Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Social distancing restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic were declared in Finland in March 2020. Libraries followed Government recommendations resulting in limited library service delivery across a variety of sectors. This research investigates challenges experienced by public, special and academic libraries in the Helsinki metropolitan area focussing on library staff reflections of digital literacy services offered during the pandemic. A multiple case study, with an emergent mixed methods research design was utilised. All data was gathered online due to Covid-19 restrictions: Quantitative data originated from an online survey of library staff; library websites were also audited. Qualitative data originated from semi-structured interviews. Triangulation of the data enabled a clear understanding of digital literacy challenges and responses. Overall, the mixed methods design and the data collection techniques, encouraged reflection upon experience, which in return informed a rich picture of the multiple case study. Results demonstrated that digital literacy challenges existed, particularly related to reaching library customers requiring digital support. Finnish libraries did not differentiate information literacy from digital literacy, as both were perceived as part of library service. Library staffs’ reflections corroborated similar research, for example, the impact of teleworking, on technology use and social aspects of working from home. Recommendations include undertaking further research on special libraries and promoting reflective practice as a mechanism for better understanding the views of library staff.

Keywords

Challenges Covid-19 Finnish libraries Mixed methods Reflective practice Responses

Introduction

Worldwide, libraries’ responses to challenges caused by the Covid-19 pandemic were fast, supportive, informative, adoptive, adaptive, and effective (ALA, 2020; Connaway et al., 2021; Eblida, 2020a; IFLA, 2020; Kostagiolas and Katsani, 2021; Witt, 2021). Challenges and responses depended on libraries’ resources and the population served (Ameen, 2021; Mehta and Wang, 2020; Ortega-Martínez et al., 2021; Smith, 2020). Restrictions included closure of library buildings, and an increased usage of online services and digital resources. Libraries’ core challenges included being pressured to pivot online services, using new technologies, and performing more with less time and resources (Hicks, 2020: 1).

The general picture of restrictions and measures taken by Finnish libraries mirrored those mentioned above. Covid-19 mitigation procedures in Finland started in mid-March 2020, relaxed during the summer, and returned in the late autumn of the same year (Libraries, 2020). Since Finnish libraries have offered access to online and digital services for some time, library staff and customers have a greater awareness of digital services requiring increased levels of digital literacy.

This paper aims to identify digital literacy challenges experienced by Finnish libraries in the Helsinki metropolitan area during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, together with associated responses. Information professionals’ reflective practice was analysed using a mixed methods design, and key findings from quantitative and qualitative methods were triangulated to answer a series of research questions. Hence, this research offers a picture of libraries’ digital services and customers’ needs during the Covid-19 pandemic, which is relevant to Finland but also applicable internationally. Additionally, since this research used reflexivity, it helps to inform other research in the future.

Rationale

The Finnish library network is an essential part of social development and equality (Minedu, 2016) with libraries being organised into two large organisations. Public libraries are represented by the Finnish Library Association (FLA). Academic libraries and special libraries are identified as research libraries, and represented by the Finnish Research Library Association (STKS). Despite their specialisations, all these libraries play an important role in Finnish society because they are all open to the public and aim to provide a wide range of services according to customers’ needs (Tuominen and Saarti, 2012).

Digital services made available by public libraries include access to digital resources from databases; digital books through external platforms for reading and listening; e-magazines and e-newspapers; and online access to music and films through other platforms (Helmet, 2021a, 2021b; Library, 2021a, 2021b). Academic and special libraries offer digital services through their own library management systems (LMS), e-books reader service providers, reference management systems and LibGuides or databases (e.g. see Aalto University, 2021; Parliament of Finland, 2022; University of Helsinki, 2022).

From the outset of the Covid-19 restrictions in Finland, public, academic and special libraries changed their terms of service, accordingly, ranging from being open-to-all spaces, to partly open or completely shut down; for collecting reservations or choosing books from the shelves. In March 2021, mostly all the contact and reservations were done online, via the telephone or email. The restrictions started to lessen from the second week of May 2021(City of Helsinki, 2021; Libraries, 2020).

The aim of this study is to investigate digital literacy challenges experienced by Finnish public, academic and special libraries located in the Helsinki metropolitan area. The three library types are particularly important for Finnish society, therefore, this project considered the similarities and differences between them, focussing on the Helsinki metropolitan area (Espoo, Helsinki, Kauniainen and Vantaa). The following research question was addressed:

What digital literacy challenges arose during the Covid-19 pandemic for Finnish libraries, how did they relate to customer needs, and how did libraries respond?

The objectives were:

O1. To identify challenges met by Finnish public, academic and special libraries since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

O2. To contextualise digital literacy in Finland and discover specific challenges during the Covid-19 pandemic.

O3. To consider library customers’ new needs in relation to digital literacy.

O4. To identify responses and solutions public, academic and special libraries have worked on to meet such challenges and customer needs.

O5. To analyse micro-level experiences from libraries’ staff in Finland via reflective practice.

