Are librarians non-playable characters?

Are librarians non-playable characters?

By IFLA

Photo: Internet 

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 Libraries are in effect not surprising, and plenty of people will already have an idea of what a library is (however outdated this might be).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 forum. 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.

Source: bit.ly/3UlRbSq