Abstract
This article explores the work of tool lending libraries from the perspective of staff and decision makers. It addresses what role serving community members with tools plays, and what this in turn means for the professional role of library work. The study builds on semi-structured interviews with tool lending specialists and managers from three US municipalities. Participants are found to perceive their library and their work as something of practical, local and immediate relevance. Compared to traditional library work, participants perceive their setting to require patrons and staff to be more directly and actively social. Several participants stress the importance of staff being experienced tool users themselves, leading the article to conclude with a discussion on reference competence.
Keywords
‘We don’t have paper cuts. We have blade cuts.’
Introduction
There is little research on the societal role of libraries that lend out arguably ‘non-traditional’ materials, as for example tool lending libraries do. In the context of library development, offering tools for loan is indeed a relatively new initiative. One of the oldest institutions of this kind currently in operation is the Berkeley Public Tool Lending Library, founded in the late 1970s. Most other tool lending operations are considerably younger. The number of tool lending libraries has increased substantially only during the last few years – now there are likely at least a hundred in operation – and they are being established in a growing number of regions throughout the world. 1 The majority, however, are still to be found in the US. They vary in size, stock and patronage. There are small libraries with only a few hundred tools and as many members. The largest libraries can stock 4,000+ tools, serve 10,000 registered patrons and see 5,000 checkouts including renewals per month. One library reports having roughly 10% of the city’s population as semi-regular members. 2 Staffing is generally limited. Typically, the libraries will have two to three desk staff working during opening hours. In the case of operations dependent on volunteers, these staff may be rotated from a much larger number. Currently, only a few tool lending libraries are run as part of public libraries. Rather, most are free-standing operations, or part of some other organization that is not a library. Thus, most tool lending services are seemingly built on the library as a model of provision, rather than having branched out from already existing library institutions. This phenomenon, the library idea as antecedent and blueprint for new initiatives, is by itself an understudied library and information science (LIS) concern.
Tool lending libraries seem to garner increasing and largely favourable attention in press, blogs and other media. There is little research on the subject, but in a case study of one library, patrons expressed strong appreciation of the service (Söderholm, 2016), corroborating the positive media image. A service lending out materials which would traditionally have been more commonly associated with purchase or rental is also clearly related to a wider interest in new or alternative models of consumption and economy, typically framed as sharing (Belk, 2014; Ozanne and Ballantine, 2010). So, with this new type of service seemingly on the rise and with a tailwind, several entry-points of library research could be proposed. LIS research has only begun probing what it means for libraries – public or otherwise – to engage in lending out ladders and power drills. Larger issues of identity could be raised, such as whether a library is a library regardless of its content, or if the actual materials offered by libraries do matter. Ultimately, an LIS inquiry could be launched to investigate and discuss whether libraries should engage in lending tools, and if services doing so should be categorized as libraries at all or something else entirely. The point of departure for this article is more pragmatic however: regardless of any analysis of what libraries are supposed to be and do, services such as tool lending are clearly already out there.
Thus, on the one hand, tool lending libraries seem to be active, utilized, appreciated services within the communities where they operate. On the other hand, they are still a relatively new and rare occurrence. Little is known of what such a service potentially means in the context of its community and to its stakeholders from an LIS research perspective. It is also largely unknown how the professional role of lending tools relates to other library work – if it is something new or basically the same.
The aim of this article is to investigate the role of three tool lending libraries in the communities they serve, from the perspective of library staff and decision makers. The participating libraries, or rather, the individuals within each library institution, are approached as members of the community in which their library functions. The main research question to be answered by this study, is: How does the tool lending library and its staff serve its community of patrons?
Following initial analysis, four main themes have emerged from this rather broad question. They each explore how the tool lending library is perceived by the study participants, with regard to its role in the community. The four themes can be summarized through the concepts: provision, enablement, representation and conditions.
To explore these themes, the article is structured as follows. First, a conceptual framework of non-traditional libraries and library use is outlined in the next section. Following this is a section describing the interview and analysis method. The results are then presented and analysed in accordance with the four themes. The article ends with a concluding discussion of the findings.
Background and framework
Non-traditional libraries and collections
The concept traditional, and accordingly its antonym non-traditional, is employed here to discern certain specific and somewhat de-contextualized aspects of how libraries can be perceived. A common usage of the epithet ‘traditional’ has been as a contrast to digital libraries and services (cf. Makri et al., 2007), i.e. to denote change or newness with regards to infrastructure.
In this article, traditional does not deal with infrastructure or communication. Rather, it represents a notion of some materials – regardless of whether they are digitized or not – as well established and taken for granted in the idea of a library. The derivative non-traditional represents the notion that other materials may be perceived as new or unexpected in the idea of a library. These notions will vary depending on viewpoint, and would hence be problematic as definitive labels for an individual library. Here they serve as orienting devices for approaching and discussing what libraries offer, presently and potentially. Thus, labelling tool lending libraries in general as non-traditional represents that they offer a content which is likely not as well established and taken for granted as, say, monographic literature. It does not by definition transfer to other facets of the library such as its structure or its mission.
A related discussion concerns libraries that are seen as alternative, i.e. are deviating from a supposed mainstream, by being ‘decidedly not-conventional in their operational mission’ (Radford et al., 2011: 255). Such a definition neither relies on nor rules out any particular type of material. An alternative library may still be traditional in the types of materials offered – such as the deaccessioned books collections studied by Radford et al. (2011) – and vice versa.
Given these reflections on definition, it is more fruitful to talk of traditional and non-traditional materials and collections rather than the libraries as such. In a survey study with public library managers, Michnik and Eriksson (2014) found three main arguments for offering non-traditional collections in libraries.
[T]hey: - contribute to either a library goal or to the implementation of a public library activity; - attract new users; and - meet external expectations/decisions. (Michnik and Eriksson, 2014: 169)
These arguments point at goal-oriented, mostly library-centric reasons for including materials such as toys and tools in a collection. Offering them does not fundamentally challenge the library’s identity or mission; it supports and advances the library in successfully doing its job. Concerning the perspective of the users of non-traditional services, a case study of tool lending library patrons (Söderholm, 2016) found that they view their tool borrowing as mainly a practical concern. When deciding how to acquire a tool, they foremost consider factors such as cost, storage, accessibility and frequency of use, rather than general, global issues such as consumerism and the environment. Patrons describe borrowing from the tool library as having enabling effects on them and their community, for example by supporting those who are trying to become self-employed in tool-dependent work. Thus, the perspectives of managers and patrons both highlight instrumental rationales, chiefly connected to the local context.
Needs and use of the library and its tools
This article explores the perspective of library managers and staff on their library, their patrons and the patrons’ use of the library. Hence, this is not a direct user study; it does not engage the user first-hand but from the perspectives of library managers. Another LIS field which deals explicitly with the user’s own perspective, e.g. on libraries and their materials, is the field of information needs, seeking and use (INSU). The content of libraries is there associated with, or constructed as, information. The constituent INSU concepts are, however, debated, lacking a general consensus (Lundh, 2010, 2011). Information use, for example, has been shown to have at least seven separate major conceptions in information studies (Kari, 2010). In this article, needs, seeking and use are used as entry-points to discuss what the tool lending library caters to, as compared to similar situations in a more traditional library. Framing the need, selection and use of a tool by the same concepts as information – possibly even understanding tools as information – is potentially fruitful but certainly not self-evident. It warrants further exploration, to which this article seeks to contribute. One entry-point is to look at the tool concept as such. When thinking, communicating and learning, humans use intellectual and cultural mediating tools, a conceptualization which makes it difficult and not very fruitful to try and distinguish these from physical tools (Säljö, 2015). According to this Vygotskian understanding of external mediators of action and interaction (cf. Wertsch, 1993), books and other materials borrowed at the library are tools, too.
Method
Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff and managers who worked at or with tool lending libraries in three different US municipalities, all urban area cities. At the time of planning the study, there were rather few operations in other countries – none in the author’s home country for instance, though this is now changing. Three libraries, one from each municipality, were included. Two of the libraries are run as part of public branch libraries, and one as a non-profit organization. 3 The setup of the non-profit library was based directly on the local public library. This includes being open to the general public and not membership-based, and not charging any fees other than overdue and replacement fines.
In order to capture a broad variety of perspectives and experiences of the library work, respondents were selected based on their different positions in the library structure. The following positions are represented in the study:
Tool lending specialist (TLS) – This, or similar variants, seemed to be the established title for desk staff among the participants. Several had a professional background in the practical trades, such as plumbing or carpentry, with no other experience or education in general library work. Lending specialists from all three locations, six in total, were recruited.
Local manager (LM) – These were all of a more general library profession background, at least one of them a librarian by education, as opposed to the lending specialists. At the two public libraries they managed the branch as a whole, of which the tool lending libraries were just one part. The non-profit on the other hand was not attached to any other library operation, meaning the local manager had a more specialized role only managing a tool lending library. One from each library was interviewed.
Central manager (CM) – The study also included central managers who each supervised all of the branches in the library systems of their respective cities. They were positioned centrally at their main library. While they had little direct involvement with the work of the tool lending library, they could provide a view on what role a tool lending library plays in the overall strategy of the city’s service commitment to its residents. Two were interviewed, representing the two public library organizations.
Board director (BD) – One member was interviewed from the non-profit library’s board of directors. They are primarily involved in the strategic work, providing advice, approving certain decisions, raising funds and promoting the library.
The selection also represented a variety in seniority and involvement, from original founding members to interim staff. Four women and seven men were recruited. In the results presentation, direct quotes from participants are identified only by their role abbreviation, such as TLS, without any further individual ID. Each role code (except BD) will thus be used for more than one participant. All 11 participants are quoted. One participant worked both in a managerial capacity and at the lending desk, and is accordingly referred to as TLS/LM.
The interview guides would vary slightly depending on the different job descriptions, but centred on the following main topics: what the tool lending library is; the patrons and their utilization of the service; the tool lending library and the community; the tool lending library as a library.
Nine out of the 11 interviews were conducted at the participant’s workplace, which also enabled observation of some of the setting which the participant was relating. The interviews lasted about one hour (ranging from 21 to 97 minutes – the median interview was 56 minutes). In addition, field notes were taken on library visits, serving as a complement to the interviews.
