10/12/2018

Sarah McNicol
Evidence Base / Phone:0121 331 6252
Fax:0121 331 6510
E-mail:

Censorship practices and access to information: Interviews with school and children’s librarians

Evidence Base

Contents:

Executive Summary

1.Introduction

1.2Methodology

2.Findings

2.2Censorship of fiction

2.2.1Controversial content

2.2.3Author’s background

2.2.4Reader development

2.3Censorship of non-fiction

2.3.1Dealing with bias

2.4Censorship of electronic resources

2.4.1Information skills

2.5Students’ understanding of censorship and reactions to restrictions

2.6The pressure to censor

2.7Organisational culture and ethos

2.8Practical concerns

2.9Support for library staff

2.10Summary of findings

3.Discussion

4.Recommendations

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Executive Summary

A survey of school and children’s librarians in the UK was carried out in 2004 (McNicol, 2005) to investigate attitudes towards freedom of information and its practical application. This survey raised a number of issues which it was felt should be the subject of greater research. To take this forward, it was decided to carry out in depth interviews with a small number (14) of librarians, the majority of whom were based in school libraries.

Although in theory interviewees did not support censorship, all employed censorship in practice to a greater or lesser extent. Furthermore, they all acknowledged that the decision about whether or not to censor a resource was, essentially, a subjective one and practices and attitudes would differ considerably from librarian to librarian. There were few examples of stock selection policies which dealt with these issues directly.

Racism, violence (especially against women) and sadomasochism were seen as the most serious issues which should be censored in libraries used by children and young people. Many also thought a degree of caution should be exercised with regard to sex, and authors who had been convicted of offences against children. Swearing was less of a problem, although it was acknowledged that this was an issue which might well upset parents and often students too. As well as considering each resource objectively, most librarians would also take account of the ethos and culture of their organisation when making decisions about censorship.

Almost all librarians’ restricted access to fiction materials according to age; although access was extended to younger children providing parental permission had been given. Many, especially librarians in smaller schools, also adopted flexible approaches when deciding whether to lend a book to an individual child. Librarians claimed that young people were generally accepting of the restrictions in place and understood the reasons for them. The fear of receiving a complaint from a parent was a strong motivator for librarians to censor materials, especially as many did not feel they would be supported by their head teacher or colleagues if a complaint was received. Those librarians working in schools in middle class areas were most concerned as it was felt that parents at these schools would be more likely to complain.

There was some evidence of differences between school and public libraries. Decisions in school libraries tended to be taken at a more personal level and individual librarians made decisions based on personal views, rather than a rigid selection policy. Furthermore, it was felt that school librarians had more opportunity to control the way in which resources were made available to and used by individual students and this might allow them scope to include more controversial resources as part of the collection even if access to these was carefully controlled.

Graphic novels and fantasy books (e.g. Warhammer, manga), ‘crossover’ novels (i.e. teenage imprints of adult titles) and art books were among the most problematic types of resource to deal with. Many librarians were unsure how to treat these and had tried to find a compromise which avoided confronting trickier issues. Interestingly it was felt that restricting access to certain resources might stimulate interest in reading among some students.

Interviewees stressed the importance of building a balanced collection of resources which represented all sides of an argument. However in some schools, for example, denominational schools, this might not happen with certain issues. Most librarians labelled books which they felt might be biased to make students aware that they should look at alternative resources as well.

No librarians interviewed had direct control of Internet access in the library; this was controlled by the school or local authority. This caused problems because many useful sites were filtered and the ease with which these could be unblocked varied. Librarians were concerned that these restrictions did not allow them to teach information skills to students in the most effective way and gave students a false impression of the reliability of the Internet. Concerns were expressed about many students’ level of information skills which a number of interviewees did not feel were sophisticated enough to equip them for the world beyond school.

Support from other librarians was clearly important, especially in situations where librarians did not receive backing from colleagues or their line manager. Networks, both formal and informal, were crucial in alerting librarians to resources which might cause problems; helping them decide how to deal with such resources; and providing support in deciding how to handle a complaint.

Based on this research, the following recommendations were made:

  1. Reader development and promotion

Rather than restricting access to materials, school and public librarians need to do more to promote children’s literature and find ways to engage readers.

  1. Selection policies

School librarians should ensure they have a clear selection policy to guide collection development. They should also have policies to guide decisions made on access to information within the library.

  1. Procedures for handling complaints

Librarians should consider devising a procedure for handling complaints which does not leave them feeling vulnerable, but allows all sides to put across their view and an informed decision to be reached.

  1. Parental involvement

Parents need to be encouraged to take a greater interest and become more involved in their children’s reading in order to determine what they feel is appropriate for their child and also in order to make informed decisions about the books their child reads. A single parent should not, however, be able to determine what books are suitable for other children. Both school and public libraries have a role to play in informing parents about children’ literature and offering professional advice.

  1. Student involvement

There is more work to be done in developing a clearer understanding of the impact of books on young people; at present, it is extremely difficult to anticipate how a particular book may affect a child. Students should be encouraged to discuss books whenever possible and school and public libraries can act as venues for such discussions. Students need to be involved in the selection of resources in both school libraries and local public libraries.

  1. Teacher involvement

More should be done to ensure school librarians have the support of key members of staff.

  1. Information skills

There needs to be more freedom to allow students to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the types of information they will find in the outside world.

  1. Electronic information

As information professionals, librarians need to be involved in decisions relating to Internet access and restrictions imposed.

  1. Professional support

Professional organisations (as well as SLSs and local public libraries) should investigate ways to give librarians more direct support in dealing with censorship.

A detailed statement, such as the interpretations of the Bill of Rights produced by the ALA might be helpful.

  1. Training

School and young people’s librarians would benefit from more training, guidance and support in dealing with censorship issues, both as part of their initial training and on an ongoing basis.

  1. Debate and discussion

There needs to be more discussion of censorship within the profession.

1.Introduction

A survey of school and children’s librarians in the UK was carried out in 2004 (McNicol, 2005) to investigate attitudes towards freedom of information and its practical application[1]. This was based on previous surveys by McDonald and Busha, two researchers who have investigated attitudes towards censorship and freedom of information amongst school and public librarians respectively in the United States.

The 2004 survey found that only very weak links could be identified between demographic factors studied such as age, gender, level of education, number of years experience, membership of professional organisation and attitudes towards intellectual freedom. It suggested that there may be some link between librarians’ level of education and the length of their experience and their attitudes to censorship, in particular, their willingness to put their beliefs into practice, but the nature of this relationship was not clear cut.

Despite this, there were a number of interesting findings from this survey. Most notably that many librarians were more likely to subscribe to the principles of intellectual freedom than to put them into practice. There was general agreement with most of the statements relating to intellectual freedom in theory, but much greater variation between responses to statements relating to its practical application in libraries. Furthermore, 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. Although the two are related, librarians’ censorship practices are not solely determined by their views on intellectual freedom.

The potential for controversy seemed to be a concern; librarians were unsure how they should react to pressure from parents, head teachers and other groups to exclude resources. It might also be hypothesised from the findings of the survey that librarians in school libraries are more isolated than those in public libraries and SLSs, so feel less able to assert their beliefs regarding intellectual freedom.

There were some criticisms of the survey design from respondents. One was unable to complete most of the survey as she found the questions “too vague or too didactic”. She felt that “Issues around controversy and censorship are not clear cut and a questionnaire like this is unlikely to give any useful picture of librarians’ opinions on the matter”. Another respondent commented, “Some of these questions trouble me because of their black/white approach. There are more shades of grey than this allows for!” Yet another felt that “Some of these statements are very strong and I have made choices which I believe are fundamentally right. However, for many of them I would add a qualifying statement indicating necessity for discussion, consultation, advice or support…All of this points, to the crucial need for librarians to be proactive in engaging with their customers, especially young people, and in depth knowledge of stock”. One respondent pointed out that, “sensitivity should be given to the type of school and the ethos of the school and the school librarian should respect that”. Others said that decisions needed to take account of the age of the children involved.

As these comments indicate, the type of questionnaire administered in 2004 is not, of course, not the only way to research these issues. The survey did provide a strong starting point and raised a number of issues which should be the subject of greater research. To take this forward, it was decided to carry out in depth interviews with a small number of librarians. The majority of these had completed the initial survey and expressed an interest in being involved in follow up work[2]. Others were contacted via schools library services or individual school librarians who passed on the request to librarians in their region.

