The Good Library Blog

Couldn't agree more Tim, our lemming-like preoccupation with diversification and trying to be all things to all people has been disastrous. We have lost touch with of our reason for being and in doing so have ended up with a generally poorer service. But with leadership like Hodge and the MLA, and the toothles CILIP no wonder we are such a rudderless mess!

Alan.. Thanks! Let's see if we can get Mr Apollo to come with us on this one, too.

It is very simplistic to assume direct causality between diversification of library services and a decline in library use, or conversely more books equals more library users. You are suggesting there is a direct and measurable correlation to show that a percentage reduction in books means a percentage drop in users. As there are published figures perhaps you could define the equation.

At a time when this government and those councils its party controls are cutting such services is it just remotely possible that by some means these figures have been massaged? For instance if all those questioned were from an abandoned sink estate five miles from the nearest library you would get a very different result to if you asked the question in a well served leafy suburb. Never take government figures at face value. Corruption is rife as our suppine civil service does the bidding of its paymaster.

The decline in use coincides with the recession. To use our city library (Cambridge) most people have to use the adjacent car park which charges £1.80 an hour. Paying bus fares or parking may well have an impact on library use, quite apart from library-specific factors. Shame we don't have 2008 figures here as that would show whether the drop happened between June and Dec 2008.

Peter, There is nothing wrong with being simple; in fact the public library service would be a lot better if the management of it kept to simple ideas.

There is high and obvious correlation between the selection of books and the borrowing of them. Since this is the largest activity taking place in the library, there is thence a stong correlation between the stock of books and the use of the library.

What is remarkable (and to be seen from the figures and graphs shown in the DCMS review) is how little this connection has changed in the past ten years. When I first looked at the graphs ten years ago, the conclusion was plain and obvious. Since then the introduction of internet terminals affected the correlations, because although use of the internet has been small relative to the importance of books, for a few years, it made a visible difference. Now that effect has largely gone and MORI reported in December - to the DCMS for this review that over 80% of visitors for libraries were looking for books.

The big mistake has been to assume and to say (as Mrs Hodge does) that the public library service is in time of great change-- the evidence is that the public don't believe that. Basically they want to use it in almost exactly the same way as they always did. That is why the diversification has been so fatal. It does less what the public wants than it used to. That is why less people use it. It must be the case.

If you want me to write a Ph D thesis I will- but the maths is quite simple. Try it!

Last week I was in my local Waterstone's where the manager is an old friend. "How are sales?" I asked "Remarkably good" he answered. "Why?" I asked. "Because they allowed us to buy some stock!" he answered. We laughed-- that has always been the truth. It's obvious-- if you have what people want, they buy it, or borrow it.

Anne

Is there any connection between the decline in use in Cambridgeshire and the closure of several of the libraries and a 35% reduction in the number of books for lending? Perhaps? If one were to reverse those, I would speculate that the use would go up again.

Just a factual correction - the national indicator (NI 9) is derived from the Active People Survey and not the Taking Part Survey data.