The moves by the US federal government to shrink and potentially abolish the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has – rightfully – led to an uprising in support for the agency, highlighting all of the positive contributions it has made.

Of course, the US does not have a monopoly on such attacks, with other countries also seeing governments reducing support to the sector in general.

IMLS was perhaps an inevitable target in the context of the wider frantic drive to cut staff and capacity at the federal level. Clearly, as in many other countries, most funding for libraries is held and controlled at the regional, local or even institutional level.

While that is unaffected (for now), the damage being done to IMLS raises a wider question about the role of agencies like IMLS in the work of library fields as a whole. This is a question that IFLA was able to explore through a report commissioned last year from David Baker Consulting and published in January, even ahead of the announcements out of Washington DC.

This blog explores the findings of the study, and how these are applicable in the current situation.

Fields and structures

While the original goal of the study was to explore the conditions that need to be in place for a library field to deliver change at scale – an issue we will come back to – the work of the researchers also highlighted that the idea of a ‘library field’ itself should not be taken for granted.

IFLA has talked about this as an idea for some time. As an organisation which brings together libraries of all types, around the world, the ‘library field’ represents a useful shorthand for our primary audience.

Yet it is also undeniable that for many professionals, their immediate community is shaped by geography (colleagues within the same city or region) and focus (public, academic or other types of library). Having more in common in terms of experience and needs means that it may be easier to define and develop action.

Nonetheless, the existence of IFLA, as well as of generalist national and regional associations, indicates that there is already recognition of the value of the concept of a wider library field.

The idea is operationalised through the work, for example, of committees addressing issues that affect different types of library (such as copyright, intellectual freedom or inclusive access), or even facilitate cooperation (for example on citizen science or access to open government data).

In effect, the existence (and acceptance) of the idea of a library field opens the door to thinking about how we can organise action at scale in order to deliver on our goals most effectively.

Certainly, the goals we look to achieve – strengthening literacy, building individual agency, supporting research, and safeguarding heritage – are national and international level policy goals.

But in order to understand how we can do this, we then need to look at how much (and what kind of) structure is needed for this.

Push and pull: getting structure right

In looking at what sort of structures can help the field deliver on its potential, we also need to balance two contrasting forces (but ones which also underpin the strength of the field).

On the one hand, there is a push to decentralisation, rooted in the fact that a key strength of libraries is their connection to their communities. We pride ourselves on our ability to assess and understand the needs of our users, and build collections, services and programming accordingly.

In this, we contrast ourselves with other actors or services which take a one-size-fits-all approach, allowing little room for adaptation to local requirements.

On the other hand, we also strongly emphasise the fact that our institutions are connected, serving as portals to a much wider network, while of course engaging with actors at a regional or national level also requires a unified voice to be effective.

There can also be economies of scale from pooling resources and acting together, as well as the capacity to innovate and take risks, and then disseminate the lessons of this.  This leads to a drive for centralisation.

The challenge is to balance these – finding structures that allow us to form partnerships and mobilise resources, as well as make the most of economies of scale, without losing our ability to adapt to local and individual needs.

Library associations of course have a major potential role to play in finding this balance and delivering on potential. Yet they also vary hugely in terms of their roles, focus and capacity.

Library agencies – be their independent ones such as IMLS, units within ministries, or teams within national libraries – are another.

Lessons from the study

Having explored the idea of a library field, the study then sets out a number of needs or functions that need to be in place for fields to be able to deliver policy outcomes at scale.

The study’s conclusions are drawn from research into examples of library fields which have formed partnerships for change at regional or national level, for example working with foundations or different government ministries.

The lessons are, nonetheless, valuable more broadly when thinking about how we can turn the latent potential of library fields into real-world action and outcomes.

The study identifies five needs: 1) the ability to articulate the role of libraries, 2) having a trained workforce, 3) a department or agency responsible for libraries, 4) a voice for libraries in partnerships, and 5) partners.

Already, the importance of an agency is clear in this, with the study underlining their role in providing leadership when exploring and taking on new roles and responsibilities.  Yet beyond this leadership, agencies can also fill some of the other functions, from supporting training, explaining the role of libraries to other stakeholders, and building partnerships with others.

Building on the strategy, an incomplete list of the roles that agencies can play could include:

• A leader for the field (working with associations and national libraries)
• A driver of innovation, through enabling institutions to take risks, and then sharing results.
• A vehicle for solidarity and inclusion, through focusing resources on those institutions and professionals that need them most.
• A representative and ambassador for libraries, demonstrating what we are capable of, both to central government and other stakeholders.
• A means of realising economies of scale, through common programming and services.

Clearly, the specific needs of an agency are likely to vary depending on the circumstances within each country. In some, associations may play many of these roles, at least in part, although they can also need to deal with challenges such as limited resources, periodic change of personnel, and not necessarily having an official public function.

Similarly, national libraries may play some of these roles, not least given that they do at least enjoy an official status. At the same time, they also have other functions focused on building collections and safeguarding heritage.

What is clear is that if there is no agency – or at least nothing playing the role of an agency – we risk losing (mirroring the functions set out above):

• A sense of direction and leadership for the field
• The ability to take risks and innovate, as well as to share lessons from this
• The means of supporting struggling institutions and professionals beyond what is possible at the local level
• A clear voice for the field and its interests in government and beyond
• Money and effectiveness, through the loss of economies of scale, replaced by lots of small (and likely less advantageous) deals which also risk duplicating each other.

While the results of such losses may not be immediately visible, they risk fundamentally weakening the ability of libraries to deliver effectively on their missions.

Given that these missions are also the missions of any government interested in promoting education, research, cultural participation and the protection of heritage, this impact matters.

Conclusion

As has been underlined in much of the criticism of the effective closing of IMLS, this attack on a federal agency is likely to have very real effects in local communities. There is a complementarity between work at these two levels, not an opposition, despite the discourse of small-state radicals.

The situation of IMLS also helps focus attention on the importance of the role of library agencies in general, as leaders, risk-takers, enablers of solidarity, voices and money-savers.

Through its work going forwards, IFLA will be looking further at how to ensure that library fields everywhere can benefit from the support that library agencies, or institutions/ associations taking on these functions.