[Advances in Library Administration and Organization] Advances in Library Administration and...

THE RURAL PUBLIC LIBRARY

AS PLACE: A THEORETICAL

ANALYSIS

Linda R. Most

ABSTRACT

Research into the library as place investigates the role of public librarybuildings as destinations, physical places where people go for variousreasons ranging from making use of the library’s resources and services orseeking to fulfill an information or reading need to less easily identifiedreasons that may include using the library’s building as a place to makesocial or business contacts, to build or reinforce community or politicalties, or to create or reinforce a personal identity. This study asks: Howare one rural US public library system’s newly constructed buildingsfunctioning as places? The answer is derived from answers to sub-questions about adult library users, user, and staff perceptions of libraryuse, and observed use of library facilities. The findings are contextualizedusing a framework built of theories from human geography, sociology,and information studies.

This case study replicates a mixed-methods case study conducted at themain public libraries in Toronto and Vancouver in the late1990s and firstreproduced in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 2006. It tests methods used inlarge urban settings in a rural, small-town environment. This study alsoexpands on its antecedents by using thematic analysis to determine which

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 30, 51–149

Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1108/S0732-0671(2011)0000030005

51

LINDA R. MOST52

conceptualizations of the role of the public library as place are mostrelevant to the community under investigation.

The study relies on quantitative and qualitative data collected via surveysand interviews of adult library users, interviews of library public servicestaff members, structured observations of people using the libraries, andanalysis of selected administrative documents. The five sets of data aretriangulated to answer the research sub-questions.

Thematic analysis grounded in the conceptual framework finds that publicrealm theory best contextualizes the relationships that develop betweenlibrary staff members and adult library users over time. The study findsthat the libraries serve their communities as informational places and asfamiliarized locales rather than as third places, and that the librariesfacilitate the generation of social capital for their users.

Keywords: Public libraries; library users; Gadsden County, Florida;mixed methods; library as place

Research to the concept of the library as place attempts to understand therole of library buildings as destinations: physical places where people go forvarious reasons ranging from the most obvious – making use of the library’sresources and services or seeking to fulfill an information need – to lesseasily identified reasons that may include using the library’s building as aplace to make social or business contacts, to build or reinforce communityor political ties, or to create or reinforce a personal identity (Osburn, 2007).Public library leaders refer to their libraries as information institutions, andthis is how people most typically understand public libraries. Statistics showthat generations of Americans have used their public libraries as a sourcefor reading materials. Nationwide, in 2008, users visited public libraries 1.50billion times, or 5.1 library visits per capita; those visitors borrowed 7.7library materials per person and used the libraries’ Internet PCs 1.21 timeseach (Henderson et al., 2010).

From the work of Leckie, Hopkins, and Givens (Given & Leckie, 2003;Leckie & Hopkins, 2002), May (2007, 2009), and May and Black (2010) LISresearchers know something about how people use the physical resources oflarger urban and suburban public libraries in places like Toronto,

Rural Public Library as Place: A Theoretical Analysis 53

Vancouver, and Halifax, Canada. Ongoing research generated by the UrbanLibraries Council has explored public library use in many larger U.S. cities(Urban Libraries Council, 2007). Other examples of how people use librariesas place were provided by a study of the ways people use the reading roomsof some of the Israel’s urban public libraries (Shoham, 2001), and an inquiryinto how women use public libraries differently than do men (Fidishun,2007). A recent collection, The Library as Place: History, Community, andCulture (Buschman & Leckie, 2007), presents scholarly papers offeringexaminations into the nature of the library as place in multiple settings.

However, none of these research studies address the contemporary roleof the rural public library as place. Other than work conducted by theAmerican Library Association’s Office for Literacy and Outreach Servicesand by the Center for the Study of Rural Librarianship (CSRL) at ClarionUniversity, there is little scholarly research addressing the ways smallrural and suburban libraries function in their communities. In 2004, theAmerican Library Association (ALA) surveyed rural public, school, andtribal libraries in the United States to identify their key areas of concern,and respondents identified community poverty and lack of library fundingas the key problems they faced (Leach, Jr., 2004). The study did not look atany of the positive effects of small rural libraries on their communities.Although the CSRL has published the journal Rural Libraries since 1980,covering all aspects of library service to rural communities and rurallibrarianship, it has yet to publish any research relating to the role of therural public library as a community place. According to the 2008 IMLSsurvey of public libraries, of 9,221 public libraries in the United States,77.7% (7,158 individual library service points) serve populations under25,000 people (Henderson et al., 2010), indicating that this is a significantvoid in the literature.

This study systematically investigates the role of the public library asplace in Gadsden County, a small rural, majority African-American countywith approximately 47,000 residents located in north-west Florida alongthe Florida-Georgia border. The goal of the study is to identify how theGadsden County Public Library System’s (GCPLS) adult users view and usetheir public library buildings as place.

Studying the GCPLS as place is important because the role of the publiclibrary as place in small towns and in the lives of rural African-Americanadult library users has not been closely studied. More has been writtenabout the historical role of public libraries in African-American commu-nities and the fight for access to their buildings and collections (Battles,2009; Hersberger, Sua, & Murray, 2007; Tucker, 1998). Because GCPLS

LINDA R. MOST54

built three new library buildings between 2000 and 2007, it offers a rareopportunity to expand LIS research about the contemporary role of thelibrary as place in rural libraries. This study exploited that opportunity byreplicating a tested research design in a new population. It also exploreswhether current library architecture and facilities design are meeting theneeds of the community’s library users. Finally, it identifies the mostrelevant theoretical explanations of how library buildings function as placein a rural setting by contextualizing its findings within the theoreticalliterature that informs the concept of the library as place.

Study Setting

Located in the Florida Panhandle along the Florida-Georgia border and just20 miles from the state capital, Gadsden County is one of the United States’300 majority minority counties – counties in which members of minoritygroups make up the majority of the population (Abbady, 2007). AlthoughGadsden County is small, ranking 42nd of 67 counties in Florida in overallpopulation, it is second only to large, urban Miami-Dade County in thepercentage of that population that identifies itself as part of a protectedminority.1 It has the highest percentage of African-American residents –56.8% – and the highest percentage of female heads of household – 26.9% –in Florida (Dart, 2007; BEBR, 2007, pp. 1, 3).

Despite its agricultural past, Gadsden County is now classified as ametropolitan county in a small metropolitan area of less than one millionpeople (USDA ERS, 2003b), part of the Tallahassee Metropolitan StatisticalArea (OMB, 2007, p. 50). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s EconomicResearch Service classifies Gadsden County’s economy as Federal or StateGovernment Dependent, meaning 15% or more of the average annual laborand proprietor earnings were derived from the Federal or State governmentbetween 1998 and 2000 (USDA ERS, 2003a). The county is classified asexperiencing housing stress, meaning ‘‘30 percent or more of households hadone or more of these housing conditions in 2000: lacked complete plumbing,lacked complete kitchen, paid 30 percent or more of income for owner costsor rent, or had more than 1 person per room’’ (USDA ERS, 2003a).

Because of its plantation history, agricultural economy, and some of itsresidents’ multigenerational family wealth, Gadsden County today is astudy in contrasts (Heritage, 1988). According to certain key statisticalindicators, Gadsden is the poorest county in the state, with the highest


percentage statewide of single female householders (26.9%) and the highestpercentage of students eligible for the free/reduced price lunch program(Proctor, 2001; Center for Public Education, 2008; BEBR, 2007, p. 3, p. 6).These statistics tie directly to the high percentage of African-Americans inthe county’s population (Proctor, 2001).

Although Gadsden County is part of the Tallahassee MetropolitanStatistical Area rather than a micropolitan2 area in its own right, nomunicipality in the county has a population over 5,000 other than Quincy,the county seat, and the public library system serves people living in bothsmall towns and unincorporated areas. The GCPLS describes itself as ‘‘a 25year old library system located in rural North Florida’’ (Gadsden CountyPublic Library, 2008). However, even though the county library system isonly 25 years old, Gadsden County has a history of municipal andsubscription public library service dating back to the early 20th centurywith libraries having been housed in a variety of loaned spaces, including anold private school, a storefront, and alongside the Sherriff’s office in thebasement of a county building.

Today the county library system consists of three new buildings and abookmobile. The main library is located in Quincy, the county seat; and thetwo branches are located in the small towns of Havana and Chattahoochee.The Havana Public Library branch building opened in 2003 after previouslyoccupying a rented storefront. It serves a town population estimated at1,826 (BEBR, 2009), and is located two blocks away from the downtownantique stores, restaurants, and other tourist destinations, which is about15min from Tallahassee. The new William A. ‘‘Bill’’ McGill main library inQuincy opened in June 2006 after being housed in a series of borrowed andshared spaces. It serves a city population estimated at 7,384 (BEBR, 2009),and sits next to the main post office and the county Wal-Mart on a majorthoroughfare into the city. It is about 30min from Tallahassee. The newChattahoochee Branch Library opened in April 2007 leaving behind anoutgrown, obsolete wood building. It serves a city population estimated at3,282 (BEBR, 2009) and sits about two miles away from downtown at amain crossroads and across from the Chattahoochee Elementary School.Chattahoochee is the furthest of the cities from Tallahassee, situated at thepoint where the Florida, Georgia, and Alabama state lines come together onthe Apalachicola River just below the confluence of the Chattahoochee andthe Flint Rivers. The unincorporated population of Gadsden county isestimated at 33,516 (BEBR, 2009). The libraries, a bookmobile, and otheroutreach programs serve the residents of the unincorporated communities of

LINDA R. MOST56

the county. GCPLS ranks 51 of 74 in relative size of legal service populationof public library entities in Florida (State Library & Archives of Florida,2008).

INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE

The conceptual framework for this study is built on previous research into therole of the library as place and the role of the library in the life of the user.Zweizig (1973) observed that most library research before the early 1970s hadbeen conducted from the perspectives of librarians and administrators andsuggested that LIS research would be well served by investigating the roleslibraries play in the lives of their users – in other words – developing a user-centered perspective. Thirty years later Wiegand (2005a) summarized threekey roles public libraries play in the lives of their users: making usefulinformation and recreational reading materials available to billions of peopleand providing ‘‘hundreds of thousands of places where users have been able tomeet formally as clubs or groups, or informally as citizens and studentsutilizing a civic institution and cultural agency’’ (p. 77). This third role publiclibraries play for their users, providing a meeting place – examined from theperspective of broader theoretical interpretations of the roles of public placesin society – provides the context for understanding the ways GadsdenCounty’s library users think about and use their public libraries as place.

Osburn (2007) provides a theoretical and philosophical context for theconcept of library as place, situating it in the fields of psychology, neurology,geography, philosophy, and architecture. His constructed definition of placeis ‘‘a setting of any dimension and type in which an individual perceives aspecial spirit (genius loci) that is generated by the quality of experiencerelated to the values and associations it recalls, and whose significance to theindividual captures an extraordinary order and heightens related awarenessthat becomes an inspiration for imagination and behavior’’ (p. 63). Osburn’sdefinition of place contextualizes much of the literature cited in this study.

Library as Place

Place Studies is a field of inquiry grounded in geography and in social andcultural studies. Cresswell (2004) offers five concepts to help understandplace as a construct: location, locale, sense of place, space, and landscape.Location refers to fixed coordinates in space; locale refers to the boundaries


that define the places within which people conduct their lives as socialindividuals; sense of place explains people’s subjective attachments tolocations to which they have attached meaning; space is the physical worldbefore people attach meaning to it; and landscape is the topography of thespaces around people – the geography they look at rather than the placethey live. Places all have significance in the social world and the field of placestudies provides a fresh way of looking at the role of libraries in society.Drawing on the framework built in place studies, LIS scholars have usedseveral theoretical perspectives to understand libraries as place.

Leckie’s (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) extensive studyof public use of the main libraries in Toronto and Vancouver and socialroles the buildings play as important community places is central in thescholarly research about library as place and provides the foundation forthis project. Her study examines public use of the main libraries in thosecities through a series of structured observations, library user surveys,library user interviews, and staff interviews. She and her colleagues reportthat the libraries are ‘‘highly successful as public spaces’’ (2002, p. 359),and attract a large and diverse user population. They ‘‘fulfill extremelyimportant educational, informational, and social functions within theirrespective cities, providing community gathering, work, and study placesthat would be difficult to duplicate in any other manner’’ (p. 359). Theirfindings also indicate ‘‘important symbolic, cultural, and socioeconomicroles’’ for libraries in their cities and that the rise of information technologyhas only expanded the libraries’ role by adding another tool the publiccan use (p. 360). The most serious threat to the continued success of thedowntown public library as an important community place ‘‘is the ongoingideological shift within libraries away from their neutral status as publicinstitutions toward that of an active agent for private interests in the marketeconomy’’ (p. 360). Leckie and her co-authors see a danger in the ongoingcommercialization of library services and facilities through corporatesponsorships and underwriting because commercial influence ‘‘has the realpotential to transform the fundamental nature of libraries’’ and changethe public library’s fundamental cultural mission to one that is no longerentirely public (p. 360).

May (2007, 2009; May & Black, 2010) used Leckie’s (Given & Leckie,2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) study as the basis of her master’s thesis. Sheused Leckie’s overall design and instruments to study patterns of use in sixsmall and medium sized libraries in Nova Scotia, asking whether thelibraries are functioning successfully as public places and how people useand experience libraries as physical spaces. She finds that each library is

LINDA R. MOST58

flourishing as a public place and that people are using them ‘‘to engage in awide variety of activities from using computers to socializing, reading, andinteracting with staff’’ (2007, p. xi). She concludes that the libraries shestudied ‘‘are vibrant community spaces that are used in a multitude of waysand where the public feels welcome’’ (p. xi). May’s study provides the modelfor the methodology and instruments employed in this study.

In 2007 Leckie and Bushman published The Library as Place: History,Community, and Culture featuring 14 research articles whose authors drawon various theoretical, historical, and sociological concepts to inform theirwork. Several of the theoretical perspectives featured in the book inform thisstudy’s understanding of the public library as place.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Leckie (2004) discusses three theoretical perspectives that inform her workon libraries as public space in a follow-up article to her study of the Torontoand Vancouver main libraries (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins,2002). For Leckie, the key factors that make public libraries into publicspaces serving the needs of their users start with the library’s physicalpresence including its architectural design and its location in the community.How libraries become successful public spaces depends on ‘‘a complexinterplay of the actions and beliefs, of library users and library staff, librarygovernance, particular ideologies, political maneuvers, power relations, anda number of other factors’’ (p. 234). Leckie identifies academic conversa-tions about ‘‘the nature of the public sphere, the crisis in civil society, andthe meaning of the library to its users’’ (p. 234) as especially helpful inunderstanding the role of the library as a meaningful public space.

Briefly, the public sphere is a conceptual arena in which people canparticipate in the public, civic aspects of their lives not played out at home(the private sphere) or under direct control of government (the sphere of thestate). The public sphere coalesces when people come together voluntarily todiscuss important civic issues. Philosopher Jurgen Habermas (1974, 1991) ismost closely associated with developing and exploring the concept of thepublic sphere and his work is often cited in discussions of the role of thepublic library in society. The crisis in civil society, according to politicalscientist Robert Putnam (1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 2000) refers to asteady decline in civic participation, volunteer work, and philanthropy inthe United States since World War II. Putnam attributes this decline to asteady decrease in the production of social capital, the intangible glue that


underpins social institutions and holds society together. Leckie completesher theoretical framework by discussing the meaning of the library to itsusers, referring to Zweizig’s (1973, 1976) argument that LIS scholarshipshould be thinking about the library in the life of the user rather than theuser in the life of the library.

Citing her own research (Leckie & Hopkins, 2002), Leckie supportsWiegand’s (2003) contention that libraries should be celebrating andencouraging reading as a public activity. Her research finds ‘‘that themajority of patrons in the library at any given time were engaged in readingand the number one reason for visiting [the libraries] was to use the large andcomplete collection of books and periodicals’’ (Leckie, 2004, p. 235). ForLeckie, the threat to public libraries is less about the seduction of digital andcommunication technologies, tools that bring access to global knowledgeand communication to personal computers, than an ideology that defines thelibrary as business (Buschman, 2004), an ideology that undermines thelibrary’s position as an expression of the Habermasian public sphere.

Buschman’s (2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b) theoretical research identifies theU.S. public library as a quintessential expression of the Habermasian publicsphere. Library collections, he says, represent and preserve ‘‘the varietyof arguments over the public’s issues and democratic culture over time,implicitly refuting notions of once-and-for-all solutions’’ and embody ‘‘theturbulent course of a democracy and its culture’’ (2005a, p. 11). He contendsthat, ‘‘By building diverse voices, perspectives, and arguments into ourcollections and services, we keep alive the means of realizing truedemocracy – by transcending our nation’s historical shortcomings ofexclusion and discrimination, and our profession’s similar shortcomings,through the struggle to include censored works and underserved groups’’(2004, p. 40).

Jurgen Habermas and the Transformation of the Public Sphere

Jurgen Habermas’ (1991) theory of the public sphere offers a philosophicalgrounding from which to interpret one of the roles public libraries play insociety. For Habermas, the public sphere is a theoretical conceptualizationof the part of the social world that sits between the private sphere – thehome – and the sphere of public authority – the world of government andthe state. The public sphere is that part of the social world outside of thedirect control of the state where people can come together regardlessof status or income. It often forms in commercial places but has a

LINDA R. MOST60

noncommercial, nonmarket-focused perspective. The public sphere is theplace in which public discourse on topics of general interest occurs and inwhich democracy is nurtured through social interaction. Some scholars usethe concept of civic space to describe the public sphere (Schudson, 1998).

Buschman (2003, 2005a, 2005b), Webster (2002), Wiegand (2000, 2003),and Williamson (2000) are among those who interpret the role of publiclibraries in their communities as an expression of the public sphere. Theysuggest that public libraries are among the few remaining places wherepeople can come together regardless of race, class, gender, or income level.In their view the physical place of public libraries provides a setting in whichdemocratic activity can occur in keeping with Habermas’ theory of thepublic sphere. Habermas’ theory may provide an insight into how peopleuse the GCPLS locations, especially when they are understood as civicspace.

Habermas defines the bourgeois public sphere as a realm of the socialworld situated between the privacy of the home and the authority of thegovernment in which citizens can participate in civic dialogue as a means ofcontributing to civic life. For Habermas, the public sphere is a construct ofthe middle class world. He conceives it ‘‘as the sphere of private people cometogether as a public’’ (1991, p. 27). Habermas says the public sphere roseout of 17th century social changes – especially in France, England, andGermany – as professional men created a new civil society by comingtogether in nongovernmental public places and forming voluntary associa-tions (Calhoun, 1992; Fraser, 1992). Habermas describes the bourgeoispublic sphere as the result of a new emphasis on communicating ideas andinformation between members of a social world. He also describes howthe bourgeois public sphere transforms over time as it is reshaped bythe pressure of social change. He demonstrates this change by citingthe transformation of newspapers from ‘‘a journalism of conviction to oneof commerce’’ beginning in the 1830s in England, France, and theUnited States (Habermas, 1974, p. 53). Other transforming forces includea blurring of the distinction between the state and the social world(Calhoun, 1992).

Habermas’ theory provides a normative ideal and a lens through whichobservers can gain insight into patterns of public life and social activity.‘‘The public sphere – public press, public forums, public schools, publiclibraries, and other means of free discourse about social information’’(Burnett & Jaeger, 2008, p. 9) is the essential expression of moderndemocracy, but many of its embodiments are under threat.


Urban Public Space as an Expression of the Public Sphere

Mitchell’s (1995) examination of the 1991 struggle over access to People’sPark, a piece of undeveloped land owned by the University of California atBerkeley, offers a detailed analysis of conflicting visions of the role of publicspaces in cities. Activists and homeless people saw the park as ‘‘anunconstrained space within which political movements can organizeand expand into wider areas’’ (p. 115). The University’s representativesenvisioned ‘‘open space for recreation and entertainment, subject to usageby an appropriate public that is allowed in’’ (p. 115, italics in original).Mitchell discerns a conflict between a vision of public space as a politicizedenvironment in which risks of political confrontation and disorder arecentral to its function, and a vision of a planned, orderly, safe public spacein which users are made to feel comfortable. Mitchell argues the normativeideal of the public sphere – ‘‘the suite of institutions and activities thatmediate the relations between society and the state’’ (p. 116) and the realityof public space – are inherently in conflict. He bases his argument inHabermas’ conception of the public sphere as one in which all participantsin social formations ‘‘should find access to the structures of power within asociety’’ (p. 116, author italics). As Mitchell observes, the Habermasianideal of the public sphere and the physical reality of public space areintrinsically in conflict.

Zukin (1995), Sorkin (1992), and Wilson (1992) all have discussed the‘‘Disneyfication’’ of North American public space – the process of ‘‘creatinglandscapes in which every interaction is carefully planned’’ (Mitchell, 1995,p. 119). Idiosyncratic and extemporaneous interactions between peopleengaged in common goals are displaced by interactions shaped by marketand design considerations. The privatization of public space, accordingto Mitchell, is leading to a new, restricted definition of the public whichexcludes groups of people who are not able or willing to follow corporaterestrictions on activities suitable for public spaces. The forces Mitchellidentifies as threatening urban public spaces are also touching publiclibraries. Although corporate sponsorship of a youth summer readingprogram or an adult book club is not in itself threatening, it does offercorporations access to previously noncommercial public space.

Banerjee (2001) asks about the future of public space in the United Statesand identifies causes for the decline of the public realm that include declinesin social capital, a rise in public incivilities, and loss of territorial control.Privatization of existing public spaces is a continuing trend, and corporate

LINDA R. MOST62

open spaces are minimally used. By contrast, shopping malls have becomethe most frequently visited nonfamily, nonwork places, but they usuallyexclude public activities typical of the traditional downtown public spaces.When those exclusions have been challenged, shopping centers andcorporate plazas have not been determined to be public forums. Banerjee(2001) comments that shopping malls create the illusion of public spacewhile isolating visitors from the risks and uncertainties of everyday life.

Public Libraries and the Public Sphere

Buschman (2005a) identifies a series of trends in public librarianship that‘‘represent a diminution – or dismantling – of the democratic public sphere’’(p. 11). He states that a key danger lies in following the market-oriented,entrepreneurial practices that inform current public policy thinking, therebycreating a sort of ‘‘information capitalism’’ (p. 9) that transforms libraryusers into customers. Buschman says public libraries have assumed ‘‘anentrepreneurial approach to funding shortages and library practices’’ (p. 9)by following this trend. He believes that this new approach encouragesan economic bias toward networked resources and other cost-drivenapproaches to library management that has led libraries to adopt a neweconomics-focused public philosophy at odds with the philosophy ofthe democratic public sphere. Buschman (2003) counters the currentinfluence of the economic model of library service with a vision of a library‘‘democratically connected to its community’’ (p. 180). Because of theintangible long-term nature of the influence of the library in the lives of itsusers Buschman (2005b) suggests that any form of cost-based measurementwill necessarily fall short of describing the impact of the public library as anexpression of the public sphere. In contrast to the privatization of publicspaces described by Mitchell and Banerjee, Alstad and Curry (2003) arguethat public libraries today still function close to the public sphere ideal andsummarize many of the arguments advocating on behalf of public space.

