Attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship amongst school and children's librarians

Attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship amongst school and children’s librarians

Sarah McNicol

evidence baseresearch and evaluationUCE Library ServiceUniversity of Central England84 Aldridge RoadPerry BarrBirminghamB42 2SUEmail: [email protected]: 0121 331 6891Fax: 0121 331 5286


Acknowledgements

Thanks to all those who responded to this survey.

Definitions used in this report

Censorship/practical application: The removal of material from open access by any governing authority. This definition refers to removing resources from general use by any means solely for the purpose of restricting access to ideas or information (McDonald, 1993: 52)

Intellectual freedom: The right of any person to hold any belief whatever on any subject, and to express such beliefs or ideas in whatever way the person believes appropriate” (American Library Association).

Explanation of statistics terms used

Mean: The mean is the sum of all the data values, divided by the size of the sample.

Variance: A measure of the spread of the data based on the distance of values from the mean.

Median: When the data are listed in order, the median is the middle value of the data.

Lower quartile: When the data are listed in order, the lower quartile cuts off the bottom 25% of the data.

Upper quartile: When the data are listed in order, the upper quartile cuts off the top 25% of the data.

Interquartile range: A measure of the spread of data; it is the difference between the upper quartile and the lower quartile.

Range: A measure of the spread of data, the difference between the highest and lowest values.

Boxplot: A boxplot is a diagram showing the lowest value, lower quartile, median, upper quartile and highest value for any group of data.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA): A statistical technique used to identify sources of variability from one or more potential sources (in this instance ANOVA was used to investigate the relationships between intellectual freedom and practical application scores and various demographic characteristics eg gender, age, experience).

Regression analysis: A method of analysing the relationship between two variables to determine whether there is a linear relationship.

T-test: Student’s t-test is a hypothesis test. It can be used to analyse two paired or matched samples of data in order to compare the population means (in this case to determine whether there is a significant difference between the means of the scores for intellectual freedom and practical application).

P value: The probability of obtaining the observed difference, or one more extreme, if the null hypothesis is true (ie the probability that there is no relationship between the datasets.

2


Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Methodology 5

3. Demographic characteristics of respondents 7

4. Intellectual freedom, censorship and demographic characteristics 104.1 Age of respondents 104.2 Respondents’ gender 124.3 Respondents’ professional experience 124.4 Level of education of respondents 144.5 Type of organisation respondents worked for 164.6 Respondents’ membership of professional organisations 184.7 Age of children respondents worked with 184.8 Characteristics of individuals with the highest and lowest scores 19

5. The relationship between intellectual freedom and practical application 21

6. Selection, access, diversity and policy issues 226.1 Selection 226.2 Access 246.3 Diversity 276.4 Policy 28

7. Responses to individual questions 317.1 Issues where there was agreement 317.2 Issues where there was disagreement 327.3 Issues where there was uncertainty 337.4 Issues where pro-censorship attitudes were displayed 337.5 Issues where pro-intellectual freedom attitudes were displayed 34

8. Conclusions 358.1 Further research 37

3


1. Introduction

The importance of libraries in promoting freedom of information has been stated on numerous occasions. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has asserted: “A commitment to intellectual freedom is a core responsibility of the library and information profession worldwide, expressed through codes of ethics and demonstrated through practice” (IFLA, 2002). However, this principle is not always transferred effectively into practice.

Censorship and freedom of information are ongoing concerns for all librarians, not least those serving children and young people. The question of how to deal with controversial books; whether and how Internet access should be controlled; and how to react to pressure from outside bodies such as groups of parents are all issues which children’s and school librarians are regularly required to make decisions about. Very little research has been carried out in this area in the UK. The only recent major study in this area was carried out by Curry (1997) in the early 1990s and this involved interviews with public library directors.

Although some research into public and school librarians’ attitudes towards censorship and freedom of information has been carried out in the past, much of this was conducted before Internet access became as prevalent as it is today and was predominantly in the United States. In the 1960s, Busha (1972) carried out a study of the attitudes of public librarians in the United States, examining their attitudes toward intellectual freedom, censorship, and authoritarianism as an anti-democratic trait. This built on earlier work by Fiske (1959) who had investigated school and public librarians in California. She discovered that, in many cases, librarians were actually the most active censors of the contents of their own libraries. Busha surveyed 900 randomly selected public librarians in the Midwest and concluded that these librarians did not hesitate to express agreement with the principles of intellectual freedom but that many of them apparently did not feel strong enough as professionals to assert these principles in the face of real or anticipated censorship pressures. More recently, but again in the United States, McDonald (1993) repeated the format Busha’s survey for school librarians. The questions were altered to reflect the audience.

The research described in this report took the form of a survey of school and children’s librarians in the UK, following a format similar to that use by McDonald and Busha. It investigates attitudes towards freedom of information and its practical application in relation to various demographic factors.

4


2. Methodology

There were two main research questions which this research attempted to answer:

1. Is there a relationship between attitudes towards intellectual freedom and attitudes towards censorship (ie the practical application of intellectual freedom) among librarians working with children and young people in the UK?

2. Are there relationships between attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship and variables such as age, gender, experience, membership of professional organisations and education?

The questionnaire designed to attempt to answer these questions was based on that devised by McDonald in the United States the 1980s, which in turn had been based in Busha’s survey of public library staff in the 1960s (Busha, 1972). McDonald had adapted the earlier survey to make it appropriate for school libraries and to bring it up to date. A similar process was undertaken for this study; McDonald’s survey was used as a basis, but was adapted to make it applicable to the UK and to both public and school libraries in the twenty-first century. For example, questions referring to the Internet were added and references to specific US publications removed.

McDonald states that a major problem in carrying out this type of research is the danger that librarians will give the ‘right’ answers rather than the truthful ones. To try to avoid this, similar strategies to those adopted by McDonald, and previously Busha, were adopted, in particular phasing questions so that restrictive practice were projected on to others (ie referring to school/children’s librarians in general, rather than ‘you’) and the use of a likert scale to allow greater discrimination.

