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!

“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!

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.

Advocacy is about making libraries part of other people’s agendas, ensuring that those who take decisions about us (and those who influence them) see why our institutions and profession matter.

Through this, we can help ensure that we have the best possible environment in which to pursue our mission to help everyone enjoy their rights and fulfil their potential through access to information.

But what are the agendas that we’re most likely to be engaging with in 2024, and what does this mean or our advocacy work? This article sets out a few ideas.

Growing alarm about failures to meet development goals: while this is nothing new, the closer we get to 2030, the more worried leaders are likely to be at the UN about how much progress is needed in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

There have already been plenty of announcements of initiatives to accelerate progress, notably the High-Impact Initiatives last September, and this year will include a key moment with the Summit of the Future. This will include a Pact for the Future which is likely to be the key reference or the UN’s work in the coming years.

As set out in our briefing, there are plenty of opportunities to advocate for libraries within the different chapters of the Pact, both in terms of our work in New York, but also in engaging with UN Country Teams and those engaged in UN work nationally.

 ‘Something must be done’ about the internet: while the fact of creating an Internet Governance Forum almost 20 years ago shows that the idea that the internet needs regulation is not new, the pressure for intervention is growing. The power of major digital companies and the potential of digital technologies to do harm, but also the need to ensure digital inclusion to allow for wider inclusion, are behind an intensification of activity to create new rules for the internet.

With national governments and others engaging in a ‘regulatory arms race’ (given that whoever moves first is likely to set the example for others), the UN too has been getting more and more active, with this year’s Global Digital Compact likely to be a highlight.

The Compact, at least as far as documents already shared indicate, offers plenty of hooks for library engagement. However, we have the potential to go further, setting out a positive agenda for what a library-enabled digital knowledge society looks like. This is what IFLA is looking to do with its update to our Internet Manifesto. See our post on digital issues in 2024 for more!

Addressing threats to information integrity: a specific area of focus is likely to be around how the world reacts to mis- and disinformation and hate speech. This will be the subject of a code of conduct from the UN, but likely also many national initiatives. The fact that this is a year of elections in many countries only increases the pressure.

It is certainly a strong positive for libraries that there is so much recognition now of the importance of reliable and verifiable information as an enabler of other outcomes. However, action here risks being quite negative, primarily looking at platform regulation and building skills to spot fake news.

Better, perhaps, for libraries is to use the opportunity the focus on information integrity offers in order to make a more positive case for literate, curious, critical and informed societies, with strong library networks at their heart. See our work on information integrity for more.

 Regulating Artificial Intelligence: a parallel trend related to the above is the sense that the risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) require regulation, even as countries look to compete with each other to lead in this space.

Libraries, of course, are already experimenting themselves with AI, applying our skills and values, and we should not be shy of sharing our own experiences as part of wider debates. We clearly also have an interest in ensuring that AI makes a positive contribution to the goal of supporting informed societies.

A particular angle is likely to be around copyright. Training algorithms does typically require ‘learning’ based on the processing of large volumes of information, much of which is likely subject to copyright. The concern is that fears around AI will open the door to stricter rules around what libraries and their users can do with the content they access, or at least administrative burdens that make work impossible. Read about the work of our AI Special Interest Group for more.

 Insecurity encourages conservatism: there seems to be little likelihood, sadly, that the world will get more peaceful in 2024, or that we will see fewer extreme destructive weather events or other natural disasters. An immediate area of focus will need to be the inclusion of libraries in wider efforts to plan for uncertainty.

However, this same uncertainty seems likely to encourage a rise in conservativism, in the face of concern around the future, and a desire to focus on our own safety and interests. While such a trend may potentially lead to a greater focus on heritage, it also tends to be associated with reduced public spending and less trust in shared services, such as libraries.

This is clearly a worry for libraries. At the same time, we do not need to be passive! Libraries’ emphasis on allowing people to empower themselves through information, and so the possibility to be more effective actors in their own destiny represents a key strength. From climate empowerment to promoting active citizen engagement, we have a strong message to send. Read our work around climate empowerment in 2024 for more.

 Recognising the role of culture: a final point, and perhaps an optimistic one, relates to the growing understanding we see, at least in international texts, of the role of culture in supporting the achievement of wider policy goals.

This of course covers the direct contributions of cultural actors and institutions (such as libraries), but also the need to recognise and work with underlying cultural factors that influence how people behave and respond. This makes sense at a time of concern about progress towards wider development goals, and the effectiveness of policies in place.

