Creative spaces in Dublin public libraries through the lens of the four-spaces model.

MASTER’S THESIS IN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE FACULTY OF LIBRARIANSHIP, INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND IT

Creative spaces in Dublin public libraries through the lens of the four- spaces model.

KARL DIAMOND

© KARL DIAMOND

Partial or full copying and distribution of the material in this thesis without permission is forbidden.

.

English title: Creative spaces in Dublin public libraries through the lens of the four-spaces model.

Author(s): Karl Diamond

Completed: 2020

Abstract: The purpose of this master's thesis is to explore how creative spaces in libraries function, their goals and how they affect the role of their host libraries by undertaking a qualitative multi-case study in three public libraries in Dublin Ireland .This uses the four spaces model as a theoretical framework in

analysing the empirical data which was gathered from semi-structured interviews of librarians and an events planner in the spaces as well as a document analysis of related strategic documents. The results of the study show that creative spaces offer a way for libraries to attract more and diverse groupings of patrons to their service and primarily have a role as learning and inspirational spaces. They enable libraries in particular to help give equal access to STEM resources and encourage experience based learning in all age groups from young to old. Each space has an individual character and its content and role is dependent on the host library and can act as a force multiplier for the various goals and roles of the library itself.

Keywords: Four spaces, creative-spaces, maker-spaces, Dublin,

Ireland, Public library, Innovative, STEM

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION...4

1.1 B

ACKGROUND

...5

1.2 R

ESEARCHPROBLEM

...5

1.3 R

ESEARCHAIMANDRESEARCHQUESTIONS

...6

1.4 C

ONCEPTS

...7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW...7

2.1 I

NNOVATION

...8

2.2 A

COMMUNITY

-

CENTREDAPPROACH

...11

2.3 STEM (S

CIENCE

, T

ECHNOLOGY

, E

NGINEERING

,

AND

M

ATHEMATICS

)...14

2.4 M

AKER

S

PACES

...15

3. THEORETICAL APPROACH...18

3.1 T

HEFOUR

S

PACESMODEL

...18

3.2 T

OWARDS

C

ULTURE

3.0 –

PERFORMATIVESPACEINTHEPUBLICLIBRARY

...22

3.3 U

SEOFTHEMODELANDRATIONALE

...23

4. METHOD... 24

4.1 R

ESEARCHSTRATEGYANDDESIGN

: A Q

UALITATIVEMULTI

-

CASESTUDY

...24

4.2 O

NTOLOGICALANDEPISTEMOLOGICALVIEWS

...26

4.3 E

MPIRICALDATACOLLECTION

...26

4.4 E

THICALCONSIDERATIONS

...32

5. CASE STUDIES... 33

5.1 B

ALLYFERMOTPUBLICLIBRARY

...33

5.2 B

ALLYROANPUBLICLIBRARY

...33

5.3 D

UN

L

AOGHAIRE

L

EXICON

...34

6. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS...34

6.1 G

OALS

...35

6.2 F

EATURES

...50

6.3 T

HELIBRARIESPLACEWITHINTHEFOURSPACESMODEL

...63

7. DISCUSSION... 65

7.1 Q

UESTIONSANSWERED

...65

7.2 D

EMOCRATISATION

...67

7.3 E

CONOMICIMPACT

...70

7.4 E

MPOWERMENT

...72

7.5 R

EFLECTIONSONTHEMODEL

...74

7.6 R

EFLECTIONSONMETHODCHOICES

...75

7.7 F

URTHERRESEARCH

S

UGGESTIONS

...75

8 CONCLUSION...76

BIBLIOGRAPHY...77

1. Introduction

The public library is by no means a new institution. When people think of what a library is, it is likely that the public library will be the first type of library to spring to mind. Libraries have always been seen as steadfast citadels of knowledge and education and as key sources of knowledge and recreation.

While the public library might be easily recognised as one of the most

important forms a library can take, a certain crisis of identity has been brewing both amongst library professionals and the public at large, brought about by the rise of the digital age (Levien, 2001). The changes that have come about in the last 30 years have been significant and the ones in the next 30 years look like they will indeed be a challenge to be undertaken

We live in a world where it can appear to us that we have the accumulated knowledge of the entirety of human civilisation at our fingertips and with nearly everyone having an internet-enabled smartphone in their pocket this is in some way true. This has led to people doubting the need to even have a public library service Macikas (2013), Tîrziman, (2018) and many people cannot seem to see a place for the humble public library in a future society. It is seen that even now it is mainly just fit for serving the needs of children, elderly and those on the other side of the digital divide. A lot of this debate has been centred around the idea that the internet has made public libraries obsolete in regards to their primary function of education and dissemination of

information. I have seen that the discussion of other functions of the public library have received relatively less attention.

Public libraries have always fulfilled many other roles and have acted as community hubs since they first started operating. Debate over what these roles should be has been occurring for a long time (Wheeler & Githens, 2003). The range of services within public libraries has always been large and diverse and this range of services has expanded, changed and evolved along with the wants, and needs of its patrons. Today many public libraries can be seen as a fusion of a library, maker space, cultural centre, community hub, and event space. These libraries host and make use of various creative spaces such as maker spaces among others. My hope is that my qualitative multi-case study will lead to further insight on what goals these creative spaces hope to achieve, what type of spaces they are and how these spaces affect the overall goals of the libraries themselves.

The initial intention of this thesis was to explore the changing nature of public library services in Dublin, Ireland. The idea was to examine what this shift to a wider focus is having on Irish libraries themselves. Over the course of

analysing the fieldwork, this was discovered to be a task beyond the scope of a

master's thesis. The initial idea was reduced to focus upon “creative spaces” in

Dublin public libraries, how they function, what they offer and how they affect the role of the library. This was done by interviewing key library personnel from a number of “innovative” library projects in Dublin, while also examining key policy documents in regards to the strategic vision of the role of libraries in modern Irish society.

1.1 Background

Libraries in Ireland while being well regarded by the population at large with the Carnegie trust in 2012 reporting that over half of the country is registered with at least one local library. Even though the library is a well used institution, certain emerging aspects have received criticism by the media and public at large. The DLR LexIcon is one library which has been dogged by controversy over how much it would cost and the prominence of some features such as a maker space, theatre included or dedicated cafe space among others. It was seen that this money could be better spent elsewhere in the district and too much was being earmarked for the library itself (Gorman, 2015). The planned Dublin central library has faced similar struggles and has been stuck in limbo for many years, over fears of it being over costed as well as contain elements not seen as useful in a public library. To even secure basic funding for the project it is possible that certain aspects which could be considered of the more innovative variety could be dropped such as the exhibition spaces, story hub, etc (Thomas, 2019). Reading and hearing about the troubles that have dogged the development of the LexIcon and the planned Parnell street library, was one of the main aspects which got me interested in writing this paper on innovative library projects in Dublin, Ireland.

