The ALM-field, Digitilization and The Public Sphere

The major results in this Project can be summarized in the following Points: 1, We have identified a seeming Paradox: The comprehensive digitilization in society in general, seems to generate a need for physical meeting places. 2, Users of Libraries, Archives and museums are to a large extent using these institutions as channels to Access Citizen relevant information. 3. The digitilization imperative and sacralization of digitlization. Proposals to digitilize the Cultural Field are not met With claims to document their usefulness in the same way as other costly propsals - they are self referring. 4. The general Public as well as Professionals in the LAM-Field legitimizes Libraries, Archives and museums first and foremost by referring to traditional values such as the Cultural Heritage, Equal Access to knowledge and culture and Learning. Legitimations referring to the meeting Place role, arenas for debate and maker Space have a weaker position. But in particular Libraries are are extensively used for a varied specter of meeting. Digitization and globalization changes the conditions for upholding a sustainable public sphere. Can libraries, archives and museums and museums - the so called LAM-institutions - play a role in meeting these new challenges? That is the overriding research question of this project. A number of sub projects have been undertaken to elicit this research question. A survey was undertaken among representative samples of the population in the six partner countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and Hungary. The survey aimed at eliciting 1) the legitimacy of using scarce public resources for upholdin public libraries, 2)the use of digital services from libraries archives and museums, 3) the role of libraries, archives and museums as providers of citizenship information and 4) the use of libraries, archives and museums as meeting places. The findings indicate that the legitimcay of libraries first and foremost is rooted in the traditional roles of promoting the cultural heritage, giving equal access to culture and knowledge and promoting learning. Legitimations related to being arenas for public debate, meeting places and maker spaces score lower. Users of libraries, archives and museums frequently report that they have used LAM-institutions, particularly libraries and archives, to access citizenship relevant information (information on rights and duties as a citizen, keeping generally updated, informing oneself on issues one is interested in as a citizen and making decisions as a citizen). Physical use dominates, particularly for museums and libraries, whereas a higher proportion of archival users use the archive digitally. Those who use libraries digitally mostly use digital services to administer lending activities whereas digital museum users primarily are checking programs and opening hours. Few library and museum users access content. Among archival users, however, a higher proportion access content - a seeming paradox since archives have digitized a very small proportion of their collections compared to for example libraries. Libraries are the one among the three types of institutions that stand out as a heavily used meeting place where a variety of meetings take place: It is an arena for organized meetings and debates - 30 per cent of the library users report having been to meetings in the library. But it is also a square in the community where one bumps into friends and neighbors and is exposed to the complexity of the community and it is a place where one meets with family, friends or colleagues over a joint interest or project. Such meetings are not so common in archives and museums. Qualitative studies in libraries show that for example reading circles in libraries function as kinds of micro publics promoting empowerment and that libraries open up for friction less movements between different life roles and spheres, for example between being a citizen, a student or an employee, next of kin etc. This is probably one of the major qualities of libraries. A study of policy documents regarding digitization of the LAM fields show a significant difference between libraries, archives and museums, where policy goals seem to be more efficiently implemented in the library field than in the two other. Another study of policy documents related to digitization coined the terms "digital imperative" and "sacralization of digitilization. One sub project has studied the development of digital public spheres, using local history wiki as a case. The study found that participants at the local history wiki are driven by internal motivation and the pleasure of craftsmanship and that there are little communication between the participants. Another sub project, based on a survey among professionals in the three fields, studied attitudes to user participation. Museum professionals seem to be more preoccupied with user participation compared to for example librarians.

Prosjektets resultater og problemstillinger har er synliggjort innenfor det bibliotek- og informasjonsvitenskapelige fagmiljøet gjennom publisering i sentrale tidsskrift og papers på de sentrale konferansene på feltet. Forskningen er likeledes synliggjort innen kultursosiologi og antropologi gjennom publisering i fagfellevurderte tidsskrift, antologier og konferanser på disse feltene. Det er skapt et robust og stabilt forskningsmiljø som blant annet videreføres gjennom det NFR-finansierte prosjektet Polycul. På praksisfeltet har prosjektet bidratt til debatt, refleksjon og kunnskapsutvikling blant annet gjennom regelmessig formidling i profesjonstidskrift som Bok og bibliotek, to større formidlingskonferanser rettet inn mot praksisfeltet i 2018 og 2020, seminar på det norske bibliotekmøtet i 2018 og bidrag på den store internasjonale praksisfeltkonferansen Next Library i 2018..

This project aims to investigate the impact of digitalisation on the role and function of archives, libraries and museums as public sphere institutions. Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution defines a responsibility of state authorities to facilitate ?open and enlightened public discourse?. This so-called infrastructure requirement affirms the duty of the state to support the development of cultural institutions as a means of promoting freedom of expression. Historically, libraries, archives and museums (ALM) have been perceived as instrumental for the attainment of these objectives. Their role as an infrastructure for open and enlightened public discourse is tied in particular to their near-to universal accessibility for the population as local cultural institutions. More specifically, ALM institutions can be described as: 1. Providers of knowledge and cultural expressions. 2. Agents of popular enlightenment 3. Local meeting places and arenas of participation in the public sphere. This project aims at understanding how digitilization and globalization affect the role of the ALM-institutions as institutions underpinning the public sphere. The research will be organized around two research questions:1.How does digitalization change the roles of libraries, archives and museums as an infrastructure for open and enlightened public discourse?2.How can libraries, archives and museums enhance digital resources through user participation? In what ways may user contributions facilitate an open and enlightened public discourse? The research questions relate directly to the primary objectives of the program and the call, e.g. promoting cultural citizenship and provide knowledge relevant for the responsibility of the state in relation to facilitating an open and enlightened discourse.