Author Archives: library-policy

Advoc8 – June 2025

The importance of access to and mobilisation of knowledge and information in order to address the challenges we face has never been clearer. Yet at the same time, the threats to this seem perhaps more immediate than in a long time in many parts of the world.

In order to identify emerging issues, as well as to highlight the library angle around timely international events and developments, we’re happy to relaunch our Advoc8 series. These will be monthly blogs on the IFLA site that set out 8 areas each time where we are particularly focused, and where we hope we can share insights, with links to relevant materials as appropriate.

1) Cuts to library budgets have a real impact in communities: there is a real human cost when libraries are less able to fulfil their missions. Shorter opening hours, fewer computer terminals, a less welcoming space and thinner collections all mean reduced possibilities to access the information and knowledge that people need and have a right to. Such cuts do not represent savings, but rather create or deepen problems, with those with the fewest resources most likely to suffer. See our statement on cuts to library and archives services in the US in particular for more.

2) Libraries must be able to build and manage collections without political interference: at the heart of libraries’ work is the understanding that intellectual freedom relies on the possibility to engage with a wide variety of views and develop your own opinions. When there is political interference – notably through the removal of books or deletion of archives – this freedom is harmed. A society that enjoys less freedom not only does not enjoy its rights, but is likely to be less creative, innovative, cohesive or democratic. See IFLA’s statement on intellectual freedom, as well as the work of our Advisory Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression for more.

3) Libraries – and their associations – have a key role to play in mobilising communities in the face of climate change: adapting to and mitigating the impacts of climate change will require action at every level. While the primary responsibility must lie on the worst polluters, everyone can play a role in building resilience and greening their communities. With the UN Bonn Climate Conferences kicking off in June, it is a good moment to take stock of how libraries enhance climate communication and education, and in turn, how associations can help mobilise them at scale! Check out our commissioned research into the role of associations and think about how you can mobilise it in your own work.

4) Libraries have a key role to play in making a reality of digital inclusion: for centuries, the mission of libraries has centred on the provision of access to knowledge. Today, this means they are excellent infrastructure for meaningful digital inclusion. They provide an on-ramp to digital public infrastructures, and a safe space for those who are still not confident online, and a key alternative opportunity for connectivity for everyone else. A people-centred internet needs libraries. Take a look at our Internet Manifesto, and think about how you can get libraries more involved in digital inclusion discussions in your country.

5) Libraries should be places of safety for refugees, not fear: as community-based, non-commercial spaces, libraries can provide a safe haven for refugees, both in working to integrate into their new countries, and in staying in touch with their homes. It is therefore crucial that they be able to serve all visitors, and not be subject – as has been proposed in some countries – to an obligation to report undocumented library users. Download our guidelines for library services to refugees to find out more, and read about how librarians in Sweden are resisting efforts to report on undocumented library users.

6) We need to do more to address the problem of the trafficking of manuscripts: far too often, conflict and instability open a door for the theft and trafficking of cultural objects. While much as been done around objects, books and manuscripts are also bought and sold illegally, robbing communities of their heritage and scattering collections. We need to expand on the great work already taking place in some parts of the world to better protect library materials and put more pressure on those involved in this illicit trade. Find out more in our report from UNESCO meetings on the topic.

7) Libraries are an essential public service: with Public Service Day at the end of June, it is important to remember that libraries are a key part of the ‘offer’ that states make to their citizens as part of the social contract. Indeed, with their flexible, people-centred, cross-cutting role (covering everything from public health to citizen participation), they are a uniquely modern and exciting way of delivering the public services to which people have a right. Read the revised Public Library Manifesto and Toolkit, and think about whether public libraries in your country are enabled to play all of the roles they set out.

8) Libraries are the essential infrastructure for information integrity: much discussion around information integrity focuses on the regulation of digital platforms. But just as important is how we build the attitudes and skills among the wider population to appreciate accurate information and be able to identify it. There is a growing evidence base and set of tools around libraries’ practical role in making this happen in communities, generating a lasting impact. Check out our take on the UN’s Global Principles for more.

 

Why library agencies like IMLS matter

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.

Return of the zombie library myths

There are many stories and ideas about libraries that really should have disappeared by now, but just won’t stay dead.

Time has moved on, services have been transformed, and all the evidence points to something different, but these zombie myths keep going, shaping attitudes outside – and sometimes inside – our field.