Literature review

Finnish libraries and the Covid-19 pandemic

One crucial role shared by all libraries was that of health information services (Huang et al., 2021; Saarti, 2021). Nonetheless, it is important to look at differences in responses to the pandemic that exist between types of libraries in Finland. With the Covid-19 restrictions, higher educational institutions (HEIs) shut down and established online distance learning. According to Syvälahti (2020) and Saarti (2021), Finnish academic libraries’ digital pedagogy developed as the strategy for online teaching/training. As academic libraries serve the wider academic institution, it is important to view their responses to Covid-19 restrictions from a university-wide and library perspective. Findings from international studies show a clear requirement for agreement on supporting university students holistically and digitally, whilst ensuring academic quality, through university-wide efforts for students, academics and information professionals’ digital literacy (Boczar and Jordan, 2022; Crawford et al., 2020; Mehta and Wang, 2020; Otike et al., 2022; Tejedor et al., 2020; Temiz and Salelkar, 2020).

Amongst Finnish special and academic libraries, there were different challenges and responses. For instance, establishing initial adequate communication; all teaching moving completely online; using online applications for meetings and teaching; some libraries were already used to part-time distance working, while others made changes to their LMS during the Covid-19 restrictions (Virrankoski et al., 2020). On the emotional side, although information professionals could interact with colleagues online, they missed the social aspects of work, for example, the commute and meeting face-to-face with colleagues (Virrankoski et al., 2020: 22). These experiences resonate with findings reporting perspectives from library leaders around the world (Abrigo and Torres, 2022; Connaway et al., 2021).

An early study on Covid-19 and Finnish public libraries suggests that Finnish public library funding was key in the digitalisation process, and the ability to make necessary adjustments during the Covid-19 pandemic. For instance, the growth of municipal top-down decision-making processes in conjunction with libraries’ existing digital capabilities. Library closures were followed by budget changes and staff relocations at a municipal level (Haasio and Kannasto, 2020: 9–11). Public libraries also reorganised themselves during the Covid-19 pandemic according to imposed budget measures, mirroring developments at an international level (Ameen, 2021; Dalmer and Griffin, 2022; Matthews, 2020; McMenemy et al., 2022; Reid and Bloice, 2021; Shin et al., 2022).

Furthermore, libraries in bigger cities (with greater budgets, staff and resources) such as the Helsinki metropolitan area were more agile in their response than those in rural areas (with less budgets, staff and resource). Hence, those already undergoing strong digitalisation of services, received more attention. Libraries also created new services responding to users’ information needs (Haasio and Kannasto, 2020: 12–13). In addition to adapting their normal services, public libraries also provided health information services to their customers, mirroring academic libraries (Alajmi and Albudaiwi, 2021). Library staff motivations varied according to job security. Libraries with less budget and staff reductions, which were also highly digitalised prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, responded in a more agile manner to the challenges (Haasio and Kannasto, 2020: 13–15). This reflects the essential relationship between library budget and strong digitalisation during the Covid-19 era (Connaway et al., 2021; Eblida, 2020a: 14–16; Smith, 2020: 425; Witt, 2021).

Finnish library staff wellbeing is also important to this study. During the Covid-19 pandemic workers experienced health and safety and job-related security concerns, together with technology-related stress, and emotional exhaustion, such that social support from colleagues was essential to feel connected with their work environment (Savolainen et al., 2021).

Library professionals’ identities

Professional identity refers to ‘an individual’s sense of self related to their occupation, work or professional life’ (Walter, 2008, in Fraser-Arnott, 2019: 432). Such identity has been influenced by transformations in the library profession, nurtured through professional training and current practice (Bhimani, 2016; Fraser-Arnott, 2019; Seadle, 2016; Whitworth, 2016). LIS training programmes focus on competences, and ‘preferred qualities of professionals’ (Huvila et al., 2013: 199), thereby assisting the shaping of professional identity (Kosmala and Herrbach, 2006, in Huvila et al., 2013: 200). Library professionals in Finland viewed resilience and adapting to change, and co-operational skills as required characteristics of the profession (Maarno, 2019).

Changes in professional library roles have been a response to Information Communication Technology (ICT) developments and are influenced by global and local challenges including governmental, financial, societal and information itself (Pickard et al., 2016; Tredinnick, 2019). The librarian-as-teacher is a key aspect in this study due to the formalisation of instruction, particularly of information and digital literacies (Baer, 2021; Bhimani, 2016: 17–19; Pierson et al., 2019: 424–425).

Professional identity is influenced by the type of library where staff work (Pierson et al., 2019). For instance, in the Finnish context, it means that staff at public libraries serve the largest user group and have multiple roles and services (Minedu, 2016, 2017). Finnish special libraries are grouped together with academic libraries, as research libraries (STKS, 2021). Academic and special libraries, although open to all, have had a very specific user group: students, teachers, and affiliated and non-affiliated researchers; and library staff have had a discipline-specific focus for collections and training (Seadle, 2016: 32–34).

