LIS 7011, Spring 2016

Meeting the Evolving Information Needs of LGBTQ+ Patrons

Paula DuPont

Introduction

While librarians are trained to be neutral and treat all patrons with equal courtesy and

respect, this focus on neutrality may blind information science professionals to the diverse and

changing needs of individuals in minority or marginalized populations. Impartial library service

that seeks to treat each patron fairly and with the same evenhanded manner can inadvertently

ignore the differences in how diverse populations seek information. These differences in

approaches to information seeking may be due to the particular culture or concerns specific to

that population of patrons.

With this in mind, I will review the current literature to examine the particular

information needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans/Transgender, and Queer or Questioning

(LGBTQ+) patrons. I will also examine how LGBTQ+ patrons seek information differently than

the general population and consider the reason for this disparity. Finally, I will discuss how

librarians and library staff can better meet the distinct information needs of LGBTQ+ patrons.

While I am particularly interested in how to meet the information needs of LGBTQ+ youth and

young adults, I will rely on articles discussing the information needs of LGBTQ+ patrons at all

stages of life, as the literature on the topic is as yet limited.

Information Needs of LGBTQ+ Patrons Described

In a study conducted at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro (UNCG), Susann

Schaller, a librarian at the Public Library of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, demonstrated that

LGBTQ+ teens and young adults felt that their information needs were different than those of

cisgender—that is, a person whose gender identity aligns with their biological sex assigned at

birth—or heterosexual students (Dictionary.com 2016). In a series of focus group and individual

interviews with LGBTQ+ students and one heterosexual, cisgender ally, Schaller demonstrated

that LGBTQ+ young adults felt that their access to objective information about LGBTQ+

identities was limited. Respondents noted that information from experts and objective, scientific

information was especially required. One participant indicated that it was also important to have

access to information about political developments affecting the LGBTQ+ community,

particularly information that was unbiased and did not reflect conservative attitudes (Schaller

2011, 105).

A separate study performed by Jami Kathleen Taylor surveyed transgender individuals in

North Carolina and nationally using an email questionnaire. Unlike Schaller’s study, Taylor

gathered information from respondents outside of a university setting, including respondents

whose highest level of education was a high school diploma to individuals who held PhDs.

Taylor found that the information sought by trans individuals varied depending on their point in

the coming out process (Taylor 2002, 92-93). Taylor cites Jennifer Dunne’s "person-in-

progressive-situations" model and describes how the ways in which an individual bridges

information gaps, as modeled by Brenda Dervin, changes as the individual’s situation changes

(Taylor 2002, 87; Dervin 1992, 61-73). Therefore, LGBTQ+ individuals who have not fully

accepted their identity or come out to themselves or peers would have different information

needs than LGBTQ+ individuals who have fully integrated their identity into their personal and

professional lives.

During the initial period of coming to terms with their gender identity, respondents

overwhelmingly reported that their information searches dealt with the causes of gender identity

issues and the range of trans identities. Searches for trans support groups and other avenues of

acceptance of trans identity closely followed. Respondents reported that their information needs

evolved once they had accepted their gender identities and that their topics of interest when

seeking LGBTQ+ resources had shifted. Most notably, searches for information about causes of

trans identity dropped significantly, as did searches about LGBTQ+ identity as something to be

overcome rather than understood. Conversely, respondents who had fully come out and

incorporated their trans identity into their lives had an increased need for information about

public policy affecting the trans community. Specific topics of interest were information about

issues of employment discrimination, trans activism, and hate crimes against trans individuals

(Taylor 2002, 91-93).

Steven Joyce defined the stages of LGBTQ+ information seeking somewhat differently,

using the research of Janet Creelman and Roma Harris as a basis. These information needs

categories were broken down into information about coming out to oneself, information about

coming out to others, and information on seeking and connecting with other LGBTQ+

individuals. Joyce affirms in his review of the relevant literature that LGBTQ+ individuals have

changing information needs as they integrate their sexual and gender identity into their lives

(Joyce 2000).

