Tag Archives: advocacy

The 10-Minute International Librarian #21: Identify a non-user and think how to engage them

Libraries have a mission to serve their entire communities.

Yet it is rare – if not impossible – to be able to reach everyone. What is important is to try and reach further.

This is because when people are not connected to their library, there is a risk of missed opportunities to improve lives, or to win over supporters for your work.

In both cases – in order to increase impact and strengthen advocacy – it is worth thinking about who these people are, and what can be done to work with them.

So for our 21st 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, identify a non-user and think how to engage them.

A first target will of course be users who could benefit from library services, but are not yet doing so.

Imagine someone in this situation – you can even create a persona – and think about what you could do in order to build awareness. What are the barriers, and what can you do about them?

In other cases, you could think about people who may not come to the library, but could be important supporters.

What can you do to help them understand the importance of the services you are offering?

Let us know in the comments below about your experiences here!

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! 1.1 Show the power of libraries in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

You can view all of our ideas using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box.

The 10-Minute International Librarian #20: Recruit a Friend

The strength of the library field – locally, nationally and globally – is directly connected to the engagement of the people making it up.

The more library and information professionals there are sharing their ideas and experience, the better we can innovate and spread new practices.

The more professionals there are who are ready to speak up and engage in advocacy, the louder our voice is.

Library associations and other groupings are a great means of doing this at every level, providing a space for cooperation, coordination and joint action.

New members do not just gain themselves from involvement, but also bring benefits to the group as a whole.

So for our 20th 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, recruit a friend!

Explain what you gain from working with other members of the profession, at the local, national and international levels.

Explain also why it is so important to work together to ensure that the library field continues to be able to fulfil its missions.

In doing so, you help strengthen our field!

Let us know in the comments below which arguments have worked best for you in convincing others to get involved with the national or global library field.

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! 3.3 Empower the field at the national and regional levels

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box.

The 10-Minute International Librarian #19: Map Your Library Ecosystem

No library is an island.

It has almost always been the case that libraries rely on others for budgets, in turn providing a key service to their communities.

Increasingly, libraries can be seen as partners and platforms. By combining their strengths with others, they can be better able to respond to the needs of their users.

With so many interconnections, we can see libraries as part of an ecosystem, made up of lots of different individuals, groups or institutions, interacting with each other and their environment.

While this term originates in biology – and is particular relevant with the UN Summit on Biodiversity this week – it can also apply to libraries.

Indeed, it offers a helpful model for structuring thinking about the environment in which our institutions operate.

So for our 19th 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, map your library ecosystem.

You can do this as a diagram, on your own or with colleagues. Try to identify the other people and institutions around you which can help you achieve your goals.

Of course, funders are key here. But so too are the actual and potential partners with whom you can work to provide services.

This can include not only other official institutions, but also individuals and community groups.

This map of your ecosystem can help you think both about your own plans and priorities, but also about the impact that changes may have.

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! 2.3 Show the power of libraries in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box.

 

Access to Information through Libraries: A Public Good

The International Day for the Universal Access to Information is a great opportunity to celebrate and underline values which are at the heart of the work of libraries throughout the year.

As an enabler of better decision-making, the seizing of opportunities, and the transparency of government, this access is a key part of any drive to create societies made up of enabled, emancipated and autonomous individuals, all contributing in their own way to collective development.

Libraries are a key part of the infrastructure for access to information, through their connections, collections, and capacity-building.

Through providing low-or-no-cost internet access, they are a gateway to the internet for many, and even in the most highly connected societies play a valuable complement to home and mobile access.

Through access to curated collections of material, they can ensure people find the information they need, in particular helping to ensure that copyright does not serve to make access to knowledge the preserve of the wealthy.

Through providing training and support, they give people the confidence and skills to be effective and constructive information users.

Yet the coming months and years are likely to be difficult for libraries. Reduced economic activity, combined with a need to pay off debts incurred, may well see cuts to public and other spending that risk falling on our institutions.

Even in good times, there can be questions about where libraries ‘sit’ in government, or in other words, whose budget should be used to support them? Are they more about culture? Education? Research? Well-being? Through their support in providing access to information, libraries deliver in all of these areas and more, but usually, only one will need to pay.

With an economic crisis on the way, this blog therefore looks to explore to what extent economic concepts – public and common goods problems – can be used to understand this situation, and trace a way forwards, in order to make a reality of access to information for all.

 

Defining Terms

We talk about a public good when something is ‘non-excludable’ and ‘non-rivalrous’. ‘Non-excludable means that it is not possible to limit access in order to ensure that only those who pay for it can benefit from it.  Meanwhile, ‘non-rivalrous’ means that even when one person uses the good, this does not reduce what is available to others.

