The public library “for all”? A typology of the ranging notions of “for all” in public libraries in Norway and Denmark
| Date | 20 November 2024 |
| Pages | 285-300 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2024-0109 |
| Published date | 20 November 2024 |
| Author | Anne-Sofie Elbrønd Nissen,Nanna Kann-Rasmussen |
The public library “for all”?
A typology of the ranging notions of
“for all” in public libraries in Norway
and Denmark
Anne-Sofie Elbrønd Nissen
Department of Archivistics, Library and Information Science,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway, and
Nanna Kann-Rasmussen
Department of Communication, Faculty of Humanities, University of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose –This article explores the ranging notions of a public library for all and the related conflicts on for all
and the principle of neutrality in Norway and Denmark.
Design/methodology/approach –A document study of four profession magazines in a ten-year period is
conducted, focusing on the problematizations of for all using the WPR approach: What’s the Problem
Represented to be? Theories on public sphere and democracy frequently applied in Library and Information
Science (LIS) are discussed in relation to the ranging notions.
Findings –The analysis shows that although for all is used as an argument by both advocates and opponents of
the principle of neutrality,thereare different notions of who constitutes for all. In total, five ranging notions of
for all are identified and presented in a typology, to serve as a framework to understand the conflicts concerning
neutrality and the public library for all.
Originality/value –The typology offers a new conceptual framework for understanding the nature of the
conflicts and why they appear. The analysis indicates a need to discuss the use of for all in order to engage in
more nuanced discussions of the democratic role of the public library.
Keywords Public libraries, For all, Neutrality, Librarianship, Democracy,Public sphere, Freedom of speech
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This paper explores the ranging notions of a public library for all, and the related conflicts on
for all and the principle of neutrality in Norway and Denmark. Descriptions of the public
library often include statements that emphasize the library as an institution that empowers
users by proving equal access to information (Audunson et al., 2020) and a cornerstone of
democracy (Kranich, 2020). Thus, the most frequent and powerful description of the public
library is the library for all. For all is a core value and is expressed through theprinciple of free
access to both materials and the physical library space for all citizens in society. For all is
clearly confirmed by International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)
stating that materials, facilities and services must be “equally accessible to all users” with no
discrimination due to “race, creed, gender or age” (IFLA, 1999). Further, for all is also marked
in both the Norwegian LibraryAct, “for everyone living in the country” (Norwegian Public
Library Act, 1985) and in the Danish Library Act: “Public libraries are available to anyone”
(Danish Public Library Act, 2000). The notion of a library for all is connected to the principle
of neutrality.Traditionally, the principle of the neutral library has been both an ideal and a way
to practice for all through universality and values of information freedom and freedom of
speech (Helgason, 2020;Lewis, 2008). However, the principle of neutrality is also criticized
through the argument that for all must entail a greater focus on under-represented groups
(Hudson, 2017;Schrader,2009)and that neutrality is perceived as an impossible ambition, that
contributes to the reproduction of stigma (Drabinski, 2013;Olson, 2007).
Journal of
Documentation
285
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 14 May 2024
Revised 8 October 2024
Accepted 9 October 2024
Journalof Documentation
Vol.81 No. 1, 2025
pp.285-300
©Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI10.1108/JD-05-2024-0109
Conflicts related to for all and neutrality have increased in public libraries in both Norway
and Denmark in recent years (Nissen and Kann-Rasmussen, 2022;Larsen, 2024). A recent
example from Norway is a conflict concerning whether the public library should continue to
promote Harry Potter-books in the light of the controversial opinions on the transgender
community from author J.K. Rowling (Kallelid, 2021). There is agreement that the public
library should be for all, but disagreement concerning how for all should be achieved.
Proponents see the principle of neutrality as a tool to be for all, while opponents see the
principle of neutrality as an obstacle. The ambiguous and different perceptions of neutrality in
terms of being a library for all make it challenging for the library to respond and navigate,
when conflict arises. The modern public library is caught in a field of tension between
traditional ideals and current social justice agendas, described as universality versus diversity
(Olson, 2002). Conflicts on neutrality and for all have been analyzed in various studies
(Carlsson et al., 2022;Engstr€
om, 2022;Kann-Rasmussen, 2023). However, the ranging
perceptions of for all have not been mapped or related and for all remains an elusive concept,
even though the perception of a public library for all is fundamentally agreed upon. To fully
grasp the nuances of conflicts of neutrality,it is necessary to study the ranging notions of for all
and the underlying connotations. The overall research question asks:
What different notions lie within a public library for all?
This paper aims to analyze the ranging notions of a library for all in public libraries in Norway
and Denmark, from the perspective of the library sector. The paper does not intend to define the
concept of neutrality, but to explore the different perceptions of for all to gain a better
understanding of conflicts of neutrality, why they occur and what they are about. First, the
article will present previous research to situate how public libraries and conflicts of for all and
neutrality has been studied. Thereafter we describe the data collection and analysisof four
library profession magazines, using the WPR approach: What’s the Problem Represented to
be? (Bacchi, 2009,2012). Wethen analyze the ranging notions of for all by creating a typology.
In the discussion, we summarize the notions which illuminates the need for a new approach to
discuss for all and neutrality that focuses on when the library is for all, instead of discussing
who constitutes for all.
Previous research
Traditionally, neutrality has been a core – yet controversial value in the public library and
discussed in various ways in Library and Information Science (LIS) research. Neutrality is an
ambiguous concept and is defined differently by LIS scholars. The principle of neutrality is
defined as “not having a position or not taking a side” (Johnson, 2016, p. 25) but also as a way
to “see all viewpoints” (McMenemy, 2007, p. 179) and a way to secure equal concern and
service to all citizens by remaining impartial (Hart, 2016). According to Jaeger et al. (2013),
the goal of neutrality has manifested itself in two areas of librarianship: (1) to create collections
as large as possible to present and reflect a variation of different viewpoints and (2) in attempts
to remain apolitical to the largest extent possible. This categorization also emphasizes the
ambiguity of the principle of neutrality, linking neutrality to the balancing of different
ideologies and viewpoints, as well as the devoid of ideology.According to Scott and Saunders
(2021), the term neutrality is often discussed from different perspectives, with the result that
neutrality “seems to be used for, or conflated with, everything from not taking a side on a
controversial issue to the objective provision of information and a position of
defending intellectual freedom and freedom of speech” (p. 153). How neutrality is
interpreted influences how librarians engage with users and implement services and the
questions of neutrality is often perceived as a central part of librarianship.
Some researchers claim that impartiality is the primary task for a librarian, to ensure library
users’ right to self-determination (Mathiesen, 2015), or that neutrality is an expression of
individual rights and a representative democracy (Sundeen and Blomgren, 2020). Others have
JD
81,1
286
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations