Spatial Realism Through the Lens of Cinematic History: A Framework for Space Evaluation in Academic Libraries

The Digital Shift and the Emergence of the Spatial Realism Framework

Usage, perception, and transformation of space are important concerns for the academic library, especially as the digital age continues to progress with rapid speed. Few will argue that technology has had tremendous implications on a wide variety of institutions, and the library is certainly one of these players. What is needed is a paradigm shift in evaluation methods used to measure the convergence of physical space and user experience. Quite simply, to continue existing in the physical world, libraries must create valuable physical spaces. As such, it is important to consider how the current state of our physical environments affects both perception and relevancy. It is equally important to develop a framework for identifying spaces to transform and inject new meaning. Though libraries do still collect and house materials, the library as a monolithic warehouse of books is an obsolete concept (Delaney & Bates, 2015; Giesecke, 2011). We now have an opportunity to transform spaces into sustainable environments for current and future users.

This assertion that physical space is important is not radical; however, in an era when so much occurs in the digital ether, how often have we stopped to analyze the effectiveness of our physical spaces? When we do engage in analysis, what framework or process do we use to start our investigation? When considering space and design, librarians, as professionals, may assume that we are experts, but we must confirm that our assumptions align with demonstrated user need. We must ensure that we have not become so caught up in the digital frenzy that we are now out of touch with spatial reality.

Freelance film writer Philip Gillett (2006) provides a succinct description of film realism when he outlines that it is a method employed to depict real life on screen. A consideration of cinematic advancements and realism, then, helps guide the core components of the spatial realism framework. Spatial realism, as I define it in the context of librarianship, is a holistic understanding of space in terms of usage, perception, and targeted renovation opportunities driven by demonstrated user need. Specifically, one can consider the spatial realism framework as a continuous cycle characterized by: dedication to a holistic analysis; implementation of mixed-methods; analysis of data to identify key trends and issues; implementing changes while simultaneously considering sustainability for future users; and analyzing spatial effectiveness again.

At the crux of the spatial realism framework is the ability to let users drive the change. Continuous observations of spatial patterns and feedback from patrons will ensure that physical spaces meet the shifting demands and desires of users. Definitions of usage may vary, but as more and more resources shift from print to digital mediums, usage trends (specifically those defined by access to information) will shift from physical to online environments. Consider this; since students can fulfill information needs via library databases, it is possible that students can achieve their research needs without setting foot inside the library. If it is possible, therefore, for students to achieve their goals without setting foot in the library, what implications does this have for the current and future status of the library’s physical spaces? The methods by which patrons engage with and access resources, highlights the importance of investigating usage in ways that consider both online and physical environments.

By utilizing the spatial realism framework, librarians can gain a clearer picture of the library’s spatial reality and can help ensure that physical spaces are most effectively meeting the shifting spatial needs of users. Furthermore, if libraries can demonstrate that they meet user demand, they will reinforce their relevancy and importance as an integral partner on campus. To better understand the need for the spatial realism framework, let us now investigate the notion of library as space.

Library as Space

Some may question why physical library space even matters in a digital world. To illustrate, up until the mid-1990s, collection development and maintenance were the main rationale for the existence of the academic library (Fallin, 2016), but with the burgeoning use of digital resources and shifting learning trends, it is no longer necessary for the library to act as a storage facility. What then, becomes of our library spaces as more resources turn digital, and how can librarians ensure maximum efficacy of physical spaces amid shifting user needs and information-seeking behaviors?

The concept of library as space perhaps provides the best answer. Library as space can be defined as the ability of the library as a physical institution to play an integral role in the daily lives of users, beyond simply satisfying an information need. Terms that can be interchanged are library as learning space, library commons, and learning center (Fallin, 2016; Oliveira, 2016). Consider the services provided in academic libraries today: instruction literacy classes, reference services, group and individual study areas, programming spaces, makerspaces, computer and printing services, and more. As access to information shifts increasingly to digital outlets, the library as space concept becomes even more crucial to investigating the future of the academic library as a pivotal presence.

Silas Oliveira (2016) nicely elucidates the concept of library as space when he writes, “libraries are becoming actual learning centers” and “very little will be accomplished if the library doesn’t support the learning activities set forth by faculty and academic programs” (p. 355). Oliveira points out that the digital shift is not the only factor contributing to the library as space concept. The ways in which millennials learn are different from previous generations, and relies much more heavily on collaborative and group learning. As a result, libraries should seek to develop spaces that are conducive to “knowledge creation” instead of merely knowledge access and storage (Oliveira, 2016, p. 355).

