Measuring the value of public libraries in the digital age: What the power people need to know

Introduction

This is a challenging time for publicly-funded services in the UK and public libraries are in the spotlight as local authorities make decisions about what can and cannot be provided through the public purse. With the economic strictures of the 21st century, the public funding of a core library service is a topic of political debate, particularly as they are a statutory requirement under the terms of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (Great Britain, 1964). Public libraries have a long history of providing services for local communities, reflecting the needs and the diversity of the populations that they have served since the 19th century (Black, 2000; Black et al., 2009; Goulding, 2006; McMenemy, 2009).This article is based on the outcomes of a research workshop held at Leeds Metropolitan University in March 2011 (Walker et al., 2012) where the primary aim was to provide a forum where experts, policy makers, stakeholders and practitioners could discuss the ways in which public libraries can better communicate their intrinsic value and worth, at a time of government financial restraint. The basic premise is that public library services need to identify effective means of communicating their value to society, and the need to convey that value has become acute. The discussion in this article is based on analysis of the expertise, knowledge and experiences of the people who attended the workshop. The range of questions addressed by the participants (see Appendix 1) included a discussion on the understanding of vocabulary associated with ‘value’ and ‘impact’ and the types of evidence needed to support the role of public libraries. Future trends in service provision and user expectations were also considered.

The evaluation and social impact of public libraries is highly topical as many branches are being closed and the evidence base used to make these decisions is not always clear. Key criteria would appear to be around measuring the footfall of those coming into library buildings and book borrowing rates. These are quantifiable metrics and although there is recognition that this is a well-researched area in some respects, there does not appear to be an accepted methodology for providing evidence on the value of public libraries, or a consensus on how that value is defined. What then needs to be considered is who should, can and will take responsibility for the future of the changing public library service in the UK, and also what the key values of that provision should be, which stakeholders will inform this and how, and the most appropriate ways of measuring the value and impact of the new public library service in the 21st century.

This article is presented in four parts. The following section reviews the literature and discusses the politics of the public library, asks the question, Can we measure “value”? and considers the benefits of public libraries to communities and individuals. The Delphi methodology used in the workshop is described in the next section and we identify the five key themes emerging from the discussion. This leads to a section which introduces the novel approach of using a human rights-based approach to support arguments in favour of public library provision. The concluding section provides a final commentary on the ‘power people’ and suggests actions for the future.

The politics of public libraries

The history of public libraries is well recorded (e.g. Black, 2000; Black et al., 2009; Goulding, 2006) and the traditional values and philosophy of the public library are again well documented within these publications. There appears to be a social and political consensus throughout this history, shared by political parties and by the public recipients of it (Pateman and Vincent, 2010). The value and impact of public libraries were seen as something greater than merely the issuing of books or the number of visits made, and these values, as explicitly described in the following paragraph and within this article, formed an accepted contract within society. They are enshrined within the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act, which stipulates that local authorities shall provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ library service as a statutory requirement (Great Britain, 1964).

In March 2010, just prior to the general election, the then Labour Minister for Culture, Margaret Hodge, published a policy review entitled The Modernisation Review of Public Libraries. In her introduction she declared that:

Public libraries are a democratic entitlement for every individual, for every community and for the whole nation … I believe the public library service is a unique institution, that ‘guards against the tyrannies of ignorance and conformity, and its existence indicates the extent to which a democratic society values knowledge, truth, justice, books, and culture’. For many people, libraries are a haven of hope, a gateway to knowledge and learning, and an opportunity to access information and to participate as a citizen. (DCMS, 2010: 2)

However, at a time of economic crisis and changing political philosophy, the traditional values of the public library service are being challenged. Perhaps the largest threat to libraries is the financial settlement made by government following the 2010 General Election in the UK. As a result the public services in the United Kingdom are facing huge budgetary pressures as the Treasury aims to reduce the UK’s national spending by £81bn by 2014/2015, resulting in an estimated loss of 490,000 public sector jobs (HM Treasury, 2010). Library funding is not ring-fenced (Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2012) and along with other local services, public libraries have to fight to maintain services (CILIP, 2011). Markless and Streatfield (2012: 9) observe:

Public services are widely viewed by politicians as requiring constant rationing and reduction, although they usually prefer to talk about ‘cutting out waste’ rather than admitting that they want to reduce or remove highly regarded services such as libraries.

