MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562995377 · doi:10.18438/b80315

New, Old, Indifferent: The United Kingdom’s Preferences Regarding the Architecture and Design of Public Libraries

2011· article· en· W1562995377 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Annie Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectiveEthnic groupArchitectureSample (material)SociologyLibrary sciencePsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceHistoryLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – Analysis and discussion of attitudes of U.K. citizens toward the architecture and design of the country’s public libraries.
 
 Design – Content analysis of essays submitted to the U.K. Mass Observation Archive (MOA).
 
 Setting – Citizens of the United Kingdom.
 
 Subjects – 180 respondents from a panel of 500 Mass Observation Archive (MOA) volunteers. 
 
 Methods – The MOA originated in the 1930s as a way to gather qualitative evidence regarding everyday life of the British public. Most of the data gathered takes the form of variable length essays written by a panel of 500 anonymous volunteers. The volunteers respond to specific directives, and in this article, Black summarized responses to a directive he originally posed to the 500 volunteers in 2005: ‘Public Library Buildings’. Black issued this particular directive to the panel of volunteers in the autumn of 2005 and results were made available to the public by mid-2006.The MOA received a total of 180 responses, of which 121 were from women and 59 were from men. Both users of libraries and non-users were included in the sample. The respondents were not a representative sample of the British public because men, ethnic minorities, lower socio-economic groups, and those living outside of the South of England were underrepresented. 
 
 The author analyzed the content of the 180 submitted essays to gain insight on attitudes regarding public library design and architecture. Respondents were asked about public library location, environmental fit, architectural style, sensory aspects of the building, and whether or not the building resembled other types of public buildings. Although he posed several questions, Black focused on answers to three questions: what do you think about the design of modern library buildings? Do you prefer them to older style buildings? Have you seen older libraries renovated into more modern libraries, and what do you think of them? Black then analyzed the responses and grouped them into four major attitudes toward the architecture and design of public libraries. The author chose not to code any of the responses and instead chose to analyze the ‘discourse’ in and not necessarily the ‘content’ of the essays. After analyzing the discourse, Black contextualized the evidence he discovered. He then discussed political and cultural issues with relation to the four major attitudes and how these issues affected the current landscape of libraries. 
 
 Main Results – The four major categories derived from the essays that Black analyzed included: preference for the new; preference for the old; preference for a mixing of the old and the new; architectural indifference, the library as ‘place’ and the concept of ‘libraryness.’ Those with a preference for the new preferred the newer, more modern building because it fit better within the world of information technology. These respondents also felt that the older buildings were too intimidating and cold. Those who preferred the older architecture and design felt that the buildings allowed them to access a piece of the past, and they thought an older library to be more impressive, historic, and generally have more elaborate and interesting architecture. These respondents pointed out the fewer places to hide in new libraries, and indicated that new architecture is boring and stolid. The third group of respondents preferred an older exterior, but an up-to-date interior with a more modern infrastructure. They enjoyed the large impressive buildings but liked the interior to contain comfortable, modern furniture, good lighting, as well as updated technological tools. Finally, the remaining group of respondents did not place importance on the physical space of a library, but more so the services and collections within the physical space. 
 
 Conclusion – The discourse derived from the MOA and analyzed in Black’s article summarizes the attitudes and preferences that citizens of the UK have regarding public library architecture. Among the 180 responses to the ‘Public Library Buildings’ directive, there is a clear tension in these attitudes and preferences. The information gathered in the MOA directive on public libraries could also provide political and cultural leaders with evidence of a need for renewal or rethinking of the country’s public libraries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.170
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207