Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
1
Library as multidimensional space in the digital age – an
analysis of stakeholders’ opinions on the design processes of
Helsinki University Main Library and Helsinki Central
Library
Pentti Mehtonen
University of Tampere
Abstract
Introduction. The article explores how library space is conceptualized in the library
design process.
Method. The main research material consisted of semi-structured interviews of the key
persons involved in two recent library design projects. In addition, various documents
of planning and design processes were used.
Analysis. The data was analysed using the Atlas.ti software, applying methods of
qualitative thematic analysis. The data was divided into three main themes:
digitalization, design process and conceptualization of library space, and then analysed
more closely.
Results. The digitalization was considered as one of the most important factor affecting
the function of present-day libraries, also its spatial solution. Library design is a
pragmatic and contextual process where the design goals are formulated in co-operation
between the key persons involved in the process. Based on the analysis of the research
material, a multidimensional model of library space was introduced, consisting of
physical, social and digital space.
Conclusion. The design and utilization of physical space enables a versatile
development of libraries and their adaptation to the digital age. Library space should be
understood as a complex and multidimensional concept. More emphasis should be put
on to find out how the design of physical space is facilitating its various uses and how
these are connected with the library’s digital resources.
Keywords: Library buildings, library planning, digitalization
1. Introduction
Recent developments in communication and information technologies have deeply
influenced the way we define the purpose and function of libraries. The digitalization
has been considered challenging, even threatening the existence of traditional libraries.
On the other hand, there has been widespread interest in library architecture, redefining
the library as physical space. The era of library buildings seems to be far from over. On
the contrary, the beginning of the 21st century has been an active period for ambitious
library projects all over the world.
The concept of the hybrid library, a fusion of the virtual and haptic dimensions
of space and services, has offered a possible strategy for the survival and further
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
2
development of libraries as multifaceted social institutions (e.g. Oppenheim & Smithson
1998; Rusbridge 1998). However, there has been little serious interest to develop the
concept of the hybrid library any further. Also, the main interest behind the concept was
to explore possible means to connect the emerging electronic resources to existing
library organizations. Therefore, the physical aspect of this dual concept was poorly
defined from the beginning, predominantly referring only to physical collections of
libraries. If the physical space was mentioned at all, it was only in a brief notice, like
Baker (2008, 99) stating that academic libraries can facilitate ‘group work and social
interaction’. It is evident, that more rigorous understanding of the role of library’s
physical space could benefit the development of the institution as a whole.
In this paper, I summarize some of the key findings of my ongoing PhD thesis.
I analyse two recent library projects: the Helsinki University Main Library and the
Helsinki Central Library. The former represents academic and the latter public libraries.
The main interest was to explore how library space is conceptualized in the design
process and how the design solutions are connected to the ongoing processes of
digitalization. The research material consisted of the interviews of key persons involved
in the library projects and various documents of planning and design processes. Based
on the analysis of this material, a multidimensional model of library space is introduced,
consisting of physical, social and digital space.
2. Literature review
Library architecture is nowadays a quite versatile object of study in library research.
However, it is still a somewhat marginal subject in this academic context and the
theoretical and conceptual base of the research remains greatly underdeveloped.
The more comprehensive studies have mainly concentrated on the earlier
history of library buildings in the 20th century: Sievänen-Allen (1989), Van Slyck
(1995), Dahlkild (2006), and Black, Pepper & Bagshaw (2009). In all these studies
library buildings are analysed from the wider societal perspective combining influence
from library history, architectural history and sociology. The studies can be considered
as a basic research on the subject, offering valuable information on the design and social
role of libraries and providing examples of methodical choices for future study. As an
exception to this kind of historical approach, Mattern (2007) analyses the present-day
discourse on the design of public libraries in the United States. In the Finnish context,
Aaltonen (2012) has provided a comprehensive presentation on the history of
development of public library spaces in Finland.