Examples include, arguably, knowledge itself as well as services such as street-lighting or public infrastructure. There is always the risk of the ‘free rider’ problem, with people able to use a good or service without paying for it, leading to a risk of under-investment. In the case of knowledge, for example, tools such as intellectual property are used to ‘exclude’ artificially, and so allow for the creation of a market.

Meanwhile, a common good one that is is non-excludable, but is rivalrous. People can access them without needing to pay, and moreover in doing so, deprive others of the possibility to do so. Examples here could be fish-stocks or forests. There is always the risk that people will try to exploit this to the maximum, bringing the risk of leaving none for anyone else, and indeed, causing long-term damage – the ‘tragedy of the commons’.

Managing common goods can either require central controls, or norms and behaviours within communities which set limits on use for any individual.

 

Where does library funding fit into this?

For the purposes of this blog, we can consider that the users of libraries are not just individuals, but different parts of government. This is because, in providing services to users, libraries are helping  different parts of government to achieve their policy goals .

For example, beyond culture and education, libraries have a proven record of supporting public health, helping people to access key information and online services. This is a positive result for health ministries and agencies, who then see lower levels of disease, and reduced pressure on hospitals and general practitioners.

There is also evidence of libraries playing a role in helping people who are looking for work. From providing the internet access necessary to find jobs and the computers needed to write CVs, to more hands-on support in developing skills and confidence, libraries are effectively making the work of employment ministries or agencies easier. Indeed, there are stories in many places of jobcentres explicitly telling people to go to the library to get help.

A final example: libraries have a particularly important role in helping people who are at greatest risk of marginalisation to get online, find programmes, or even deliver support directly within the institution. People facing homelessness, isolation, or inequality can, in this way, find opportunities to improve their lives. This is a positive outcome for social affairs ministries or departments, whose success is measured in terms of people helped off the streets and back into jobs and communities.

In each of these cases, by ‘using’ libraries, other departments and ministries benefit. And of course, given that libraries work to be open and available for all, there is no question of ‘excluding’ people using the library for any particular purpose.

There is perhaps a more open question about whether library services are rivalrous or non-rivalrous. Clearly, staff time, computers, or books for lending for example, are not finite. If they are being used by one person, they cannot necessarily be used by another. Other aspects of library services are less rivalrous, for example WiFi, as long as the connection is good enough, or access to displays or information within the library.

This places libraries and the access to information they provide – vis-à-vis their ‘customers’ across government – somewhere between a public and a common good.

 

The Risks and the Possibilities

As highlighted earlier, public good or common good status bring challenges that can require intervention.

Certainly, there is the chance of a free-rider problem, with policy-makers across government benefitting from services that are only paid by one department (or which depend on local funding).

Of course, when someone is able to access a health resource or find a job through a library, it seems harsh to talk about ‘free riding’. Nonetheless, it is  important to ensure that there is recognition by other agencies, departments or ministries of what they gain from libraries.

Even if they are not willing or able to support libraries for the services they offer, they should be made to understand their interest in defending libraries at what is likely to be a difficult time in the coming months and years. There are already great examples of this, for example the work done in the UK to show how much money libraries are saving the health service.

As for the tragedy of the commons, this can also strike. For example, if every government agency sends people onto the library to use the internet or printers, there is a risk of saturation of library resources very quickly, with fewer terminals or lower levels of staff support available than are needed. If levels of service need to be cut in response, this can even make it harder for libraries to justify support, given perceptions of reduced value for any individual user.

The answer here must be to try and ensure that libraries are integrated into wider policy planning, in order to identify where there is a risk of demand being greater than what libraries can manage. Ideally, an explicit recognition of libraries’ role could lead to increased funding and support in order to deliver.

Linked to this is the value of libraires building up a wider range of partnerships with actors across government. Again, we do see such connections in some situations, with libraries fulfilling their potential as partners and platforms for other services. Formalising relations can help reinforce these links, and further strengthen the range of people and institutions who are likely to speak up in favour of libraries in future, as well, of course, as avoiding the saturation of library services.

 

In conclusion, building an understanding of the risk that funding for libraries (and the access to information they provide) can be subject to the public and common goods problems can be a useful advocacy goal.

We need to avoid situations where parts of government which benefit so strongly from the work of libraries in providing access only realise how important our institutions are too late. Making use of the International Day for the Universal Access to Information on 28 September to build understanding of the importance of access, and moving towards more formalised relations with partners, offer just two possibilities for doing so.

Restitution with a Catch? The Copyright Perspective on the Sarr-Savoy Report

The Sarr-Savoy report on the restitution of African cultural heritage, published in November 2018, proposes to recontextualise the presence of African artefacts in French heritage collections.

The objective of this report is to develop, in view of the role of the French state in colonisation, recommendations to update relevant laws around restitutions, as well as to encourage bilateral agreements with countries following requests for restitution.