Conversations were recorded and later transcribed on a word-for-word basis. Following this, transcripts were processed using open coding (Corbin and Strauss, 2008), generating labels of both emic and etic character. The emic/etic duality refers to, on the one hand the participant’s view and concepts, on the other hand the researcher’s understanding and analytical constructs (Fetterman, 2008: 249). Thus, in some instances the participant’s own terminology was used directly for codes, reflecting the emic perspective. After iterated re-reading and comparison, less dominant, redundant or subordinate codes were culled or merged into more prominent codes. Finally, these codes were re-interpreted into axial codes. This process of analysis based on textual content is intended to result in a range of expressed meanings emerging from the data rather than from previous theory (Zhang and Wildemuth, 2009). However, the analysis will inevitably have a deductive component to it as well since the study builds on previous work from the same context (Söderholm, 2016). An example of this is the already mentioned enablement, a concept which re-emerged as pertinent for this article as well. This means that, while mainly data-driven, the analysis also has a concept-driven component to it (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009).
Results
The results are presented according to the themes of the four research questions. The participants were found to talk about the role and of the tool lending library as pertaining to what it provides, what it enables and what it represents. Further, they also talked about the different conditions for such particular role(s) of the tool lending library.
Provision of resources, place and support
This section outlines how participants talked about the tool lending library in a providing capacity. The theme emerges from accounts where participants describe their patrons’ perspectives on their needs and their use of the library collection.
The participants all describe their tool libraries foremost as providers of a specific and seemingly straightforward service: tools, to borrow, free of charge. A recurring notion is how this service is like any other library, in that it provides a resource: … libraries are about bringing resources and people together … it’s a way of making resources available to people who otherwise wouldn’t necessarily have them available. (CM)
This general service statement was seen as extending to information too, not just the tools as such: … the staff at the tool lending library also offer information. So if someone’s looking for some kind of resource that they don’t have at the tool lending library, the staff there are there to help that patron connect with whatever resource they need. (CM)
Participants stress that providing tools is different from providing books or other library materials. As for the items as such, the participants seem reluctant to generalize tools into the staple concepts of library collections, such as documents or information. Rather, they seem to hold the view that ‘tools are tools’: … you can download books to your e-reader … But tools are tools, and the fact that you can organize them, just like you can organize information, doesn’t mean that they are information [laughs]. They’re still tools, a hammer is still a hammer. (TLS)
Such a distinction between materials that lend themselves to digital provision, and materials that by necessity are bound in their physical form, seems to be an important factor for participants in conceptualizing the uniqueness of their service. It follows that the concept tool potentially works on several levels. There are tools in the metaphorical (something-as-tool), tools you keep in an actual (not metaphorical) toolbox, and a whole spectrum of cases in between, making the distinction fuzzy and perhaps irrelevant. The opportunity of confusing wordplay that presents itself here, does hold a key idea; the tools borrowed from the tool lending library are not only tools, but also tools, in the same sense as books. In this understanding, the tool, be it sheep shears or Shakespeare, is a device utilized by the patron as a mediating instrument. The difference perhaps being that with the type of tools offered by the tool lending library, the mediating function – its ‘toolness’ – is more self-evident and inescapably defining. Thus, the sentiment that a tool is just a tool does make certain sense, from both a patron and a staff perspective. Such a view does not necessarily imply that tools are seen as something simpler or less meaningful than, for example, monographic literature. It implies that since the common interpretation of tools already overlaps with the tool metaphor, there is little incentive to look for further extended meanings.
Meeting the patrons’ needs
According to the participants, the patrons’ needs typically are expressed as a more or less specific idea of what tool they are asking for. Still, they will often also ask for advice, a second opinion or simply reassurance in their choice. They might also want guidance on how to use the tool properly, and more generally discuss the project they are undertaking. In this view, the patron is seen to somehow learn by consulting desk staff, not just be directed to the tool. If the patron does not initiate conversation themself, the staff will often take the initiative and ask anyway what the patron is planning on doing: They definitely think they know what they need. … people will occasionally come in to ask for a table saw, and when asked why, they’ll say that they wanna cut a table [leg] … And I’ll say, a handsaw is an easy way to cut a table leg. A power saw would be a much more difficult way to do it. There’s actually a lot of that. So, we really have to guide them. (TLS)
This highlights another crucial point where the tool lending libraries are perceived to differ from ‘book’ libraries, apart from the materials they provide: … librarians will help up to a certain point … we go in a little deeper in a sense, as, what are you trying to do. (TLS)
This view also entails a different approach to the discretion which may be associated with libraries, when it comes to how far staff can go in taking an interest in why patrons are borrowing their materials: The library [as an institution] tends towards privacy, but this is a pretty unique situation. (TLS)
According to one central manager, the fact that the tool library does not offer patrons the facility to make their own reservations or checkouts is intentional. By design, the patron must go through the staff. This opens an opportunity to help make sure the patron gets what they really need: … sometimes you have a sense that people don’t really know what they’re doing, and you sort of have to ask them what they’re using it for. Some people get offended, they think you’re interrogating them, so you have to do that in a diplomatic way. (TLS)
Three main arguments for the necessity of taking such active interest in the patron’s needs, seeking and use, were given.