The interest in library architecture seems to have increased steadily since the
mid-1990s. Undoubtedly, one reason for this has been the change in library functions
caused by the new information technologies. These changes have induced the need to
reform the existing library spaces and to develop new concepts for the design of new
libraries. To sum up the previous library research literature, there have been two major
concepts for library space in the digital age: the library as learning environment and the
library as place. The former deals primary with academic libraries while the latter is
mainly directed to public libraries, but the division is not exclusive.
2.1. Library as learning environment
One of the most influential ideas in academic library design since the mid 1990’s, has
been the use of the concept of ‘information commons’, sometimes also referred as
information center or learning commons. In the library research these ideas have been
developed especially by Beagle (e.g. 1999; 2006) and Bennett (e.g. 2003; 2009).
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
3
Information commons is a comprehensive strategic and spatial concept that
gathers together the uses of library facilities, services, and equipment, especially the use
of information technologies. The use of this concept often promotes new learning
methods, such as interactivity, co-learning, and situated learning. Beagle (1999) is one
of the earliest attempts to examine the concept in a systematic way, formulating three
main goals for the design of information commons: the renewal of library services by
emphasizing the use of electronic resources, the provision of new learning spaces
enabling both individual and collective forms of study and the initiation of collaboration
projects between different actors of university. Beagle (2006) provides a comprehensive
and practical view on the design of information commons, while Bailey & Tierney
(2008) gives detailed information on the existing information commons in the United
States and Canada.
Bennett (2003) compares the concepts of information commons and learning
commons, claiming that the latter should serve as a future model for these spaces. By
learning commons he means a space that should aid the students’ learning processes and
knowledge construction more profoundly. In addition, the students should have greater
possibility to take active part in the design and operation of these spaces. Bennett (2009)
divides the history of academic libraries into three time periods that he labels as the
reader centered, the book centered and the learning centered library. According to
Bennett, the present-day challenge for academic libraries is the paradigmatic change
from the book centered to the learning centered library. This transformation process
remains greatly incomplete and a more rigorous definition of the concept and goals of
learning commons should be formulated.
Closet-Crane (2011) maintains that the concept of information commons has
been used to some extent uncritically in LIS literature, like ‘a brand mantra’. She also
underlines that the theoretical conceptualization of library space should be developed
further, e.g. more research on the impact of affective and architectural qualities of
library space is needed. Gayton (2008) distinguishes the concepts of communal and
social, and argues that the new kind of social activities happening in the information
commons may hinder the academic library’s traditional role as a communal space, that
is, supporting and manifesting the solitary and contemplative scholarly work of students
and members of faculty. Likewise, Caniano (2010) takes a critical stance on the
information commons. Firstly, he claims that their design does not fit the users’
expectations how academic libraries should look like, and that their spatial arrangement
promotes unstructured social interaction, that may not actually facilitate students’
learning processes. Secondly, the heavy reliance on fixed computer stations, which
Caniano calls ‘labization’ of library space, may be becoming soon obsolete by the
advent of various mobile devices.
Shill & Tonner (2003; 2004) and Stewart (2010) afford more general
information on the building of academic libraries in the United States since the 1990’s.
In addition, an analysis of the actual use of space in academic libraries is provided by
Applegate (2009) and Antell & Engel (2007) and space assessment by Nitecki (2011)
and Matthews et al. (2013).
2.2. Library as place
Under the general theme “library as place” libraries, especially public libraries have
been considered concrete places for a wide spectrum of social activities; e.g. Buschman
& Leckie (2007) and Most (2011). Unlike the concept of the library as learning
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
4
environment, the concept of the library as place is often only indirectly connected to the
advancement of information technology. Indeed, the concept could be seen as a kind of
response and countermove to digitalization—if libraries cannot compete with the
Internet and the new digital services, they can invest in the appealing design of library
space and try to draw people by offering new kind of activities, often claimed to be
supporting various forms of social interaction.
