful materials such as flat earth or Holocaust denial
books:
We would never put that type of information out because we have made the
determination that this would do more harm than good; and do those books exist? Yes,
they do, but that would do more harm than good to the community.
It was clear that the librarians were making value judgments when selecting materials for the
community. They justified many of these decisions based on qualities such as literary merit,
authority, and accuracy. For the librarians, the concept of accuracy or truth would often be
framed relatively. “I will not buy your biblical cure for cancer that’s got two professional
reviews, but I will buy a book on smoothies if 500 people like it on Amazon.” At other times
truth was framed as absolute such as when Avery remembered being troubled that “someone
wanted material that would prove that we never landed on the moon … and how do you disprove
science? But there was stuff about it.”
Harmfulness was also a concept that was only applied consistently to nonfiction items.
Harper, “We don’t carry Holocaust denial materials because in our judgment, that’s false, and,
you know, it could do more harm than good.” Jo had grey areas, “I see no harm in buying books
about bigfoot, but I won’t buy books that are dangerous.” The notion of dangerous materials is
noteworthy, recalling the study on librarians and books about bomb-making discussed earlier
(Dowd, 1989). In contrast, Harper said they would not collect materials that promoted borax or
hydroxychloroquine as cures for coronavirus, while Jo said the same about books that argue
Hillary Clinton is a mass murderer. Yet conversely, Jo had an interesting perspective on the
60

controversial book Irreversible Damage: The transgender craze seducing our daughters by
Abigail Shrier. This title, published in 2020, is widely criticized for being anti-trans, the
deliberate misgendering of trans teens, and having no scientific basis for its content. The Los
Angeles Review of Books labeled it “absurd” and “dangerous” (Fonseca, 2021).
Yes, we did eventually buy it, and I really felt conflicted about it. … I feel adult
collections — we should have the books that everybody’s talking about. You know the
children’s room — children are not expected to have critical thinking capabilities. If
everybody is talking about a book and we don’t have it, I think that that is a failure on our
part and that you know you are expected professionally to give a certain amount of trust
to the reader.
Consideration of Harmful Stereotypes
This perspective was carried over to the discussion on harmful stereotypes, such as those
in the Dr. Seuss books discussed earlier. While librarians were happy to take responsibility, even
professional pride, for controversial material, this contrasted to the way they regarded racist
stereotypes in materials in the collection. These items were not treated to the same appraisal of
quality. Drew said, “We wouldn’t remove them on that basis [having offensive stereotypes]. We
would remove them if, say, for some reason, one of them was found to be, I don’t know, false in
some way.” For Drew, veracity only applied to nonfiction materials, “[picture books] aren’t
factually incorrect, I guess, you know, like a nonfiction book would be.” Kendall argued, “is it
our position to say that content does not have a place in our town.” Gene talked about an
obligation to provide a “balanced” collection and suggested that “diversity doesn’t just go one
way.” However, they also struggled with the question of including materials depicting offensive
stereotypes offering both sides of the argument before declaring, “I don’t have a strong opinion
61

about it that’s well-formed.” Lee admitted it would feel “kind of dirty” to remove the Seuss
books on that basis.
The Argument From History and Education
Every one of the librarians struggled with the issue of classic literature containing
harmful elements. They were all aware of the controversial nature of the Dr. Seuss books.
Several of them also referenced Little House on the Prairie, and Huckleberry Finn as
problematic. While they did not argue that these materials contained offensive stereotypes, all 12
librarians maintained that these items represent an educational opportunity, being hugely
influential materials, but also as opportunities to facilitate discussion on the historical context of
harmful stereotypes. Frankie summed it up well when they said, “I think there’s value in keeping
problematic things so that people understand like at one point this was acceptable but now it’s
not acceptable for these reasons.” Kendall agreed, “I mean, you could make arguments about the
historical context, especially with some of the older things that are maybe considered classics.”
Drew agreed, “what if someone wanted to see what images people thought were harmful, I
guess, and study that.”
Several of the respondents sidestepped the problem of keeping these offensive materials
by evoking the educational argument in practical ways, saying the library should provide
materials to facilitate discussions, similar to the Brooklyn Public Library approach discussed
earlier. Elliot and Drew both wanted discussion sheets to be provided along with the books.
Neither of them had such resources ready to go, however Harper’s organization had got as far as
to determine that
the best way to deal with that issue would be to create sort of a standard guide for parents
… materials about having conversations with your children. ‘So, you’ve encountered
62

sexism, you’ve encountered homophobia, you’ve encountered, you know, racist
portrayals. Here are some resources for discussing this in context with your children … to
ask why the author has made this choice, you know? What is wrong with this depiction?
Why do you think they thought this was okay? How does this make you feel?’
This exception for educational or historical context was a standard take on the problem
and is reminiscent of debates around the removal of confederate statues or memorials to slave
traders, such as during the civil unrest that occurred in the aftermath of the murder of George
Floyd. Many were torn down by protestors, others removed by authorities. It is worth noting that,
in this study one respondent revealed that their organization had just renamed a couple of
branches named after prominent local slave traders as well as recently conducting a thorough
audit of their art collection for potential harm. Despite this, they did not demonstrate awareness
of possible parallels with harmful materials in the collection.
Finding: Librarians’ Professional Values are More Significant Than Their Personal Values
in Collection Activities
The librarians’ professional values of IF and their personal values around championing
diversity were usually viewed as a comfortable congruence until the topic of offensive
stereotypes was raised. When pushed they all, even the librarians from marginalized
communities, defended their professional values and minimized their personal values.
The Concept of Neutrality
While the ALA does not use the word ‘neutrality’ in its standards, librarians tend to see
neutrality in terms of a debate about the profession’s core values. The librarians adopted an
inclusive or color-blind approach to intellectual freedom when it came to including offensive
materials, in line with the First Amendment. This approach was framed in terms of neutrality and
63

idealistically evidenced by balance in the collection. “You know, as a public library we try to
represent all viewpoints and we try to keep books that show different viewpoints.” Lee talked
about balance when they were assessing the collection and realized they had materials for only
one side of the abortion debate and felt a responsibility to acquire books from the pro-life side to
compensate. They also ensured both political parties were equally represented during election
times. Their framing was very much along typical lines:
I am really scared of being, like, top-heavy, and either way, I don’t — I always like
things to be mixed up. I hate it when I’m in a room full of only one kind of person, and
it’s even worse when you’re in a room full of, like, only one kind of book.
Other librarians had an awareness of this as problematic, such as Kendall:
It’s not really balanced, so you have two books that disagree — it’s not like a seesaw and
having hateful books doesn’t balance out books that advocate for diversity. That’s not
something that needs to be balanced. That is balanced! Like I think it’s oversimplified,
this idea that there’s only two ends of the spectrum instead when there’s any topic that
could legitimately have multiple viewpoints, like prison reform. It’s a spectrum of
different opinions. I don’t know. I think by emphasizing balance, especially in nonfiction,
that might no longer be our duty. We should maybe be looking for the best. And then that
gets difficult because now are we gatekeepers? Are we censors? Are we telling people
what they should think by only purchasing these materials?
Gene also followed professional guidelines but seemed to waver:
Where does it end, where do we stop? Because if we had to get rid of everything that was
offensive. … So, I’m not saying I agree with that argument, but I can understand and
sympathize with it — I don’t have a strong opinion about it that’s very well-formed.
64

Billie responded similarly:
I mean, it’s not complicated for me, but I think it’s a little bit of a dilemma intellectually
because, on one hand, intellectual freedom. It’s like, we selected the book. We don’t want
to pull the book. But people do make mistakes, especially your predecessors. And times
do change, so it’s not that you can never … and times do change!
While they had been confident in describing an inclusive framing of IF in terms of including
diverse materials, they were less assured when asked directly about the issue of harmful content
in the form of offensive racial stereotypes, such as those in Dr. Seuss. Most of the librarians
expressed some philosophical anguish around resolving these conflicts. For example, Izzy stated:
I’m uncomfortable with it, and I haven’t quite decided personally where I feel on it. I’m
torn. We’ve got our First Amendment rights. I want people to have access and read
things, that is, you know, we’re always going to have these dilemmas that are in conflict
with, you know, these opposing things. You can put your theoretical hat on and say
everything should be available to everybody, and then you’re standing there holding a Dr.
Seuss book that’s clearly offensive!
Similarly, Kendall had issues with the neutrality problem:
I’ve been thinking a lot about the library’s position in society, and I don’t have, like — I
haven’t made a suggestion — I don’t have a recommendation. But I know this is a
discussion a lot of librarians have been having. That you can’t be balanced and have
material on all sides and be quiet about everyone’s opinion and also be a safe space.
Those are mutually exclusive.
Harper quoted Elie Wiesel:
65