Information and digital literacies

The notion of information literacy (IL) as coined by Zurkowski in 1974 has evolved due to changes in society and the progress of ICT (Andretta, 2005: 5). The ACRL definition of IL instruction refers to gaining insight of information production and its creation for contribution to the knowledge society at large, which can be in any form, including digital (ALA, 2015). IL instruction is understood as an essential component of lifelong learning (Houlihan et al., 2017; Lau, 2006; Walton and Pope, 2011; Whitworth, 2016). Furthermore, UNESCO adds that IL is essential for a better informed and empowered citizen (Harding, 2008; Lloyd, 2010: 111; Widdowson and Smart, 2013: 160). Digital literacy (DL) is flexibly defined and considered a lifelong learning process, with strong linkages to IL (Martzoukou, 2013).

Regarding academic libraries, HEIs are encouraged to develop their own definition and approach to IL (ALA, 2006). Internationally, HEIs follow the ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (ALA, 2015), including Finland (Kakkonen and Virrankoski, 2010; Syvälahti and Asplund, 2017). In Finnish universities and universities of applied sciences, IL instruction is mostly compulsory and built into the curriculum (Asplund et al., 2013; Helminen, 2012; Hormia-Poutanen et al., 2011; Sipilä et al., 2018).

Public libraries, in contrast, are challenged at the level of IL recognition with the creation of formal training programs being complex for them (Crawford, 2014; Lloyd, 2010; Widdowson and Smart, 2013). IL advocacy and recognition at policy level is crucial to support its development in public libraries (Lloyd, 2010: 115–117).

Public libraries achieve IL in a less formal approach. For instance, Matteson and Gersch (2020) found that librarians provide situational guidance and support to their customers regarding their information needs. Moreover, public libraries offer ICT access and training, one-to-one reference interviews, and have partnerships with schools, volunteers, and various types of organisations (Crawford, 2014; Harding, 2008: 281–285; Lloyd, 2010: 125–127; McLean, 2008: 63–64; ). In Finland, by policy, IL has been included within media literacy, with public libraries playing an important role (Kotilainen and Kupiainen, 2014: 12–14).

Finnish media literacy

Media literacy is defined as ‘all skills relating to using and consuming as well as understanding of media and skills related to creating media content’ (Salomaa and Palsa, 2019: 10). The Finnish approach was initially a policy response to IFLA’s position on media and information literacy (MIL), however it evolved into media literacy (Kotilainen and Kupiainen, 2014). Hoechsmann (2012: 144–150) provides an important warning to such approach, suggesting that the promotion of media literacy interventions as a top-down approach, may fail to address the actual learning and information needs of people, required infrastructure and access to current technology.

The concept of media literacy has been redefined in Finland, whereby various institutions, organisations, and viewpoints are relevant in the development of the media literacy policy and practices (Salomaa and Palsa, 2019). The essential role of libraries in media literacy and education of the Net Generation is widely acknowledged (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Salomaa and Palsa, 2019). Examples of that exist in the actual practice of public and academic libraries, such as promoting video games (from basic retro-controllers to virtual reality), and maker spaces (Minedu, 2016; Tevaniemi et al., 2015).

The Finnish angle suggests the unification of literacies, which is not new. For instance, Bawden argued 20 years ago for an all-encompassing and less divided definition of IL with ‘understanding, meaning and context [. . .] central to it’ (Bawden, 2001: 251), and Buschman (2009) criticised the uncritical shifting perceptions of IL (pp.95–97).

Methodology

This research was a descriptive, multiple case study (Yin, 2018: 55–64). In order to investigate the ways in which Finnish libraries responded to the challenges brought up by national Covid-19 restrictions, this research focused on three cases: the public, academic and special libraries in the Helsinki metropolitan area. It is a case study because it is limited to the Finnish context, and researched the phenomenon of Finnish library responses to the Covid-19 pandemic regarding digital literacy (Takahashi and Araujo, 2020: 102), resulting in the development of key theoretical conclusions (Eisenhardt, 2021). The research was fully conducted online due to the Covid-19 restrictions and resulted in Internet-Mediated Research -IMR- as defined by Hewson et al. (2003), in Hewson, 2017).

Research design

The design (see Figure 1) consisted of a hybrid approach to a mixed methods case study by intersecting methods within a multiple case study (Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016: 143–144). The quantitative and qualitative methods informed each other’s processes from the outset and their samples were interdependent (Pluye et al., 2018: 2). The data collection was emergent due to the dominant qualitative component (Creswell and Creswell, 2018: 182).

Figure 1.

Mixed methods design. Adapted from Harrison et al. (2020: 486. Informed by Greene et al. (in Creswell and Creswell, 2018: 245), Creswell and Plano Clark (in Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016: 111) and Creswell and Creswell (2018: 217–221).