Nine questions in the survey related to librarians’ attitudes towards intellectual freedom (ie agreement or disagreement with intellectual freedom principles) and seventeen questions measured attitudes towards the practical application of intellectual freedom principles, or censorship (ie the extent to which access to information is limited). Attitudes towards both these were measured on a five point likert scale. At the analysis stage, the categories of strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree and strongly disagree were converted into scores from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating restrictive practices and 5 support for greater freedom. Where respondents failed to answer questions, these were omitted from the analysis. The maximum score for practical application was 85 and for intellectual freedom, 45, making 130 as the maximum total. High scores for intellectual freedom indicated agreement with the principles of intellectual freedom and low scores with disagreement. Similarly, high scores for practical application indicated a willingness to allow free access to information and low scores with practices which limit access to information.

The questions can also be considered in four categories: policy (3 questions), access1 (6 questions), diversity of collections2 (6 questions) and selection of resources (11 questions). Totals and averages for each respondent were calculated for each of these categories.

In addition to the main section of the questionnaire asking about attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship, respondents were also asked to give their age; gender; level of education and professional qualifications; membership of 1 eg controlling circulation of resources, restricted shelving, labelling, limiting access to external resources2 ie representing a variety of viewpoints

5


professional organisations; type of organisation they worked for (eg public library, schools library); job title; number of years experience as a children’s/young people’s librarian; and age groups they regularly supported. All responses were anonymous.A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

Initially, the questionnaire was sent to all children and young people’s librarians listed on the CILIP mailing list (290 when duplicates were omitted). As this list does not include librarians actually working in schools, it was decided to try to widen the sample by appealing on mailing lists (primarily the yahoo group sln network) for volunteers. A further 35 questionnaires were sent out as a result. In total 169 responses were received, an overall response rate of 52%. This was considered to be a good response rate for a survey distributed in this way. However, it is acknowledged that the majority of those responding are likely to have an interest in the subject area and it might be that they have a greater awareness of some of the issues than a random sample of the whole profession. However, this sample does have the advantage of encompassing the whole UK, not just a limited geographical area and of including children’s specialists in various types of organisation, not just school libraries as was the case in McDonald’s study in the United States. In the instructions sent out with the questionnaires, librarians were advised that as the questionnaire was intended for school, children’s and school library service librarians, they may feel some of the questions do not relate directly to their own experience. If this was the case, they were asked to try to respond more generally as a library professional.

In the analysis of the relationship between attitudes towards intellectual freedom principles and attitudes towards censorship (or the practical application of intellectual freedom), Student’s t-test (matched pairs) was used as well as regression analysis. Analysis of variance was used to investigate relationships between attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship and variables such as age, gender, experience, membership of professional organisations and education.

It should be noted that this survey is a simplified version of that carried out by McDonald who also included a measurement of moral judgement called the defining attitudes test.

6


3. Demographic characteristics of respondents

Age and gender

Of the 169 surveys returned, 19 (11.2%) were from men and 147 (87.0%) were from women3.

Age bracket Number %16-25 1 0.626-30 10 5.931-35 12 7.136-40 16 9.541-45 23 13.646-50 42 24.851-55 40 23.756+ 24 14.2Not given 1 0.6TOTAL 169 100Table 1: Age of respondents

The responses were skewed towards the older age groups, with 63% being from library staff aged 46 or over. In contrast just 6.5% of respondents were 30 or under.

Respondents’ level of education

Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level of qualification they had obtained4. They were also asked to give the subject(s) of any degree courses they had studied and any other professional qualifications they had obtained.

Level of education Number %GCSE/O Level 8 4.7A Level 9 5.3HNC/HND 5 3.0BA/BSc 96 56.8MA/MSc 37 21.9PhD 3 1.8Not given 11 6.5Total 169 100Table 2: Level of respondents’ education

Just 13% of respondents did not have a degree and almost one-quarter had a postgraduate qualification. Although a range of mainly arts and social science subjects had been studied, the majority had a qualification in librarianship or information studies; only 20 respondents (11.8%) did not.

Type of organisation respondents work for

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they worked in a public library, school library or SLS. Some (11%) indicated that they worked in a joint public and SLS although this was not given as an option.

3 Three respondents did not give their gender.4 A few respondents were not clear that this question referred to their own level of education rather than that of the children and young people they supported.

7


Organisation Number %Public library 61 36.1School library 41 24.3Schools’ library service 47 27.8Joint public and SLS 19 11.2Not given 1 0.6Total 169 100Table 3: Type of organisation respondents work for

Just over one-third worked in a public library and around one-quarter worked in a school library. Just over one-quarter worked in a SLS.

Respondents’ professional experience

Respondents were asked to indicated how many years they had worked as a school or children’s librarian.

Years of experience Number %0-2 3 1.83-5 20 11.86-9 21 12.410-14 40 23.715-19 35 20.720+ 46 27.2Not given 4 2.4TOTAL 169 100Table 4: Respondents’ professional experience

Almost half the respondents had at least fifteen years’ experience as a school or children’s librarian. Just 13.6% had less than six years’ experience.

Membership of professional organisations

Respondents were asked to provide details of which professional associations they belonged to.

Organisation Number %CILIP (Chartered Institute of Information Professionals) 146 86.4

SLA (School Library Association) 24 14.2SLG (School Libraries Group of CILIP) 5 3.0YLG (Youth Libraries Group of CILIP) 13 8.0PLG (Public Libraries Group of CILIP) 1 0.6ASCEL (Association of Senior Children’s and Education Librarians)

13 8.0

IBBY (International Board on Books for Young People) 1 0.6Society of Archivists 1 0.6CBC (Children’s Book Council) 1 0.6CILIPS (CILIP Scotland) 1 0.6ALA (America Library Association) 2 1.2National Library Association of the Philippines 1 0.6SLS support group 1 0.6Table 5: Membership of professional organisations

Unsurprisingly, CILIP was by far the most common professional body mentioned, with 86.4% of respondents belonging to this. Some also listed the CILIP groups they

8


belonged to. 14.2% of respondents were members of the SLA and 13% belonged to ASCEL. Just 21 respondents (12.4%) did not belong to any professional organisation.

Age groups respondents regularly support

The questions in this survey were intended to relate to library provision at secondary school level (11 to 16 or 18 year olds). In the instructions sent out with the questionnaire, librarians were advised that if they did not have a great deal of experience of dealing with 11-18 year olds, they may not feel able to respond to some of the questions from their own experience, but their views as a librarian would still be valuable.

