Tag: Care Work

Twenty years ago, Cathy de Rosa—the head of marketing for OCLC at the time—identified two significant core themes of perception around library services: the library as a trusted information resource but also the need for increased self-service (De Rosa et al., 2005, p. ix; Stephens, n.d.). These themes continue to be identified as key components for libraries to strive for as services necessary for citizens and their welfare are becoming increasingly digitized (Rebergen et al., 2025). Taxes, banking, healthcare, billing, pay, legal, and other services necessary for life are increasing their virtual presence, however this shift does not necessarily improve ease of access for all people (Moore, 2019; van Holstein et al., 2021).

Libraries and library staff are uniquely poised to be a bridge between members of their local community and resources they require access to (Kenney, 2014). By serving as digital care workers—paraprofessionals possessing technical literacy skills and sensitive communication skills—library staff can reduce issues of digital inaccessibility while simultaneously teaching life-long skills. As Kaun and Forsman (2024) have stated, “Digital care work by librarians is essential for certain members of society to effectively participate in most social welfare services” (p. 3761).

Dohe (2019) expands on this idea of librarians as care workers through comparing the expectations of library service with Tronto’s ethics of care: responsibility, attentiveness, competence, and responsiveness (Tronto, 2012). Effective librarians reduce barriers to access, especially in the digital realm, by using these skills related to care. By employing “code switching” they can function as interpreters for patrons who feel stuck by technological barriers related to both physical access and disconnects in technical literacy (Dohe, 2019).

Combining digital care work with self-service tools enables patrons to fulfill their needs in conjunction with offering the most concern for their privacy. A survey conducted at Baltimore County Public Library revealed that 83.8% of patrons recognized the importance of privacy when utilizing library services, and 93.8% of surveyed patrons were satisfied with the level of privacy that the library enabled them through self-service options (Sigwald, 2016). Self-service tools such as automated computer labs, printers and copy machines, catalog terminals and self-checkouts, material reservation systems without full patron names, and after-hours access are just a few ways to encourage patron accessibility while preserving their privacy and autonomy.

Many libraries have these functions and more, and Marina Neshcheret (2022), a lead researcher at the Russian State Library in Moscow, has identified many library systems across seven countries and seven states in the United States that have established self-service libraries, some of which are entirely automated. However, many library systems still lack autonomy and privacy. A survey conducted in 2018 revealed that a staggering 96% of responding libraries in the state of Maine did not provide self-service holds, and required patrons to interact with staff to place and/or retrieve these holds through a library staff member (Wing, 2019).

Despite some library systems not having the capabilities to offer autonomy across all their services, this once again drives the point that compassionate library staff are essential to provide supportive spaces for their patrons (Kenney, 2014). Kaun and Forsman (2024) reflect on this balance of utilizing public tools with the assistance: “Librarians are caregivers not only because the library is a place for people to develop skills but also because care or caring in the service of someone else precisely involves emotions and uncertainty” (p. 3758).

The work of these scholars emphasizes the importance of the human element in our ever-more digitized world. While libraries may be houses of information, more importantly they are community centers where people of all backgrounds can access essential digital services and receive assistance from staff who provide the vital function of care work at their core.

---

References

Concepts in Millwork. (2024, December 10). Douglas County Library-Lone Tree [image]. https://conceptsinmillwork.com/our-project/douglas-county-library-lone-tree/

De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Cellentani, D., Hawk, J., Jenkins, L., & Wilson, A. (2005). Perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC membership. OCLC Online Computer Library Center. https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/reports/pdfs/Percept_all.pdf

Dohe, K. (2019, February 20). Care, code, and digital libraries: Embracing critical practice in digital library communities. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2019/digital-libraries-critical-practice-in-communities/

fritsdejong. (2016, October 9). Tu Delft University [image]. Pixabay. https://pixabay.com/photos/tu-delft-university-library-1723434/

Kaun, A., & Forsman, M. (2024). Digital care work at public libraries: Making Digital First possible. New Media & Society, 26(7), 3751–3766. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221104234

Kenney, B. (2014, January 27). The user is (still) not broken. PublishersWeekly.com. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/60780-the-user-is-still-not-broken.html

Moore, S. (2019). Digital government, public participation and service transformation: the impact of virtual courts. Policy and Politics, 47(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15586039367509

Neshcheret, M. Y. (2022). Library user as self-librarian: Self-service in libraries. Bibliotekovedenie, 71(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.25281/0869-608X-2022-71-3-265-275

Rebergen, M., Swart J., & Broersma, M. (2025). Directing digital citizenship: How librarians mediate the Dutch digital welfare state. Social Inclusion, 13(0). https://doi.org/10.17645/si.9949

Rodgers, J. (2019, January 9). Colorado Springs library hires social worker to help homeless visitors [image]. Colorado Springs Gazette. https://gazette.com/2019/01/09/colorado-springs-library-hires-social-worker-to-help-homeless-visitors-ad5fd9aa-0eb6-11e9-a86f-cf86ae1fee66/

Sigwald, R. (2016). Self-service customer service models in libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 56(4), 453–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2016.1157429

Stephens, M. (n.d.). “Historic” Hyperlinked Library Model

. https://sjsu-ischool.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=a0569381-4d66-4e0a-a7fa-aab3010a8f3e

Tronto, J. (2012). Partiality based on relational responsibilities: Another approach to global ethics. Ethics and Social Welfare 6(3), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2012.704058

van Holstein, E., Wiesel, I., Bigby, C., & Gleeson, B. (2021). People with intellectual disability and the digitization of services. Geoforum, 119, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.12.022

Wing, K. (2019). Use of self-service holds in Maine public libraries. Public Library Quarterly (New York, N.Y.), 38(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2018.1548895