You know, “neutrality only serves the oppressor,” and, you know, it’s part of our
responsibility is making determinations about — we’ve never been truly neutral, if all of
your picture books feature White children and animals and you consider that neutral,
that’s a White assumption, that’s a White version of neutral. So, it’s challenging the idea
that we were ever neutral in the first place — We assume certain White male defaults as
neutral and just not true.
Two of the librarians of color admitted that they personally found the Seuss books
offensive, for example, but said they reconciled their feelings with their professional duties. Both
said they would push their feelings aside. Casey said,
Some of those books are really offensive to me … but, ultimately as a librarian, you
know, I have to stand with our profession and the value that certain things have whether
we disagree with the content or not. So, yeah, I try to separate.
Elliot initially wanted to downplay the effect of offensive racial tropes they encountered as a
child, “I hate it. I don’t like it. But that was the norm.” In contrast, their face lit up when asked
about the positive materials they did find, naming several authors and television shows. Star Trek
was a big influence:
[The author] did write those characters with a lot more respect. And you know, did not
treat them as freaks and with the stereotypical dialogue or anything like that. And so that
helped. Again, I turned to TV. Star Trek came out when I was 11 years old. I was feeling
like there was nothing out there, for me, and then I see Sulu, and then the green hornet
came out, and there’s Bruce Lee!
While lengthy discussion of lack of diversity in librarianship and the professions’ documented
problems with hiring and retaining librarians of color is outside the scope of this project this is
66

worth noting. If persons of color feel unable to bring their whole selves to work due to
incompatible professional values, then it is unsurprising that the needle has not moved on this.
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions of Public Librarians Regarding the Extent
to Which Their Collection Is Representative of Their Community?
All the librarians were able to describe the demographics of their communities. Ten out
of 12 described their communities as ‘diverse’ or ‘very diverse’. One of the librarians pointed out
that their community was diverse racially and ethnically but overwhelmingly politically
conservative. Typically, when discussing diversity in terms of their communities the respondents
framed it in terms of visible social identities such as race and ethnicity. Three of the respondents
were able to provide approximate demographic breakdowns by group from memory. There were
several key findings for this research question.
Finding: Librarians Believe Their Collections Are Diverse, Despite a Lack of Data
The librarians were all keen to assert that the collections they had direct responsibility for
were diverse. For example, Billie emphasized that their priority around the collection was
diversity, “like in terms of weeding and purchasing diversity would always be the final thing.”
They felt they could justify a diverse collection since they were a college town with a population
of student teachers and was critical of other less worldly colleagues who did not see things the
same. When discussing diverse materials, the construct was more widely conceptualized as
including LGBTQ communities. Only one of the librarians talked about diversity in terms of
people with disabilities.
So, while the librarians were all confident that their collections were as diverse as they
could be given the barriers described shortly, most had not done any formal assessment and so
67

had no actual data to inform this opinion. As discussed in the literature review, diversity audits
have been one tool used by some organizations to conduct assessments of collections.
Several of the respondents were aware of new library vendor products designed to assess
diversity in the collections. One of the librarians noted that these were problematic for a few
reasons, mostly to do with cataloging, subject headings being a big issue that would affect access
through discoverability. Also, being a tool of the major library materials vendors, it is
questionable as to their impartiality, and the perception is that they were created as a sales tool to
drive content purchases. Two of the respondents also mentioned the cost of these tools as a
barrier for their organizations. Nonetheless two of the librarians had had their digital collections
assessed using the vendor tools and were reassured those collections were diverse.
Jo had, conducted a partial diversity audit of their print materials, noting they had
encountered several drawbacks. They and a few of their coworkers had undergone a Library
Journal workshop on conducting diversity audits. Some work had begun towards assessing their
purchases, displays, and collections for diversity. They admitted, “Okay, an enormous job and
really difficult, and we knew it was going to be difficult, but until you actually get started, it is so
much more difficult than you think it’s going to be.” The most significant difficulty came in
agreeing on what makes an item diverse.
We kind of knew what our categories had to be, and then there was a lot of back and
forth, and we’re still not sure we really got it right. Like, does alcoholism in an author
count as ability diverse? Is a non-religious Jewish person really religiously diverse if the
book has nothing to do with it? Is someone disabled as an author if they were disabled
late in life? Like is Iris Murdoch a disabled author?
68

Frankie had already decided it was an impossible task, “I don’t know how it could be done. Like,
how are you going to count character diversity? How are you going to count author diversity?
You know, are you going to do self-identification? Like, you can’t!” Jo agreed that sourcing
information on author identity was problematic:
At the beginning we were very strict and said, okay, you can look at the publisher’s
website, the author’s website, and like, Wikipedia, and if you don’t find it there, it’s not
there. [But then there were] some people going really deep into interviews and some
people not, not everyone is consistent. But it turns out that’s not possible, and you find
yourself looking at a picture of an author and, like, am I the racist now? — We’re just
trying to come at it with good faith and clean hearts.
Kendall agreed that this was an issue, protesting that it was not her responsibility to assign
someone an identity if they did not publicly identify themselves.
Two of the librarians did have stated or unstated goals in representation for displays. Jo
saw this as challenging but a positive thing, adding that benchmarks in diversity in library
displays had proved to be helpful. They believed they kept the library staff accountable and were
highly revealing. There were some display themes that they had to abandon as they would be
unable to meet the benchmark – transport for instance. Cooking was declared to be easier.
Several of the respondents pointed to their heritage month displays as evidence of diversity in the
collection, but there were a few notable objections to this assertion. Gene was quick to point out
that this approach seemed like minimal effort, saying that for an Asian American, “it is Asian
American heritage month year-round”, and Drew talked about displaying Pride materials year-
round at the request of a teen.
69

Finding: Librarians Attribute Gaps in Collection Diversity to Several External Barriers
The respondents all appealed to various external barriers for any gaps in representation or
lack of diversity. None of the barriers were under their control. All of the librarians reported
barriers relating to availability, budget, and space. Two of the librarians discussed a lack of
professional reviews as creating issues.
The respondents for this study gave a number of reasons for lack of diversity in their
collections. The amount of time and capacity of librarians to do the work involved was brought
up by all the participants in some manner. The labor involved in the process of seeking out
diverse materials is significant. Mainly out of efficiency, most organizations contract to do the
bulk of their purchasing through one of two prominent library vendors who predominantly deal
with the five major book publishers. While there have been recent improvements in the number
of diverse books being published, the vast majority of materials available through these vendors
are lacking in any diversity. A few of our librarians could purchase through independent
bookstores, but this involved more work and greater expense to the organization. All the
respondents noted the difficulty in finding enough diverse materials. Avery remarked,
“sometimes you really have to hunt for things.”
Kendall agreed that the biggest challenge was “being able to buy stuff that makes the
collection diverse. If it’s from a smaller publisher, it is hard to get that through our vendors.”
They likewise added that the “number one difficulty is finding the titles in the formats that we
want … the large print collection is not diverse: they’re just not publishing in that format.” On
the other hand, Izzy and Avery both mentioned digital formats as having more diversity, bringing
their own issues in terms of quality, which was discussed earlier. Format also affects
accessibility.
70

Some respondents noted that finding nonfiction items outside of memoirs and
biographies with diverse authors or subjects was tough. Foreign language materials were notably
challenging “because of publishing,” said Drew, “we try to order what we can, but it’s a struggle
to get what we need. And not only that, but the cataloging of those materials is difficult. [It]
takes time.” Frankie agreed about the issues with foreign language collections, “we have a lot of
trouble purchasing new stuff for those, and we’ve also struggled with some of the cataloging.”
Gene described capacity as crucial. One justification they encountered for not putting in the work
to diversify the collection was, “why do we want to waste staff time doing this when we are
already short-staffed?” Jo agreed that some staff felt resentful of the extra work involved, “Every
additional duty feels like more work you’re forcing people to do, and they resent that.”
Availability is tied to capacity for librarians. The extra work involved in researching
materials for purchase was also mentioned by Frankie, who talked about a significant gap in the
collection of books about the largest Native American group in her community:
they’re like 10 miles down the road, so like right there! However, I checked a couple of
years ago, and we have nothing in our collection about them. … So, I submitted some
suggestions, but we literally could not get anything from our vendors, and so that was
very disappointing because this is a community need and, like, we can’t get it anyway.
As discussed earlier, publishers have some work to do. Frankie discovered this when
talking to authors at an indie author program, “I met some of these people and talked to them
about like their journey to get published, and it’s kind of unreasonable.” They reasoned that “you
know people who aren’t privileged just aren’t getting their work published.”
71

Finding: Collection Priorities Emphasize ‘New and Popular’ Over Representation and
Diversity
As well as laying out the process and steps for challenging books, collection development
policies guide selection and deaccession for all the respondents. These documents serve to
inform the community about priorities for collections. All the librarians described their
organizations’ collection priorities as some version of “new and popular.” This precept is the
antithesis of diversity for collections since it centers the voices and opinions of the majority in a
community. Circulation statistics are the principal metric for success in libraries and often
directly influence funding. While that is the case, the focus of these new and popular collections
will always be those materials that will circulate. The consequence of this is a collection that is
inevitably skewed towards the preferences of the existing patronage. All the respondents
remarked that they would almost always add patron requests to the collection; Gene hinted at the
problem with this approach when they said they have “a lot of requests for the same genre of
books within the [very conservative] community. … It’s mostly what the majority want … and
the most vocal.” Later, they speculated that:
We cater a lot so much to the people that come in that the people that don’t come in, I
think, get a little left out, and so, then they don’t come in because they don’t know what
we have to offer for them, so there’s kind of that vicious cycle.
Avery also talked about “balance” when discussing intellectual freedom, recognizing that there
was a tension between having a “new and popular” collection and selecting diverse materials that
might be more niche. This has implications for the diversity of public library collections.
72