1.2Methodology

In total, fourteen library staff were interviewed for this follow up research. The majority of these were one-to-one face-to-face interviews. Others took the form of focus groups (2) or telephone interviews (1)[3]. The interviews took a semi-structured format with the emphasis being on ensuring that particular themes were covered during the conversation rather than asking a set of prescribed questions. A list of the themes which were covered is given in Appendix C. Background information about the participants is provided in Appendix D. It can be seen that the majority of interviews were working in school libraries[4] (12), although a schools library service and a public library service were also represented. The findings of this research are, therefore, primarily related to school libraries. However, it is worth noting that six of the twelve school librarians had previously worked in a school library. For the small number of interviews conducted, the geographic coverage was extensive and the length of time interviewees had worked as children’s or school librarian varied from one to nineteen years. Most interviewees were educated to at least degree level and were (or had recently been) members of professional organisations. However, whilst this information is helpful to provide a context for the research, it must be remembered that the initial research carried out in 2004 found little evidence of a link between demographic variables and attitudes towards freedom of information and censorship.

2.Findings

The following section describes the key findings from the interviews.

General comments

Although most interviewees claimed to have open, liberal attitudes, they often followed these statements by acknowledging that there were limits to this openness:

I think most people are fairly liberal, but they like me wouldn’t want to have…

I always thought that I was fairly liberal and there should be no censorship really, but I don’t know…

I’m very much in favour of complete freedom, but…you have to be aware of parental wishes, so I try not to censor at all, but on occasions I will think, ‘No, I know I’m going to have problems with this’. I will not buy it for that, but I won’t necessarily put it out on free access for everybody.

With young people, the information should be there, but there should be some controls…free access to absolutely everything whilst in theory is great…I worry about what they could be exposed to.

Most interviewees realised that there were discrepancies between their beliefs and actions even if they did not immediately think of what they did as censorship; censorship was not always a conscious action:

It’s difficult not to…you’re not always aware that you’re doing it; you’re doing it constantly

In principle…I don’t think there should be any censorship, but as a school librarian with restrictions of budgets you naturally censor…I think young people should have access to what they want to read because I believe you read to the level that you understand…so in principle, with lofty ideals, I think there shouldn’t be censorship, but in day to day practicalities, we do censor; that’s just a fact of being a librarian I think.

Even for those librarians with selection or collection development policies, the exact criteria by which a resource was included or excluded was often unclear. One interviewee said:

Some things you just wouldn’t have…it’s difficult to say, but you just know when material’s not suitable…

In many cases decisions were down to the individual librarian. As one commented, “it’s very subjective”.

Several interviewees made it clear they did not exclude certain materials from the collection simply because they went against their personal opinions. For example, one had strong personal views on animal rights, but recognised that it was her professional responsibility to represent bother sides of the argument. Several interviewees pointed out that, although they might hold a personal opinion on certain issues, it was important to ensure that this did not affect their professional attitudes:

You can have your own personal opinion on it, but you’ve got to have a professional opinion as well.

Although there were only two interviewees currently working in a schools library service or a public library, it was suggested that there was less scope for individuals to make decisions based on their personal opinions in such organisations. In a school library managed by a single librarian, there was greater likelihood of this occurring.

A major concern among librarians, especially those in a single person library, was a perceived pressure to have read every book they purchased in order to make an informed decision about whether to stock it and how to categorise it:

You need to know books before you can censor or promote them or justify why something’s there or isn’t there…and that puts a huge pressure on people doing this job because of the amount of reading you’ve got to do

People say, ‘You put that in there, so you must know…’, but there’s no way we can know the content of every book

There’s a lot of responsibility in the gifting over of that title.

The fact that students often asked staff, especially in school libraries, to recommend books put a responsibility on librarians to take care what they recommended to whom. In a public library, staff may not feel so vulnerable because most of the staff on the issue desk are not responsible for stock selection so there is, perhaps, less expectation on them to be able to explain and justify the inclusion of each resource.