Fatt Cheong Choy and Su Nee Goh (2016) further add to this discussion of library as space by adding that a library is a “facilitator and activist in the business of knowledge acquisition” (p. 13). The library is only one source that students use when they compile information. In our era of information overload, students pull from a plethora of sources on any given topic. Choy and Goh (2016) argue that this reality shifts the library from a mere provider of information to an engaged and active player in helping students become perceptive information consumers.

It may seem natural to think that a simple solution is more space for collaboration. For example, incoming generations with differing learning styles and requiring different pedagogical techniques that emphasize collaboration may lead librarians (and architects) to consider simply adding more group space. Without documented input from users, however, this seemingly natural response would misrepresent the complexity of the issue. In fact, Oliveira (2016) outlines a plethora of studies that list the many complex and varied reasons students use library spaces. What becomes apparent is that there is no readily available one-size-fits-all solution.

The complex issues surrounding space, usage, and redesign illustrate how a framework would be helpful for librarians tackling these questions. Choy and Goh (2016) provide one such framework that focuses on four key areas of space planning: collaboration, sanctuary, interaction, and community spaces. Choy and Goh (2016) argue that these four key areas can provide a starting point for librarians considering space changes, and are informed by the fact that “the library today is a multi-purpose venue to promote and support the learning, teaching and research activities of the university”(p. 26).

Other authors also provide guidelines for thinking about space redesign, which focus on the adaptability of space. Joseph Rizzo (2002), for example, provides a guideline that appears very similar to the core areas outlined by Choy and Goh but takes it once step further when he urges librarians (and architects) to consider the sustainability of space. Rizzo (2002) writes, “architects must help librarians to create libraries that not only meet the changing functional requirements of a community but also its enduring social and emotional needs” (p. 457).

It is clear that the academic library has transitioned to be a key player in the learning process of students, and Jeanne Narum (2013) proposes an intriguing and beneficial guideline concerning this reality. Narum urges institutions to first consider what they want learners to become. While not specifically written for libraries, the Narum’s primary question is worth consideration because it strikes at the very core of library services: that is, what do librarians hope students can become as a result of their time here? It would be beneficial for each guideline to have this as an underlying principle.

The ideas proposed by Eugene Raskin in his 1974 book titled Architecture and People summarize exactly why librarians should still be concerned with the effectiveness of physical spaces, even in a digital world. Raskin (1974) posits that architecture tells the truth about a society. As a vast majority of tasks move indoors, the spaces we interact with are crucial in creating social history because they highlight patterns of life. In other words, buildings (and spaces inside those buildings) that we interact with are a direct result of societal trends (Raskin, 1974). Raskin’s book came out in 1974, but it provides a refreshing outlook on space—one that brings the human experience back into focus. Few would argue that a majority of information retrieval occurs online, but librarians should not let this reality jeopardize the necessity of sufficiently analyzing the human experience happening in libraries. The question we must ask—and that is essential to remaining relevant—is how to give ourselves new meaning.

Usage Studies in Academic Libraries and the Value of Ethnographic Methods

To supplement the discussion above, and before we can understand how the history of film can assist with usage studies, it is beneficial to discuss some previous studies and current usage trends in the academic library. Let us first consider the rationale behind usage studies. While it is important to understand how users access and interact with libraries, Andy Priestner and Matt Borg (2016) stress that librarians should be less concerned with how patrons access our resources and spaces and more concerned with the success and value behind every patron experience, as revealed through ethnographic research. Priestner and Borg’s (2016) work stresses that investigations should be comprehensive and rooted in ethnographic methods to ensure that librarians obtain as holistic a view of usage as possible. Their sentiments strike at the very heart of the spatial realism framework, which stresses mixed methods and cyclical evaluation.

Fortunately, many libraries have begun implementing ethnographic methods to better understand space and usage. For example, librarians at California State University implemented ethnographic methods such as role playing, photo mapping, journal mapping, design workshops, traditional ethnographies, and web design workshops to elicit information not only about usage of the library but also about student perception and design input (Delcore, Mullooly, & Scroggins, 2009). From these methods they discovered, for example, that students valued the inclusion of social and study spaces; extended hours were important to facilitate for the wide variety of student schedules; and that a demand for services and access Monday through Wednesday was most important as there are fewer classes later in the week (Delcore et al., 2009).

