Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science (한국문헌정보학회지)

Korean Society For Library And Information Science (한국문헌정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Measuring the Publicness of Public Libraries: Based on the Perception of Local Residents

공공도서관 공공성 측정 연구 - 지역 주민의 인식을 기반으로 -

  • 김혜영 (연세대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 김기영 (연세대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2023.04.21
  • Accepted : 2023.05.20
  • Published : 2023.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study developed a scale for measuring publicness and examined the differences in perception of publicness according to library usage experience, personal characteristics of local residents, and types of library services. The survey was conducted on 15 local public libraries in 5 districts of Seoul, targeting library users and local residents. As a result, it was found that the publicness of libraries is composed of three factors: participatory responsiveness, procedural fairness, and situational equality, which demonstrate different aspects formed through the interaction between library users and local residents in the local community. The study derived ways to enhance publicness and presented in detail which aspect of publicness needs to be enhanced according to library usage experience and service period, local residents' occupational environment and experience of local activities, and types of library services. The study suggests that when service experiences that enhance publicness are effectively provided, more local residents can benefit from them, and the value of the library's existence can be demonstrated.

본 연구는 수혜자의 관점에서 공공성을 측정할 수 있는 척도를 개발하고, 도서관 이용 경험, 지역 주민의 개인적 특성, 도서관 서비스 유형에 따라 공공성에 대한 인식 차이를 측정하였다. 이를 위해 공공성 관련 특성들을 문헌 고찰을 통해 분석하여 공공성 측정 지표로 통합하였고, 서울시 5개 자치구의 지역 공공도서관 15곳을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였다. 그 결과, 도서관 공공성은 '참여반응성, 절차공정성, 상황평등성'의 3가지 요인으로 구성되며, 각 요인은 도서관과 지역 주민 간 상호작용 속에 형성되는 서로 다른 측면을 보여준다는 점을 발견하였다. 이를 바탕으로 도서관 이용 경험과 서비스 기간, 지역 주민의 직업 환경과 지역활동경험, 도서관 서비스 유형 등에 따라 어떠한 공공성의 측면을 강화해 나가야 하는지를 제시하였다. 공공성을 강화할 수 있는 서비스 경험이 제공될 때, 보다 많은 지역 주민이 혜택을 누릴 수 있으며, 이로써 도서관의 존재가치를 증명할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ha, Yong-Sam & Mun, Jae-Won (2011). Reconstruction of publicity and locality, focusing on the resident library as a public sector. Journal of the New Korean Philosophical Association, 66, 421-451.
  2. Hwang, Hie-Shin & Cha, Sung-Jong (2011). Contracting out public libraries: comparison of users' satisfaction. The Korea Association for Policy Studies, 20(2), 203-232.
  3. Jeong, Byeongsun, Lee, Sungho, Kim, Kyoung-cheol, Park, Yewan, & Cho, Hyunhye (2017). A Study on the Establishment of Collaborative Governance Evaluation System in Seoul (Seoul Research Institute 2016-PR-50). The Seoul Institute of Research.
  4. Jo, Chosik & Cho, Mia (2011). Understanding and Analysis of Public Libraries. Seoul: EduHuepia.
  5. Kang, Jinju & Goh, Eun Kyoung (2015). Young children's understanding of publicness through the investigation of public institutions. Early Childhood Education Research & Review, 19(2), 117-141.
  6. Kim, Eunjeong & Kim, Yu-Ri (2020). The impact of both the possibility of selection and accessibility to social services on service effectiveness: focusing on the differences by social service categories. The Korea Local Administration Review, 34(4), 213-237. https://doi.org/10.22783/krila.2020.34.4.213
  7. Kim, Jesun & Moon, Yongpil (2012). An empirical analysis on web accessibility compliances of the aged welfare facilities-focused on Gyeonggi-do. Korean Journal of Gerontological Social Welfare, 55, 223-247.
  8. Kim, Seon-Ho (2019). Neoliberalism and public library inclusive policy on sexual minor. Korean Journal of Political Science, 27(1), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.34221/KJPS.2019.27.1.5
  9. Korea Society of Archival Studies (2008). Archival Glossary of Terms. Seoul: Historical Criticism.
  10. Kwak, Dongchul (2004). A study on the analysis of results on contracting out of public library services in Korea. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 38(1), 51-75. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2004.38.1.051
  11. Kwon, Nahyun (2015). A national study of perceived outcomes of public library services. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 49(2), 169-194. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.2.169
  12. Lee, Hosin (2018). A preliminary research study for empirical analysis on the validity of public lending right: focus on the comparison between popular borrowing books and best sellers. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 52(1), 179-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2018.52.1.179
  13. Lee, Hye-yeon (2000). Citizen Participation Methods in Public Library Management. In Library Movement Research Association ed. Theory of Public Library Management. Seoul: Yeoyoung Communication.
  14. Lee, Hyung-jin (2015). Foundations and Accountability. Beautiful Foundation Donation Culture Research Institute. Seoul: BeutifulBook. 105-125.
  15. Lee, JaeWhoan (2020). Meanings of library in the daily life of Korean. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 51(4), 25-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.16981/kliss.51.4.202012.25 
  16. Lee, Jong-kwon & No, Dongjo (2021). Service Management Theory of Public Libraries (4th ed.). Seoul: Moonhyun.
  17. Park, Byung-ju (2000). A Study on the Establishment and Operation of Public Library Cooperation Networks. In Library Movement Research Association ed. Theory of Public Library Management. Seoul: Yeoyoung Communication.
  18. Yang, Jae-han (2000). The Formation Process and Social Role of Public Libraries. Seoul: Taeilsa.
  19. Yoon, Hee-yoon (2017). Theory of Public Library Management. Daegu: Taeilsa. 
  20. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social-exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2(4), 267-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
