Having
spent 15 years researching public libraries and trying to emphasise
their contribution to education and society as a whole, you might expect
that I’d be delighted at the good news that our public libraries are
finally receiving the media attention and recognition they deserve?
Sadly not.
The
recent boon in media interest is of course linked to a large-scale BBC
investigation into the “real” picture of library closures, staff
redundancies and budget cuts which have taken place since 2010, the year
in which UK Chancellor George Osborne “unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts for decades”.
I
was one of a number of people interviewed as part of the investigation,
and have been quoted in two depressingly entitled articles: one on how a
quarter of staff jobs have been lost as hundreds of libraries close and another entitled “Libraries: the decline of a profession?”
The
first article presented some stark statistics — based on an extensive
series of Freedom of Information requests by the BBC — which revealed
the extent of closures, planned closures and job losses, as well as the
concurrent increase in community-run libraries — where the local
authority hands over the management of a library service to a group of
community volunteers — and volunteer staff.
Libraries
aren’t over, they will just look different. A similar view was
expressed by Elizabeth Elford of the Society of Chief Librarians, who observed
“there will be fewer public libraries when we come out the other side,
but they will be better and more innovative.” I sincerely hope that she
is right, but I question whether the closure of so many public libraries
could be characterised as a positive development.
Of
course, not all libraries have “closed”. In addition to the 343
libraries no longer in existence since 2010, the BBC also reported that
232 libraries have been “transferred”, 174 of which have moved from
council control to management by community groups (whether or not these
should also be counted as “closures” remains a point for ongoing
debate).
For Ian Stephens, chair of the Local Government Association’s culture, tourism and sport board, it is testament
“to how much people value their libraries that so many have volunteered
to help keep them open.” This might well be true but it provides little
comfort to those volunteers who would have preferred the library
service to remain council run rather than being forced to fend for
themselves without professional training or long-term council support.
Community run
Community-run libraries are also under no obligation to conform to council standards
and, as I keep being told by people working in community-run libraries,
they feel that they are in competition with other libraries in the city
or county, and are certainly not connected to them as they originally
thought they would be.
This
would appear incongruous with the public library service so familiar to
many of us, with one large central library providing the greatest range
of resources, and a number of smaller branch libraries serving the
different parts of the community. The community-run service, at least in
its current form, does not appear to replicate this service, and, as
the statistics show, we now have an utter lack of consistency of
provision across towns and cities.
Supportive role
Volunteers
have long supported library services by supplementing existing
work — shelving, routine enquiry work, storytelling sessions, and so
on — or by adding value to a service with more specialised skills, such
as cultural awareness sessions from members of local minority ethnic
communities. This is extremely valuable work, and in no sense devalues
the existing service. Many of our students will work as volunteers in
library services before coming on the masters programme, and it serves
as excellent preparation for an information career.
However,
some politicians and other commentators seem to forget that there is an
important distinction between volunteers used to supplement an existing
service, and volunteers either replacing the specialised roles of paid
library staff, or working in “community-run” libraries. The second of
these seemed at the time to relate very closely to the coalition
government’s Big Society ideology,
the impact of which is still being felt, particularly in terms of the
ongoing drive for local authorities to make the most of ever-decreasing
budgets. Certainly before 2010 the community-run library was a very rare
phenomenon.
Last year I was told that public libraries — and, by association, any research into them — were “dead in the water”. No such demise has occurred,
as I wrote in a blog last year. Nevertheless, the recent media coverage
is a clear reminder that we cannot be complacent about the future of
public libraries. These are very difficult times for these organisations
and those who work in them, and it would be naive to pretend otherwise.
People
who have devoted their lives to supporting public libraries are now
suggesting that we have gone past the point of no return. Yet there are
still a huge number of individuals and organisations who still firmly
believe in the role of the statutory public library service in a
democratic society, and are working tirelessly to ensure that it
remains.
To
those fortunate individuals who appear not to have seen the extent of
the contribution a public library makes to its community, I repeat a
point made by David McMenemy, in his book The Public Library:
“In all of the discourse around the diminishing use of public library
services it is crucial not to lose sight of the fact that many people
within our communities continue to need the services they offer.”
Public
library services remain one of the most significant and democratising
assets within our communities and should not be sacrificed for economic
or political expediency.
Dr Briony Birdi, Lecturer in Librarianship, Information School, University of Sheffield.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Comments