1.2 Research problem

A core part of any research study is the investigation of a research problem that has been discovered (Wildemuth, 2009). A well defined and properly

understood research problem is seen as necessary for the development of adequate research questions and foundational to a study (Wildemuth, 2009).

The research problem arose from conducting a thorough literature review focused on maker spaces and their existence within the public library.

Maker spaces have been a part of public libraries since at least 2011 when the

Fayetteville free library in New York opened the first maker space in the

United States. Since then they have been the focus of various studies such as

Rubin (2016),Britton (2012), Jochumsen et al. (2017), Lankes (2013),

Moorefield et al. (2014). These studies have explored various aspects of how

the maker spaces impact libraries (Britton, 2012) and how they involve and

affect the community (Nicholson, 2017) around the library. While most of the

literature about maker spaces and libraries is generally positive (Lankes, 2013),

the validity of the role of creative and maker spaces in libraries has received

varied critique.

The blurring of the borders between a traditional library and these new activities, has led some to fear that in embracing so many different paths that the public library has lost its way or is even being dumbed down (Garrod, 2004). Ward (2007) feels like the core mission of the public library is obscured or damaged by these new developments. It has been remarked upon by Ward (2007) that the library in itself, does not become a stronger institution with a wider focus on activities but is watered down into a lesser version of itself, trying to fulfil too many roles but not fulfilling any of them well. With change occurring quickly within the library world Tîrziman (2018), identified elements of a state of crisis within the library world in regards to what the role of the public library is in the modern world. Jochumsen et al (2012) developed a model to identify the goals and features of a library and have focused in detail on creative or performative spaces . This is designed as a way to enable reflection and strategic thinking and allows us to thoroughly analyse both the library itself as well as its component parts.

I have found little in the way of an academic analysis on the impact of these new types of libraries and creative spaces in Ireland, in comparison to the United Kingdom, or the United States for example. Barker (2019) dedicates one chapter of his work on maker spaces around Europe to the DLR Lexicon in Dublin, Ireland. Even with this considered very little has been written on creative spaces in Irish public libraries from a purely information and library sciences point of view. Furthermore, I found much literature pertaining to the usage of space within academic libraries but in comparison found much less focus on public libraries.

In summary the purpose of this thesis is to explore how creative spaces are affecting libraries in Dublin, Ireland. I will examine the underlying goals and motivations behind such spaces, what they provide and how they affect the over all role of their host libraries.

1.3 Research aim and research questions

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of creative spaces in Dublin public libraries in order to offer a viewpoint of how these projects are

impacting the role of Irish public libraries. The results of this investigation could lead to a better understanding of how shifts in library focus are impacting on libraries themselves and to increase the knowledge base on modern public library innovation within an Irish and international context.

This study has a relatively broad approach and attempts to cast a wide net to

identify both the goals of these spaces as well as the type of space these

creative spaces actually provide as well as trying to see how these creative

spaces affect the host library.

To this end the following research questions were formulated and posed:

●What are the goals of these creative spaces?

●What type of space is provided by these initiatives?

●How do these spaces affect the overall role of the library as a whole?

Overall my wish is that this study will spark some discussion over what is happening in contemporary public libraries in Ireland and will also provide another piece to the puzzle of the literature surrounding the role and effect of creative spaces in public libraries. This thesis may also be of interest to any public library librarians who are considering setting up a creative space or who want to analyse a space that is already existing.

1.4 Concepts

The term creative space was used to categorise the various types of spaces within the context of this study. A large number of names are given for these spaces depending on where in the world they are being written about and when the article is written. Because many various names have been encountered for similar spaces including hackerspace, maker space, fab lab, media lab amongst others, I chose to use the term creative space when possible to describe these spaces. This concept as with “creative” and “performative” spaces discussed by Jochumsen et al. (2017) is used to describe not just physical places but strives to describe the activities that can take place both in and outside it.

2. Literature review

In this chapter, I will set out to outline previous research that has been

completed that is relevant to this study. These studies provided a foundation for this one to stand upon, and in a field that is changing as much as information and library studies is, a thorough literature review on existing studies is

important. As Bryman (2016) states, it is important to establish what is already known about a topic and to provide a background and justification for the investigation. The themes focused upon revolve around various factors which often define the type of libraries that host creative spaces and how they

orientate themselves. These spaces often take a community centred approach or

focus on innovation and STEM related activities, Creative spaces and maker

spaces can often be seen as a bridge between these two trends. Taken altogether

the previous research gathered here represents the various overlapping spheres

that construct a makerspace in a library setting. A knowledge gap in regards to

maker spaces in Irish libraries was also identified, especially in the ILS field.

2.1 Innovation

Innovation within public libraries is a theme that has been studied in detail by various people within the field. A good definition of innovation and the one adopted for this study is from Nicholson and defines innovation as “a term to describe public libraries’ use of new, different, unusual or unique ideas, processes, delivery methods or ways of working that offer improved library services for their communities, or assist libraries to better meet their strategic objectives and goals.”(Nicholson, 2017, p.3). Nicholson provides a long and detailed report on innovative public library services and projects worldwide but with a distinct focus on the U.S.A, the United Kingdom, and Western Europe due to the availability of resources in English. This is the largest study to date that I have come across approaching the topic of innovation in Public libraries in such depth and she defines the 6 main trends as making and creating, participation, partnerships, learning, and new outreach. Her six main trends map well with studies such as Lankes (2016) which focuses on creation, collaboration, and communication being the main issues libraries need to focus on. All six trends can be easily categorised under creation, collaboration and communication showing that these three C’s are seen as key for modern innovative library practice.

When considering how public libraries must adapt in an ever-shifting and changing environment Herrere (2016), notes the five dimensions that can help shape the future of libraries as “(1) offering inspired experiences that spark curiosity and learning; (2) designing buildings that become destinations;(3) creating a high-tech, high-touch environment; (4) preserving and cultivating our cultural narrative; and (5) preparing for future-readiness. (Herrere 2016).