They represent a challenge for us – things we need to overcome in order to ensure that people get an accurate view of what libraries are, and what they can do.

So for Halloween – as marked in some parts of the world today – we’ve brought together a few ideas that seem hard to shift (or exorcise). This is a slightly random selection – we encourage you to share your own ideas in the comments at bottom!

Libraries are just about books

A regular issue we encounter in advocacy is that people tend to have a very narrow perspective of libraries, focused purely on books on shelves.

Typically, this is because that is the model of library that they experienced in their youth. This vision has stuck, meaning that they too easily dismiss what libraries are today. And this has an impact, leading to missed opportunities to draw on all that comes with the books – the spaces, the services, the staff – to achieve goals.

Of course, pointing out that libraries are not just about books – or even have somehow moved beyond books – is a key part of many advocacy strategies. A regular news alert for libraries typically shows up a large number of stories along these lines.

But in this, we should also be careful not to lose the connection to books, and in particular what books contain. Tommi Laitio’s blog about the library stool sets makes the argument powerfully, underlining that it’s not a question of books vs beyond books, but one of what services and activities libraries build around books.

In this way, we stay true to our original goal of helping people to realise their rights and potential through knowledge, maintain our identity as opposed to other community centres, and ensure that those users who want books still recognise themselves.

Libraries are about passive information consumption

Closely linked to the above point, another persistent cliché of libraries is that of a space where people are simply reading books. Once again, it’s not a case of denying the importance of this – reading is clearly essential for developing literacy skills, supporting learning, and also brings wellbeing benefits.

But increasingly, we need others – and in particular partners and funders – to see libraries as places where knowledge is activated, where it can turn into wider positive outcomes. We’ve already mentioned health above, but the same applies across the board.

Finding and applying new ways of working with information, such as text and data mining, is driving scientific progress. Combining information with opportunities to reflect and share can strengthen the foundations of democratic societies. Building on shared knowledge can support social cohesion and resilience.

In short, we need to ensure that in addition to the image of a library as a place for quiet reflection, it is also seen as a catalyst, a place where knowledge and information are turned into real world outcomes.

If we just regulate social media, we’ll have a healthy information environment

Stepping back from libraries alone, the next persistent idea that really should have had its day is that we can resolve all the problems in the information environment through tackling social media alone.

While it is very welcome that the UN and others are now talking about information integrity as a theme, the focus here remains very much on addressing problems associated with major digital actors.

Clearly, there are questions to address, linked in particular to business models that amplify irrelevant or harmful material, but ultimately, a healthy information environment requires far more that this. It needs a strong supply and availability of information for all, as well as a population that is skilled and curious, ready to value and look for reliable, accurate and verifiable knowledge.

These cannot be achieved simply by addressing problems when they happen in social media companies – it needs much more comprehensive policies, including support for libraries!

Neutrality is neutral

Another idea that has been around for a while is that of library neutrality. To some extent, talk of neutrality is likely to be more of an internal concern within the library field than an external one (not many politicians talk about libraries being neutral). At the same time, it was perhaps an indicator of success that the cliché of libraries was as a place where you could simply find the materials you wanted.

Of course, this was not always the case. Many groups did not – and perhaps still do not – feel that the library is a place for them. And as we’ve seen in some parts of the world, there are growing efforts to politicise libraries and their collections, attacking them for stocking books that don’t fit with individuals’ view.

In effect, this means that neither we – nor others – should see library neutrality as a simple thing. On our side, it’s about reflecting far more critically about whether our activities really are accessible and welcoming to all. This can mean a lot, from thinking about the way our buildings and services are designed to recognising that past collection practices – and even what was counted as worth including in books – were not truly neutral.

More broadly, it is about asserting that providing equitable access to information, knowledge and culture is connected to a certain set of values. There have been enough philosophies and belief systems that have not upheld this as a principle in the past, and these still exist today. In short, neutrality is not neutral.

We can do it alone

A final myth is around library self-sufficiency. Because libraries can do so much, it is all too easy to assume that we should do everything. Of course in an environment like a library conference, it is easy to look at the examples that colleagues are sharing and feel a mixture of energy and perhaps guilt about not doing more. The concept of vocational awe in librarianship has been around for a while.

It is neither the case that we need to do everything, or that we need to do it alone. While it can be awkward to ask for help or support, we need to recognise that reaching out and forming partnerships is a way of increasing our impact. We can be proud of the contributions we bring to partnerships – our skills, our spaces, our collections, our values – while celebrating how much further these can go when combined with what others can bring.

Linked to this, we need to make it a reflex that whenever we are preparing plans or strategies to address different questions, we are also making sure to check with others involved in that space. Whether it is a desire not to have to ask for things, a lack of regular contacts, or a reflex always to rely on ourselves, this ultimately risks meaning that we achieve less than we could.

 

As mentioned in the beginning, this is a slightly random set of library myths and clichés, and you will certainly have ideas for more. Do share your ideas and comments in the chat below!

You belong: libraries, advocacy and imposter syndrome

“I didn’t expect to find someone from libraries here”

Many of you involved in advocacy will likely have heard this at some point in your experience.

You go along to a meeting on a topic where there is an obvious need for the unique characteristics of libraries, the unique skills and values of library and information workers. Obvious to you at least.

But others – often experts who would claim to have a deep knowledge of the issues in the space – have never even thought about the potential to mobilise our institutions.

It can be disorientating, even put you on the defensive, feeling that you need to justify why you are even there, let alone to make your point. It can give you the sense of being an imposter, an outsider.

It shouldn’t!

Libraries are arguably one of the best kept secrets of successful delivery of wider public policy goals. Our characteristics, skills and values, as mentioned above, give us unique possibilities to reach into communities, to shape behaviours, and to realise potential.

As work around libraries and the Sustainable Development Goals has underlined, libraries have a role to play in so many different areas where governments and others are trying to make a difference to lives and societies.

Through work on the SDGs, we hope, we’re managing to encourage a stronger understanding amongst libraries themselves of the potential we have. Clearly, this does still need some work. We can all too easily fall back into seeing ourselves as only belonging in certain spaces – culture, education – or even as being non-playable characters entirely. As our previous blog explored, we need to work on ourselves, to avoid feeling like we have no responsibility for, or role in, determining our future.

The challenge then is to get stakeholders in other areas to feel the same. How do we get to a world where libraries are not just familiar faces in other policy discussions, but that partners spontaneously think of libraries when they want to get things done?

A first step is simply to be adventurous, to go to the conferences and meetings organised by others where you feel that libraries should be recognised. Simply staying in our own professional events isn’t enough! Bring handouts, wear t-shirts or hoodies, ask questions, make sure that as many people as possible hear the word ‘libraries’. It means that next time, it will be less of a surprise.

A second is to speak the language of the community you’re engaging with. Take the time to read about their priorities and think about the words and language they use. We need to be able to express what we’re doing in terms that potential partners understand, not just in the ones that we traditionally use. They need to be able to place us in their own worlds, understand clearly why it is in their interest to work with us.

A third is to be engaging. Don’t just tell people things, ask them to think themselves about how they can imagine working with libraries, or how libraries can support them to achieve their goals. If they’re struggling, make the question broader – ask them how important information and knowledge are. Make sure you also have a plan for following up, for example through meetings or sharing further information.

A fourth is to find champions. It can be powerful to bring non-library people to (good) library events, or even simply ask them to write an article or blog. This forces them to take the time to think about how libraries are relevant to them. If you’re lucky, they may then spread the word, and get their own peer groups thinking more about libraries.

Finally, make sure that you are doing an effective job – don’t over-stretch in the spaces where you engage, but make sure that you can commit to turning up regularly, building relationships and more. Even the most effective one-off engagement won’t bring much if it is just a one-off.

Through regular and effective engagement, you can help us reach a world where libraries are not just admitted to other meetings and spaces, but where we become seen as a key actor in achieving policy goals, and so a partner.

Good luck – you belong!

Are librarians non-playable characters?

In IFLA’s advocacy work, two recurring phenomena point to a key challenge that we need to overcome.

The first is the surprise people at various conferences and events when they hear that you are representing libraries. The second is the feeling among libraries themselves that they are powerless to make change happen, and must rather do the best they can with the resources and conditions they have.

The root cause of these is, however, the same – a sense that librarians do not have any agency – i.e. the ability to make change happen.

In effect, there is a risk that librarians and libraries are all too often seen (including by themselves) as ‘non-playable characters’ – entities that are pre-programmed to do what they do.