Place Theory in Sociology

The normative ideal of the Habermasian public sphere informs the civicnature of the public library as place, but people use the public spaces publiclibraries provide for many social and personal purposes as well. Sociologistsand political scientists often investigate the physical characteristics of the


places in which different types of social interactions occur and theirvarious approaches provide a different perspective on the social nature ofplace. Taken together, the different perspectives can help provide a fullerunderstanding of what library as place means to library users.

Third PlacesOldenburg’s (1999) concept of third places has provided a popularframework for scholars to use when analyzing roles public libraries mightplay as community places (Fisher, Saxton, Edwards, & Mai, 2007;C. Harris, 2007; K. Harris, 2003; Lawson, 2004). For Oldenburg, homeand family make up the first place, work and professional or businessrelationships happen in the second. The third places are the social siteswhere people go to experience community when they are at leisure orbetween home and work. Third places most often are free or inexpensive;are very accessible (ideally within walking distance); involve regular patronswhom habitues expect to encounter regularly; and are unprepossessing butwelcoming and comfortable. He also suggested that they often feature foodand drinks, something that is not essential, but nonetheless is important totheir capacity to fulfill this role. Even though, by nature, third places benefittheir communities, they have limits that grow out of their limited serviceareas and clientele. True third places are often heavily race and gender-specific.

Public Libraries as Third PlacesIn the late 20th and early 21st centuries public libraries attempted toclaim third place status in their communities. Kevin Harris’ (2003) featurearticle analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of British public libraries asthird places. He tests them against Oldenburg’s criteria and asserts theirimportance as local places in which certain types of community connectionscan be established or reinforced. He identifies public libraries as places ‘‘towhich people can go without obligation, threat, or constraining expecta-tions,’’ saying they fall at ‘‘the less interactive end of the third placespectrum, but they have an under-appreciated role in providing localsupport and generating trust’’ (p. 26).

Karen Lawson (2004) also attributes certain aspects of the third placeto public libraries saying third places ‘‘nourish relationships and adiversity of human contact by helping to create a ‘sense of place’ and acommunity’’ (p. 125). Lawson refers to 20th century public libraries by usingOldenburg’s alternate phrase, great good places, and says they areexcellent examples of the concept because they ‘‘welcome members of their

LINDA R. MOST64

particular communities regardless of age and economic status and providethem with access to information, services, and a responsive, usually safe,environment’’ (pp. 126–127). She continues on to note that ‘‘traditionallibraries provide human contact and social experience and strive to fosterservice, social equality, and the appreciation of human individuality’’(p. 127).

A key feature of Oldenburg’s third places is access to coffee or otherfood and beverages while enjoying the company of others. Cathryn Harris(2007) positions public libraries as ‘‘increasingly becoming places for socialinteraction, with areas set aside as meeting spaces, training rooms, and artgalleries’’ and describes these features and their activities as adding to theattraction of the library as a destination (p. 146). She does not mentionthat meeting rooms and other social spaces were important features of theoriginal early 20th century Carnegie library buildings in the United States(Van Slyck, 1995).

Fisher et al. (2007) developed the concept of informational places whenthey used Oldenburg’s (1999) third place theory as part of the framework fortheir study of the new Seattle Public Library central library facility. Theyasked library users and passers-by about their perceptions of the newbuilding as a physical and social place, finding that, though the library onlymet three of Oldenburg’s eight characteristics of a third place, one of the keyvalues of the library to its users was as the place to go when they needed toobtain information, read for pleasure, or study and learn. Although this isnot surprising, these researchers concluded that the theoretical literature inplace studies has not previously addressed place in relation to information-seeking behavior. They developed the concept of an informational place toadd information seeking and information consumption as core attributes ofplace to be added to those in the theoretical literature. This characterizationof Seattle’s library as an informational place may be helpful in under-standing theoretical aspects of library as place in other communities as well.

The public realmLyn Lofland (1998) divides urban space into three realms –private, parochial, and public. The boundaries of these realms are fluid andtheir identities can change as peoples’ relationships change within a givenspace. The private realm is the world of intimate relationships among familymembers, extended families, and friends. The parochial realm is the world ofneighborhoods and the workplace where people know each other sociallyor professionally and share a common purpose. The public realm is the worldof the street where strangers find themselves face-to-face. While movingthrough the public realm people experience a variety of relationships with


those they encounter during their daily public activities and the nature ofthose relationships can change over time.

As a social territory the public realm operates under a set of principles ofnormative behavior that include (1) cooperative motility, (2) civil inatten-tion, (3) audience role prominence, (4) restrained helpfulness, and (5) civilitytoward diversity (Lofland, 1998, p. 30). These behaviors guide interpersonalconduct among strangers in the city and allow each person cooperatively tomaintain his or her own privacy. People who do not know each other usethese norms to establish the various kinds of relationships indigenous to thepublic realm. In the public realm fleeting relationships occur when lookingfor a seat on a bus or asking the time (p. 53). Routinized relationships arestandardized relationships based on the roles people play like bus driver,cabby, grocery clerk, shopper, etc. They result from a specific interactionand end when the interaction ends, or they transform into another level ofurban relationship (p. 54). Quasi-primary and intimate-secondary relation-ships develop when positive or negative emotion infuses a public relation-ship (pp. 55–56). Quasi-primary relationships appear to end when theinteraction ends. Intimate-secondary relationships endure. They occuramong people who connect to each other in some public way and placeand then build on that connection, whether it is formed on the commuterbus or train or among those that one shares a public interest with, or at apark, hairdresser, retail store, or other similar space. They are meaningful,last a long time, and feel good, yet they are not necessarily intimate.

In addition to person-to-person public realm relationships, person-to-place relationships also form. Significant places become memorializedlocales, small spaces that take on an aura because of something thathappened there (Lofland, 1998, p. 65). Familiarized locales become part ofpeople’s daily routines (p. 66). The corner store, the newsstand, and thebranch library are examples of familiarized locales that, for their habitues,become very important to ordinary public life. Finally, home territories maybe public or private spaces where ‘‘regular participants have a relativefreedom of behavior and a sense of intimacy and control over the area’’(Lyman & Scott, 1967; cited in Lofland, 1998, p. 69).

In spite of the ‘‘dominant rhetoric of antiurbanism’’ (Lofland, 1998,p. 229) that favors the rural and the suburban and privileges the privateand the parochial realms over the public realm, Lofland identifies severalexamples of the public realm’s persistent positive social value and utility.First, the public realm provides ‘‘an environment for learning’’ (p. 232), notformal classroom learning but the everyday life lessons children and adults

LINDA R. MOST66

need to learn to function in the social world, to interact successfully withpeople unrelated to them and from different cultures. The public realmprovides ‘‘respite and refreshment’’ (p. 233), functioning as a positive playenvironment for children and adults who benefit from the experience ofplay. Lofland cites Oldenburg’s (1999) documentation of the psychicrefreshment individuals experience in their third places as an example ofthe respite and refreshment obtainable in the locales of the public realm.The sociability of aspects of the public realm provides informal commu-nication centers (pp. 233–234) for a variety of people and groups. Publiccommunication enables the ‘‘practice’’ of politics (p. 234) in an informalsense in which people of different backgrounds and opinions learn to acttogether. Out of those informal political patterns, people learn to cometogether when formal actions are needed.

‘‘Finally,’’ as Wiegand (2005a, p. 79) states, ‘‘the public realm facilitatescosmopolitanism.’’ Lofland (1998) says the public realm uniquely has thecapacity to teach its residents about tolerance and civility. In spite of itsunique qualities, Lofland says, the public realm in North America is underthreat from technology, tourism, and personal timidity. Increasingprivatization keeps people from experiencing the unique qualities of thepublic realm and threatens its continuing vitality.

The Public Realm and the Public Library

McKenzie, Prigoda, Clement, and McKechnie (2007) describe public librarymeeting rooms as neutral physical spaces that may serve variously as publicor parochial realms reflecting the fluid nature of the relationships among thepeople using the spaces. The fluidity built into public realm theory may beuseful in understanding how people experience public libraries as places.McKenzie et al. studied public use of an Ontario public library meetingroom. They found that the members of the library’s weekly knitting groupand those in the young children’s/caregivers story hour regularly transformthe public space of a library meeting or program room into semiprivate orprivate realms. They apply Lofland’s (1998) theory to the relationshipsforming within the two groups and thereby identify those relationships asintimate secondary relationships. They also find several enactments ofprivate family relationships taking place inside the library, especially withregard to the physical care of the children participating in the story hour.

McKenzie et al. (2007) also observed the members of the twogroups fulfilling what Lofland (1998) described as ‘‘quasi-primary and


intimate-secondary relationships [that] promote the informal exchange ofinformation’’ (p. 130). Conversation topics ranged from the immediatefocus on knitting and childcare into an ‘‘extremely wide variety of othertopics’’ (p. 130). They conclude that, though the public library is considereda public space and a part of the world of strangers, those people using thepublic meeting room are transforming it into a world apart from the publicrealm. They propose that public libraries should be understood as sites that‘‘support a variety of relationships and host a variety of realms’’ (p. 131).

Social Capital

Public and academic libraries have been thoroughly researched as placeswhere social capital is generated. Social capital is a theoretical concept thatgrows out of economic thinking but is used across many disciplines todescribe the results of connections people make through participationin social networks. One of the core ideas of social capital is that socialnetworking has value and that the action of social networking generatesa form of capital that an individual can use to enhance personal orgroup productivity within the social world. Political science scholar RobertPutnam is among those credited with popularizing the concept of socialcapital in the United States, but his emphasis is on its influence on therelations between communities and nations rather than between individuals.Putnam is a leading proponent of using social capital to reinvigorate civiclife in the United States. He defines social capital as ‘‘features of social life –networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together moreeffectively to pursue shared objectives’’ (Putnam, 1995b, p. 664; 1996a,p. 35).

Putnam (1995a, 1995b, 1996a) identifies social capital as important tofurthering America’s domestic agenda but noted its ‘‘strange disappear-ance’’ in a series of much discussed and debated articles. He cites onestatistic that inspired the catchphrase for his thesis: ‘‘more Americans arebowling today than ever before but bowling in organized leagues hasplummeted in the last decade or so’’ (Putnam (1995a, p. 70). The imageof the solo bowler, featured in Putnam’s (1995a) article title ‘‘BowlingAlone: America’s Declining Social Capital,’’ captured the national atten-tion. Putnam continued to study the reasons why social capital wasdeclining in American society and published a book-length study thatrekindled the international discussion across popular and academiccommunities (Boggs, 2002).

LINDA R. MOST68

Halpern’s (2005) work builds on and expands Putnam’s understandingof social capital and its role in social life. Halpern adds an internationalviewpoint to the discussion and says his British perspective gives hima different view than Putnam’s interpretation of U.S. events. Halperninterprets the American social capital narrative as one of the transformationrather than agreeing with Putnam’s narrative of decline ‘‘as more general-ized social norms come to replace the informal understandings of traditionalcommunities’’ (p. ix).

Public Libraries and Social Capital

Following the publication of Bowling Alone, Putnam was invited to speak atthe 2001 annual meeting of ALA (ALA breaks attendance records despiteMarriott boycott despite Marriott boycott, 2001). ALA President NancyKranich described him as ‘‘taken aback when he discovered theextraordinary level of social capital resident in the room’’ (p. 2). Putnam’sappearance at the ALA meeting brought public libraries to his attention asplaces where social capital is generated as U.S. library leaders grabbed theiropportunity to demonstrate the many ways libraries build social capital andto chide Putnam for missing libraries in Bowling Alone (Kranich, 2001;Preer, 2001). In Better Together Putnam and Feldstein, with Cohen (2003)visited the Chicago Public Library’s Near North Branch which theydescribed as ‘‘an active and responsive part of the community and an agentof change’’ (p. 35).

Audunson, Varheim, Abo, and Holm (2007), Bourke (2005), Cart (2002),Goulding (2004), and Hillenbrand (2005a, 2005b) have successfully usedthe theory of social capital to explain some of what happens betweenpeople who come together in public library buildings. Audunson et al. havecategorized public libraries as low intensive meeting places, arenas wherepeople can meet or be exposed to others with different interests and values.By contrast, high intensive meeting places are the places where people liveout the majority of their lives engaged with others who share their interests,projects, or life goals (Audunson, 2005). Audunson et al. (2007) describe thepublic library as ‘‘an arena for informal social interaction, for the creationof weak ties, generalized trust, and bridging social capital’’ (p. 11). They saythat the unique accessibility of public libraries to all members of thecommunity as well as outsiders ‘‘should make it extraordinarily well suitedfor bridge building across diversities’’ (p. 11). Bourke (2005) also describespublic libraries as ideally placed to encourage the networking between


different community groups and representatives that is the generating forcerequired to build social capital.

Goulding’s 2004 editorial in the British Journal of Librarianship andInformation Science highlights the difference between British and U.S.governmental policy perspectives regarding the importance of social capitalas a public good, saying that, ‘‘in the UK policy makers and academiccommentators believe that the state and its institutions can create theconditions through which social capital can be generated’’ (p. 4). She believesthat ‘‘the more optimistic British view is perhaps the result of evidencesuggesting that associational life and civic participation in the UK is stillstrong in contrast to, for example, the United States (as documented byPutnam)’’ (p. 4). Goulding finds great opportunities for public libraries tocontribute to civic renewal and community building and to emphasize theirrole in building social capital. ‘‘The very success of democratic public spacelies in its embrace of conflict and plurality and libraries need to consider howto address any tensions inherent in their use whilst still ensuring that theircapacity to help promote social capital is maintained’’ (p. 5).

In Norway, Aabo (2005) focuses on the changing roles of public librariesin the digital era. She finds that they help meet the digital age’s challengesbecause of their potential and actual roles as public spaces that providesocial and physical meeting places. The purpose ‘‘generally accepted forpublic libraries worldwide has not been changed by the ICT [informationcommunication technology] revolution,’’ she says, ‘‘The purpose of publiclibraries is still to further democracy, equality and social justice, increaseaccess to information, disseminate culture and knowledge, contribute to ameaningful and informative leisure time, and act as a communal institutionand a social meeting place’’ (p. 210).

Varheim (2007) calls for deeper ongoing research into the relationship oflibraries and social capital. After reviewing many of the sources cited inthe literature, Varheim concludes that ‘‘people mainly use the library fordocument-related activities.However, many find it a place they just want to be:a third place for informal low-intensive meetings’’ (p. 425). At the same time,Norwegian public library users ‘‘prioritize the equity of access for all andconsider library buildings a symbol of government commitment’’ (p. 425).Varheim warns that outreach activities intended to bring in new library usersmust be ‘‘grounded in a library services perspective,’’ noting that, ‘‘if librariesturned into local community centers, merely functioning as hubs andrecruiting areas for voluntary associations, there would be little evidenceof their social capital-building properties’’ (p. 425). In contrast to Putnam’s(2000) firmly held belief in the importance of voluntary associations, Varheim

LINDA R. MOST70

argues that ‘‘there is scant evidence that voluntary associations create socialcapital, regardless of their other positive effects’’ (p. 425).

Varheim (2007) predicts public libraries will play three main roles increating social capital: providing universal services built around the corepurpose of access to documents and information; functioning as a publicspace that provides universal access for all on an equal footing; and as aninformational institution, ‘‘bringing people together for knowledge andreflection’’ (p. 426). Varheim suggests that universal service and universalaccess without means testing are key features of public libraries that supportsocial capital generation, but that ‘‘the library has a vital role in maintainingthe public sphere in times of commercial and physical threats to the freeformation of the public opinion’’ (p. 426) and, therefore, has a role insupporting ‘‘both the social and the political fabric of society andgovernment’’ (p. 426). Varheim’s (2007) and Aabo’s (2005) conclusionsabout the role of public libraries in Norway reflect the split in the U.S.public library community between emphasizing the public library’s role asthe locus of the public sphere and library decision makers’ need to documentthe economic value of public library services (Buschman, 2003, 2004, 2005a,2005b).

Audunson (2005, 2007a, 2007b) and Audunson et al. (2007) find thatpublic libraries function as low-intensive meeting places that providecommunities with ‘‘public spaces and meeting places filling differentfunctions – for example, meeting places contributing to an undistortedcommunication in the Habermasian sense, meeting places with a potentialof creating a minimum degree of community identity, and meeting placespromoting social contact, making people go ‘bowling together’’’ (Audunson,2007b, section 3.1, p. 8). As noted earlier, Audunson postulates that high-intensity meetings are those between people who share their major interestsand engagements and thus generate bonding social capital, and low-intensitymeetings are those where people with different interests and values cometogether and generate bridging social capital. He and his colleagues haveidentified public libraries as an ideal site to support and encourage low-intensity meetings because of their ability to promote social inclusion and tocreate integrated and vital local communities (Audunson, 2005). He calls thepublic library ‘‘one of the few remaining cross-cultural meeting places’’ in anincreasingly fragmented social world (Audunson, 2005, p. 437).

Audunson et al.’s (2007) survey findings indicate that public librariesserve as important meeting places in several ways. The libraries function,most importantly according to respondents, as a ‘‘public square in thecommunity where you meet friends and neighbours, enter into conversations


with friends and neighbours but also, to a very considerable degree, withstrangers’’ (p. 25). Audunson et al. (2007) find that a wide range of types ofmeetings take place in public libraries, ‘‘informal meetings with friends,unplanned encounters, participation in virtual arenas, organized meetingswith politicians and authors, etc.’’ (p. 3). They conclude that ‘‘the concept oflow intensive meeting places where people become aware of each otheracross cultural heritages, and across differences in values and perspectivesseems to be fruitful’’ (Conclusion section, p. 3). The conceptualization oflow intensity meeting places offers an additional way to understand howpublic libraries function as places well suited to supporting social capitalgenerating activities.

Public Libraries as Digital Informational Places

Varheim (2007) describes public libraries as informational institutionsfunctioning as both virtual and physical places where people come togetheraround both document-driven and social activities. Audunson (2005)identifies public libraries as being simultaneously grounded in the geogra-phically defined, local community while providing a bridge to the digitalvirtual world. Fisher et al. (2007) propose adding the concept of informationseeking and consumption to Cresswell’s (2004) and Oldenburg’s (1999)frameworks for understanding libraries as place. Fisher et al. suggest that ‘‘an‘informational place’ can be operationalized as comprising all themesregarding information finding and seeking, reading, life-long learning,learning resources, and learning environment’’ (p. 153).

At the time of the 2007–2008 Public Libraries and the Internet study,98.9% of public libraries offered public access Internet services (Librariesconnect communities: Public library funding & technology access study,2007–2008). In parallel with the rise of digital information technology,federal, state, and local governments have migrated more and more of theirservices to electronic-only applications – e-government – referring indivi-duals without other Internet access to their public libraries for access andassistance rather than providing physical access points (Bertot, Jaeger,Langa, & McClure, 2006a, 2006b). As public libraries have become knownas the place to go for access to e-government services, they have also becomethe first stop in times of emergencies. After the disastrous Gulf Coasthurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005, local people turned to the nearest openpublic library as a resource for information and communication access(Oder, 2006).

LINDA R. MOST72

The authors of Long overdue: A Fresh Look at Public and LeadershipAttitudes about Libraries in the 21st Century (2006) talked directly withlibrary users about their perceptions of public libraries. They found thatlibrary users view libraries as ‘‘key players in our digitized future’’ (Wooden,2006, p. 4). Although not explicitly framed as studying libraries as places,implicit in Long Overdue is a conception of the library as the physical placewhere people will go to connect to the Internet. The library users surveyedhave not changed their expectations of public library programs and servicesfrom those of previous generations. They have merely added a need forlibraries to provide digital services in addition to traditional services.

ALA’s 2008 report on the state of America’s libraries identifies publiclibraries as ideally situated to meet evolving digital communication needsbut warns that ‘‘growing patron enthusiasm for the computer and Internetservices offered by public libraries has stretched existing Internet bandwidth,computer availability, and building infrastructure to capacity. Budgetshave not kept up with demand, and many libraries cannot provideenough computers or fast-enough connection speeds to meet patron needs’’(American Library Association, 2008, p. ii).

Advances in digital communication technology and the proliferation ofInternet-only resources are combining to add a new level of demand on topof other place-based public library programs and services. ALA’s currentfindings imply that it is crucial for public libraries to recognize theirstrengths and weaknesses as community places. Library managers mustmake decisions about which library roles they will emphasize and how theywill use scarce resources to support them.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study asked ‘‘How are the Gadsden County Library System’s librarybuildings functioning as places?’’ as it explored ways adults who live in asmall, rural, majority African-American county use their public libraries asplace. The question was answered by addressing five research questionsabout library user demographics, library user and staff perceptions oflibrary use, and observations of actual use of library facilities:

RQ 1: Who are the users of the Gadsden County library buildings?

RQ 2: How do Gadsden County’s adult library users describe their perceptions of their

local library’s services and amenities?


RQ 3: What do Gadsden County’s adult library users think of the building design

elements, layouts, and furnishings of their three libraries?

RQ 4: What use do Gadsden County’s adult library users make of their library

buildings?

RQ 5: What insights can Gadsden County’s adult library users and staff provide about

the role of the public library in their communities?

The answers to these questions – obtained through a mixture of researchmethods including structured observations of actual library use, a libraryuser survey, interviews of library users and staff members, and a review oflibrary meeting room reservations – provide answers to the guiding questionand explain how Gadsden County libraries are functioning as place forthe local community. The data are also analyzed within the context ofthe theoretical literature to deepen understanding of how people use theGadsden County Library locations as place. The objective of the study is toprovide a current picture of the uses Gadsden County’s adult citizens makeof their new libraries to advance the field of place studies by demonstratingthe applicability of the theories used previously to conceptualize largerurban public libraries as place to a small rural library system.

This study replicates the mixed-methods case study designed and used byLeckie, Hopkins, and Given (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins,2002) at the main public libraries in Toronto and Vancouver in the late1990s to explore the role of the library as place in a community andreplicated in 2006 by May (2007, 2009; May & Black,) at six smaller publiclibrary branches in and around Halifax, Nova Scotia. This study designfeatures a single case – the GCPLS – using the three library branches, Main(in Quincy), Havana, and Chattahoochee, as units of analysis (Yin, 2003).The methodology employed a triangulated or convergence design that drawson four methods to collect both quantitative and qualitative data from twogroups of people associated with the libraries: surveys and interviews ofadult library users, interviews of library public service staff members,records analysis, and structured observations – seating sweeps – of thepeople using the libraries. The findings from each data collection methodconfirmed or disconfirmed the findings of the other data collection methodsand then were combined to answer the research questions posed in thestudy.

To facilitate eventual cross-case comparisons this study began byreplicating the instruments and methods developed by Leckie, Hopkins,and Given (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) and used laterby May (2007, 2009, 2010) as closely as possible while at the same time

LINDA R. MOST74

customizing the questions used to suit the demographic profile of thepopulation of the current study site. May expanded Leckie, Hopkins, andGiven’s original study design by incorporating an additional instrumentdesigned by Curry, Dunbar, and Marshall (2004) to solicit public opinionsabout the design of recently constructed branch library buildings. BecauseGadsden County’s public library buildings are new – they opened to thepublic in 2003, 2006, and 2007 – it was appropriate to include concepts fromCurry’s library user survey here as well, just as May integrated it into herstudy, to ask how the libraries’ users feel about specific features of their newlibrary buildings. During the library user and staff interviews, manyrespondents described having observed or participated in a variety ofmeeting room uses. After completing the original data collection plan, thestudy was expanded to include a review of the library meeting roomreservation documents.

