Attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship amongst school and children’s librarians

Sarah McNicol

evidence base
Research & Evaluation
University of Central England
84 Aldridge Road
Perry Barr
Birmingham, B42 2SU
Email:
Telephone: 0121 331 6891
Fax: 0121 331 5286 /

School and children’s librarians working in public libraries, schools and schools’ library services in the UK have recently been surveyed to find out about attitudes towards freedom of information and its practical application in the form of censorship. Librarians were asked to answer a series of questions about their attitudes towards intellectual freedom (ie the right hold and express any belief whatever on any subject) and censorship practices (ie restricting access to information or ideas). They were also asked to give demographic information such as age, gender and education to see whether any of these affected their attitudes. In total, 169 people responded.

The research found that there were only very limited links between demographic factors and attitudes towards intellectual freedom (the demographic factors considered in this survey were age, gender, length of experience, qualifications, type of library, age groups supported or membership of professional bodies). Some very broad themes could be seen, but these should be treated with caution because there were no statistically significant relationships between intellectual freedom or its practical application in libraries and any of the demographic variables measured. The broad trends identified were:

Type of organisation: School librarians were most restrictive in practice, but supported the theoretical values of intellectual freedom more strongly than staff from public libraries or schools’ library services. The effect was especially noticeable in their attitudes towards controlling access to controversial resources.

Age: There were was no obvious pattern to be seen; those aged 26-30 were the least restrictive and those aged 36-45 most restrictive.

Gender: There were very few male librarians involved in this study, but men seemed to be less restrictive then women in relation to stock selection issues in particular.

Education: Those with postgraduate level qualifications were generally less restrictive than those without, especially when it came to questions of access and policy.

Experience: Those with longer experience as a children’s or school librarian were less restrictive. This was particularly noticeable in their attitudes towards access to controversial resources and policy decisions. Those with 3-9 years’ experience displayed the greatest discrepancies between their theoretical values and censorship practices.

Membership of professional bodies: The few respondents who did not belong to a professional association tended to be more restrictive and to display greater discrepancies between their beliefs and practice than those who did. The difference was most noticeable in attitudes towards stock selection and access.

Age group supported: Those who regularly supported students aged 14 and over were slightly less restrictive, especially when it came to resource selection.

There was most consistency between theory and practice when it came to diversity of resources provided (ie providing children and young people a range of viewpoints). Conversely, in issues relating to censorship policy and access to controversial resources, librarians were likely to express support for the idea of intellectual freedom, but to be restrictive in practice. It seemed that controlling access to resources, rather than failing to provide the resources at all was the way in which many librarians censor materials.

In summary, the research suggests that there may be some link between librarians’ level of education and length of experience and their attitudes towards censorship and intellectual freedom, in particular, their willingness to put their beliefs into practice. The potential for controversy seemed to be a concern; librarians were unsure how they should react to pressure from parents, headteachers and other groups to exclude resources. It might also be hypothesised that librarians in school libraries are more isolated than those in public libraries and schools library services, so feel less able to assert their beliefs regarding intellectual freedom.

This survey has provided a starting point and raised a number of issues which should be the subject of greater research, in particular, research using qualitative methods. The research suggests a more in depth investigation is needed, looking in greater detail at factors such as prior experience and detailed educational history. However, probably the most important question for future research is: ‘What prevents school and children’s librarians putting their principles relating to intellectual freedom into practice?’. In most cases, librarians were more likely to subscribe to the principles of intellectual freedom than to carry out practical actions to combat censorship. It is also worth noting that there was generally support for intellectual freedom in theory, but much variation in how these ideas were applied in practice; librarians’ censorship practices are not solely determined by their views on intellectual freedom.

A copy of the full report of this research can be downloaded from