The ERIAL project is another example of ethnographic methods being utilized to investigate library services and user experience (Asher, Miller, & Green, 2012). Employing more than 700 research endeavors that resulted in data from more than 650 participants, the value of the ERIAL project is that it investigated the “context in which activities occur” (Asher et al., 2012, p. 14), allowing researchers to understand how patron experience affects and motivates the ways in which people interact with libraries.

As one component of the ERIAL project, librarians at the University of Illinois Springfield used a method called cognitive mapping to consider the spatial efficacy of the Norris L. Brookens Library, which was built in 1975 (Treadwell, Binder, & Tagge, 2012). In this method, students were handed a blank piece of paper and multicolored pens, and were asked to draw a map of the library from memory, changing pen colors every 2 minutes. At the end of the 6-minute exercise, librarians had visual representations of those physical spaces that were most recognizable and remembered (Treadwell et al., 2012). When supplementing this exercise with interviews, librarians discovered just how confusing the library’s layout was and how wayfinding was almost nonexistent (Treadwell et al., 2012).

Ethnographic investigations aimed at discovering the context behind the ways in which patrons interact with library space seem to strike at the concept of library as third place. Coined by Ray Oldenburg (1999) in his work The Great, Good Place, third place refers to spaces that serve as community anchors. Specifically, Oldenburg (1999) defines this concept as “a generic designation for a great variety of public places that host the regular, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realm of home and work” (p. 14). Third places are necessary, Oldenburg (1999) argues, because they create a “realm of satisfaction and social cohesion beyond the portals of home and work that for others is an essential element of the good life” (p. 7).

Investigating the intersection of third place and libraries, Jong-Ae Kim (2016) surveyed students about their perception and usage of the library and discovered that the core elements drawing students to the library were access to information, spaces to read and study, and spaces simply to relax. From this perspective, the university library fits the concept of third place as outlined by Oldenburg, and reinforces the fact that libraries remain an important physical presence on campus, beyond simply acting as a resource discovery tool.

To further investigate the notion of library as third place, Lisa Waxman, Stephanie Clemons, Jim Banning, and David McKelfresh (2007) implemented a different approach to investigate library usage. Using field notes from 44 students who documented their time in third places, the researchers discovered that 80% of students engaged in third places that were off campus. Students enjoyed spaces that provided a mode of escape; rather, they sought out restorative spaces such as coffee shops and restaurants (Waxman et al., 2007). While this study specifically sought to study the impact of putting a coffee shop in the library, it nonetheless provides valuable information regarding the spatial motivations of college students, and it can have implications for future library renovations. If, for example, students perceive the library as both a productive and restorative place, perhaps this will enhance usage and student satisfaction.

As concerns other studies which investigated usage, a 2014 study by Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) discovered that as many as one third of online students use the campus’ physical library (De Rosa et al., 2014). This OCLC report further analyzed the library’s significance by using a perception map technique and discovered that one of the ways users most valued the library was for helping them be productive (De Rosa et al., 2014). Students valued that the library provided them with a certain array of necessary technology, as well as the most current and relevant information sources possible. Interestingly, the perception of the library in terms of productivity ranked even higher than this same attribute as applied to a classroom setting or interactions with faculty. Other attributes that students associated with the library were convenience, reliability, and providing safe spaces (De Rosa et al., 2014). Clearly, students perceive the library as an important campus institution.

Supporting this OCLC survey, a study by Gricel Dominguez (2016) confirms the perception of the library as a place to be productive. One survey respondent noted they were “more productive in the library than anywhere else” (p. 326). The Dominguez study, in fact, reveals further intriguing data. This study found that 57% of library users preferred to use the library individually versus studying with a group. It also discovered that students greatly valued quiet space in the library. In fact, students took the opportunity during this study to express their desire for more seating in certain quiet zones (Dominguez, 2016). This work is valuable because librarians in this study employed a variety of methods—surveys, photo diaries, and ‘sweeps’ in which the researcher scanned certain zones and noted activity (Dominguez, 2016).

Additional ethnographic research was done at the University of Rochester’s River Campus Libraries. Nancy Foster and Susan Gibbons (2007) conducted interviews with students and examined usage trends to determine the following: why students did or did not chose the library; to identify usage trends in the library; and to identify how students wished the library was different. Through observation, they determined which areas of their library were most frequented and what students desired. To illustrate, they discovered a need for more power outlets and improved lighting. They had so much success with student feedback, in fact, that they “let the students drive the design” during a five million dollar library renovation (Foster & Gibbons, 2007, p. 21).

