Librarians

The role of the librarian is highly relevant to the discussion of the changing informational interface since librarians are the interactional face of the library system for patrons. Despite the passage of time, librarians are often still imagined as authoritarian figures who yielded or denied material access to patrons or enforced strict institutional policies on silence (Wiegand 2015, 120) or as the happy, almost always female, educator (Leigh 1950, 25). In the 1940s and 50s, The American Library Association asked The Social Science Research Council to conduct an extensive examination of how libraries were used and what roles librarians had within them. Three assumed functions of librarians were listed: Maintain the physical collection to promote citizenship and enhance personal lives, be a source of accurate information, and offer opportunities for continuous education (Bryan 1952, 5). In the 1980s, Abbot, in his survey of a variety of professions, included giving access to entertainment (Abbott 1988, 217). While this last one was not stressed in the more recent handbooks for librarians (Prentice 2011, de la Peña McCook 2011), the majority of the collection at the neighborhood branch I observed was fiction and included movies, music, and fishing poles. While fishing poles may seem a little odd, they are actually part of a movement of libraries across the country finding new ways to reach out to patrons. Other libraries loan out board games, devices to check electrical connections in power outlets, and various other non-book materials that patrons may want or need. The main branch in Chicago also offers board games and puzzles to play or complete while in the library. This suggests that technology and a widening idea of what resources can be made available to patrons is not fundamentally changing the idea of a library as a space where all are welcome. These past evaluative frameworks suggest that, despite a significant passage of time, the essential idea of the purpose of libraries, and thus their staff and some elements of the institutional character, perseveres.

The Patrons

To begin unpacking the chronotopes involved in the public library, it helps to break down the categories the Chicago Public Library system currently uses and the implicit expectations of users in each group. The public library formally divides its patrons into three major age categories, and allocates resources and imagines identities accordingly: Adults, which the library generally defines as those over 18, Children, who are under 14, and Teens, who are 14-18. The creation of a teen-specific subset of patronage is a relatively recent development in Chicago and throughout public library discourse. In consequence, funding and human resources originally allocated to the broad category of children aged 0-18 was divided between the two departments. Children are supposed to learn academic skills like reading and socializing, following the skills-focused pattern of technology classes that one of the librarians sought to implement. Teens, in this particular branch, are largely left out of branch-programming. Adults are often discussed in terms of seeking further education for themselves through online and in-library resources like librarian-lead classes or through books and library computers.

Adults – Adults showed the highest diversity in ways of using the library space and technology within the library. They are the clearest example of the ways that different people inhabit different technological presents. Presents in this sense acknowledging that there are multiple ways of living with current technology: some brought their own laptops, smart phones, or music players while others used library computers. The primary space for adults to spend significant periods of time was a reading room which visually evoked the reading rooms of years past and seemed to maintain similar standards of behavior. In photos of the original organization of the branch, this room had long tables that stretched the length of the room and dominated the space (City of Chicago 2010). Over 110 years later, long tables still dominate the space; only shelves and a dozen computers have been added along the walls and parallel to the tables. This room also offered a prime viewing opportunity of the ways different groups use the library space; use patterns which, in my observations, seemed to follow racial and age lines.

Across from me in one fairly typical observation session was a black man, probably in his late 40s to early 50s, wearing two small gold rings, one on each ring finger, a NY sports-team sweatshirt whose logo I could not make out, and glasses. He had a laptop in front of him with a wireless mouse, a yellow pad of steno paper, a laminated sheet of paper, and white earbud headphones. He sat down at the table not long after me, opened his computer and never got up for the two hours I was there. Down the table from him was an older Asian man, maybe in his sixties, with thinning black hair. He was also there for quite a while, at least an hour and half, quietly reading a book or newspaper of some sort which, from my chosen seat, was obscured behind the other man’s laptop.

Facing the walls was a set of library computers where people circulated more frequently. Patrons could access the library computers by using their library card to login to the terminal for up to two one hour sessions a day. People came, logged on, and spent anywhere from 20 minutes to two hours doing various things. There was a young black woman, probably in her late twenties, who sat down at one of the computers half an hour after I arrived, leaning against her purse. One computer over from her sat an older Asian woman wearing a brown sweatshirt. The one time she looked up, it appeared she was reading a webpage with Chinese or Japanese characters on it. People were not just using the computers or tables as a workspace, but also as a space to relax, watch a few YouTube videos, read magazines, or stay abreast of current events via the newspaper collection. This was expounded upon in my interviews with the two librarians responsible for the adult area, with one librarian explicitly pointing to a stated library goal of becoming a third space, a space between home and work. This allowed the library to expand their services beyond just providing informational resources, as a social space and a place for people to go and spend their free time pursuing entertainment or resources like the internet.

This use of the library shows how the library must contend with diversity in social space and circles divided along lines of age (an element of time) and race (social space), with more people of color and people over the age of 60 spending significantly more time in the library space. I was one of only two or three white people who sat in the room working, the other white patrons mainly standing in line to check out materials at the circulation desk. The white patrons tended to be younger, in their late twenties to early thirties, and did not seem to stay very long at the library. This pattern of usage turned out to be quite common throughout my time there and I quickly found myself thinking of this space as primarily an adult area. The behavior of the patrons suggested that there were different chronotopes of library usage in play within one physical space, each bound by age, race, and socio-economic class. The older patrons, patrons of lower socio-economic status, and a higher number of patrons of color depended on library services to access current technology in the forms of basic internet access. Younger patrons, patrons of higher socio-economic status, and a higher number of white patrons used library technology like the website to turn the physical space into primarily a material retrieval space.

Adult usage of the Chicago Public Library system reflects a growth in diversity of library services in recent decades as some adults use the library primarily as a borrowing service, others as a third space, a place to be social or pursue their own interests, and still others as a place to access various types of government aid or information. Each of these usages depend on the current technological presents, those of the variety of patrons in the area see well as the library itself. These presents are in a dialectical relationship with patrons, with limited technological access potentially limited people’s socio-economic status. This also influences how people in different socio-economic spaces interact with the physical and online space of the library. These categories of usage each represent a distinct chronotope, a space time that a patron or group of patrons inhabit that describes their technological needs and desires. However, these chronotopes also depend on the relative age of the patron, adding an additional temporal dimension to consider. The majority of the adults I observed in the library were using the library as a “third space” (Chicago Public Library 2017) which the library explicitly states on their website as being a place “where people come to improve their lives, nourish their intellect or savor entertainment” (Chicago Public Library 2017). Unlike children, where many of the programs are explicitly educational, and many of the people I observed in the Children’s area used the space for this purpose, adults can seek more than just library materials. Here the library is a conduit to broader community interests and resources. The librarians, in the name of creating this third space, post flyers and display handouts with information about the locations of job-retraining services, the locations of the nearest food banks, phone numbers for legal advice for seniors, and veteran’s services. The librarians do not make these posters but rather the posters are sent to them from the main library office if they are governmental in nature or brought in by local non-profits and posted at the discretion of the head librarian.

For example, against a back drop of library computers and the adult audio-visual collection, two rotating cork boards were covered in posters addressing low-income adults looking for opportunities for self-improvement. Most of the board was plastered with neatly arranged social service themed posters advertising food pantries, legal advice for seniors, career training, veteran services, applying for federal aid for college, and a poster advertising tax preparers with tear-away phone numbers. The posters themselves offered a limited color pallet and stereotypical clipart or photo images of smiling people, or mournful images of a flag for the veteran’s affairs one. The paper handouts and posters are the library’s main way of informing their patrons of area services. There is no comparable area on the library website. This means that the city and area services who use the posters to inform area residents, assume that residents in need of these services go to the library in person and do not rely solely on e-books or the library’s online presence. The library, as a system, is thus making assumptions about who has internet access, assumed to be younger and wealthier residents, and who is spending more time in the brick and mortar branches, those of socio-economic status and/or people in need of governmental assistance. The forms of assistance advertised varied between a few library branches in terms of what types of handouts were available, with the Park library focused on food pantries and employment services and the major branch downtown offering classes on passing immigration exams, as well as resources for questions on recent changes in immigration policy. While my observations to some extent support these assumptions, the assumptions still simplify the reality of the complexity of technology access and economic status. For instance, there was a man who brought his own laptop to the library but who could be found on a street corner with a cardboard sign asking for money when the library was closed for the day. The concept of chronotopes helps understand the apparent oddity of this patron by offering a multi-dimensional way of understanding the social and physical spaces this patron inhabits as well as the technological present and economic times he faces.

Technology in the adult section highlighted the diversity of technological and economic space-times that patrons inhabited. The librarians were aware, to some extent, of the diversity of the technological landscapes their patrons inhabited and the librarians tried to support this diversity by offering a few different types of computer classes. Suzanne, the Adult librarian, talked at great length about a series of upcoming programs she was organizing to create social learning circles, where people could socialize and achieve self-development by completing a free online course together. While that class assumed a higher technological fluency, another class she offered showed the wide-range of technological realities patrons faced. In a previous month, Suzanne offered a class on creating websites which filled up quickly due to a shortage of library computers and the number of individuals interested who did not have a personal computer. Based on enrollment numbers, Suzanne’s classes were successful in that the topics generated a lot of interest and filled up quite quickly. Keeping track of just how fast various classes fill up and how many more people may want to take such classes would be a possible way of gauging how community needs are changing as well as suggesting ways to continue to improve patron services. The target audience of many of these library programs are those adults who do not currently have desirable skill sets and could not possibly afford classes or the technology to develop such skills without the aid of the library. Such patrons were continually called upon by the librarians to justify the continuing need for libraries in the future. In a city like Chicago and especially on the South Side, there is no apparent shortage of such possible patrons.

As a city, and even within the neighborhood of the library, the wide range of socio-economic standings of patrons and the ensuing range of types and levels of technological access possible underscores the challenge of program and material development for the Chicago Public Library. Technology usage within the library highlights preexisting socio-economic inequalities within the larger society but also points to the technology divide between those of higher and lower socio-economic status and how continued technology development can further the divide. Recent library funding cutbacks from the government limit the types of books an individual branch can buy but makes resources available online, showing how tough economic times makes serving the diverse space-times of patrons difficult if not impossible. This makes measuring how the library is used differently in the neighborhoods all the more important for understanding how to develop better library budgets that meet the needs of area residents while also dealing with financial short-falls. The holes in understanding how patrons interact with library and what they are looking for make trying to understand how library systems are made up of diverse patron needs and community patterns challenging in the best economic times. In an era with heavy budget cuts, such information could lead to better decisions about ways to adjust budgets in ways least likely to affect patrons and their librarians.

Children – Technology does not divide all social groups in the same visible way. Technology use in relation to children in the library was more rare but there was a similar level of concern about self-improvement through library resources. Children, as the Chicago Public Library defines them, are those who are under 14, and are the population whose presence in the library is the most often talked about and worried over. Librarians are charged with guiding young minds to resources that are appropriate for their developmental age, but also with recognizing the possible dangers of some materials or situations children might face in the library. While my neighborhood branch did not discuss what materials it deemed unsuitable, one of the librarians did share the branch’s rules for who was allowed in the children’s section. The stated policy, which was also posted in the library by the main librarian’s office, which was a significant distance from the children’s room, was that only children under 14 and their accompanying adults were allowed. This rule did not seem to be enforced, however, as it was quite easy for me to peruse books or work at tables in the space. However, as the noisiest space in the library, there were not many people who seemed to want to spend time there without being associated with a child. Despite the presence of computers in the Children’s area, there was no explicit mention of helping children develop technology skills, instead the focus was on measurable forms of institutional education, like completion of school assignments.

The educational aims of the librarians are seen in the physical design of the room which advocated educational play and in its ability to provide a space to seek additional resources for completing school work. The section featured 5 wooden round tables with 4 chairs each, spread around one corner of the room. There was a long row of 8 computers in the center of the room, also on short wooden tables, as well as two more computers at the far end of the room, closer to the door connecting the room to the rest of the library. Like the other sections of the library, there are high ceilings and tall windows that let in a lot of natural light but, compared with the adult section, there was less artwork on the walls. There was only one piece of artwork, an image of a small black girl sitting under a tree, looking at a large orange/yellow moon and some flowers. The main form of decoration in this section came in the form of a collection of educational posters taped to the sides of the shelves, outlining the names of planets, how fractions worked, and different musical time signatures.

Although white families appeared to spend time in this room beyond that required to acquire their desired material resources, in contrast with the social patterns observed elsewhere in the library, the area nevertheless continued to reinforce racial patterns where white patrons still spent significantly less time there than patrons of color. Frequently on weekends there was a flurry of tutors meeting their students in the library. Since not all the tutors used library materials, they demonstrate another way of using the library as a third-space.