Especially, Ray Oldenburg’s concept of ‘third place’ has been a popular catch
phrase in the new millennium. However, actual empirical research utilizing this concept
has been scarce; an exception is Fisher [et al.] (2007), applying the concept of third
place for the analysis of Seattle Public Library. It was discovered that the library
functioned only partially as a third place in Oldenburg’s original criteria: the library was
considered as an accessible, inclusive, and neutral ground for the general public and it
was felt to be a comfortable place, ‘a home away from home’. Instead, the library was
not particularly functioning as a place for lively conversation, nor did it facilitate
spontaneous meetings between acquaintances or strangers. Elmborg (2011) provides a
critical view on the concept of third place in the context of public libraries, maintaining
that it may lead to a kind of commercialization of library space; the mimicry of retail
space, like bookstores and cafes. Instead, he promotes the use of the concept of ‘third
space’, introduced by Homi Bhabha, a kind of discursive space that would allow
libraries to function more profoundly as public space, a place facilitating the
construction of various social identities and enhancing public debate. However, the
actual realization of the concept of third space has been largely left open, especially its
connection to the spatial design of libraries.
Aabø, Audunson & Vårheim (2010) and Aabø & Audunson (2012) have
studied the public library as a meeting place and place for the accumulation of social
capital. Public libraries are considered particularly important as inclusive places that
gather people from different social and cultural backgrounds. Moreover, the use of
libraries is not predetermined to advance some narrow social agenda. Lapintie & Di
Marino (2015) provides an analysis how library space is utilized for transitory work,
like teleworking, a type of work that is not bound to a particular physical location. The
study shows that libraries already function as significant places for this kind of activity.
3. Methodology
The article is based on my ongoing PhD thesis that has two main goals: to explore how
library space in conceptualized in the library design process in general, and how the
phenomenon of digitalization is reflected and expressed in these conceptualizations. In
the space of this paper, I am able to present only some preliminary findings of this
work.
3.1. Study cases
Two library projects were selected as study cases: the Helsinki University Main Library
and the Helsinki Central Library. The first one represents academic and the latter public
libraries. These two cases were selected because both projects had an innovative
functional program and utilized new design practices, especially the Helsinki Central
Library project. In addition, they could be considered as the most significant
contemporary library projects in Finland, having both national and international value.
The Helsinki University Main library is a part of the restructuration of the
University of Helsinki and its facilities, a process that started in the 1990’s. The
facilities located in the city of Helsinki are now operating on four campuses, each
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
5
having its newly constructed campus library. The Main Library, the campus library of
the City Centre Campus, is the latest of these library units and located in the centre of
Helsinki. It is the result of merging six larger libraries and other smaller libraries. The
architectural competition for the library was held in 2007—2008, and the library was
opened in 2012.
The design process for the Helsinki Central Library started gradually at the end
of the 1990’s, but the actual architectural competition was not held until in 2012—2013.
The construction started in 2015 and the library is planned to be open in 2018. Although
a noteworthy building, the Central Library is not a new main library, but is planned to
be a new kind of innovative library unit located in the centre of Helsinki.
3.2. Research material
The main research material consisted of the interviews of key persons involved in the
library design processes. The interviews were conducted as semi-structured interviews
with a fairly open framework, taped, transcribed, and analysed by using Atlas.ti. In total,
there were 19 interviews with 31 interviewees, including architects responsible for the
actual design, architects of the university and city administration, members of library
management, various other library staff and library users. Most of the interviewees were
deliberately chosen because they had participated actively in the design process.
Additionally, some members of the library staff volunteered for interviews. The
interviews were a mix of individual and group interviews, the maximum of three people
and the interviewer. The interviews were conducted face-to-face, with two telephone
interviews.
The chosen interviewees represent the important stakeholders in the library
design process: architects, librarians and library users. The library users are the most
difficult group to include in this kind of research, as their attachment to the design
process is the vaguest. The interviews of the Helsinki University Main Library included
one student and three academic researchers. The interviews of the Helsinki Central
Library included one senior official in the Helsinki City administration, as a
representative of the city dwellers.