Age group Number %Preschool 112 66.3Key Stage 1 127 75.1Key Stage 2 130 76.9Key Stage 3 152 89.9Key Stage 4 133 78.7Sixth form 88 52.1Table 6: Age groups respondents regularly support

Only 13 respondents (7.7%) did not regularly support children of secondary school age (11 and above). However, the majority of respondents from SLSs and public libraries also supported younger children, which respondents from secondary school libraries did not. However, this group was more likely to have contact with 16 to 19 year olds.

9


4. Intellectual freedom, censorship and demographic characteristics

McDonald reported that previous research had identified level of education and gender, as well as size of community, as factors related to attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship (McDonald, 1993: 88). However, in the research reported here, none of the demographic variables measured were found to be statistically significant in relation to the overall scores for either intellectual freedom or its practical application. This section highlights any general patterns emerging from the data to determine whether there appear to be any relationships between attitudes towards intellectual freedom and its practical application and variables such as age, gender, experience, membership of professional organisations and education.

The maximum score for practical application was 85 and 45 for intellectual freedom. High scores for intellectual freedom indicated agreement with the principles of intellectual freedom and low scores with disagreement. High scores for practical application indicated a willingness to allow free access to information and low scores with practices which limit access to information.

4.1 Age of respondents

There were no statistically significant differences for either practical application or intellectual freedom scores based on the age of respondents (p=0.886 and p=0.564 respectively), although for both scores, respondents from the youngest age group and between the ages of 36 and 45 were the most restrictive and those aged 26-30 least restrictive. There was greatest variation to be found among the older age groups. In previous studies, Busha (1972) had found a slight increase in restrictiveness with increases in age of librarians, but McDonald (1993) found no differences based on age.

Age No of respondents Mean practical application score

Variance

16-25 1 52.026-30 10 66.1 56.131-35 12 63.5 83.5536-40 16 62.06 19.444-45 23 62.43 52.746-50 42 63.64 67.651-55 40 64.23 113.056+ 24 63.17 108.58Not given 1 62.0Table 7: Age and practical application score

10


Graph 1: Boxplot of age and practical application score

Age No of respondents Mean intellectual freedom score

Variance

16-25 1 34.026-30 10 40.3 11.7931-35 12 39.5 11.1836-40 16 37.25 12.3344-45 23 38.35 9.1546-50 42 38.98 10.5651-55 40 38.75 32.5556+ 24 39.63 15.55Not given 1 40.0Table 8: Age and practical application score

11


Graph 2: Boxplot of age and intellectual freedom score

4.2 Respondents’ gender

As just 11% of respondents were male, it is difficult to draw conclusions about attitudes towards censorship and intellectual freedom in relation to gender. There was no statistically significant relationship for either practical application or intellectual freedom (p=0.655 and p=0.21 respectively). However, male respondents did have slightly higher mean scores for both components.

Mean practical application score

Practical application variance

Mean intellectual freedom score


Male 64.95 110.61 39.95 15.94Female 63.22 73.53 38.66 16.66Not given 65.67 22.33 41.67 8.33Table 9: Gender and means and variances of practical application and intellectual freedom scores

4.3 Respondents’ professional experience

Although it might be suggested that, with the exception of the three respondents with less than three years’ experience, practical application scores increased as level of education rose, this was not found to be significant statistically (p=0.431).

12


Years of experience No of respondents Mean practical application score

Variance

0-2 3 69.67 22.333-5 20 60.7 100.546-9 21 62.29 50.0110-14 40 62.63 42.7515-19 35 64.03 44.2120+ 46 64.8 133.81Not given 3 60.0 103.0Table 10: Experience and practical application score

Graph 3: Boxplot of experience and practical application score

There was even less evidence of a relationship between experience and intellectual freedom scores (p=0.985).

Years of experience No of respondents Mean practical application score

Variance

0-2 3 40.0 7.03-5 20 38.7 14.436-9 21 39.1 8.7910-14 40 38.57 9.7415-19 35 38.77 13.4820+ 46 38.93 32.06Not given 3 40.25 8.92Table 11: Experience and intellectual freedom score

13


Graph 4: Boxplot of experience and intellectual freedom score

4.4 Level of education of respondents

Although there was a tendency for practical application and intellectual freedom scores to increase for respondents with higher levels of education (with the exception of those with GCSEs or O Levels only), this was not statistically significant (p=0.115).

Level of education No of respondents Mean practical application score

Variance

GCSE 8 65.37 43.98A level 9 58.78 51.69HNC/HND 5 61.8 60.2BA/BSc 96 62.44 72.65MA/MSc 37 65.27 98.04PhD 3 66.67 100.33Not given 11 68.55 46.47Table 12: Years’ experience and practical application score

14


Graph 5: Boxplot of educational level and practical application score

Key: 1=GCSE 2=A Level 3=HNC/HND 4=BA/BSc 5=MA/MSc6=PHd 1000=not given

Although there is, again, no statistically significant relationship (p=0.328), the pattern for intellectual freedom scores followed the same pattern with the exception of respondents with HNCs or HNDs; their mean score was slightly higher than that for respondents with first degrees. One interesting feature is the fact that the practical application scores among respondents with Masters qualifications vary more widely than their intellectual freedom scores. This suggests that, although this group share similar principles in relation to intellectual freedom, the extent to which they transfer these into practice varies.

Level of education No of respondents Mean intellectual freedom score

Variance

GCSE 8 38.63 13.7A level 9 37.56 11.28HNC/HND 5 39.6 8.3BA/BSc 96 38.36 20.26MA/MSc 37 39.84 9.92PhD 3 41.67 24.33Not given 11 40.0 12.4Table 13: Level of education and intellectual freedom score

15


Graph 6: Boxplot of educational level and intellectual freedom score


4.5 Type of organisation respondents work for

Although there was no statistically significant relationship (p=0.3), the lowest mean score for practical application was found among respondents working in school libraries; these were most likely to carry out restrictive practices. The highest scores for practical application were found among respondents working in public libraries; they were likely to be the least restrictive in practice. However, the pattern differed when the theoretical principles of intellectual freedom were considered, although again the difference was not significant statistically (p=0.817). For intellectual freedom scores, those in school libraries had the highest scores and respondents from joint public/SLS the lowest.

