Evidence Summary
National Differences in Perceived Benefit of Libraries May Be Due to
Their Investments in Libraries, Library Supply, and Cultural Factors
A Review of:
Vakkari, P., Aabø, S., Audunson, R., Huysmans, F, Kwon, N., Oomes, M.,
& Sin, S. (2016). Patterns of perceived public library outcomes in five
countries. Journal of Documentation, 72(2),
342–361. http://dx.doi:org/10.1108/JD-08-2015-0103
Reviewed by:
Ann Glusker
Reference/Consumer Health Librarian
Business, Science and Technology Department
The Seattle Public Library
Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Email: ann.glusker@spl.org
Received: 1 Sep. 2016 Accepted: 19 Oct. 2016
2016 Glusker.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To
compare citizens' perceptions of the benefits of libraries in five culturally
diverse countries.
Design – Postal survey to a random stratified sample and web
surveys (some with a sampling plan).
Setting – Surveys were administered in Finland (by post),
Norway, the Netherlands, the United States of America, and South Korea
(online).
Subjects – Selected or self-selected members of the general
adult population in the specified countries who had used a public library
within the past year.
Methods – Surveys were administered and data were collected in
each of the five countries. A dependent variable representing perceived
outcomes was calculated from 19 outcome measures (related to life experiences).
Within this, 4 indices were calculated from subsets of the 19 measures,
relating to work, education, everyday activities, and leisure activities. Five
independent variables were used: frequency of library use, number of services
used, gender, age, and education level. Respondent country was also entered
into analyses. Descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance results
were presented.
Main Results – It was
noted that each country's sample was skewed in some way towards one or more of
the variables of gender, age, and education, and some statistical corrections
were employed. While patterns within countries are similar, library users from
Finland, the United States of America, and South Korea reported higher levels
of benefits overall. "Fun in reading" and
"self-education" were the two outcomes with the highest scores by
respondents. Higher numbers of visits and greater use of services may
account for the higher perceived benefits in the three countries reporting
them. In fact, these two factors appear to explain a substantial portion
of the variance in perceptions of benefits between countries, meaning that
between-country variation in library resources and supply plays a role in
perception of benefit. There were varied rather than linear patterns of benefit
reporting along age and education continua, with those at the lowest education
levels deriving the most perceived benefits in all spheres. By gender, women
derived fewer perceived benefits in the work sphere than men.
Conclusions – There is variation across countries in the level of
public library benefits reported, as well as variation across individual
measures, creating different profiles of response by country. Even when
respondent demographic characteristics and library usage are controlled for,
country differences remain. These may be explained by the differences in
investment in – and hence supply of – libraries by country, types of investment
(e.g., according to the authors, Finland invests in services, Norway in
collections, and the USA in staffing), and cultural factors such as the propensity
of USA respondents to have a more extreme response style. Future research
may profitably concentrate on policy contexts of libraries in each country. In
the nineteenth century libraries provided social welfare services and in the
twentieth they provided human rights through equitable access to information,
so research should focus, by country, on what libraries will provide in the
twenty-first century. Future studies might also address how differences in
demographic patterns among respondents play out in benefit perceptions between
countries.
Commentary
Library valuation is an essential tool for political
advocacy, as libraries are vulnerable to threats from budget reductions in
times of financial downturn. In her much-cited meta-analysis, Aabø (2009)
showed that $1 invested in a public library brings 4 to 5 times that in
societal returns, but library valuation research is moving from a focus on
performance measures such as circulation to impact measures such as behavior
change attributable to libraries (Micka, 2013; Streatfield, 2012). There is
fertile ground for considering cross-cultural differences and similarities in
perceptions of library benefits.
For this evidence summary, methodologies were
systematically assessed using Glynn’s critical appraisal checklist
(2006). A wide range of issues undermines the usefulness of this work as
an unbiased source of evidence about populations. Important concerns
include: only people who had used a library in the last year were sampled, rather
than the general public, and in a way (in four of five countries) that may have
excluded non-Internet users; survey questions were not identical in each of the
five countries; countries were chosen on the basis of interest from researchers
from the nations studied (except the United States of America) without an
advance strategy for representation, with choices defended after the fact;
responses were collected over a wide time period; random stratification was
used for respondent selection in only one of the countries; and samples showed
skewedness on several dimensions, especially favoring more highly educated
respondents. In addition, there was important information that the authors did
not provide, including: the survey questionnaires; information about how the Finnish
survey was modified for use in other countries (so, it is unknown how concepts
were understood across languages); the specifics about how web panels were
recruited and selected in the four countries in which they were used; and
information about informed consent and ethics approvals. The omission of the
survey questionnaires is notable; the authors cite the work of Harzing (2006)
on cross-country differences in response styles, and it is hoped that they took
her suggestions for employing careful instrument design, as "response bias
is a serious threat to valid comparisons across countries" (p.
27). Without the inclusion of the instruments, there is no way to tell.
The authors conclude that there are cross-country
variations even when all other factors are controlled for, and surmise that
these may be the result of differences in investments in libraries, supply of
libraries and staff availability. If this study had been more rigorously
constructed and hypothesis-driven, these findings would have more power and
interest. As it is, they are inconclusive; it is to be hoped that as the
authors pursue their future research agenda of examining policy contexts, that
these issues will be addressed.
References
Aabø, S. (2009). Libraries and return on investment (ROI): A
meta-analysis. New Library World, 110(7/8), 311-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03074800910975142
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387-399. http://dx.doi:org/10.1108/07378830610692154
Harzing, A.-W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research:
A 26-country study. Retrieved from http://www.harzing.com/download/respstyles.pdf
Micka, T. L. (2013). Demonstrating the value of the public library:
Economic valuation and the advocacy imperative. Student Research Journal, 3(1),
1-19. Retrieved fromhttp://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/slissrj/vol3/iss1/4
Streatfield, D. (2012). Impact planning and assessment of public
libraries: A country level perspective. Performance
Measurement and Metrics, 13(1),
8-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14678041211228535