Among its recommendations, the report suggests that collections which are returned should be subject to digitisation beforehand, with the digitised files then made available for use under free and open access to everyone.

This recommendation is easy to miss in the report, as the paragraphs which concern it are discreet. Nonetheless, it raises questions on two essential questions:

Who owns the physical and digital collections and who has the right to choose the policy of digitisation and openness of these artefacts?

This blog looks at the report’s approach, and presents some of the concerns expressed by this, in particular through a letter drafted by Mathilde Parvis and Andrea Wallace.

First of all, the suggestion to digitise and make collections accessible may seem an interesting initiative in the context of outreach by heritage institutions. For a number of years now, it has been clear that giving access to digital collections is a key mission for cultural institutions, as the report mentions briefly.

However, there are questions about whether this should be subject to the decision of the French state, or be a pre-condition for restitution. The term ‘restitution’, as defined in the report, is strongly connected to the question of legitimate ownership of the object. This cannot be brushed aside when it comes to digital collections.

Arguably, the legitimate ownership by African governments of returned items should give them the right to take decisions regarding the appropriate policy to be put in place on digital collections. Can it be appropriate for the government of a former colonial power to set out such demands in a restitution agreement when talking about heritage that arguably should never have been in its possession in the first place?

Indeed, as Mathilde Parvis and Andrea Wallace’s response perfectly underlines: it should rather be up to the communities to make decisions concerning the artefacts of their heritage. Indeed, suggesting or imposing in bilateral agreements a policy of digitisation and open access to collections appears to be at odds with the principle of recognition of spoliation.

Moreover, the report’s proposals concerning free and open access to and use of images does not seem to match the policy around images in French collections. Indeed, French policy on openGLAM is not based on a centralized ministerial incentive but on the will of cities and organisations independently of each other (whereas German GLAM institutions are far more organised and supported).

The request made to African governments regarding the opening of access to digital collections of collections seems, therefore, to be antithetical with the policy it applies to the digital collections of France’s own institutions.

Clearly, openness is to be welcomed in general as the best way of giving the biggest number of people possible the opportunity to engage with heritage, where other concerns (privacy or indigenous rights for example) do not stand in the way. Nonetheless, in these conditions, it risks being seen as an imposition, not a virtue.

Therefore, Parvis and Wallace’s reply defines several ways to reframe the recommendations of the Sarr-Savoy report, such as:

– Clearly define the scope of Open Access – commercial, non-commercial, public domain, possibility of reuse.
– Clearly define who owns the digital image reproductions.
– Carry out research on the conformity of these recommendations concerning the laws of African countries.
– Do not separate digital reproductions from returned objects because the reproductions are also subject to cultural appropriation.

With plans now underway to reform France’s Heritage Code, we will follow closely how this debate is reflected in any proposed amendments.

The 10-Minute International Librarian #13: Develop your 1-minute pitch for libraries

Advocacy is an important part of IFLA’s work to support the library field.

As institutions often dependent on the support of others – governments, funders, host institutions – libraries need to be able to explain why they are a great investment.

There are lots of very good studies and other materials which explain, in depth, how libraries make a difference.

However, if you want the person you need to convince to pay enough attention, you need to be able to ‘hook’ them. You need to find a way to make them sufficiently quickly, or risk losing their focus.

So for our 13th 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, develop your 1-minute pitch for libraries.

It’s not a long time! You may only be able to give a few short sentences, so make sure they count.

You could try writing out what you want to say, and then cutting it back until it fits into a minute – only keep the most powerful arguments.

And don’t forget to find a strong first line. You can share yours below in the comment – they may help someone else!

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! 1.3 Work with library associations and libraries to identify key legal and funding challenges to their work, and advocate for action.

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box.

The 10-Minute International Librarian #8: Think of an Advocacy Priority

What makes for a successful library or library system?

Clearly, the energy and dedication of staff plays a major role. We are lucky to have so many inventive and focused people in the field.

But there are also other factors, not least the decisions made by law-makers and funders.

This is why it is so important to advocate, in order to shape their opinions. You can do this directly, or indirectly, by working to build wider public support for libraries.

But in doing this, it’s important to have an idea of your goal. This will help keep your message clear and well defined.

So for our 8th 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, think of an advocacy priority.

Think about what you might want to change, in order to deliver more for your community. This could be funding, but could also be something else – a law that would give you new possibilities, integration into plans for education, employment or health, or rules around staffing.

Think what would have most impact, but would also be achievable. And don’t hesitate to share here – you’ll likely find many others in a similar situation who can share their experience!

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! Strategic Direction 1, Key Initiative 3: Work with library associations and libraries to identify key legal and funding challenges to their work, and advocate for action.

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box.