To compensate this kind of skew in the data, the materials of two surveys were
used in addition. The student’s magazine Ylioppilaslehti had conducted a survey in 2007,
about the possible new main library and its design goals, and it included both
close-ended and open-ended questions. Over a thousand students participated in the
survey. The material from an open-ended question: ‘What is your dream City Centre
Campus library?’ was used in this study. The Central Library project has an ongoing
survey in their website, in which over two thousand people have participated. The
survey has only one open-ended question: ‘Tell us your dream about the new Central
Library.’ The data used in this study included 52 answers concerning the Helsinki
University Main Library and 88 answers concerning the Helsinki Central Library. The
answers were selected according to their length, based on the presumption that the
longer answers would also include discussion about the library design, along with
discussion on the collections and services. The data of the surveys selected for this
study offered a rich material on the contemporary opinions of library users concerning
library design and library’s spatial organization.
Beside the interviews, the documents of architectural competitions were used
also, as both libraries were designed by using an architectural competition. These
documents included the competition programs and jury reports.
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
6
3.3. Methods and theoretical framework
The analysis was conducted by applying the methods of qualitative thematic analysis.
Braun & Clarke (2006, 77) advocate the use of thematic analysis, ‘a poorly demarcated,
rarely acknowledged, yet widely used’ analytic method, as an independent method in its
own right. Thematic analysis is an especially useful method in a situation where
analysis must be mainly conducted inductively. As pointed in the literature review,
library space has been vaguely theorized in the previous library research, and no
rigorous analytical framework was readily available.
The interviews and other research material were first read closely for several
times, marking potential sections for closer analysis and identifying possible themes.
The data was then divided into three general themes or topics: the digitalization, design
process and conceptualization of library space, and then coded more closely, by
identifying and selecting possible sub-themes. The codes, sub-themes, were constantly
reviewed during the analysis process and changed, merged or deleted when necessary.
When the list of sub-themes was decided to be comprehensive enough, the whole
research material was once again analysed by using the same list of sub-themes in a
consistent analytical manner.
The individual textual sections for sub-themes were selected to be fairly large.
Hence the sub-themes were always embedded and analysed in the larger textual context.
This was felt to be important, as the analysis was conducted in an explorative and
inductive manner. The aim was to understand the meaning-making of participants in the
context of an actual library design process. Therefore, the analysis of the details was not
possible without the general view of the whole.
The general theoretical framework guiding the analysis is based on two notions.
Firstly, the study is based on the premise that the library institution and the practices
attached to it are embedded in the material and spatial realm of the library. That is, the
spatial organization of the library has a significant role in the way libraries are
constructed and maintained as social institutions. During the last decades, there has
been a wide and profound interest in the concepts of space and place, an interest
stretching to several disciplines: e.g. sociology, geography, psychology and humanities.
The concepts of space and place are often interchangeable, notoriously opaque,
contested and used in multifaceted ways (e.g. for space see Thrift (2009), and for place
Gieryn (2000)).
Secondly, the notion of discourse should be regarded as vital when studied
organizational change. Discourses can be understood as mediating social practices
between the structure and agency, constituting ‘social structures as actualizable
allowances in particular areas of social life in certain time and place’ (Fairclough 2005,
922).
4. Results
4.1. Impact of digitalization on library functions
The digitalization was considered unanimously by the interviewees as one of the most
important factors affecting the function of present-day libraries, referred to with
expressions like ‘historical turning point’ and ‘paradigm change’. The potential impact
of the technological change on library operation was seen as an extensive and complex
phenomenon, influencing many, even the core functions of libraries: e.g. the collections,
services, work tasks and library users’ requirements and expectations. Especially the
change from physical collections to digital collections and services was thought to be
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
7
challenging for the present-day library organizations. One of the major consequences of
digitalization is that libraries could be perceived to be increasingly dependent on the
changes in their external operating environment.