These five goals are seen as insuring the continued relevance of the library as a

physical space anchoring it in the material world and ensuring the physical

libraries relevance in world increasingly defined by digital and online

innovation. An arts council England (ACE) (2012) study found four key

priorities for how libraries have to orientate themselves and innovate towards

being that the library needs to be a hub of the community, make the most out of

digital technology/creative media, ensure both the sustainability of libraries and

to be able to deliver the right skills to librarians (ACE, 2012). The “envision the future” project was a large research project to envision how libraries should orientate themselves to cope with future developments and

Sternheim seeks to redefine the idea of what a public library is and that this redefinition is necessary for libraries to retain their meaning in the modern world stating that “It means that the library has to be transformed from a static and passive depot of information into a dynamic and active social setting”

(Sternheim, 2016 p.25). This new strategy means focusing on three core principles. The first principle is to focus on the promotion of wisdom to enable well-informed citizens who can play an active social role in society instead of just providing information in a vacuum. Creative involvement in the second principal meaning that users need to be able to actively engage in collection building and treated more as editors then as passive readers mirroring Lankes (2016) ideas that librarians must act primarily as facilitators. Finally, dialogue needs to become key in adapting a community-led approach in that users should not be regarded as passive consumers but should be involved in a knowledge-building process that increases understanding within a community.

These traits match up with the element of the Library 2.0 model discussed by Casey et al. (2006) by pushing for a user-centric model for change and

innovation, and by putting users at the core of any developments, which shows that this has been a theme under active discussion for quite a long period of time. This topic is also explored in more detail by Johnson, K (2016) where he describes adapting a user-based Service Design Principles strategy for library spaces and development.

The four spaces model by Jochumsen et al. (2012) arose from the Danish Committee on the public libraries in the knowledge society and was based on the idea of what new concepts could be applied for the role of the public library’s role in life long learning and its role in the knowledge society. The model also assisted with the Danish government globalisation strategy and was focused on developing existing tasks such as literature dissemination as well as the development of digital structures for Danish public libraries. The overall goals of the model were to support four goals bing (1) experience, (2)

involvement, (3) empowerment and (4) innovation. These four goals resulted in

four overlapping spaces that are designed to not be rooms in a physical space but possibilities that can be fulfilled in both material and cyberspace. These are (1) inspiration space, (2) learning space, (3) meeting space and (4)

performative space. The idea is that all of these spaces interact and are incorporated in the library’s architecture, design, services, programs and partnerships (Jochumsen et al., 2012). The model has been used as a way to develop and design libraries, and to help push forward the discussion of the public libraries’ role in the development of a democratic society and has seen widespread use especially around Scandinavia and academic interest abroad.

Begg (2009) researched the impact of changing the usage of space in British libraries since the rise of the “idea store” concept which describes themselves as educational community centres designed to modernise the idea of the English public library. Begg identifies that libraries have never been primarily restricted to a narrow view of roles and services, such as providing literature to patrons but have always provided a mixed range of services. The content of these depended on their space and time but finds that book space has steadily been shrinking in British public libraries (2009). This begs the question that the other roles of the library that are frequently highlighted when discussing public library innovation, such as community-focused activities and creative spaces are in fact not brand new innovative developments. They are in fact just innovations based upon a solid foundation which has existed within public library practice for a long time. It is only now that they are becoming more prominent, but predecessors have been flying these flags for a long time and more attention is being focused on them as they are going to the forefront of public library praxis. This adds an important anchor to the studies on

innovation of Nichlson (2017), Lankes (2016) and Sternheim (2016) as well as others that when we are seeing innovative projects or developing new strategies for public library development, some of what is being proposed as new is not without a solid foundation in historical public library practice.

While innovation within libraries seems to be a natural and ever ongoing

process Ward (2007) points out that two different views points exist on how

libraries can keep existing as a future institution. He classifies the first as 1)

people who see the future as a better service centred primarily around books. 2)

the people who see that providing a new diversified and multifaceted role and service to their communities which reflects their current needs (Ward, 2007). I don't see these two viewpoints as mutually exclusive as for a library to remain both relevant to its community and still providing a core service based around collections need not be at odds and various studies listed both prior and later in the review show the reality of this. A hybrid approach seems to be what works best reflecting the best of what has come before and the best of what can be made out of the spaces in the present and future which is a view backed up by Goulding (2007) arguing that these services have not damaged the core role as public interest in books and reading groups is still commonplace.

2.2 A community-centred approach.

The importance of the role of both the community in a public library and the value a public library can give to its host community has been a topic of discussion that has undergone a large amount of attention within the LIS community. The American Library Association (2014) has defined libraries as community centres, stating that libraries are dynamic, modern community centres for learning, information, and entertainment. They place the idea of the library as a community entity as central to their definition of what a modern public library is. When Barclay (2017) stated his four development priorities for North American libraries he put placing the library as a hub for the

community as the first one showing the importance of it to future public library development.

Tîrziman (2018) postulates that the contemporary library seems to be in a state

of crisis. It is caused mainly by the development of new information and

communication technologies. She finds an answer to this perceived crisis in

community-centered practice in North America, to find answers that can apply

to the situation of contemporary libraries in the Romanian cultural area. She

points out that the American Library Association no longer ranks access to

collections as the most important role to communities. It is now ranked fourth

and out of eight points ranked only one deals with collections. The majority of

the rest are on what the space itself can offer to people. They heavily focus on

the library as a safe space and centre for community life. She defines basic

principles showing that public libraries are active parts of their communities.

They range from being community centres for various groups and populations, binding the community together. To art spaces, or to being focused on the development of young people. She posits that this shift has arisen in the 21st century but states that while providing access to information and documents is no longer the primary goal of a public library it is still an important one and that public libraries at their best are true community areas that express their communities themselves.

The perceived crisis brought about by changes in Information Communication Technology by Tîrziman (2018) can end up looking like a benefit in hindsight as it forces the library service to change and adapt. This is an idea mirrored by Scott (2011) who find opportunity from the financial crisis that occurred in her native U.S.A. While the new financial restraints can easily be perceived as a negative this adversity led to a shift in focus and helped push a cultural shift toward adapting a community-focused framework for strategic development.

By integrating with the local community and having them participate, it can possibly lead to a level of future-proofing that the library was lacking, as users see the library as an essential part of their community remaining relevant to users.