Sampling

Due to Covid-19 restrictions, sampling was adaptive (Neuman, 2011: 270). The target population was defined as all the public, special and academic libraries in the Helsinki metropolitan area. This geographic area has the highest density of population in Finland (City of Helsinki, 2020). Desk research helped to identify how libraries were organised and created a contact list. The target population was obtained from an online directory detailing Finnish libraries (Libraries, n.d.). Whilst the websites of academic and special libraries had their staff lists available, public libraries in the Helsinki metropolitan area work under a large organisation named Helmet (Helsinki Metropolitan libraries), and their staff lists are not fully or consistently accessible. Therefore, initial contact details for each one of the four public city libraries (Espoo, Helsinki, Kauniainen and Vantaa) were provided by the director of the Finnish Library Association.

The first phase of the research used purposive sampling initially to select knowledgeable library staff, such as library directors (Creswell and Creswell, 2018: 150–152) who then provided contact details for relevant potential participants, including staff in customer-facing and digital support roles within their libraries, therefore, transitioning to snowball sampling (Pickard, 2013: 64–66). Directors who carried out customer-facing rolesalso participated in this study. All communication took place via email, starting with invitations to participate.

Invitations were sent to 11 academic libraries; 15 special libraries; and four umbrella city public libraries, encompassing over sixty branch libraries. A total of 21 libraries responded. The five interviewees were selected as they were the only ones who volunteered following conclusion of the questionnaire, and through correspondence with those who agreed to take part in follow-up interviews. Three were from academic libraries (coded as A1, A2, A3); one from a special library (S1); and one from a public library (P1). The participants represented library staff’s roles primarily focussed on the provision of information and digital literacy/support to customers (see Table 1). The analysis of websites examined one large umbrella public library website, and the websites of six academic libraries, and five special libraries.

Table 1.

Final sample demographics.

Type of library	Survey questionnaire	Interviews
Type of library	Respondents’ roles	Participants’ roles
Public	Library pedagogue/digital support: x2	Library pedagogue/digital support: x1
	Information specialist: x1
	Special librarian: x1
	Customer services: x1
Academic	Director/Manager/Head: x3	Information specialists: x3
	Information specialist: x6
	Customer services: x1
	Intern: x1
Special	Director/Manager/Head: x4	Director: x1
Special	Customer services: x1	Director: x1

The final sample of library types in the survey responses, roughly showed a proportion of 2:1:1 in terms of public, academic, and special libraries. These three library types represent the libraries available in Finland to which the whole community has access, which is important to this study. Reaching out to participants was challenging because during the Covid-19 pandemic library professionals were working remotely and online, although many shared their time collaborating with this study despite coping with pandemic responses.

Reflective practice

Library professionals’ participation involved using reflective practice, and its intentionality within the data collection process was communicated to them (Reale, 2016: 22–26). In this context, reflection means that participants would hopefully see their ‘[. . .] situation in the holistic sense of the word, from all angles, and [. . .]’ evaluate themselves from within their experience of Covid-19 and the workplace (Reale, 2016: 25).

There is a strong body of knowledge on reflective practice within the library profession and IL teaching (Andretta, 2005, 2008; Booth and Brice, 2004; Corrall, 2017; Grant, 2007; Jacobs, 2008, 2016; Reale, 2016; Whitworth, 2012). It is generally understood as part of the professional identity in health sciences and teaching (Booth and Brice, 2004; Coghlan and Brydon-Miller, 2014), and essential to evidence-based practice (Brice et al., 2004: 284). However, it is precisely within the instruction/teaching role of library staff that reflective practice acquires relevance (Andretta, 2005: 107; Corrall, 2017: 35–42; Reale, 2016: 39–40).

Reflective practice is based on the notion of reflection-in-action by Schön (1991: 50–69), interpreted as the complex interaction between tacit knowledge of a person’s own profession (knowing-in-action), informing their reflection on their professional performance at a given time and place. Schön’s (1991: 61–69) concept is furthermore understood here as happening in several modes within the same profession whereby the reflective practitioner draws upon their knowing-in-practice, rendering it an individual exercise. This is highly pertinent as the research looked at three different types of libraries where ways of working and professional identity varied.

However reflective practice is complex to understand and apply due to the idea of temporality, for example, when and in which conditions a practitioner reflects on their practice; and it is not possible to do so at every moment (Schön, 1991: 275–283). Since this research investigated library practice prior to and during the Covid-19 pandemic, the practice-in-action entails a recall of combined past/present practice. Nonetheless, the following idea assisted in clarifying the approach:

The action-present (the period of time in which we remain in the “same situation”) varies greatly from case to case, and in many cases there is time to think what we are doing. (Schön, 1991: 278, original emphasis)

Grant (2007: 158–160) supports this position, suggesting it is feasible to provide analytical accounts of reflection on past experiences, from which clear thematic classification is derived.