In this environment, many libraries are cutting both professional and paraprofessional staff and making increased use of volunteers (Anstice, 2013; Locality, 2013a, 2013b) in line with the Government’s ‘Big Society’ philosophy (Cabinet Office, 2013). Branches are being closed and opening hours cut, while some local authorities are considering outsourcing management of library services to private providers (Anstice, 2013). In addition, the British Government has undertaken to cut statutory ‘burdens’ by reviewing 1294 statutory duties, including the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act – thus placing statutory public library provision at risk. In this environment, it is more important than ever for public libraries to be able to demonstrate their value and impact.

Can we measure ‘value’?

The academic literature on the concept of value is diverse and is represented in the fields of economics, philosophy and business (Woodall, 2003). Public libraries are complex institutions, and defining value in the context of their offering is open to considerable debate. A significant challenge for public libraries is determining what data should be collected. There is a lack of clarity around the phrase ‘comprehensive and efficient’: the Library Closures inquiry was intended to address this but the final report did little more than pass on the baton, suggesting that the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) should clarify the phrase (Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2012). Gildersleeves (2012: 208) puts her finger on the problem:

Libraries have much to offer in furthering local and national agendas for literacy, digital and information confidence and in providing access to services supporting employment and cultural engagement. Yet, this contribution is infrequently spelled out in any detail, if at all, in government policy documents, in a way that makes it easy to recognise and test.

Effective methods of measuring the benefits and value of library services have received growing attention from academics over recent years (Aabø, 2005; Crawford, 2006; McMenemy, 2007; Markless and Streatfield, 2012; Matthews, 2007). CILIP considered the notion of impact for a themed issue of Library and Information Update, which contained an insightful article by Stanziola (2010). Although there is much in the library and information studies (LIS) literature about what the public library service provides to the user community, it is more difficult to present this in terms of perceived value. In the UK there is still a paucity of convincing published evidence that is persuasive and likely to be used at a political level (Rankin, 2012:10). In 2009 the DCMS commissioned BOP Consulting to undertake a study examining ways in which public libraries capture data that measure the impact of their services (DCMS, 2009). Subsequently, Rooney-Browne (2011) published an extensive literature review specifically from a public library perspective on the subject. This summarises the findings of a report commissioned by the Library and Information Research Group of CILIP (LIRG) to produce a comprehensive review of existing quantitative and qualitative evaluation methodologies for demonstrating the value of public libraries in the UK.

Bawden et al. (2009) use a case study of two British public libraries in order to help examine evaluation of services. They argue that there has been a recent trend of attempting to standardise evaluation into three general approaches, namely: assessment of monetary value, assessment of impact and assessment of the nature of benefit provided (Bawden et al., 2009: 63). In the United States, Imholz and Arns (2007) assessed library evaluation, noting the growing sophistication of evaluation methods. These ranged from the simple to the complex, and included different forms of economic algorithms as well as forecasting. Importantly, they identified a greater need for developing better methods of assessment which take into account the social benefits provided by public libraries.

An examination of submissions made by a number of public library authorities to the consultation for the Modernisation Review of Public Libraries reveals that many rely on simple metrics such as counting book issues and footfall as a way of quantifying and justifying services. Until 2008, local authorities were required to gather these data and submit them to the government as part of the Public Library Service Standards (DCMS, 2008). Although these standards have now been abolished, many local authorities still require library services to gather such quantitative data. They can be viewed as an easy-to-understand measure of the impact and value for money of any given library service, at the same time ignoring wider measures of ‘true benefit’ or ‘real value’ (Bawden et al., 2009).

Macdonald (2012), in discussing the future of public library services, notes that one of the general concerns about the use of standards is the range of stakeholders in library service provision, for example those whose primary interest is in education, social inclusion, regeneration, digital inclusion, or information and advice services. The appropriateness of quantitative measures being used in a service which is predominantly providing ‘social value’ is also questioned by some (Macdonald, 2012: 13). This research also raises the challenge that:

as the public library service develops, it will be essential to be able to measure the impact and benefit of the service in relation to the most important criteria, which are likely to be wide range of indicators of wellbeing for different groups in society, and not just the narrow measures which have traditionally been used for this service such as spending on books, and levels of borrowing. (Macdonald, 2012: 53)

