Cultural sustainability: A perspective from independent libraries in the United Kingdom and the United States

Data collection methods

As the aim of the study was to gain an in-depth understanding of a previously under-researched area, the researchers decided to undertake semi-structured interviews, as they would provide the opportunity to generate qualitative data and gain deeper insights from the professional viewpoints of the participants (King and Horrocks, 2010). Since the overarching aim of the research was to collect empirical data to develop understanding of the relationship between GLAMs and cultural sustainability, it was also important that the data collected built on the previous body of knowledge surrounding the topic. For this reason, the researchers returned to the previous literature on GLAMs and cultural sustainability to develop an overview of the key topics that would need covering during the interview process.

With regard to developing understanding of the contributions of independent libraries to external cultural sustainability agendas, the model proposed by Stylianou-Lambert et al. (2014) for developing cultural policies to improve the contributions of museums to cultural sustainability offered the most comprehensive account of the relationship between GLAM organisations and cultural sustainability. In addition, Soini and Birkeland’s (2014) review of the discourse surrounding cultural sustainability was identified as one of the most comprehensive accounts of cultural sustainability more generally. By gradually combining similar topics identified in these two studies, it was possible to develop a simplified overview of the main facets of cultural sustainability that would be relevant to independent libraries. This process resulted in the development of four key categories that would guide the interviews: ‘Heritage Preservation’, ‘Cultural Identity’, ‘Cultural Vitality’ and ‘Cultural Diversity’ (Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Categories developed to guide the discussion on the contributions of independent libraries to cultural sustainability agendas.

Similarly, to guide the collection of data regarding the challenges and changes necessary to achieve sustainability in independent libraries, the eight factors identified by Newman’s (2010) framework for investigating the sustainability of archives was identified as a particularly useful method for achieving a holistic perspective on the sustainability of collections-based organisations. Using data gathered through an earlier stage of this research (Loach et al., 2020) together with insights generated from pilot interviews with professionals working in the independent library sector, these factors were refined to produce six key factors that would be used to create a holistic perspective on the challenges and changes necessary for achieving sustainability in independent libraries. These were ‘Governance’, ‘Funding’, ‘Staffing’, ‘External Support’, ‘Collections’, and ‘Community and Users’.

To help focus the interviewees’ thoughts and ensure that all of the key categories were sufficiently covered, the researchers decided to utilise a card-based game method (Rowley et al., 2012), developing two sets of cards to guide data collection. The first set provided the four key categories developed to guide the discussion on the contributions of independent libraries to cultural sustainability agendas (Figure 1). The second set was made up of six cards with the key factors of ‘Governance’, ‘Funding’, ‘Staffing’, ‘External Support’, Collections’, and ‘Community and Users’, which would guide the discussion on the challenges and changes necessary for achieving sustainability.

The questions asked in relation to each set of cards were determined through an iterative process that included pilot interviews. The researchers reviewed and revised the questions until they were confident that the interview schedule would support the interviewees in providing comprehensive and meaningful answers. For the first set of cards, the interviewer would ask participants to order the cards in terms of how important they felt each category was to the overall aims of their organisation. Once completed, the interviewer would ask the participant to describe the contributions of their organisation to each of the four categories. Having spent some time considering each category in more depth, participants had the opportunity to re-order the cards if they felt it to be necessary. For the second set of cards, the interviewer would ask each participant to order the cards according to how important each of the six factors were in enabling the sustainability of their organisation. Three key questions would be asked in relation to each of the six factors: ‘What are the main challenges that you face in this area?’ ‘What have you done to overcome these challenges?’ and ‘Is there anything else that you think could be done to improve things further?’ As with the first set of cards, participants had the opportunity to re-order the six factors if necessary.

Throughout the interview process, the researchers endeavoured to ensure transparency. The participant information sheet and consent form explicitly stated the purpose of the research. As well as providing detailed information on the purpose of the study and what would be expected of the individual during the interview, these documents provided information on the efforts that would be made to ensure confidentiality and anonymity as well as the intended outcomes of the research and how the data collected would be put to use.

Sampling frame

Since there is no comprehensive list of independent libraries, this study uses the membership lists of two important groups of independent libraries, the Independent Libraries Association (ILA) (United Kingdom) and the Membership Libraries Group (MLG) (United States). Founded in 1989, the ILA has 33 members, including The Portico Library (Manchester), the Newcastle Literary and Philosophical Society, and the Devon and Exeter Institution. Founded in 1991, the MLG has 22 members, including The Athenaeum of Philadelphia, The New York Society Library and The Mercantile Library (Cincinnati).