In a clear age-difference within the library, the library provided toys and puzzles in the Children’s area, where in the adult area patrons could use books, magazines or a computer as primary sources of entertainment. The toys, like the fishing poles in the adult area, show a way that the library is trying to adapt to the variety of possible patron uses for the library. The toys, in addition to providing social interaction between children, also facilitated the adults’ ability to examine library materials and paper materials in greater detail. The pamphlets offered information deemed of interest to the caretakers of children, including changes in the public school curriculum, the Teacher in the Library program, a game day, variously aged fiction book clubs for school-aged children, and a trifold explaining the benefits of reading as preparation for attending school. By including toys and information about the school system, the library is creating a third-space for children and parents while also recognizing the space of the local school system and a time marked by recent curriculum changes. In this case, time is defined less in terms of technology uptake by patrons and more about the level of scholastic achievement necessary for children to be considered successful. Computers in the area were infrequently used but multiple librarians mentioned them in terms of facilitating children’s ability to complete school assignments. While there were only a four computers in the children’s area compared to the dozen or so in the adult area, the rate of usage seemed to be much lower despite the demand the librarians percieved. However, the computers in the children’s section were also subject to more strict waves of usage, since kids were in school for more of the time the library was open in a given week. The question of access to computers for homework was not at nearly the same level of concern for the librarians as their concern about adult access. While they gave no explicit reason for this difference, it may be that schools have a significant number of computers that children can access if the technology is needed for homework. Weighing computer usage as a function of both the target age group and the amount of time patrons in that age group use computer as opposed to other activities in the library would yield a better picture of how generations have similar or different needs within the library. Such a measurement would allow for better budget planning in the future and a more dynamic understanding of the diversity of patron needs. The chronotopes of child patrons are defined by play spaces, their developmental ages, and the technical skills like reading and math required for academic achievements rather than the employment objectives and technical fluency and access of adults.

While technology is not an explicit focus for younger children in terms of library programming, developing social skills necessary for success in school were the foci of library programs and informational pamphlets. The children’s librarian described the importance of early literacy programs as not just because they expose children to reading materials but also because they are group gatherings that let children learn how to play with each other and allow parents and guardians to socialized with one another. Here the role of the library was not focused on those of lower social economic standing to quite the same degree as in the adult section, because in order to participate in the early literacy programs children need a parent or guardian who can take them to the library in the middle of the standard workday. However the programs for school-age children assume that more children have guardians who work long hours or who are otherwise unable to help with homework assignments. The after-school homework help and the educational focus of many library programs offered a chance for children to get learning support beyond school and home. The librarians stressed that many children use the library as a place to wait for their parents or guardians after school and the homework help aids kids whose parents or guardians might be busy at work or do not have the knowledge necessary to assist kids with homework.

There are two major chronotopes of possible child patron-library interactions, those of younger children who have more temporal access to their guardians during the day, and those of school-age children who need the library to provide extra support in place of guardians. Technology, while not at the forefront, is still a key element of defining how children can interact with the library because children depend on parents and guardians to bring them. A child is thus socialized to use the library based on how their parents use the library. If their parents use the library as a space to meet tutors or access computers, then the child is more likely to see the library as a third-space. If a child’s parents rely more on the library website to order books and make only short trips to pick up books on hold or do a quick selection of picture books they are less like to see the library as a social/work/third space. Technology does not act in a primary distinction for how children use the library but rather as a secondary force through what children observe their parents doing and thus how they are socialized to think of the library as they continue to grow.

Teenagers – Teens in the library, unlike children, are assumed to be interested in technology, but this group suffers from more funding difficulties than children and adults in the library. The teen space of the library shares a small room with the new Adult books, the large-print collection, and audio books. The distinctly ‘teen’ aspect of the space was in targeted messaging about tech programming. On top of the waist-high bookshelves there was a set of postcards/bookmarks in a small plastic display stand, behind some books, that advertised the library’s technological services through a program that is offered at multiple branches of the library, but not this one in particular. The program offers teens, and only teens, access to many cutting-edge computer programs and classes relating to media creation and editing. In the main branch downtown, the library has sound mixing boards, video and photo editing software, and classes on how to use them. This YouMedia project is heralded as an icon of teenage productivity and ingenuity in mayoral statements and by the Chicago Public Library Foundation.

Faced with substantial budget cuts, the library system is increasingly dependent on the fundraising efforts of the Chicago Public Library Fund, run by a number of local high-ranking company executives, and the Foundation. With the blessing of the mayor, the focus is technological development around teenagers, with specific aims to keep teenagers using technology in socially approved formats. The YouMedia program offers those between 13 and 18 a chance to use high quality audio-visual media editing software often with the aim of teens learning skills to make them employable in growing industries. This program is also part of a larger national discussion within libraries about how to make the libraries relevant to 21st century teens in a variety of class and cultural identities (ALA 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). However, this program ignores the needs of older adults struggling to learn new skills to stay in the job-market and types of technology use outside of employment or academic needs. The program itself does give teens access to classes in employable skills while assuming a higher level of technical competency but is less available than adult technology classes. Whereas most public libraries have computers and varied classes for adults, depending on what the librarians at that particular branch decide to offer, YouMedia is only offered in a few branches, making teen access to technology classes more difficult. To date, only 12 of the 70 libraries in the system have a YouMedia program, leaving much open space for Teen program development. The library system foregrounds technology as a way to appeal to teenagers who are more online and thus may not need to visit the physical library as much. This contrasts with how the library presents adult programing, which assumes the presence of adults as well as a lack of technological capability.