Libraries as bureaucracies: a SWOT analysis

Author:

Jordan-Makely Chelsea

Abstract

Purpose Bureaucracy in libraries is typically presented in terms of six banal characteristics originally identified by the historian Max Weber at the turn of the twentieth century. In some cases, bureaucracy in libraries is seen as a system that might be undone. These characterizations underestimate the power of bureaucracy as a force external and intrinsic to libraries. The purpose of this paper is to reintroduce the topic of libraries as bureaucracies such that library practitioners can identify, question and reform aspects of bureaucracy in libraries. Design/methodology/approach A review of literature from the library field and from the social sciences is presented in the framework of a SWOT analysis, such that readers can see bureaucracy in libraries for its strengths and weaknesses, as well as in regards to its external opportunities and threats. Findings Bureaucracy is a largely misunderstood and overlooked topic, in all disciplines, including library science. Generally, bureaucracy is presented as a negative and ineffective system operating in the public sector only, though bureaucracies serve many positive purposes and functions in all aspects of society. Bureaucracy cannot be dismantled, though opportunities exist to eliminate its less desirable aspects and effects. In some ways, libraries exemplify bureaucratic thinking, yet in webs, libraries are poised to offset or challenge the harmful effects of bureaucracy in all other aspects of society. Originality/value Bureaucracy is seldom considered in library research or in other fields. As such, it is a grossly misunderstood subject. This extensively research paper synthesizes the literature that does exist on the topic, and expands upon it using theory from the social sciences. As such, this paper stands to begin a discussion about how libraries can restructure and respond to change.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Library and Information Sciences

Reference26 articles.

1. ALA (2008), “Guidelines for choosing a master’s program in library and information studies”, available at: www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/guidelines-choosing-masters-program-library-and-information-studies (accessed December 26, 2017).

2. ALA (2011), “Economic impact of libraries”, available at: www.ala.org/tools/research/librariesmatter/node/12 (accessed March 8, 2018).

3. Asimov, I. (1980), “A cult of ignorance”, Newsweek, January 21, p. 19.

4. BCLAIF (2007), “Critical librarianship”, available at: https://bclaifc.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/critical-librarianship-an-interview-with-toni-samek/ (accessed December 31, 2017).

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3