In total, the researchers conducted 19 interviews in the ILA (United Kingdom) libraries and 7 interviews in the MLG (United States) libraries during a research trip to the United States. According to the assurances given to participants regarding confidentiality and anonymity, the researchers removed individual names and specific details that could enable their identification and assigned each transcribed interview with an individual code to enable the data collected from each participant to remain distinguishable from each other. These were UK1 to UK19 for the ILA libraries and USA1 to USA7 for the MLG libraries.

Data analysis

Interview transcripts were transcribed verbatim and imported into NVivo for analysis. Having spent some time reading and re-reading the transcripts and adding annotations regarding any emerging themes or interesting observations, a deductive and inductive thematic analysis was employed on each transcript to enable ‘data reduction’ (Hennink et al., 2011). An initial process of deductive coding was carried out, with codes being based on the themes used on the cards as well as according to whether ‘challenges’ or ‘changes’ were being discussed. Following this, the extracted data were further analysed to produce a set of inductive codes that sought to provide a more in-depth analysis of the data related to each of the deductive codes. For example, in relation to the deductive code of ‘Challenges’ under the parent code of ‘Governance’, further inductive codes included ‘outdated governance system’, ‘lack of continuity’ and ‘lack of involvement in the library’. In general, the majority of the inductive codes could be found to relate directly back to their respective deductive codes in this way. However, when necessary, new codes such as ‘Relationships between concepts’ were established to represent new ideas that emerged from the data.

After completing the coding of all the transcripts, the researchers rearranged the inductive codes into a series of broad categories and sub-categories. In some cases, in order to find ‘more selective and abstract ways of conceptualising the phenomena of interest’ (Bryman, 2012: 569), initial codes were dropped and combined into new codes. This process gradually led to a hierarchical presentation of the data in relation to the deductive codes and the two overall objectives of the research.

Strengths and weaknesses in the contributions of independent libraries to external cultural sustainability agendas

The first half of the interview invited participants to consider the strengths and weaknesses in the contributions of independent libraries to cultural sustainability through the four areas of Heritage Preservation, Cultural Vitality, Cultural Identity and Cultural Diversity. Sixty-nine percent of participants selected Heritage Preservation as the area in which they perceived their organisation to provide its strongest contributions. This was exemplified by responses from UK16 and UK1, with UK16 describing their organisation’s tangible heritage as ‘almost . . . a prerequisite’ to ‘all the other stuff that we do’ and UK1 noting that without physical objects such as the building and the collections, there ‘just wouldn’t be any point’ to their organisation’s existence.

While most interviewees agreed on the importance of Heritage Preservation, some participants also described a more complex relationship between the four categories. For example, interviewee UK6 noted a two-way relationship between Heritage Preservation and Cultural Vitality in their organisation. Suggesting that the two areas ‘speak to each other’, their work to promote Cultural Vitality through ‘literary festivals and other events’ was considered to not only be ‘derivative’ of the collections that they preserve but also what ‘funds’ the preservation of this heritage (UK6). Similarly, although none of the participants considered Cultural Diversity to be their organisation’s strongest contribution and there was general acknowledgement that the sector struggled to appeal to audiences beyond their traditional ‘white . . . upper, middle class’ user base (UK6), there was a consensus over the need to broaden the ‘appeal’ to more ‘than one group in order to stay vital’ (USA6). However, as well as acknowledging these supportive relationships between activities carried out in each area, participants noted that conflict could arise between them. For example, UK5 described how there was ‘a tension between the increase in use’ of collections and artefacts ‘needed to take part’ in promoting Cultural Vitality and Cultural Diversity while also ensuring‘ the conservation work necessary’ for Heritage Preservation continues to be sustained.

Other interviewees suggested that this conflict between the activities carried out in each area went beyond the tension between the use and preservation of tangible heritage to include a tension between the preservation of the intangible aspects of their heritage, such as the organisation’s traditions as a subscription library, and the development and diversification of their cultural offer. For example, UK7 described how their work in Cultural Vitality ‘is quite topical . . . right now’ and had caused a lot of debate between members of the governing committees ‘over what the institution is for’. While some were ‘very keen to expand and move onwards’, the interviewee described how there was also a ‘quite vocal group which doesn’t want anything to change’ and did not ‘seem bothered’ that this might mean that the institution ‘will die if they don’t find ways to encourage more people in’ (UK7). Meanwhile, although USA5 described how their membership was becoming more aware of the need to take their institution ‘beyond this notion of the subscription library’ to ‘start to engage with the community and bring more people in’, they also felt that some members remained ‘horrified by the idea’ as they didn’t ‘want people to know about their secret club’.