First, it is a matter of helping patrons achieve what they want to do, i.e. satisfying their need. As the participants point out, those who come to borrow a tool almost always have a rather specific problem in mind, something which they seek to find a practical solution to by utilizing the library: I’ve never had anyone walk into the tool library and go … maybe I’ll just borrow a drill and maybe I’ll figure something to drill when I get home. … When you borrow a tool it’s really used for one or two specific things, and that’s what you’re gonna use it for and not kind of bring it home and let it sit there, and decide if something is gonna manifest itself to use it on. (TLS/LM)
Given this, the staff can reasonably assume that it is in the best interest of the patron to leave with the tool most suited for the problem they are looking to solve.
Second, it is a safety issue. The staff wants to get a feel for that the patron knows what they are doing, and are using the right tool for it, so as not to hurt themselves or otherwise cause damage. The issue of liability may be formally averted through the waivers all new patrons are required to sign, though as one participant observes: Simply because someone signs a waiver doesn’t mean if they have a serious accident that they wouldn’t sue the city. (TLS)
Liability, then, is also connected to the opportunities for learning which might arise at the desk. The lending specialists take care making sure that the patrons themselves understand what it is they need and why, so that the patrons ultimately decide on the final tool selection, not staff. The lending specialist is merely the ‘guide’.
Related to safety is also the third argument, which is to alleviate abuse of the tools, a constant hassle according to the participants. These last two points – liability and abuse – are also illustrated when asked how their service compares to that of a hardware store: They’re not gonna ask you what you’re doing. We will, because you’re using our equipment. (TLS)
To summarize, the participants describe how they may go to some lengths to make sure patrons get the right tool for the job, and hopefully will be using it properly. This is in the interest of both parties, not just the patron.
One participant points out the need to be careful in giving advice, to hedge it with a measure of reservation, considering the liability involved in instructing people in the use of potentially harmful equipment. Their strategy then is to present it to the patron as potential options they might consider on how to solve the problem at hand, rather than giving definitive instructions.
Providing a social place
The tool lending library was perceived as providing several values. Apart from the value of utilizing the tools (outlined under Enablement below), it would mostly pertain to the social place offered by the library.
Well, it starts at the door you might say … all of a sudden there is a commonality with people, in their thought, in their feelings about each other. (TLS)
In such a view, they perceive their tool lending library as representing a distinct community place of its own. Some caution should be considered when employing the concept of community. It has been pointed out that ‘community’ is often used in a normative sense as something inherently good, a desirable, which is taken for granted as having positive impact on, for example, sustainable development (Hauxwell-Baldwin, 2013). In this case, several participants do express very positive views on the tool lending library as a place of social interaction in their community. Several tool lending specialists put a lot of weight on describing the atmosphere of their library, which they explain is important to both them and their patrons. In their view, most patrons seem to have a very positive experience of visiting the tool library; it is something that they enjoy doing. A primary reason given for this is the enjoyment of meeting each other, both with staff and fellow patrons: … it’s kind of therapeutic for patrons to come to the tool library, because it’s good for a laugh. (TLS)
Coming to the tool lending library to casually socialize, to ‘hang out’, without necessarily borrowing anything, is mentioned by several participants. However, accounts of such library usage always imply that patrons will be socializing with other people. There is no mention or implication of any library usage based on simply spending time there alone or in closed groups, in the fashion that probably most other types of libraries open to the general public will see.
Also mentioned, but not stressed so much as the social aspect, is the part of the experience which has to do with the collection and the tools as such: Sometimes for some of them it’s like being in a candy store. (TLS)
It is seen as an opportunity to try tools of different types and manufacture, without having to buy them, which to some patrons may be enjoyable in itself.
Enablement and empowerment of work and well-being
This section presents how participants would talk about the role of their library in terms of what it enables for those it serves. Enablement, in the context of this article, refers to the various ways in which the participants see the tool library in a capacity of supporting and empowering its patrons and community. It is related to, but distinct from, the previous theme of provision. Whereas provision encapsulates what participants see their patrons as directly getting from the library, enablement is rather about what they see it as resulting in – actually or potentially. Thus, participants may talk about their library as providing resources – tools and support – which in turn is seen as enabling certain things, related in the following responses.
A central, recurring theme throughout the interviews is that of upkeep, as in maintaining and even improving upon one’s home and property: Why it started was mainly to help people fix up their homes. (TLS) Its stated purpose is to provide tools to city residents … so that they’re able to be self-sufficient, and to make repairs, and to do gardening, and to do small upgrades. (CM)
This is not only seen as important and beneficial to the individual patron. It is of concern to the collective as well, i.e. to the neighborhood and community: … it allows people to maintain their yards, which sounds like a small thing but in fact is huge, when you walk through a neighborhood, to see a neighborhood where things look good and things aren’t broken in people’s yards … I think it makes a real difference in a community, how run down and neglected it looks. It allows people to kind of take care of their communities. (CM)
Several participants recount how their patrons develop personally by being able to borrow tools from the library. They develop their skills or learn new ones, possibly even whole areas of application, such as a ‘new trade’. This in turn is seen as bringing back something to the community, or the city: … our patrons both teach themselves new trades, and increase the property values, which both they and the city reaps the benefit of. (TLS)
In this view, the tool lending library is seen as having a rather direct role in enabling community members in the caretaking of the shared place which is their neighbourhood.