Harmful Classics and the Argument from Popularity
Along with the argument from history and education in reasoning for keeping classics
containing harmful elements, another justification most of the librarians made was the enduring
popularity of the items; but there was a lack of agreement about just how popular some of the
classics were. Avery asserted, “We [used to] had to have several copies of all the Laura Ingalls
Wilder books because they were in really high demand. They’re not that way anymore.”
Nevertheless, they said they would likely get rid of all but one of each, “I mean, it’s still
literature.” Similarly, with the Dr. Seuss books, all confirmed that circulations dramatically
increased after the controversy. Elliot commented, “people are still asking for them. It’s very
hard to put them away if people are asking for them.”
Harper recognized the contradiction as they mused aloud that keeping books on the basis
that they are classics is not necessary for public libraries: “You know we’re not an archive, you
know, we’re not in charge of making sure that every single book is available in our library to
anyone who walks in the door.” They demonstrated the subjectivity of the term ‘classic’ when
they recalled a time when a patron had been incredulous that their library did not own the
complete run of the “classic” TV show Dallas. “People’s idea of what is classic and what holds
up and what is relevant changes over time.” Like many of the librarians, though, they thought
perhaps conveniently that these problematic classics would eventually get weeded through lack
of interest while at the same time debating whether they might also be retained for their literary
importance.
73

Constraints of Budget and Space
Budget constraints were another factor. Budgets are limited, and Casey made the point
that since the library prioritized the new and popular materials, it meant that the bulk of the
budget was going towards:
So many copies of the latest and greatest, you know, James Patterson, the latest
blockbuster movies, and then within just a few months, you know, your shelves are
inundated with eight, nine, 10 copies of something that’s just collecting dust on the
shelves and I always think oh gosh you know I understand you want to get the popular
things out, but you know that money could have spent a little bit wiser somewhere else to
have a more robust collection, a more diverse collection that represents the community.
Ultimately it comes down to dollar bills and where do you see the most bang for your
buck.
Kendall had the same thoughts regarding the budget:
The fact is if I buy 50 copies of James Patterson, then it is like those are diverse books I
cannot get. Every single copy of like a Stephen Graham Jones book on my shelf is a copy
of James Patterson I don’t get. So, you know, this is a true zero-sum game. Every book
that we buy is another book that we can’t buy.
Casey continued,
Why would I beef up our Native American collection to this degree that you want when I
can buy you know X amount of copies of this book that’s going to get checked out, and
we’re going to see those stats right away?
Izzy had a similar take on things:
74

We are, of course, constrained by finances. That’s probably the biggest challenge right
now for collections. There are so many things published, and you’ve got to make
decisions, and it is very easy to purchase based on previous authors and previous things
and to make sure that you’re actually looking out on the horizon to see what’s new,
what’s different, and providing a broad range of materials.
Space is also limited, so a further consequence of prioritizing new and popular materials
in collections is the deaccession of no longer circulating items. It is one thing to get diverse
materials on the shelf in the first place; it is another to keep them there in the face of competition
with the latest John Grisham. “We’re seeing things get pulled for weeding because they hadn’t
‘circed’ and they’re diverse titles. Like we’re going out of our way to find diverse titles, and
you’re throwing them away,” said Jo.
The Use of Professional Reviews
While professional reviews are used in justifying adding materials to the collection,
especially in response to a challenge, in contrast two of the librarians saw professional reviews as
a barrier to adding diverse titles. Selection policies that rely on such reviews act as an
impediment to diverse materials since such items are often not mainstream enough to garner
attention. Jo described it this way when they stated:
We’ve been really failed by our traditional review sources. … I understand why I can’t
find a professional review necessarily for a self-published local author; I don’t understand
why Publisher’s Weekly and Booklist never review urban fiction. … They don’t review
series romance.
This is meaningful since both urban fiction and series romance are two genres that have, in fact,
recently begun to show greater diversity in both protagonists and narratives. Jo went on to say
75

that their organization had very recently reworked its selection policy to allow for
nonprofessional sources of reviews, such as Goodreads or even Amazon. This gave them more
freedom to buy diversely while also giving them more authority to make their own professional
judgments about authority and quality.
Summary
The study protocol was designed to interrogate the librarians on their values around
diversity and representation and how those values drive their decisions when selecting materials
for the collection, as well as decisions over materials that were not selected, or removed from the
collection. The respondents used a nuanced argument for the things that were kept out of the
collection, relying on their professional credentials, and communicating a sense of personal
pride. When arguing for problematic materials kept in the collections, they leaned into an
expansive or inclusive framing of the ALA position on intellectual freedom (IF). While the
librarians all claimed to personally value diversity, and most described their organization’s
collection development policies as including statements on diversity or representation, the
majority were aware of deficiencies in the collection. However, most had not had any formal
assessments done. The respondents attributed this shortfall to several challenges or barriers,
mostly relating to capacity or quality.

76

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of the study was to ascertain the beliefs and perceptions of public librarians
regarding the importance and extent of community representation, diversity, and inclusion within
their collections. Chapter 4 discussed findings for the following research questions:
1. What are the values and beliefs of librarians regarding the importance of diversity and
representation in public library collections?
2. What are the perceptions of public librarians regarding the extent to which their
collection is representative of their community?
To study the research questions, 12 public librarians volunteered to participate in one-on-one
semi-structured interviews regarding their perspectives, personal and professional values, and
experiences around diversity and representation in public library collections. The research
highlighted findings for both research questions and an exploration into the findings and how
they relate to the literature presented in chapter two provides insights into possible
recommendations. Chapter Five provides a discussion of the findings, suggests three
recommendations for practice, and provides suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings
The findings reflected the conceptual framework of the study. Public library collections
are a product of librarians’ values and perceptions which are strongly influenced by the ideals of
the profession. Ideals which in turn reflect the position of the dominant culture as it is realized in
its institutions, perpetuating the cycle. As with Oltmann’s (2016) research, study participants
largely demonstrated unquestioning faith in the core values of the profession. Their conception
of intellectual freedom was expansive rather than restrictive. “We try to do our best to represent
all types of materials,” referring to points of view (not format) this statement alludes to a line that
77

is frequently repeated in librarianship that a really good library has something in it to offend
everyone. This in itself is a reworking of two of Ranganathan’s five laws of library science that
state, “Every person his or her book… Every book its reader” (Ranganathan, 1931, p.75), a lofty
goal that clashes with real-world restrictions on space and time, particularly given the present-
day plethora of formats available.
As discovered in the literature review, the librarians in this study tended to suppress their
own beliefs and feelings to prioritize the flawed principles of IF that the ALA. While other
studies mentioned earlier found that 30–40% of librarians reported a degree of conflict between
personal and professional values, all but one of the librarians in this study indicated some level
of discord (Harkovitch et al., 2003; Oltmann, 2016).
Librarians do claim to want to add diverse materials to their collections just as
Vercelletto’s 2019 survey demonstrated. However, they typically have no systematic way of
assessing their collections for diversity. Library Journal’s 2019 survey found less than 10% of
librarians had conducted a diversity audit with 14 percent claiming they were planning to do one
(Vercelletto, 2019). While there was some auditing of digital collections using vendor software
in this study there was very little auditing of physical materials. Jo was forthcoming about the
obstacles their organization had confronted in attempting a diversity audit. The Library Journal
survey did not distinguish between digital and physical collections which may factor into their
data. It is debatable whether diversity audits elicit useful data for the amount of work required.
When questioned on “New and popular’ were the abiding priorities for collecting, even if
at the expense of quality. 500 Amazon shoppers can’t be wrong! The anti-trans book was on the
library’s shelf because it appeared in best seller lists. Materials that were not so new but
abidingly popular also proved problematic. Classics containing harmful stereotypes, such as
78

Little House on the Prairie, Huckleberry Finn, and the Seuss books, were acceptable for the
librarians because of their enduring popularity.
This research supports the findings of the previous work discussed earlier. Librarians
overwhelmingly frame IF and their selection and deaccession decisions in terms of an inclusive
approach. For them, inclusivity is objectivity; it is neutrality. This neutral framework of IF tracks
with that of the ALA discussed earlier but does not solve the dilemma of racist and otherwise
offensive materials being included in the collection. Instead, it serves to justify it. This would be
one thing if it truly meant that collections included diverse voices, but evidence points to the
problems that librarians encounter when managing collections that prioritize new and popular
titles.
Eleven out of 12 respondents in this study reported difficulty in finding diverse materials
in contrast to Vercelletto’s 2019 study where only 12 percent of librarians made this claim.
While publishers are catching up with the need for representation, the problem is not simply a
matter of availability. The barriers to diversity in collections that the librarians report are
convenient external mechanisms for avoiding difficult internal conversations within the
profession. When funding is tied to circulation metrics and space and budgets are finite, the
hegemonic culture will tip any notion of balance in its favor.
As with the literature there was evidence of self-censorship in the data. Hiding,
relocating, and discarding materials was described along with broad condemnation of the
practice among the respondents who attributed the practices to coworkers. However, there were
examples of self-censorship that were less obvious and justified in the name of quality or even
social justice. Unacknowledged double standards applied; Jo was happy to censor the anti-trans
79

book since they saw it as a protest; Billie found a convenient loophole to censor the racist fairy
tale book.
These findings support the work of Knox and Oltmann (2018), confirming that there is
evident tension between concepts of social justice and intellectual freedom arising from
conflicting perspectives and priorities. The librarians in this study defended the professional
doctrine of intellectual freedom at the expense of diversity and representation. When Avery
discussed intellectual freedom, they framed it in terms of a “fight,” something that needs
defending. This is understandable in terms of the current climate of book banning. Donning the
First Amendment to defend library materials feels like solid armor for combat on behalf of
diversity, but there is collateral damage to social justice.
The data supports the work of scholars of critical librarianship in LIS who argue that
framing intellectual freedom as neutrality reinforces the racist history of libraries (Brook et al.,
2015; Brook et al., 2015; Drabinski, 2019; Honma, 2005; Leung & Lopez-McKnight, 2021).
Librarians have considerable power in shaping collections. The librarians in this study did not
appear to consider or reflect on this power. The respondents held a color-blind ideology when it
came to neutrality that allowed them to justify leaving materials containing offensive stereotypes
in the collection.
Recalling that critical librarianship theory borrows from the more established critical race
theory principles we can see that the CRT tenets of White spaces and Whiteness as property are
perpetuated by the expansive framing of the concept of neutrality that is imbued by the First
Amendment. When collections include harmful stereotypes of historically marginalized people
the message is clear that “library collections and spaces have historically kept out Black,
Indigenous, People of Color as they were meant to do and continue to do” (Leung, 2019, para.
80

10). Data also shows similar situations for other marginalized communities, such as people with
disabilities, immigrants, LGBTQ+.
Recommendations for Policy, Practice, and Research
This section identifies three recommendations, based on the findings of the study, relating
to cultural models and cultural settings that span the areas of policy change, collaborative
strategies, and continued education for the library profession. The first two recommendations are
concerned with policy change. Then follows recommendations for practice and research.
Recommendations for Policy
The findings of this study reveal widespread problems with the framing of the
professional code of ethics of librarianship as laid out by the professional body in the US, The
American Library Association. The code of ethics, various policies, and guidelines issued by the
ALA require attention if they are to remain relevant and useful in guiding the profession. In
response, two of my recommendations are for policy change.
Recommendation 1: The American Library Association Should Disavow Neutrality and
Center Social Justice and Antiracism
The librarians interviewed in this study experienced a tension between their professional
ethics and their personal beliefs. This incongruence sets up a situation where librarians have lost
sight of their “why.” Research shows that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders
identify, articulate, focus the organization’s efforts on and reinforce the organization’s vision;
they lead from the why (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that effective
organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards, policies, and procedures that govern
the work of the organization are aligned with or are supportive of organizational goals and
values. This alignment is not happening for the library profession in recent years.
81

There has been recent discussion in the profession that has moved this conversation
forward, including a January 2021 resolution from the ALA to condemn White supremacy and
fascism as antithetical to library work (ALA, 2021). Work following this has included working
group policy drafts proposing the adoption of radical empathy as a framework to replace
neutrality (Fox, 2021). The concept of radical empathy emphasizes a need to confront our biases
and their origins (Givens, 2021). These conversations around overthrowing the concept of
neutrality need to continue however radical empathy as a replacement is unhelpful and
contentious. Dudley et al. (2022) in an open letter to the ALA Working Group on Intellectual
Freedom and Social Justice put forth an erroneous claim in favor of neutrality as a guiding
principle. However, their argument against its substitution with radical empathy has some
validity. They argue that it “provides no institutional guidance or structure for implementation …
and is an abdication of institutional responsibility, [sic] and is instead a call to individual action”
(Dudley et al., 2022, para. 12).
The library profession is not alone in its struggle to address professional core values so
there is value in looking at the work of other fields. The code of ethics for social workers has
included social justice as a core value since the mid-1990s (NASW, 1996). Humanistic social
work is a model of social work that is growing in the field that focuses on the “achievement of
social justice, diversity, and equality based on a belief in the inherent worth of all individuals”
(Grant & Austin, 2014. p. 358), by emphasizing affective equalities and the holistic well-being of
individuals and communities.
Recommendation 2: Implement Implicit Bias Training for Licensure
Most librarians, unlike many other professionals, are not required to undertake continuing
education to retain their positions. There has been discussion about whether librarianship can
82

truly be defined as a profession and arguments over the code of ethics speaks to the field’s need
to justify professional status (Garcia & Barbour, 2018; Seminelli, 2016). Seminelli (2016)
pointed out that there is an expectation of continuing education in most professions and while the
leading professional association awards professional qualifications, standards are reinforced
through government licensing. While an in-depth discussion of what constitutes a profession is
outside the scope of this project, there is a clear opportunity within the field to bolster that
negotiation and address concerns over relevancy by moving to require continuing education,
either as a condition of continued employment or licensure.
It is commonly acknowledged in health care professions that continued education
improves patient outcomes by enabling learners to stay up to date in their relevant areas of
practice. Society and technology are not static. Social workers and teachers in many states have
similar needs. While librarians might attend conferences and take online training via webinar,
there is generally no requirement to do so.
Education in areas such as social justice and implicit bias are beginning to happen in
some library science programs, but they are not prioritized (Alajmi Alshammari, 2020; Kumasi
& Manlove, 2015). The impact of implicit bias training has been well documented in the
literature (Devine et al., 2012). Ongoing implicit bias training would serve new professionals and
those who obtained their credentials some time ago. Research shows that effective implicit bias
training is not a one and done measure and needs to be ongoing in order to continue to be
effective (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Forscher et al., 2019). As with other professions, such as
social workers and teachers, it would be the responsibility of the individual to keep up with
required continuing education units (CEUs). This could be managed though any number of
83

professional providers and evidence provided to the professional body who would be responsible
for overseeing credentials.
While the ALA may disavow the concept of neutrality, many librarians have absorbed
this core value of the profession, as we saw with the data, to the point of suppressing their
personal beliefs. A massive culture shift is required and cannot happen overnight, or by
publishing resolutions alone. Tying ongoing training to licensure will build in accountability
measures that are so important in sustaining change initiatives (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004;
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016; Lerner & Tetlock, 2003).
Recommendations for Practice
The findings of this study also emphasize a need to center the voices and experiences of
marginalized populations in collection development activities within public libraries. It would be
negligent not to acknowledge the many scholars of color and members of other historically
marginalized communities who have significantly contributed to the discourse on critical
librarianship. With my positionality, I have strived to remain reflective throughout this process
on my power and privilege and work to center their voices over my own. The words of Ferretti
(2020) are impactful as she condemns the performative ways in which library workers use
critical pedagogy and reminds us to share our platforms: “there seems to be such comfort in a
White, self-proclaimed critical librarian; it’s almost as if it’s the new diversity hire” (p. 141). She
reminds us that critical librarianship should be an act, not an identity. As Martin (2017) said,
“being an ally is less of a noun and more of a verb” (para. 5). Therefore, with that in mind here
are two recommendations for practice.

84

Recommendation 1: Libraries Should Collaborate with Communities as Key Stakeholders
in Their Public Libraries
Under the umbrella of critical theory, critical race theory (CRT) holds that the
experiences and knowledge of BIPOC are essential in wiping out oppression (Yosso et al.,
2009). One recommendation would be for librarians to collaborate with people from historically
marginalized groups in curating their collections. During the interviews one of the librarians
revealed that their organization had, in the past, worked with a committee of people of color
from the community who were consulted on matters of collections and programming. They went
on to say that this committee was recently dissolved over a dispute about compensation. The
members of the advisory committee wanted to be compensated for their time and valuable
expertise. The library considered them to be volunteers and the relationship broke down. They
pointed out that it was not unheard of for the organization to pay for equity experts for other
projects. The librarian thought that some excellent work had come out of that collaboration, and
they expressed disappointment in how their organization had handled the situation. This was the
only one of the respondents who talked about stakeholder collaboration. The other librarians
relied on their own expertise or requests from existing patrons.
Swist et al. (2022) suggested that libraries
Need to move away from a static notion of public libraries as institutions collecting for
diverse communities, instead they should strive to be dynamic institutions which can
catalyze practices of re-collecting with diverse communities: what they envision for
themselves, their relationship with others, and the world around them. (p. 83)
They offer a manifesto for co-creating public library futures by re-envisioning them as
“knowledge commons.” This feeds back to a core value of social justice by expanding those
85