The importance of preserving the intangible aspects of the libraries’ heritage was especially apparent in the way that a number of participants misinterpreted the notion of Cultural Identity. Despite the examples of ‘a town, region, or country’ being provided on the Cultural Identity card, many of the participants’ responses focused on their role in preserving and promoting their organisations’ identity rather than preserving and promoting the identity of the wider community. For example, UK9’s response focused on the importance of preserving and promoting their organisation’s identity ‘as the oldest library in [name of city]’ and maintaining its ‘unique place in the landscape of the city’. USA6 similarly described how they ‘strongly feel’ the importance of their organisation’s ‘cultural identity’ as ‘one of the oldest cultural organisations in the State’.

By considering Cultural Identity to relate to their organisations’ identities as libraries rather than the identities of their local communities, these responses suggest that a common concern for these institutions is the need to support a cultural identity that goes beyond geographic boundaries to encompass the ideals that libraries seek to embody. This was epitomised by UK6’s response, who considered the Cultural Identity that their institution exists to support ‘less in geographic terms and more in terms of the libraries themselves as cultural spaces’. However, some of the interviewees also suggested that, owing to the origins of their institutions as subscription libraries, there was a need to differentiate between what was considered to be the negative and positive connotations associated with this identity and to identify which elements were worth keeping. UK15 considered their institution’s origins as a subscription library to have led to it developing an identity as ‘quite a closed’ organisation, and while not thinking it was necessary to entirely ‘dispel the idea of a subscription library’, it was felt that the focus should be more on promoting ‘its tradition of independence’ rather than any notions that it exists for a specific ‘group of people’. Meanwhile, USA3 similarly described how it was necessary to try and move their organisation beyond its identity as a ‘conservative membership institution’ that seeks to ‘recreate something that earlier generations liked’, to being more about ‘invoking very deep, idealistic notions’ of ‘libraries as spaces of freedom’ and ‘self-discovery’, where ‘you can read anything you want’.

Challenges to achieving sustainability in independent libraries

Having completed the questions related to the first set of cards, the interviewer provided participants with the second set of cards related to organisational sustainability. Similar to the previous cards, interviewees first ordered the cards according to the areas that they considered presented the main challenges to their organisation. The majority of participants chose either Governance, Staffing or Funding as the area representing their organisation’s greatest challenge, with 88% choosing one of these three areas. Of these participants, 30% chose Governance as their organisation’s greatest challenge, 27% chose Staffing and 31% chose Funding. The remaining 12% of participants considered Community and Users to be the area that represented their greatest challenge to achieving sustainability, while none of the participants chose External Support or Collections.

With regard to Governance, a common concern raised by many of the participants was that the size of their governance board was too unwieldly, making collaborative decision making difficult to achieve. Described by UK12 as the ‘legacy of a structure that had come from the very beginnings . . . when the members were really running the library’ and would have been involved in ‘buying books and signing cheques and things like that’, it was now felt that such governance structures were ‘really unworkable for a modern charity’. USA5 similarly described the ‘problematic legacy’ of their ‘governance structure’, and the difficulty in establishing ‘an engaged board of trustees that give generously with their time and their financial support’.

While discussing Staffing, many of the interviewees described how their organisations still maintained traditional staffing structures that did not match the changing needs of the organisation, making it difficult to sustain their expanding activities. UK13 noted how their ‘role as librarian’ had ‘evolved quite significantly’ from the ‘traditional librarian’s role of 20 years ago, when events weren’t considered as important’, while UK5 remarked that although their ‘governors’ ambition’ was to ‘have the place open more’, they ‘don’t have enough of us to do what we need to do’.

Meanwhile, while discussing funding, participants described how their organisations’ reliance on the traditional funding strategy of ‘one third membership, one third endowment, and one third rental income’ (USA3) did not always prove to be reliable. The ‘reasonable’ (UK9) and ‘modest’ (UK3) membership fees charged by institutions were not considered to be a particularly ‘lucrative revenue source’ (USA2) for their organisations, and although endowment funds and rental income were described as important sources of income for ensuring ‘long-term sustainability’ (UK15), they were also described as only procuring ‘enough to cover every day running costs’ (UK12). The precarious nature of these sources of income when, for example, ‘rents come up for renewal’ (UK9) or more widespread economic difficulties occur such as ‘2008 and the financial crash’ (UK6) were also considered to cause institutions to become preoccupied with ensuring that they have ‘funds to protect’ themselves ‘in case of emergencies’, thereby impeding any investment in development (UK12).

Echoing the challenges discussed related to Staffing, challenges related to External Support were again considered to mainly arise from the use of traditional staffing structures that were unable to provide the staff necessary to apply for financial support from external funding bodies or to foster lasting collaborative relationships with other organisations. As several participants described, a lot of ‘energy’ is required for ‘writing grant applications’ (USA2) as it is a ‘very complicated and time consuming’ process (UK5) and Staff do not often ‘have the time to do it’ (UK7), hence a ‘dedicated person’ is needed for ‘serious funding bids’ (UK15). It was also felt that it was difficult ‘to facilitate’ the development of ‘really engaging relationships’ that ‘go beyond just one event’ (UK11) when collaborating with other organisations for the same reason.

With regard to the main challenges related to Collections, participants described how the continued use of traditional collection policies, which often include ‘rules’ that the libraries should not ‘get rid of anything’ (UK9), made it difficult to find space for their ever-growing collections as they cannot ‘actually throw anything out . . . unless [they] change the rules’ (UK13). Furthermore, although participants felt that their institutions’ continued focus on collecting and ‘promot[ing] the printed, physical book’ (UK15) was important for differentiating independent libraries from academic and public libraries; many also felt that their libraries’ collections remained under-used. UK1 described how people would generally join their library ‘because they want to come to the events’, leaving the books to be considered as ‘a nice add on’ and like ‘a decoration in the rooms’, while UK14 described their members as being ‘supportive’ of the library collections but not ‘actually us[ing] them’.

One of the main challenges identified related to the organisational factor of Community and Users was the persisting perceptions of independent libraries as exclusive organisations. A common concern among participants was the need to attract new members beyond an ‘ageing membership’ (UK13). Indeed, the majority of participants agreed that having ‘a diversity of users’ was essential to having ‘a sustainable institution’ (USA4) and that it was crucial that they continue to work to create a ‘solid, very wide, very diverse user base’ (UK6). Many of the interviewees described how over the course of the 20th century their libraries had ‘lost track’ of their ‘origins and become elitist clubs’ (UK8), seeing ‘their role only as a kind of club for old boys who share a particular bibliographic interest’ (UK14). Compounding this air of exclusivity was what several of the interviewees described as the desire of some of their membership to be secretive about their library’s existence. As UK9 described,

the classic thing that happens is that somebody will join, and they will say things like ‘Why did I never know you were here?’ and then as soon as they join they don’t want anyone else to join, because it’s their private place then.

Changes necessary for overcoming challenges and achieving sustainability in independent libraries

In relation to Governance, participants described how they had taken steps to modernise their libraries. Crucial changes described included downsizing the governance board to around half its original size and enabling continuity to be achieved by allowing ‘the possibility of immediate re-election for a second term’ to get ‘a mix of new blood and people staying on’ (UK12). Establishing nominating committees that focus on ‘bring[ing] in the right mix of skills’ was also described by USA5 as an important development.

A number of interviewees described steps taken to update their staffing structures and better reflect the needs associated with the diversification in services that has occurred in recent years. Having roles dedicated to specific tasks such as fundraising and marketing, which in the past had been treated as additional activities to be divided between existing staff, was seen as a crucial step in the ‘professionalisation of the library’ and the ability to ‘create more development opportunities’ by USA4. UK2 similarly described how ‘professionalising the service’ and getting a ‘proper Marketing Department, Courses Department, and Events Department’ had been crucial to ‘bring[ing] the library along’ and turning it around from being a ‘quaint’ and ‘old’ institution that ‘no one knew about’ to one that’s ‘reputation’ and ‘user figures’ have ‘consistently been going up and up and up’.

Steps had also been taken by a number of organisations to move away from a reliance on the three traditional sources of funding, with the aim being to build what USA1 described as ‘more diverse revenue streams’. The development of more commercial streams of funding, such as letting the library space for private events and functions, was one of the most common methods highlighted for doing this. Establishing mechanisms to increase income from individual giving, such as ‘benefit dinners’ (USA2) and ‘annual appeals’ (USA5) was also considered useful. However, this tended to be more so the case with participants in the United States than the United Kingdom, where participants generally considered the funding that they received in this manner to be far more irregular, therefore making it impossible to ‘rely on . . . because you really just don’t know when they’re going to come in’ (UK13).

The changes necessary to overcome challenges in the area of External Support again related back to the issues raised in the area of Staffing. Participants described how they had recently employed staff whose roles would be ‘dedicated’ to ‘build[ing] deeper connections’ (UK16) and working in a more ‘systematic’ and ‘organised way’ to develop more ‘formal reciprocal relationships’ (USA6) with other local organisations. Partnering with larger and more established institutions that often have greater ‘expertise’ and ‘capacity’ when it comes to writing funding bids was also described by UK19 as a particularly fruitful method for helping their library access external funding.

The specialisation of collections according to their key strengths was a strategy identified by some institutions as a means by which to increase their readership. UK2 described how this had helped to improve the ‘reach’ of their collections by increasing their appeal beyond ‘the local community’ to an ‘international’ research audience. USA4 similarly described how, having ‘lost’ a lot of their ‘traditional lending library readership’, narrowing the focus of their collections according to its key subject strengths had enabled them to ‘become an internationally renowned research library’. Specialisation was also considered a useful way to overcome issues regarding the lack of space, as it could provide the opportunity to update ‘weeding and acquisition polic[ies]’ to ‘reflect’ the ‘change in focus of their organisation’ and allow for more sustainable policies to be put into place (USA2).

As well as taking steps to build ‘formal marketing strategies’ (UK2) and to develop ‘programming’ that would ‘attract younger and more diverse audiences’ (USA3), several participants identified more specific methods to address the perceptions of independent libraries as elitist institutions. For example, UK9 and USA5 described how increasing their ‘presence on the street’ through ‘window displays’ (UK9) and ‘sandwich boards’ (USA5) had been particularly successful in making their libraries ‘seem more inviting’ (USA5) and getting ‘more people coming in’ (UK9). Meanwhile, USA4 described how they had made changes to their marketing strategy which included starting to describe the fee charged for membership ‘as a donation’ rather than as something that would provide ‘privileges’. This had been particularly effective at getting the majority of their members to consider their membership ‘as a way that they can support the library’ and aid it in having a ‘positive impact on the community and the world around us’ rather than as something that would provide them with ‘benefits’ (USA4).

The contributions of independent libraries to external cultural sustainability agendas and challenges in realising these contributions

Based upon the four parameters of cultural sustainability derived from Stylianou-Lambert et al. (2014) and Soini and Birkeland (2014), the data collected during the first stage of the interviews initially sought to gain insights into how practitioners felt their organisations contributed to cultural sustainability according to these parameters, and which were their strongest and weakest contributions. However, the data collected suggested that the way practitioners viewed their contributions to cultural sustainability was far more complex than that of an organisation contributing to broader sustainable development agendas.

The insights provided by the participants elaborate on the conceptualisation of Cultural Sustainability in GLAMs provided by Stylianou-Lambert et al. (2014) in these key ways:

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

How participants perceived the contributions of independent libraries to cultural sustainability agendas.

The role of organisational culture in achieving sustainability in independent libraries

The aim of the second stage of the interviews was to gain insight on the challenges to and changes necessary for achieving organisational sustainability in independent libraries. Table 1 provides a summary of the main challenges to achieving sustainability in independent libraries and the changes considered necessary to achieve sustainability in relation to each of the organisational factors.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

The main challenges to achieving sustainability in independent libraries and the changes necessary to increase their sustainability.

Factors explored in relation to the internal sustainability of independent libraries	Main challenges to achieving sustainability in independent libraries	Changes required to achieve sustainability in independent libraries
Governance	Traditional structures	Modernisation of governance structures
Staffing	Traditional structures	Modernisation of staffing structures
Funding	Reliance on traditional strategies	Innovation in funding strategies
Collections	Continuity of traditional collection policies	Innovation in collection policies
External support	Lack of collaboration and external financial support (stemming from limitations of traditional staffing structure)	Increased collaboration and external financial support (enabled by modernised staffing structure)
Community and users	Perceptions of exclusivity leading to insularity	Reinterpretation as inclusive and accessible institutions

According to these findings, it is possible to perceive unsustainable independent libraries as those that value tradition, continuity and exclusivity, and sustainable independent libraries as those that relinquish these values in favour of modernisation, innovation and inclusivity. However, since sustaining organisational heritage and identity is of fundamental importance within these libraries, a complete overhaul in organisational culture could potentially jeopardise their cultural value. If independent libraries are to manage the organisational change necessary to ensure their future survival successfully alongside their commitment to sustaining their organisational heritage and identity, it is essential that their sustainability strategies include recognition of the tension between these somewhat conflicting priorities.