Another notion of enablement concerns how the tool library lets patrons extend their own tool collection, whether they be laypersons or professionals: … even if you do this kind of work, you don’t usually have a full line of every tool. If you’re a carpenter, you’re not gonna have plumbing tools or electrical tools. You may have a few so that you can do emergency stuff, cut out a pipe and cap it or whatever. But you won’t have fish tapes and all the rest of it that you would need if you were installing. Or if you’re a plumber you wouldn’t have a table saw. (TLS)
Thus, even for patrons who are heavily dependent on tools on a daily basis, the library may have a role and value. They own their primary tools of trade, and then complement their collection by borrowing tools which are secondary: ones usually not pertinent to their most common jobs. Seeing it as enabling an extension of the patron’s own resources, goes not only for the tools as such, but for storage too: They come here to utilize this as if we’re their garage. … we store the tools for when they need it. (TLS)
It is a clearly needs-oriented view; the tools are available to the patrons when they need them. The rest of the time they are out of sight, mind, and literally the house.
Representation of values, identity and community
This section summarizes participants’ accounts as pertaining to representational aspects of the role of their tool lending library. It encompasses conceptions of what the tool lending library stands for and what it is an expression of, what its stakeholders ascribe to it.
Participants argue that the idea of sharing tools simply seems to ‘make sense’ to a lot of their patrons, and accordingly that buying all those tools instead would not make sense: So even if you did have some storage or shed or something, it doesn’t make sense to have every particular kind of tool. (TLS)
This is more than a mere money issue. It could be seen as unwarranted and superfluous to go out and just buy tools indiscriminately: From what I’ve heard over the counter it sounds like a lot of people just think it’s silly to buy a tool you’re gonna use once, and that really is what it comes down to. I can come here and borrow it, or I can go and buy it, which I can afford, but then it’s just gonna sit there. (TLS/LM).
Most of the participants do not outline any ‘higher cause’ as primarily driving the service. Rather, how they express the value of the tool library seems to centre around the service as such and the direct benefits from utilizing it. As seen in the previous section, several participants explain the purpose of the tool library as to lend out tools, to aid upkeep. One participant explains that a cause or ideology might be excluding: We’re not a cause. … big-box stores like Home Depot, we have nothing against them. … Our purpose is to loan tools to people who live and work [here] … We have the utmost confidence that if somebody checks out a rototiller … they’re gonna get value out of that. (LM/TLS)
To have the library promote certain causes and be vocal in ethical, potentially politicized issues could limit their outreach. A participant from the non-profit library explains that if they were to be membership-based, it would necessitate having more of an agenda, which might not suit everyone: Whether you’re very conservative or you’re very liberal, we feel that you should have equal access to tools without being proselytized. (LM/TLS)
Also, even a small membership fee might prove a barrier to some potential patrons. The library is open to the general public, regardless of their view on politics, consumerism, the environment, and so forth. This stance is not exclusive to tool lending, according to one participant: … actually public libraries never promote a cause, other than literacy … they’re not gonna say, come to the library so you don’t have to buy your books at Borders, you know, reduce your carbon footprint or save paper. (LM/TLS)
This perspective contrasts with a normative view of what such a service might aspire to achieve. Instead it seems to represent a pragmatic rationale of supplying what is needed because it is needed and therefore it is of value: … the tool is just another piece of material, equipment, that the public wants that we provide. (LM)
The participants all mention various values which they see the service as potentially having to the patrons and the community. However, in their day-to-day work they are not primarily value-driven. As one participant explains, you cannot let yourself be distracted from practical fundamentals such as safety, which have to come before any cause. Such thoughts are also reflected in how staff see the public as approaching the tool lending library. One manager and lending specialist recounts an example of an ideologically outspoken patron faced with the realities of owning a home: [they are] very critical of me when I drive, until one day, they call me over the phone, they needed a tool ’cos their in-law was coming over the next day and we were closing in a half hour. It would have taken them an hour to bike over, so they jumped in their car, the thing they hate, they jumped in the car because they needed to drill a hole and unclog a drain, and when you’re faced with the in-laws coming over, a lot of times your ideologies will go out the window … It’s the difference between talking about the tool library, which is usually very ideological, and actually using a tool library, which is much more practical. (LM/TLS)
In this view, any value ascribed to such a service in principle is not necessarily what motivates coming there to actually get tools. These different kinds of motivations are not in conflict. It is arguably similar to, for instance, grocery shopping. We make sure we get food somehow, because we need to eat. We may or may not do this through means to which we also ascribe certain value, such as ethical considerations. Our ideal scenario, however, whether it is piling local organic produce on our cargo bike or great value bulk discounts in our car boot, may not always be doable. So we resort to whatever works.
Another recurring and seemingly central tenet to practically all of the interviewees’ accounts is diversity. As noted earlier, they estimate gender division among the patrons to be fairly even. Their respective tool libraries are seen as serving a diverse patron population, in terms of ethnicity as well as socioeconomic status. They see themselves as having some success in simultaneously reaching underserved and working-class members of the community, and the middle- to upper classes: … it’s a very wide segment … a real cross-section of society. You have homeless people in line, in front of engineers. … many of them getting the same tools. (TLS) I even had a [patron], he’s a superior court judge and he believed in it, and he wanted to check out tools to tear out his deck, and not have to buy them. He thought it was good, it was the community thing to do. He could have hired anybody to rebuild his deck. (TLS)
Because of this, some participants argue that the tool lending library needs to have a diverse staff, to reflect and be able to relate to the community it serves. 4 Otherwise, an ethnically very homogenous staff, for example, could make some patron groups feel excluded.