relationships to form “place-based collaborations with diverse sectors and communities can help
public libraries to identify and tackle systemic and geographical inequalities” (Swist et al., p. 86).
Organizations could work with groups of stakeholders who would need to be appropriately
compensated for their time and expertise.
Scholars of organizational change insist that effective leaders know how to create and
manage good working relationships with stakeholders (Denning, 2011; Lewis, 2011). If ever
there was a case for including stakeholders in decision-making it would be publicly funded
institutions such as libraries.
Recommendation 2: Librarians should critically question the work they do and reflect
regularly on power and privilege.
On an individual level, librarians can commit to interrogating inequities in all aspects of
our work. As Ferretti states:
Structural inequities exist within our institutions that deeply impact not only our patrons
but also our workers, making critical librarianship an appropriate community to begin
discussing these inequities and actively working to change them. Failure to move in this
direction furthers inequities and performativity. The marginalized library worker is
subject to inequities, while the white/heteronormative worker has the luxury of choosing
whether or not to engage or interrogate inequities. Critical librarianship has entered the
lexicon of LIS, but not all library workers consider themselves critical library workers
(2020, p.142).
As the critical framework revealed, librarians have real power and while the librarians in this
study leaned into the doctrines of the ALA there is much that can be done on an individual level
to raise up the voices of others and draw awareness to injustice. Those of us who hold privilege
86

can choose to be critical library workers even while that takes us out of comfortable conventions.
When engaged in policy making or creating procedures at our institutions we can apply a critical
lens. When remodeling existing buildings, or raising new ones, we should use a critical frame.
When writing job descriptions, recruiting, or making staffing decisions and recruiting we need to
examine our biases. How we frame a problem points to how we can solve it.
Recommendations for Future Research
Further research is needed to interrogate the values and beliefs of public librarians
regarding intellectual freedom to fully understand how those values and beliefs impact
collections. Opportunities for research include comparing the perspectives of professional
librarians with those of paraprofessionals and library support workers to better understand the
origins of their beliefs. Future studies might examine changes in collection development policies
over time, and to what degree they fall into line with the core values espoused by the
professional organization.
In terms of librarians’ perceptions of diversity, there are opportunities mentioned earlier
around focus, or bias towards certain marginalized communities over others. As an observation,
the librarians in this study were typically enthusiastic in discussing their role in collecting,
defending, and promoting LGBTQ+ materials, and less likely to discuss race and ethnicity in the
collection. Further research could determine if this a valid finding or relates more to context or
some other influence.
There is a dearth of qualitative data on public library users’ and non-users’ perceptions of
public libraries and their motivations around their decisions to use or not use the services. In
order for data driven decision-making there needs to be research around what communities,
87

especially historically marginalized communities, expect and want from their investment in
public libraries.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations, influences on the research that are out of the researcher’s control, may affect
the outcomes of the inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This research occurred during the
COVID-19 pandemic, so additional mandates and restrictions were in place and fluctuated
according to place and time. Some libraries were back to full service; others provided limited
services with reduced staff and restricted access to facilities. Conducting interviews via video
conference required a level of technological access and ability for participants. The platform
creates more subtle technological barriers that do not exist in face-to-face interviews, such as
hindering observation of respondent body language.
There is an inherent complexity in discussing diversity. While the study was not centered
on race, reflecting on diversity and representation can often lead people into discussions of race
and ethnicity. White participants may struggle with White privilege and White fragility in
discussing racial stereotypes in materials. DiAngelo (2011) conceptualized White fragility as a
sensitive response to discussions around race that produces defensive reactions, including anger,
fear, and silence. The controversial subject nature of some of the interview questions could have
generated defensive behaviors from the participants and potential guardedness in providing
complete and uncensored responses. Equally, querying librarians of color or librarians from other
marginalized communities about diversity and representation may result in unintended harms.
There was the possibility of issues of perceived power with participants. The profession
of librarianship can feel like a small world sometimes. Therefore, the researcher was careful to
strongly assert that although they are a librarian, they were acting as student/researcher for the
88

project and made the effort to thoroughly explain the purpose of the research and the importance
of candid responses (Burkholder et al., 2019).
Delimitations, influences on the research that are within the researcher’s control included
the choice of methodology and sample. The decision to use an exclusively qualitative design was
driven by time constraints imposed on the project. A further delimitation was the sample size and
selection of participants. With a necessarily small sample, it was almost impossible to accurately
represent marginalized voices within the profession, both visible and invisible minorities. Using
social media platforms to recruit participants created a further delimitation, through the
possibility of digital platforms supporting marginalizing systems that would inevitably skew the
sample towards members of the dominant culture and away from authentic representation.
Conclusion
This project was about how to better serve communities’ information needs and create
return on investment for taxpayers’ contributions. In order for public libraries to survive they
must continue to be relevant in a society that is increasingly technological and becoming more
socially diversified. Without attention to the problem, library usage will continue to decline. The
study asked difficult questions that the profession has been skillfully sidestepping for years about
how librarians account for the lack of diversity in the profession and in their collections, despite
years of purported efforts.
DEI strategies need to go beyond recruitment, library programming, equitable collection
or reparative description. We must foster spaces of belonging for all by growing the cultural
intelligence of our institutions. Organizations such as Deloitte have gone as far as to shift from
talking about DEI to DEIB; diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, so significant is the
importance of fostering a sense of belonging (Symonds, 2022).
89

At the time of writing the ALA is holding its annual conference in Washington, DC. One
panel session featured a discussion on uniting against book bans. One panelist, a prominent
librarian, made a claim that libraries must include Holocaust denial books in their collections
leading to an intense Twitter storm (Bogan, 2022). The philosophical debate is far from over.

90

References
Aberg-Riger, A. (2019, February 19). A history of the American public library. Bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/how-american-cities-got-their-
libraries
Adkins, D., Virden, C., & Yier, C. (2015). Learning about diversity: The roles of LIS education,
LIS associations and lived experience. The Library Quarterly, 85(2), 139–149.
https://doi.org/10.1086/680153
Ahmed, S. (2007). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235–256.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870601143927
Akman, J. L. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of the historical development of the Library
Bill of Rights [Unpublished master’s paper]. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Alajmi, B. M., & Alshammari, I. (2020). Strands of diversity in library and information science
graduate curricula. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 25(1), 103–120.
American Library Association. (1980). Library bill of rights.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill
American Library Association, (2006, July 26). Diverse collections: An interpretation of the
library bill of rights.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/diversecollections
American Library Association. (2007a). Diversity Counts.
https://www.ala.org/ala/ors/diversitycounts/DiversityCounts_rev07.pdf
American Library Association, (2007b, May 29). Intellectual freedom and censorship Q & A.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/faq
American Library Association. (2010) Intellectual freedom manual (8th ed.).
91

American Library Association. (2012). Diversity Counts 2009–2010 Update.
http://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/diversity/diversitycounts/2009-2010update
American Library Association. (2013). ALA policy manual.
http://www.ala.org/aboutala/governance/policymanual
American Library Association, (2016, December 8). How to respond to challenges and concerns
about library resources, http://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/respond
American Library Association. (2018, May 31). Spectrum Scholarship Program: a long time
coming. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/spectrum/long-time-coming
American Library Association. (2019). Frequently challenged books.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks
American Library Association. (2020a). Top ten most challenged books of 2020.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10
American Library Association. (2020b). The state of America’s libraries 2020: A report from the
American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/news/state-americas-libraries-report-
2020
American Library Association. (2021). Resolution to condemn white supremacy and fascism as
antithetical to library work.
https://www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/Resolution%20to%20Co
ndemn%20White%20Supremacy%20and%20Fascism%20as%20Antithetical%20to%20L
ibrary%20Work%20FINAL.pdf
American Library Association. (2022a, April 12). ALA Working Group on Intellectual Freedom
and Social Justice schedules online discussions on potential alternatives to neutrality.
92

ALA News. https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/04/ala-working-group-
intellectual-freedom-and-social-justice-schedules-online
American Library Association & Association of American Publishers. (2022b). The freedom to
read statement. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/freedomreadstatement
American Psychological Association. (2021). Inclusive language guidelines.
https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf
Asato, N. (2011). The origins of the Freedom to Read Foundation: Public librarians’ campaign to
establish a legal defense against library censorship. Public Library Quarterly, 30(4), 286–
306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2011.625598
Baldwin, G. B. (1996). The Library Bill of Rights—a critique. Library Trends, 45(1), 7–27.
https://doi.org/info:doi/
Bales, S. (2017). Social justice and library work: A guide to theory and practice. Chandos
Publishing.
Barr-Walker, J., & Sharifi, C. (2019). Critical librarianship in health sciences libraries: An
introduction. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(2), 258–264.
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.620
Beilin, I. (2018). Critical librarianship as an academic pursuit. In K. P. Nicholson & M. Seale
(Eds.), The politics of theory and the practice of critical librarianship (pp.195–210).
Library Juice Press.
Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard
Law Review, 93(3), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
Bell, D. A. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. Basic Books.
93

Bhatt, R. (2010). The impact of public library usage on reading, television, and academic
outcomes. Journal of Urban Economics, 68(2), 148–166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2010.03.008
Bishop, R. S. (1990). Windows and mirrors: Children’s books and parallel cultures. In M. Atwell
& A. Klein (Eds.), California State University reading conference: 14th annual
conference proceedings (pp. 3-12). CSUSB Reading Conference.
Black, K. (2018). Recruiting under-represented groups to librarianship. Multicultural Learning
and Teaching, 13(1), 1–. https://doi.org/10.1515/mlt-2017-0004
Bogan, K. [@kelseybogan] (2022, June 26). At an ALA session about “uniting against book
bans” today there was a sentiment made by panelists that we even. [Tweet] Twitter.
https://twitter.com/kelseybogan/status/1540809694721236993
Bohman, J. (2005). Critical Theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy (Spring 2005 edition). Stanford University.,
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2005/entries/critical-theory/
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists color-blind racism and the persistence of racial
inequality in America (4th edition). Rowman & Littlefield Pub.
Borges Ferreira Neto, A., Nowicki, J., & Shakya, S. (2021). Do public libraries help mitigate
crime? evidence from Kansas City, MO. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.
https://www.proquest.com/working-papers/do-public-libraries-help-mitigate-crime-
evidence/docview/2611369062/se-2
94