Researchers at the University of Florida Libraries also turned to user input to inform renovation decisions (Cataldo, Freund, Ocha, & Salcedo, 2006). Using site visits, surveys, focus groups, and interviews, their emergent themes were a need for technological uniformity and flexibility, a wireless building with abundant electrical outlets and more quiet study areas, for groups as well as individuals (Cataldo et al., 2006). They concluded that future redesigns should keep in mind that libraries are shifting more toward process and learning, not just discovery and retrieval (Cataldo et al., 2006).

One group of librarians, combining the concept of the library as place with longitudinal study, decided to evaluate the effectiveness of their renovated spaces. Over the course of a few semesters between 2008 and 2010, they examined renovated group collaboration and adaptable spaces (Fox & Doshi, 2013). A core research question of theirs was “to what degree does renovation impact utilization of the renovated space?” (Fox & Doshi, 2013, p. 87). Their study revealed that library usage as a whole increased 25% as compared with past usage—intriguing because this percentage increase is higher than the increase in student enrollment between these same years (Fox & Doshi, 2013). Specifically, the researchers discovered more usage in the renovated spaces, but found that one renovated space in particular attracted students away from other renovated spaces in the library (Fox & Doshi, 2013). This area was one of only two spaces renovated to accommodate group study and provided ample space and support for personal laptop usage. A significant finding was their conclusion about the effectiveness of the renovated spaces. They write, “this level of satisfaction is most likely attributable to the intensive user engagement process undertaken prior to renovation” (Fox & Doshi, 2013, p. 94). Involving students in the process of renovation can only serve to enhance the level of satisfaction and subsequent usage, but even after the renovations are done, there is a continued need for evaluation.

Sustainability is an important aspect of spatial realism, and strikes at the very heart of Priestner and Borg’s emphasis on value and success. We must analyze physical spaces with the needs of current and future users in mind. EunYoung Yoo-Lee, Tae Heon Lee, and LaTesha Velez (2013) investigated the importance of space for the millennial generation but considered what will happen when postmillennials enter college. Adaptability and sustainability of physical spaces are major concerns since (though it would be ideal) we will not receive new buildings with each passing generation. Maria Jankowska and James Marcum (2010) describe this reality best by saying, “changing the library into an organization more attuned to present and future users is at the heart of achieving sustainable library growth” (p. 166). The authors further elaborate on the sustainability of the academic library by pointing out the factors that threaten it: the housing of print versus digital collections, rapidly changing technologies, and the cost of maintaining current buildings, to name a few. They argue that librarians need a framework that addresses the many factors threatening the future of the academic library (Jankowska & Marcum, 2010). Sustainability of physical space is one way to help offset these threats.

One such advocate for sustainability is Keith Webster (2008), who urges librarians to analyze how information-seeking behaviors affect the library’s role. He discusses the stages, or generations, that research libraries have gone through. First-generation libraries, he writes, were heavily focused on being effective repositories while second-generation libraries dealt with the introduction of digital information. Our current phase, the third-generation library, is now heavily focused on how users learn and interact. He concludes that we are on the cusp of a fourth-generation library, one that operates in tandem with the entire campus as a learning space and which is focused heavily on the librarian as teacher (Webster, 2008).

As we enter into the fourth generation, we have before us an opportunity for redesign. We should ensure, however, that change is based on an evidenced need. Theoretical arguments may be beneficial in the initial stages of space consideration, but in terms of the finished product, librarians should let patrons drive the change. Doing so will bring back the human face of the library. When crafted properly, efforts to redesign space should ensure that library spaces facilitate multiple purposes. The importance of dynamic learning spaces was recognized even in 1966 when Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann illustrated that knowledge and learning do not happen in solitude—that it is a social process. If this was realized over 50 years ago, there is no need to hold on to notions that the library must only be a place users can work quietly and in solitude.