Finally, with regard to how the participants see their operation in the context of libraries at large, the relationship is somewhat complex. Two parallel, at first seemingly conflicting, perceptions are expressed by the participants. On the one hand, they will explain with emphasis that the tool lending library represents an entirely unique and distinct service.
It is this completely separate world that is attached to us, rather than an integrated part of the larger system. (CM)
On the other hand, they hold that it is basically the same thing as a ‘traditional’ library, just with other materials. These differing stances are not as contradictory as it may first seem, as they depend on the level of library operation being discussed. When talking about library purpose, it is seen as largely the same regardless of library type, which is connecting people with helpful resources (see Provision above). It is in more concrete discussions of the day-to-day operation that it is seen as basically different, e.g. regarding the type of support offered (also Provision) and the skills required of staff (see Conditions below). The participants mostly do not seem to see this as a problem. However, not all from the public library outfits view the tool lending library as a definite, obvious component of the public library. One library manager explains that while the tool lending library is highly useful and relevant as such: … I don’t necessarily think the library is the appropriate place to do it, and I think it was done at the library simply because we were built to circulate things. (LM)
In this view, the tool lending library’s residence is due to historical and practical circumstance, rather than any directed strategic development. Meanwhile, other participants may view the lending of tools as a logical extension of library services. Such differing viewpoints also surface when participating managers talk about how a collection of tools is related to the complex concepts often central to the notion of library content, like information, knowledge and culture. Both the view that there is some fundamental difference, and that there really is not, are represented in the interviews. Further, the interplay between the tool lending service and the rest of the library (for the two public libraries), is perhaps limited: … it turned out to be very popular … [but] its impact on the branch has been not I think what was anticipated … there was some hope that the tool lending people would then also become users of the library, or more frequent users … That doesn’t seem to have been the case. (BM) A lot of the people who use the tool library don’t use the rest of the library. (CM)
The tool lending library then, seems to be insulated to some extent when it comes to serving some user groups that libraries otherwise are struggling to reach. They do not automatically ‘leak’ into the book library just because they have discovered the tool lending service. While participants indicate they do have a substantial patronage who also use the spectrum of library services, it is unclear to what extent this overlap is merely incidental, and where there might be interplay of some kind.
Conditions for the tool lending library and librarianship
This section stems from how participants talk about the basis for their tool lending library and for their professional role. In relation to the other three sections, this section explores what participants see as the prerequisites for what the library provides, enables and represents.
All participants talk about the particular knowledge and experience needed to work at a tool library and provide the service. They seem to perceive practical, hands-on experience with tools to be an important pre-requisite for providing good service: I think a good tool librarian should really keep their hand in. … I’ve crawled under a lot of houses, you know. I’ve been knee-deep in human shit, I’ve crawled through cat shit and been bit by black widow spiders under houses. So, [laughs] you have to do that before you say, oh yes, here’s the tool you need, you just go under your house and you can do such-and-such-and-such. You really have to be able to be in their shoes, or their wetsuit, or whatever. (TLS)
One participating tool lending specialist describes it, as that all working at the tool library ‘have a tool belt’, literally and figuratively. A participating central manager explains that the tool library warrants a separate job description and recruitment, and that it would not work to bring in staff from other parts of the library system. S/he jokingly concludes that s/he, being a trained librarian, would not be much help at the tool library. The participants argue for the importance of a specialist, tool-centric skillset: … the tool library staff is completely distinct … our tool specialists know a lot of things that our librarians know nothing about. (CM) …they need to have staff that have special skills … who have a knowledge of tools and what the tools do. (CM)
The reference competency of tool lending staff relies heavily on their experience and knowledge of using the things they are providing, rather than on knowledge of reference as such. This resonates with familiar discussions on the relation and tension between subject expertise and generic librarian skills in reference (Rodwell, 2001). The only type of generic quality stressed by participants, that is not directly connected to tools, is being good at handling all kinds of people. The quote above suggests not only being proficient in the type of work done by the patron, but also being able to relate to their situation. Participants mention here the necessity of having a friendly, patient manner and several describe the importance of a sense of humour: The people that work here are people-motivated, we really like people. I don’t think you could work in this particular job without liking people. And all these guys that work here are like that. They do enjoy being around, there’s lots of laughs. It’s unspoken, but for a person to come here and not leave laughing, then there’s definitely something wrong [laughs]. (TLS)
While these kinds of qualities may sound like they would rely on one’s personal character and disposition, it may also connect back to generic library reference skills in some respects. Successful reference does not presuppose a relation to the patron built on the hierarchical power of one party knowing more than the other; on the contrary, it may necessitate a more level relationship where staff and patron are collaborating on the problem at hand, negotiating and co-creating its solution (Stover, 2004). The tool lending specialists do seem to relate to their patrons as peer tool users foremost, not library users. Indeed, the author could observe on several occasions how a seemingly straightforward patron request for a tool would end up in lengthy discussion on the best solution. It was not unusual for pen and paper to be brought forth, staff and patron poring over impromptu sketches. This connects back to the descriptions mentioned earlier of how patrons may not only get the right tools at the desk, but also opportunities for learning. Finally, the specialist approach also comes through in how some participants view their professional identity and what they seem to take pride in; they love tools, are good at them, and enjoy putting that to use in helping members of their community getting things done.
Most participants do not seem to see their library concept as primarily part of any larger movement. It is foremost a local service of local relevance. The exception was the board of directors member of the non-profit library, a different role from those working at a library or directly managing it. The role of a board of directors will by definition provide more of an outside perspective, compared to the rest of the participants all being at the library in their daily work.
… it’s definitely part of a larger movement, the whole collaborative consumption movement … The economic system in the entire world is changing and we have to move towards things like sharing. (BD)
To the other participants, library staff and managers, the tool lending library is a service that makes sense on a local and rather immediate level; they can often observe or appreciate its impact and benefits rather directly themselves. Occasionally though, they do point out how general societal change may also be a factor in the present and future role of their service: … as we get more and more compact, compacted through population pressures in this world, I think more and more people have to come to terms with small units of living, and more borrowing, or renting or whatever. Just to live a little more lightly. (TLS)
Regarding the role of local culture, the participants could see a thing such as the tool lending library working in all kinds of places. At the same time, most of the participants also see the service as being very typical of their community, and that its success to some extent makes sense given where it is located: … it helps to have a small community that has non-profit organizations and some community connections already. If you were in a big city I could see it working neighborhood by neighborhood. There’s I think a certain scale to it. (BD)
Location also plays into how the service is seen as adapted to the needs of patrons.
… if it were placed in another community, [it] might have different tools … if it’s in a rural community it might have more needs for some farm-type tools. (LM)
When it comes to the public’s view of the tool lending library, the participants invariably perceive their service as being highly popular and appreciated. They say that patrons ‘love’ it, that it is a ‘success’ and a ‘hit’. According to several participants this appreciation is not something they just hear every now and then, but a lot, from many of their patrons. When asked what sort of feedback they get, one participant sums it up: Well you have to be here every Christmas and you’ll see the feedback. (TLS)
Indeed, the author could observe on several occasions how patrons would come by with small gifts, often some home-made treat or perhaps fruit from a garden tended with library tools. Participants further see this popularity as protecting the service from facing any immediate danger of drastic cutbacks or closure, by shielding it politically: … if for some reason somebody came to me and said, you have to get rid of it, I would say I can’t do that, because the city, the political fallout would be a disaster [laughs]. So it is very well loved, and very well used. (CM) … it would be very difficult to terminate it. People would go up in arms about it. (TLS)
Regarding how the participants themselves view their tool lending library, they all seem to be more or less content with it as is: I really can’t think how I’d improve it much. It seems to work, and so you don’t wanna mess with that. (TLS)
Other than more resources – a few additional types of tools which they could see being useful, more space, and to be open more days and hours – none of the participants would want to change much about the service.
Concluding discussion
Overall, the tool lending library is seen by the participants foremost as a service of immediate pragmatic use and value to its patronage. Concerning its societal role, the participants focus on local community relevance rather than general societal or global developments. The participants primarily stress such benefits and issues as can be more or less directly observed, over those less tangible or longer term.
The four themes which were explored based on the research question are summarized in the following.
First, the tool lending library is perceived as providing something very concrete: tools for anyone to borrow for free. These tools are not conceptualized as something more abstract; they are ‘just tools’. Other than the tools themselves, their service is also seen as providing some degree of support, both in help selecting the tool and advice on how to use it. Taken together, these aspects are expressed as the patron getting the right tool for the job. Further, the tool lending library is also seen as providing a community place, where people meet to socialize with both staff and each other, ‘having a good time’.
Second, participants see that which they provide as enabling upkeep of homes, gardens and other property in the patrons’ neighbourhoods. This is seen as beneficial to both the individual patron and to the community. Another important element of enablement is how they see patrons as learning by utilizing the service, for example to get into a new trade or improve their skills.
Third, the tool lending library is seen as representing something which ‘makes sense’ to the patrons. This is not primarily connected to higher, ideological stances in the views of the participating staff and managers; the tool lending library does not represent an extended cause. It is not that they take an entirely value-neutral position with regard to their service; again, the enablement of upkeep is a clear expression of value. They just do not define such value in terms of ethical and certainly not political dimensions. The service to them represents something for which there seems to be both high demand and strong support from the public, which is partial justification in itself for the library to provide it. They leave it largely up to the public to decide why the service makes sense to them. Another representational factor which was stressed in the interviews, is the importance of staff reflecting the diversity of the patronage. This directly echoes the frequently heard librarianship ideals of recognizing and supporting diversity – a diversity which, as is well documented, is largely lacking in librarianship itself (Jaeger et al., 2010). Notably, the importance of diversity was brought up by several of the tool lending specialists in this study. They have no general librarianship background or formal training, suggesting that these ideals do not depend on being deeply immersed in professional librarian discourse or LIS. Rather, it seems to stem from their direct experience of working at the tool lending library and what that entails. Finally, regarding the tool lending library’s identity as a library, it is seen as comparable to ‘regular’ libraries in its mission to provide relevant resources, but different in how it is done.
Fourth, regarding conditions for the role of the tool lending library, the participants explain that the lending staff needs a specialist skillset. This would mainly build on practical experience and knowledge with tools. This finding indicates a possible difference from how other, more common library types are often perceived. Another condition is how participants all see the tool lending library as being very popular among the public, and to be highly successful in that regard.