The transformation period was considered incomplete and in a state of flux.
Therefore, the future of libraries was felt to be unclear, even threatened. Despite the
on-going changes, there is, or should exist a kind of ‘essence’ of the library, some kind
of core mission or core value, explained to be referring to functions like giving free
access to literary and other cultural resources, promoting education, and providing
non-commercial public space that is accessible to all. It was felt paramount that libraries
should not lose this ethos in the process of renewal and reformation.
4.2. Library design process
Library design should be considered as a pragmatic and contextual process. Both library
projects were based on fairly established planning and design practices, and applied
more practical than theoretical knowledge. Many contextual factors restricted the actual
design: the experience on previous library projects, the building site, the existing library
collections, the library organization and library’s relationship to the larger community it
is serving.
All the stakeholder groups considered co-operation as a vital part of a
successful design process. The design goals were formulated and reformulated during
the design process by discussion and negotiation. Ideally, this would call for an equal
possibility to participate in the design process, unrestricted discussions about the design
decisions and genuine commitment in finding solutions that all stakeholders can find
acceptable. The key participants in both library projects considered the negotiations
fairly successful and unrestricted. However, it was evident that the different stakeholder
groups had greatly unequal possibility to influence the design process, especially the
decision making. Also the individuals inside the stakeholder groups had various
positions, e.g. the members of library management had a more influential and
multifaceted role compared to other members of library staff. Furthermore, the period of
architectural competition should be regarded as vital. After the competition was
resolved, the main design goals and spatial solutions were merely fine-tuned and
concretized in the following process, which nevertheless was the time frame for the
most extensive co-operation.
The inclusion of library users in the design process is a rather new objective,
and hard to put into practice. Both library projects applied some new methods to realise
this goal. Special user groups and a service design project were used in the design
process of the Helsinki University Main library. The Helsinki Central Library project
utilized a variety of new practices, like a special web page for the project, participatory
budgeting, city events and workshops. Library users were able to participate by giving
feedback and commenting the existing plans and design, and to a lesser extent,
producing new ideas for the design process. In the case of the Helsinki University Main
Library the user participation had some influence on the library design, fine tuning
some spatial solutions and affecting library policies and activities. As the design process
for the Helsinki Central Library is still uncompleted, it is hard to estimate how the user
participation will impact the final design solutions. The extensive measures to include
library users in the design process can be, however, considered as a means to confirm
the public image of the project. The library was also able to build a social network,
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
8
creating contacts with various institutional and individual actors which can be utilized
later in the operation of the library.
4.3. Multidimensional library space
Based on the analysis of research material, a multidimensional model of library space
was proposed (figure 1), consisting of three spheres: physical, social, and digital space.
The concept of physical space refers to the actual library building, its exterior and
especially the interior, the spatial organization of furniture, collections, and other library
functions. The concept of social space refers both to the various forms of social
interaction in libraries, and to diverse ways libraries function as public space. The
concept of digital space refers to the realm of electronic collections and services.
The different spheres of the spatial model should be understood as partially
autonomous and partially interdependent and they can have differing emphasis on the
actual realizations of different libraries. The main attention in the analysis was focused
on the library as physical space, as the context of the research topic was library design
and space planning. Therefore, the main interest in the concepts of social and digital
space was to explore how they were connected with the design goals and spatial
solutions of library’s physical space.
Figure 1: The multidimensional model of library space consists of physical, social
and digital space
4.3.1. Library as physical space
Both the functional and aesthetic qualities of physical space were considered important
by the interviewees.
Flexibility and diversity were considered as the main functional qualities of
library space. By flexibility it was meant that the library should have an open layout,
without unnecessary permanent structures to hinder the possible changes in spatial
organization. Also the technical infrastructure, e.g. electrical systems and
communication networks, should support the flexible reorganization of library functions.
