While (critical) information literacy (IL) acknowledges the political, economic, and social forces that shape complex information environments, library user experience (UX) typically centers efficiency and “seamlessness,” ignoring the power structures and values that condition learning. In this article, we explore the tensions between IL and UX values and practices, with the aim of starting a conversation about how these two related fields can become more closely aligned.

Previous articleNext article No AccessReviewsCreativity: A Toolkit for Academic Libraries. By Nancy Falciani-White. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2021. Pp. vii+147. $54.00 (paper). ISBN 978-0-8389-3777-8.Jessica MartinezJessica MartinezUniversity of Idaho Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Library Quarterly Volume 92, Number 2April 2022 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/718598 Views: 56Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Using a qualitative ethnographic approach, this article explores the work of library social workers. Drawing on individual interview and focus group data from three public library sites around the country, the study assesses the self- perceptions of the social workers and the views of their colleagues about this work. Findings indicate that the call to enact a culture shift in the library to better serve vulnerable populations is tempered by challenges related to effectiveness of staff trainings, clarity of protocol and procedure, gaps in supervision, and use of space. Recommendations for library administrators, staff, and library social workers themselves to meet these challenges are included.

On December 23, 1969, the National Education Association and the Alabama State Teachers Association (a black organization) filed a class action suit in federal court against the Alabama Department of Education on behalf of Carrie Coleman Robinson, Negro School Library Supervisor in Alabama’s Department of Education. The suit argued that Robinson had suffered racial discrimination in hiring and stated that her First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. The American Association of School Librarians and its parent American Library Association (Robinson had been a member of both for decades) chose not to participate in the suit. The decision reflected the library profession’s unwillingness to openly discuss public school segregation, one of the nation’s major social issues in the last half of the twentieth century that was sparked by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954). This article recounts the heretofore untold story of Carrie Coleman Robinson’s experiences with racial discrimination within the professions of education and librarianship.

Library websites are potentially important resources for parents and caregivers seeking guidance information regarding children’s screen media use. This article analyzes a representative sample of 500 US public library websites to determine the discursive construction of children’s use of screen media and the role of public libraries in providing guidance information. Descriptive analysis determined the presence of guidance information, qualitative thematic analysis examined the text identified as mediated information, and multimodal theory explored the communicative functions of the information. Forty-four sites (8.8%) contained guidance information, whereas 11 sites (2.2%) provided mediated information. Sites with mediated information position library staff as content curators as opposed to active media mentors. The information provided discursively constructs all media as internet-connected and risky while also positioning children as naive and unskilled. These connected constructions underestimate children’s capacities, ignore beneficial and nuanced uses of screen media, and reinforce existing biases and hierarchies about “good parenting.”