Quantitative methods

Quantitative data was collected via a web-based survey questionnaire, together with a content audit (Sperano, 2017) of the participating libraries’ websites. The latter was done for confirmation of data, validity, and to enhance the survey data (Bryman, 2006: 104–110; Hitchcock and Onwuegbuzie, 2020: 71–72).

The online questionnaire was chosen for data collection because it was optimal for reaching participants since they were more dispersed than ever before due to the Covid-19 restrictions (Pickard, 2013: 207–213). A combination of 27 closed questions addressed the five objectives of research. To give the respondents fixed alternatives in their responses and shorten the response time, it included dichotomous, multiple choice and rank order questions, with few secondary open questions for additional comments. It was structured in four sections: demographics, library digital services before and during the Covid-19 pandemic, and experiences related to digital literacy (Pickard, 2013: 209–211). A pilot took place prior to its release, and amendments were made accordingly. The questionnaire was made available for completion during the spring of 2021 by using the Jisc online survey tool. Although responses were anonymised, for the purposes of objectives 1 and 4, it was necessary to know the type of library and its location, which also served to verify if the final sample was representative (Creswell and Creswell, 2018: 148–151).

The content audit of library websites was carried out through a Digital services and support checklist, a tool built for this study (Sperano, 2017). This aimed at contributing towards objectives 1 and 4. It was based on six of the 19 points from EBLIDA’s Checklist for library associations and libraries in the face of the Covid-19 crisis (Eblida, 2020b). The objective of the checklist was to audit website updates on the library’s position, controlling the diffusion of the virus, sharing information on digital offer and library service to the public, free digital services, specific opening hours and helpdesk to assist with use of digital services, and targeted e-book services to customers. This was done by taking screenshots of the webpages, soon after the survey took place.

Qualitative methods

Qualitative data was obtained through online synchronous semi-structured interviews, deemed suitable for focussing on the reflective practice of library professionals (Pickard, 2013: 196, 203). Interviews were arranged and carried out through the multimedia application Microsoft Teams. The interview script consisted of 17 questions comprising four sections: preliminary questions (own role), digital service/support/literacy prior to the Covid restrictions, and since the Covid restrictions, and closing questions (looking towards a post-Covid-19 era). The focus was on meeting objectives 4 and 5, by examining the responses and solutions that tackled DL challenges, in addition to identifying micro-level experiences of library staff through examination of reflective practice. To draw out library staff reflections, use of Gibbs (2013: 44–56) reflective learning cycle was employed, and questions were carefully constructed to ensure that interviewees would think about their lived experiences before/during the Covid-19 restrictions. Gibbs’ cycle has been previously employed in research in reflective practice in LIS (Burgoyne and Chuppa-Cornell, 2018; Corrall, 2017; Wales, 2018). A pilot took place, and minor recommendations were used for improvement.

Prior to the interview, participants were given an opportunity to go through the questions in advance, to enable preparation (Burgoyne and Chuppa-Cornell, 2018: 821–823; Goldingay et al., 2016: 336–342). The script was also shared on the Microsoft Teams screen to ensure transparency, thereby allowing interviewees visibility of the questions, and facilitating return to previous questions for subsequent reflection. This allowed participants to understand ‘matters of personal concern’ (Gibbs, 2013: 53), which is important within the reflexive loop (Reale, 2016). With the participants approval, the interviews were audio recorded via a mobile phone app and notes taken. Transcriptions were shared with participants for the verification of accuracy and validation, ensuring accurate qualitative data (Neuman, 2011: 456–457; Pickard, 2013: 107), in addition to contributing to further self-reflection (Gibbs, 2013: 51). Additional qualitative data originated from the text boxes available in the survey questionnaire aimed at objectives 3 and 4.

Data analysis

Initially, the data from the survey was analysed depending on library type. This was followed by creating cross-analysis between responses by library type to identify differences and similarities. Whilst the final sample was small and data saturation was not achieved, internal validity was applied through examination of the websites of the participating libraries (Creswell and Creswell, 2018: 186). Although a basic analysis, this provided an initial picture of library staff’s perceptions of changes due to the Covid-19 restrictions.

This paper excludes data analysis from the ranking questions on the use of physical and digital services because these questions encountered certain resistance from the participants as such data are not collected by their libraries. Participants expressed through email correspondence and in the free-text box at the end of the survey that this information was too speculative.

An inductive strategy was used for interpreting the qualitative data, the interviews were coded from the ground-up and themes were created according to the information provided by the interviewees (Yin, 2018: 169–170). The interviews were transcribed and coded using NVivo 12Pro, which resulted in 35 themes, further analysed and reorganised into 16 larger themes.

Triangulation was used for integration to identify overriding themes, corresponding to various sources of evidence, as part of case study research (Yin, 2018: 114, 126–130). Although it took place alongside the data collection process, since patterns started to arise, triangulation was achieved to create three composite models aiming at all the research objectives (Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016: 118–119). This was done through creation of initial schemas where integration of the quantitative and qualitative data analysis took place, to subsequently build the final models supported by the theory used here.