The concept comes from gaming, referring to entities that likely aren’t bad, but rather just cannot be taken on as a personality, and are often simply just victims or playthings for the main characters.

A plaything, not a player?

To go into more depth, the perception of libraries as simply being ‘part of the landscape’ likely to some extent comes from the fact that our institutions have been around for thousands of years. Libraries are in effect not surprising, and plenty of people will already have an idea of what a library is (however outdated this might be).

Given this, the idea of libraries needing to speak up may seem odd to some. Doubtless, the stereotype of librarians as quiet and reserved also likely does not help.

A further factor may be the fact that libraries are often seen as ‘belonging’ to either host institutions or local governments, and so that they are represented by these. This can be a benign assumption, but of course can also be more dangerous if promoted by governments or other stakeholders who do not share libraries’ values.

In parallel, librarians themselves can be at risk of feeling like they are not able to speak up or shape decisions. This can be a result of being in public service (or other) contracts that restrict possibilities to question or criticise.

It is also perfectly human to want to focus on providing services that help people, with advocacy seemingly providing little immediate advantage to users. It of course also necessitates to some extent stepping outside of your comfort zone, and looking to engage with decision-makers and others. On some questions, advocacy will involve facing opposition – a skill that can be learned, but which will be easier for some than for others.

The overall result, as already indicted at in the introduction, is a sense of powerlessness, of not really having a place at the table when decisions are being made. Instead, there is an expectation that libraries should rather just accept what is decided.

However, this should not and does not have to be the case. It’s not good for libraries and their users, as it means that decisions are being made without consideration of what they need. It’s also not good for the library and information workforce – a sense of powerlessness can have consequences for wider wellbeing.

 Ready player 1?

 So what can we do about this, in order to ensure that librarians are seen – and see themselves – as having a sense of agency in the decisions that affect them and their work?

A key step of course is engagement in associations. Whereas many librarians are employed by governments or host institutions, associations are part of civil society, with greater possibilities to say things that individual members cannot. They can also bypass some of the structures that might prevent individual library and information workers from talking to those above them in the hierarchy.

In effect, this is an important role of associations, complementing their role in supporting a vibrant professional community, and one that is unlikely to be done by anyone else in the same way.

Beyond the work of associations, there are of course also opportunities for ‘internal’ lobbying, for example by identifying champions, ensuring that there is clear evidence of what libraries contribute (or the costs of inaction). This sort of advocacy is not public, but is a great way of building a sense that libraries are key players in achieving wider government or organisational goals. We just need to be smart and innovative in how we do this.

Another step is simply to be present in different spaces. With the contributions libraries make to progress on a wide range of development goals, we arguably do have legitimate experience and inputs in lots of different conferences and fora. Other stakeholders should get used to seeing us there, and hearing our voices!

We also need to work on the way we tell the story of ourselves, and remember that we have values and a mission that are unlikely to be achieved if we are not able to work effectively.

Finally, and practically, we can also build a sense of agency by breaking down advocacy into smaller types of activity. This also helps find ways to make the most of everyone’s strengths in advocacy. We do this in our advocacy capacities grids for public and internal advocacy.

Stepping up

As highlighted in the title, libraries and librarians are too often seen as non-playable characters. We shouldn’t accept this, for the sake of our institutions, our missions, and our own wellbeing.

Rather, we need to be ready to challenge, both when we see fatalism and passivity in our own attitudes, but also when we see others discount libraries and what they bring to the table.

Libraries do make a difference to the communities they serve. To do this, they need also to make a difference to the decisions that shape the environment in which they work.

Multi-Level Library Advocacy

Why do we do advocacy internationally, when the most critical decisions about libraries are taken at the national or local levels?

It’s a question that we often challenge ourselves with at IFLA, given the time and effort we put into our work, for example, with the United Nations, UNESCO, the World Intellectual Property Organization and others.

It can feel hard to answer after day-long meetings where it feels like people are just saying the same thing as they did a year ago, and there is far more talking than listening going on!

However, the fact that organisations and spaces like these exist already offers a pointer. Even though final decisions may be taken at the national or local levels, they are shaped by discussions, processes, recommendations and more elsewhere.

Sometimes this is because everyone realises that there is an interest in coordination or even harmonisation, as policies are less effective otherwise. Sometimes it is just because it is valuable to learn from others (both from their mistakes and successes).