The internet plays a large roll in information seeking for LGBTQ+ patrons. Pascal Lupien

notes that by 2003, Judah S. Hamer had found that gay men relied primarily on the internet for

information about LGBTQ+ issues (Lupien 2007, 134). In his 2007 study of LGBTQ+

Canadians, Lupien found that LGBTQ+ individuals did still view libraries as an appropriate

place to research gender and sexual identity, but according to his nearly 150 respondents, they

were concerned about the accuracy of the information available in libraries and whether it was

out of date (Lupien 2007, 135).

While the needs of LGBTQ+ patrons are clear from studies cited here, in that LGBTQ+

patrons are looking for objective, accurate information that addresses each stage in the process of

coming out and identity acceptance, it is also made clear that patrons are not receiving the

appropriate library services to meet their information needs. The quality and accuracy of

information was mentioned as a potential stumbling block to providing good reference service

for LGBTQ+ patrons, but a perhaps more worrying observation is that LGBTQ+ patrons were

often nervous about approaching library staff with questions about LGBTQ+ topics or otherwise

being outed to staff, other patrons, and their own family and friends (Mehra & Braquet 2011,

412).

Marginalizing LGBTQ+ Patrons

If LGBTQ+ patrons feel marginalized and are concerned about reaching out to library

staff, how can librarians help those patrons who need assistance and address their information

needs? Jamie Campbell Campbell Naidoo breaks this larger problem of providing reference

service to LGBTQ+ patrons into two questions: How can librarians address the needs of

LGBTQ+ patrons if they are not visible or if their LGBTQ+ identity is secret, and how can

librarians working in socially conservative communities or institutions serve those LGBTQ+

patrons who are out and visible (Campbell Naidoo 2013, 34).

Joyce posits that librarians must first overcome a heterosexist and cisgender bias born of

the adoption of "an ethos of neutrality" (Joyce 2000). Librarians are trained in school to remain

professionally neutral, however the ethos of neutrality maintains the heterosexist and cisgender

status quo. In a review of the literature, Joyce points out that in a survey of twenty-two librarians

and twenty other professionals outside of library service, Phil Brett found that there was a need

for librarians to take an active "progressive or interventionist role in [LGBTQ+] service

provision" (Joyce 2000). He further recognizes Sanford Berman’s statement in 1981 that

"catalog users should (ideally) be able to reach desired subjects on their first try and should not

be offended, prejudiced, confused, misled, or repelled by the very terminology used to denote

specific topics" (Joyce 2000).

LGBTQ+ Patrons Excluded in the Catalog

Controlled vocabularies for cataloging library materials can be slow to change, and

choices of subject headings or even the wording used to describe a resource can seem opaque

and arbitrary to patrons. The power to name oneself is significant in validating one's identity, and

when LGBTQ+ individuals cannot find topics that represent themselves in the catalog, it can be

marginalizing to the community. Additionally, the placement of materials and other signifiers

attached to materials can indicate a potential bias that sidelines LGBTQ+ patrons (Drabinsky

2013, 98-99). The fact that cataloging occurs at all is not the problem for LGBTQ+ patrons or

the librarians attempting to meet their information needs; rather, the problem lies in excluding,

whether intentionally or not, those individuals meant to be represented by artificially constructed

categories (Drabinsky 2013, 100). When those in a position to critically examine, amend, and

improve catalog vocabularies do not have or are not allowed the status necessary to define

relevant categories about themselves on their own terms and using their own vocabularies,

patrons will feel frozen out.