The difference between the two library projects was the expected time frame for
potential change. In the case of the Helsinki University Main Library the changes are
presumed to happen in some indeterminate future, whereas in the Helsinki Central
Library the ongoing spatial reorganization is planned to be a part of the daily operation
of the library. The flexibility of library space is not a new design criterion by any
means; it has gradually become more and more essential part of library design after the
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
9
mid-20th century (Mehtonen 2011). However, what was new, especially in the case of
the Central Library, was that the library users should be able to freely modify some part
of the spaces to their own ends. In addition, both libraries were also preparing for the
possible downsizing of various functions, like the reduction of physical collections and
the size of the staff.
The diversity of physical space was another strategy that the libraries used
when trying to adapt to the uncertainties of the digital age. Libraries are putting a great
effort to expand the realm of functions that are available in the physical space, to
making it more attractive and appealing. Libraries were also designed to facilitate
multiple functions in the same space, and to offer different kinds of environments, from
which the library users can choose the one that suits best to their current needs. One
solution to control the potential conflicts, especially the problems with noise, that the
coexistence of different functions in the same space may induce, was the use of
different activity zones: quiet, semi-active and active zone.
The aesthetic qualities of library architecture were also considered important
by the interviewees. The interior of the library should be comfortable, beautiful and
provide different moods. The library building should be harmoniously integrated into
the townscape, while also being an iconic and unique part of it. Furthermore, it was felt
important that the architecture should somehow symbolically represent the core aspects
of the library as an institution.
4.3.2. Library as social space
Libraries were considered to function as social space in basically two ways: either as
concrete places for social interaction or as a part of public space of surrounding
community and society.
Social interaction was seen as consisting of various social relations and
activities between people and being an immediate part of everyday use of libraries.
Social interaction was primarily considered to happen between the library staff and
library users. In the Helsinki University Main Library it was confined in restricted areas
and utilized fairly traditional forms of information services. Whereas in the Helsinki
Central Library it is planned to happen throughout the library space, the staff should
move around the building and engage in different kind of activities, like workshops and
events. The interviewees tended to treat the forms of interaction as a kind of self-evident
part of library functions. Instead, they should be regarded as a complex practices where
the roles, identities and social positions of librarians and library users are being
constructed.
The interaction between the library users is a newer phenomenon, especially as
an intentional design goal. Both libraries were trying to facilitate this kind of social
interaction by providing special areas for it. However, in the case of Helsinki University
Main Library, it was discovered that the library users did not automatically use these
spaces as intended. The areas that were designed to be places for relaxed socializing
were in fact used for quiet solitary studying. The experience is a good remainder of the
complexities between the prevailing social norms of library practices and the library’s
spatial organization.
The concept of library as public space is in some ways a more abstract
construct. Some of the issues to be considered are, how the access and right to use
library space are defined and maintained, what kind of public roles people are able to
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
10
perform in library space and how library’s functional and symbolic relationship to
surrounding community is constructed.
4.3.3. Library as digital space
There were three main ways how the emergence of digital space was considered to have
influenced the library as physical space.
Firstly, physical library space was seen to becoming more technologized, more
depended on the use of different digital devices, such as computers and library
automation. A recent example of this development was that both libraries were designed
to facilitate the extensive use of library users’ private mobile devices. A design problem
that emerged in both library projects was the question of ‘visibility’ of the digital
collections and services. There was a concern how to place the digital resources more
concretely at disposal in the physical space. As a solution to this problem, some kind of
interactive screens and other multimedia solutions are planned to be used in the Helsinki
Central Library, providing various access to the digital resources. The library users
should be able to distribute their own material with these devices also.
Secondly, the relationship between physical space and digital space were seen
as a complex issue. On the one hand, digital space has expanded library as physical
space by providing access to various resources that no longer need to be stored locally.
On the other hand, digital space has become detached from the physical library; the use
of the digital collections and services is no longer connected to any particular location.
Indeed, digital library space has the potential to become fully autonomous, by providing
several essential, even if not all, functions of physical and social space.