Organisation No of respondents Mean practical application score

Variance

Joint public library service/SLS

19 62.0 196.78

SLS 47 63.13 42.9School library 41 61.93 60.72Public library 61 65.28 75.3Not given 1 58.0Table 14: Organisation and practical application score

16


Graph 7: Boxplot of organisation and practical application score

Key: 1=Public/SLS 2=SLS 3=School library 4=Public library 1000=not given

Organisation No of respondents Mean intellectual freedom score

Variance

Joint public library service/SLS

19 38.0 55.44

SLS 47 38.89 10.44School library 41 39.15 9.71Public library 61 38.95 14.91Not given 1 36.0Table 15: Organisation and intellectual freedom score

17


Graph 8: Boxplot of organisation and intellectual freedom score


4.6 Respondents’ membership of professional organisations

The mean scores for intellectual freedom and practical application were slightly higher for respondents who belonged to professional organisations (88% of the total sample) than for those who did not, but neither of these differences were significant (p=0.464 and p=0.732) respectively.





Member of professional organisation

63.64 76.53 38.9 17.93

Not member of professional organisation

62.14 77.23 38.57 7.56

Table 16: Membership of professional organisations and means and variances of practical application and intellectual freedom scores

4.7 Age of children respondents work with

The mean scores for practical application and intellectual freedom were slightly higher for respondents working with students aged 14 and over than for those who did not, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.616 and p=0.895 respectively).

18






Work with Key Stage 4

63.63 82.36 38.78 18.06

Do not work with Key Stage 4

62.81 55.59 38.88 11.55

Table 17: Whether respondents work with Key Stage 4 students and means and variances of practical application and intellectual freedom scores

4.8 Characteristics of individuals with the highest and lowest scores

The demographic characteristics of the respondents with the ten lowest and ten highest scores for intellectual freedom and practical application were studied to determine whether they had any common features.

The ten respondents with the lowest scores for censorship attitudes5 varied in terms of most of the demographic factors considered. Although most belonged to the older age groups, they ranged from 31-35 to 56 and over, and they had between 3-5 and 20+ years’ experience. Their level of education ranged between A levels and MA. Eight had a degree, but only two had degrees in librarianship or information science. All but one of the respondents in this group were female, but this reflects the overall composition of the sample. The were employed in all four types of library organisation and occupied a variety of positions within these including Assistant Principal Librarian, Senior Children’s Librarian and School Librarian. Three were solely responsible for older children (11 years upwards); only one had no direct contact with children over 11. Eight of the ten were members of CILIP.

Three of the respondents who the lowest scores for censorship attitudes were also in the group of respondents who had the ten lowest scores for attitudes towards intellectual freedom6. Again, there were few patterns to be seen among this group. Nine were female and although most were in the older age groups, they ranged in age from 26-30 to 56+. Just one worked in a school library, but otherwise they were evenly distributed between the different types of organisation and occupied a variety of posts within these. Some had just 3-5 years’ experience, but other had been working in libraries for more than twenty years. Eight of the ten regularly worked with young people aged 11 and over. All except one of this group had a degree and five had postgraduate qualifications. Unlike the group with low scores for censorship, eight had qualifications in librarianship. All but one were members of CILIP and three were members of additional professional bodies.

The majority of respondents with the ten highest scores for censorship7 had twenty years’ experience or more as a librarian for children or young people. However, two had just 3-5 years’ experience. Given this, it is not unexpected that the majority were from the older age groups (46 or older), but two were considerably younger (26-30 and 31-35). Most occupied a management role within their organisation. Five of this group worked in public libraries and a further two in a joint public/SLS; just one was a school librarian. They worked with children across the whole, or at least most, of the age range from pre-school to sixth form. The majority had higher levels of education; all but one had a degree and six had postgraduate qualifications. Half had degrees in librarianship. All ten respondents in this category were members of CILIP and four were also members of other professional bodies such as ASCEL and the SLA.5 ie most likely to carry out practices which restrict access to information6 ie were least likely to espouse the principles of intellectual freedom7 ie least likely to carry out practices which restrict access to information

19


Five of the ten respondents with the highest scores for intellectual freedom8 were also among those with the highest score for censorship attitudes. Two of this group were male. The youngest was 31-35, but the majority were in their 50s or older. Again, staff from public libraries were prevalent in this group; six of the ten were from public libraries and another was from a joint public/SLS. Two were working in school libraries. There was more variation than in the highest censorship attitude scores in terms of the length of their experience; it ranged from 3-5 years to 20 plus, but most fell somewhere between these. All the respondents in this group regularly worked with children aged 11 and over. Just one did not have a degree and six had postgraduate qualifications. Seven out of ten had qualifications in librarianship. They were all members of at least one professional body, most usually CILIP, but also the SLA

8 ie were most likely to espouse the principles of intellectual freedom

20


5. The relationship between intellectual freedom and practical application

The majority of respondents had higher average scores for intellectual freedom than for its practical application (ie there were more likely to express support for the principles of intellectual freedom than to put these into practice). There were just 10 (5.9%) respondents who had higher scores for practical application (ie were more likely to carry out practical measures which support intellectual freedom, but less likely to express theoretical views supporting their actions); on average, scores for intellectual freedom were 0.591 higher than those from practical application, but for some respondents the difference was as high as 2.6 (based on a scale of 1-5).

None of the demographic factors was found to be significant in helping to explain these differences. Whilst noting that none of these relationships was found to statistically significant, it is worth pointing out that the greatest variation between score for intellectual freedom and practical application were found amongst respondents aged under 26, 31-35 or over 56; with A levels or a BA or BSc; who worked in schools libraries; with three to nine years’ experience; or did not belong to a professional organisation. These were the groups who were least likely to put their principles regarding intellectual freedom into practice.

The table below illustrates the distributions of censorship practice and intellectual freedom scores.