The aforementioned studies effectively examined each component of spatial reality. As mentioned previously, I define this as the reality of physical spaces in terms of usage, perception, sustainability, and adaptability. It is a holistic outlook on the effectiveness of space that emphasizes that change must be made out of an actual and demonstrated need and not merely a perception of need. The studies also illustrate the need for fluid library environments that promote learning, discovery, and socialization. Librarians are aware of this reality and the implications it has for the future of library spaces. David Lewis (2007) perhaps best captures this reality when he writes,

what is required is for academic libraries to find and articulate their roles in the current and future information ecology. If we cannot or will not do this . . . the library will slowly, but surely, atrophy . . . (p. 2)

Lewis’ (2007) article stresses that we must let go of historic and romanticized notions of the library and instead focus on the opportunities to reenvision space and inject new meaning to enhance service and relevancy.

Spatial Realism as Revealed Through a Brief History of Cinematic Techniques

Cinematic history helps formulate the theory of spatial reality by which librarians can engage in a continuous cycle of observation, feedback, and transformation. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (1996) writes that cinema “was the first, and is arguably still the greatest, of the industrialized art forms which have dominated the cultural life of the twentieth century” (p. xix). For the purposes of this article, film is defined, albeit simplistically, as technology concerned with the recording of spaces, objects, and people. Cinema, on the other hand, is concerned with the presentation of such recordings to audiences. The two work together to capture, record, and present images of life, people, and events to audiences around the world. One may argue that film and cinema bring the world to life around us, showing us glimpses and realities that would otherwise remain unknown and unseen. By doing so, film and cinema allow us to reimagine, interpret, and contemplate our assumed thoughts and perceptions on a wide variety of topics. So too should librarians engage in activities that capture, record, and present data in order to interpret and reimagine the efficacy of the library as a physical phenomenon. An understanding of cinematic techniques will help bring the spatial realism framework to life.

Let us start this discussion by considering the invention of the phenakistoscope. Paul Schrader (2015), in an article for Film Comment, explains how film has been used to understand reality by introducing us to a man who created moving images before the onset of the cinema. In 1832, well before the motion picture industry existed, Joseph Plateau created the phenakistoscope—an instrument consisting of still images that, when spun, creates the illusion of pictures in motion. Building on Plateau’s creation, Eadward Muybrige adapted this idea to create the “first science film” in 1872 (Schrader, 2015, p. 52).

Muybridge, a photographer from England, wanted to prove if a horse could have all four hooves simultaneously off the ground when running (Edelman, 2013). Taking inspiration from Plateau’s creation, Muybridge created the first moving picture by having a horse gallop between a black shed and a succession of cameras, triggered to flash each time the horse’s stride broke a succession of strings in its path, capturing the horse’s gallops (“The Movies are Forty,” 1918). Schrader (2015) describes Muybridge’s slow-motion technology as “seeing more,”…“allow[ing] the viewer to see more than can be seen with the naked eye” (p. 52). Here is perhaps one of the earliest examples of how the moving picture facilitated a more accurate representation of a certain activity, showing the viewer that which had previously been undiscovered. This, too, is the librarian’s investigative goal: obtaining accurate understandings of a certain activity (in this case, usage behavior).

Moving on from Muybridge’s invention, early cinematic tools appeared in the 1890s and began their rapid development; in fact, by the 1920s, film and cinema were a global concept (Nowell-Smith, 1996). Cinematic techniques grew more sophisticated as the silent film era of movies gave way to talkies. Once Vitaphone appeared in 1926, allowing for the cohesion of sound and image, cinema began incorporating more realism in its process. The overwhelming popularity and pervasiveness of color film in the 1950s further propelled the intersection of cinematography and spatial realism. Furthermore, 1953 saw the creation of CinemaScope which resulted in a larger movie screen, allowing the audience to take in a broader image than ever before (Usai, 1996).

In his edited work, Oxford History of World Cinema, George Nowell-Smith (1996) tells us that the first epoch of cinema (1895-1930) was born from a curiosity of the world around us. During the late 1800s, the rudimentary tools of cinema were crafted due to scientific inquiry (Usai, 1996). That is, there seemed to be a fascination with the “illusion of movement” that resulted in various creations, which were rooted in both curiosity and entertainment (Usai, 1996, p. 6). As a result of this curiosity, Henry Reichenbach developed the medium known as film in 1889. The creation of film allowed for collective entertainment and thus ushered in the official age of cinema. As early as 1900, commercial film products were marketed and sold, beginning with the French Chrono de Poche, followed by products from Germany and England, and culminating in the most well-known and popular device, Kodascope, created by Kodak (Usai, 1996).