Bowers, J., Crowe, K., & Keeran, P. (2017). “If you want the history of a white man, you go to
the library”: Critiquing our legacy, addressing our library collections gaps. Collection
Management, 42(3-4), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1329104
Brady, H., & Abbott, F. (2015). A history of U.S. public libraries. Digital Public Library of
America. https://dp.la/exhibitions/history-us-public-libraries
Brook, F., Ellenwood, D., & Lazzaro, A. E. (2015). In pursuit of antiracist social justice:
Denaturalizing whiteness in the academic library. Library Trends, 64(2), 246–284.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0048
Brown, J., Ferretti, J. A., Leung, S., & Méndez-Brady, M. (2018). We here: Speaking our truth.
Library Trends, 67(1), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0031
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., Hitchcock, J. M. (2019). Research design and
methods. Sage.
Busha, C. H. (1972). Intellectual freedom and censorship: The climate of opinion in midwestern
public libraries. The Library Quarterly, 42(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1086/620044
Cabral, S. (2021, May 21). Covid ‘hate crimes’ against Asian Americans on rise. BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56218684
Caidi, N., & Dali, K. (2015). Can we talk? Perceptions of diversity issues by students with
diverse backgrounds, and with a rumination on personal roads to systemic change. New
Library World, 116(11/12), 748–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-08-2015-0056
Campbell, D. (2014). Reexamining the origins of the adoption of the ALA’s library bill of rights.
Library Trends, 63(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2014.0023
Chiu, A., Ettarh, F., & Ferretti, J. (2021). Not the shark, but the water. In S. Y. Leung, J. R.
Lopez-McKnight, A. Chiu, F. M. Ettarh, J. A. Ferretti, M. E. Morales, S. Williams, J.
95

Brown, N. Cline, & M. Méndez-Brady (Eds.), Knowledge justice: Disrupting library and
information studies through critical race theory (pp. 49–71). MIT Press.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Coates, T. (2021). Freckle report 2021: Digital or diverse? —the future for public libraries. Tim
Coates Books.
Cooke, N. A. (2017). Information services to diverse populations: Developing culturally
competent library professionals. Libraries Unlimited.
Cooke, N. A., Chancellor, R., Shorish, Y., Park Dahlen, S., & Gibson, A. (2022, June 10). Once
more for those in the back: Libraries are not neutral. Publishers Weekly.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/89576-
once-more-for-those-in-the-back-libraries-are-not-neutral.html
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Basics of Qualitative
Research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3 (pp. 65–86).
Sage.
Crenshaw, K. (1995) Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New
Press.
Creswell, S. (1996). The Last Days of Jim Crow in Southern Libraries. Libraries & Culture,
31(3/4), 557–573.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan
Law Review, 87(8), 2411–2441. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289308
96

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1997). Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror. Temple
University Press.
Denning, S. (2011). The leader’s guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and disciple of business
narrative. Jossey-Bass.
Devine, P., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012). Long term reduction in
implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48, 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3).
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016, July-August). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business
Review Magazine. https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
Dowd, R. C., (1989). I want to find out how to freebase cocaine or yet another unobtrusive test
of reference performance. Reference Librarian 25(26), 483–493.
Downey, J. (2013). Self-censorship in selection of LGBT-themed materials. Reference and User
Services Quarterly, 53(2), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.53n2.104
Drabinski, E. (2019). What is critical about critical librarianship? Art Libraries Journal, 44(2),
49–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/alj.2019.3
Dresang, E. (2006). Intellectual freedom and libraries: Complexity and change in the twenty-
first-century digital environment. The Library Quarterly, 76(2), 169–192.
https://doi.org/10.1086/506576
Dudley, M., Anderson, S., Sica, R., Wright, J., Hartman-Caverly, S., Hughes, M., Erb, B.,
Gardner, G. J., Wipf, B., Kraemer, B., & Martin, R. (2022, May 3). Against ‘radical
empathy’ as a core professional principle: An open letter to the ALA working group on
97

intellectual freedom and social justice. Heterodoxy in the Stacks.
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-alas-intellectual?s=r
Dunbar, A. W. (2006). Introducing critical race theory to archival discourse: Getting the
conversation started. Archival Science, 6(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-
006-9022-6
Enis, M. (2022). News+: Holocaust denial materials removed from ebook platforms: Overdrive,
Hoopla address fascist and biased content made available for user download. Library
Journal, 147(4), 8.
Espinal, I., Sutherland, T., & Roh, C. (2018). A holistic approach for inclusive librarianship:
Decentering whiteness in our profession. Library Trends, 67(1), 147–162.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0030
Ferretti, J.A., (2020). Building a critical culture: How critical librarianship falls short in the
workplace. Communications in Information Literacy, 14(1), 134–152.
Forscher, L., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., & Nosek, B. A.
(2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 522–559.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000160
Fox, V. [@violetbfox] (2021, June 18). Remember that resolution on condemning white
supremacy & fascism that was passed by ALA Council at Midwinter? [Tweet]. Twitter.
https://twitter.com/violetbfox/status/1406077729401942019
Frické, M., Mathiesen, K., & Fallis, D. (2000). The ethical presuppositions behind the Library
Bill of Rights. The Library Quarterly, 70(4), 468–491. https://doi.org/10.1086/603218
98

Garcia, K. (n.d.). Keeping up with… critical librarianship. Association of College and Research
Libraries. https://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_with/critlib
Garcia, & Barbour, J. B. (2018). “Ask a professional—Ask a librarian”: Librarianship and the
Chronic Struggle for Professional Status. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(4),
565–592.
Gilpin, G., Karger, E., & Nencka, P. (2021). The returns to public library investment (Working
Paper 2021-06). Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/working-papers/2021/2021-06
Givens, T. E. (2021). Radical empathy: Finding a path to bridging racial divides. Policy Press.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Goings, R. B. (2018). Making up for lost time: The transition experiences of nontraditional black
male undergraduates. Adult Learning, 29(4), 158–169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518783200
Goldthorp, J. D. (2007). Can Scottish public library services claim they are socially inclusive of
all minority groups when lesbian fiction is still so inaccessible? Journal of Librarianship
and Information Science, 39(4), 234–248.
Gorman, M. (2000). Our enduring values : librarianship in the 21st century. American Library
Association.
Grant, J., & Austin, M. J. (2014). Incorporating social justice principles into social work practice.
In M. J. Austin (Ed.), Social justice and social work: rediscovering a core value of the
profession (pp. 357–370). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387987.n27
99

Gusa, D. (2010). White institutional presence: The impact of Whiteness on campus climate.
Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 464–490.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.4.p5j483825u110002
Harkovitch, M., Hirst, A., & Loomis, J. (2003). Intellectual freedom in belief and in practice.
Public Libraries, 42(6), 367–374.
Harmeyer, D. (1995). Potential collection development bias: Some evidence on a controversial
topic in California. College & Research Libraries, 56(2), 101–111.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_56_02_101
Harris, E. (2020, June 5). People are marching against racism. They’re also reading about it. The
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/books/antiracism-books-race-
racism.html
Harris, E. A., & Alter, A. (2022, January 31). Politics fuels surge in calls for book bans. New
York Times. A.1.
Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707–1791.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1341787
Hathcock, A. (2015, October 7) White librarianship in blackface: Diversity initiatives in LIS. In
the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/lis-
diversity/
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, (Spring/Summer), 17–19.
Honma, T. (2005). Trippin’ over the color line: The invisibility of race in library and information
studies. Interaction, 1(2). Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.5070/D412000540
100

Horrigan, J. B. (2016). Libraries 2016. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/09/09/libraries-2016/
Houghton, K., Foth, M., & Miller, E. (2013). The continuing relevance of the library as a third
place for users and non-users of IT: The case of Canada Bay. The Australian Library
Journal, 62(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2013.771764
Hsieh, I. H. (2018). Confucian principles: A study of Chinese Americans’ interpersonal
relationships in selected children’s picturebooks. Children’s Literature in Education,
49(2), 216–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-016-9289-z
Hughes-Hassell, S. (2013). Multicultural young adult literature as a form of counter-storytelling.
The Library Quarterly, 83(3), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1086/670696
Hughes-Hassell, S., Overberg, E., & Harris, S. (2012). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
questioning (LGBTQ)-themed literature for teens: Are school libraries providing
adequate collections? School Library Research, 16.
Ishizuka, K., & Stephens, R. (2019). The cat is out of the bag: Orientalism, anti-Blackness, and
white supremacy in Dr. Seuss’s children’s books. Research on Diversity in Youth
Literature, 1(2). 2–50.
Jaeger, P., & Franklin, R. (2017). The virtuous circle: Increasing diversity in LIS faculties to
create more inclusive services and outreach. Education Libraries, 30(1), 20–26.
https://doi.org/10.26443/el.v30i1.233
Jaeger, P. T., Gorham, U., Sarin, L. C., & Bertot, J. C. (2013). Libraries, policy, and politics in a
democracy: Four historical epochs. The Library Quarterly, 83(2), 166–181.
https://doi.org/10.1086/669559
101