Practical application Intellectual freedomMean 3.733 4.318Median 3.710 4.330Minimum 1.180 1.110Maximum 4.820 5.000Range 3.640 3.890Lower quartile 3.440 4.000Upper quartile 4.060 4.670Interquartile range 0.62 0.670Variance 0.264 0.205Table 18: Distribution of practical application and intellectual freedom scores

The average scores for intellectual freedom were higher than those measuring their practical application. T-tests to explore consistency between intellectual freedom and application scores found that there was a significant difference (t=17.68, p<0.001). This indicates that there are inconsistencies between overall attitudes and their practical application and that many librarians were likely to hold more liberal theoretical views than are demonstrated through their actions9.

Regression analysis was carried out to determine the degree of correlation between intellectual freedom scores and practical application scores. Although there was significant evidence of correlation between the two factors (p<0.001), the percentage of variance accounted for was only 36.9% (with 100% being a perfect linear relationship). This might suggest that the relationship is not linear or that some other factor(s) accounts for much of the variance10.

9 McDonald (1993) also reported significant differences between mean scores for intellectual freedom and censorship scores. 10 McDonald (1993) and Busha (1972) found high significant correlation between intellectual freedom scores and censorship scores.

21


6. Selection, access, diversity and policy issues

6.1 Selection

The questions which dealt with the issue of stock selection were:

Intellectual freedom

iv. School/children’s librarians should not exclude materials because of the origin, background or views of the authors.

xiv. School/children’s librarians should resist the efforts of individuals or groups seeking to impose their views on the management and running of the library.

xix. It is the responsibility of school/children’s librarians to provide resources which enrich young people’s quality of thought and expression.

Practical application

i. The school/children librarian’s personal moral, literary and aesthetic values should be the standard for determining what materials should be included in the collection.

iii. School/children’s librarians should avoid purchasing resources which might lead to criticism from parents or the local community.

vi. School/children’s librarians should concentrate on building on collections of texts which directly support the curriculum rather than works of fiction dealing with social, psychological or sexual problems young people face.

xviii. School/children’s librarians should remove resources which are known to have been the subject of censorship controversies in other schools/libraries.

xx. School/children’s librarians should not purchase resources which might offend the headteacher/local councillors.

xxiii. Some issues, such as homosexuality or drug taking, are too controversial for a children’s/school library.

xxiv. Parents should be able to expect that resources in the public/school library will not undermine commonly held values.

xxv. School/children’s librarians should not allow access to resources which portray the government in an unfavourable light.

22


The following table summarises the responses to each of these questions

Question Mean score

Number agreeing

Number disagreeing

Number uncertain

IFiv 4.48 145 16 11xiv 4.22 139 12 17xix 4.54 161 2 4PAi 3.83 22 137 7iii 3.94 16 140 12vi 3.98 2 165 2xviii 3.89 5 128 34xx 3.96 4 138 24xxiii 4.53 1 165 2xxiv 3.21 44 88 32xxvi 4.35 1 160 7

Table 19: Distribution of selection scores

As the table above demonstrates, in most cases, scores for intellectual freedom were higher than those for the practical application with regard to selection. There was agreement in principle that children’s and school libraries should provide a wide range of materials regardless of outside pressures. Average scores were also fairly high for many of the practical application questions, including whether to include resources on controversial subjects such as drugs and homosexuality, materials critical of the government and resources not directly linked to the curriculum. The issues on which there was less agreement were, perhaps, the less clear cut questions relating to ‘values’, both those which are ‘commonly held’ in society and those determined by the librarian as a professional. It may also be worth noting that two of the questions for which the average scores were lowest referred to taking account of the views of parents.

There were three demographic characteristics which, although not strictly statistically significant, may have some relationship with selection scores. These are: membership of professional associations (p=0.089); supporting Key Stage 4 students (p=0.072); and gender (p=0.096). Those respondents who were members of professional organisations, supported Key Stage 4 students and were male had higher average scores for the selection questions, indicating they were more likely to express views supporting intellectual freedom in the selection of library resources. This is illustrated in the table below.

Characteristic Mean VarianceMember of professional body

4.147 0.1829

Not member of professional body

3.972 0.1800

Supports KS4 4.157 0.1996Does not support KS4

4.012 0.1775

Male 4.285 0.1953Female 4.099 0.1818Table 20: Demographic characteristics and selection scores

23


6.2 Access

The questions which dealt with the issue of access were:


x. Young people should have the freedom to read and consider a wider range of ideas than those that may be held by the majority in the local community.

xxi. School/children’s librarians should make it possible for young people to choose freely from a variety of points of view on controversial subjects.


v. School/children’s librarians are in a position to recognise dangerous or controversial ideas in books or other resources and should ensure their availability is carefully controlled.

xii. Books and other resources about controversial subjects should be clearly labelled as a guide for young people, parents and teachers who wish to avoid works of this type.

xiii. School/children’s librarians should ensure that access to controversial websites is restricted by filtering software or other methods.

xvi. Controversial books should be kept on restricted shelves.

The following table summarises the responses to each of these questions

Question Mean score

Number agreeing

Number disagreeing

Number uncertain

IFx 4.41 164 1 3xxi 4.34 161 0 7PAv 2.64 84 40 42xii 3.18 42 82 44xiii 2.26 122 16 26xvi 3.69 19 120 29

Table 21: Distribution of access scores

In relation to the questions dealing with access to resources, scores for intellectual freedom were noticeably higher than for practical application. Freedom of choice for young people was widely supported in principle, but when it came to issues such as control of dangerous or controversial ideas; labelling of resources; and restricting access to websites and books, many respondents failed to put these principles into practice.

There were three demographic characteristics which were statistically significant in relation to access scores. These are: level of education (p<0.001); number of years’ experience (p=0.035); and type of organisation respondents work for (p=0.006).

24


The strongest relationship was that between level of education and access score. However, there was not an obvious pattern to this. The mean scores were highest for those with only GCSEs or with postgraduate qualifications and lowest for those with A levels and a BA or BSc.

Level of education Mean access score VarianceGCSE 3.617 0.0690A level 3.22 0.2004HNC/HND 3.434 0.0362BA/BSc 3.350 0.2104MA/MSc 3.573 0.2951PhD 3.967 0.4772Table 22: Level of education and access score

Graph 9: Box plot of level of education and access score


It is almost as difficult to see meaningful pattern between access scores and experience. Respondents with the most and least experience had the highest scores and those with 3-5 years had the lowest.