Ethics

Potential ethical issues were addressed prior to the research, during and after the data collection processes. Based on recommendations by Connaway and Powell (2010: 88–93); Gorman and Clayton (2004: 43–44); and Creswell (2014: 92–101) the following issues were relevant.

Regarding quantitative data collection, the purposes of the study were communicated in the email invitation, which included a Participants Information Sheet. Permissions were obtained to circulate the invitation to library colleagues, and each participant agreed to proceed. This was done by, first, emailing the heads of the libraries who then either, forwarded the invite or provided a list with names and email addresses of members of staff to whom the invite could then be sent. Anonymity was guaranteed and managed from the outset (Gorman and Clayton, 2004: 44).

Regarding qualitative data gathering, the interviewees were already familiar with the research project. They received an additional email describing the interview process, and the script file. Finally, they completed a Consent Form, developed in line with policies at the researcher’s academic institution. Anonymity was guaranteed.

Results

The aim of this research was to find out if Finnish libraries met digital literacy challenges, in addition to new needs from their customers in relation to digital literacy during the Covid-19 pandemic; and then to consider ways in which libraries have responded to such challenges. Three library types, public, special and academic, formed a multiple case study set in the Helsinki metropolitan area.

Data was initially analysed per method employed, so all the data from each tool was carefully observed in relation to the theory, which brought up the initial results from the research. Furthermore, in response to the research design, these results represent the first stages of the quantitative and qualitative methods integration, detailed through the themes that emerged following data analysis. The comprehensive themes, as sections hereafter, are: digital services before the pandemic, digital services during the Covid-19 pandemic, digital literacy during the Covid-19 pandemic, and life at work.

Digital services before the pandemic

Survey data shows that all libraries had a digital library already in place. Similarly, 95.2% of the libraries reported having databases. Therefore, all libraries provided digital services to library patrons prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, consistent with library digitalisation (Brophy, 2007; Rubin, 2010). Figure 2 shows that public and academic libraries had a slightly wider variety of digital services available than special libraries before the pandemic.

Figure 2.

Cross-tabulation of library type and digital services available before the restrictions.

Interviews also backed this up, with participants reporting having digital services and support already, viewing IL and DL as part of such services. Academic libraries had particularly well-structured IL provision, although DL did not seem structured in a similar manner. The latter may be due to Finnish libraries sharing a similar position perceiving DL as a service that they already provide, perhaps as part of the encompassing notion of media literacy (Godwin, 2008; McLean, 2008; Webber, 2008).

We’ve had this kind of service that if any individual at the university, whether he or she is a student or a professor/teacher, we can organise that kind of session [DL training], and we met that person at the [library]. (A1)

With digital skills, we really don’t offer training ourselves, as in ‘I’ll come and teach you’. What we do, if we find the right partner for cooperation, is that they can come and teach. And we then offer the premises. [. . .] (P1)

The boundaries between the literacies are blurry in the Finnish practice as its informed by policy (Kotilainen and Kupiainen, 2014; Salomaa and Palsa, 2019). In fact, academic libraries teach IL on and with online tools which requires a level of DL teaching/training. For instance, A3 reported that they already were teaching IL online due to the distant nature of their university’s masters courses. Discipline specific customers’ IL/DL needs were important for academic and special libraries.

Public libraries used partnerships to meet distinctive IL/DL needs, for example, a bank helped provide support on online banking; an organisation dedicated to supporting older customers would tailor provision accordingly. Also, S1 reported that providing support to non-affiliated researchers was important. Therefore, professional identity regarding customer groups and their information needs permeated their view on the topic (Bhimani, 2016; Maarno, 2019; Pierson et al., 2019).

Digital services during the Covid-19 pandemic

Results from the Digital services and support checklist provided initial information regarding participating libraries websites. Firstly, on how their websites managed communicating about library responses to the Covid-19 restrictions. Secondly, on the online level of information and access to physical and digital resources, presented below.

The main results from communication were that the six academic libraries, five special libraries and the helmet website (representing public libraries) offered thorough communication about the Covid-19 situation in Finland, and on how their organisation was supporting the community. All libraries, but two, informed their users about available physical services. The Helmet website additionally informed about access to a limited printed collection organised at their libraries’ lobbies. One special library additionally informed about their available information and archive services.

These results show well-managed online communication by the participating libraries consistent with the Finnish report submitted to EBLIDA (Maarno, 2020). Furthermore, the ALA (2020) and IFLA (2020) suggested that providing online information was essential for customers’ awareness and for learning about what their library was doing to keep them safe, and about their available services.

The survey examined service changes at the libraries due to Covid-19 pandemic (Figure 3). Many of the changes identified in the libraries aligned to their target customer group. For example, academic libraries served mostly students and researchers, therefore they provided high levels of IL and DL online training; whilst public libraries focussed on IL and DL training via telephone and face-to-face, and had higher levels of online social events, and distance book clubs. Special libraries reported a wider variety of changes, due to a mixture of customers that resembled both academic and public qualities. These results were consistent with those reported by Syvälahti (2020), Virrankoski et al. (2020) and Libraries (2020).