Thirdly, physical space has become more important in itself. As the physical
collections lose their previous value, there opens up new space, that can be used for
other library functions. These new functions are mainly connected to various activities
of library users and to the new forms of interaction with the library staff, therefore
potentially increasing the value of social space in library. As the process of
digitalization advances, libraries are contested by other means of distribution of literary
and cultural resources. Therefore, reconceptualization of library as physical space could
be seen offering new possibilities for the renewal and further legitimation of library
institution in the digital age.
5. Discussion
A model of library space consisting of three spheres: physical space, social space, and
digital space, was introduced in the paper. The model should be considered as a
preliminary and schematic presentation of the possible dimensions of library space in
the present-day situation. The model is based on the idea, that throughout the history,
libraries have been composed of two basic dimensions, physical and social space: the
physical place where the library has been stored and the activities and practices
connected to its preservation and use. The third sphere of the model, library as digital
space, is a novel, and still greatly undefined attachment to the whole.
In the diagram the different spheres were defined to be partly independent and
partly interconnected. In reality, it may be difficult to distinguish this kind of difference;
the spheres are interconnected in myriad ways that are difficult to comprehend, or
simply unknown. For example, the physical reality of our built environment, that we
may take so granted and permanent, is even in its tangible form in continuous process of
change, caused by various natural processes and human activities. Furthermore, all the
mental concepts that we use about this reality, are products of various practices, all
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
11
more or less socially determined, but also situated in this physical and material realm,
even produced by it.
The practical field of librarianship and the theoretical contribution of library
research have tended to emphasize the value of library’s collections, often in a
utilitarian way. The physical library has thus been understood to be a place for
preservation, use and distribution of the collection. The social aspect of library has been
associated with the interaction between the library staff and library users, and connected
primarily to the practical use of the collection, or more generally, library as an
information system. This equation of the library with the collection, or information, has
constrained the understanding of the library as both physical and social space. The
recent interest in the library space has provided a more complex picture of the subject.
However, the research lacks a theoretical base, critical assessment of previous research
and examples of empirical research focused on the material and spatial forms of library
practices.
6. Conclusion
Library space should be understood as a complex and multidimensional concept. The
design of library’s physical space provides various possibilities for the renewal of
library as a societal institution. The theoretical conceptualization of library space should
be developed further. In addition, more rigorous empirical research on the subject is
needed.
References
Aabø, S. & Audunson, R. (2012). Use of library space and the library as place. Library
& Information Science Research 34 (2), 138-149. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2011.06.002
Aabø, S., Audunson, R. & Vårheim, A. (2010). How do public libraries function as
meeting places? Library & Information Science Research 32 (1), 16-26. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.008
Aaltonen, H. (2012). The Finnish library space. From stacks to living room: a history of
the development of public library spaces in Finland. Helsinki: Avain.
Antell, K & Engel, D. (2007). Stimulating space, serendipitous space: Library as place
in the life of the scholar. In Buschman, J. E. & Leckie, G. J. (Eds.), The Library as
place. History, community, and culture (pp. 163-176). Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
Applegate, R. (2009). The library is for studying: Student preferences for study space.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 30 (4), 341-346. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.04.004
Bailey, R. & Tiernay, B. (2008). Transforming library service through information
commons. Chicago: American Library Association.
Baker, D. (2008). Combining the best of both worlds: the hybrid library. In Earnshaw, R
& Vince, J. (Eds.) Digital convergence—Libraries of the future (pp. 95-105). London:
Springer.
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
12
Beagle, D. (1999). Conceptualizing an information commons. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship 25 (2), 82-89. Retrieved from:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=ehh
&AN=1866343&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Beagle, D. R. (2006). The Information commons handbook. New York: Neal-Schuman
Publishers.
Bennett, S. (2003). Libraries designed for learning. Washington: CLIR. Pub 122.