Nicholson (2017) examines the shift of direction in strategic planning towards

a more community-centred orientation for public libraries that have happened

in recent years highlighting more community-centred models. This includes

opening up libraries as meeting places for various groupings, pushing for a

participatory culture in regards to decision making and planning. They also

open up territory so users can feel more invested in the space and have a

feeling like they are truly stakeholders. Examples of social service information,

open libraries and the push for mobile maker labs all match current priorities in

both Ireland and abroad and reflect in various planning documents such as the

latest Irish Government strategy guide for public libraries (Department of Rural

and Community Development, 2018). The checklist provided seven points for

reviewing and engaging with the idea of how community-centred a library is

and provides an evaluation framework for libraries to explore this concept

themselves.

This idea of “third place” was originally developed by Ray Oldenburg (1989) and posits that space in a society can roughly be broken down into three categories. The first place is our home, while the second places is our workplace. The third places are another different place that are vital in anchoring a community and building social capital within that urban

environment. This ability to create and maintain creative interaction amongst community members is seen to be important for the health and well-being of residents and provide a boost to the liveability of an area (Oldenburg, 1989).

Referring to a public library as being classified as third place model has gained traction within the body of LIS literature. This idea supported by Boekesteijn (2017) among others says that public libraries are inherently public spaces that fulfil the role of a “third place” within civil society. This is seen to play a key role in pushing for social cohesion and growth in mutual understanding.

The idea of the third place also links to Worpoles idea that public libraries should act like “living rooms” (2003). In providing a welcoming friendly space users can feel both comfortable and free at the same time to treat the space like their own. Barcley (2017) theorised that in parts of the world such as America the public library is one of the last truly free spaces where someone can spend the whole day relaxing. Using whatever services without being hassled by security or asked to buy something. The library as a community space is backed up by the Irish library council (1997) in their report “arts and the magic of the word” where they state that while in America the town hall has usually been considered the focal point of a community, in Ireland the local church fulfilled a similar function as a focal point for community engagement. With the decline of the Catholic Church in Ireland the public library is now one of the only remaining neutral spaces respected by most parties.

Montgomery and Miller (2011) use the concept of the third place to help justify

their transformation of the Olin library. They transform their campus library

into a community orientated third place to orientate towards a space that has a

friendly, open and conversation focused approach as possible. They focus on

enabling the interaction of as many different users from different social spheres

to be drawn together as possible. They accomplish this by focusing on the

development of exhibition spaces and turning the main space of the library into a primarily meeting space. Also they make their cafe space more open and introduce a living room feel into the whole building. The original impetus for this idea was the idea of a loss of need for space. Their collection was further digitised and they focused on trying ways to keep the physical space relevant in a time of financial restraint and to openly prove the libraries retained relevance to society (Montgomery and Miller, 2011). The approach is indeed interesting but, they do also admit that they had to take money that would have been normally allocated to building their physical book collection to accomplish these goals and away from the book budget.

2.3 STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).

STEM or science, technology, engineering and mathematics and was originally primarily used as a way of referring to employment within these individual fields. It is broadly looked at as closely interlinked fields and in regards to education as one interlinked sphere. This term eventually was used in the education sector as a push to grow these skills arose. STEM programming has now made its way into library programming as well. STEM services in

libraries generally fall under the moniker of participatory learning (Project New Media Literacies, 2016) and fall under the libraries’ vocation of life long learning (Baek, 2013). STEM projects are generally concerned with learning by doing and engaging in activities that participants can get genuinely excited about.

Baek (2013) has the idea that STEM in libraries is a practical example of third

space learning and needs to be integrated with learning in both the school place

and the home. This is in no way different from the normal interpretation of the

library learning process and shows the library as one key node in a network to

facilitate better lifelong learning. This matches up with Nygren’s (2014) idea of

STEM in libraries as a part of connected learning representing the networked

society. Learning is considered to be everywhere and that STEM activities help

with digital inclusion, digital literacy, and an expanded sense of self-efficacy

for those who are involved in these projects.

2.4 Maker Spaces

Maker spaces in libraries have been a focus of study Rubin(2016), Britton (2012), Jochumsen et al. (2017), Moorefield et al, (2014) in the last years and emerged as a trend in public libraries in the 2000s. They are a relatively new concept and public libraries can be classified as an early adopter, implementing them within their physical spaces. In essence, a maker space is a physical space where people come together to work upon different physical projects, build relations with one another and form a community of like-minded individuals usually based around a shared interest. They usually take a DIY (Do it

yourself) approach in creating objects from emerging technologies such as 3d printers, etc. A good working definition of a maker space is provided from EDUCAUSE as “a physical location where people gather to share resources and knowledge, work on projects, network and build” (EDUCAUSE, 2013).

This definition also fits into Slatter and Howard's list of five key goals of how

Maker spaces are meant to impact libraries in which they are based (Slatter and

Howard, 2014). These spaces can be considered intrinsically community spaces

in nature in that they usually only fulfil their function, if people come together

to help each other learn, teach, create and collaborate reflecting their origins

within the hacker community. These ideas are also included in the work of

Micele Moorfield, but she also reflects on the play aspects inherent in the

maker space process (Moorefield,2014). These spaces are often seen as

something that connects with "digital natives" and this peer to peer learning

and collaboration reflects their experiences as having grown up and been

engaged in online communities. This has helped these spaces thrive in the

physical world. This also connects with the idea that maker spaces can reach

out to members of the community, who have not had a prior connection with

typical public library programming. These community spaces have been

described as " performative" in nature (Jochumsen et al.,2017), as they give

users the possibility to be creative and innovative and the library provides the

tools and basic knowledge to facilitate this as opposed to just providing the

possibilities of gaining knowledge.

In essence maker spaces can be seen as transformational in nature in that they expand the role of the public library space in a new direction. This reflects the new needs of digital natives and offers a space within the library for these users to engage with. Moorefield (2014) after doing six case studies on maker spaces in public libraries across the U.S., found that maker spaces while reasonably new to library spaces, they successfully offer many opportunities for patrons to grow, collaborate, learn and explore. Also while staying true to the libraries core missions of supporting the creation of knowledge and learning.

Jochumsen et al. (2017), who note that while libraries shift towards these more performative orientated spaces can on one side be considered a move of despair in that libraries are grasping at straws to remain relevant in a digital world that they do offer a positive perspective when viewed from a certain angle summed up with, "Other perspectives point towards the notions of democratisation and empowerment of citizens, which always have been core-values of the public library. Seen in this light, the performative space could find a more permanent place in the library integrated with the spaces for learning, inspiration, and meeting "(Jochumsen et al.,2017).

These transformative aspects are further explored by Lauren Britton (2012),

where she studies six libraries making use of maker spaces within the U.S. She

sees that the transformative nature of maker spaces can have a deep impact on

the communities where they are present. She sees that they can be used to make

a spirit of entrepreneurship within communities pushing users towards a better

understanding of science and engineering. This can have a large impact on the

wider community, as residents become inspired by the skills they learn. These

spaces are seen to help people bypass traditional gatekeepers in science and

engineering. They are also seen to be able enable a passionate reaction by

engaging with these ideas in a physical and not cerebral manner. The librarians

perceived role by the community is also noted as changing, from being the

person who is perceived as having all of the answers to the person who has

questions and the ability to find them. Many of these programs have been

reliant on volunteers to keep functioning and this may not bode well for long

term development of the projects but if these projects continue to succeed at the

goals of fostering interest within these disciplines and continue to make

participants feel at home and that the library is an important part of their community this can result in a volunteer model that is likely more sustainable.

While much of the literature studied was mainly positive in relation to maker spaces several shortcomings were apparent. Greenwalt (2013) notes that the financial aspects of implementing a maker space, can also be an impediment to libraries who want to create one. In a time of budget cuts in many public libraries, it can be difficult to justify the possibly significant expense incurred upon the library to only please a relatively small user base (Greenwalt,2013).

The financial issues are also mirrored in Slatter and Howard's (2013)

conclusions in their study of maker spaces in Australia. A recurring issue was as well that, a certain reluctance pertaining to a culture which is resistant to change has developed. Moorefield-Land contradicts the assertion that maker spaces have to be expensive to implement and in fact lists the possible cost as a benefit and means it is relatively risk-free to experiment with as a concept (Moorefield-Lang, 2014). It might be that implementing maker spaces is cheaper in the United States then other parts of the world but it is still unclear how many different conclusions can be drawn about similar spaces within public libraries within the same time frame Moorefield-Lang (2014) finds in general that the greatest problems occur with the general running and operating of the space as it can be a new and different experience, then more traditional library programs. Make spaces are seen to open up new and unheard of problems in day to day organisation. When reviewing prior research on maker spaces and creative spaces in Ireland a distinct knowledge gap was identified.

Few academic articles were found concentrating on maker spaces in Ireland

and little if any focus has been given to maker spaces in Irish public libraries in

the ILS field. Recently Barker (2019) focused on the DLR Lexicon in a chapter

of his book focusing on European Perspectives on Learning Communities in

the Maker Movement is. This was not from a ILS perspective but from a

broader educational perspective and focused on various maker spaces mainly

outside of a library setting.

3. Theoretical approach

In this chapter, the theoretical foundations of the study will be laid out. The theoretical basis for this study was influenced greatly by the literature review conducted in the previous chapter. For analysing the role of the libraries I will be using Jochumsen et al. (2012) theory of the four spaces. I will explain and frame the theoretical basis for the rest of the study based on this theory.

3.1 The four Spaces model.

The four-space model Jochumsen, Hvenegaard ,Rasmussen, and Skot-Hansen developed the four spaces model were originally presented in The four spaces - a new model for the public library”(2012) while working for the Danish Committee on the Public Libraries in the Knowledge Society in 2010. The model was developed in regard to the committee’s goal to explore new

concepts for the roles of the public library in the knowledge society. As a basis for a new model, they used Skot-Hansens’s (1996) model in which four

different library profiles are presented being the social centre, cultural centre, information centre, and learning centre. This theory was developed while in the background various cultural shifts were happening such as globalisation, the information revolution and a level of uncertainty about the future of the public library had become with fears that librarians would be replaced with

“cybrarians” and other prophecies of doom concerning the library seemed

commonplace. When most of these fears blew over and the library was still

existing as a physical space they describe what they see as a burgeoning

renaissance for the physical library happening and evolving around them with

many headline-grabbing library projects being built in such cities as Seattle,

Amsterdam, Birmingham, and Aarhus and the role of the library had apparently

changed and shifted with the borrowing aspects of the library taking a less

primary role as before, Jochumsen et al. (2012) see that the physical library has

not died but has transformed from a more or less passive collection of artefacts

into a space geared more towards active experience, inspiration and as a focal

point for communities to meet. The four-space model was formulated to

construct some overriding goals for public libraries and four spaces so these

goals can be achieved. The four goals which are identified for the model are categorised as follows (Jochumsen et al., 2012):

(1) Experience;

(2) Involvement;

(3) Empowerment;

(4) Innovation.

Experience and involvement are considered related primarily to an individual’s perception. Involvement or experience in their own individualised quest for identity and meaning in modern society, while the other two goals of

empowerment and innovation are more geared towards societal goals rather than individual goals. Empowerment is seen as focusing on the development of independent and strong citizens who are willing and able to solve everyday societal problems. Innovation is focused on finding fresh answers to practical problems or in inventing new concepts, methods or artistic expressions.

Creativity and innovation are seen as particular key points in having a healthy society enabling us to have things not just to sustain us but to live for. The library is seen as important and as a contributing factor for these goals as it provides a space that enables learning, experience making, a meeting place and can give people a way to express themselves in a creative way. Jochumsen et al. (2012) propose that none of these factors can be examined individually or isolated from one another as they are inherently overlapping with each other in the library space both physically and virtually. The four-space model is not created just as a tool for analysis but also contains a vision for a library that consists of four overlapping spaces (Jochumsen et al., 2012) which are:

(1) Inspiration space;

(2) learning space;

(3) Meeting space and

(4) Performative space

These spaces are not to be viewed literally as physical or concrete rooms, but more so as possibilities that can be fulfilled in both the physical library and online in digital space. Ideally, within a library all four spaces will support each other and support the overall library’s objectives and the overall task is to make all four spaces interact by incorporating them in all aspects of the library including the architecture, design, services, programs, and choice of partnerships. (Jochumsen et al., 2012)

3.1.1 Inspiration Space

The inspiration space is where so-called “meaningful” experiences happen which are described as experiences that transform our perception (Jochumsen et al., 2012). This can occur through various means such as story-telling and various other artistic experiences present within all media, culture patterns and genres. Intrinsically the inspiration space must push people to move beyond their standard and familiar choices and the space must also open up for the irrational, chaotic by mediating various aesthetic experiences (Jochumsen et al., 2012). The public library is seen to have a long history with being a space for inspiration connected with education, enlightenment, social mobility as well as leisure and entertainment issues amongst others but it seen as necessary to rethink the library as an inspiration space. This is due to the rise of the

“experience society”(Schulze, 1992) which is defined as the concept that the experience dimension is increasingly taking up more time in our lives. As these experiences are such a core concept in people’s lives, the library must also compete in this space to enable people to create these expected experiences.

(Jochumsen et al., 2012). Jochumsen et al. (2012) also see that the inspiration room itself promotes the goals of experience and innovation.

3.1.2 Learning Space

The learning space itself supports the goals of experience and empowerment in

the model. Jochumsen et al. (2012) see that in the learning space it is where all

people young and old, can discover and explore the world and increase in

competence and possibilities, through the completely free and unrestricted

access to information and knowledge. This learning is always offered and

comes about through play, artistic activities, courses, and various other

activities. This type of learning is seen as a dialogue orientated process, that takes its point of departure from the user’s core needs. They can define their own learning needs and inherently takes place in an informal environment (Jochumsen et al., 2012). Jochumsen et al (2012) see that the library of today must provide experience orientated learning to young people through playful, social and interactive learning patterns and this is intrinsic to their societal role.

3.1.3 Meeting Space

Jochumsen et al., (2012) see the meeting space as an open, public space as well as a space that exists between work and home, where individuals can freely meet and interact with various other individuals, from groupings that are both like them as well as different. Society is seen as fragmented and a public library can offer a platform for people from various groupings, who have different core values and interests to come together and can be challenged by engaging with discussion and debate. Jochumsen et al., (2012) see the meeting space as providing for the possibility for non-committal accidental meetings.

These happen in both small and intimate spaces as well as areas such as

lounges and cafe spaces. More formalised meetings where topics and problems are analysed and discussed are also seen as possible. These meetings can be done either online through for example chat groups or in-person.

3.1.4 Performative Space

The performative space (Jochumsen et al., 2012) generally underpins both involvement and innovation. In this performative space, the users while

interacting with each other can be inspired to create new artistic expressions in the meeting of art and culture. Here they are given access to various tools that can support creative activities like interactive games, writing, sound, and video and are given support through things such as workshops by artists and

designers, etc. Jochumsen et al., (2012) see another core function of the

performative space is that it acts as a platform for providing and accessing

patrons works and products. It also provides them a stage to showcase their

activities. The performative space is seen by Jochumsen et al. (2012) as key to

people not just consuming culture. but having an active role in also creating a

culture . It is linked with exhibitions within libraries as well as providing opportunities for makers and entrepreneurs as well as creatives of all types.

3.1.5 The usage and impact of the four-space model

Jochumsen et al. (2012), wish that the model can be used as a framework for discussion over a library’s purpose as well as a basis for the development and articulation of the role of it in a democratic society. Since the model was published in 2010 it is seen to have had a large scale impact inside the Scandinavian region and has been used for the planning, design, and

development of various Nordic libraries (Jochumsen et al., 2012). Outside of Europe, it has been used less as I was only able to find one article in English that used it as the main theory for analysis which was on maker spaces in Australian libraries written which was an adaption of a masters thesis originally written in Swedish by Elisabeth Edin (2017).

3.2 Towards Culture 3.0 – performative space in the public library.

Jochumsen et al. (2017). Further built upon the four space model in the paper

“Towards Culture 3.0 – performative space in the public library” first published in 2015. The goal of this article was to analyse and discuss the development of performative spaces in public libraries from a cultural policy perspective and frame how shifts in cultural modes and rationales of cultural policy resulted in the establishment of these new participatory spaces within public libraries both globally and within a Scandinavian context. They built upon Sacco’s (2011) theory of culture and used this to trace the development of performative spaces within libraries and how libraries in general have had a ‘performative turn’ and that nature of the library in relation to its users has shifted.

3.2.1 Democratisation, economic impact and empowerment

Jochumsen et al. (2017) see three rationales behind the development of

performative spaces which are democratisation, economic impact and

empowerment. This is seen as one particular way of viewing the reasoning

behind the creation and investment for performative spaces in public libraries

3.2.2 Democratisation

The democratisation of culture (Jochumsen et al., 2017) is seen as both bridging the creation gap and providing people with easy access to scarce resources and technologies. Democratisation is seen as a key way of luring reluctant young people into a library and hoping that they will avail of the other core services provided. Jochumsen et al. (2012) also framed this as being in the long library tradition of blurring the lines between high art and popular culture, while providing an inviting space for people to explore and engage with.

3.2.3 Economic impact.

Jochumsen et al., (2017 see that the economic rationale and impact of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship is seen now as soft power in the global market and public investment in fostering these skills has become more and more commonplace world wide. Libraries are now seen as part of the process in pushing this development of young people towards innovation and development and performative spaces within cultural institutions are seen to have their place to play in this.

3.2.3 Empowerment

Empowerment is seen by Jocumsen et al. (2017) as when users are given the potential to strengthen their individual or group identity. The rationale of empowerment can be seen as a modern interpretation of the 1970’s idea of cultural democracy which was focused on the idea of democratising culture and empowering people. According to Jochumsen et al. (2017) the main difference now is that modern cultural institutions are taking it upon themselves to implement these changes while in the 1970’s it was individuals themselves who sought out these changes.

3.3 Use of the model and rationale

I was interested in applying a theory that came from the development of Nordic

libraries in Scandinavia to Irish libraries. I have seen similarities in the growth

of creative spaces in both regions in recent years. The model should be useful

in assessing the role of the libraries in the study as well as what is coming from

the innovative projects contained within. I agree with Jochumsen et al. (2012)

that these creative spaces within libraries will not fit neatly into any one or two

of the four spaces presented in the models but fully live in between these

spaces confidently occupying a significant portion of the intersecting grey area between all four. My starting point is that I believe these spaces can occupy all of the four spaces but I would say that the two most primary spaces are the inspiration space and the learning space. The most dominant goals assisted by the spaces would be the goals of innovation and experience.

4. Method

This chapter will discuss the methods of data collection and data analysis that were chosen for this study. The research methods were chosen to take into consideration the various aspects related to the problem formulation, aim and research questions that were used for this study. The chosen methodology was compared and contrasted with various other alternative methodologies and this is also discussed below going into detail on why one was at the end adopted over the other approaches.

4.1 Research strategy and design: A Qualitative multi-case study

This thesis will be based on a multiple case study research strategy which will include empirical data collections at three different public libraries located in two different county councils county Dublin, Ireland. A multiple case study or comparative case study was chosen as it was found to be the best way to investigate more than one case within the region and to be able to develop a better understanding of the core concept.

As Bryman (2016) suggests the comparative design enables the logic of comparison so we can better understand social phenomena when we compare more than one individual case. The main benefit of this is that it enables better

“theory building”, this puts the researcher in a better position to establish how the theory holds up (Yin, 2009). A Qualitative approach was chosen for this study and all of the research will be qualitative in nature. A case study in itself is considered useful, as the intensive nature of the study can enhance the sensitivity of the researcher to the factors underlying the operation of observed patterns within specific contexts (Ackroyd, 2009). Bryman adds that a multiple case study offers an even better opportunity than a singular case study that enables the researcher to be in a position to examine the operation of generative causal mechanisms in both contrasting or similar contexts (Bryman,

2016,p.68). This is one of the main underlying reasons why a multiple case

study was chosen over a single case study. When exploring the effects of

innovative library projects and how they are changing the role of public libraries in Ireland. Taking on the study of a single case was deemed to be insufficient in gauging the reality of the situation and a multiple case study was chose, I think a multi case study enables a greater understanding of the topic and has a better chance at realistically evaluating the situation.

Cases within the study can be chosen usually by either similarities or

differences so that patterns can be established and knowledge gained (Bryman, 2016). Within this study choosing the cases was based upon similarities, and not differences. The number of possible cases was limited and they all shared core similarities inherent to the research. All cases were Public libraries that had creative spaces present within them. One of the main attractions to this approach according to Bryman (2016) is that “this strategy is that the

researcher is able to say that any differences that are found between the cases in terms of the main focus of the research are likely to be due to the factors that the researcher reveals as important rather than the differences between the cases at the outset”(2016,p.68). This contrasts with the other approach that with

“selecting in terms of pre-existing difference means that the researcher is suggesting that he or she expects one or more factors to be significant in the research”(Bryman, 2016,p.68).

Qualitative research mainly deals with attempting to grasp the underlying opinions, reasons, and motivations in a given situation. “Bryman (2016) states that qualitative research is mainly concerned with words rather than

quantification in the collection and analysis of data, and that it generally emphasises an inductive approach to the relationship of theory and research.

A primary focus is put upon the generation of theories, as it embodies a view of social reality as a constantly shifting emergent property of individuals’

creation.” Or “an individual’s creation” perhaps. Qualitative theory being inductive in nature, and falling towards the generation of theory combined with its natural epistemological orientation of interpretivism, as well as its

ontological orientation of constructivism, means it can be suited for the study of the changing social role of the public library itself and how staff are

interpreting the social reality of the situation. This can result in a generation of theory based upon the lived realities of the people who construct a large part of the social reality within library spaces.

Quantitative research, on the other hand which usually focuses on information

that can be counted, measured, and expressed using numbers is primarily

deductive and orientated towards testing a theory, as well as being

epistemologically orientated towards a natural science model and ontologically orientated towards objectivism (Bryman, 2016).

4.2 Ontological and epistemological views

Both ontological and epistemological views routinely shape and construct the foundation for the choice of research methods used to carry out a given study.

The research questions of this study were constructed after engaging with the underlying ontological and epistemological concepts.

Bryman (2016) states that epistemological views invite us to consider the nature of social phenomena and they ask us to pose such questions as are social phenomena, relatively inert and beyond our influence or are they indeed a product of social interaction? Interpretivism is regarded as a key part of qualitative social research (Bryman, 2016) and with this being a qualitative study it is used to help define the epistemological view of this study. This study acknowledges that objective reality can be understood in a multitude of

different ways. Also that these distinct viewpoints of individuals carry a distinct amount of worth. Ontology can be considered in essence the “science or study of being”(Blake, 2010) and tends to deal with the nature of reality.

Constructivism allows individuals to try to understand their own individual world and develop personal meanings that match their own experiences This is important to this study as a key part of this study is understanding the library as a social space and that the people being interviewed help construct this reality and have a unique frame of reference for interpreting its individual successes and failures.

4.3 Empirical data collection

I will now explain the reasoning behind the chosen methods below.

4.3.1 Case studies

The case studies themselves involved various different aspects such as examining various strategy documents, publications from the various county councils that the libraries are associated with. The national plan was also taken into consideration. Secondly in-depth semi-structured interviews with staff within the libraries as well were carried out to gather information.

The circumstances for choosing the particular libraries for this case study were

as follows. To qualify as eligible for the study each library had to test positive

for the following criteria. (1) The libraries are located in Dublin, Ireland, (2)

Innovative projects are currently taking place and (3) The respondents work with the innovative projects and are working for the library or actively involved with the running and programming of the space. The first criteria were deemed necessary for practical reasons as this would be a relatively small study. Focusing on a limited geographical area was deemed to be the most appropriate and this would also help provide a solid basis for analysis for the study. The second criteria was there to ensure that all the libraries chosen were indeed engaging in projects considered innovative in a Dublin public library setting, The third criteria was to ensure that the interviewees actually have a significant lived experience working in public libraries and are involved in innovative projects themselves so that they can offer a hands-on perspective of working in the public library.

The first step was in finding libraries that engage with innovative projects and are well known to be pushing the field of public library innovation in Ireland. A thorough search of academic library databases came up with little in the

context of Irish public library innovation. After this, I checked the websites of all 21 public libraries currently open in Dublin, searching for those that were operating innovative services and projects. Once I had narrowed all of these down I started with emailing all libraries who met these criteria. After multiple emails and eventual phone calls, I was able to organise interviews with both members of staff from the Ballyroan public library and the Lexicon Dun Laoghaire. Later on I was able to make contact with Ballyfermot library for the second round of interviews and was able to interview one staff member on their digital maker space. Having had no opportunities to initiate contact in person as living in a foreign country was lamentable as I felt that if I could have approached more libraries in person I would have had an easier time getting a response from the various institutions.

4.3.2 Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative Interviews were chosen as the primary means of gathering data for

the study. According to Bryman (2016) qualitative research interviews usually

come in roughly two forms, that of the unstructured interview and that of the

semi-structured interview. Occasionally the use of a structured interview more

commonly found in quantitative research can also occur. Semi-structured

interviews were chosen in the end as the most agreeable format for conducting

the interviews for multiple reasons. Unstructured interviews can be useful in a

variety of different studies but are usually best used in long term studies where

time is not of the essence and your interviewees can be as free as possible with

their answers, you can build upon past interviews and the conversation can

flow more naturally. The questions for an unstructured interview are not set in advance or in stone and are supposed to arise naturally from the conversation (Bryman, 2016). On the other hand, structured interviews are often used for statistical surveys, except that the data is collected by an interviewer and not entered into a survey. The questions are set in advance and the interviewer asks exactly the same questions in the same order to every interviewee to ensure that all individual interviews are as similar as possible. Semi-structured interviews are more of a middle ground between these two approaches with a rough guideline for questions constructed beforehand but the interviewer is then free to alter the topics, questions, and direction of the interview as they see fit. This approach was seen to incorporate the best of both worlds as a coherent

structure is present to guide the interview process but there is still a large amount of freedom available to adapt to the situation at hand as well as to the needs of the interviewees themselves. This is summed up by Wildemuth when she states “semi structured interviews involve less rigidity and more leeway than structured interviews but are more organized and systematic than unstructured interviews in developing the conversation” (Wildemuth, p.233,2009) and highlights the distinct advantages of semi-structured

interviews over the alternatives. Having a clear interview guide as advised by Wildemuth (2009) was also considered by myself as a key to success for the study.

Multiple previous studies were referenced and helped influence and develop the choices of data collection and analysis methods as well as the

implementation strategy of the study. These papers also helped significantly in shaping the interview guide. These papers were primarily chosen because their chosen focus of the study was similar to this one. They mainly focused on innovation within public libraries as well as modern public library design strategies and community engagement. Poldaas (2015), Lang (2014), Slatter and Howard (2012) and Bryson, Usherwood, and Proctor (2003) all contributed greatly to constructing the interview guide. All of these studies contributed to various aspects of the studies but none of them was on my exact topic or based in the Republic of Ireland so while they provide a helping hand with

constructing the interview guide many changes were deemed both desirable

and necessary. Kvale and Steiner’s (2007) seven stages of an interview inquiry

heavily informed the interview design process as well as the broader way the

analysis was done. Careful consideration went into ensuring that the questions

were all as open-ended as possible to allow interviewees a good amount of

freedom in how they answered the questions. Care was also given to avoid any

question that would lead an interviewee too far in a direction when possible.

At each of the libraries chosen for the case study ideally at least two separate members of staff were interviewed when possible, one senior and one junior member of staff. In Ballyfermot only one member of staff was available, at the DLR Lexicon an event organizer for the lab space was additionally

interviewed. In Ballyroan an additional library assistant was later interviewed who runs and programs the creative space. This was designed so a range of experiences from working in the library both from a floor level and a higher perspective would be heard so a more holistic overview of the staff experience within the library is recorded and studied. Relying solely upon information from either the management or the librarians on the ground floor was

considered risky as a lot of experiences would be lost. For the purposes of this study, it was deemed better to widen the focus of the study to staff in different positions then only narrowing the focus on one or the other. Staff who have regular interactions with projects deemed innovative were favoured and generally, these were the ones who volunteered for the interviews when asked by the head librarian of the individual libraries.

When volunteers had come forward from the libraries I stopped having direct contact with the head librarians and had personal contact with the interviewees with the freedom to arrange where and when we met for the interviewees. The interviewees and the institutions themselves were informed from the beginning of the nature of the study and how their information would be handled. The first two interviews for Ballyroan took place on the 6th of August in the library itself and the two interviews for the Lexicon were on the 8th of August and were also conducted in the Lexicon itself. The location of the libraries themselves was deemed the most appropriate place for conducting the interviews for multiple reasons. I followed Wildemuths advice (2009) in having the interviews take place within the libraries themselves. This was seen as ideal as this was the participant’s “natural habitat”.

The setting itself provided ample spaces and rooms which were considered

optimal for conducting the interview and also in recording the interviews

themselves. This also enabled me to get a feel for the libraries themselves and

the interviewees offered a tour of the individual libraries. The first interview at

Ballyroan (BR1) lasted for 39 minutes, the second interview (BR2) lasted for

34 minutes. The first interview at the Lexicon (DLR1) lasted for 57 minutes

and the second interview(DLR 2) lasted for 41 minutes. Between 30 minutes

and an hour was judged as the ideal amount of time for the interview as

suggested by Bryman (2016) in order to have a good amount of time to dive

deeply into the subject and also to avoid fatigue setting in on the interviewee or

interviewer themselves.

A second round of interviews began in February 2020 as it was judged that not enough information was gathered from the first round. Ballyfermot library was added to the study and a single librarian was interviewed on the 18th (BF1) for 38 minutes. The events manager at the DLR Lexicon was interviewed on the 17th (DLR3), the member of staff designated as DLR1 was re-interviewed on February the 19th for 38 minutes. Finally on the 21st the final library assistant was interviewed at Ballyroan (BR3) for 29 minutes .

All interviews were recorded on two mp3 recording devices. As recommended by Bryman (2016), two were used in case one of the recordings did not turn out well or if a problem occurred with a single mp3 recorder. I chose even though it is time-consuming to fully transcribe the interviews themselves. This was made feasible by the relatively small number of interviews that occurred but still, a sizeable amount of time was spent transcribing the interviews. This was done for various reasons but primarily the process of transcription allowed me to dive deeply into what was said and get a deep understanding of what had occurred during the interview process.

Consent for the collection and processing of personal data was gathered on the day of the interview from each of the subjects in accordance with the

guidelines of the university. None of the interviewees had any particular problems with giving consent and were assured that they shall remain anonymous. Two interviewees requested to see the work in case it will be published afterwards.

The framework chosen for the analysis of the interviews themselves was a thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is said by Bryman (2016) to be considered the standard form of analysis for qualitative studies and this was interpreted as being the most effective method of gaining useful information from the

recorded interviews. The responses of the interviewees were compared and contrasted with each other so that distinct categories of information could be constructed. Direct quotations were used to provide further explanation and to provide clarity to any particular issues that came from the interviews

themselves.

It had been my intention from the beginning to try and remain neutral in this

study as I am not an active participant in any of the chosen library projects

either as a worker or as a user. I had never met any of the interviewees before

the day of the interviews and have had limited access to any of the libraries in

the past. I had never been in either of these libraries before and this I hope led

to better enable critical thinking and objectivity when conducting this study. I