It may be worth considering value from an alternative professional perspective. Consumer value theory considers what consumers want and believe they get from buying and using a seller’s product (Woodruff, 1997), whether a good, service, experience, or anything capable of fulfilling a need or want. Zeithaml’s (1988) seminal work has shaped the direction of value research, giving rise to the delineation of value as the consumer’s subjective evaluation of all that is received (i.e. benefits, or the get component of value) in relation to all that is given up (i.e. sacrifices, or the give component of value) in acquiring, using or consuming an organisation’s offering. A multidimensional approach to conceptualising value is appropriate in the services context, as the consumer-supplier interaction is characterised by complex sociological, psychological and symbolic aspects of consumption (Boksberger and Melsen, 2011). As library users constitute a heterogeneous group, with disparate needs and expectations, their perceptions of value are expected to be similarly disparate.

Consumer value has been explored in the context of both products and services, with the latter domain dominating across a diverse range of consumption situations such as health care, mobile telecommunications, restaurants and education. However, notably absent from extant consumer value research is an examination of the construct in the context of public libraries. An exploration of consumer value theory may therefore help to further the discussion on what can be evaluated and what is important to the service users.

Benefit to communities and individuals

A number of studies have addressed the benefits of public libraries to individuals and communities. Research by Proctor et al. (1996) is of particular note as it details the impact of temporary closures of public libraries in Sheffield in the aftermath of library strike action. The report contains a number of important conclusions, summarised particularly by the following:

The research revealed that for the vast majority of library users the public library is a service of inestimable value, enhancing quality of life, and, for many people, fulfilling an essential need that no other pursuit or activity satisfies. (Proctor et al., 1996: 38)

Similarly, research by Matarasso (1998), looking at the impact of libraries on a wide range of personal and community development issues, found the wider, often unseen, importance of libraries to their communities. Public libraries are complex institutions, but they offer a place where individuals and families can become part of the community and can effectively connect with local services. Indeed one of the strengths of a library is the freedom it offers people to determine the terms and nature of their own use of it (Matarasso, 1998: 4). There is academic interest in the social impact of the public library offer and how they can contribute to the social cohesion and development of their communities (Bourke, 2005; Johnson, 2010; Vakkari and Serola, 2012; Vårheim, 2009). This view is reinforced by the work of Rankin and Brock (2012) who suggest that:

Libraries give identity to a community and should provide opportunities for everyone within that community. Libraries are a social leveller and, compared with some other types of cultural activity, can reach a much broader range of age groups, genders, and ethnic and social backgrounds. (Rankin and Brock, 2012: 5)

However, it is difficult and time-consuming to gather, analyse and summarise qualitative data on the vast range of services provided by public libraries, and the skills necessary for this may not necessarily be present in all public library authorities. McMenemy (2007) has posited a return to ‘values’ rather than ‘value’, focusing on the social and educational benefits of public libraries, and the role which they play in providing access to knowledge. It may be possible to link this with elements of consumer value theory, such as the recognition of heterogeneity in the user community. This resonates with the suggestion by Goulding that the loose wording of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act has arguably led public libraries to try to develop services aimed at meeting the reading, information, learning and recreational needs of as many in the community as possible:

While for some this means that public library services lack focus and are floundering in an attempt to present a clear, coherent message others interpret this diversity as a strength and represent its flexibility and adaptability as characteristics that make the public library service special. (Goulding, 2006: 335)

From this perspective, the strengths of the public library service lie in its diversity, in the ethical principles underlying provision, and in the efforts made to provide services to all groups in the community. The next section describes the methodology used in the Leeds Metropolitan University workshop.

Methodology

In order to consider the current discussion and thinking on the value of public libraries, Leeds Metropolitan University funded and ran an expert workshop, with the aim of capturing views from a range of key stakeholders. The methodology used for the Leeds workshop was based upon a group Delphi, which is said to have originated in the work of the Rand Corporation in the 1950s (Armstrong, 2001; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). In its original design, this method provided an opportunity to gather expert knowledge in a domain where statistical information may not be used or where a qualitative approach might elicit expert insight to inform forecasting or decision making. Armstrong (2001: 126) suggests that:

Delphi was originally devised as a procedure to help experts achieve better forecasts than they might obtain through a traditional group meeting. Its structure is intended to allow access to the positive attributes of interacting groups (such as knowledge from a variety of sources and creative synthesis), while pre-empting the negative aspects that often lead to suboptimal group performance (attributable to social, personal, and political conflicts).

Hsu and Sandford (2007) describe the Delphi technique as being a suitable method for consensus-building by using a series of questionnaires delivered using multiple iterations to collect data from a panel of selected subjects. One of the strengths of the Delphi technique lies in its ability to encourage groups of people to share information and to refine their thinking or judgements (Dalkey, 1969). In the traditional usage there are said to be four necessary features characterising a Delphi procedure, namely anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback of the panelists’ judgments, and statistical aggregation of group members’ responses (Armstrong, 2001).The version of the Delphi technique used for the Leeds Metropolitan workshop was previously trialled and used by Halpin (2002). Here the need for anonymity is replaced by a process of self-recording by participants, which allows for the gathering of voices not otherwise heard in groups where dominant or orthodox views may pre-dominate; this allows these self-recorded views to form a part of the analysis and, if they are sufficiently strong or voiced by a significant number, they can become a minority voice.

In line with the theory, the aim was to obtain a population of 15–20 participants, which is viewed as the ideal number (Armstrong 2001; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). Twenty-two people were invited to the workshop, with a total of 19 participating on the day. A list of participants and attendees is provided in Appendix 2. The target population was chosen for their expertise, experience, and involvement in the issue of the value of public libraries. This included representatives from the professional body, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP); the government DCMS; the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), ¹ the body responsible for overseeing public library provision; local government decision makers; and public library practitioners, academics and PhD students.

There were three iterations in this project and the results of each were used as the starting point for the next. For the first iteration, each participant was provided with a questionnaire via email two weeks prior to the workshop. The questionnaire contained 12 questions designed to help think through the key areas to be discussed; these questions were designed to provide broad areas for critical consideration and response by each participant and they were asked to record their thoughts on the questionnaire and to bring it with them to the workshop session. (A copy of the workshop questionnaire is in Appendix 1.) The aim was to provide a flexible framework which would be used as a basis for later discussion. Comments from participants have been used to illustrate the discussion.

The workshop included four short presentations designed to present the group with perspectives of different stakeholders followed by two group work sessions.

The four presentations were given by:

In the second iteration the participants were arranged into two facilitated group workshops, bringing with them their individual questionnaire to support their discussion. Each was encouraged to complete a new questionnaire, containing the same broad themes, with any new thoughts, whether shared in discussion or not. This again encouraged the recording of any ‘hidden voices’. The groups provided participants with the opportunity to discuss the issues as they saw them, using the questionnaire as a framework. The facilitator for each group gathered points of consensus and debate, which were then used in the third and final iteration which brought all of the participants together. This, too, was guided both by the questionnaire and by feedback given by each facilitator from the previous session. Concluding thoughts and future developments followed on from the full-group discussion. At the completion of the workshop all participant questionnaires (personal, small group, and final group) were collected for analysis.

All of the data gathered were written up and entered into QSR’s NVivo 8 qualitative analysis software to aid the research process. The use of NVivo computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) enabled data and coding structures to be stored (Bryman, 2012). Once the data had been entered into NVivo a coding process using constant comparison (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) led to the emergence of five main themes. These were:

These themes are discussed in the next section.

Main themes identified in workshop

Value and benefits of services

There were significant contributions examining the notions of both value and impact. This was not surprising because these terms formed the early line of questioning during the workshop and the personal questionnaires. It is important to look at how the participants understood these terms in order to compare these conceptions with those identified in the academic literature reported above. Typical replies from the workshop data made reference to the perceived social benefits of public library services, an area reminiscent of reports from the DCMS (2009). This is a type of value that might be considered difficult to measure and certainly is not captured by the most traditional measures of footfall of library usage and number of issues. The broad themes emerging from the workshop included the concept of ‘value added’, where there was a desire to express the value that services added to the wider community. This was illustrated by the comment that:

[Libraries provide] things you can’t get elsewhere. (Participant)

There was also an emphasis on the idea that value relates to more than simple value for money measures. This was illustrated by the following comment:

value – isn’t about large numbers of people and getting lots of value for money; it’s about preventative issues e.g. 4 million visually impaired people nationally, a smaller group in local community – how can you measure value of people being able to support themselves? (Participant)

There was significant anecdotal evidence outlining how individual libraries had helped and supported individuals and communities: for example, helping to support diversity and community cohesion as libraries provide a non-threatening place for bringing people together through community activities such as story-times, local history and reminiscence groups, and even supporting communities when a local factory closes by sign posting information and supporting training events.

This view is supported by evidence from the literature, including Proctor et al.(1996) and more recently Chowdhury et al. (2006), who consider the role of public libraries in providing access to knowledge for communities. Brophy (2001) looks back to the Government’s 1997 People’s Network report (Library and Information Commission, 1997) to identify key focal areas for libraries in the 21st century:

The Public Library is, as a physical place, hugely important to its local community. At its best it does more than offer books for borrowing or somewhere to read the newspapers – it inspires citizens. (Brophy, 2001: 183)

Some further examples of the value of the public library include their valued services such as children’s reading sessions or support for job seekers. The general agreement was that public libraries play a crucial part in the fabric of many communities and also in the lives of many people. Typical replies from participants for this section included views such as:

[The library] provides a free social space for the community.

They [libraries] provide a safe and accessible place … unbiased and non-judgmental.

They [libraries] provide a place and support for disadvantaged groups, the poor, ethnic minorities, LGBT, … and for people with mental, physical and learning disabilities.

[Libraries] provide entertainment and self-improvement.

In terms of understanding the personal and societal value that libraries provide to the individual and the wider community, the data indicate issues relating to:

social benefit: the benefit the user derives from the services on whatever level;

economic benefit: the dividend received by individuals finding work or being supported and equipped with skills through services; and

educational benefit: support provided by libraries to children and adults through access to books and learning.

Measuring value

There was agreement that libraries are traditionally good at presenting data about activities and processes but less good at gathering qualitative data and evidence of personal or social impact. Suggested reasons for this were lack of expertise, of time, and of resources. Another important and possibly overriding reason was the type and level of data requested by the government or local councils, which needs to be concise and in a specific format. This may be in the form of inputs (the elements required for producing the service) or outputs (the services being delivered). Performance indicators may also be a means of measuring performance by combining two or more performance measures to produce a meaningful indicator.

Workshop participants identified a range of potentially useful ways of measuring the value of public library services; these are summarised in Table 1. ²

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Summary of potential ways of measuring the value of library services.

Measuring economic value
Cost of time and effort	challenges the perception that the public library is a ‘free’ service, measuring time and effort by users
Contingent valuation (CV)	measures the value of both use and non-use
Cost benefit analysis (CBA)	enables quantifiable values such as cost and purchase price to be applied to library use
Consumer surplus	measures the value that consumers place on the consumption of goods or services in excess of what they pay for them
Input & Output Models (IOMs)	provides a method for evaluating indirect benefits
Library Use Valuation Calculator	has been used by a number of US libraries and some in the UK as a way for libraries to let patrons calculate how much their use of the library means to them
Measuring social and cultural value – using qualitative research methods
Generic Social Outcomes (GSO) and Generic Learning Outcomes (GLO)	outcomes/impact – the impact of the outputs on individual users and communities (e.g. improved self-esteem, pleasure from reading, enhanced aspirations, and better life chances)
Anecdotal evidence	the ability to capture anecdotal/sound-bite/narrative evidence and powerful storytelling
Mixed methods research	where the researcher draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods.
The Public Library Quality Improvement Matrix (PLQIM)	a quality assurance tool developed by the Scottish Library and Information Council (SLIC) for public libraries in Scotland

It was recognised that many library authorities do collect some or all of these types of data; however, it is often piecemeal and inconsistent. In addition to local collection of statistics, there is a range of supplementary sources of useful research such as those offered through the DCMS and the CASE ³ programme, and the annual statistics compiled by LISU ⁴ at Loughborough University.

Librarians often recognise what is needed and what needs to be done. However, public librarians work within complex multi-professional and politically-led organisations, where libraries are just one of a number of services. The following were identified as areas that librarians could focus on for future development:

examine new ways of measuring library services;

make better use of existing research by exploiting the evidence base.

This argument is supported by earlier work by Usherwood (2002a, 2002b) who clearly indicates that there is already a range of qualitative data available that shows the value of the public library, but which seems to be ignored or unused to illustrate this value.