  21. Baker, W. E. & Lutz, R. J. (2000). An empirical test of an updated relevance-accessibility model of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673599
  22. Berger, J., Zelditch M., Anderson, B., & Cohen B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: a status value formulation. Sociological Theories in Progress 2, 119-246.
  23. Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki, Sheppard eds. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43-55, London: JAI Press.
  24. Bozeman B. (1987). All Organizations Are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organization Theory. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  25. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
  26. Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995627
  27. Dawson, R. (2014). The Public Library. 최성옥 옮김(2015). 공공도서관. 서울: 한스미디어.
  28. Dicke, L. A. & Ott, J. S. (1999). Public agency accountability in human services contracting. Public Productivity Management Review, 22(4), 502-516. https://doi.org/10.2307/3380933
  29. Doolittle, A. & Faul, A. C. (2013). Civic engagement scale: a validation study. Sage Open, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013495542
  30. Ebrahim, A. & Weisband, E. (2007). Global Accountabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490903
  31. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Call for Participatory Decision Making, Discussion Paper on World Bank-Civil Society Engagement. Washington, D. C.: World Bank.
  32. Elliott, J. (2013). HRA Strategy for Public Involvement. London: NHS Health Research Authority.
  33. Haque, M. S. (2001). The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00006
  34. Heikkila, T. & Isett, K. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special-purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 238-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00710.x
  35. Homans, G. C. (1974). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  36. IFLA. (1994). IFLA/UNESCO Public Library Manifesto. Available: https://www.ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-public-library-manifesto-1994
  37. Kann-Christensen, N. & Andersen, J. (2009). Developing the library: between efficiency, accountability and forms of recognition. Journal of Documentation, 65(2), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410910937589
  38. Koontz, C. & Gubbin, B. (2010). IFLA Public Library Service Guidelines. 2nd ed. IFLA Publications Series 147. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
  39. Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple accountabilities disorder. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x
  40. Le Grand, J. (2007). Introduction. In The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services through Choice and Competition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  41. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory?. In Gergen, Greenberg, Willis eds. Social Exchange, Advances in Theory and Research. 27-55. New York: Plenum.
  42. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. Justice and Social Interaction, 3(1), 167-218.
  43. Murray, A. P. (2009). The Library. 윤영애 옮김(2012). 도서관의 탄생. 서울: 예경.
  44. O'Malley, A. S. & Rich, E. C. (2015). Measuring comprehensiveness of primary care: challenges and opportunities. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(3), 568-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3300-z
  45. Penchansky, R. & Thomas, J. W. (1981). The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Medical Care, 19(2), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001
  46. Rawlins, B. L. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 1-20.
  47. Scott, R. (2011). The role of public libraries in community building. Public Library Quarterly, 30(3), 191-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2011.599283
  48. Seiders, K. & Berry, L. L. (1998). Service fairness: what it is and why it matters. Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 8-21.  https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.650513
  49. Shafritz, J. M. (1992). The Harper Collins Dictionary of American Government and Politics. New York: HarperCollins.
  50. Soltani-Nejad, N., Jahanshahi, M., Karim Saberi, M., Ansari, N., & Zarei-Maram, N. (2021). The relationship between social responsibility and public libraries accountability: the mediating role of professional ethics and conscientiousness. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(2), 306-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211014260
  51. Thibaut, J. W. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  52. Tornblom, K. Y. & Vermunt, R. (2007). Distributive and Procedural Justice: Research and Social Applications (1st ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
  53. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Justice, self-interest, and the legitimacy of legal and political authority. In Mansbridge ed. Beyond Self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 171-179.
  54. Vakkari, P. & Serola, S. (2012). Perceived outcomes of public libraries. Library Information Science Research, 34(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2011.07.005
  55. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables, Problems and remedies. In Hoyle ed. Structural Equation Modeling, Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Newbery Park: Sage publications, 56-75.
  56. Williamson, A. & Luke, B. (2019). Publicness and the identity of public foundations. The Foundation Review, 11(3), 9. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1482
  57. Wu, W., Ma, L., & Yu, W. (2017). Government transparency and perceived social equity: assessing the moderating effect of citizen trust in China. Administration Society, 49(6), 882-906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716685799