Jaeger, P. T., Taylor, N. G., & Gorham, U. (2015). Libraries, human rights, and social justice:
Enabling access and promoting inclusion. Rowman & Littlefield.
Jaeger, P. T., Shilton, K., & Koepfler, J. (2016). The rise of social justice as a guiding principle
in library and information science research. The Library Quarterly, 86(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1086/684142
Jensen, K. (2018, October 22). Diversity auditing 101: How to evaluate your collection. School
Library Journal. https://www.slj.com/?detailStory=diversity-auditing-101-how-to-
evaluate-collection
Jorgenson. S, & Burress, R. (2020). Analyzing the diversity of a high school library collection.
Knowledge Quest, 48(5), 48–53.
Kevane, M., & Sundstrom, W. A. (2014). The development of public libraries in the United
States, 1870-1930: A quantitative assessment. Information & Culture, 49(2), 117–144.
Kim, K.-S., & Sin, S.-C. J. (2008). Increasing ethnic diversity in LIS: Strategies suggested by
librarians of color. The Library Quarterly, 78(2), 153–177.
https://doi.org/10.1086/528887
Kimmel, S. C., & Hartsfield, D. E. (2019). Does ALA ban books? Examining the discourse of
challenged books. The Library Quarterly, 89(3), 217–231.
https://doi.org/10.1086/703469
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Klinenberg. E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight
inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. Crown.
102

Knox, E. (2011). Intellectual Freedom. Public Services Quarterly, 7(1-2), 49–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.520593
Knox, E. (2014). Supporting intellectual freedom: Symbolic capital and practical philosophy in
librarianship. The Library Quarterly, 84(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/674033
Knox, E. & Oltmann, S. M. (2018). Social responsibility, librarianship, and the ALA: The 2015
banned books week poster controversy. The Library Quarterly, 88(1), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1086/694870
Koontz, C. M. (2007). A history of location of U.S. public libraries within community place and
space: Evolving implications for the library’s mission of equitable service. Public Library
Quarterly, 26(1-2), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1300/J118v26n01_05
Kristick, L. (2020). Diversity literary awards: A tool for assessing an academic library’s
collection. Collection Management, 45(2), 151–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2019.1675209
Krug, J. F., & Morgan, C. D. (2015). ALA and intellectual freedom: A historical overview. In T.
Magi & M. Garnar (Eds.), A history of ALA policy on intellectual freedom: A supplement
to the intellectual freedom manual (pp. 3–39). American Library Association.
Kumasi, K. D., & Manlove, N. L. (2015). Finding “diversity levers” in the core library and
information science curriculum: A social justice imperative. Library Trends, 64(2), 415–
443
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998) Teaching in dangerous times: Culturally relevant approaches to
teacher assessment. The Journal of Negro education, 67(3), 255–267.
Lamb, A. (2021). The Seuss six and collection maintenance. Teacher Librarian, 48(5), 14–20.
103

Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). 13 bridging individual, interpersonal, and institutional
approaches to judgment and decision making: The impact of accountability on cognitive
Bias. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and
decision research (pp. 431–457). Cambridge University Press.
Leung, S. (2019, September 30), Whiteness as collections.
https://www.sofiayleung.com/thoughts/whiteness-as-collections
Leung, S. Y., & Lopez-McKnight, J. R. (2021). Introduction: This is only the beginning. In S. Y.
Leung, J. R. Lopez-McKnight, A. Chiu, F. M. Ettarh, J. A. Ferretti, M. E. Morales, S.
Williams, J. Brown, N. Cline, & M. Méndez-Brady (Eds.), Knowledge justice:
Disrupting library and information studies through critical race theory (pp. 1–41). MIT
Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11969.003.0002
Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational Change: Creating change through strategic communication.
Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119431503
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Crossing Press.
Lowenthal, M. F. (1959). Book selection and censorship: S study of school and public libraries
in California. University of California Press.
Lugo Vázquez, S. (2021). The development of U.S. children’s librarianship and challenging
white dominant narratives. In S. Y. Leung, J. R. Lopez-McKnight, A. Chiu, F. M. Ettarh,
J. A. Ferretti, M. E. Morales, S. Williams, J. Brown, N. Cline, & M. Méndez-Brady
(Eds.), Knowledge justice: Disrupting library and information studies through critical
race theory (pp. 177–196). MIT Press.
Maack, M. N. (1998). Gender, culture, and the transformation of American librarianship, 1890-
1920. Libraries & Culture, 33(1), 51–61.
104

Magi, T., & Garnar, M. (2015), A history of ALA policy on intellectual freedom: A supplement to
the Intellectual Freedom Manual. American Library Association.
Manskar, N. (2021, March 2). Six Dr Seuss books won’t be published over racist imagery. New
York Post. https://nypost.com/2021/03/02/six-dr-seuss-books-wont-be-published-for-
racist-images/
Martin, T. (2017, December6). Being an ally is more than just lip service and loving that one
MLK speech. https://theundercoverintrovert.com/being-an-ally-is-more-than-just-lip-
service/
Mathiesen, K. (2015). Informational justice: A conceptual framework for social justice in library
and information services. Library Trends, 64(2), 198–225.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0044
McKeever, V. (2021, March 5). Dr Seuss books shoot to the top of Amazon’s bestseller list.
CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/dr-seuss-books-shoot-to-the-top-of-amazons-
bestseller-list.html
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Monks, K. M., Gaines, A. M., & Marineau, C. A. (2014). A statewide survey of censorship and
intellectual freedom. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2014(1), 245–299.
Moody, K. (2004). Censorship by Queensland public librarians: Philosophy and practice.
Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 17(4), 168–185.
https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.919206831047161
Mortensen, A. (2019). Measuring diversity in the collection. Library Journal, 144(4), 28–31.
105

Naidoo, J. C. (2014). The importance of diversity in library programs and material collections
for children. Association for Library Service to Children.
https://www.ala.org/alsc/sites/ala.org.alsc/files/content/ALSCwhitepaper_importance%20
of%20diversity_with%20graphics_FINAL.pdf
Natanson, H. (2022, March 22). Schools nationwide are quietly removing books from their
libraries. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/03/22/school-librarian-book-bans-
challenges/
National Association of Social Workers. (1996). NASW code of ethics.
https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=YkFrOi8Vu-0%3d&portalid=0
Neto, A. M. (2018). Do public libraries impact local labor markets? Evidence from Appalachia
(MPRA Paper No. 89584). Munich Personal RePEc Archive https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/89584/
OCLC Research Library Partnership. (2017). Equity, diversity, and inclusion in the OCLC
Research Library Partnership survey. Hanging together — The OCLC Research Blog.
https://hangingtogether.org/equity-diversity-and-inclusion-edi/
Oltmann, S. M. (2016). Intellectual freedom and freedom of speech: Three theoretical
perspectives. The Library Quarterly, 86(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/685402
Oltmann, S. (2017). Creating space at the table: Intellectual freedom can bolster diverse voices.
The Library Quarterly, 87(4), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1086/693494
Oltmann, S.M. (2019a). Important factors in Midwestern public librarians’ views on intellectual
freedom and collection development: Part 1. The Library Quarterly, 89(1), 2–15.
https://doi.org/10.1086/700659
106

Oltmann, S.M. (2019b). Important factors in Midwestern public librarians’ views on intellectual
freedom and collection development: Part 2. The Library Quarterly, 89(2), 156–172.
https://doi.org/10.1086/702203
Oltmann, S. M., Knox, E. J., & Peterson, C. (2021). The significance of access to information—
And the challenges it faces in librarianship. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2021, 1–
11.
Oltmann, S. M., Peterson, C., & Knox, E. J. M. (2017). Analyzing challenges to library
materials: An incomplete picture. Public Library Quarterly, 36(4), 274–292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2017.1324233
Ortiz, L., & Jani, J. (2010). Critical race theory: A transformational model for teaching diversity.
Journal of Social Work Education, 46(2), 175–193.
https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2010.200900070
Pateman, J., & Williment, K. (2013). Developing community-led public libraries: Evidence from
the UK and Canada. Ashgate Publishing.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed). Sage Publications.
Pelczar, M., Frehill, L. M., Nielsen, E., Kaiser, A., Hudson, J., & Wan, T. (2021).
Characteristics of public libraries in the United States: Results from the FY 2019 Public
Libraries Survey. Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Pew Research Center. (2014). From distant admirers to library lovers: A typology of public
library engagement in America. http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2014/03/13/typology/
107