For libraries, there is an opportunity here, not just as part of the wider cultural sector, but also given our intrinsic nature as institutions which are attuned to the cultures and needs of communities. Read our piece about culture in 2024 for more.

This blog starts from the fact that libraries find themselves having to make the case for funding and support to decision-makers with a wide variety of positions, and looks at what sort of arguments could work in each case. It is with thanks to Antoine Torrens-Montebello, who sparked the idea for it. 

In order to be able to offer their services to users for free, libraries rely on support from others – host institutions, funders, and in many cases, governments.

As such, libraries do need to work with people who, at least in democracies, have come to power because they have promoted a certain view of the world. But even outside of this, politicians inevitably have a particular set of attitudes and beliefs about people and society.

While we certainly need to avoid becoming political footballs, library advocates have to be able to explain their contribution to people with different opinions, including to those we may not agree with.

Fortunately, libraries are versatile institutions, and it is possible to argue in favour of libraries in many different ways, in order to convince others. This is not to compromise on our own values, rather to ensure that we can continue to deliver services that we know are important for the people we serve.

A simplified way of thinking about what these arguments are comes from the Political Compass. This provides a way of placing yourself (and others) on a chart along two axes – from economic left to right, and from authoritarian to libertarian.

In our version, we adapt this slightly, and look at axes from economic left to economic right, and from social liberal to social conservative.

As underlined, this is a highly simplistic approach, but a useful starting point. More sophisticated approaches are possible! In each section below, we’ll look at one part of the compass, and the arguments that can be used for libraries to convince people who are there.

Economic right, social conservative

This part of the compass is where you will find politicians who tend to believe in less regulation for business and a smaller state, but also who are relatively less focused on issues of personal freedoms or combatting inequalities. They tend to be more traditionalist or even nationalist.

For libraries, the arguments that are likely to be most effective will centre on the fact that we are institutions with a long history and tradition, as well as a key role in safeguarding heritage for the future. Politicians here may also be positive about ideas focused on libraries supporting community-building and social cohesion, even if this is more from the perspective of avoiding insecurity or social challenges.

Economic right, social liberal

This covers politicians who also believe in a small state and supporting the private sector, but more because they believe that this can and should be a way of helping everyone to achieve their potential, and are ready to regulate accordingly. They can be friendlier to immigration, readier to address social issues, and challenge tradition.

For politicians in this space, libraries can be presented as a great, efficient way of helping people to access a variety of possibilities, and deliver on their potential, if they are ready to take the initiative. The fact that libraries are services for everyone can be promoted as a means of being more effective in delivering services, while their cross-cutting function can be talked about as being innovative.

Decision-makers in this space may also be sympathetic to ideas based on individual rights and freedoms, and how libraries help to make this happen, as well as potentially as a basis for supporting community initiatives.

Economic left, social conservative

Here is where we come across politicians who believe in stronger state spending, including a generous welfare state, as well as broad nationalisation of services and industries. This is accompanied by a relatively strict view of society, and an expectation that everyone – including newcomers – should look to assimilate in order to participate.

When advocating to people in this part of the political compass, libraries may gain from underlining their role as part of the wider welfare state, for example as a key provider of (or portal to) education to people throughout life, a complement to public health initiatives, and beyond. Decision-makers may also be sympathetic to the history of public libraries in some countries, where they were an early form of public service, focused on helping people in the greatest need to develop their knowledge and skills.

Economic left, social liberal

Finally, this is the part of the compass for politicians who combine a readiness to spend money to support both social programmes and wider investments. At the same time, they also tend to be readier to accept and celebrate diversity and downplay nationalist or traditionalist feelings.

Here, libraries can focus strongly on their role in providing adapted services to everyone, as a very modern example of the welfare state at work. Indeed, our approach can even be contrasted with more focused actors like the police, schools or hospitals, and our locations – as dedicated non-commercial spaces allowing diverse communities to come together – can be celebrated. Politicians here are likely to feel warm about spaces where a strong mix of people meet, and equity promoted.

This is, as already mentioned, a highly simplified way of looking at how we can promote libraries to people coming from different political viewpoints, including those we may not personally agree with.

Of course, there also need to be red lines. There are policies and attitudes that we simply can’t work with, given that they stand in opposition to the idea that everyone has a right to be able to access information, knowledge and culture. In such cases, we need to work to find more moderate voices, and work with them, in order to ensure that our communities can continue to benefit from our services.

Overall, there is a strong potential set of arguments for libraries when working with politicians of a wide variety of tendencies, reflecting libraries’ own versatility. Do share your ideas and experiences in the chat below.