Surpassing the business model: a public sphere approach to public library management

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare the characteristics of the public sphere with those of a shared value approach and better understand the value that public libraries can offer to management theory. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses two methods. First, this study uses a systematic literature review to identify sources relevant to shared value and the public sphere in public libraries. Next, this study uses comparative theoretical analysis using data gathered from the systematic review to analyse the two theories. Findings This study successfully describes the similarities and differences between “shared value” and the “public sphere in public libraries”. Originality/value This study elucidates public library innovation from the perspectives of library management and the public sphere concept.

The public sphere without democracy: some recent work in LIS

“…This then became “openness, debate, and common concern” (Widdersheim and Koizumi, 2016, p. 597). Elsewhere Koizumi and Widdersheim (2016, p. 406) flesh this out: Openness […] means that […] governance and management practices account for the interests of community members in an inclusive way. Debate […] means that the decisions […] are derived through discussion [without undue] sway over the organization’s governance because of […] social power. Common concern means that […] objectives are not skewed [and] account for the general welfare.…”

“…Other relevant aspects of the concept will be presented later in this paper[1], but for purposes here the public sphere can be understood as “the sphere of private people come together as a public […] to engage [authorities] in a debate over the general rules governing relations” (Habermas, 1989, p. 27). A recent spate of work in LIS produced by two authors applying Habermas’ (1989) concept of the public sphere to public libraries (Widdersheim, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018; Widdersheim and Koizumi, 2015, 2016, 2017a, b; Koizumi and Widdersheim, 2016) is notable. This work has been singled out as the “most profound theoretical work on public libraries and the public sphere that has been undertaken” in recent years (Audunson et al , 2019, p. 778), so it merits some particular attention.…”

What is innovative to public libraries in the United States? A perspective of library administrators for classifying innovations

“…Academic libraries have a different type and level of access to the market resources required to plan and implement innovations than that of public libraries. Also, the unique place that public libraries hold in society civically and in between the public and private sectors, suggests that classifications from other private and voluntary organizations, and even classifications from academic libraries, will not take into account the specific needs of public libraries (Koizumi and Widdersheim, 2016; Widdersheim, 2015). This existing research dearth tacitly reinforces the misconceived idea that public libraries cannot innovate to meet the ever-evolving needs of society and must be responded to.…”

Best practices for managing innovations in public libraries in the USA

“…Innovation—that is, the process of implementing new programs, collaborations, processes, or combinations of activities (Nicholson, 2019; Potnis et al, 2019)—can help public libraries thrive by meeting the needs and expectations of local communities (Strange, 2008; Vassilakaki, 2015; Wójcik, 2019a), government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and businesses in uncertain and rapidly changing times (Milam, 2008; Pew Research Center, 2013). Innovations also improve the operational efficiency of public libraries (Holt et al, 1996; Koizumi, 2014; Koizumi and Widdersheim, 2016; Sin and Vakkari, 2015). The survival and success of organizations like public libraries depends on their ability to innovate on a continual basis (Varis and Littunen, 2010).…”