Tool library staff hold the same view, that borrowing tools is a practical concern which makes sense to the patrons. It is a service of immediate use which does not need much further justification. Borrowing tools from the library is not seen as giving something up or making an effort; it is not a short-term sacrifice for some long-term benefit. Patrons are perceived as both enjoying and getting benefit from borrowing tools from the library.
The findings also tie back into Michnik and Eriksson’s (2014) three managerial arguments for offering non-traditional collections. First, the participants see a tool lending library as contributing to general library goals and work, such as bringing people and helpful resources together, and supporting patrons in their learning. Second, the tool lending library is seen as a very popular and highly used service. It attracts patrons who may not have been using other library functions. Possibly these new patrons also stick mostly to the tool lending service. A cautious speculation is that these user groups may to some extent represent those working-class male populations who are traditionally difficult for libraries to attract. That could in turn explain why the gender division reported by participants is more even than libraries normally see. This would need further study however. Third, in the views of some of the participants, the tool lending library has become something which the city is expected to provide, and which would cause considerable commotion and political fallout if discontinued.
The non-traditional tag was intended as a way of distinguishing and characterizing tool lending libraries mainly based on their collections. However, it seems it also in some respect extends to how the service and operation as such is perceived. The participating tool lending libraries are arguably traditional concerning ICT usage. 5 The participants also seem to view their mission as conventional rather than alternative – they see their work as bringing together people with relevant resources, a fundamental library role in their view. However, they do stand out in some of the social aspects. As participants point out, patrons have to interact directly with other people, and actively communicate, in order to use the service. This social requirement or social threshold means there is no equivalent of going to the library and minding your own business, enjoying your private portion of the shared social space. Going to the tool lending library, patrons need to be actively social. Some patrons will sometimes visit only to socialize, without borrowing anything. The very spaces of these libraries seem built for mingling: nowhere to sit, few mid-room shelves or other furniture behind which to linger in solitude, the entire public area in a single relatively small room which will quickly get crowded during busy hours. Patrons also need to be prepared to face questions about the reasons for their request, to an extent which might not always seem prudent in more traditional reference settings. This intensive socializing would indeed seem to be one of the key components of the apparent success of these services. An interesting consequence of this observation, however, is that there may possibly be an unknown population of non-users or former users who avoid going to the tool lending library for these very same reasons. There might for instance be people who are not entirely comfortable with the sort of dedicated attention they would be getting. Griffis and Johnson (2013) have suggested that the inclusive community building endeavours of public libraries, while enabling social cohesion among the users they successfully do cater to, indeed may be socially exclusive with regard to other user groups through the very same mechanisms. With the tool libraries in this study, the patron seemingly has no option of enjoying the same level of anonymity as visitors to a traditional library do. On the contrary, there seems to be almost an expectation that patrons have fun, because of the social experience they will be sharing. Regardless, the implications of such relatively intense and demanding social places in a library setting would warrant further study.
Thus, in comparison to other library types, participants perceive their operation as more social – in the interpersonal, active sense – and at the same time more practical. They do not construe tools as information, documents or other higher-level abstractions. A recurring notion is the importance of the staffs’ knowledge, skills and experience with tools, that they ‘have a tool belt’. It is seen as vital to be able to relate to the patron’s situation and problems, to ‘be in their shoes’. The tool lending desk is literally the platform upholding this intersection of an intensely social setting and a very hands-on topic matter. This intersection seems central to the ‘teachable moments’ which may arise when a seemingly simple tool request develops into a richer interaction, and where the patron takes the role of learner. That ‘the reference desk can be a powerful learning station—more powerful, perhaps, than the classroom’ (Elmborg, 2002: 455) is not a new idea, nor is it exclusive to tool lending libraries. However, it does seem particularly prevalent in this setting. As noted, the tool lending specialists stress how they may go to some lengths in guiding the patron to the right tool and making sure they know how to use it. For many of the reference situations dealing with more traditional collections, it would arguably seem improper for desk staff to try and make sure the patron knows what they are borrowing and how to properly use it. The contrast is perhaps most obvious with public libraries. The idea of showing concern that a patron really can handle the serious read they just asked for, that they might get it ‘wrong’ and therefore need to be guided on how to do it, is probably frowned upon by most public librarians of today. In the views of the interviewed tool lending specialists, there seems to be mutual expectation and agreement with their patrons, that they are actively involved, authoritative subject specialists in a way that is partly unique to their setting.
Subject background in this context perhaps is the generic professional skill in tool librarianship. Possibly, tool libraries warrant being seen as working with a range of subjects too, like any library. Some tool lending specialists have more experience and knowledge of plumbing, others of carpentry, yet others of gardening, and so forth. All staff can lend out tools from the entire collection and provide some degree of support with the most common scenarios with most types of tools – the generic knowledge. In addition, they also have their specialties, areas where they are able to ‘go deeper’ in the words of one participant. So, in the context of tool lending librarianship, that which in terms of traditional reference would seem to be a pre-dominance of subject knowledge (knowing tools), could perhaps still be conceptualized in terms of specialist and generic, if such a distinction is relevant at all.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was partly funded by the Adlerbertska Scholarship Foundation.