A focus group participant in Schaller's study expressed dismay when he searched for the

term "gay" in the university library's catalog and received results for materials about Muslim

women (Schaller 2001, 109). While a measure of the participant's problem searching the catalog

may have been down to a lack of adequate library instruction, concerns about miscategorizing

materials on LGBTQ+ issues are real. In their study of school library LGBTQ+ offerings,

Hughes-Hassell et al. found significant problems with how materials had been cataloged. Many

materials that addressed LGBTQ+ issues were not listed under the corresponding LGBTQ+

subject heading and were not described in the catalogs' summaries using LGBTQ+ keywords,

making it difficult or impossible for patrons to find these resources. Similarly, materials were

inappropriately cataloged under LGBTQ+ subject headings. An example of this miscataloging is

a book about a boy who is sexually abused by a priest. By cataloging this book under LGBTQ+

subject headings, the implication is that the relationship depicted was in some way consensual

and that the abuse victim is himself gay (Hughes-Hassell et al. 2012, 13). This sort of cataloging

error, and we can only hope that it was indeed an error and not intentional, is disturbingly

problematic, because it at best demonstrates to an LGBTQ+ patron that the library, and by

association the staff who work there, are biased and intolerant and at worst that a sexually

abusive relationship between an adult male and a child is a fair representation of an LGBTQ+

relationship.

This is a further problem, as LGBTQ+ patrons who fear being outed are more likely to

consult the library's catalog rather than interact with library staff, making this the only interaction

the patron experiences and thus the only impression left with the patron (Lupien 2007, 141). In a

study funded by the American Library Association's Office of Diversity, Campbell Naidoo

examined services at libraries in twenty metropolitan areas that had large concentrations of

LGBTQ+ individuals and couples with children. He found that while LGBTQ+ resources for

children were generally interfiled with the other children's materials, often LGBTQ+ resources

were identified in some other, potentially discriminatory, way. Many libraries attached rainbow

flags or pink triangles to LGBTQ+ resources; while not explicitly discriminatory, these sorts of

indicators preclude a patron's anonymity. One library was found, however, to have physically

tagged all LGBTQ+ picture books with the label "Broken Homes," while another interfiled

LGBTQ+ parenting books not with general parenting books but instead alongside parenting

books on "illnesses such as Tourette’s, Asperger’s, etc." This clearly sends the message that

LGBTQ+ families are broken and that LGBTQ+ individuals are suffering from a disorder

(Campbell Naidoo 2013, 36).

Library Staff Bias and Patron Anxiety

This inequitable treatment of LGBTQ+ patrons on the part of librarians has not gone

unnoticed by the patrons themselves, as LGBTQ+ patrons surveyed indicated a fear of

approaching a librarian or member of library staff because that person may be prejudiced against

LGBTQ+ individuals. Lupien found that a third of the students he surveyed were "afraid of being

judged by the staff member" when asking for help locating LGBTQ+ materials (Lupien 2007,

141). Two student responses in particular seemed to exemplify the fears of LGBTQ+ patrons:

"I was looking for some information about something pretty intimate, and I was afraid they would think I was into that or something,"

and "The librarians look really stuffy. I didn't want to ask them my question for this kind of subject" (Lupien 2007, 141).

In her study of LGBTQ+ college students, Schaller also found that many were worried

about issues of confidentiality when availing themselves of library services; one participant

voiced concerns about what a librarian would do with the information revealed during a

reference interview for LGBTQ+ materials (Schaller 2011, 106-07). Two students in Lupien’s

study also voiced similar concerns:

"Because the desk is like out in the open and other people could hear what I was asking. I

was afraid to ask about finding GLBT information. I know I shouldn't be, but I wish the help desk was somewhere more private,"

and "Everyone can hear you there. I wish you could meet in a more private place, like meeting a professor in her office" (Lupien 2007, 141).

Schaller also found that students had more general fears of approaching a librarian and

then being questioned by the librarian about a topic which the patron did not fully understand

themselves (Schaller 2011, 107). Campbell Naidoo noted that of the head librarians he surveyed,

many were wary of attempting to identify or reach out to LGBTQ+ individuals for fear of outing

or offending patrons. While 46% of librarians surveyed incorporated LGBTQ+ materials into

general children’s programming and 7% created programming specifically targeted to LGBTQ+

families, Campbell Naidoo found that many librarians were resistant to serving LGBTQ+

individuals and their families (Campbell Naidoo 2013, 35).

Responses included insinuations that materials about LGBTQ+ families lacked "merit"

when compared to materials geared to heteronormative families. Another librarian equated

services for LGBTQ+ patrons with services provided to "developmentally disabled,

handicapped, mentally disabled adults;" he further stated that his library system did provide

services to developmentally disabled and handicapped adults but not to LGBTQ+ patrons,

because "we don’t have that here" (Campbell Naidoo 2013, 35). While the majority of head

librarians surveyed stated that they did not currently have any programming or services targeted

to LGBTQ+ families, 52% of respondents said they were satisfied with their level of service to

LGBTQ+ patrons (Campbell Naidoo 2013, 36). This indicates a blinkered view of the

information needs of LGBTQ+ patrons and is consistent with Joyce’s description of a

heterosexist bias on the part of librarians who endeavor to safeguard their own neutrality at the

(perhaps largely unintentional) expense of providing service to marginalized patrons.

The reliance on the internet and other members of the LGBTQ+ community as a source

for information is a symptom of patrons' distrust of library staff. Taylor found that individuals

saw the internet as a means to safely retrieve information in relative anonymity. Over half of

respondents affirmed that they relied on trans-identified peers in their social circle or peers that

they contacted on the internet for information about transgender issues (Taylor 2002, 90). While

the chances of being outed are reduced by gathering information this way, it also demonstrates

the importance of providing objective and even supportive library service, as incorrect, outdated,

or otherwise discriminatory library material may be disseminated among the LGBTQ+

community beyond the single interaction with library staff.

Internet-filtering software on library computers may inadvertently (or purposefully) block

patron access to LGBTQ+ online resources. This can be a particular problem in schools, where

internet-filtering is likely to be more stringent and where tight educational funding may limit the

school library's ability to acquire appropriate materials to support LGBTQ+ students' information

needs. School librarians have another obstacle in the many parent and community challenges to

books with LGBTQ+ themes; some school administrators and library staff may self-censor in an

attempt to avoid the repercussions of defending a challenged book (Whelan 2006).

Censorship

A lack of materials on LGBTQ+ subjects is another important issue when examining how

libraries are failing to meet the needs of LGBTQ+ patrons. When asked if their university library

provided adequate LGBTQ+ resources, Lupien found a disconnect in the perception of what

justified "adequate" resources between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ respondents. 53% of non-

LGBTQ+ respondents thought their university library provided good coverage of LGBTQ+

topics with its print materials, while only 14% of LGBTQ+ respondents agreed. More than 50%

of non-LGBTQ+ respondents thought their university library provided adequate online and

electronic LGBTQ+ resources; no LGBTQ+ respondents agreed with that statement (Lupien

2007, 138-39).

This divide in perception of the accessibility of LGBTQ+ resources affirms the notion

that heterosexism, the belief that heterosexuality is superior to other sexualities and relationships,

is still ingrained in American society. Heterosexism privileges heterosexual experiences and does

not have to be overt to be present (Morrow 2006, 8). It is unlikely the non-LGBTQ+ students in

Lupien's study were intentionally prioritizing non-LGBTQ+ resources when they said that the

LGBTQ+ holdings at their university library were adequate, just as it is unlikely the librarians

surveyed by Campbell Naidoo were intentionally favoring non-LGBTQ+ resources when they

said that they were satisfied with the level of service they provided to LGBTQ+ patrons. Rather,

they were operating from a place of heterosexist privilege and within a societal framework that

privileges heterosexuality. It is important to keep in mind that heterosexism, homophobia, and

transphobia, though often coming from external sources, can also be internalized; this indicates

that the biases and prejudices of heterosexism become a part of the LGBTQ+ individual's

identity. Without critically examining LGBTQ+ library services, even librarians who claim an

LGBTQ+ identity may be guilty of heterosexism (Morrow 2006, 8).

This heterosexism, whether explicit or not, is borne out in a 2013 study of school library

collections conducted by Hughes-Hassell et al. They searched the online catalogs of 125 high

schools in an undisclosed state in the Southern United States and found that these schools were

under-collecting LGBTQ+ titles (Hughes-Hassell et al. 2013, 10). On average, LGBTQ+ titles

only made up 0.4% of each library's collection, with some schools holding only one LGBTQ+

title in their collection; one school offered no LGBTQ+ titles at all (Hughes-Hassell et al. 2013,

7). The argument that the absence of LGBTQ+ titles was down to a lack of knowledge about

available resources on the part of school librarians does not hold water, as Hughes-Hassell et al.

also looked for the inclusion of twenty-one titles recommended in Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,

Transgender and Questioning Teen Literature: A Guide to Reading Interests by Carlisle K.

Webber, a 2010 volume that had received positive reviews in journals such as School Library

Journal (Hughes-Hassell et al. 2013, 6).

Alex Spence examined the holdings of 19 urban libraries in Canada and the United States

against titles from Christine Jenkins's article "From Queer to Gay and Back Again: Young Adult

Novels with Gay/Lesbian/Queer Content, 1969-1997," published in Library Quarterly in 1998.

He found that titles represented in the Fiction Catalog and the Public Library Catalog were

present in library collections at a much higher rate than those taken from the lists of winners and

finalists for the ALA's Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Book Awards and the Lambda Literary

Awards, an award for excellence in published materials about LGBTQ+ themes (Spence 1999).

Joyce concluded from Spence's study that public librarians were ignoring the tools available to

build and manage a collection of LGBTQ+ literature and resources. (Joyce 2000).

The absence of LGBTQ+ resources, especially resources aimed at young adults, is not

going by unnoticed. In a blog post written by a 15-year-old student and published in School

Library Journal in 2010, the student called out his school library for ignoring LGBTQ+ patrons

and refusing to purchase and make available LGBTQ+ resources. The student quoted his school

librarian as saying, “This is a school library. If you’re looking to read inappropriate titles, go to a

bookstore" (Pierce Garry 2015, 73). This statement is especially troubling as it indicates not just

a policy of censorship of LGBTQ+ titles at this library but is also an illustration of overt

prejudice against LGBTQ+ patrons themselves, describing a LGBTQ+ lifestyle as inappropriate.

Not all school librarians are so intolerant of LGBTQ+ patrons, but they may still be choosing to

self-censor LGBTQ+ materials for other reasons. In a 2009 School Library Journal study, 70%

of library professionals surveyed admitted to censoring LGBTQ+ materials due to concerns

about reactions from parents and the community (Pierce Garry 2015, 76).

In the same study, librarians admitted to devising coping mechanisms that they used to

censor materials and preemptively avoid potential challenges. Examples of behaviors reported by

librarians included claiming funding obstacles that prevented the purchase of LGBTQ+

materials, shelving LGBTQ+ materials where students could not access them, or removing

LGBTQ+ keywords from a title's catalog entry so that it was nearly impossible to locate (Pierce

Garry 2015, 76). In Campbell Naidoo's study of library services for LGBTQ+ families, he saw a

similar example of this sort of censorship in a library system that only circulated LGBTQ+

parenting books from the library office (Campbell Naidoo 2013, 36). Not only were the books

not shelved with more general parenting books where patrons could find them while browsing,

patrons were required to go through an additional intercessor to access LGBTQ+ materials in an

unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Even when censorship is not undertaken actively, a fanatical adherence to so-called

neutrality in the library profession will inherently leave marginalized populations, including

LGBTQ+ individuals, stranded on the periphery. Joyce argues that true neutrality is indeed

unattainable. Initial opponents of the ALA Social Responsibilities Round Table (SRRT), a unit

within the ALA that was founded in 1968 to address progressive issues in librarianship, argued

that by forgoing neutrality for partisan positions, librarians would inevitably begin censoring

problematic materials. Proponents, on the other hand, argued that blind impartiality was a means

to hide "behind a mask of patriarchal neutrality," maintaining "a conservative status quo" while

perpetuating "society's stigmatization of marginalized populations" (Joyce 2000). What is needed

then is an agenda within the library profession that is targeted at increasing inclusivity and

providing effective library service to LGBTQ+ patrons. All that remains, then, is to make sense

of the best way to reach out to marginalized patrons, especially LGBTQ+ patrons who may

otherwise be invisible.

Recommendations for Providing Library Services to LGBTQ+ Patrons

While crafting an inclusive library environment may seem daunting, especially when one

takes into account that identifying LGBTQ+ patrons will not always be possible, there are

recommendations available for creating an all-embracing library. Previous studies have

presented realistic goals based on patron survey and focus group research. The first and easiest

step is to include LGBTQ+ titles in the library collection and to make LGBTQ+ resources

readily accessible. Matthew P. Ciszek suggested appointing a member of staff to serve as

LGBTQ+ acquisitions librarian and periodically review LGBTQ+ resources (Ciszek 2011, p.

435). Topic lists of recommended titles are also available from numerous sources to aid in

collection development. The ALA Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table

(GLBTRT) website provides reviews of LGBTQ+ titles and also prepares a yearly list of recently

published works exploring LGBTQ+ themes. Past recommendations are also available at the

GLBTRT website (ALA.org 2016).

Another important step in providing library services to LGBTQ+ patrons is to ensure that

the library's catalog is inclusive of LGBTQ+ themes and does not further disenfranchise this

marginalized population. As described above, LGBTQ+ resources do not always fit the available

subject headings or may be miscategorized, making them difficult to discover without advanced

knowledge of the catalog or collection. While controlled vocabularies can be slow to adapt to a

society in flux, the integration of folksonomies into libraries' online catalogs can improve

patrons' chances of locating the materials for which they are searching and serve as a stopgap

measure until controlled vocabularies catch up with the zeitgeist. Jo Bates and Jennifer Rowley

suggested integrating folksonomy and user tagging tools, such as LibraryThing, into online

existing library catalogs (Bates & Rowley 2010, pp. 445-46). This could provide additional

subject representation for materials that may otherwise have been difficult or impossible to

catalog appropriately.

Absorbing crowdsourced cataloging schemes wholesale could prove problematic, though,

as the biases of taggers outside of the information science profession would necessarily be

absorbed as well, potentially marginalizing other under-represented populations. Bates and

Rowley thus also recommended using LibraryThing and other folksonomies as a cataloging aid.

This would allow for the inclusion of crowdsourced cataloging vocabularies while maintaining

control of the keywords associated with LGBTQ+ materials. It would also ensure that cataloging

activities meet the professional standards expected of an information organization while still

being inclusive of themes not yet present in industry standard controlled vocabularies. Catalogers

could then restrict the American bias, especially as regards race, observed in LibraryThing's

user-generated tags while still taking advantage of the richness of its diverse tagging community.

Much of the legwork on this has already been done by libraries focused on LGBTQ+ topics, and

partnering with these organizations would allow librarians to update their catalogs with input

from information professionals who are themselves members of the LGBTQ+ community (Bates

& Rowley 2010, pp. 445-46).

Subject guides or LGBTQ+ topic-specific finding aids can supplement inclusive

cataloging efforts or serve as a stand-in for inclusive cataloging when changes to the online

catalog are not feasible. These subject guides should ideally have a stable URL and could then be

linked from the library website, allowing LGBTQ+ patrons to share the subject guide URL with

their peers. This would also assist in preserving a patron's anonymity, allowing them to discover

the appropriate materials without need of a library staff intermediary or a reference interview that

could potentially reveal the patron's LGBTQ+ identity. (Schaller 2011, pp. 109-11). Ciszek

agrees that LGBTQ+ materials are often difficult to locate, both in the online catalog and the

physical library, and that subject guides help meet this gap in library service (Ciszek 2011, 435).

To ensure that the subject guides address patron concerns that LGBTQ+ materials are often

hidden and difficult to locate on the shelves or within the catalog, it is important that such an

online aid be clearly labelled on the library's website and not concealed behind link text that

obfuscates its purpose.

Perhaps the most important change to library service for LGBTQ+ patrons would be a

systemic transformation of how librarians and other staff perceive LGBTQ+ patrons and

understand their needs. Beyond making LGBTQ+ resources available, librarians must make

LGBTQ+ patrons feel comfortable in the library. This step is perhaps most obvious: Treat all

patrons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, with respect. The fear of being met

with discourteousness or even hostility was a frequently cited reason for avoiding the library and

especially for sidestepping interactions with library personnel (Schaller 2011, 105). While it may

be difficult to identify LGBTQ+ patrons or even potentially perilous to confront them—even

with the best of intentions—kind, considerate, and attentive service will always be appropriate.

In a review of the literature, Joyce identified one of the most suggested improvements to

LGBTQ+ library service: library staff who were more sensitive to the LGBTQ+ community

(Joyce 2000).

Taylor points to the ALA professional ethics resolution in 1970 that recommended library

staff proactively work to be more inclusive of minorities that are oppressed in society and

marginalized in library service. This statement specifically highlighted minorities that are not

ethnic in nature and indicated that "sexual" minorities needed particular protection from

discrimination (Taylor 2002, p. 85). Mehra and Braquet called for "an extended awareness"that

the role of librarians must go "beyond a traditional conceptualization as sole information

providers" (Mehra & Braquet 2011, p.417). They proposed that professional librarians needed to

be more proactive in assuming a "social justice and social advocacy role" due to LGBTQ+

patrons' (as well as other minorities') history of being sidelined as a result of the "trends of

heterosexism, homophobia, racism, sexism, and other […] discriminatorypractices" (Mehra &

Braquet 2011, p. 417). Bates and Rowley touched on this concept when they encouraged

librarians to be aware of the biases inherent in any cataloging scheme, even—perhaps especially

—large, established schemes, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings (Bates &

Rowley 2011, p. 445). However, this interrogation of otherwise accepted paradigms within the

field must extend beyond cataloging and also begin to examine all library service practices

Creating a welcoming environment for LGBTQ+ individuals is key, though, as a librarian

cannot serve patrons who feel too apprehensive to approach staff. Displaying LGBTQ+ titles

alongside more mainstream resources in displays or even creating LGBTQ+ displays unto

themselves would be a silent cue to LGBTQ+ patrons that the library is an accepting and

supportive place (Pierce Garry 2015, p. 74). The simple fact of including more LGBTQ+

materials in collections at all could potentially send a signal to patrons that the library is making

efforts to prevent exclusion of LGBTQ+ patrons. Building on the library as a welcoming place

by creating programming specifically geared to an LGBTQ+ audience would help draw in

patrons while again reinforcing the message that the library is friendly to LGBTQ+ individuals.

Community outreach to promote LGBTQ+ programming would underscore this effort, and

seeking out community leaders and LGBTQ+ alliances would demonstrate unambiguously that

the library is being proactive in creating a supportive environment for the LGBTQ+ community

(Schaller 2011, p. 110). Promotion of LGBTQ+ resources and programming would be essential,

if only because many or even most potential patrons may not be aware of LGBTQ+ library

offerings.

Conclusion

In this review of the literature, it is made clear that LGBTQ+ patrons feel that their

information needs are not currently being met at the library. Once they have identified this gap,

whether they recognize the disparity consciously or unconsciously, LGBTQ+ patrons will begin

seeking information elsewhere, primarily among their peers and on the internet, uncontrolled

environments prone to misinformation. Library professionals have a responsibility to close this

information seeking gap and meet the needs of all patrons, but especially LGBTQ+ patrons, as

they feel particularly marginalized. Without available and effective library service, LGBTQ+

patrons will inevitably turn to less reliable resources to close the information gap left by the

library's lack of LGBTQ+ materials and failure to reach out to underserved patrons.

There are fortunately a number of steps that library professionals can take to remedy this

situation. The first, and easiest, is simply including more LGBTQ+ resources in their

acquisitions. Multiple guides and subject-specific lists exist to aid in this endeavor, so even those

librarians who feel disconnected from the LGBTQ+ community have the tools to identify the

best and most valuable LGBTQ+ materials. More difficult is applying inclusive cataloging

standards to a library's online catalog, but, again, there are resources to provide guidance to

librarians when acquiring and cataloging LGBTQ+ materials.

The most difficult change, though, will be the systemic change in how library

professionals perceive LGBTQ+ patrons. It will require nothing less than a paradigm shift in all

aspects of library service. This transformation will be mostly keenly felt by librarians working in

conservative communities and institutions and by librarians who are themselves conservative and

resistant to the inclusion of LGBTQ+ resources. Even librarians who are not hostile to LGBTQ+

patrons may feel that the sand is shifting under their feet as they attempt to catch up with the

rapidly advancing move towards inclusivity. However, the discomfort on the part of librarians is

small when compared to the discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, and it is the

responsibility of all librarians to overcome the hurdles placed before them, including their own

resistance to change, to ensure that they meet the information needs of all marginalized

populations, especially LGBTQ+ patrons.

Bibliography

Bates, Jo, and Jennifer Rowley. 2011. "Social reproduction and exclusion in subject indexing: A comparison of public library OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy." Journal Of Documentation 67, no. 3: 431-448. Library Literature & Information Science Full Text (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost (accessed May 2, 2016).

Campbell Naidoo, Jamie. 2013. "Over the Rainbow and Under the Radar." Children & Libraries: The Journal Of The Association For Library Service To Children 11, no. 3: 34-40. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).

Ciszek, Matthew P. 2011. "Out on the Web: The Relationship between Campus Climate and GLBT-related Web-based Resources in Academic Libraries." Journal Of Academic Librarianship 37, no. 5: 430-436. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, EBSCOhost (accessed May 2, 2016).

Dervin, Brenda. 1992. "From the Mind's Eye of the 'User': The Sense-Making Qualitative-Quantitative Methodology." In Qualitative Research in Information Management, edited by Jack D. Glazier and Ronald R. Powell, 61-84. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Dictionary.com Unabridged, s.v. "cisgender." Accessed: April 23, 2016 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cisgender.

Drabinski, Emily. 2013. "Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction." Library Quarterly 83, no. 2: 94. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table (GLBTRT). Accessed April 23, 2016. http://www.ala.org/glbtrt/.

Hughes-Hassell, Sandra, Elizabeth Overberg, and Shannon Harris. 2013. "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ)-Themed Literature for Teens: Are School Libraries Providing Adequate Collections?." School Library Research 16, 1. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).

Joyce, Steven. 2000. "Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Library Service: A Review of the Literature." Public Libraries 39, no. 5: 270-79. ERIC, EBSCOhost (accessed April 6, 2016).

Lupien, Pascal. 2007. "GLBT/Sexual Diversity Studies Students and Academic Libraries: A Study of User Perceptions and Satisfaction." Canadian Journal Of Information & Library Sciences 31, no. 2: 131. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).

Mehra, Bharat, and Donna Braquet. 2011. "Progressive LGBTQ reference: coming out in the 21st century." Reference Services Review 39, no. 3: 401. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).

Morrow, Deana F. 2006. "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression." In Sexual orientation & gender expression in social work practice: Working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, & transgender people, 3-17. New York, NY, US: Columbia University Press, 2006. PsycINFO, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).

Pierce Garry, Candi. 2015. "Selection or Censorship? School Librarians and LGBTQ Resources." School Libraries Worldwide 21, no. 1: 73. Supplemental Index, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).

Schaller, Susann. 2011. "Information Needs of LGBTQ College Students." Libri: International Journal Of Libraries & Information Services 61, no. 2: 100-115. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed April 13, 2016).

Spence, Alex. 1999. "Gay young adult fiction in the public library: a comparative survey." Public Libraries 38, no. 4: 224.Library Literature & Information Science Full Text (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).

Taylor, Jami Kathleen. 2002. "Targeting the Information Needs of Transgender Individuals." Current Studies In Librarianship26, no. 1/2: 85-110. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, EBSCOhost (accessed May 2, 2016).

University of Chicago Press Staff. 2010. The Chicago Manual of Style. 16th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Whelan, Debra Lau. 2006. "Out and ignored: why are so many school libraries reluctant to embrace gay teens?." School Library Journal, 2006. 46. Biography in Context, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2016).