These first forays into film produced scenes in grayscale, but an appetite for color was present almost at the very beginning. In fact, artists were hand painting color onto frames and creating color film as early as 1896. These initial efforts were rudimentary and often did not produce the desired effect, and so blossomed an interest in enhancing the cohesion of film and color. The Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation stole the show, if you will, with their color techniques and with the release of the first successful Technicolor film in 1922, The Toll of the Sea, Technicolor emerged as the leader in color film techniques and remained at the helm through the 1940s (Usai, 1996).

The synthesis of color was not the only advancement in the early days of film. Even though the first films were silent, filmmakers often considered the addition of sound. For example, most silent films had accompanying music, and early film screenings included presenters who would explain scenes to the audience (Usai, 1996). Some productions included instrumentation as simple as the piano, while others included large casts and opera singers. In fact, an entire art form was created from this in Japan, where the era of silent films lingered far longer than it did in America. Still other productions incorporated casts for sound effects or utilized machines to manufacture sound (Usai, 1996). Advancements in radio technology helped solve the problem of sound amplification, and Warner Brothers and Fox studios became the forefathers of film and sound (Usai, 1996). While Vitaphone technology created by Warner Brothers was used to create the first talking film, The Jazz Singer, Fox studios eventually became the leader with their Movietone technology (Usai, 1996).

Sound, color, and projection were still not the only advancements to film in these early years. Camera perspectives also began to change. For example, up until 1907 film producers only utilized the individual shot to capture the scene (Pearson, 1996). As the method suggests, this style would only capture the actor and the spaces directly above and to the sides of them. Completely absent were “temporal relations or story causality” (Pearson, 1996, p. 16). Because of this stylistic preference, movie producers were also not concerned with constructing cinematic narratives through editing. Films jumped from one singular viewpoint to the next. Roberta Pearson (1996) describes early stylistic techniques best when she writes, “unlike the omniscient narrators of realist novels and the Hollywood cinema, the early cinema restricted narrative to single point of view” (p. 17). Pearson (1996) further posits that early techniques simply created a documentary of images instead of telling a story to audiences.

From 1902 to 1907, the multishow method became the preferred stylistic choice of movie producers. Another cinematic method utilized was overlapping action (Pearson, 1996). This allowed the audience to see a particular event from multiple points of view. These evolving methods allowed the audience to understand the temporal relations among scenes and therefore provided a much more comprehensive point of view (Pearson, 1996). For example, these techniques would be used to illustrate a character’s thoughts, emotions, and motivations, thereby giving the audience a deeper understanding of the film (Pearson, 1996). It is at this point in cinematic history that the tide starts to turn to realism. These stylistic techniques coupled with the advancements in sound, color, and projection, describe how film allows audiences to understand the world around them in complex ways.

To summarize, cinematic techniques that incorporated the cohesion of body and voice, the burgeoning use of color, and the change in the physical shape of the movie screen allowed the camera (and resultantly, the audience) to get a better understanding of spatial reality: that is, a better understanding of the way people interact in and with the world around them. Philip Gillett (2006), a freelance film writer, puts it best when he writes, “realism is an apparently simple creed that aspires to bring everyday life to the screen” (p. 51). A discussion on cinematic realism and its implications for library design follows below.

Convergence of Libraries and Spatial Realism

Spatial realism, as a framework to guide librarians engaged in usage studies, is being defined as a holistic understanding of space in terms of usage, sustainability, and targeted renovation opportunities driven by demonstrated user need. The above discussions of cinematic history and library usage studies help illustrate the potential for spatial realism to be an effective framework. Specifically, as cinematic techniques have shifted to reveal a more realistic and complex narrative, so too can librarians shift their understanding of space and usage to reveal a more accurate portrait of spatial reality. By viewing usage through a broader image (i.e., advancing projection methods), and holistically evaluating usage over time instead of in isolated instances (i.e., the multishot style and the shift from the silent film era to talkies), librarians can gain a clearer picture of physical space usage as well as identify areas for renovation and renewed relevance.

To put this into a more concrete example, let us consider the words of Amanda Wakaruk (2009) who writes, “Gate counts, circulation figures, and reference statistics only tell part of the story at best and offer no insights into the phenomenological experience of the library as place” (p. 18). If librarians only consider these snapshot statistical outputs as measure of success, they will miss other very relevant data. First, there is a complete absence here for the consideration of how users interact with the physical spaces in the library−a consideration which should be touted above all else, in the author’s opinion, due to the burgeoning implications of technology and digital access for the future of the library. Second, without analyzing the above components in addition to the ways in which users interact with space, one cannot draw relationships among the components.