Years of experience Mean access score Variance0-2 3.723 0.17853-5 3.206 0.34326-9 3.423 0.269110-14 3.342 0.184015-19 3.530 0.167420+ 3.605 0.2549Table 23: Years’ experience and access score

25


Graph 10: Boxplot of experience and access scores

There was an indication that there may be a variation between library sectors in relation to access policies and practices. The mean access score for respondents from public libraries was highest and that from school libraries lowest.

Organisation Mean access score VarianceJoint public library service/SLS

3.473 0.3854

SLS 3.394 0.1348School library 3.281 0.2496Public library 3.626 0.2397Table 24: Organisation and access score

26


Graph 11: Boxplot of organisation and practical application score


The data was tested to see whether interactions between these characteristics were significant, but this was not the case.

6.3 Diversity

The questions which dealt with the issue of diversity were:


viii. School/children’s librarians should provide resources presenting a variety of points of view on current and historic issues.

xxii. School/children’s librarians need not endorse every idea in the resources they make available.

xxv. School/children’s librarians should make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those which are unpopular with the majority.


ii. School/children’s librarians should take care to ensure that materials containing unorthodox views are excluded from school/children’s library collections.

vii. School/children’s librarians should not allow young people access to materials with a strong political bias.

27


xv. Young people need to have access to a variety of resources to help them to develop critical thinking skills.

The following table summarises the responses to each of these questions.

Question Mean score

Number agreeing

Number disagreeing

Number uncertain

IFViii 4.6 166 2 0xxii 4.29 159 4 5xxv 3.98 139 6 22PAii 4.08 8 151 7vii 3.91 9 138 21xv 4.65 168 0 1

Table 25: Distribution of diversity scores

There was much less divergence between the theory and practice of intellectual freedom in relation to the diversity of resources provided than for other areas considered. As well as agreeing with the principle that children and young people should be presented with resources offering a range of viewpoints, responses indicate that most librarians make sure this is what happens in practice. The responses to this survey suggest that there is agreement across the profession on these issues; none of the demographic factors measured was found to have a significant affect on diversity scores.

6.4 Policy

The questions which dealt with the issue of policy were:


xvii. School/children’s librarians should be vigorous advocates of intellectual freedom.


ix. A censorship controversy over a single book/magazine/website is not worth the adverse publicity it would cause for the school/library service.

xi. If the headteacher or a local councillor requests that a book or other resource be removed from the library, the librarian should remove the book.

The following table summarises the responses to each of these questions.

Question Mean score

Number agreeing

Number disagreeing

Number uncertain

IFxvii 4.49 163 0 5PAix 3.3 37 88 40xi 3.56 17 111 39

Table 26: Distribution of policy scores

28


Although there were only three questions relating to policy, scores for intellectual freedom were generally higher than for its practical application. It was agreed that, in theory, librarians should be vigorous advocates of intellectual freedom, but it seemed that many librarians would be prepared to back down when this was put to the test.

Number of years’ experience (p=0.007) and level of education (p=0.016) were found to be significant in relation to policy scores. Those respondents with postgraduate qualifications had the highest scores, but the pattern was not a simply progressive one; the lowest scores were among those with A levels.

Level of education Mean policy score VarianceGCSE 3.750 0.1191A level 3.553 0.2220HNC/HND 3.866 0.5287BA/BSc 3.758 0.3183MA/MSc 3.974 0.3538PhD 4.557 0.2596Table 27: Level of education and policy score

Graph 12: Boxplot of educational level and policy score


The link between experience and policy scores was also far from clear. The highest mean scores were found for those with 0-2 years’ experience (although it must be remembered that there were just three respondents in this group) and more than fifteen years’ experience. Those with 3-5 years’ experience had the lowest average policy scores.

29


Years of experience Mean policy score Variance0-2 4.113 0.25963-5 3.568 0.41046-9 3.826 0.305110-14 3.650 0.313615-19 3.942 0.194320+ 3.993 0.3866Table 28: Years’ experience and policy score

Graph 13: Number of years’ experience and policy score

30


7. Responses to individual questions

There was wide variation in the answers given to some questions, with a significant proportion of respondents agreeing with the statement, but a fairly similar proportion disagreeing. In other cases, there was general agreement among respondents. This suggests that some censorship and intellectual freedom issues are generally agreed upon within the profession, while others are more contentious.

7.1 Issues where there was agreement

The issues where there was greatest homogeneity displayed were:

vi. School/children’s librarians should concentrate on building on collections of texts which directly support the curriculum rather than works of fiction dealing with social, psychological or sexual problems young people face. (Agree)

vii. School/children’s librarians should provide resources presenting a variety of points of view on current and historic issues. (Agree)

x. Young people should have the freedom to read and consider a wider range of ideas than those that may be held by the majority in the local community. (Agree)

xv. Young people need to have access to a variety of resources to help them to develop critical thinking skills. (Agree)

xi. School/children’s librarians should be vigorous advocates of intellectual freedom. (Agree)

xii. It is the responsibility of school/children’s librarians to provide resources which enrich young people’s quality of thought and expression. (Agree)

xiii. School/children’s librarians should make it possible for young people to choose freely from a variety of points of view on controversial subjects. (Agree)

xiv. School/children’s librarians need not endorse every idea in the resources they make available. (Agree)

xv. Some issues, such as homosexuality or drug taking, are too controversial for a children’s/school library. (Disagree)

xvi. School/children’s librarians should not allow access to resources which portray the government in an unfavourable light. (Disagree)

For all of these, the percentage of respondents holding the minority view was not greater than 2% (ie 3 individuals at most). The strongest views were expressed in response to questions about children’s access to resources to help in the development of critical thinking skills (Question xv, 67.9% strongly agreed) and the provision of resources to enrich quality of thought and expression (xix, 64.7% strongly agreed). It is interesting to note that there is general agreement on over half (5 out of 9) of the statements relating to theoretical intellectual freedom issues, but less than one-third (5 out of 17) of the practical application statements. This may suggest that, although there is general agreement in the principles underlying censorship issues in children’s librarianship, there are differences in the ways in which these principles are put into practice. The number of statements where there was overall agreement was evenly spit (in relation to the total number) for the four categories of selection, access, diversity and policy.

31


7.2 Issues where there was disagreement

Although there was a high level of agreement over the issues listed above, for other questions, a significant degree of divergence was in evidence, namely:

v. School/children’s librarians are in a position to recognise dangerous or controversial ideas in books or other resources and should ensure their availability is carefully controlled.

ix. A censorship controversy over a single book/magazine/website is not worth the adverse publicity it would cause for the school/library service.

xi. If the headteacher or a local councillor requests that a book or other resource be removed from the library, the librarian should remove the book.

xii. Books and other resources about controversial subjects should be clearly labelled as a guide for young people, parents and teachers who wish to avoid works of this type.

xxiv. Parents should be able to expect that resources in the public/school library will not undermine commonly held values.

All these issues relate to the practical application of censorship practices rather than theoretical concepts of intellectual freedom. The access, policy and selection categories are represented, but not diversity.

In response to question v, 50.6% agreed overall, compared with 24.1% who disagreed, but one-quarter of respondents were uncertain. Some added comments to the survey explaining that they felt there was a difference between ideas which were controversial and those which were dangerous.

22.9% of respondents agreed that the controversy over a single book or magazine was not worth the adverse publicity it might cause, but 53.0% disagreed with this statement. Again, almost one-quarter were uncertain in relation to this issue. The majority of those who agreed with this statement were from public or school libraries. Those in SLS, who might, perhaps, be less likely to be directly involved in such issues were more willing to risk the possibility of adverse publicity.

There was less divergence in responses to question xi, but there was still 15.7% of respondents who differed from the majority view and believed that if the headteacher or a local councillor requests that a book or other resource be removed from the library, the librarian should remove the book. One-quarter were unsure what they would do in this situation. The headteacher and local councillor were used in this question to represent a higher authority within the organisation, but for a number of respondents they were clearly not comparable, perhaps because the headteacher is a trained professional. Some noted on the survey returns that they would make a distinction between the headteacher, whose views they would act on and the elected member, who they did not feel should have authority to determine what items were included in a public library collection. However, it might also relate to the findings of McDonald (1993), Fiske (1959) and Douma (1976) who all reported that requests to restrict information from within a school were more likely to be successful than requests from those outside.

29.2% of respondents agreed that books and other resources about controversial subjects should be clearly labelled; 48.8% disagreed with this practice and 22% were uncertain. Most of those who approved of this practice were working in school libraries or SLSs rather than public libraries.

32


Just over one-quarter of respondents (26.8%) believed that parents should be able to expect that resources in the public/school library will not undermine commonly held values. Some found this difficult to answer; 20.7% were uncertain and on the survey responses, a number of respondents questioned the use of the term ‘commonly held values’, arguing that it was not clear what these might be11.

7.3 Issues where there was uncertainty

In addition to the questions above, there were a number of additional questions where, although the majority of respondents either agreed or disagreed, there were a significant number who said they were uncertain. These were:

xii. School/children’s librarians should ensure that access to controversial websites is restricted by filtering software or other methods.

xiii. School/children’s librarians should remove resources which are known to have been the subject of censorship controversies in other schools/libraries.

Some respondents did not answer the question about websites because this was not part of their responsibility, but was carried out by their IT department. In relation to several questions, some respondents commented that they would judge each case individually.

7.4 Issues where pro-censorship attitudes were displayed

The issues about which respondents displayed the highest pro-censorship views were:

Control of dangerous or controversial ideas (over half believed the librarian should control their availability)12

The publicity caused by controversial resources (almost one-quarter believed that the controversy over a single controversial book/magazine/website was not worth the adverse publicity)13

Labelling (just over one-quarter believed that controversial materials should be labelled as such)14

Internet access (over two-thirds believed that access to controversial websites should be restricted. This compares to just 10.2% who felt that controversial books should be kept on restricted shelves, indicating that different standards are applied to print and electronic materials in many libraries, but also reflecting the fact that the items in the library are pre-selected so there is less need to restrict access to avoid controversial materials than with the Internet where the librarian has no direct control over what resources are available.

How much attention librarians should pay to individuals and groups who wish to impose their views on the running of the library. Over one-quarter felt that the views of such groups should not be resisted15.

11 In McDonald’s study, the term ‘family values’ had been used, but it was felt that this now has more conservative connotations than it did at the time of her research, so was not appropriate.12 In response to a similar question asked by McDonald, just 7.3% agreed.13 In McDonald’s study just 10% of respondents agreed with this statement.14 Just 3.0% agreed in McDonald’s survey

33


7.5 Issues where pro-intellectual freedom attitudes were displayedConversely, issues about which respondents displayed the highest anti-censorship and pro-intellectual freedom views were:

The importance of providing access to a variety of resources to develop children’s critical thinking skills (all respondents agreed or strongly agreed)16

Librarians should be vigorous advocates of intellectual freedom (3 were uncertain, but the remainder of respondents agreed or strongly agreed)17

Children should be allowed to choose from a variety of viewpoints on controversial subjects (no one disagreed with this)18

Some issues eg drugs, homosexuality are too controversial for a children’s/school library (only one respondent agreed with this statement)19

Young people should be free to read a wide range of ideas, not just those which are commonly held (only 1 respondent disagreed)20

Children/young people should not have access to materials which portray the government unfavourably (only one person agreed)21.

15 In response to a similar question asked by McDonald, only 4.9% thought such efforts should not be resisted.16 The same was true in McDonald’s research.17 In McDonald’s study, 1.8% disagreed with this statement.18 In response to a similar question asked by McDonald, one respondent disagreed.19 In McDonald’s study, 1.8% agreed.20 In response to a similar question asked by McDonald, 1.5% felt that this was not appropriate.21 A much higher percentage, 7.9% agreed wit this statement in McDonald’s survey.

34


8. Conclusions

There were some criticisms of the survey from respondents. One was unable to complete most of the survey as she found the questions “too vague or too didactic”. She felt that “Issues around controversy and censorship are not clear cut and a questionnaire like this is unlikely to give any useful picture of librarians’ opinions on the matter”. Another respondent commented, “Some of these questions trouble me because of their black/white approach. There are more shades of grey than this allows for!” Yet another felt that “Some of these statements are very strong and I have made choices which I believe are fundamentally right. However, for many of them I would add a qualifying statement indicating necessity for discussion, consultation, advice or support…All of this points to the crucial need for librarians to be proactive in engaging with their customers, especially young people, and in depth knowledge of stock”. One respondent pointed out that, “sensitivity should be given to the type of school and the ethos of the school and the school librarian should respect that”. Other respondents said that decisions needed to take account of the age of the children involved.

While all these comments and provisos are certainly valid concerns and this type of questionnaire is not, of course, not the only way to research these issues, this survey has provided a starting point and raised a number of issues which should be the subject of greater research, in particular, research using qualitative methods to investigate those issues which cannot be explained using quantitative methods.

There were only very limited links to be found between the demographic factors studied and attitudes towards intellectual freedom. Overall, there were no statistically significant relationships between intellectual freedom or its practical application and any of the demographic variables measured. Some very broad themes could be seen and these are described below, but should be treated with caution.

Age

Although the relationship was not found to be significant, those aged 26-30 were the least restrictive and those aged 36-45 most restrictive. Librarians aged 31-35 and over 56 were least likely to put the principles they held regarding intellectual freedom into practice.

Gender

McDonald (1993) had found no differences based on gender, but both Busha (1972) and Pope (1974) had found the female librarians were more likely to practice censorship than their male counterparts.

There were very few male librarians involved in this study, but men seemed to be less restrictive then women, in relation to stock selection issues in particular.

Experience

McDonald (1993) found that librarians with the most and least experience were most likely to apply censorship practices and restrict access to information. In the 1970s, Pope had found that librarians with less experience were likely to be less restrictive (Pope, 1974) and in the previous decade, Farley had found that librarians with more than 25 years’ experience were likely to be more restrictive (reported in McDonald, 1993). The findings from this study do support McDonald’s conclusions to some

35


extent. There were only three respondents with less than three years’ experience so it is difficult to draw conclusions. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that the librarians with the most and least experience had the highest scores for both intellectual freedom and practical application. However, it should be noted that the range and inter-quartile range for both practical application and intellectual freedom were larger for respondents with twenty years experience or more than for other groups.

Very broadly, then, those with more years’ experience as a children’s or school librarian were less restrictive. This was particularly noticeable in their attitudes towards access to controversial resources and policy decisions. Those with 3-9 years’ experience displayed the greatest differences between theoretical values and censorship practices.

Education

Level of education was found to be the most significant variable in McDonald’s (1993) study; having a master’s degree was an important factor. Pope (1974) also found that librarians with higher levels of education were less restrictive and Busha (1972) considered level of education to be the single most significant variable.

In this study, the relationships between intellectual freedom and censorship and level of education were not statistically significant, but those with postgraduate level qualifications were generally less restrictive than those without, especially when it came to questions of access and policy.

However, it must be remembered that almost 79% of all respondents fell into just two categories (BA/BSc and MA/MSc), so perhaps a wider range of library staff with both higher and lower levels of education would help to determine whether there is any relationship between level of education and attitudes towards censorship and intellectual freedom.

Type of organisation

School librarians were most restrictive in practice, but supported the theoretical values of intellectual freedom more strongly than staff from public libraries or SLSs. The effect was especially noticeable in their attitudes towards controlling access to controversial resources.

Membership of professional bodies

McDonald (1993) found that membership of state and national professional organisations contributed significantly to scores for both intellectual freedom and its practical application. However, Fiske (1959) had found that those librarians who were neither highly restrictive not highly permissive were most likely to belong to professional organisations; this group was also most likely to consider the potential controversy when making selection decisions.

Few of the respondents to this study did not belong to a professional association, but these tended to be more restrictive and to display greater discrepancies between their beliefs and practice. The difference was most noticeable in attitudes towards stock selection and access.

36


Age group supported

Those who regularly supported students aged 14 and over were slightly less restrictive, especially when it came to resource selection.

8.1 Further research

This suggests there is a need for a more in depth investigation looking at factors such as:

Prior experience (eg was the fact that there was little evidence of a relationship between intellectual freedom or practical application to do with the fact that those respondents who had been in post under three years were all in their 30s and 40s and had experience in other jobs before?)

Detailed educational history (eg what courses were studied and when? It was interesting to note that those respondents with only GCSE level qualifications were in their 40s and 50s so differences in expectations and the education of librarians over the forty years covered by respondents needs to be considered).

However, probably the most important question for future research to investigate is: what prevents school and children’s librarians putting their principles relating to intellectual freedom principles into practice? Busha (1972) found that most public librarians would state principles of intellectual freedom, but were not strong enough as professionals to assert these in the face of real or anticipated censorship pressures. The same would appear to be true in the UK. In most cases, librarians were more likely to subscribe to the principles of intellectual freedom than to put them into practice. It is also worth noting that there was general agreement for most of the statements relating to intellectual freedom, but much greater variation between respondents for statements relating to its practical application. Although the two scores were related, librarians’ censorship practices are not solely determined by their views on intellectual freedom.

Diversity was the area in which there was least discrepancy between theory and practice. Conversely, in issues relating to policy and access, librarians were most likely to express support for the idea of intellectual freedom, but to be restrictive in practice. It seemed that controlling access to resources, rather than failing to provide the resources at all was the way in which many librarians censor materials.

This research suggests that there may be some link between librarians’ level of education and length of experience and their attitudes to censorship and intellectual freedom, in particular, their willingness to put their beliefs into practice. The potential for controversy seemed to be a concern; librarians were unsure how they should react to pressure from parents, headteachers and other groups to exclude resources. It might also be hypothesised that librarians in school libraries are more isolated than those in public libraries and SLSs, so feel less able to assert their beliefs regarding intellectual freedom.

37


References

Busha, A. (1972), Freedom Versus Suppression and Censorship, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.

Curry, A. (1997), The Limits of Tolerance: Censorship and Intellectual Freedom in Public Libraries, London: Scarecrow Press.

Fiske, M. (1959), Book selection and Censorship: A Study of School and Public Libraries in California, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

IFLA (2002), Glasgow Declaration on Libraries, Information Services and Intellectual Freedom, Glasgow: IFLA.

McDonald, F.B. (1993), A Survey of School Librarians’ Attitudes and Moral Reasoning, London: Scarecrow Press

38

Documents

Attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship amongst school and children's librarians