The MVF (Figure 1) proposed by Davies et al. (2013) is of particular relevance to understanding the conflicting priorities and values that exist in independent libraries. The internal focus of the ‘Club’ and ‘Temple’ modes on the museum community closely resemble the membership-focused nature of independent libraries. The negative repercussions that this can have by causing institutions to become unwelcoming, ‘difficult to join’ and ‘elitist’ (Davies et al., 2013: 352) is also reflected in concerns regarding exclusivity and insularity in independent libraries. Furthermore, the difficulties that museums operating in these modes can face owing to their reliance on internal funding from ‘members’ ((Davies et al., 2013: 352) and ‘wealthy patrons’ ((Davies et al., 2013: 353) would appear to bear similarities to the issues related to the reliance of independent libraries on the three traditional forms of funding, that are all internally managed by the libraries themselves.

The characteristics considered to make independent libraries unsustainable would therefore appear grounded in the priorities and values associated with the ‘Club’ and ‘Temple’ modes. The external focus of the ‘Forum’ and ‘Visitor Attraction’ modes meanwhile seem to embody many of the characteristics considered necessary for independent libraries to become more sustainable. The emphasis of the ‘Visitor Attraction’ mode on allowing the needs of visitors and ‘market forces’ (Davies et al., 2013: 353) to drive the organisation’s development can be seen to embody the need for independent libraries to become more commercially minded and more aware of the needs of potential markets beyond their traditional user base. The emphasis of the ‘Forum’ mode on participation and fostering a sense of shared community ownership of the collections would seem to embody the inclusivity and accessibility felt necessary to ensure the relevance of independent libraries to a wider community.

To become sustainable, this suggests that independent libraries need to adopt characteristics that are more typically associated with the externally focused ‘Forum’ and ‘Visitor Attraction’ modes. However, the underlying assumption of the MVF and indeed any version of the CVF is that the effective management of organisations does not require a radical shift from one mode of operating to another but rather the careful management of ‘the interrelationships, congruencies, and contradictions’ that exist between them (Cameron, 2013). Indeed, as the functions prioritised by each quadrant of the framework are of equal importance to the organisation’s overall success, a radical change from one mode of operating to another could prove damaging (Cameron, 2013). Since an emphasis on heritage preservation and upholding a traditional library environment has so far been crucial to retaining the unique cultural value of independent libraries as ‘beautiful and inspirational’ spaces (Davies et al., 2013: 352), a radical shift could be particularly harmful.

Interpreting the data regarding the internal sustainability of independent libraries according to the MVF also offers the opportunity to draw more immediate links between the internal organisational culture of the libraries and their potential contributions to cultural sustainability. For example, the tendency to operate according to the ‘Club’ and ‘Temple’ modes that prioritise heritage preservation and upholding organisational traditions can explain why Heritage Preservation and Cultural Identity were identified as the libraries’ strongest contributions to cultural sustainability, particularly since that heritage and identity is grounded in the libraries themselves rather than the wider local community. Adoption of the external focus of the ‘Forum’ and ‘Visitor Attraction’ modes and their respective priorities related to contributing to ‘civic society’ and ‘communicating’ with broader audiences (Davies et al., 2013: 353) would meanwhile appear to offer the opportunity for independent libraries to improve their contributions to Cultural Diversity and Cultural Vitality.

It is upon this basis that the conceptual framework in Figure 4 is proposed. Aligning the parameters of cultural sustainability outlined in Figure 1 with the four quadrants of the MVF framework devised by Davies et al. (2013), it highlights how the priorities and values associated with the ‘Club’, ‘Temple’, ‘Forum’ and ‘Visitor Attraction’ modes are supportive of contributions to particular parameters of cultural sustainability. In addition, it demonstrates how the internal focus of the ‘Club’ and ‘Temple’ modes, which support the preservation of the heritage and identities of the libraries (‘What independent libraries exist to sustain’), can often conflict with the external focus of the ‘Forum’ and ‘Visitor Attraction’ modes, which are supportive of cultural diversity and cultural vitality (‘What makes independent libraries sustainable’). The framework thereby provides a tool by which to consider how to balance these conflicting priorities, not only to ensure the sustainability of the libraries themselves but also to ensure their successful contribution to all four parameters of cultural sustainability.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Conceptual framework for managing internal organisational sustainability and contributions to external cultural sustainability agendas in independent libraries.