Retrieved from: http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/reports/pub122
Bennett, S. (2009). Libraries and learning: A history of paradigm change. Libraries and
the Academy 9 (2), 181-197. Retrieved from:
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=459E8610BFC4417C0F3B
Black, A., Pepper, S. & Bagshaw, K. (2009). Books, buildings and social engineering:
Early public libraries in Britain from past to present. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Buschman, J. & Leckie, G. J. (2007). The library as place: History, community, and
culture. Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Closet-Crane, C. (2011). A critical analysis of the discourse on academic libraries as
learning places. Advances in Library Administration and Organization 30, 1-50.
Dahlkild, N. (2006). Åbningen af biblioteksrummet - de formative år i danske
folkebibliotekers arkitektur i det 20. århundredes første halvdel. Danmarks
Biblioteksskole, Institut för Kultur og Medier. København: Danmarks Biblioteksskole.
Elmborg, J. K. (2011). Recognizing and valuing the third space. Reference & User
Services Quarterly 50(4), 338-350.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organizational studies: the case for critical
realism. Organization Studies 26 (6), 915-939. doi: 10.1177/0170840605054610
Fisher, K. E. et al. (2007). Seattle Public Library as place: Reconceptualizing space,
community, and information at the Central Library. In Buschman, J. E. & Leckie, G. J.
(Eds.) The library as place. History, community, and culture (pp. 135-160). Westport:
Libraries Unlimited.
Gayton, J. T. (2008). Academic libraries: “social” or “communal?” The nature and
future of academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 (1), 60-66.
Retrived from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.11.011
Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 26,
463-496. Retrived from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223453
Proceedings of the Memornet 2015 Conference
13
Lapintie, K. & Di Marino, M. (2015). Libraries as transitory workspaces and spatial
incubators. Library & Information Science Research 37 (2), 118-129. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.01.001
Mattern, S. (2007). The new downtown library: Designing with communities.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Matthews, G., Lehto, A., Poteri, E. & Iivonen, M. (2013). Evaluation of space and use:
A case study from Finland. In Walton, G. & Matthews, G. (Eds.) University libraries
and space in the digital world (pp. 167-188). Farnham: Ashgate.
Mehtonen, P. (2011). Public library buildings in Finland: An analysis of the
architectural and librarianship discourses from 1945 to the present. Library Trends 60
(1), 152-173. Retrieved from:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/v060/60.1.mehtonen.html
Nitecki, D. (2011). Space assessment as a venue for defining the academic library. The
Library Quarterly 81 (1), 27-59. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/657446
Oppenheim, C. & Smithson, D. (1998). What is the hybrid library? Journal of
Information Science 25 (2), 97-112. doi:10.1177/016555159902500202
Rusbridge, C. (1998). Towards the hybrid library. D-Lab Magazine 6 (7/8). Retrieved
from: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/rusbridge/07rusbridge.html
Shill, H. B. & Tonner, S. (2003). Creating a better place: Physical improvements in
academic libraries, 1995-2002. Collage & Research Libraries 64 (6), 431-466.
Retrieved from: http://crl.acrl.org/content/64/6/431.full.pdf+html
Shill, H. B. & Tonner, S. (2004). Does the building still matter? Usage patterns in new,
expanded, and renovated libraries, 1995-2002. Collage & Research Libraries 65 (2),
123-150. Retrieved from: http://crl.acrl.org/content/65/2/123.full.pdf+html
Sievänen-Allen, R. (1989). Avoin pohjakaava ja sen käyttöönotto Suomen
kirjastoarkkitehtuurissa ennen vuotta 1940. Dissertation thesis. Jyväskylä studies in the
arts 32. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.
Stewart, C. (2010). The academic library building in the digital age. A study of
construction, planning, and design of new library space. Chicago: ACRL.
Thrift, N. (2009). Space: the fundamental stuff of geography. In Clifford,N. J.et al.
(Eds.) Key concepts in geography. London: Sage.
Van Slyck, A. (1995). Free to all: Carnegie libraries and American culture, 1890-1920.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press