Pionke, J. (2020). Library employee views of disability and accessibility. Journal of Library
Administration, 60(2), 120–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2019.1704560
Quinn, B. (2012). Collection development and the psychology of bias. The Library Quarterly,
82(3), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/665933
Ranganathan, S. R. (1931). The five laws of library science. Edward Goldston.
Ratcliffe, C. (2020). Why intellectual freedom? Or; your values are historically contingent. Open
Information Science, 4(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2020-0002
Richardson, J., Parnell, P., & Cole, H. (2005). And Tango makes three. Simon & Schuster.
Robbins, L. S. (1996). Champions of a cause : American librarians and the Library Bill of Rights
in the 1950s: The Library Bill of Rights. Library Trends, 45(1), 28–49.
Rosa, K., & Henke, K. (2017). 2017 ALA demographic survey. ALA Office or Research and
Statistics.
Rosa, K. S. (2017). The state of America’s libraries 2017: A Report from the American Library
Association. American Library Association. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26381059
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In Research Methods for Business Students, 5/e. Pearson Education India.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Scott, R. (2011). The role of public libraries in community building. Public Library Quarterly,
30(3), 191–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2011.599283
Scott, D., & Saunders, L. (2021). Neutrality in public libraries: How are we defining one of our
core values? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(1), 153–166.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620935501
Seminelli. (2016). Averys professional. The Serials Librarian, 71(1), 63–69.
108

Shalvey, K. (2021, March10). Librarians are debating how to handle the Dr Seuss controversy –
but the books will stay on the shelves for now. Business Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/dr-seuss-week-pulled-six-books-but-stay-on-library-
shelves-2021-3
Shockey, K. (2016). Intellectual freedom is not social justice: The symbolic capital of intellectual
freedom in ALA accreditation and LIS curricula. Progressive Librarian, 44, 101–110.
Solórzano, D. G. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the
experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education : QSE, 11(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236926
Sonnie, A. (2018). Advancing racial equity in public libraries: Case studies from the field.
Government Alliance on Race and Equity.
https://www.racialequityalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/GARE_LibrariesReport
_v*_DigitalScroll_WithHyperlinks.pdf
Swist, H., Hendery, R., Magee, L., Ensor, J., Sherman, J., Budge, K., & Humphry, J. (2022). Co-
creating Public Library Futures: An Emergent Manifesto and Participatory Research
Agenda. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 71(1), 71–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2021.2016358
Symonds, C. (2022, June 20). Creating a culture of belonging through your DEIB practices.
Factorial Blog. https://factorialhr.com/blog/deib/
TED. (2012, November 5). Peggy McIntosh: How studying privilege systems can strengthen
compassion [Video] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-BY9UEewHw
Telford, T. (2021, Mar.3). Dr. Seuss books with racist imagery discontinued. The Washington
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/02/dr-seuss-racist-imagery/
109

Thiele, K., & Klagge, B. (2021). Third places and educational justice: Public libraries in the
context of covid-19. Erdkunde, 75(1), 31–49.
https://doi.org/10.3112/erdkunde.2021.01.03
Thomas, A. (2017). The hate u give. Balzer & Bray.
Tjoumas, R. (1993). Native American literature for young people: A survey of collection
development methods in public libraries. Library Trends, 41(3), 493–523.
Tyner, M. (2021, Feb.2). The CCBC’s diversity statistics: New categories, new data. The Horn
Book. https://www.hbook.com/?detailStory=the-ccbcs-diversity-statistics-new-categories-
new-data
Vercelletto, C. (2019). How diverse are our books? L.J.’s 2019 Diverse Materials Survey reveals
where efforts to build more representative and inclusive library collections are
widespread, and where there are gaps. Library Journal, 144(5), 33–34.
Vinopal, J. (2016). The quest for diversity in library staffing: From awareness to action. In the
Library with the Lead Pipe. http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2016/quest-for-
diversity
Watson, P. D. (1994). Founding mothers: The contribution of women’s organizations to public
library development in the United States. The Library Quarterly, 64(3), 233–269.
https://doi.org/10.1086/602699
Watson, P. D. (1996). Carnegie ladies, Lady Carnegies: Women and the building of libraries.
Libraries & Culture, 31(1), 159–196.
We Need Diverse Books (WNDB), (n.d.). Our Vision. https://diversebooks.org/about-wndb/
Wiegand, S. A. (1996). Reality bites: The collision of rhetoric, rights, and reality and the Library
Bill of Rights. Library Trends, 45(1), 75–86.
110

Wiegand, W. A. (1996). The Library Bill of Rights. Library Trends, 45(1), 1–127.
Wiegand, W. A. (2011). Main street public library community places and reading spaces in the
rural heartland, 1876-1956. University of Iowa Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt20q21z5
Wiegand, W. A. & Wiegand, S.A. (2018) The desegregation of public libraries in the Jim Crow
South: Civil rights and local activism. LSU Press.
Williams, V. K. & Deyoe, N. (2014). Diverse population, diverse collection? Youth collections
in the United States. Technical Services Quarterly, 31(2), 97–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2014.875373
Wood, E. (2021). Libraries full circle: The cross section of community, the public sphere, and
Third Place. Public Library Quarterly, 40(2), 144–166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2020.1737491
Working Together Project. (2008). Community-led libraries toolkit. Working Together.
Https://www.vpl.ca/sites/vpl/public/Community-Led-Libraries-Toolkit.pdf
Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for latina/o undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659–690.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.4.m6867014157m707l
Usherwood, B., Proctor, R., Bower, G., Stevens, T., & Coe, C. (2000). Recruitment and retention
in the public library — a baseline study. Career Development International, 5(6), 301–
317.
Zalusky, S. (2021). The state of America’s libraries 2021: A report from the American Library
Association. American Library Association. https://bit.ly/soal-report-2021
111

112

Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
Table A1
Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes
1. Tell me about your background in libraries. a. How did you become interested in
librarianship?
b. How long have you worked in the
field?
c. What roles or positions have you
held?
2. Tell me a little about the community your library
serves.
a. Is yours a diverse community?
b. How do you know?
3. Please describe your collection
development/management responsibilities.
a. Besides yourself who else is
responsible for collection
development/management?
b. Do you have a formal collection
development policy? How much
can you tell me about that?
4. In your opinion what are the priorities in your
organization around collection
development/management?
a. How do you know if you are
successful in addressing those
priorities?
5. When was the last time you reflected on
community representation in your collection?
a. What prompted your reflection?
b. Why do you suppose you don’t
reflect on this?
6. To what extent is creating a diverse collection part
of your or your organization’s goals?
a. Are these goals publicly stated or
informal?
b. In your opinion are you successful?
c. What are the challenges involved in
meeting those goals?
d. What strategies have helped with
meeting those goals?
7. What are some ways you assess for diversity in
your collection? If at all.
a. What kinds of assessments are
done, if any?
b. Do you think the assessments are
helpful?
c. Why do you think that is the case?
d. Some libraries conduct diversity
audits of their collections, what are
your thoughts about that?

8. Tell me about how members of marginalized
groups use your library, if at all?
a.How do you know?
b.Why do think that is?
113

Interview questions Potential probes
10.What are your policies/procedures for dealing with
complaints about a particular item in your
collection (request for reconsideration)?
Can you recall a particular occasion
when you dealt with a RFR? What
happened? What was the outcome?
11. What have you heard about the recent increase in
book banning?
a. How do you feel about that?
b. How do your coworkers feel?
c. Have you changed anything about
the way you work in light of that?
d. Has your organization changed
anything in light of that?
11.How did your organization respond to the
controversy surrounding the Dr Seuss books last
year?
a. Do you still have the books in your
collection?
b. How do you feel about that?
12.How do you think libraries should deal with
materials that might perpetuate negative stereotypes
or other offensive elements?
13. Which marginalized communities do you identify
with, if any?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Library usage contributes societal value to the community as a public good funded by taxes. This research aimed to bring to light how the values and beliefs of librarians influence public library collections in the United States. Libraries have historically emphasized equal access over equitable inclusion, and collections lack diversity and community representation. White women dominate librarianship as a profession despite several decades of diversity initiatives by the American Library Association. The qualitative methodology used was semi-structured interviews with 12 credentialed public librarians with at least 5 years of professional experience. The study found that librarians frame the professional core value of intellectual freedom expansively as neutrality. While using it to defend against a rising tide of book banning, they also use it to defend the collection’s harmful materials and offensive stereotypes. These findings indicate the need for revising the profession’s core values and recommendations for practice that include collaborating with communities in curating collections that foster a sense of belonging and a suggestion for continuing education for professionals.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

Military spouses, military lifestyle, and the concept of thriving

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

The great balancing act: women seeking work-life balance during COVID-19

PDF

Ageism and ingrained stereotypes: a qualitative study of systemic injustices in hiring practices

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program

PDF

An exploration: teacher reflections of implicit bias professional development

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Factors that impact the retention of low-income community college students

PDF

Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

The journey to leadership: examining the opportunities and challenges for Asian American women leaders in K-12 schools

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida

PDF

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

Asset Metadata

Creator Davies, Claire Louise (author)

Core Title Shelf awareness: public librarians and diverse collections

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/03/2022

Defense Date 07/11/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag censorship,collection development,critical librarianship,diversity,implicit bias,information science,intellectual freedom,librarians,library collections,neutrality,OAI-PMH Harvest,Public libraries

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney Lynn (committee chair), Kim, Esther C. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email clairedavies@icloud.com,cldavies@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376109

Unique identifier UC111376109

Legacy Identifier etd-DaviesClai-11092

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Davies, Claire Louise

Type texts

Source 20220804-usctheses-batch-969 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu