Search results

With a focus on Canada, but framed by similar and shared concerns emerging in the United States, this chapter examines the current status of what constitutes and defines academic freedom for academic librarians and the rights and the protections individual, professional academic librarians have with respect to the freedom of speech and expression of their views in speech and writing within and outside of their institutions. It reviews the historical background of academic freedom and librarianship in Canada, academic freedom language in collective agreements, rights legislation in Canada versus the United States as it pertains to academic librarianship, and rights statements supported by Canadian associations in the library field and associations representing members in postsecondary institutions. The implications of academic librarians using the new communication technologies and social media platforms, such as blogs and networking sites, with respect to academic freedom are examined, as well as, an overview of recent attacks on the academic freedom of academic librarians in the United States and Canada. Included in this analysis are the results of a survey of Canadian academic librarians, which examined attitudes about academic freedom, the external and internal factors which have an impact on academic freedom, and the professional use of new communication technologies and social media platforms.

This chapter introduces an initiative of the Spectrum Doctoral Fellows to build an online resource that engages the Library and Information Studies (LIS) community in a discussion of social justice initiatives within the field. This tool further develops a social justice framework that raises awareness of and integrates social justice methodologies into LIS curricula and library practices. This framework facilitates community building and the empowerment of the populations they serve.

Using an iterative approach to user-centered design, the Social Justice Collaboratorium (SJC) development process consists of input from a community of engaged users to inform the wireframe, prototype, testing, and development phases. This includes gathering substantial qualitative and quantitative data such as surveys of LIS faculty, practitioners and students, as well as tracking web analytics once the tool is live.

The SJC allows for the confluence of research, resources, networks, best practices, and LIS school models in a centralized medium. Designed for LIS practitioners, faculty, staff, and students, as well as those interested in project management, resource development, and collaborative work, the SJC supports different approaches to social justice in LIS.

The SJC will be accessible to a distributed community of social justice LIS scholars, practitioners, students, and activists. Contributions from the community of users throughout every stage of the development process ensures participation, stewardship, and intentionality. In this way, the SJC will be a transformative tool for the LIS community as a vehicle for promoting equity and social change.

The author of this chapter will explain how libraries define safe space through policies, procedures, and professional codes of ethics. The chapter will generate a history of the concept of libraries as safe space, will explain how libraries attempt to create safe spaces in physical and online environments, and will show how library practices both help and harm patrons in need of safe space.

This chapter provides a review of the literature that illustrates how libraries provide safe space – or not – for their patrons. The author will deconstruct the ALA Code of Ethics and Bill of Rights to demonstrate how libraries remain heteronormative institutions that do not recognize the existence of diverse patrons or employees, and how this phenomenon manifests in libraries.

Libraries, either through their physical construction or through policies and procedures, have become spaces for illegal activities and discrimination. Populations who would be most likely to use libraries often report barriers to access.

Libraries should revisit their policies and procedures, as well as assess their physical and online spaces, to determine whether or not they truly provide safe space for their patrons. While libraries can become safer spaces, they should clearly communicate what types of safety they actually provide.

This chapter offers a critique of libraries as safe spaces, which will challenge popular opinions of libraries, and compel the profession to improve.

The authors began this review of the research available on the topic of managing corporate libraries with the hypothesis that there has been a lack of funding for such research that in turn has limited its production. After reviewing the relevant research literature produced in the last three decades, however, the assumption of inadequate funding causing a lack of research on this topic could not totally be supported. As we sought to identify what funding was available, the literature suggested additional questions: How or if research on the subject of managing corporate libraries was encouraged and funded and by whom? What type of research would be most useful for corporate library managers? Finally, how research results were disseminated and whether the results had been put to use by practitioners? Here the authors are defining the topic of “managing libraries” in the broadest sense and occasionally delve more specifically into the topic of valuing library services. While we address corporate libraries in particular, most of our findings and commentary can be applied to special libraries in general.