To help illustrate this idea, an intriguing concept relating to film and spatial realism is a phrase utilized by Paolo Usai (1996, p. 6): “persistence of vision.” This was the name given to the process of the moving image in the 19th century. Specifically, given a device sophisticated enough, it could produce the illusion that disconnected images were in fact connected, allowing the viewer to see something that was not there previously (Usai, 1996). The idea of seeing something that was not there prior via technological advancements that provided a different viewpoint strikes at the very heart of spatial realism. Specifically, librarians should take each seemingly disconnected component of space and user experience and combine them in such a way to reveal patterns that would not emerge from an individual analysis of each separate component.

Any conversation about the intersection of realism and film would be remiss without André Bazin, who most eloquently outlines this convergence. When discussing the motivations behind early inventors of photography and cinema, Bazin (2005) writes, “in their imaginations they saw the cinema as a total and complete representation of reality” (p. 20). Bazin (2005) suggests there was a feverish desire that drove inventors to capture movement, sound, and image in one cohesive medium.

Bazin (2005) further describes to us that as silent films peaked in 1928, there was an almost despairing belief held by silent film enthusiasts that sound in motion pictures “could only mean a surrender to chaos”(p. 23). However, to Bazin, this shift does not denote chaos but rather a movement toward a more realistic representation of life. He suggests that the juxtaposition of images in relation to one another “[creates] . . . a sense or meaning not objectively contained in the images themselves but derived exclusively from their juxtaposition” (Bazin, 2005, p. 25). He goes on to say that the introduction of sound to these moving images creates a more realistic view of life, especially when he describes that “the sound image, far less flexible than the visual image . . . [carries] montage in the direction of realism” (Bazin, 2005, p. 33).

Film studies professor Donato Totaro (2003) asserts that artistic renderings of reality can be seen on a historical timeline that starts with cave drawings and ends with cinema. Totaro (2003) and Bazin (2005) share the viewpoint that one can chart a progressive movement in the arts toward more realistic renderings. Furthermore, Totaro (2003) lays bare for us the merger of cinema and spatial realism as he shows how the imagists of the 1920s gave way to the realists of the 1940s. Drawing on Bazin’s works, Totaro directly mentions cinematographers who were concerned with spatial realism: Jean Renoir and Orson Welles among them. These cinematographers were noted for their spatial realism through the use of cinematic technique and the introduction of sound (Totaro, 2003).

Tom Paulus (2007) describes that there are two major factions when considering the essence of cinema. Some believe that the cinematic techniques of the silent film capture most eloquently the pure nature of cinema. Others are of the Bazin faction, which hold firm the belief that the true essence of cinema “lay with new roads taken in the sound cinema,” in which certain cinematic techniques combined with sound allowed for “openness and the revelation of reality” (Paulus, 2007, p. 65).

Margrit Tröhler (2014) provides the perfect synthesis for readers to understand the link among André Bazin, cinematic realism, and implications for libraries. Tröhler (2014) posits that Bazin’s realist stance revealed “the capacity of film to translate his contemporary experience of reality and bodily perception” (p. 33). Tröhler (2014) argues that film transfers reality to the viewer via analogy and provides them with an “intellectual relationship with film” allowing them to gain “another perception of reality” (p. 34). To gain another perception of reality concerning space and user experience, librarians should engage in holistic analysis and evaluation, as outlined in the steps below.

Implementing the Spatial Realism Framework

The spatial realism framework relies on the following components: having a dedicated holistic mission; utilizing mixed methods; analyzing data to identify trends and areas for improvement; implementing changes through the lens of sustainability; and a dedication to analyze again. Librarians should consider these steps in cyclical fashion, and the following discussion can help librarians integrate the spatial realism framework into their usage evaluations.

The first step in the spatial realism framework is to dedicate oneself to holistic observation. Much the same way that cinematic techniques advanced to become more realistic (rather, to capture a more comprehensive portrait of reality), so too must librarians not neglect to view usage through more than one lens. Focusing on one area of the library without viewing it in relation to the whole will perhaps allow certain key observations to slip through unnoticed. Simply recognizing the importance of analyzing all areas is crucial to this first stage of the framework.

Once a holistic mindset has been established, the next step of the framework is utilizing mixed-method research. This approach will reveal a more realistic view of the various components affecting space and usage, and will assist in obtaining a holistic understanding. As outlined above, cinematic techniques began with simple moving pictures and then advanced to moving film, then onward to the cohesion of image and sound. The product we know today incorporates the totality of cinematic methods, resulting in an impactful view or experience. Similar to the technological cinematic timeline, mixed methods can assist librarians in obtaining the most realistic view possible of the intersection between library space and patron experience.

Focus groups, for example, can be a very effective method of obtaining information regarding space usage, and is one technique that the author has used to elicit such information. Focus groups (or any other sole method of research) will only uncover a portion of the picture, though. Supplementing focus groups with other methods, such as traditional surveys, usage observations, photo observations, in-depth interviews, and more, will help uncover additional portions of the aforementioned picture, and are methods that other libraries have utilized to better understand usage; they are in fact, also indicative of some very creative methods (Lin & Chiu, 2012; Rempel, Hussong-Christian, & Mellinger, 2011; Thompson, 2015). One technique the author used to investigate ideas for a space remodel, for example, was to ask students to draw a floor plan on the lobby’s mobile whiteboard using markers and/or an assortment of photos depicting library spaces, furnishing, and accessories.

Librarians should also be encouraged to think creatively in terms of research methods, as it will help them realize that these methods can provide valuable information regardless of the scope of the library’s project, budget, or available research personnel. The goal is figuring out what works for your library; creativity is key here. Librarians at New Mexico State University illustrate this best when they write,

. . . we did not want to proceed based solely on what had worked elsewhere. Instead we saw an opportunity to learn more about how our spaces were used and what elements would make a library space ideal for our users. (Pierard & Lee, 2011, p. 190)

Mixed methods, both standard and creative, will yield more data than one single method and will provide librarians with a unique and holistic understanding of patrons and the spatial experience.

Analyzing data to identify trends and pinpoint areas for improvement is the next step in this framework. Similar to the process of editing, so too is data edited (i.e., analyzed) to reveal important emergent themes. One could consider data analysis similar to Panavision, in that it allows librarians to gain a bigger picture, or in this case, a better understanding of how users interact with space. If, for example, data from focus groups and usage maps reveal that students prefer to interact in groups, an identified area of improvement may be to include more group-friendly spaces in future design decisions.

To ensure relevancy, any changes made due to the above process should be done through the lens of sustainability. Considering how changes will affect future users can ensure the most effective renovation possible. Sustainable design decisions will vary, of course, from library to library, but utilizing a wide range of research methods can help identify trends (Pierard & Lee, 2011), which can lend themselves to making sustainable choices.

The last stage of this framework, which is engaging in this process cyclically, can also help identify trends over time and can help librarians decide which changes are most sustainable. Engaging in usage evaluations cyclically will also help ensure that the library remains a relevant campus institution, and can also help ensure that design decisions are still aligned with current user need (Pierard & Lee, 2011). Constant evaluation can help enhance patron perception of the library as a relevant, useful campus organization, but it can also help enhance administration’s view of the library as a relevant partner.

Conclusion

To ensure a continued sense of relevancy within the academic campus, libraries must engage in a cyclical process of evaluation. As the information revolution continues to progress and more information is contained and accessed digitally, if there is any hope for the library as a physical institution it will be through a convergence of enhanced services, personnel, and physical spaces. An issue specific to the academic library is the constant threat of space being reclaimed or repurposed by actors falling outside the library’s mission.

In the absence of a holistic analysis, the best one can hope for is a limited point of view. Consider this the one-shot stylistic tendency of early cinematographers in which all audiences saw was an actor and the immediate space around them—no spatial or temporal relation can be intuited. One could describe the holistic approach of the spatial realism framework as more akin to the multishot style in which audiences understand more about the thoughts, emotions, and motivations of the actors. In this case, the actors are students and the audience is librarians, tasked with ensuring continued observance of user experience.

Without engaging in a holistic observation, librarians will only view usage frame-by-frame and will neglect to see how all the pieces fit together and affect one another. The spatial realism framework can help librarians target effective renovation opportunities, and this has implications beyond achieving enhanced user experience. Academic libraries do not operate in a vacuum—they are one player ensconced in the campus at large. Decisions regarding space and redesign often draw in administrative personnel, other faculty members, and architects. Utilizing the spatial realism framework will help librarians become key informants during these discussions, and this will help illustrate the continued impact of the library as a physical institution.