Values underpinning the public library service: Moving towards a human rights-based approach

Findings from phases one and two of the Envisioning the Library of the Future project (Arts Council England, 2012) indicate that over the next 10 years, the core purpose of libraries looks set to remain the same as it has been for many years: enabling people to access, explore, and enjoy books, reading, and other forms of knowledge, the provision of quality-assured information, support for learning and literacy. Although the digital age poses challenges, such as the technological, political, and legal complications surrounding the provision of e-books (see for example CILIP, 2012; Palmer, 2011), it has also been argued that: ‘[t]he digital age provides positive opportunities for the library to reaffirm and reassert a position as a cultural and educational resource for the community’ (Rankin and Brock, 2012: 20).

Arts Council England (2012) reports that the first two phases of its research suggest that:

[L]ibraries will be directly relevant to the changes facing society over the next ten years. There is the potential for libraries to be at the centre of a new settlement between communities and the state, and to lead the way in the co-production of a much-valued public service.

The Carnegie Trust UK research (Macdonald, 2012) found that the services provided by public libraries appear to have the potential to contribute directly to individual and community wellbeing. If this is the case, they should continue to be provided to all, with the core service provided free of charge. This report identified that: ‘there is a strong link between library services and education, digital participation, access to information, the promotion of literacy and social inclusion which support the argument for this service remaining a universal public service’(Macdonald, 2012: 42).

This recalls McMenemy’s (2007) suggestion that instead of looking at ‘value’, it is time to return to the fundamental values underpinning the public library service. The public library, in the UK and also around the world, can be seen as a fundamental human right, a basic expectation of society, community, and individuals. This thought is echoed by Koren (2000: 273), who suggests that:

Libraries deal with human values protected by human rights. This basic truth seemed to have been somewhat forgotten or put aside by more conventional talk about all kinds of professional matters. But the notion of human rights as fundamental to libraries’ aspirations and core activities is increasingly receiving attention.

The library might therefore, as an institution, be considered a fundamental human right, or alternatively the services provided by one might be human rights. The principle of freedom to access information is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UN, 1948), while key areas such as literacy, education, and digital access all have connections with human rights and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The link to the latter is made well in reports by IREX (e.g. Beyond Access, 2012) which show clearly how libraries are contributing to meeting MDGs. The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) similarly makes the link between libraries and MDGs (Njobvu and Koopman, 2008).

In view of this notion of the library as explicitly or implicitly being a human right or supporting the human rights of individuals, perhaps we might look at very alternative forms of value and impact measure. Is it possible to do this and then to hold to account governments? Certainly there have been attempts to do so using tools such as Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA). This is a methodological approach to investigating and measuring human rights impacts and compliance. It is based on the normative framework of international human rights law, and it provides intergovernmental organisations, governments, and other actors with instruments to better focus their human rights efforts (Harrison, 2011; Hunt and MacNaughton, 2006). Whilst novel, this approach might afford an international standard, which could be located within the context of local culture and expectation.

Who are the power people and how do we reach them? Some concluding thoughts and actions for the future

So who are the power people? Traditionally we might think of these as the politicians, budget holders, senior professionals, civil servants, in fact all of those who make decisions on or about public libraries. Alternatively we might see these as the individuals who use the public library and the non-users. If we are at the point where the current consensus on the values of the public library is changing and it is a time of challenge, the dialogue needs to be inclusive, with the power of decision across the spectrum of those to whom the public library has a value. As suggested, it may be beneficial to utilise alternative professional perspectives on value and how this might be perceived in the context of the public library.

If we are to engage in wider debate with other professionals this will involve moving beyond the comfort of our current professional domain, either towards others who could provide alternative concepts of value, or to other areas within the public sector where the agenda is changing for the same or similar reasons. Gildersleeves (2012) reminds us of the challenge that how we shape relevant services and, thus, communicate our value to management, councils, and partner bodies is critical. This article and the associated report (Walker et al., 2012) come at a time when the apparent consensus on the value of the public library is being challenged. The current round of budgetary cuts, followed by cuts to public services, has led to a significant number of closures of public libraries and changes to provision; this trend looks likely to continue for the foreseeable future. If we are to find a new consensus, and position the public library for the 21st century, we need to identify values shared across the stakeholders, define mechanisms that measure and/or evaluate these services appropriately and sufficiently, and most importantly ensure that the policy makers and decision makers can participate and share in this debate.