Participants and Data Collection

The study focused on two principal subsets of library users. First, all libraryusers age 18 or above who were physically present in the libraries duringthe period of the study were eligible to actively participate by com-pleting self-administered questionnaires or by agreeing to be interviewed.Second, all library staff members who work with the public were invited toparticipate in the staff interview portion of the study. Three African-American female staff members, two between ages 25 and 35 and one above40, and 7 non-Hispanic white female staff members ranging in age fromapproximately 30–55 participated in the study. Children and teens under 18years were counted during the observation periods but otherwise excludedfrom actively participating because the study was limited in collecting adultperceptions of public libraries as place, consistent with the design of the twoprevious studies. Around 337 unique adult library users participated eitheractively by completing a questionnaire or participating in an interview; orpassively as among those observed using the library during the seatingsweeps.

The target data collection period for the study was autumn 2008, afterpublic school had begun for the year but before Thanksgiving and winterholiday activities affected people’s schedules. Data collection began onSeptember 10, 2008, and continued through November 24, 2008.


Study Instruments and Methods

Seating SweepsSeating sweeps, a way of structuring unobtrusive observations to documenthow people appear to be using the library at any specific time, were thefirst activity conducted at each site (Given & Leckie, 2003). These wereconducted at each library during the week before the survey questionnaireswere distributed or the interviews begun to attempt to capture undisturbedpictures of library use. Data were collected by walking through the library atscheduled times and recording the estimated age, gender, race, possessions(i.e., backpack, tote-bag, handbag, computer, baby carriage, music player,cell-phone, etc.), activities (reading, computer use by type, studying, talking,eating, participating in a program), and where the person was located in thelibrary at the time of the observation for each person in the public areas ofthe library. For consistency, the categories of activity recorded were basedon those used by May (2007) in her study but modified to suit the specifics ofthe Gadsden County public library locations.

Five seating sweeps were conducted per location covering all the timeperiods during which each library location was open, including one weekdaymorning, one afternoon after school was dismissed for the day, and oneevening; and once or twice – morning or afternoon – on a weekend daydepending on the library location’s weekend operating hours. Observationsof 174 individuals were documented across 3 library locations.

Library User SurveysPosters announcing the study and asking adult library users to participate inthe survey or be interviewed were placed at each location during the weeksthe study was under way. The posters featured a gift-card drawing – anincentive for users to participate – that was held when each branch’s surveyand public interviews were completed.

The study design called for 200 questionnaires to be distributed during atwo hour period three times during the week (morning, afternoon, andevening of different days) and twice during the weekend of the study week ateach location. Additional questionnaires were left at the information desksnext to the questionnaire return box for the period during which the surveywas being conducted. One hundred and forty-three questionnaires weredistributed across all three libraries following the data collection scheduleand 109 usable completed questionnaires were returned, reflecting a 76%overall return rate. The text of the survey questionnaire is found inAppendix A.

LINDA R. MOST76

Interviews of Library UsersThe interview guide uses the ‘‘standard open-ended’’ model (Johnson &Turner, 2003) in which the same wording and the same sequence ofquestions is used for each interview but the open-ended questions allow theinterviewer room to probe for more details as appropriate. The text of theinterview guide is found in Appendix B.

The study proposal called for 20 interviews per library location for a totalof 60 user interviews. The interviews were anticipated to take less than10min each. Adult interview subjects were recruited during time slots(including the weekends) when the survey questionnaire was not beingactively distributed in order to expand the range of library users involved inthe study. Interview participants were selected using purposive sampling inan attempt to reach representatives of the 12 most likely adult demographicgroups to use the library (defined by approximate age group, apparent race,gender) and who spoke English well enough to participate in an interview.

Any library users who appeared to belong to a different adultdemographic group (e.g., of Asian or Hispanic origin) were specificallyasked to participate. Interviews were recorded using a digital mini-recorder and transcribed for analysis. Forty-one total public interviewswere conducted across three locations. Population saturation becameapparent when people entering the libraries declined to be interviewedby stating that they had already completed a survey form earlier in thestudy period.

Interviews with Library Public Service Staff MembersThe library system’s managers allowed the staff interviews to take placeduring the participants’ scheduled work hours, and all public service staffmembers were invited to participate. The goal of this phase of the study wasto secure participation from at least two public service staff members perlibrary location, possibly including the location manager. Staff memberswere told that the interviews were voluntary, and that they were notrequired to participate if they did not wish to do so. All were offered theopportunity to review the questions in advance so that they could thinkthrough their responses. Ten staff members – all female – across threelocations agreed to participate. The interviews were recorded using a hand-held digital recorder and were transcribed for analysis.

Meeting Room Reservation LogsThroughout the interviews participants referred in having seen people usingthe library public meeting rooms in a variety of ways or described having


personally participated in activities held in the meeting rooms. It becameapparent that the meeting rooms contribute significantly to the role of thelibrary as place for these communities. The original study design wastherefore modified to include an analysis of meeting room reservations forthe two months during which data collection took place.

Data Analysis Design

The study data were analyzed following Creswell and Plano Clark’s (2007)concurrent triangulation, data convergence model of mixed methods studydesign. Yin (2003) refers to this analysis model as convergence of evidenceand stresses the importance of triangulating the data obtained from all thelines of inquiry in the study to arrive at convincing and accurate conclusionsthat can be corroborated in the data.

Quantitative Data AnalysisThe quantitative data resulted from the seating sweeps, the closed questionson the surveys, and the meeting room reservation sheets. The survey askedopen-ended and forced choice questions (Fink, 2006) to capture library userdemographics and opinions about the libraries’ services and facilities. Theseforced choice questions used formats including yes/no/why questions, scalesof agreement questions, and a series of questions asking respondents to rankseveral sets of answers by various criteria. The meeting room reservationswere kept on calendar pages at each branch. Reservations were sorted,tabulated, and totaled by category of use and location.

Qualitative Data AnalysisTextual data resulted from the open-ended survey questions and theinterviews. The qualitative survey data were first coded descriptively toallow the themes and patterns relevant to the story the data were telling toemerge following the general tenets of in vivo coding (Strauss & Corbin,1998) or verbatim coding (Saldana, 2009).

Qualitative analysis of the library user interviews was conductedsubsequent to the survey analysis, again following the general tenets of invivo (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) or verbatim coding (Saldana, 2009). After thelibrary user interviews were analyzed, the staff member interviews werecoded and analyzed using the same methods. Intra-coder reliability testingwas conducted by revisiting and recoding excerpts from the data coded at

LINDA R. MOST78

the beginning of the analysis process after the first round of data analysiswas complete.

The second round of data analysis began by merging the quantitative andqualitative data sets to answer the study’s five research questions after whichthe theoretical analysis grounded in the study’s conceptual frameworkbegan. Theoretical analysis was intended to determine whether evidence ofany of the previously identified theoretical roles public libraries play as placecould be seen in the GCPLS’s locations.

During the first round of data analysis, evidence of the social nature ofreading as practiced at the public libraries became more and more apparenteven though theoretical literature addressing the social nature of readingwas not included in the study’s conceptual framework. Even without atheoretical context, the findings indicating that these public libraries supportthe social nature of reading could not be ignored completely (Fister,2006; Ross, McKechnie, & Rothbauer, 2006; Wiegand, 2005b), and thatsupporting the social nature of reading must be acknowledged as one of themany functions of the library as place.

Validity

The survey questionnaire demonstrated content validity because it was usedand published previously (Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) and then modified andused again (May, 2007). To ensure content validity specific to the proposedstudy site, demographic questions were modified from previous iterationsof the questionnaire to reflect characteristics of the current population.While using the questionnaire it became apparent that it had aged andwould need further modification if used again. However, face validity of thequestionnaire was still present: the questions looked like what they wereasking about, and they reflected the community they were investigating andthe environment in which they were being asked.

Results of the questionnaires were compared with results from theinterviews to determine whether people said different things when beinginterviewed than when filling out a questionnaire. Most responses to similarquestions were consistent across both data collection methods. Seatingsweeps observations both supported and contradicted the answers given onthe questionnaires. For example, only one laptop computer was observed inuse in a library building though library staff members explained in theirinterviews that people frequently bring laptops and work on them eventhough the libraries do not offer wireless Internet access and the staff


members feel this discourages patrons from using them in the library. Alibrary user also mentioned the lack of wireless Internet access at the libraryand described it as a shortcoming during his interview.

The example of different perspectives on use of laptop computers –observed compared to described – in small public libraries reinforces theimportance of using multiple research methods to develop as full a pictureof library use as possible. At the Gadsden County study sites, the staffinterviews helped create a more accurate picture of laptop use than didthe observations or survey questionnaires. Staff and library user interviewresponses provided a good picture of the need for the libraries to providewireless Internet access and anecdotal evidence of the reasons they mayhave chosen not to do so. These and other examples of confirming anddisconfirming evidence uncovered while triangulating the findings from thedifferent components of the study help indicate the validity of the studybecause human behavior is never perfectly consistent (Creswell & PlanoClark, 2007).

FINDINGS

Research Question 1

Research question 1 asked, ‘‘Who are the adult users of the GCPLSbuildings?’’ Observations and answers to the relevant survey and interviewquestions were grouped by theme: gender, age, race, language spoken,education, employment, place of residence, and average length of trip tovisit the library. Analyzed as a group these data offer a basic profile of theadult library users who visit the GCPLS libraries. They are majority female,between ages 30 and 60, and live within 15min of their preferred librarylocations.

The study included 337 participants who appeared to be, or self-categorized as above the age 18; 32% were classified as being between ages18 and 30, 41% between ages 30 and 60, and 17% were above the age of 60.Female study participants outnumbered males across all the data collectionmethods used and in all the age groups described in the study. The differencewas greatest among those who actively participated in either the interviewsor the surveys. Seating sweeps observations counted 58% female and 42%male. Interview respondents were 73% female and 27% male. Surveyrespondents were 78% female and 22% male.

LINDA R. MOST80

Eighty-one percent of survey respondents indicated they live in the sametown as the library branch they visit, and 12% live in another county orstate from the library branch they visit. Eighty percent of library usersreported that it takes them less than 15min to get to the library from home,and an additional 16% travel between 15 and 30min from home to get totheir preferred library branch location. Three people – 3% – reportedtraveling more than an hour to get to the library branch they use, but oneof these respondents indicated that the Havana library was close to herhusband’s place of work. When asked why they used the library in questionrather than any other library location, 65% indicated that it was close tohome and an overlapping 13% indicated that it was convenient to them.

The majority of GCPLS’s adult library users – 62% – reported having ahigh school diploma or having taken some university or college courses; anadditional 20% reported having a university or college degree or diploma;and 11% reported at least some postgraduate study.

Most of the survey respondents – 88% – reported that they spoke Englishas their only language, whereas 11% reported that they spoke English andsome other language. Because the study was conducted in English, it ispossible that many library users who speak Spanish as their first languagedid not choose to participate.

Library users reported having a variety of occupations but some did notconsider themselves as employed, calling themselves homemakers or retired.The most commonly reported primary occupation was other followed by aspecific job title. Positions listed included nanny, state worker, pharmacytechnician, truck driver, nurse, buffet cook, and others. After other the nextmost common category of primary occupation reported was professional,and the third most common response to the question was unemployed.

Research Question 2

Research question 2 asks how Gadsden County’s adult library usersdescribe their perceptions of their local library’s services and amenities.Triangulating responses from the user survey and from user and staffmember interviews provides a picture of library user perceptions of theirlocal libraries’ services and amenities.

Many library users indicate that their lives would change for the worsewithout access to the libraries. Many respondents consider access tocomputer technology to be the most important service the libraries provide;yet providing this service has complicated relations between library staff


members and library users. In addition to computer and Internet access, thelibraries are used for many other purposes. Users reported that the keyservices the libraries provide include materials for recreational reading andentertainment and facilities to support educational and personal study andresearch. One group of library users appreciates the enrichment programsthe libraries provide for children. Several other library users suggested thatadditional cultural and enrichment programs would be well received, aswould newer computers and wireless Internet access.

Asked about the primary purpose of the library, survey respondentsprovided multiple answers. The two most common categories of answerswere to serve as a community resource and to support education or provideinformation. Social and recreational purposes were seldom specified, butthey were implied as part of the definition of community resource. Interviewrespondents prioritized using the computer and borrowing library materials asthe most common reasons they visit the libraries. Staff members agree withlibrary users about the primary purposes of the libraries: serving as acommunity resource, providing educational support, and providing computerand Internet access. Staff members also recognize that there are limits to howwell they can meet public expectations – especially for support of computerand Internet access – and that these limits can be a source of both user andstaff frustration.

Highlights from the DataSeventy-five percent of survey respondents indicated that their lives wouldchange from somewhat to significantly without the libraries; 75% of surveyrespondents also report the libraries to be very or extremely user-friendly.Eighty-three percent of survey respondents reported that they talk withthe staff while they are at the library and the conversations rangefrom ‘‘exchanging friendly greetings’’ to asking for help with library-relatedconcerns, to social ‘‘chit-chat,’’ to conversations that indicate long-standingpublic social relationships. Despite the range of topics addressed in theirconversations with staff members, library users do not describe the librariesas places to socialize.

Survey respondents indicated the three most important resources thelibraries provide are access to technology – 37%, fiction/literature forrecreational reading – 21%, and facilities to support personal study (home-work, research, etc.) – 19%. The least important service the libraries provideaccording to 53% or respondents is places to socialize. The term socialize wasnot defined for respondents in the survey, but it is important to note that,though respondents did not consider the library as a place to socialize, they

LINDA R. MOST82

indicated that they talk with the staff whenever they use the library (Figs. 1and 2).

Interview respondents indicated that they visit the libraries for a variety ofreasons, including to use computers for job hunting, for school work, andfor recreational purposes, or to use the libraries’ book and video collections.Some interview respondents placed special value on the libraries’ studentenrichment programs. When reflecting on their library use over the previousmonth, respondents prioritized using computers, checking out books, andstudying or other school-related activities as the reasons they visited theirlibraries.

Staff perceptions of how library users react to the libraries were congruentwith the way users described the libraries. When asked to choose a word ortwo that best describes the library where they work, staff member answerscorresponded with public perceptions, describing the libraries variously as acentral hub, a community asset, and a community place. Staff membersdescribed the library atmosphere as busy, helpful, and friendly or user-friendly.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

acce

ss to

tech

nolog

y

place

to re

ad

place

to so

cializ

e

com

mun

ity e

vent

s

com

mun

ity in

form

ation

life-lo

ng le

arnin

g (e

duca

tiona

l sup

port)

pers

onal

study

(hom

ewor

k, re

sear

ch)

fictio

n, lit

erat

ure

(recr

eatio

nal r

eadin

g

refe

renc

e an

d inf

orm

ation

serv

ices

othe

r

services

tim

es c

ho

sen

Quincy, n=37

Havana, n=31

Chattahoochee, n=41

Fig. 1. Most Important Library Service. Data Obtained from Survey Question 21.

0

5

10

15

20

25

acce

ss to

tech

nolog

y

place

to re

ad

place

to so

cializ

e

commun

ity e

vent

s

commun

ity in

formati

on

life-lo

ng le

arnin

g (ed

ucati

onal

supp

ort)

perso

nal s

tudy (

homew

ork,

rese

arch

)

fictio

n, lite

ratur

e (re

creati

onal

read

ing

refer

ence

and i

nform

ation

servi

ces

other

Services

times

sel

ecte

d

Quincy, n=37

Havana, n=31

Chattahoochee, n=41

Fig. 2. Least Important Library Service. Data Obtained from Survey Question 22.


When asked what they felt is the single best feature of their library, staffmembers overwhelmingly indicated that they thought that providing publicaccess to computers and the Internet was the single most important elementof their program. Other features they highlighted included the children’sbook collection in Chattahoochee, and the library services and assistanceprovided generally. Individual staff members also specified the atmosphereof the main library in Quincy and the location of the Havana branch –facing the city park and Veterans’ Memorial – as key assets.

When asked what is the single worst feature of their library, staffmembers’ responses focused on a small materials budget that restrictscollection development initiatives, the physical limitations of the individualbuildings, and the location of the main library. Again, staff membersconcurred with library users who described the collections as being limitedand not up to date, and the parking as challenging. Study participants at allthree locations complained about inadequate or poorly designed parking.

When asked to identify their favorite places in the library, staff membersshowed a strong preference for the public service areas that featured the

LINDA R. MOST84

book collection and the places within the libraries that privileged readingover computer use. Asked about the primary purpose of the library, staffmember answers reinforced the community members’ perceptions, identify-ing similar priorities for the libraries, especially providing computer andInternet access, serving as an information and research resource, providingeducational support, and serving as a community resource that is responsiveto community needs.

Library users perceive computers and Internet access as a majorcomponent of the library system’s resources and expected services. Staffmembers had similar responses regarding the importance of digital infor-mation technologies to their jobs. They report that providing computerizedservices and Internet access in the local libraries has affected most aspects oftheir responsibilities as well as their attitudes toward their jobs and towardlibrary users. Staff members perceive the public service computers andInternet access as an additional resource for library users in addition tothe physical collections. The computers are seen to function as a learningresource, to provide access to government programs and services, and tofacilitate and broaden access to all kinds of information. One staff memberbelieves that, as library users become more comfortable reading on acomputer screen, they may become more comfortable reading print media.

Staff members also perceive the computers as a source of increasedexpectations on the part of library users that can lead to frustration whenlibrary users are disappointed with the staff members’ inability to help themdue to lack of training or familiarity with specific applications. By contrast,staff members also highlighted the ways computer technology has madetheir job responsibilities easier by facilitating interlibrary loan transactions,increasing productivity, and increasing access to professional resources.Unfortunately, the other face of computer-enhanced administrativeprocesses is the loss of productivity experienced when automated librarysystems do not work correctly (e.g., one staff member at a branch expressedfrustration with an ongoing problem with lag time in the networkedcirculation system).

Library staff members report that the addition of public servicecomputers has complicated their relationships with library users in bothpositive and negative ways. Some staff members describe computers andInternet access as one more service the library can offer and another way tohelp people. Those staff members seem comfortable helping users withcomputer and Internet-related questions. For other staff members the publicservice computers negatively complicate their relationships with their libraryusers. They noted repeatedly that helping people with computers exposes


them to personal information and raises privacy issues, particularly whenusers come to the library needing to access government and legal websites.

Staff members spend from 5% to 60% of their time helping library userswith computer technologies depending on their individual job responsi-bilities. Their attitudes toward the time they spend providing help withInternet and computer-related questions depends on their personal comfortlevels with computers and on restrictions on the degree of involvementwith personal information the library system policies allow. Policy-imposedlimitations on staff involvement with patron Internet use can be a majorsource of tension because one of the most common reasons people come tothe GCPLS libraries is to use the Internet – 53% listed use the Internet as thereason they came to the library.

Library computer users sense the limits under which the staff membersoperate and the resistance certain staff members have in getting involved withrequests for help with computer-related questions. One survey respondentdescribed the worst feature of the library as ‘‘[a] need [for] someone to goaround and see if people need help on computers.’’ Both library users andstaff members perceive the computers and Internet service as powerfulpublic service tools but these tools brings challenges and frustration to staffmembers and the public even as they provide new opportunities to helppeople get access to the information they need and want.

Research Question 3

‘‘What do Gadsden County’s adult library users think of the buildings,design elements, layouts, and furnishings of their three libraries?’’ As a groupthe county’s library users are very pleased with the new library buildings andfurnishings. They were overwhelmingly positive in their response to the newbuildings, but noted that the buildings are not perfect and identified specificshortcomings and problem areas in each of the new libraries. However, theyagreed that the problems were much less important than the overall successof the new libraries. Library users did not easily distinguish between physicaland design features of the libraries and the services the libraries offer. Manyconsider the best feature of the libraries to be the computers and the Internetaccess they provide. Others consider the collections as their best feature.When pressed for specifics, users said there were problems with the parkinglots at all the locations and that the noise level in the buildings could gettoo high.

LINDA R. MOST86

As a group the staff members are happy to have the new buildingsbecause they make possible greater levels of service to the community. Staffmembers agree with the public’s overall positive perceptions of the buildingsand about most of their mentioned strengths and weaknesses. Staff memberswere more able than library users to identify specific design shortcomingsand problems with the furnishings, but even staff members seemed toconflate library features with services. When asked what the worst featuresof the libraries were, staff responses focused on the small materials budgetthat limits the size and scope of the book and movie collections. Staffmembers also commented on the shortcomings of the parking lots.

Highlights from the DataThe discussion in this section triangulates areas of agreement and divergencebetween library users and library staff members regarding the physicalfeatures of the library buildings and their locations. All the study’sparticipants largely agreed about the best and worst features of the librariesthough most respondents talked about library services rather than physicalfeatures of the buildings unless specifically asked to comment on physicalfeatures. Respondents across the study agreed that computer access is thebest feature of the libraries. When asked to identify the worst feature of thelibraries, library users were reluctant to comment, but, when pressed, theyidentified as shortcomings limited operating hours at the branches, smallcollections, and an insufficient number of computers. Some library surveyrespondents commented negatively about the parking lots at all threelocations, and a small number identified high noise levels as a problem,especially in the Chattahoochee branch.

Interviewees responded comparably to survey respondents about thebest features of the buildings by variously listing computer access, thecollections and resources, the locations, the helpfulness or friendliness ofthe staff, and the atmosphere of the libraries. As a group, interviewrespondents did not single out physical features of the library buildings asbest features, though some mentioned the layout of the libraries, and someused generic adjectives like ‘‘comfortable.’’ They responded very positivelyto the library buildings generally and specifically to their locations and thespaces around the buildings except for the parking areas. Most interviewparticipants described the libraries with either a generic response like ‘‘it’snice’’ or a building-specific response such as ‘‘terrific building.’’ Those whoprovided a specific positive attribute most often identified the buildings ascomfortable, convenient, and clean. Most indicated that the grounds are


attractive or well kept. The only features interview respondents consistentlydescribed negatively were the parking lots.

The ten staff members overwhelmingly indicated that providingpublic access to computers and the Internet was the best feature of thelibrary, mentioning these features eight times. One response highlighted thespeed of the Internet access provided at the library. Other features staffmembers mentioned included the children’s book collection in Chattahoo-chee, and the library services and assistance provided generally. Two staffmembers indicated that the library users were the best feature of the library.The atmosphere of the main library in Quincy and the location of theHavana branch facing the city park and Veterans’ Memorial were alsomentioned.

When asked to identify the worst feature of the libraries it becameapparent that library users are very supportive of their new libraries asevidenced by the large number of respondents – 35 individuals – who statedthat there was no worst feature of their library or that the question was notapplicable. Those who did answer most often identified the branch libraries’limited number of open hours as the worst feature. Comments featuredrequests for more weekend and evening hours from respondents at bothbranches. Complaints about computers focused on needing more terminals,their arrangement in the buildings, their speed, and the time limits on theiruse. Other comments focused on the small size of the collections, andrespondents at one branch complained about the noise level, referring to thestaff at the service desk as being very loud.

Most of the interview respondents indicated that there were no badfeatures or that nothing was wrong with the building though several wishedfor more public access computers. One person in Chattahoochee com-plained about the acoustics because the library is too noisy, and one saidthat the library could have been better designed, ‘‘it’s just not very pretty, itcould have been better designed aesthetically.’’ Five interview respondentsfrom all three libraries commented on the limited size of the collectionsor that the collections are dated, especially the collections of movies onvideotape and DVD.

Although many members of the public insisted there were no bad featuresto the libraries, the staff members’ responses recognized limits to theresources and services the library system can provide. Staff membersrepeatedly mentioned a small materials budget that restricts collectiondevelopment initiatives; library users indicated an awareness of this problemwhen they said that the collection is small or dated. Staff members alsoidentified physical limitations of the individual buildings and the location of

LINDA R. MOST88

the main library; and as the library users did, staff members found fault withthe parking areas at the branches. Staff member specifications of the worstfeatures of the libraries can be grouped into two main categories: lack offunding for collections and materials – mentioned 4 of 10 times – andspecific problematic physical features of the buildings.

Survey respondents were asked to select and circle the words they thoughtbest described the physical space of the libraries. They could select as manyadjectives as they wished and the selections were counted and sorted byoverall frequency of selection. The three most commonly selected wordsacross all three libraries were clean –88, comfortable –82, and friendly –69.Survey respondents were reluctant to select any negative adjectives asdescriptors relevant to the new library buildings, though the main libraryusers responded slightly more negatively than did those who use thebranches. Main library users most often selected loud and crowded fromthe list provided. Survey respondents ranked parking the lowest across allthe libraries. No library users selected the words dark, unattractive, oruncomfortable in relation to any of the libraries. Only one user selectedunfriendly, and that person may have experienced problems with librarystaff members in one location. Fig. 3 presents the adjectives and the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Attrac

tive

Badly

Design

edBrig

ht

Clean

Comfor

table

Crowde

dDar

kDirty

Friend

ly

Lots

of Spa

ce

Moder

n

Needs

Ren

ovati

onQuie

t

Unattr

activ

e

Uncom

fortab

le

Unfrien

dly

User f

riend

ly

Well

desig

ned

Loud

descriptors

chos

en =

1, n

ot c

hose

n=0

Quincy, n=37

Havana, n=31

Chattahoochee, n=41

Fig. 3. Library Space Descriptors. Data Obtained from Survey Question 29.


frequency of selection. Looking at the figure it becomes apparent thatChattahoochee branch users selected many more positive terms in relationto their library than did users of the other two locations. This may be due tothe newness of the branch and the extreme change in style, location,features, and services from the small, old, overcrowded originalChattahoochee library.

Collectively interview respondents provided 73 positive descriptors of thelibraries that can be grouped into four categories: a community asset; ageneric positive response; a building-oriented positive response; or a responseprivileging a specific positive attribute like clean, convenient, or comfortable.There were no negative descriptors offered though the word quaint was usedonce to describe one of the branches, probably to attribute a homey qualityto the library.

Staff members were asked about physical library features that helped orhindered their jobs and helped or hindered their public interactions. Staffmembers responded very positively about the improvements to servicesand interactions the new buildings made possible but criticized specificlibrary features more than did members of the public. Staff members weremore willing to be specific about library facility shortcomings or physicalproblems, as would be expected of people who spend their working lives inthese places. Staff members agreed with library users about the parkingproblems and high noise levels. They identified specific design flaws at eachbuilding, including the lack of accessible entrances that accommodate userswith special needs, blocked sight lines and poorly designed or poorly placedreference desks at two of the three new libraries. At the same time, most ofthe staff members agreed that the new buildings made their interactions withthe public more positive and that the new buildings were more comfortableand more welcoming than the old ones.

In addition to providing generic positive comments, staff membersidentified very specific helps and hindrances generated by the new buildings.The most common helps were the increased amount of space in the newbuildings and the positive feelings the new environments invoke due toworking air conditioning, new bathrooms, and fresh furnishings. The mostcommon hindrances across all three buildings were broken sight lines andhigh noise levels. Chattahoochee staff members uniformly said the physicalenvironment of the library had no impact on their interactions with thepublic. One noted, ‘‘You could do the same thing no matter how the layoutwas arranged.’’

When asked about their favorite location or place in the libraries, publicand staff responses diverged. Library survey respondents offered a range of

LINDA R. MOST90

responses to this topic: 33 survey respondents favored sitting at thecomputers, 18 favored specific sections of the collections, 14 preferred thesoft seating, and 7 preferred the study tables and carrels the libraries offer. Asmaller number of survey respondents favored other areas of the libraries.Library user interview respondents’ answers followed a similar pattern.More interviewees highlighted the computers as their favorite places andsome interviewees highlighted areas of the print collection. Six interviewrespondents provided another perspective on attitudes about the librarybuildings, saying they did not have a favorite place because they did notstay in the library – they only came in to return and check out books orother items.

In contrast to the public responses showing a preference for areas aroundthe computers, staff members uniformly preferred the public service areas ofthe libraries that privilege books and reading. All but one staff memberselected a public service area of the library over any other area, and thesestaff members consistently selected areas housing the book collections andthe soft seating where someone could read comfortably rather than thecomputer areas in contrast to the preferences of most library users. Onestaff member prefers the work room away from the public because sheappreciates the quiet and the ability to accomplish some of her other taskswhile working in the back room.

When staff members were asked at the end of their interviews if theyhad anything else they would like to say about the design, technology, use,or services of the libraries, they offered a variety of responses. Theyprovided detailed critiques of specific elements of the library buildingswhile offering generally positive responses about the impact of the newbuildings on their communities. Staff members concluded their interviewswith broad positive statements about the new libraries as a vastimprovement over and more heavily used than the old libraries. Theirimpressions were corroborated with annual usage statistics published bythe state library.

The features of the new Chattahoochee branch especially evoked strongcomments from the staff. The Chattahoochee parking lot was described ashideous, and the front desk was singled out as being poorly designed andpositioned. The Chattahoochee branch staff members cannot see the frontdoor of the library from the desk and as a result, there are cameras andmonitors positioned to compensate for the broken sight lines. At the sametime, Chattahoochee staff members insist that circulation figures andcomputer usage statistics for the Chattahoochee library have increased sincethe new building opened more significantly than either of the other libraries.


Staff members at all the libraries commented that people are proud of theirnew libraries and have a sense of ownership about the individual libraryeach uses.

Research Question 4

Research question 4 asked what use Gadsden County’s adult library usersmake of the library buildings. The answer to this research question drawsfrom the results of all the methods employed in this study: seating sweeps,survey responses, public and staff interview responses, and review of themeeting room reservation sheets. Triangulating the relevant results providesa rich picture of what adults do while visiting the library. Gadsden County’sadult library users appear to use all the resources their libraries offer. Almosthalf of the library users visit at least once a week, and many indicated visitingseveral times each week. Seventy-five percent of library users visit a minimumof at least two or three times in a month. Some visit daily. Almost 75% oflibrary users stay at the library between 30min to 2 h, and half stay for atleast 1 h. Some visit the libraries alone, and some visit in a group with familymembers or friends. Forty-eight percent of library visitors said going to thelibrary was the sole purpose of their trip, whereas 41% said they combinedtheir library visit with visiting stores or other services.

Library users often have multiple reasons for visiting the library,including using a computer, attending an activity, borrowing or returninglibrary materials themselves. Many bring children to the library for aprogram or activity or to borrow or return materials. Most library usersbelieve that the libraries are used appropriately by community members, butmany commented about unsupervised children who misbehave while visitingthe libraries. Some library users have been creative in their use of the librarypublic meeting rooms (e.g., using them to hold an off-site union meeting anda wedding). Library users say they come to the libraries to work towardpersonal goals and to accomplish tasks or projects. Adult students use thelibraries to facilitate taking online classes and to do research or study forschool.

Library staff members agree that the libraries are very heavily used, andtheir comments provide additional insights on the ways communitymembers use the libraries. Staff members report that library users cometo the libraries when they need help finding information or help usingcomputers to meet a personal need. Library staff members report that thelibrary system’s computer classes were very popular and very successful but

LINDA R. MOST92

that no funds are currently available to continue the classes. Staff membersalso report that some of the library system’s less traditional services are verypopular, especially community book drop-off and exchange programs thatfunction outside the library’s circulation system. Library users and staffmembers agree that the new library buildings are heavily used and verypopular.

Highlights from the DataThe seating sweeps documented observed user activities during the studyperiod. Little cell phone use was observed inside the libraries. Surveyrespondents indicated that about half have a cell phone with them, but mostindicated that they turned it off or kept it set on vibrate in case of emergencycalls. The seating sweeps procedure put library user activities into a series ofcategories, expressed here in italic font. The seating sweeps did not recordmany adults sitting and reading in the libraries during the observationperiods. Writing was noted more often than reading, and most people whowere writing did so while sitting at a computer terminal. They appeared tobe taking notes or responding to something seen on the computer monitor.Adults sitting and reading books or other print material made up 2% of alladults observed during the seating sweeps. By contrast 12% of observedadults were searching or retrieving library materials (printed books, videos,DVDs, or audio recordings) – the third most common activity observedacross all but the oldest age group. The group of library users over 60 yearswere most often observed searching and retrieving library materials andinteracting with staff. Very few people were observed sitting in a chairwithout doing something. Just sitting appears to occur when people arewaiting for their turns on the Internet computers, but most people whoare waiting occupy themselves with magazines or some other pastime. Noinstances of eating, drinking, or sleeping were observed.

One portion of the survey questionnaire asked generally about what peopledo while they are at the libraries. Respondents indicated heavy reliance on thelibrary system’s computers and electronic resources, especially for access tothe Internet. During the seating sweeps the most commonly observed adultactivity was computer use; 45% of all the adults observed during the studyperiod were sitting at a computer using it in some way. Over 70% of surveyrespondents indicated they use the libraries’ electronic resources at leastsometimes. Over 80% of respondents rank the libraries’ electronic resourcesas least important, and of that group 25% ranked them as crucial. Libraryusers who participated in or were observed during this study did not usepersonal laptop computers while at the libraries. Staff members commented


that people in the libraries sometimes work on personal laptops, but that thelibraries do not provide wireless Internet access so laptop use is limited toworking on documents or reports. As a group, library users said they did notbring many electronic devices with them other than cell phones. Only tworespondents mentioned even bringing portable file storage devices (jumpdrive and flash drive). Respondents indicated that the libraries’ electronicresources were heavily used and very important to library users.

The next two most common activities observed after computer use –interacting with staff and physically searching for or retrieving librarymaterials – occupied 17% and 12% of observed adults during the studyperiod. In many cases interacting with staff was a precursor or follow up tocomputer use or searching for or retrieving materials from the collection.

Fig. 4 presents the reasons for coming to the library in the orderrespondents received them on their questionnaires. Respondents did nottypically indicate one reason for visiting the library as more important thanany other; they checked or circled all relevant reasons without distinguishingamong them for a total of 275 reasons why they visited the libraries. By far

0

5

10

15

20

25

use

publi

c mee

ting

room

: a

use

child

ren's

serv

ices:

b

brow

se: c

borro

w or r

etur

n m

ater

ials f

or se

lf: d

borro

w or r

etur

n m

ater

ials f

or o

ther

s: e

cons

ume

food

or d

rink:

f

look f

or in

form

ation

on

a su

bject:

g

mee

t a fr

iend:

h

view a

rtwor

k disp

lays o

r bull

eting

boa

rds:

i

get h

elp fr

om lib

rary

staf

f: j

read

: k

study

in lib

rary

with

own

mat

erial

s: l

use

phot

ocop

iers:

m

use

micr

ofich

e or

micr

ofilm

: n

use

cdro

ms:

o

use

the

on-lin

e ca

talog

: p

use

the

inter

net:

q

use

electr

onic

data

base

s: r

use

e-m

ail: s

othe

r: t

Reasonsmost respondents selected more than one reason

freq

uenc

y of

ans

wer

Quincy, n=37

Havana, n=31

Chattahoochee, n=41

Fig. 4. Reasons for Visiting the Library. Data Obtained from Survey Question 14.

LINDA R. MOST94

the most common reason respondents reported for visiting the libraries wasto use a computer – 53%. The next two most common reasons for visitingthe libraries were to borrow or return library materials – 35%, or to look forinformation on a topic – 31%. Again, it is important to note that theseactivities are not exclusive. Many survey respondents indicated multiplereasons for visiting the libraries. These percentages also differ from theresults of the seating sweeps but this may be because the seating sweeps didnot record the totality of the library users’ activities during a library visit.

Interview respondents were evenly divided when asked why they came tothe library. Seventeen people said they were at the library to use the onlineservices for specific or general purposes, and 17 people said they wereborrowing or returning items from the collection. Seven interview respon-dents reported other place-based activities including using the photocopier,bringing children to participate in library programming, and using the libraryas a recreational destination and a place to pass time.

When asked, ‘‘What have you used the library for in the past month,’’interview respondents provided a variety of answers. Half of the respondentsindicated multiple reasons for visiting including using both computers andcollection resources, whereas about one-third of respondents said they onlyuse the library to borrow items from the collection. Only five respondentsindicated that they come to the library only to use the computers, indicatingthat most of those who described themselves as computer users also use otherlibrary services and resources.

Very few library users reported meeting tutors when they came to thelibrary, but the meeting room logs indicate that many hours of tutoring takeplace at the main library. Most of this tutoring is probably for elementary,middle, or high school students under age 18 who did not take the survey, sothat might explain the discrepancy. GED courses are offered at theChattahoochee library on an ongoing basis and appear on the meeting roomreservation sheets, but the classes were not scheduled during the hours thesurvey was being distributed.

Interview participants were asked what they thought about how otherpeople used the library. They typically gave two-part answers. Respondentsreported what they observed or knew people were doing in the library andmany also expressed an opinion – typically positive – of how other peopleused the library. When asked if they could describe ways they had seenpeople use this library that surprised them – either good or not so good –75% of interview respondents said that they had not seen anything thatsurprised them, and that things were all pretty much what they expected for


a public library. Respondents used phrases like ‘‘pretty normal,’’ and‘‘nothing much surprising.’’

Twelve respondents reported being surprised positively or negatively, orjust surprised in a neutral way about the way people use the library. Thephenomena most commonly reported as surprising were the number ofchildren in the libraries overall and in particular, the number who weremisbehaving; the amount and types of meeting room use including afterschool nonlibrary sponsored activities, sorority meetings, union meetings,and voting; and the high amount of computer use and the nonserious waysthe computers are often used. A Chattahoochee library user summed upattitudes about the volume of computer use at the libraries, saying, ‘‘Thereseems to be a lot of people who come to use and access the Internet andI guess maybe that surprised me because I think probably a lot less peoplehave access at home than one would think.’’

When asked if there was anything else they wanted to say about the wayother people use the library that they had not yet discussed, interviewrespondents answered at various levels. Some continued to stress specificprograms or services they saw people using or used themselves while othersspoke more generally about the library as a community asset. Respondentscontinued to identify using computers, job hunting, doing school work,reading, library programming, and community use of the meeting roomsand services for children and young people as ways people use the library.Some wrapped up the interview with a concluding phrase stressing how wellused the library is and how important it is to family or community.

Staff members interact with and help library users both formally andinformally throughout the workday. The senior professional employeeshoused at the main library have offices or private work areas, but themajority of the library system’s staff members do most of their work in thepublic areas of the library, including at the reference/circulation desks.Branch staff members spend most of their workdays performing their taskswhile seated at the public service desk or in the public service areas of thelibrary.

Staff members were asked what they saw most users doing in the libraries.They described library visitors using all the services the libraries offered andnoted that different people had different needs. More than one staff memberreplied with an answer similar to this: ‘‘I find that there’s kind of differentcategories [of library users]. There’s some that strictly come in here to justget on the computer, and then we have our dedicated, avid readers thatcome in with 15 or 20 books and take out 15 or 20 books, and then you have

LINDA R. MOST96

the children that need assistance with their school work, so they’re heretrying to get help with that as well as being on the computer.’’

Another main library staff member described a regularly occurring socialaspect of her work with the public, saying, ‘‘They come in, I say hello, if Iknow them they ask how I’m doing, I ask how they’re doing – it’s just a nicelittle – it’s like my store, they come in, it’s either repeat customers or newones.’’ Her description indicates that often social interaction is part of alibrary user’s visit to the library. Finally, one of the Chattahoochee staffmembers explained that there are limits on what the library staff can do forlibrary users. Her response confirms that library users sometimes haveservice requests or expectations of the library that the staff members are notable to meet but that staff members usually do whatever they can to helpmeet these needs.

When staff members described the primary problems they experiencedwhen dealing with library users, most indicated that there were not manyproblems any more, and that disruptive behaviors on the part of libraryusers had been worse in the old buildings. Seven of the 10 respondents said‘‘not that often’’ or ‘‘not very common,’’ in reference to the frequency ofunacceptable behavior in the libraries while three respondents indicatedunacceptable behavior occurred from three times a week to every day. Mostof the staff members recognized the behaviors they categorized as negative asthat of library users expressing frustration with information and computer-related challenges they could not master due to inexperience or unfamiliaritywith computer technology or Internet and web-page conventions.

Another big problem several staff members identified stems from adultswho come to the library to use a computer and who bring young children withthem. Staff members as a group insist that parents do not pay attention totheir children once the families arrive and the parents begin their sessions onthe computers. Two staff members described rambunctious or unsupervisedchildren as the main source of unacceptable behavior in the main library. Thefinal commonly reported problems were inappropriate use of cell phones inthe main library computer room and people in the computer room beingdisturbed by other computer users.

People also use the libraries as a place to donate books. A staff memberdescribed the service as allowing people to feel good about donating, whilethe staff members feel good about accepting the donated books anddisposing of them appropriately if they are in poor condition. People fromoutside the library service area also use the branch library as a bookresource. The libraries host a more formal book exchange than the book


donation program, and users do not need to have library cards or pay anonresident fee to participate.

Research Question 5

Research question 5 asks what insights the Gadsden County LibrarySystem’s adult library users and staff can provide about the role of thepublic library in their communities. Their answers indicate that for libraryusers and staff members alike the libraries fulfill their function as modernpublic libraries. They serve members of the communities of all ages andraces. They provide access to information, support formal education andlifelong learning, and offer access to recreational reading and viewingmaterials. The new libraries are sources of community pride. People believethey have improved their communities and are filling a need for modern,comfortable, noncommercial public places that support information-relatedactivities, reading, community-supported activities, educational projects,and personal growth. They also believe that the new library buildings haveenriched the social interactions that are part of each of these activities.

Highlights from the DataWhen asked why they use the library in which they were present rather thanother libraries, users mentioned the closeness to home, convenience of thelocation, the library’s collection, the friendliness of the library staff, and theaccess the library provided to computers and the Internet. When asked ifthey ever talked to the library staff when they visited the library, and, if yes,what they talked about, 83% of respondents indicated that they spoke withstaff members and that the subjects of their conversations ranged fromrequests for help with library services to general conversations to what usersdescribed as ‘‘chit chat’’ and ‘‘social stuff.’’ Social conversations, conversa-tions about books and about users’ information needs were the mostfrequently mentioned topics.

Library users were asked what other services or resources they would liketo see introduced at the libraries. Respondents asked most frequently formore services such as expanded cultural programming for adults andchildren, access to adult education including GED classes and classes inforeign languages, and tutoring for school students. They also requestedextended operating hours at the branches. Respondents requested addi-tional resources including expanded collections, more computers, and more

LINDA R. MOST98

computer programs such as Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint. Individualrespondents requested community services including employment informa-tion, a blood-pressure monitor, and day-care services – presumably forchildren.

At the conclusion of the user survey respondents were asked what theybelieved to be the primary purpose of the library. They often providedmultiple answers and most frequently mentioned serving as a communityresource, supporting educational efforts, and helping people meet theirinformation needs.

Survey respondents had space to make any additional comments theywished about the library, and 18 of the 109 survey respondents wrote anadditional comment. The comments are almost all positive and show astrong awareness of the many roles the libraries play as community places.The comments also show how people respond to the place-based aspects oftheir libraries. Quincy respondents described the library as ‘‘a wonderfulplace to experience and grow’’ and as ‘‘a nice modern library.’’ Another said‘‘it gladdens my heart to see the library put to use as it should be.’’ AHavana respondent described the branch library as ‘‘very accommodating’’given the size of the community, and she said she anticipated that the librarywould grow with time. Another Havana respondent described the branchsimply as ‘‘a great public service.’’ Chattahoochee residents respondedvery favorably to their new branch. One said ‘‘without this library I wouldhave a hard time working and attending college,’’ and another describedit simply as ‘‘my favorite place’’ and ‘‘a very nice facility.’’ One Quincyrespondent wished the main library could be bigger, and a Chattahoocheerespondent took the opportunity to complain that sometimes the staffmembers were too familiar and too willing to carry on their personal lives atthe library.

Interview participants were asked why they had come to the library thatday. Answers included bringing a grandchild to attend a library program;using a computer to do homework, research, or job hunting; using thelibrary as an alternate family destination on a Sunday when the church wasnot open, and bringing several bags of books to donate to the library. Thenext question asked what they had used the library for in the past month.Answers included doing personal research, participating in the bookexchange, checking out library books, keeping up to date with changes inthe job market, reading with a child, and using the library for generalrecreational purposes. One regular nonresident Chattahoochee libraryuser described the library as his living room when he is working inChattahoochee and away from home.


When asked about how other people use the library, interviewparticipants were mostly positive and approving. They seemed very awarethat others used the library extensively and for multiple purposes. A Quincyrespondent described the library as being highly valued, noting that peopleuse it for job hunting and studying as well as for recreational purposes.Another Quincy respondent ranked how people use the library – approvingof people who come in to do homework but speaking less approvingly ofpeople who ‘‘get on the Internet and play gamesy and listen to music andstuff like that.’’ A Havana respondent described the branch library as acommunity place and spoke approvingly of seeing students using thelibrary’s computers. A Chattahoochee respondent was somewhat surprisedthat he saw so few people using the library recreationally and said it seemedto be used mostly for research and studying.

When asked to describe any surprising ways they had seen people use thislibrary, most participants said that for the most part people use the librariesin expected ways. They reported most people as being well behaved and thatmost people have a reason for being at the library and know what theywant to do. Others reported the libraries being heavily and well used andsuggested that usage figures had increased significantly since the newlibraries were opened.

Staff members identified a number of roles for the libraries, includingproviding computer and Internet access, serving as an information andresearch resource, providing educational support, and serving as a commu-nity resource in any way possible. Their answers focused on formal andinformal social activities and the role of the main library as a neutral entityin a historically segregated county. One staff member described the mainlibrary as

a neutral location because [this] was a segregated county up until the early seventies and

the public library is one social environment that is completely neutral that is not

somethingy like a courthouse or where you’re going to buy clothes or going to buy

something. This is like, you come here, it’s free but it’s neutral. It’s all races together.

Interviewer: do you think part of that is because it’s a new building or was it like that

before?

Staff member: no it was like that before.

All three libraries provide community groups with access to the libraryprogram rooms, conference rooms, or small meeting rooms (depending onthe building) for community, civic, and nonlibrary-related governmentaluse. One branch manager explained, ‘‘This library sometimes is used after

LINDA R. MOST100

hours for people with different groups to meet, like several types ofhomeowners associations, so it gives the people, when they don’t have aplace to meet, a place where they can meet.’’ Other staff members who workat all three locations described the importance of library-initiated programsand activities to the community. One staff member also described theimportance of the Chattahoochee library as a destination, ‘‘I think it gives aplace for, [it’s] still a place for families to come as a family outing and aplace for kids to come after school and a place for older people to comesometimes to get out and go do something.’’

Staff members were asked to explain how they see the library being usedsocially. Although all three libraries are used socially, there are subtledistinctions in ways of use that separate the libraries according to their threecommunities’ needs. The main library functions as a noncommercial civicspace that is not allied with any religious or political entity or mission. It isheavily used by members of the community for informational and socialpurposes. The Havana branch is heavily used for meetings and as aninformal social meeting place that focuses around the local reading culture –the formal book exchange and the book donation and drop-off services,as well as the circulating materials collections. The Chattahoochee branchsees less after school activity than in prior years but now serves aslandmark, rendezvous point, and communications and information centerfor nonresidents who stay in the three large campgrounds – two state andone municipal – just outside of town.

Staff members were asked to describe the primary problems theyexperienced when dealing with the public and they offered two main themesto this question. The themes seem to identify the different understandingstaff members and library users have of the role of the libraries as communityplaces. The first theme described challenges staff members experienced whendealing with unattended or unsupervised children and responses collectedindicate that parents consider the libraries a familiar and therefore safe placefor their children.

The second theme focuses on the problems staff members experiencedwhen working with people who were unfamiliar with computers but hadcomputer or Internet-dependent information needs. This theme appearedthroughout the staff member interviews. For example, when the staffmembers were asked how computer technology affected their interactionswith the public, they provided examples of the computer-related serviceslibrary users have come to expect from their libraries and the limitationson the library staff members’ ability to meet those expectations. Theirresponses indicate that the libraries have become important sources of


Internet access and that staff members are caught between trying to providethe help community members request without infringing on people’sprivacy.

As the staff member interviews concluded, participants were asked forany final comments they might wish to make about the design, technology,use, or services of their libraries. Answers from three of the staff membersprovide additional clues about the role of the public library in theircommunities. The Quincy staff member quoted earlier mused about thelibrary’s role as a symbol for the county

I think that libraries – like in areas like this where there’s not a lot of county services

besides law enforcement and court system – [provide] an unusual and wonderful place, a

brand for the county. It’s like – what a great selling point for county servicesy having a

new building and having something that is very neutral again, you know is just vibrant,

it’s – you can see that it really serves the publicyThere’s just no other place like it in the

county, you know, that’s free. It’s a good thing to get behind I think [in] southern rural

areas – public libraries – because I think they are good meeting places for the diverse

populationsy [The library] can be a place where everybody gets the information and

there’s a little bit of awe on information, things that they haven’t seen or experienced

before, libraries can be that.

A Chattahoochee staff member’s final interview responses discussed howimportant the most basic library services can be in a small rural community.She said ‘‘the library is still a place that is vital to the community, especiallyin a small town there’s no other choice for entertainment. We providemovies, books, the Internet, books on cd and tape – we’re the only choice ofentertainment in the entire town of Chattahoochee.’’

Another Quincy staff member concluded her interview with this finalthought, ‘‘I think the people are really, really proud of the fact that theyhave this library – that this is THEIR library and that’s what it’s all about.It’s a public library and they – I think they feel that way.’’

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

Theoretical Framework Review

The theories presented in the literature review can be organized in threegroups to contextualize: (1) the qualities of the public library as a placeor setting, (2) the relationships that people who visit the public librariesexperience while at the libraries, and (3) the results of the activities peoplepursue while at the libraries. These theories are not mutually exclusive, and

LINDA R. MOST102

no one theory is sufficient to fully contextualize the study’s findings.Understanding all three groups of theories is necessary to begin to answerthe question of how people use their public libraries as place. Whendiscussing the setting, Habermas’ (1974, 1991) theory of the public sphereand Oldenburg’s (1999) conceptualization of third places, along withFisher’s (Fisher et al., 2007) developing theory of informational placesprovide three sets of concepts that can be used to interpret the role of thelibrary as an environment that encourages and reinforces a set ofinteractions and relationships that facilitate a range of outcomes.

The relationships people experience while visiting their public librariescan be analyzed using the spectrum of public realm relationships Lofland(1998) describes. Public realm relationships contribute to peoples’ sense ofbeing members of a community formed among those who share interests,institutions, and perspective, and who live in the same geographic area(Warren, 1978). People’s shared sense of belonging to a community can alsobe understood as a cognate of the benefits of increased social capital – thebonds and connections that hold a society together (Halpern, 2005; Putnam,2000). In other words, the activities in which people participate whilevisiting their libraries appear to generate new or increased amounts ofbridging, bonding, or linking social capital depending on the relationshipbetween the people participating in the activities.

To facilitate the theoretical analysis data from each of the three GadsdenCounty library locations is analyzed separately in terms of the threetheoretical categories – setting, relationships, and activities – because eachof the libraries has unique characteristics and its own group of library users.The results of the three analyses will be combined to generate an answer tothe study’s guiding question.

Chattahoochee Branch Library

The Chattahoochee branch library is the most recently completed andopened of the three new buildings that house the GCPLS. It opened to thepublic in April 2007 (Mock, 2008). The civic pride the new library generatesis an expression of the library’s role in supporting Habermas’ public sphere,a universal abstract that informs places in which democracy and democraticactivity can occur. Public libraries provide noncommercial space in whichpeople can engage in civic, social, and personal relationships and activities.

In Chattahoochee, the new library has a meeting room people can usefor library and nonlibrary-related functions. A Chattahoochee husband and


wife who are very active with the library talked about the importance of themeeting room to the community. Examples of civic and community-orientedmeeting room use at the Chattahoochee branch include serving as a locationwhere people can take GED classes, hosting community programming, andproviding a place where early voting was held for the 2008 presidentialelection. The branch manager reported that GED classes meet three nightsper week, the library provides after school programs every Thursday, andthe community-sponsored programs usually are held on Friday in the earlyevening hours. All the meeting room activities were suspended or relocatedduring the two weeks of early voting in October before the 2008 presidentialelection.

There are some limits to the Chattahoochee meeting room’s use as civicspace. The couple previously quoted reported a certain level of govern-mental control over the way the local community can have an impact on thelibrary. The wife noted, ‘‘I know that the county just – I mean you can’t puta picture on the wall that they don’t – or a plaque on the wall that they don’thave to come in and approve it or a trash can outside, and I just think that’sa little restrictive and unnecessary.’’ Her husband continued, ‘‘I guess whatshe’s saying is that the community doesn’t seem to have the leeway to dothings that we think would benefit the library and the community and theusers of the library as a whole without permission from [countyadministrators] – which we get most of the time – it’s just inconvenientythey have to approve the benches put outside, and we’re spending ourmoney – as Friends of the Library – not county money.’’

Another limit on the role the library plays as an expression of the publicsphere is apparent in a perception among some library users that the countygovernment is controlling how people access information at the publiclibrary. One respondent described the county commissioners not wanting toprovide wireless Internet access because, ‘‘they’re just concerned that peoplecan get on and look at stuff they’re not supposed to be looking at, but twothings: first of all, I think you can eliminate that, or regulate that; and secondthing, it’s going to be their own private computer, it’s not going to be there.’’

In spite of the lack of wireless Internet access, most Chattahoochee libraryusers describe their library as an informational place as defined by Fisheret al. (2007). One interviewee has used the library’s Internet computers toattend college online. She also described seeing and encouraging extensiveuse of the library’s computers by younger students. One respondent had adifferent perspective on the library’s role as an informational place. She seesa need for much more computerized information access and support fore-government applications than the library currently provides.

LINDA R. MOST104

Chattahoochee’s library users are very proud of their new building, butthey are still getting used to its design, location, and the enhanced resourcesit supports. Presented in terms of Lofland’s public realm relationships andlocales, the new building is not yet a ‘‘familiarized locale’’ (p. 66) in thatthere was some resistance to change and the new building is just beginningto become part of people’s daily routines. The old library was very definitelya familiarized locale and had been very important to its users. Oneinterviewee explained, ‘‘Well, I [have] come to the library for 25 years, and,in a way, I miss the quaint little one that we had – but that’s an era bygone Iguess – but I suppose this one is bigger and there’s a lot more room.’’Another discussed the new location saying, ‘‘I would have preferred it tohave been a little closer into town because our little town is just dying, so Ithink it would have been a nice addition there, but it’s just a beautifullocation, it’s easy to get to, great parking, and it’s good.’’ Anotherexplained, ‘‘Originally, when they were going to build the building, theFriends of The Chattahoochee Library had a different site in mind and someof the members of that group weren’t [happy with the change]. But I thinkthis is a great location.’’

Not all the responses to the new building express nostalgia for the oldone. Other community members express civic pride in their new library.Following Lofland’s (1998) analysis of the public realm’s persistent positivesocial value and utility, the new library facilitates a small town version of asense of cosmopolitanism (Wiegand, 2005a by welcoming visitors to thecommunity including those who use the campgrounds and recreationalareas on both sides of the Georgia–Florida border just west of town alongthe Apalachicola River.

The staff members are also proud of the library’s role as a landmark andresource for out of town visitors. One explained, ‘‘yes, the library is used asa landmark quite oftenyThe campers use the library as their primaryinformation source – whether it be through the computer or through usthe librarians – to find out even something as simple as where to go buygroceries or where there’s a good restaurant to go eat.’’ Her colleagueadded, ‘‘Our campers come through and they use the computer for e-mailto keep in touch with their families.’’

One Chattahoochee interviewee is a different type of communityvisitor. He is a railroad engineer who is required by law to spend a certainnumber of hours off duty before he boards his next train. As a result hespends every other night of his work week in Chattahoochee. He visitsthe library regularly and refers to the library as his living room when he isaway from home. His description can be used to test the relevance of


Oldenburg’s (1999) third place theory to the Chattahoochee branch library.His use of the library as a place other than home – his hotel in town – orwork indicates that for him the library has characteristics of a third place,but he does not indicate engaging in conversation or enjoying a playfulatmosphere when he walks to the library. On the contrary, he pursuessolitary reading and information-related activities, browsing the books andchecking his e-mail. He also noted later in his interview that he wassurprised that the library does not seem to be used for relaxation by the localcommunity, noting that people use it mostly for schoolwork or to borrowmaterials or use the computers.

Chattahoochee survey respondents agreed with some of the intervieweeswhen they described the primary purpose of the library as being ‘‘to aidin reading fundamentals, help students research, and provide a safe envi-ronment for children,’’ to provide ‘‘service to the community to upgradeeducation and learning opportunities,’’ ‘‘to give the people a resource place’’,‘‘to provide needed resources in various areas to the community,’’ and ‘‘toprovide educational, tutoring, and recreational opportunities to the public.’’

The branch manager described negative examples of the ways the oldlibrary building – located downtown in a residential neighborhood near therailroad tracks – had been used as a third place. She recalled that thebuilding was broken into three times, that she had a gun pulled on her twice,and that a fire was set in the men’s room urinal. She believes the newlocation has solved most of the site-based problems because the library ismore visible to passers-by since it sits at a main intersection.

Other Chattahoochee interview respondents described coming to thelibrary primarily to check out and return books. Fisher et al. (2007) describeinformational places as environments that support reading and book-relatedactivities as well as being places where people go to solve their informationneeds; but Fisher does not address the ways libraries support or encouragethe social nature of reading in her theory. Fister (2006), Ross et al. (2006),and Wiegand (2005b) have called attention to the social nature of readingand the persistence of people using public libraries to support theirrecreational and social reading activities. Social and recreational reading-related uses of public libraries as place have continued through the 20thcentury into the present. It is important to acknowledge the role of thepublic library as a place that supports the social nature of reading. However,close analysis of activities to understand the social nature of reading aspracticed at the Gadsden County library locations was beyond the scope ofthis study even though evidence of the social nature of reading is apparent inmany of the interview and survey responses collected throughout this study.

LINDA R. MOST106

One important aspect of the social nature of reading that falls within thelimits of the current study is the abundance of public realm relationships(Lofland, 1998) that have coalesced around the library’s collections andservices – especially the books and movies. As library users becomeregular borrowers of library materials, they become participants in ongoingrelationships with staff members and other borrowers. They exchangegreetings with the staff members and participate in conversations that mayat first be limited to requests for help finding books and movies but soon gofar beyond the original topics. These relationships appear to be important toboth the library visitors and the staff members. Chattahoochee surveyrespondents said they talked with the staff when they visit the library. Theyreported talking about ‘‘anything we feel like talking about,’’ or ‘‘newbooks, where to find books, using the Internet,’’ or ‘‘where to find items,local events, best deals in town,’’ or simply ‘‘friendly conversation’’ or‘‘social stuff.’’ Interview respondents also mentioned the staff memberspositively. When asked what she thought was the best feature of the library,one answered, ‘‘The head librarian.’’ These responses are strong examples ofLofland’s (1998) conceptualization of intimate secondary relationships –relationships that form among people who connect to each other in somepublic context and build on that connection. According to Lofland therelationships last a long time, feel good, and are meaningful withoutnecessarily being intimate.

Although library users participate in the library-centered intimatesecondary relationships, seem to enjoy them, and say they make a pointof talking with staff members, they do not classify these relationships associal. Respondents do not consider the public realm intimate secondaryrelationships just described to be a form of socializing, yet most respondentsindicate they talk to staff members when they visit the library and manyreported that they regularly discuss topics beyond the library’s services andresources. For library respondents socializing may refer to peer-to-peerrelationships rather than their relationships with people they interact with inthe context of workplace roles.

An increase in personal and group social capital is an important outcomeof the relationships people form at the public library. Social capital canbe understood as the glue that holds social institutions together. It is theability of participants to ‘‘secure benefits by virtue of membership in socialnetworks or other social structures’’ (Portes, 1998, p. 6). It grows out ofbeneficial relationships that develop among members of social networkswho trust each other. Social capital that develops can be bonding, bridging,or linking (Halpern, 2005; Putnam, 2000) depending on whether people are


interacting within or between social networks. There is subtle but persistentevidence of increases in social capital as a result of relationships formedaround the Chattahoochee branch library. Some people use the library as acharitable outlet, donating books to be added to the collection or placed onthe book exchange shelves. The married couple explained that they hadcome to the library on the day they were interviewed to donate their third lotof books for the year, and that they had donated similar amounts in prioryears. Other interview respondents commented outside their interviews thatthe staff members who know their reading preferences will often pull abook out of a stack of donated items and hold it for a specific library user.Book donations and exchanges also play a large role in the Havana branchlibrary’s operations and are discussed as generators of social capital in thenext section.

It is still early in the new Chattahoochee library’s lifecycle for it to befully established as a place where social capital is generated, but severalinterviewees confirmed the role the old library played as a communitysetting in which social capital could grow. One described the old library,saying ‘‘there was always something going on in that library.’’ Thereis evidence that the new library is assuming this role. People can usethe computers to take classes or access e-government resources, therebyimproving their personal situations and possibly increasing their socialstatus or how they are perceived in the community.

The new library’s meeting room is beginning to support social capital-generating activities. The husband of the couple referred to earlier describedhaving recently participated in a meeting held there saying, ‘‘A local citizendonated his services to do the landscaping, and we were planning a littlereception to honor him.’’ The act of donating time, labor, and possiblymaterials to the community enhances the donor’s standing. The peopleplanning to recognize his gift are endorsing his community service andadding to their own stocks of social capital by recognizing his service andgiving the reception in the donor’s honor. At the end of the event the librarywill have been attractively landscaped, and the donor landscaper will havecontributed to a public good and enhanced his standing in the community.Old bonds will be reinforced and new bridges may be built across differentsocial groups as a result of the various ways people participated in theproject, including the opportunities made available to chat and buildor reinforce networks during the reception. The new social capital willbe generated as a result of activities focused around making the newChattahoochee branch public library a more attractive, welcomingcommunity asset.

LINDA R. MOST108

Most of the Chattahoochee library’s users and staff members consider thelibrary to be a social good – a symbol that their town is still alive and vital,a site where positive activities happen, an important informational andrecreational resource, and a locale that supports and reinforces their senseof community. One interviewee explained: ‘‘It’s just amazing for littleChattahoochee to have this.’’ Another described the library as ‘‘a wonderfulcommodity to have in the community.’’ The branch manager reported, ‘‘Weactually were the only library in the county that had a great increase in ourcirculation for this past year.’’

Ultimately, the Chattahoochee branch demonstrates some public spherecharacteristics but operates within system-wide limits imposed by countygovernment and the library administration. The first limit – the lack ofwireless Internet access – restricts some potential library users’ access toinformation except through controlled, filtered library computers. Thesecond limit – decisions about plaques, wall decor, and other extra furnish-ings like benches and trash cans are made by the library administrators –requires local members of the Friends of the Library to submit all their plansto the system administrators for review and approval.

The new Chattahoochee branch does not appear to be used as a thirdplace by community members in the same ways they used the old librarybuilding. There is little evidence of recreational or informal social use ofthe building – either positive or destructive – though the collections offerrecreational and entertainment materials for library users to borrow andenjoy elsewhere. The intimate secondary relationships formed between staffmembers and library users at the old building appear to be continuing at thenew building and their intimate secondary nature is confirmed becauselibrary users do not categorize these relationships as social.

The new building appears to function as an informational place andlandmark for the community and visitors. Library users and staff are veryproud of their new library building. It provides a focal point for activitiesthat generate social capital. It supports ongoing public intimate secondaryrelationships focused around book and movie lending and other library-related services. It serves as a beneficiary of community members’ charitableenergy, and it offers opportunities for people to enhance their access tosocial capital through formal and informal networking. It supports personalgrowth and development by hosting community and library-sponsoredprograms in the meeting room and by facilitating formal educationalopportunities and informal life-long learning initiatives.


Havana Branch Library

The Havana Branch Library is housed in the first of the three new librarybuildings in Gadsden County to open. The new Havana library opened tothe public in 2003 (Mock, 2008) after having been housed in a downtownstorefront. The building is located at one end of the city park adjacent to theVeterans’ Memorial and two blocks away from Main Street. The location isa source of great pleasure to many library users. When asked what theythought about the location of the library, several interview respondents citedits proximity to the park as an asset.

One interviewee provided a more complicated response to the location ofthe library. She said she believes that the library can grow more and that itwill in time, but she noted, ‘‘I kind of think that [any future expansion] couldbe an interruption with the park, because people love the park as much asthey love the library, so I believe that they [should] expand it in the oppositedirection, or probably on the side of the library instead of trying to messwith the park area.’’ She seems to want to protect the sight lines between thepark, the memorial, and the library and not lose any of the park land tolibrary expansion. Library users’ affection for the building and its locationare also indications that the library branch functions as a familiarized locale(Lofland, 1998) that has become a part of people’s daily routines and isimportant to their public lives.

Havana library users did not directly articulate a strong sense that thebranch library functioned as an expression of the Habermasian publicsphere as did some of the Chattahoochee branch users. Havana library usersdid so indirectly by mentioning certain social impacts of the public librarythat support the public sphere including welcoming children and youngpeople, providing free access to news and information, and providing aplace where people do not have to act as consumers but can sit quietly toread and reflect (Alstad & Curry, 2003).

Havana interview respondents differed in their indications as to whetheror not the Havana branch library functions as a third place for its users, butall the Havana library interviewees described their branch as having thelimited third place characteristics of an informational place – it occurs onneutral ground, serves as a social leveler in that it is inclusive and accessibleto the general public, and functions as a home away from home thatdoes not feature conversation or socializing as the main activities (Fisheret al., 2007). The Havana library supports all types of information-seeking

LINDA R. MOST110

activities as well as individual and social reading practices. It providescomputers to use for communications, social networking, recreationalInternet surfing, and formal research to support education, as well as booksand movies in all formats for people to borrow.

Havana library users report strong, ongoing, intimate secondary relation-ships (Lofland, 1998) with the library staff members, just as Chattahoocheelibrary users did. One user was emphatic about the helpfulness of the staffmembers, saying ‘‘I think the people who work here are very caring andfriendly people who go out of their way to make sure you are comfortable –make sure you get what you want. If you need extra help, they are alwayshere. I’ve never been in here a time when help was refused or it seemed as ifthey didn’t want to help.’’ Another described the staff similarly, recalling‘‘I’ve watched them help out a little old lady one time, she had a bunch ofmagazines or something, and they came out and helped her. I just thought itwas really – they’re very nice here.’’

Library survey respondents from Havana reported all kinds of brief socialconversations indicative of public realm intimate secondary relationshipsin their answers to the question – what do you talk to the staff about?Responses ranged from ‘‘social amenities,’’ ‘‘how they are doing,’’ ‘‘generalinfo about the computer and everyday life,’’ ‘‘family, good books to read,similar reading habits,’’ ‘‘location of books, DVDs, and movies, just becauseI enjoy talking with employees and getting to know them,’’ to ‘‘whatever isgoing on in town.’’ All of these survey answers indicate ongoing publicrealm relationships that appear to be important to the participants eventhough 20 of the 31 Havana survey respondents ranked a place to socializeas the least important service the library provided, and none ranked it as themost important service the library provides.

The staff members seem to reciprocate their users’ enjoyment of theintimate secondary relationships engendered by the library. The branchmanager reported consistently positive feelings about library users. Whenasked to describe the best feature of the library, she responded, ‘‘I would saythe patrons, I mean, as a whole, the patrons.’’ She went on to describe herattitude toward library users and her interactions with them as over-whelmingly positive. Later in her interview she described taking a motherlyrole with some of the library users – advising young mothers that they andtheir babies are always welcome but that they have to tend to their childrenwhile in the library.

Havana library users and staff stressed the importance of books andbook-related activities that reflect the social nature of reading in responseto questions about why they had come to the library on the day of the


interview and why they had visited the library in the month previous to theirinterview. The book and reading-related activities they described provideopportunities for networking and facilitate production of social capital forHavana library users. The few survey respondents from Havana who werewilling to identify any shortcoming of their library mentioned the smallcollection as a weakness. One respondent wrote ‘‘there is just not a real bigselection of materials. It is bigger than the old [library] but [is] still on thesmall side.’’ Another said the worst feature of the library was ‘‘[the] lack ofmy favored fiction subjects due to its small size.’’

The Havana branch manager described several book-related services thelibrary sponsors that support the social nature of reading and generateincreased social capital for all the participants. All the Gadsden Countylibrary locations provide space for a formal book exchange that operatesoutside the libraries’ circulation system. People without library cards cancome in and take a book off the exchange shelf understanding that they areexpected to eventually return it or provide another book in its place. Beyondthe library system-endorsed book exchange, the Havana branch houses aneven more loosely structured free materials shelf. Here people can donatebooks or magazines they no longer want, and anyone who wishes can comein and take whatever they like from the shelf in any quantity they wishwithout any suggestion that they should donate something back inexchange.

The book donation opportunities generate a lot of good will toward thelibrary on the part of the donors. They feel a stronger sense of belonging andcontributing to their community, and their sense that they are doingsomething positive for the community may increase their stocks of linkingsocial capital. Participants in the various book donation programs maydevelop a sense of partnership with the library and a sense that, by donatingtheir old books and magazines, they are providing a resource others in thecommunity can use rather than throwing away something that may stillhave value. Those that take a book from either the book exchange or thefree shelf are benefiting from the library’s willingness to host services thatare not counted in their circulation statistics. They may perceive the libraryas an asset for the entire community – not just for those with library cards –thus increasing the library’s stock of social capital in the eyes of thecommunity at large.

The meeting room in the Havana branch library – as in Chattahoochee –was designed to operate independently of the main library. It can be lockedoff from the library and accessed directly when the library is closed. Groupsincluding Toastmasters, homeowners associations, and a legal services

LINDA R. MOST112

society use the room regularly. Independent tutors use the library to workwith students. Library sponsored programs held in the meeting roominclude weekly story hours for pre-school children and regularly scheduledactivities to support home-schooled students. During the two weekspreceding the 2008 presidential election, all meeting room activities weresuspended so the space could be used for early voting. All these types ofactivities facilitate participants’ ability to increase their stocks of socialcapital and position the library as a valuable resource that provides a placewhere social capital can be generated.

In conclusion, the Havana branch of the GCPLS functions as acommunity resource on many levels. It is an important familiarized localethat engenders feelings of affection and is part of many residents’ daily orweekly routines. Being adjacent to the park enhances the library’s status andvalue for many of its users. The Havana branch library is a noncommercialplace where people can access information and recreational materialsin electronic or print form, study, read, and relax. It functions as aninformational place (Fisher et al., 2007) providing all members of thecommunity with access to computers and the Internet, and readingmaterials, and many of its programs and services support the social aspectsof reading.

The Havana library building supports ongoing public intimate secondaryrelationships between library users and staff members, and library usersseem to value these relationships even without recognizing them as socialrelationships. Like the Chattahoochee branch, the Havana library benefitsfrom community members’ charitable impulses and in turn makes theirdonations available to others who can benefit from them. It providesopportunities for people to increase their stock of social capital through self-improvement, through participation in library-sponsored activities and byproviding a place where community-sponsored activities can occur.

Quincy – The McGill Main Library

The William A. ‘‘Bill’’ McGill Library – the main library in Quincy – openedto the public in June 2006 (Mock, 2008). It is the largest of the threeGadsden County library buildings and houses the administrative, manage-ment, and professional staff for the library system as well as those who workin the main library’s public service positions. Additionally, many of theadministrative staff members work with the public regularly throughout theweek. Quincy library users are proud of their new library and report that,


from their perspectives, all the resources and services it offers are well used.However, several interview respondents observed that the library is still notbig enough to serve the community and that it needs more current items inthe collection and more computers for public use.

Library users offer little direct evidence of the main library functioning asan expression of the Habermasian public sphere though some of the staffmembers are very aware and supportive of the library building’s role as afacilitator of public interaction. One interviewee commented approvinglyon the controls the library system has put in place over certain levels ofinformation access – a limit to the library’s ability to facilitate the formationof the public sphere – when she described the library’s use of filters on theInternet computers. Another library user seemed to expect strong controlson the types of information accessible when she reported being surprizedthat people were able to access the website Mi Pagina – the Spanishlanguage version of MySpace. She felt that the computers should be keptavailable for other, presumably more important uses. These observationsseem to demonstrate citizens’ acceptance of certain limitations on thelibrary’s role in facilitating the formation of the public sphere.

By contrast another respondent positioned the library as very muchfacilitating the formation of the public sphere, saying that people are free touse the library as they wish, ‘‘like it’s their personal choice, whatever reasonthey use it for it’s their personal choice.’’ Another also observed the libraryfacilitating the formation of the public sphere by providing a place wherepeople can come together to freely discuss relevant issues. He described ameeting he had observed being held at the library saying, ‘‘just last week[September 2008] apparently some people from [across the state line] wereusing it to hold a meeting of some kind. It sounded like a union meeting, sothey didn’t want to be – it’s just a guess – but it sounds like they didn’t wantto be seen in [their town]. I’d never seen the parking lot that crowded.’’

Alstad and Curry (2003) describe characteristics that encourage the publicsphere to coalesce, including (1) guaranteeing access to people of all agesand races in a clean, safe environment; (2) resisting colonization bycommercial entities; and (3) treating visitors as citizens, not customers. Oneof the Gadsden County library system’s staff members endorses an analysisof the main library as a place where the public sphere can form when shedescribes it using the same concepts as Alstad and Curry. The staff memberdescribes one of the library’s key functions as providing neutral ornoncommercial space for all types of use.

As do the branch libraries, the main library supports the formation of thepublic sphere within the limits imposed by local authorities. Although the

LINDA R. MOST114

Internet access computers default to filtered status, unfiltered Internet accessis available to adults if they ask to have the filters lifted. Staff membersreport lifting Internet filters regularly. The meeting rooms are availableto all members of the community for any noncommercial use within thescope of the library system’s policies, and the library system welcomes bothresidents and visitors to all its locations with no conditions for entryimposed.

There is mixed evidence as to whether the main library’s adult usersthink their library functions as a third place. One interview respondentcommented specifically, ‘‘it’s a quiet place and everyone comes here to dowhat they came to do, so they don’t come here just to socialize or hangaround.’’ Another reported, ‘‘I see a lot of people strictly studying and[using it for] business purposes.’’ Some describe using the library as a placeto relax and read the newspaper because of the quiet atmosphere. Onerespondent noted the different ways people use the library saying, ‘‘a lot ofpeople come here to actually – like myself – to do a lot of homework, butyou’ve got a lot of other people that come and get on the Internet and playgames – I’m not just talking about children, I’m talking about older peoplelistening to music and stuff like that.’’ Other respondents commented thatpeople use the library for what they considered to be the expected purposes,saying they ‘‘come to study, because it’s a quiet place to study and same oldthing – using the computers whether it’s for personal or school reasons.’’One main library staff member provided a similar perspective on the way thelibrary is used, saying ‘‘I see it being used as a place to come and doschoolwork or to get away from home, and [as] somewhere quiet to stay andget away from distractions.’’

James Katz, a professor who studies communication technologies atRutgers University, questions whether the places where people go to accessthe Internet – using either wired or wireless technology – can fill the socialrole of third places. He describes cyber cafes as hollowed out because peopleinteract socially through the computers rather than with the people who arein the same room. The same phenomenon is apparent around library publicservice Internet computers. Katz says these places are ‘‘physically inhabitedbut psychologically evacuated’’ (Nomads at last, April 12, 2008, p. 10). Theyare not functioning as third places where people go for refreshment, socialinteractions, and a playful atmosphere (Oldenburg, 1999), but as commu-nication centers where adults go to make contact with others in differentgeographic locations and do not pay any attention to the people with whomthey are sharing the place where the computers are located.


Library staff members reported evidence of a corollary of Katz’s analysiswhen they described parents or other caregivers who bring their childrenwith them to the libraries but become engrossed in whatever they are doingon the computers and lose track of their children. The result of their lack ofinvolvement with any of the people in the library – let alone their children –in favor of computer-mediated interactions is that the unsupervised childrenstart behaving in ways other adults consider inappropriate for a library andbecome a disruptive element.

The main library seems to be serving more of its users as an informationalplace and familiarized locale than as a third place (Fisher et al., 2007;Lofland, 1998). One main library respondent – interviewed on a Sundayafternoon – explained that she and her family came to the library becausethe church they usually go to was not open that day. She described herfamily’s use of the library as focusing on the books and the Internet. Herwhole family uses it regularly for information access, recreational reading,and studying. Another interviewee describes the library’s resources –specifically the Internet computers – as its best feature. She visits the libraryto ‘‘use the computer, check out books, videos and DVDs, and makecopies.’’ Another reported coming to the library because he ‘‘had to do somework for school.’’ He said he used the library for ‘‘looking for jobs [and]doing schoolwork.’’ A young woman said she has a computer at home, butshe uses the library for ‘‘homework, job-hunting, personal [use]y I don’tcheck out books.’’ A long-time Quincy library user who used the library inits previous locations and now uses the new building says the new library is agreat improvement over the old one but that it still needs more computersbecause, ‘‘as you know there are a lot of children who are in school, they’reusing the computers more now than they didywhen I was a kid, sosometimes – certain times of day when you come here you can’t really usethe computer because all of them are full.’’ Other regular main library usersappreciate the library’s support of their educational efforts. As at thebranches, people taking online classes are allowed to use a library computeras long as needed.

For many of the main library interview respondents – as with those whouse the Havana branch – the new library has become a familiarized locale(Lofland, 1998) that is an important part of their ordinary daily or weeklyroutines. Most of the ways respondents say they use the main library and theways they report having seen others use the library seem to fit more closelywithin the model of Fisher et al.’s (2007) informational places than theydo with Oldenburg’s (1999) description of third places. Most of the main

LINDA R. MOST116

library interview respondents indicated they use their library as a place theyvisit often where they can address needs and interests related to informationfinding and seeking, recreational reading, formal study, and life-longlearning. By contrast, one interview respondent spoke positively of the waysteens use the library as a third place, saying:

I think [the way people use the library] is good, especially for the young people –

teenagers. When they come in here they basically use the computers, and for one thing, it

keeps them off the street. It keeps them busy. So, you know, they get to use the computer

and play games on it, and I like that – listen to their music – and then also there’s a lot of

resources around so they can learn new things on the computer as well as play games.

The distinction this respondent makes between how adults and youngpeople use the library for recreational purposes may be significant. Attitudestoward young people coming to the library in groups to use the computersfor social purposes may be different than those toward adults coming to thelibrary to use the computers for recreational purposes. Although discussionof the ways children and teenagers use their public libraries as place isbeyond the scope of this study, it is worth mentioning the possible rolespublic libraries play as third places for teens. Large urban and suburbanlibraries with enough space in their buildings have dedicated entire rooms toteen use. Their library programming for teens features interactive andrecreational activities during after school hours.3

Not all the main library interview respondents came to the library touse the computers. Two study participants reported bringing children orgrandchildren to check out books and attend regular children’s art clubprograms offered by the library. One user reports coming to the librarystrictly to check out books and videos. He said he uses the library mainly forentertainment reading. These uses seem to demonstrate some ways the mainlibrary supports the social nature of reading and functions as a familiarizedlocale that serves an important purpose in their daily or weekly lives.

Some Quincy library users see the library as an object of charity – a placewhere they can donate books and videos to benefit the community. Oneinterviewee borrowed from the library’s video collection almost every day.He said the videos are the only entertainment that keeps his father – who hasAlzheimer’s disease – calm and entertained. He is very appreciative of thelibrary’s video collection and says he intends to donate his father’s videocollection back to the library when the time is right. Another says he used touse the library’s book exchange collection. He considers it a communityasset and says he has donated books from his personal collection when hefinishes with them. As at the branch libraries, the main library’s various


book donation programs encourage people to feel good about contributingto the library, thus enhancing their personal stocks of social capital byhelping to make the library stronger for those who will keep using it.

Interview respondents at the main library did not mention theirrelationships with library staff members as frequently as did respondentsat the branches. However – as at the branches – most of their references tomain library staff members were positive. Main library survey respondentsindicated that they did not talk with the staff members at the library asoften as survey respondents did at the branches. Those main library surveyrespondents who did talk with the staff reported conversations similar tothose held at the branches. They said they talked about ‘‘anything,’’ ‘‘smalltalk,’’ ‘‘how to find books, being friendly,’’ ‘‘new books, personalconversation,’’ and ‘‘social amenities.’’ These comments indicate that somemain library users participate in intimate secondary relationships (Lofland,1998) when they visit the library but apparently not to the same extent asthose who use the library’s branches.

Main library staff members described some social use of the library, withmost of those social activities focused around the library’s resources,programs, and services. One staff member reported observing social activitiesthat indicate some third place characteristics of the library. ‘‘You knowpeople come in here whether it’s to get in out of the rain or out of the hot, outof the cold. They do use [the library] to come in and socialize.’’ Another said,‘‘I see lots of people come here, they hang out and get on the – you know –computers – and chat with each other, group up in certain areas of the libraryand have little discussions and stuff.’’ Another user noted that, ‘‘frequentlypeople come in to use the computers, and they see somebody they haven’tseen in a long time, and there are a lot of informal sort of things that go on.’’Another suggested different scenarios in response to being asked how thelibrary is used socially that indicate the social nature of reading. Althoughthe staff members report these types of social activities in the main library,the activities staff members described are focused around books, reading,study, and computer use. They do not have the third place characteristicsof recreational time passing – hanging out – and social contact as theirobjectives.

During the period of this study, community members regularly used themain library meeting room and small conference room, and library usersindicated an awareness of the meeting rooms as a community resource.In addition to the union meeting and the children’s cultural programspreviously described, the main library’s meeting rooms are heavily used in avariety of ways that may help generate fresh social capital for participants.

LINDA R. MOST118

During the study period the meeting room housed library programming forchildren on multiple days each week. Two local sororities met weekly andthe Veterans of Foreign Wars held their monthly meetings in the meetingroom or the conference room. Two groups held multiple meetings at thelibrary to plan their upcoming family and class reunions. Small groups fromcommunity and county organizations also use the library’s conference roomregularly for their meetings. A care-givers respite group, a census workertraining class, and a juvenile justice association meeting were held in theconference room during the study period. The Friends of the Library boardmet in the conference room every month during the study period. Manyof these uses are congruent with the noncommercial quality of the libraryas place as previously described by library staff members. These uses alsosupport and encourage the development of bridging and bonding socialcapital at the community level as community members are able to cometogether to work toward their group goals.

Most main library interview respondents were proud of the new librarybuilding and described it as badly needed and as an important resourcefor the community. ‘‘It’s a hip thing to have, it’s good for the children ofGadsden County and it’s good for also the grown-ups. Like I come in, lookfor jobs, research, so it’s a good thing to have in Quincy.’’ One intervieweehas used the Gadsden County public libraries all her life. She said

I grew up here and I’ve been going to the library for a very long time here in Gadsden

County so it’s much better than it was when it was located at TCC [Tallahassee

Community College’s Gadsden County campus] and even better than when it was

located at that smaller building they had.y I think it’s really beautiful. I was very

surprised when I first saw it builty I was in and out of Quincy for a while, so it looks

really nice. I’m pretty proud of it actually.

Survey respondents at the main library agreed with interviewees about thelibrary as a positive asset for the community. When asked what they felt wasthe best feature of the library, one described it as ‘‘spacious and modernizedto suit the community’s needs’’ and ‘‘a major asset to our community. Itprovides Internet access, reference books, and videos. [It is a] communityworkshop that is essential to personal and professional growth.’’ Staffmembers are also very proud of the new building: ‘‘The building is brandnew, which is a blessing. We had a very bad facility before so it’s a brandnew building. Two years we’ve been here and it’s been great. The public hasenjoyed it, our numbers increased, everybody enjoys it.’’

In conclusion the new main library in Quincy appears to be functioning inways similar to the Chattahoochee branch as a source of civic pride and a


symbol of the county’s investment in the local communities. It is a focalpoint for activities that generate social capital at the individual, community,and county levels. The main library is functioning as an informational place(Fisher et al., 2007) and familiarized locale (Lofland, 1998) for many ofits regular users but the relationships between the library users and staffmembers appear to be less significant to the main library users than theyare to those who use the library branches. There is also less evidence in themain library interviews and surveys of people coming to the main library toexperience the social nature of reading as compared to survey and interviewresponses from the branches in which people spoke strongly about theimportance of the book collections to their reading needs.

Contextualization of the Gadsden County Libraries

Fisher et al. (2007) speculate that in Seattle, the library system branches fitmore closely with Oldenburg’s (1999) third place framework than does themain library in terms of encouraging tighter social cohesion and providingmore support for recreational activities. Patterns of use at the much smallerGadsden County library locations seem to encourage but not fully supportFisher et al.’s speculation. Interview and survey respondents from the mainlibrary indicate subtle differences in the atmosphere and use patterns of themain library as compared to those from the branches, but none of theresponses go so far as to indicate that the branches function as third placesexcept possibly for teens. People did not say they visit any of the GadsdenCounty library locations to seek out friends or colleagues or that they arevisiting looking for a persistent, playful mood, things they or Oldenburgwould consider to be social purposes (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 83). As Fisheret al. found in Seattle, this study found that the mood and interests of adultswhen using all three Gadsden County libraries was closer to one of study,productivity and individual reading and recreation than one of playfulnessor levity.

Some study participants who are long-time Gadsden County library usershinted that the old library buildings may have had more characteristicstypical of third places than do the new buildings. Although this study didnot go deeply enough into the question of whether people use the newlibraries differently than they did the old ones, portions of responses toother questions – especially from the Chattahoochee interviews – imply thatpeople who used the old buildings may have experienced them as being

LINDA R. MOST120

closer to third places than they do the new buildings. But third places andfamiliarized locales have characteristics in common.

Fisher et al.’s (2007) conceptualization of an informational place as onethat ‘‘comprises all themes regarding information finding and seeking,reading, life-long learning, learning resources, and [the] learning environ-ment’’ (p. 153) – though derived from research conducted at a large urbanpublic library – may be the strongest theoretical explanation of the role ofthe GCPLS’s buildings as place, but it is not sufficient. The library locationsalso need to be understood in the context of Lofland’s (1998) discussion ofthe public realm. Lofland’s work focuses on urban public space but isrelevant to the current study because even small towns have commercialcenters and include ‘‘a social territory in which many different kinds orcategories of people are mixed up together [author italics]’’ (p. 118).

Lofland describes a series of public realm-based relationships betweenpeople and public places, and one of those relationships – in which publicplaces become familiarized locales for those who frequent them regularly(p. 66) – seems to explain many of the ways Gadsden County library usersrespond to their libraries. Respondents in Chattahoochee indicated thattheir new library building has not yet become a familiarized locale as the oldlibrary was, but they are using the new building regularly to access libraryservices in some of the ways they used the old building. The intimatesecondary relationships with the library staff that were established throughuse of the old Chattahoochee library appear to have transferred to the newlocation.

In Havana, at the oldest of the new buildings, library users indicated thatthe branch has become very important to their lives as a familiar stopin their daily or weekly public routines. The Havana branch appears tofunction as a familiarized locale for many of its users. At the main library inQuincy, the building has also become a familiarized locale for many of itsusers. Main library users come regularly for many reasons and indicate thatvisiting the library is an anticipated part of their or their children’s weeklyroutines. All three libraries are comfortable, attractive, welcoming placesthat are used for informational and reading-related activities.

Another of the categories of the public realm relationships Lofland (1998)describes is a group of relationships that form between strangers whoshare a social territory and play specific roles in that world. Many peoplewho regularly use the Gadsden County libraries have developed intimatesecondary relationships – ongoing emotionally infused public relationships –with library staff members, and they indicate that they value those relation-ships though they do not categorize the relationships as social. Library staff


members in their turn also value the relationships they have formed withtheir library users and do what they can to make their libraries welcomingplaces for their users.

Because the libraries are familiar places that people visit regularly forpurposes important to them, they support the generation of bridging andbonding social capital at both the individual and community levels. AsFisher et al. (2007) found in Seattle, and Putnam and Feldstein with Cohen(2003) found at the Chicago Public Library’s Near North branch, bondingsocial capital is generated when groups of like-minded people meet atthe library to further their goals. Bridging social capital is generatedwhen different types of people come together for a library-sponsored orcommunity function held at the library. The Gadsden County librarieswelcome all residents and visitors to use their facilities and encourageall groups whose purposes fall within the scope of the library system’smeeting room use policy to meet in their buildings. The libraries also usetheir meeting rooms to offer library sponsored programs and activitiesin which people from all across the community may come together toparticipate in an event hosted by the Friends of the Library, a book clubmeeting, or a children’s or family cultural or enrichment activity.

The library buildings house community-endorsed activities that benefit theparticipants both individually and as community members. Audunson et al.’s(2007) research into the role of Norwegian public libraries as facilitators ofthe production of social capital can be helpful in understanding how theGadsden County libraries fill the same role for their communities. Theirtheory of low-intensive meeting places suggests that communities neednoncommercial places that follow Habermas’ model of supporting the publicsphere to promote informal social contact and provide an environmentthat helps create a minimum level of community identity. Oslo surveyrespondents identified their public libraries as important meeting placeswhere people can meet and chat not only with their friends and neighbors butalso as places where they have a great possibility of meeting people verydifferent from themselves. Audunson et al. have described suburban Oslo’spublic library buildings as sites that promote social inclusion and helpcreate vital local communities thereby supporting the creation of weak ties,generalized trust, and bridging social capital.

Because Gadsden County’s libraries serve much smaller and lesscosmopolitan communities than the Seattle, Chicago, and Oslo librariesjust cited, there are fewer opportunities for people at the GCPLS librariesto informally encounter people very different from themselves, even thoughall are welcome to use the libraries and attend the library programs.

LINDA R. MOST122

In Chattahoochee, the library welcomes tourists who use the federal andstate campgrounds along the river. At the main library, people of all agesand races come together for library programs like the Friday eveningchildren’s art club; the respondents quoted earlier who described accom-panying young children to art club were a white grandfather and a blackmother. At the Havana branch, the book clubs are popular, and themanager invites local and regional authors to speak, drawing largeaudiences to the programs. Though the Gadsden County libraries functionon a much smaller scale than those in Oslo, Seattle, and Chicago, it appearsthat they share social roles that transcend community size and that theoryused to interpret the roles large urban public libraries play in their citiesis relevant to understanding the role of small rural public libraries ascommunity places.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

When the study’s findings are contextualized according to theoreticalframeworks, the libraries can be understood collectively to function asinformational places (Fisher et al. 2007) and to varying degrees, asfamiliarized locales (Lofland, 1998) that support the generation of socialcapital. As community members are getting used to their new librarybuildings, the new buildings are becoming locales people value as placeswhere parts of their daily or weekly public lives occur. The buildings alsosupport the development of intimate secondary public realm relationshipsbetween library users and library staff members. Over time those relation-ships – many of which were transplanted from the old buildings – havebecome important parts of library users’ lives and may add anotherdimension to their library visits as they stop to chat before and afterpursuing the purpose of their visits.

Because the libraries are noncommercial, nonreligiously affiliated,nongovernmental county-sponsored public places, they provide a moreneutral environment than any other public places available in the county.As such they support conditions that encourage the formation of thedemocratic public sphere in the Habermasian sense of the concept. The newlibraries encourage a sense of belonging and of community for many oftheir users and they facilitate the creation of bridging, bonding, and linkingsocial capital (Halpern, 2005) by providing places where people can cometogether in pursuit of common goals and participate in community-orientedactivities. The new libraries are among the very few places in the county


where library users can encounter visitors, guest speakers, and other peopledifferent from themselves. As such they bring a touch of cosmopolitanism totheir small towns. The libraries provide a basic but reliable level of Internetconnectivity that is very important to many library users. An unknownnumber of people who come to the library to use the computers to accessthe Internet do not have computers or Internet access in their homes; thelibraries are their primary source of Internet connectivity.

Contribution of the Theoretical Framework

The multipart theoretical framework this study used to attempt tounderstand the role of the GCPLS libraries as place makes possible amultifaceted interpretation of the way the libraries function as places. Thisstudy contends that no single social theory is broad enough or deep enoughto encompass all the ways people use public libraries. It suggests that usingmultiple theories helps to understand generally the many aspects of a publiclibrary as place, and in particular how this community’s public librariesfunction as places. People experience public libraries in different ways, andthe use of multiple theories facilitates (a) contextualizing the qualities of thelibraries as physical places or settings, (b) explaining the public relationshipspeople experience when visiting the libraries, and (c) understanding theresults of the activities people pursue while at the libraries.

