Date of Award

5-12-2024

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Information Science & Technology

Advisor(s)

Rachel Clarke

Keywords

Censorship;Controversy;Material challenges;Platform;Public library governance;Resource mobilization

Abstract

Material challenges have been the most contentious issue in public libraries in the United States in recent years. A challenge indicates a request by a person or group to remove or restrict library materials. The reported cases of challenges to the American Library Association skyrocketed in 2021 and reached 1,247 in 2023, presumably due to the politicization of topics such as gender, sexuality, and race and the rise of organizations that support material challenges. Accordingly, most challenged materials are alleged to depict race, sexuality, or gender in an offensive manner. Multiple communities have experienced disagreements among community members, while librarians try to protect the value of intellectual freedom in general. Material challenges are more than just a public controversy, they also represent disagreements about public library governance. In most cases, librarians and a small number of community representatives are responsible for public library governance. A board of trustees, appointed by a local government, and library staff collaborate to make key decisions related to public library budgets, policies, and personnel, while community members can also influence public library governance by sending letters to boards, making a public comment at board meetings, or directly communicating with library staff. However, not many studies have examined the situations in which these actors in public library governance disagree. This single case study investigates a public library system that has experienced controversy around material challenges, where actors disagree on an issue of material challenge. I focus on the distribution and exercise of power, which was examined by how actors in controversy mobilize resources to achieve their goals. Data was collected through interviews, recordings, and documents. Three analysis methods (thematic coding, meta-network framework, and chronology of disagreement events) were used for triangulation. The main resources mobilized in this controversy were legal authority, rights, and networks. Legal authority defines the issues of the controversy, while rights are mobilized to counter legal authority. Networks exist as a resource that influences both mobilizing legal authority and rights. Regarding the continuation of controversy, these resources supply the basic elements of controversy: actors, issues, and disagreement. Legal authority provides disagreement issues, while networks encourage actors to participate and mobilize their rights in the controversy. A model of resource mobilization in the public governance controversy is proposed to represent the relationship among these resources. Legal authority is not distributed equally because of the schema of governance that is based on majoritarianism. Actors without legal authority in Lafayette use other resources to counter legal authority by supporting different schemas of governance, which eventually continues the controversy. My research suggests a future direction for public participation by leveling legal authority to mitigate public controversy. This study contributes to critically understanding public library governance during controversies, which eventually shape public libraries based on the power in a local community. Furthermore, it provides insights for library practitioners and community members to successfully resolve controversies surrounding public libraries.

Access

Open Access

Download

Share

COinS