Figure 3.

Changes since the Covid-19 pandemic by library type.

Additional results from the Digital services and support checklist confirmed that all libraries offered adequate information about access to physical and digital services (see Table 2). Only two libraries were completely shut down; with one still offering a click and collect service to customers. Access to online services varied according to the type of library and customers’ information needs, as affiliation was required to use licensed materials. Access to digital content from the public library was available to all customers.

Table 2.

Checklist of access available to the participating libraries until April 2021.

Access type of library
	A	A	A	A	A	A	S	S	S	S	S	P
To physical services
Anyone with a library card
Students & staff
All the public
To online services/materialswith login credentials
To online services/materialsto all the public
To digital training
Students and staff
External customers on demand
All the public
To library staff

: Indicates access.

: Indicates very limited access.

The reasons for service changes (see Figure 4) reflected a combination of library staff initiative and a response to users’ needs. This clearly demonstrated the active role of many libraries in serving customers during the Covid-19 pandemic (Maarno, 2020; Mehta and Wang, 2020; Virrankoski et al., 2020; Zawacki-Richter, 2021). Additionally, it demonstrates the high level of autonomy that Finnish libraries and their staff hold on their websites and service provision, which is not the case elsewhere as reported by Reid and Bloice (2021: 36–49).

Figure 4.

Causes for the changes by library type.

Regarding perceptions of customers’ engagement with the digital changes, participants reported that they were mostly engaged, corroborating the service goal of libraries to respond to changing customer needs (Tuominen and Saarti, 2012). However, reasons for non-engagement were also identified, related to aspects to do with the digital divide (Haasio and Kannasto, 2020), in addition to Covid-19 exhaustion amongst customers.

Some of our customers don’t have access to the internet at all. (Special library)

Covid-19 restrictions have been causing exceptional period which has been unpredictable.

First, we thought it would last only 3 months in 2020, but it has continued over a year now. People are just living and waiting for better times. (Academic library)

Interview responses identified a rapid adaptation period of 2 days to the restrictions imposed by the Finnish government. Staff and customer safety and continuing with service provision were key priorities. While there were variations in the available physical services, ranging from shut down to reservation and collection service, the remaining services were adapted online. New technologies, for example, Zoom and Microsoft Teams applications, were learnt by library staff for teaching, alongside e-paedagogical skills. Older technologies, that is, social media, were exploited more.

Reported changes regarding customers’ needs in academic libraries included the demand for e-materials from disciplines that did not require them as much before. Additionally, support from e-publishers seemed relevant as some made available e-material for free, which was viewed as a marketing exercise. For public libraries changes included the increased use of the already available e-library, and the creation of online social events in place of physical events. This mirrored the reviewed literature (e.g. IFLA, 2020; McMenemy et al., 2022; Reid and Bloice, 2021; Virrankoski et al., 2020). However, online social events were considered a challenge because they were perceived as a poor relation to face-to-face social gatherings.

The latter resonated with comments from A1, A2 and A3, whose job entailed IL teaching. They saw the lack of face-to-face teaching as a challenge by expressing concerns about students’ real learning even though they were assessed on their learning. A3 also mentioned as a positive change that students seemed to recognise information professionals’ actual relevance.

A big change happened in the nursing/health science students and their teachers. So, before our health sciences teachers never contacted us and said that 'we need electronic books. [. . .] The very basic textbooks, so that it kind of made a cultural change. And other fields of study, we really paid attention to buy electronic books [. . .] (A3)

S1 reported effects of the restrictions on non-affiliated researchers, who depended on their library services for their information needs. The concept of professional identity helped with analysing this (Fraser-Arnott, 2019; Lloyd, 2010; Maarno, 2019; Pierson et al., 2019). Since the role of a public library is highly social, it was easier for P1 to elaborate on that as an issue. The standpoint of academic and special libraries on teaching may be a frame of meaning for the social aspects of teaching (Crawford et al., 2020; Stafford, 2020). Social belonging was one of the most important findings, regarding customers’ needs and library staff work life needs.

The biggest challenge has been how to reach our customers.

It’s not a digital one, but something that has come with this pandemic that I think about quite often is that social aspect of it [. . .] (P1)

And that has been rather important at this time, that we can offer the [subject librarian services] services online (S1)

Overall, the participating libraries offered a variety of digital support and services following Covid-19 restrictions. Nonetheless, having actual online access in the first instance was a challenge for some customers. Hence, through the lens of the digital divide where not all customers have internet/smart devices/digital skills (Laterza et al., 2020), the following questions arise: who are those customers without internet access? And how could they make their digital needs known?