The Public SphereHabermas’ theory of the public sphere (1974, 1991) provides one piece of thephilosophical foundation that supports the concept of public in publiclibraries. The public sphere is the conceptual arena in which people canexperience the public or civic aspects of their lives, aspects that are notplayed out at home (the private sphere) or under direct control ofgovernment (the sphere of the state). The public sphere forms when peoplecome together to discuss civic issues. Some critics have questioned whetherpublic libraries still serve as civic places that allow for public assembly anddiscourse or whether they have been downgraded into places that onlysupport leisure and entertainment (Buschman, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b).Alstad and Curry (2003) are among those who identify the public libraryas one of the few remaining institutions that provides physical andpsychological space for public discourse.

Although they worry that public libraries have shifted their focus frompublic enlightenment to public recreation and entertainment, Alstad and

LINDA R. MOST124

Curry (2003) offer several examples of public library social impacts thatsupport the public sphere, including welcoming children and young adultsand not perceiving them as threats; providing free access to news andinformation that allows individuals to take part in political and socialdebate; serving as symbols of positive activity and growth; offering a placewhere people do not have to act as consumers but can sit quietly, read,and reflect; and welcoming new immigrants and offering them uniqueopportunities to learn English. Habermas’ philosophical explanation of therole of the public sphere in society along with Alstad and Curry’s groundingof public libraries within the framework of the public sphere have provideda context for understanding the philosophical position of the GadsdenCounty public libraries in their communities. The libraries’ identities asnoncommercial, public places underscore and set boundaries for the waythey serve as places for the community.

Third PlacesOldenburg (1999) describes the core settings of informal public life asthird places. These third places fill the spaces in people’s lives between home(first places) and work (second places). Third places are grounded in thecommercial world of pubs and coffee shops. One of their key values is that,over time, they provide their habitues with enriching relationships that comefrom participation in informal group relationships that are very differentfrom individual friendships people treasure. Many public libraries have triedto position themselves as third places for their communities, but Fisher et al.(2007) tested the new Seattle Public Library for third place characteristicsand found that it met only three of Oldenburg’s eight characteristics of thirdplaces.

Understanding the roles third places play in society and the characteristicsthat make those roles possible is important because most public libraries arenot well situated to serve as third places or to support third place-dependentgroup relationships. The one exception to these limits may be in the area ofteen services. Gadsden County’s teens have attempted to use the libraries astheir after school gathering places, but they appear to have been discouragedfrom pursuing interactive and recreational behaviors in favor of studying.If public libraries can carve out space in their buildings to dedicate to teenservices, those dedicated rooms may become third places for their youngusers. Otherwise the most important contribution of third place theory tounderstanding Gadsden County’s public libraries is that it provides theintellectual framework to support the emerging theory of informationalplaces as a distinct category of place.


Informational PlacesThe emerging theory of informational places comes from Fisher et al.’s (2007)test of whether the new downtown Seattle Public Library can be understoodas a third place. Fisher et al. concluded that the new library met only threeof the eight criteria that define third places and they proposed the ideaof informational places to explain the new library’s role in the city. Theydefine informational places as those that support and encompass informationfinding and seeking, reading, and lifelong learning, learning resources, and thelearning environment. The emerging theory of informational places providesa useful framework for understanding many of the roles the Gadsden Countylibraries play as place and provides a large part of the answer to this study’sguiding question. Fisher et al. also suggest that there may be differences in theroles of branch public libraries and main public libraries for the communitiesthey serve. They ask whether branch libraries might more closely reflect theattributes of third places because they function on a smaller scale and theirusers and staff members show a tighter cohesiveness. There were differencesin the ways the Gadsden County main library and the branches functionedas place, but those differences were not great enough to suggest characterizingthe branches as third places. This study finds that the key differences betweenthe way people use the branches and the way they use the main library is inthe greater number of branch library users who indicated participating inongoing public realm relationships with library staffmembers, and the greaternumber of people indicating they came to the branch libraries for readingmaterials and reading-related activities.

Public RealmsPublic Realm theory provides a structure for understanding how peoplerelate to the urban public places through which they move and the peoplethey encounter in the public settings in which their lives take place. Lofland’s(1998) concept of public realm person-to-place relationships provides auseful way to conceptualize much of what people reported about howthey experience the Gadsden County public libraries. The concept of placesfunctioning as familiarized locales that are important parts of peoples’weekly, and even daily, public routines explains much about the wayparticipants in this study generally seem to experience the roles their publiclibraries play in their lives. This holds true even with respect to those inChattahoochee who are still getting used to their new library building.Understanding public libraries as familiarized locales better explains the waythe study’s population members use their libraries than does trying toposition these libraries as third places for their users.

LINDA R. MOST126

The public realm operates through a series of indigenous person-to-person relationships that grow out of principles of normative behavior thatgovern urban living (Lofland, 1998). People who regularly encounter peoplethey do not know respond in typical ways. Fleeting relationships androutinized relationships end when an interaction ends or they transforminto the next levels of public relationships – quasi-primary and intimate-secondary relationships. These develop as positive or negative emotionsbecome parts of public relationships. Intimate-secondary relationships arethose that occur among people who connect with each other in some publicway and who build on that connection. They can last a long time, be positiveand meaningful, and yet never become intimate primary relationships. Thisstudy shows that the concept of intimate-secondary relationships is useful inexplaining the relationships library users often develop with library staffmembers. It contextualizes most of the conversations that library users andstaff members described, and explains much about the nature of the socialrelationships that support people’s public reading-related activities.

This study has shown that many positive and utilitarian characteristics ofthe public realm that are most often found in urban settings are relevant tounderstanding the roles of small town libraries in the lives of their users.These characteristics include providing an environment for informal sociallearning, providing informal communication centers for those who visit,supporting the practice of politics in the informal sense of people of differentbackgrounds coming together and learning to act together, and facilitatingcosmopolitanism as residents learn about tolerance and civility by sharingspaces with people different from themselves (Lofland, 1998). McKenzieet al. (2007) applied public realm theory as a way of understanding how twogroups of people used the public library meeting rooms in their communitiesand concluded that the libraries they studied functioned as places that‘‘support a variety of relationships and host a variety of realms’’ (p. 131).In Gadsden County, the public libraries collectively appear to serve mostfrequently as public realm familiarized locales and to support ongoingemotionally rich intimate-secondary public realm relationships thatparticipants themselves do not consider to be social relationships.

Social CapitalSocial capital is the glue that holds social institutions and relationshipstogether. The concept refers collectively to the nontangible assets that belongto individuals and members of communities, and to communities themselves.Bonding social capital increases the strength of existing connections, bridgingsocial capital facilitates links to outside groups and external resources on the


same social levels; linking social capital is a type of bridging social capital thatcrosses social classes and provides access to powerful individuals andorganizations. Social capital is an asset that can be depleted and regenerated.It can be measured in terms of social trust, or how much ‘‘people in a givencommunity, region or nation trust each other’’ (Halpern, 2005, p. 33).

Public libraries build social capital by providing public places wherepeople can come together to work toward personal or community goals.They provide resources that enable people and groups to establish andnurture relationships, and they also facilitate people from different groupsand perspectives coming together in pursuit of common goals. Publiclibraries provide access to information that helps people participate incommunity life and in the democratic process, and they do all this withoutany means tests or entry fees. Gadsden County’s library users agree that thenew library buildings function in many ways that encourage the generationof social capital. The libraries welcome all members of the community andvisitors, they support both formal education and lifelong learning, and theyhelp people empower themselves by providing access to information andrecreational materials. They also provide noncommercial meeting roomswhere groups can come together to work toward their goals and theyprovide programs in which people can participate, thereby making newconnections. The theory of social capital helps explain how GadsdenCounty’s public libraries enhance quality of life for library users.

This study has shown that theories developed to explain social behaviors inurban settings are relevant to rural and small downtown settings aswell. For themost part, it found that differences in the way social activities and interactionsplay out in small rural and large urban or suburban public libraries aredifferences of scale, not content. This study also shows that theories generatedthrough the study of urban experiences are relevant to contextualizing theroles public libraries play in small towns and rural communities.

Implications and Risks of Multiple Theory Analysis

Multiple theoretical interpretations allow different ways of understandingpeople’s use of the libraries as places but also create the potential fordisagreement in the theoretical analysis of their roles. What one interpretersees as evidence that the libraries demonstrate characteristics of third places(Oldenburg, 1999), another may see as evidence the libraries are informa-tional places (Fisher et al., 2007) or have become familiarized locales thatare part of the users’ daily or weekly public lives (Lofland, 1998).

LINDA R. MOST128

Multiple interpretations of the roles libraries play in the lives of their usersare evident in this study and in the larger research into public libraries ingeneral as librarians attempt to position libraries as third places for theircommunities (K. Harris, 2003; C. Harris, 2007; Lawson, 2004). Fisher et al.’s(2007) study of the new downtown Seattle Public Library effectivelydemonstrated that the new library met only three of eight third placecharacteristics and differed from third places in important ways, leading theirteam to develop the concept of an informational place – a concept that‘‘incorporates information seeking and consumption as a core aspect of place’’(p. 153) and that embraces and reflects all the ways people use libraries andtheir expectations of libraries. Fisher et al. (2007, p. 152) identified three keycharacteristics shared between third places and these informational places.They both occur on neutral ground, both are social levelers, and both are ahome away from home because of the psychological comfort and support theyextend. Because the characteristics of informational places come froma subsetof the characteristics of third places, it is easy to confuse the two.

Third places can also be confused with familiarized locales because bothare public places people visit regularly and value, but for subtly differentreasons. Third places are typically commercial entities and offer companion-ship, relaxation, congenial conversation, and consumption of light refresh-ments – usually alcoholic or caffeinated. Familiarized locales are publicplaces of all types that feature in people’s daily or weekly public routines.They can include the local market, a newspaper stand, a public library, orany other places people visit regularly in the course of their ordinary publiclife. Familiarized locales are typically staffed by longtime employees andthose people – by virtue of their roles – become parts of the visitors’ publicsocial world. Public relationships that begin based on simple socialcourtesies – ‘‘good morning,’’ ‘‘how are you today,’’ ‘‘thank you’’ – canand often do grow over time into relationships with depth and texture asthose brief social conversations expand to cover broader topics and theparticipants develop a shared history. These relationships grow without anyconversation or interaction necessarily ever taking place outside the settingin which the relationship is based.

Third place theory frequently has been misapplied to public librariesbecause it is a popular and accessible theory with easily understandablecomponents; public realm theory appears to be more relevant to under-standing the role of Gadsden County’s public libraries as places in the socialworld. The libraries’ collective basic character is defined by their publicsphere characteristics and their fundamental roles as providers of informa-tional and recreational reading, listening, and viewing materials; but they


function on multiple levels. The most common collective roles libraries playfor their regular users are as informational places and familiarized localesthat are important to adults’ daily or weekly public routines – not as thirdplaces. Though these small town public libraries may appear to demonstratethe third place trait of being a home away from home that people frequentfor recreation, relaxation, and social contact, this study shows that theyfunction as a home away from home in the sense that Fisher et al. (2007) usethe term – as a characteristic of informational places. In addition tofunctioning as informational places, they also become familiarized localesfor their habitues by virtue of repeated use.

Relevance of Methods

The methods this study followed replicated those used in two studies oflarger urban library systems. Surveys and interviews of library users areresearch methods that work very well in most library communities. The sizeof the study population is smaller in smaller communities, but the methods’effectiveness is not impacted by the community’s size. The survey responsesmay be more representative of the community’s opinions because thesurvey distribution conceivably covers a larger percentage of the people whocome to the library buildings. Seating sweeps as a method of unobtrusiveobservation provide a less realistic representation of how people use smallerlibraries because the number of observations they record is small enoughthat not all library behaviors or uses will be apparent during an observationperiod. In a larger setting with many more people present it is more likelythat a set of seating sweeps will record a representative set of groupbehaviors. In a small setting where fewer people are present at any one time,some type of incremental observation method whereby the individuals arefollowed on paper as they move through the library would capture a betterrepresentation of the way people use smaller libraries.

Replicating prior research is one way to increase the credibility of studies,and a new study in which existing research questions are asked in differentsettings or of different populations can add to the body of knowledge thatinforms the research questions. The study instruments should be carefullyevaluated for evidence of decay and for continuing relevance to the researchquestions in the new setting. In this study, the survey instrument – while stillgenerally relevant – did show some evidence of decay in the questionsrelating to Internet and computer use in public libraries. Additionally, rigidreplication of the methods used in the studies on which this one was based

LINDA R. MOST130

would have precluded adding the meeting room reservation documents tothe current study’s body of data sources. Replicating prior studies providedthis study with a framework on which to build and helped insure thereliability of the study methods. However, replication had to be approachedwith an awareness of the possibility of decay over time in the instrumentsand the need to edit these study instruments and methods to suit theparameters of the current study site.

Overall Study Limitations

Measuring people’s use of a public library has several problems. Library use isnot consistent across days, weeks,months, or the course of a year, but patternsof use are often evident in library user statistics. The amount of library usageindicated by the data collected at this library system over a period of 10 weekswas dependent on the time of year in which the study was conducted. Becausethe branch libraries in the study served as early voting locations during the2008 presidential election, data collection was suspended during what mighthave been a period of very atypical library use.

Because this study replicated previous work and used an existing studydesign and instruments, limitations in the study instruments were evident.May (2007) discussed the limitations of the questionnaire she had uncovered,noting that it asks library visitors about their use of electronic libraryresources without defining the term. During the unobtrusive observationperiod – the seating sweeps – people using library computers were noted butthey were not asked what use – research, communication, games, socialnetworking, or other recreational uses – they were making of the computers.Any system restrictions placed on specific computers were noted. People atthese computers were counted by type of computer being used but the studydesign did not allow for enough specificity to determine what people weredoing while using library computers.

Given and Leckie (2003) note that observations made during seatingsweeps are limited to what people are doing at a given moment. They do notexplain why people are behaving as observed. Any understanding of whypeople are doing what they do at the library is only possible throughtriangulation of the results of all the data collection methods. As previouslydiscussed, seating sweeps appear to be more reliable when used in largersettings. For this study some kind of time lapse observation that tracedlibrary users’ movements through the library may have provided a betterrepresentation of library use than that provided by the seating sweeps.


Finally, this study does not provide a comprehensive profile of howGadsden County’s adult citizens use their libraries. It does not address ortrack use of library resources outside the physical library locations. Thisstudy focused on the public, physical, social spaces of Gadsden County’snew public library buildings and only recorded and analyzed the activities ofadults physically in the libraries. The study did not address the ways peopleunder age 18 use the library as place except as noted during the seatingsweeps portion of the study and obliquely through the observations adultlibrary users offered during their interviews.

Implications of the Study for Practice

This study demonstrates that many adult public library users value theirlibraries as familiarized locales that are an important part of their daily orweekly routines. Adult library users also value their relationships withlibrary public service staff members, but they don’t see these relationships associal. These relationships appear to fit the pattern of intimate secondaryrelationships (Lofland, 1998) and the concept seems to have strong relevancewhen applied to public libraries – it appears to provide a context forunderstanding library user to staff relationships that are grounded in theinterpersonal exchanges that inform people’s many reasons for visitingpublic libraries. Reading, borrowing books, audio and video recordings, andquestions related to computer use are often the subjects of the conversa-tions, but many social pleasantries are exchanged at the same time. Informalinformation exchanges also take place during these conversations. Morepeople reported talking to staff members at the branches than did at themain library and some of the terms people used frequently to describe thestaff included friendly and helpful. The relationships library users build withlibrary staff members over time appear to be equally as important to theusers as the features of the new buildings, but the relationships are notthe main reasons people visit the libraries.

The Gadsden County public libraries are not third places for their adultusers. Gadsden County’s adult library users value their public librariesas community resources and places that support all types of educationalgoals, including both formal education and lifelong learning. The librariesfunction equally as informational places and communication centers thatprovide Internet access, as much as they are places that provide access toentertainment materials and support all types of book and reading-relatedactivities. They are places where people come to get out of the weather and

LINDA R. MOST132

to relax, but they are not places people come for what the people themselvesconsider to be social activities.

Study participants reported that the Internet service these libraries provide isthe only Internet access available to some community members. As one studyparticipant said, ‘‘Not everybody has a computer at home.’’ Internet access atthe public libraries has allowed communitymemberswhowould not otherwisebe able to attend college to take online classes, and the libraries accommodatetheir needs by providing extended Internet access time during their classsessions. Providing public Internet access is crucial to community members,but thebehavior patterns some libraryusers exhibitwhenaccessing the Internetis very different than that of people who use other library resources. Theirintense focus on the screen in front of them can lead to the hollowing out of theplace where they are physically located. The Internet users’ deep focus on theworld to which they are connected via computers can change the library’sambience from one that encourages public social interaction and sense ofcommunity to one where some of the people are physically present but‘‘psychologically evacuated’’ (Nomads at last, April 12, 2008, p. 10).

Gadsden County’s public libraries facilitate a touch of cosmopolitanismand provide enrichment to their small communities in several ways: throughlibrary programming that features authors and speakers from the region orthe state; by welcoming visitors from outside the county; and by providingaccess to the larger world through computers, books, videos, and programs.Library users as a group seem supportive of the opportunities the libraryprogramming provides. They are also supportive of the way the libraries’public meeting rooms are used by other community members.

The Gadsden County public libraries may be the only places countyresidents and visitors of different backgrounds, religious beliefs, race, oreducational level can come together without being on one or anothergroup’s turf. As one staff member explained, a member of a Baptist churchmight not want to attend a caregiver’s respite group meeting held in aCatholic church, but would be very willing to attend the same meeting withthe same people if it was being held on unaffiliated public ground at thepublic library. The library meeting rooms add an important dimension tothe way this county perceives the libraries as place.

Future Research Directions

Findings indicate that the library users in this study considered theirongoing, library-based, public realm, intimate secondary relationships with


library staff members as important aspects of their library visits. Furtherinvestigation into the nature and intensity of the relationships betweenlibrary users and library staff members and their importance to library usersin other sizes of public libraries would contribute much to understandinghow people use public libraries as place and what they value about theirlibrary visits.

This study supports Fisher et al.’s (2007) emerging concept of publiclibraries as informational places where people come when they have aninformation-related need or want to find an environment with an atmospherethat supports fulfilling information-related needs whether for educational,business, or recreational purposes. It encourages further research to testFisher et al.’s conceptualization of informational places as ‘‘comprisingall themes regarding information finding and seeking, reading, life-longlearning, learning resources, and learning environment’’ (p. 153) to expandand validate the concept.

Final Thoughts

Despite the limitations uncovered in this study’s design, it produced gooddata and reliable conclusions. Gadsden County’s library users identifiedtheir libraries as important community resources and sources of pride. Thenew libraries meet many important community needs, facilitate communitymembers’ quests to achieve personal and professional goals, and help satisfytheir needs for recreational and entertainment materials in a county withvery few other informational or recreational resources.

Using a multipart conceptual framework of theories drawn from otherintellectual disciplines offered many rich resources with which to work whenattempting to identify how Gadsden County’s adult residents use theirpublic libraries as place. Each of the theories contributed to the overallanalysis and the combined results indicate the real danger of attemptingto explain how people use public libraries by relying on just one theory.Although there may be disagreement as to which theory is most relevant tocontextualizing certain data units, drawing on multiple theories permits aricher, more multilayered analysis and interpretation.

This study has shown that these small town public libraries are veryimportant places in the lives of their users. The new libraries are symbols oflife and growth in places where change comes very slowly, if at all. Theyare manifestations of residents’ belief in their communities and in a strongfuture for their citizens. They provide noncommercial public places where

LINDA R. MOST134

people can pursue their personal goals and meet their recreational andinformationalneeds.Theyarebothportals and landmarks and the communitiesthey serve are stronger in many ways because of their new public libraries.

NOTES

1. According to the 2000 census Miami-Dade County’s minority population is87.6% overall, but 57.3% Hispanic and 20.3% black or African-American. http://factfinder.census.gov/.2. A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a

micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000)population. Each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includesthe counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties thathave a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting towork) with the urban core (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).3. The Detroit Public Library’s H.Y.P.E. Center (www.detroit.lib.mi.us) and the

Enoch Pratt Free Library Student Express center (www.prattlibrary.org) inBaltimore are two examples. In each case the library building is big enough foradministrators to be able to dedicate a room to teens for their use.

REFERENCES

Aabo, S. (2005). The role and value of public libraries in the age of digital technologies. Journal

of Librarianship and Information Science, 37(4), 205–211.

Abbady, T. (2007). Broward’s Minority Population climbs to 51%, Census says. South Florida

Sun-Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale, FL], August 9. Available at www.sun-sentinel.com/

ALA breaks attendance records despite Marriott boycott. (2001). American Libraries, 32(7),

68–82, August.

Alstad, C., & Curry, A. (2003). Public space, public discourse, and public libraries. Libres:

Library and Information Science Electronic Journal, 13(1). Available at libres.curtin.edu.

au/libres12n1/pub_spce.htm

American Library Association. (2008). The state of America’s libraries. Chicago: American

Library Association, April. Available at www.ala.org/2008state

Audunson, R. (2005). The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital

context: The necessity of low-intensive meeting-places. Journal of Documentation, 61(3),

429–441.

Audunson, R. (2007a). Public libraries – arenas for citizenship: An investigation of the public

library as a meeting place in a digital and multicultural context [funded research abstract,

2007–2011]. The Research Council of Norway – Forskningsradet. Available at

www.forskningsradet.no/en/Homeþpage/1177315753906

Audunson, R. (2007b). Public libraries – arenas for citizenship: An investigation of the public

library as a meeting place in a digital and multicultural context [funded research proposal,

http://factfinder.census.gov/

http://factfinder.census.gov/

http://www.detroit.lib.mi.us

http://www.prattlibrary.org

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/

http://libres.curtin.edu.au/libres12n1/pub_spce.htm

http://libres.curtin.edu.au/libres12n1/pub_spce.htm

http://www.ala.org/2008state

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Home+page/1177315753906





2007–2011]. Oslo University College, Faculty of Journalism, Library and Information

Science. Available at www.hio.no/enheter/avdeling_for_journalistikk_bibliotek_og_

informasjonsfag/place

Audunson, R., Varheim, A., Abo, S., & Holm, E. D. (2007). Public libraries, social capital, and

low intensive meeting places. Information Research, 12(4) paper colis20. Available at

InformationResearchR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis20.html

Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 9–24.

Battles, D. M. (2009). The history of public library access for African Americans in the South: Or,

leaving behind the plow. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

[BEBR] Bureau of Economic and Business Research. (2007). Florida county perspective:

Gadsden. Gainesville, FL: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of

Florida.

[BEBR] Bureau of Economic and Business Research. (2009). Estimates of population by county

and city in Florida: April 1, 2009. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Available at

www.bebr.ufl.edu/files/2009_Population_Estimates_Table01_1.pdf

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Langa, L. A., & McClure, C. R. (2006a). Drafted: I want you to

deliver e-government. Library Journal, 131(13), 34–37.

