The values of public libraries: a systematic review of empirical studies of stakeholder perceptions

Abstract

PurposePublic libraries' relevance and raison d'être towards society is an often discussed subject within public, politics and research. The objective of this systematic literature review is to provide a synthesis of empirical studies of stakeholders' perceived values of public libraries.Design/methodology/approachThe review is based on a structured literature search that was conducted in seven databases. Two independent participants carried out a two-step screening of the identified studies. Firstly, the studies were screened on basis of title and abstract. Secondly, studies that were included in the title–abstract screening were full-text screened. Conflicting studies were discussed, and consensus between the reviewers was reached. Citation searches of each included study were conducted along with scrutinising cited literature. The included studies were subject to a risk of bias assessment on basis of a developed risk of the bias tool, and qualitative analysis was provided.FindingsOf all, 4,086 studies were screened and 19 were retained for the review. The studies consisted of both quantitative and qualitative investigations of different stakeholders in a variety of countries. The reported values varied across the studies and stakeholders.Originality/valueThis is the first study that systematically reviews empirical literature that explores stakeholders' perceived values of public libraries. The paper suggests further recommendations for empirical research of values connected to public libraries.

Widespread use of National Academies consensus reports by the American public

“…As for informal sources of information for motivated adults, public libraries serve a role similar to NASEM ( 29 ). Surveys probing use of public libraries ask about similar types of use: as a student, improving job skills, executing work tasks, professional development, health issues, reading nonfiction as a leisure activity, interest in history or society, and participating in societal discussions ( 30 ).…”

The value of digital and physical library services in UK public libraries and why they are not interchangeable

“…Focus groups are a commonly used method for qualitative data collection in library research (Khoo et al, 2012; Pickard, 2017; Sørensen, 2020; Von Seggern and Young, 2003; Walden, 2006) and a range of studies have used them to explore the values, experiences, and attitudes of public library users (Appleton et al, 2018; Chapman, 2013; Colibaba and Skinner, 2019; Fisher et al, 2010; Strover, 2019). The ‘focus’ comes from exploring a limited range of topics within a facilitated discussion setting (Walden, 2006).…”

How to measure service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty of public library users: Application of library customer satisfaction index (LCSI) lite model

“…However, because libraries including public libraries have different roles and values from commercial goods and services as many scholars have already well suggested (e.g. see Aabø, 2005;Aabø and Audunson, 2002;Appleton et al, 2018;Kim, 2015;Sørensen, 2020Sørensen, , 2021, it would be somewhat difficult to apply the general models including the ACSI developed basically for the for-profit organization to the library situation. As a good example, based on their own experiences in developing ECSI, Martensen and Grønholdt (2003) developed an integrated measurement model of service quality, satisfaction, and loyalty of five Danish libraries.…”

“…Nowadays, regardless of their type, many libraries are confronted with competitions from other libraries and/or related organizations (Dorner et al, 2017;Potnis et al, 2021;Rabig, 2020;Sukovic et al, 2011). In these competitive situations, libraries are requested not only to justify their value and roles (Aabø, 2005(Aabø, , 2009Aabø and Audunson, 2002;Appleton et al, 2018;Stenstrom et al, 2019;Sørensen, 2020Sørensen, , 2021 but also to prove their importance in the community based on their performances for and responsiveness to their customers (Harris et al, 2020;Hernon and Nitecki, 2001;Weinstein and McFarlane, 2017).…”