Of course, work done at international level can have a greater or lesser impact on what others do as well, either because of the nature of the policy area (for example, trade rules are tougher than recommendations about education), and the attitudes of individual governments.

By engaging international, IFLA effectively works to influence the actions that in turn influence decisions about libraries. In addition, we also work to make sure that you – members, volunteers, and libraries in general – know about these actions, and can draw on them in your own work.

To explain this process – as we see it – in more depth, take a look at our model. We welcome your ideas and inputs!

A positive approach to promoting information integrity

A particularly welcome trend in the past year at the United Nations has been evidence of growing recognition of the importance of knowledge and information in the achievement of wider policy goals.

We have seen the emergence of a scientific advisory council for the UN Secretary-General, reference to the possibilities created by advances in knowledge near the beginning of the Pact for the Future, and an upward trend in references to libraries in Voluntary National Reviews.

Perhaps the clearest recognition comes in the UN Secretary-General’s Policy Brief, which contains the seeds of the upcoming Code of Conduct on Information Integrity. This provides, as a definition, ‘the accuracy, consistency and reliability of information’, and sets out that ‘threats to information integrity are having an impact on progress on global, national and local issues’.

The Code of Conduct is not the only document in this space. The UNESCO Guidelines on the Governance of Digital Platforms were already released last year after an extensive consultation period. This too underlines how essential access to information (via the internet) is for development, but at the same time, that this is at risk.

However, and in addition to the ongoing need to distinguish clearly between the UNESCO and UN initiatives (a point likely to be made more complicated still once the Global Digital Compact is released), they nonetheless can risk missing key opportunities.

Despite the overall emphasis on access to information and information integrity, both are built around the role (and regulation of) platforms – an area which is likely to attract most media attention – and areas where the organisations involved have existing programmes and capacity.

For libraries, this risks not being particularly inspiring, and certainly does not reflect the full range of ways in which our institutions and profession contributes to advancing information integrity, in accordance with the definition set out earlier.

This blog therefore offers some ideas for principles for an approach to Information Integrity at the UN and elsewhere that would fully make use of the potential of libraries.

Be positive: a common feature in much work around information regulation is a focus on trying to avoid or defeat dangers. Clearly, there are indeed plenty of risks in the online world, but the challenge is that by focusing only on the negatives, we risk discouraging people from using the internet. A better approach to information integrity should explicitly be as much about how do we help people to be confident, but savvy, in using the internet.

Be people- and community-centred: in the end, the impact of information and knowledge come in their application in resolving development problems, from the individual to the global levels. We therefore should take the experience and needs of all people as a starting point for thinking through how we can both build people’s own skills and attitudes, as well as create an environment where it is possible to be a smart user of information.

Be broad-based: a crucial point is the need to avoid looking at just one actor or tool. For example, while the workings of digital platforms clearly have a major impact, they are only one part of the picture. Moreover, given the scale at which they work, actions via platforms by their nature are likely to be very much top-down. Similarly, when it comes to how to ensure a supply of quality information, we need to look beyond just the press, and consider all potential sources, including for example open access publishing.

Be convincing: the texts mentioned above take as an assumption that people recognise information integrity as something that is both good and necessary, but this does not necessarily take into account the attitudes and approaches of individual people. A comprehensive approach to information integrity would also include work to build appreciation of this in the population as a whole.

Be rights-respecting: a risk in any discussion around Information Integrity is that we end up supporting the actors and voices who would prefer that we return to the age of one-way broadcasting, and would be happy to set themselves up as gatekeepers. We cannot let information integrity become an excuse to shut down diverse voices.

Be globally-aware: a further challenge when discussing information regulation is differing perspectives about the relative risk posed by governments and business. In some places, there can be relatively strong faith that regulation will be fairly designed and implemented, but this is not the case everywhere. We need an approach that is realistic about how far we can trust in regulation to deliver information integrity, just as we need to be realistic about how much companies will deliver this on their own.

Be about libraries: clearly, we cannot and should not claim that libraires on their own can build a world characterised by information integrity, but at the same time, there are few other actors who can play such a broad role, both in terms of the communities we can reach, and the ways in which we can contribute. From provision of access to delivering skills to shaping wider policy, libraries should be in the picture!

Watch this space for a series of upcoming webinars exploring the different aspects of information integrity for libraires today