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Langa, L. A., & McClure, C. R. (2006b). Public access computing

and Internet access in public libraries: The role of public libraries in e-government and

emergency situations. First Monday, 11(9). Available at firstmonday.org/isuses/issue11_

9/bertot/index.html

Boggs, C. (2002). Social capital as political fantasy. In: S. L. McLean, D. A. Schultz &

M. B. Steger (Eds), Social capital: Critical perspectives on community and ‘‘bowling

alone’’ (pp. 183–202). New York: New York University Press.

Bourke, C. (2005). Public libraries: Building social capital through networking. Australasian

Public Libraries and Information Services, 18(2), 71–75 (June).

Burnett, G., & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). Small worlds, life worlds, and information: The

ramifications of the information behaviors of social groups in public policy and the

public sphere. Information Research, 13(2): Paper 346, June. Available at informationr.

net/ir/13-2/paper346.html

Buschman, J. E. (2003). Dismantling the public sphere: Situating and sustaining librarianship in

the age of the new public philosophy. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Buschman, J. E. (2004). Staying public: The real crisis in librarianship: As libraries grow more

entrepreneurial their change of focus is dismantling the public sphere. American

Libraries, 35(7), 40–43.

Buschman, J. E. (2005a). Libraries and the decline of public purposes. Public Library Quarterly,

24(1), 1–12.

Buschman, J. E. (2005b). On libraries and the public sphere. Library Philosophy and Practice,

7(2), 1–8. Available at libr.unl.edu:2000/LPP/lppv7n2.htm

Buschman, J. E., & Leckie, G. J. (Eds). (2007). The library as place: History, community, and

culture. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In: C. Calhoun (Ed.),

Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cart, M. (2002). America’s front porch – the public library. Public Library Quarterly, 21(1),

3–21.

http://www.hio.no/enheter/avdeling_for_journalistikk_bibliotek_og_informasjonsfag/place

http://www.hio.no/enheter/avdeling_for_journalistikk_bibliotek_og_informasjonsfag/place

http://InformationResearchR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis20.html

http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/files/2009_Population_Estimates_Table01_1.pdf

http://firstmonday.org/isuses/issue11_9/bertot/index.html

http://firstmonday.org/isuses/issue11_9/bertot/index.html

http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper346.html

http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper346.html

http://libr.unl.edu:2000/LPP/lppv7n2.htm

LINDA R. MOST136

Center for Public Education. (2008). School demographics: What is the poverty level of our

schools? [Research and practice]. Available at www.centerforpubliceducation.org/

[CSRL] Center for Small and Rural Libraries. (n.d.). Defining ‘rural’ (and small) libraries.

Clarion College. Available at jupiter.clarion.edu/Bcsrl/definition.htm. Accessed on

January 19, 2008.

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Curry, A. D., Dunbar, E. G., & Marshall, D. (2004, June 18). Public library branch design: The

public speaks! [conference presentation], June 18. Available at www.slais.ubc.ca/

RESEARCH/current-research/AC_Final_June23.ppt

Dart, B. (2007). Census finds 6 ‘majority-minority’ counties in Florida. Cox Newspapers

Washington Bureau, Cox News Service, August 9. Available at www.coxwashington.

com

Fidishun, D. (2007). Women and the public library: Using technology, using the library. Library

Trends, 56(2), 328–343.

Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Fisher, K. E., Saxton, M. L., Edwards, P. M., & Mai, J. E. (2007). Seattle Public Library

as place: Reconceptualizing space, community, and information at the central library.

In: J. E. Buschman & G. J. Leckie (Eds), The library as place: History, community, and

culture (pp. 135–160). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Fister, B. (2006). Reading as a contact sport. Alaska Library Association Annual Conference,

February. Available at homepages.gac.edu/%7efister/reading.html

Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually

existing democracy. In: C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gadsden County Public Library. (2008) [blog]. Retrieved from http://www.gcpls.blogspot.com/

Given, L., & Leckie, G. J. (2003). ‘‘Sweeping’’ the library: Mapping the social activity space of

the public library. Library and Information Science Research, 25, 365–385.

Goulding, A. (2004). Libraries and social capital [editorial]. Journal of Librarianship and

Information Science, 36(1), 3–6.

Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere (1964) [reprint of an encyclopedia article]. New German

Critique, 3, 49–55, Autumn (S. Lennox & F. Lennox, Trans.).

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a

category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press (original work published 1962).

Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Harris, K. (2003). Your third place or mine? Public Library Journal, 18(2), 26–29.

Harris, C. (2007). Libraries with lattes: The new third place. Australasian Public Libraries and

Information Services, 20(4), 145–152.

Harris, K. (2003). Your third place or mine?. Public Library Journal, 18(2), 26–29.

Henderson, E., Miller, K., Craig, T., Dorinski, S., Freeman, M., Isaac, N., Keng, J., O’Shea, P.,

& Schilling, P. (2010). Public libraries survey: Fiscal year 2008 (IMLS-2010–PLS-02).

Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Heritage: They knew it all along in Quincy Florida. (1988). Journey [magazine of the Coca-Cola

Company], 24–27, February.

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/

http://jupiter.clarion.edu/~csrl/definition.htm

http://www.slais.ubc.ca/RESEARCH/current-research/AC_Final_June23.ppt

http://www.slais.ubc.ca/RESEARCH/current-research/AC_Final_June23.ppt

http://www.coxwashington.com

http://www.coxwashington.com

http://homepages.gac.edu/%7efister/reading.html

http://www.gadsdengov.net/library.html


Hersberger, J. A., Sua, L., & Murray, A. L. (2007). The fruit and root of the community: The

Greensboro Carnegie Negro Library, 1904–1964. In: J. E. Buschmann & G. J. Leckie

(Eds), The library as place: History, community, and culture (pp. 79–100). Westport, CT:

Libraries Unlimited.

Hillenbrand, C. (2005a). Public libraries as developers of social capital. Australasian Public

Libraries and Information Services, 18(1), 4–12.

Hillenbrand, C. (2005b). A place for all: Social capital at theMount Barker Community Library,

South Australia. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 18(2), 41–60.

Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In:

A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral

research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kranich, N. (2001). Libraries create social capital. Library Journal, 126(19), 40–42.

(November 15).

Lawson, K. (2004). Libraries in the USA as traditional and virtual ‘‘third places’’. New Library

World, 105(3/4), 125–130.

Leach, E., Jr. (2004). Rural library survey summary report, part 1. Chicago, IL: American

Library Association. Available at www.ala.org/ala/olos/outreachresource/docs/ruratf_-

surveysumpt1.pdf

Leckie, G. J. (2004). Three perspectives on libraries as public space. Feliciter [Journal of the

Canadian Library Association], 50(6), 233–236.

Leckie, G. J., & Hopkins, J. (2002). The public place of central libraries: Findings from Toronto

and Vancouver. Library Quarterly, 72(3), 326–372.

Libraries connect communities: Public library funding & technology access study, 2007–2008.

Principal Investigators: D. M. Davis, J. C. Bertot, C. R. McClure & L. Clark (Eds),

Chicago: American Library Association.

Lofland, L. H. (1998). The public realm: Exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. New

York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1967). Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Social

Problems, 15, 236–249.

May, F. (2007). Libraries as public space: Patterns of use in Nova Scotia public libraries. Master’s

thesis. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (AAT MR26876).

May, F. (2009). In the words of the users: The role of the urban public library as place. In:

Libraries as space and place: Proceedings of the pre-congress satellite for the IFLA World

Library and Information Congress, Turin, Italy, 19–21 August 2009. Available at

www.ifla2009.it/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Final.May.pdf

May, F., & Black, F. (2010). The life of the space: Evidence from Nova Scotia public libraries.

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 5(2). Available at: www.ejournals.

library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/6497

McKenzie, P. J., Prigoda, E. M., Clement, K., & McKechnie, L. E. F. (2007). Behind the

program room door: The creation of parochial and private women’s realms in a

Canadian public library. In: J. E. Buschmann & G. J. Leckie (Eds), The library as place:

History, community, and culture (pp. 117–134). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People’s Park, definitions of the public, and

democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108–113.

Mock, J. (2008). A brief overview of the [Gadsden County Public] library including a historical

perspective, mission, goals and objectives of the library [unpublished narrative].

Nomads at last. (2008). The Economist [A special report on mobility]. 387(8575), 1–18, April 12.

http://www.gcpls.blogspot.com/

http://www.gcpls.blogspot.com/

http://www.ala.org/ala/olos/outreachresource/docs/ruratf_surveysumpt1.pdf

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/Long_Overdue.pdf

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/Long_Overdue.pdf

LINDA R. MOST138

Oder, N. (2006). How’d you come out. Library Journal, 131(10), 38–42 (June 1).

[OMB] Office of Management and Budget. (2007). Update of statistical area definitions and

guidance on their uses. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2007/b07-

01.pdf

Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons,

and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe & Co.

Oldenburg, R. (Ed.) (2001). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the ‘‘Great Good

Places’’ at the heart of our communities. New York: Marlowe & Co.

Osburn, C. B. (2007). Regaining place. Advances in Library Administration and Organization, 24,

53–90.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual

Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Preer, J. (2001). Where are libraries in Bowling Alone. American Libraries, 32(8), 60–62

(September).

Proctor, B. D. (n.d.). Poverty. [U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division and Housing and

Household Economic Statistics Division.] rev. January 18, 2001. Available at

www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/poverty.html

Public Agenda. (2006). Long overdue: A fresh look at public and leadership attitudes about

libraries in the 21st century. Public Agenda, New York. Available at www.publicagenda.

org/files/pdf/Long_Overdue.pdf

Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American

Prospect, 13, 35–42.

Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of

Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in

America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(4), 664–683.

Putnam, R. D. (1996a). The strange disappearance of civic America, American Prospect, 24(15),

34–48.

Putnam, R. D. (1996b). Robert Putnam responds. American Prospect, 25, 17.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L. M., & Cohen, D. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American

community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ross, C. S., McKechnie, L. E. F., & Rothbauer, P. M. (2006). Reading matters: What the

research reveals about reading, libraries, and community. Westport, CT: Libraries

Unlimited.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Shoham, S. (2001). Users and uses of the public library reading rooms. Public Library

Quarterly, 20(4), 33–48.

Sorkin, M. (Ed.) (1992). Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public

space. New York: Hill and Wang.

State Library & Archives of Florida. (2008). 2007 Florida library directory with statistics.

Available at dlis.dos.state.fl.us/bld/research_office/2007LibraryDirectory/index.cfm

Strauss, A., & Corbin, C. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

http://www.ifla2009.it/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Final.May.pdf

http://www.ifla2009.it/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Final.May.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2007/b07-01.pdf

http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/poverty.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/poverty.html

http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/bld/research_office/2007LibraryDirectory/index.cfm


Tucker, J. M. (Ed.) (1998). Untold stories: Civil rights, libraries and black librarianship. Urbana-

Champaign, IL: Illinois University at Urbana Champaign, Graduate School of Library

and Information Science.

Urban Libraries Council. (2007). Making cities stronger: Public library contributions to local

economic development. Available at www.urbanlibraries.org/files/making_cities_

stronger.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, April 4. Available

at www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html

[USDA ERS] U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2003a).Measuring

rurality: 2004 county typology codes. Available at www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/

Typology/

[USDA ERS] U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2003b).

Measuring rurality: 2004 rural-urban continuum codes. Available at www.ers.usda.gov/

Briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbCon/

Van Slyck, A. A. (1995). Free to all: Carnegie libraries & American culture, 1890–1920. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Varheim, A. (2007). Social capital and public libraries: The need for research. Library &

Information Science Research, 29, 416–428.

Warren, R. L. (1978). The community in America (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of

America.

Webster, F. (2002). Information management and manipulation: Jurgen Habermas and the

concept of the public sphere. In: F. Webster (Ed.), Theories of the information society

(2nd ed., pp. 161–201). New York: Routledge.

Wiegand, W. A. (2000). American library history literature, 1947–1997: Theoretical

perspectives?. Libraries & Culture, 35(1), 4–34 (Winter).

Wiegand, W. A. (2003). To reposition a research agenda: What American Studies can teach

the LIS community about the library in the life of the user. Library Quarterly, 73(4),

369–373.

Wiegand, W. A. (2005a). Library as place. North Carolina Libraries (Online), 63(3/4), 76–81,

Fall/Winter. Available at www.nclaonline.org/NCL/ncl/NCL_63_3-4_Fall-Winter

2005.pdf

Wiegand, W. A. (2005b). On the social nature of reading. In: D. Herald & W. Wiegand (Eds),

Genreflecting (6th ed.). Prepublication online June 15. Available at www.lu.com/ranews/

June2005/wiegand.cfm

Williamson, M. (2000). Social exclusion and the public library: A Habermasian insight. Journal

of Librarianship and Information Science, 32(4), 178–186.

Wilson, A. (1992). The culture of nature: North American landscape from Disney to the Exxon

Valdez. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Wooden, R. A. (2006). The future of public libraries in an Internet age. National Civic Review,

95(4), 3–7(Winter).

Yin, R. K. (2003).Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zukin, S. (1995). The culture of cities. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Zweizig, D. L. (1973). Predicting amount of library use: An empirical study of the role of the

public library in the life of the adult public. Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University,

Syracuse, NY.

Zweizig, D. L. (1976). With our eye on the user: Needed research for information and referral in

the public library. Drexel Library Quarterly, 12, 48–58.

http://www.talgov.com/planning/pdf/support/statdgst06.pdf

http://www.talgov.com/planning/pdf/support/statdgst06.pdf

http://www.urbanlibraries.org/files/making_cities_stronger.pdf

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbCon/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbCon/

http://www.nclaonline.org/NCL/ncl/NCL_63_3-4_Fall-Winter2005.pdf

http://www.nclaonline.org/NCL/ncl/NCL_63_3-4_Fall-Winter2005.pdf

LINDA R. MOST140

APPENDIX A. LIBRARY USER SURVEY

Hello, Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this survey.Please answer each question to the best of your knowledge. Please tryto answer all the questions but if you would like to skip a question youmay. Please return your completed survey to the survey return box at theinformation desk.

PART I. About Your Library Visits

1) Where do you live? (Please circle one)ChattahoocheeGreensboroGretnaHavanaMidwayQuincyOther: please specify __________________

2) How long does it take you to travel from your home to this library byyour usual means of transportation? (Please circle one)

Under 15min 15–30min 30–60min 1–2 h more than 2 h

3) How long do you typically stay at this library? (Please circle one)

Under 30min 30–60min 1–2 h 2–4 h 4–6 h Over 6 h

4) On average, how often have you visited this library during the pasttwelve months? (Please circle one)

Once a week Two or Once a Once every A few times Once
or more three times
a month
month other
month
a year (today)
5) What day or days of the week do you usually visit this library? (Pleasecircle all that apply)

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Friday
Saturday Sunday


6) What time of day do you usually visit the library? (Please circle one)

Morning Afternoon Evening Don’t Know
(before noon) (Noon – 5:00) (After 5:00)
7) What hours do you prefer the library to be open? (Please circle one)

Morning Afternoon Evening Don’t Know
(before noon) (Noon – 5:00) (After 5:00)
8) How many people usually come with you to this library? (Please circleone)

None: go to question 9 One other person Two or more people

If one or more other people usually come with you to the library, are theyprimarily: (please circle all that apply)

a. Friends
b. Relatives c. Co-workers d. Other
9) Will you be visiting any stores or services near the library today?___Yes___No___Don’t know

PART II. How You Use This Library

10) Without this library, how would your life change? (Please circle oneanswer)

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all
Very Little Somewhat Considerably Major impact
11) Why do you use this library rather than other libraries? Please explainin your own words:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(You may continue on the back of this page if you need more room.)

LINDA R. MOST142

12) Doyouborrowmaterials fromotherGadsdenCountyLibrary locations?___ Yes ___ No

If yes, which locations? Please specify: __________________________

13) Do you borrow materials from libraries other than Gadsden CountyLibrary System libraries?___ Yes ___ No

If yes, which libraries? Please specify: ___________________________

14) Why did you come to this library today? (Please circle themost importantreason and check any others that may apply with a check mark):___a. Use public meeting room___b. Use children’s services___c. Browse___d. Borrow/return materials for myself___e. Borrow/return materials for others (children, family, friends)___f. Consume food/drinks___g. Look for information on a subject___h. Meet a friend___i. View art work, displays, bulletin boards___j. Obtain help from library staff___k. Read___l. Study in library with own materials___m. Use photocopiers___n. Use microfiche/film___o. Use CD ROMs___p. Use the on-line catalog___q. Use the Internet___r. Use electronic databases___s. Use e-mail___t. Other: Please explain here: __________________________________________________________________________________________

15) When you visit this library, how often do you use electronic resources(e.g., the Internet, on-line catalog, CD-ROMS, electronic databases)?Please circle one:

1 2 3 4 5

Always
Usually Sometimes Rarely Never


16) Please rank the importance to you of electronic resources in thislibrary (e.g., the Internet, on-line catalog, CD-ROMS, electronicdatabases). Please circle one:

1 2 3 4 5

Unimportant
SomewhatImportant
Important
VeryImportant
ExtremelyImportant –Crucial

17) Do you ever bring a laptop computer with you to use in this library?___ Yes ___ No

18) Do you ever bring in any other electronic equipment with you in thislibrary (e.g., cell phone, digital scanner)___Yes ___ No

If yes, please specify: _________________________________________

19) How user-friendly is this library? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

Extremely user-friendly

Very user-friendly

User-friendly
Only a little bituser-friendly
Not user-friendly

20) Do you ever talk to the library staff when you come here?___ Yes ___ No

If yes, what do you talk to them about? ______________________________________________________________________________________

21) Please circle the single MOST important service this library provides:(Please circle only one)a. Access to technologyb. A place to readc. A place to socialized. Community eventse. Community informationf. Life-long learning (educational support)g. Personal study (homework, research, etc)h. Provides fiction/literature (for recreational reading)i. Reference and information servicesj. Other: please specify ______________________________________

LINDA R. MOST144

22) Please circle the single LEAST important service this library provides:(Please circle only one)a. Access to technologyb. A place to readc. A place to socialized. Community eventse. Community informationf. Life-long learning (educational support)g. Personal study (homework, research, etc)h. Provides fiction/literature (for recreational reading)i. Reference and information servicesj. Other: please specify ______________________________________

23) Do you ever use this library’s non-English language materials?___ Yes ___ No

24) Do you ever use this library as a place to meet tutors?___ Yes ___ No

If yes, what kind of tutoring?___ English as a second language___ Homework help___ New reader/Literacy___ Other, please explain:_____________________________________

25) What other services or resources would you like to see introducedhere: _______________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________(you may continue on the back of this page if you need more room)

26) Before this library was built did you use the old library?___ Yes ___ No

If you answered yes, do you use this library differently than the oldlibrary?___Yes ___ No ____ Don’t know

27) What is the ONE BEST feature of this library: ___________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


28) What is the ONE WORST feature of this library: ________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

29) What words do you think best describe the physical space of thislibrary? (Please circle all that apply)

Attractive
Modern OTHER WORDS YOUTHINK DESCRIBE THISLIBRARY: please write in
this column

Badly Designed
Needs Renovation
Bright
Quiet
Clean
Unattractive
Comfortable
Uncomfortable
Crowded
Unfriendly
Dark
User Friendly
Dirty
Well Designed
Friendly
Loud
Lots of Space

30) What is your favorite location or place in this library: ____________

____________________________________________________________

31) In your opinion, what is the PRIMARY purpose of this library: ____

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

32) Please add any additional comments you wish to make (you may writeon the back of this form if you need more space)

LINDA R. MOST146

Please tell us your thoughts about the following features of thislibrary.

Use the following scale to rate the features by circling the best numberfor each feature

1¼ very 2¼ 3¼ 4¼ 5¼ 0¼

unsatisfactory u
nsatisfactory N eutral S atisfactory E xcellent D on’t know
Features: circle one

number for each

feature

R
ating: R easons for
your answer?

OUTSIDE:

Parking
1 2 3 4 5 0
Walkways and

other pedestrian

space

1 2
3 4 5 0
Building Entrance
1 2 3 4 5 0
Signs Outside
1 2 3 4 5 0
Book Return
1 2 3 4 5 0
Landscaping/

Lawn/Benches

(If appropriate)

1 2
3 4 5 0
INSIDE:

Lights
1 2 3 4 5 0
Windows
1 2 3 4 5 0
Signs Inside
1 2 3 4 5 0
Colors
1 2 3 4 5 0
Tables/Study

Carrels

1 2
3 4 5 0
Seating
1 2 3 4 5 0
Children’s Area
1 2 3 4 5 0
Arrangement/

organization of

the library

1 2
3 4 5 0
Please use the back of this page to write more about

PART III: Library User Profile

33) Sex:____ Male ____ Female

34) Age Category (please circle one):

18–24
25–34 35–44 45–54 55–65 Over 65


35) Highest level of educational attainment: (Please circle one)a. Elementary schoolb. Some high schoolc. High school diplomad. Some university or collegee. University or college degree/diplomaf. Some post-graduate university studyg. University post-graduate degree

36) Languages spoken (Please check all that apply)___ English___ Spanish___ Other(s): List here

37) Primary Occupation (please circle one):

a. Student: High College Other: please

b. Unemployed

c. Retired

d. Homemaker

e. Professional (e.g., lawyer,

accountant, psychologist)

f. Management/Administrative (e.g.,

store or office manager)

g. Artistic/Literacy (e.g., writer,

journalist)

h. Clerical/Retail (e.g. secretary,

sales person)

i. Technical (e.g. electrician,

computer repair)

j. Unskilled Labor (e.g., food server,

cashier)

k. Skilled Labor (e.g. carpenter,

hairstylist)

l. Other: Please specify

______________________

School
University explain__________
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Please deposit your completed survey form in the survey box at theInformation Desk.

If you wish to enter to win a $25 Wal-Mart gift card please fill out the lastpage and return it in the ‘‘Survey Contest’’ box at the Information Desk.

LINDA R. MOST148

Please submit only one survey!

OPTIONAL Gift Certificate Drawing Entry Form

If you choose, you may leave your name and telephone number to enter towin a $25 gift card for Wal-Mart

Name:________________________________

Telephone Number: _____________________

Please detach this page from your survey, fold it in half, and put it in theSurvey Contest box at the Information Desk.

Thank you very much again for completing the survey.

APPENDIX B. LIBRARY USER INTERVIEW

QUESTIONS

Sex: Male Female

Age: under 30 30–60 Over 60

1) What do you think of this library building?Prompts: well designed, hard to find things, bright, dark, comfortable

2) What do you think of the space around the library and the location?Prompts: attractive, dirty, easy to find, too much traffic

3) What is the best feature of this library building?

4) What is the worst feature of this library building?

5) Where is your favorite location or place in this library?

6) Is there another library you prefer to use?Yes/No, If yes: Why do you prefer the other library?

7) Why did you come to the library today?Prompts: to borrow/return materials, read, study, attend a program,find information, use the computer

8) What have you used the library for in the past month?Prompts: to borrow/return materials, study, read, attend a program,find information, use the computer


9) What do you think about how people use this library?Prompts: to socialize, meet friends, study, bring children

10) Can you describe any ways you’ve seen people use this library (eithergood or not so good) that have surprised you?

Thank you very much for your participation!

Here is an entry form for the drawing for a Wal-Mart gift card as a thankyou for participating in this interview. If you would like to enter the drawingplease complete this form and place it in the gift-card box at the front desk.

Date post:	27-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	janine
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

[Advances in Library Administration and Organization] Advances in Library Administration and...

Documents