Digital literacy during the Covid-19 pandemic

The survey asked whether library customers’ digital literacy needs had changed since the start of the Covid-19 restrictions. Most of the respondents felt customers’ needs had changed. It is noticeable that academic libraries perceived such changes the most, mirroring reports from academic libraries outside Finland (Martzoukou, 2021; Otike et al., 2022; Temiz and Salelkar, 2020 ). Also, four of the five public libraries responded likewise mirroring national and international experiences (Haasio and Kannasto, 2020; Libraries, 2020; Smith, 2020).

Observable changes in customers’ needs and how libraries addressed them, were investigated. Table 3 presents selected quotes from the responses showing that where a digital support or DL need had been expressed by the customers or observed by library staff, an adequate response was put forward. It is inevitable that work of library staff increased due to the nature of online service ranging from fulfilling old and new everyday duties remotely, to being available online all the time with their own colleagues (Hicks, 2020; Libraries, 2020; Martzoukou, 2021; Virrankoski et al., 2020).

Table 3.

Correlation between library type, users’ new digital literacy needs and libraries responses.

Library type	Changes of users’ DL needs	How libraries addressed those needs
Special	‘No possibilities to attend IL -courses. The need for online sessions is evident’.	‘All IL teaching is now online. Both live teaching and video content’.
Academic	‘Remote access to materials from own devices’.	‘- More individual guidance.- More basics in group lessons.’
Public	‘More customers but not enough books/magazines’.	‘We have Helmet wide e-library which is controlled by some staff in City 1’.
Public	‘Many customers were used to bringing their devices to the library and ask for help with using it. Now, as that is not possible [. . .]’	‘Launch an over-the-phone digital support service and reach out to the local communities via social media (Facebook, Instagram) to spread the word about it’.
Academic	‘Distance learning and Covid restrictions increased the demand for online resources and thus more education is needed on their use’.	‘We have started offering remote sessions for students and staff. We also started offering online courses for digital literacy’.
Special	Did not report changes	‘We provided info sessions on online services, but it turned out that little was needed’.
Academic	Not sure about changes	‘All the information literacy trainings and personal guidance is offered online’.

Survey participants indicated that a complex picture of library service provision existed, where printed materials remained essential to customers, despite well-developed online resources. A post-Covid-19 view may be that a hybrid-service mode, which was the response to the restrictions, will remain (Martzoukou, 2021; Matthews, 2020).

Participants interviewed had different perceptions of DL since it was not seen as happening de facto, for example, P1 reported it as digital support. For A1, A2, A3 and S1 it seemed to be business as usual but moved online. Interestingly, university lecturers/teaching staff’ DL was addressed positively, and achievement of goals in relation to digitalisation of services, their use and customer satisfaction were reported as important. This again can be framed within the notion of professional identity.

As mentioned earlier, there were changes in communication between university teaching staff and information professionals. In some cases, it became efficient and supportive; in others it increased the workload of library staff. This highlights the relevance of faculty and library liaison (Brophy, 2007: 31–34).

A holistic approach to DL was reported by P1, since their work included media literacy, improvement of digital support to customers via a phone service and developing a digital support strategy for library staff. Similar processes were reported by the other interviewees. Altogether, the Covid-19 restrictions caused not just a quick response from libraries, but also an assessment of practice (Crawford et al., 2020; Libraries, 2020; Martzoukou, 2021; Virrankoski et al., 2020).

Life at work

A final theme relates to life at work. Firstly, interviewees reported satisfaction with adapting to change, working remotely and providing services to their customers. They expressed awareness of their ability to learn new skills, digitally and pedagogically. This resembles reflection for self-discovery and on situations challenging predefined expectations (Grant, 2007: 159–160). They all appreciated the assistance that technology provided to their work, and discussions existed around teaching remaining remote or hybrid post-Covid-19.

I’ve had to learn to do things myself, and to ask for help. But I think it’s also good because it’s good that the teacher knows. And you don’t have to ask somebody else to ‘please do this for me’. It’s good to do the things, and also try, what works, what doesn’t work.

So, it’s been quite a journey this spring. At least I have learnt from the different mistakes (A2)

Remote working challenged greatly the social aspects of work, where A1 and A2 reported missing their colleagues and everything related to being at the office. S1 thought differently because they took turns in serving the customers (including the library director), which is something that they pride on despite remaining a challenge. However, for others it had benefits, for example A3 and P1 reported that they appreciated not having to commute a long distance to work. Therefore, although they appreciated the benefits of online collaboration, there was a tendency for limited socialisation, and challenges with conducting work meetings for example (A3). These different experiences mirror those reported in Virrankoski et al. (2020) and Savolainen et al. (2021).

Cause all my work, I can do remotely. Or, then if I would like to check the print collections, that I don’t do remotely. I can choose print books for purchasing. I can choose e-books online, subscribe to streaming services online, I can update the LibGuides online. . . I really work remotely all my time. And I don’t like it. (A1)

What is not so nice is that I don’t see my colleagues. (A2)

That’s how I felt myself. And many people, or many of my colleagues, have been very happy to have so much remote work, not to have to deal with the time at the campus (A3)

I really like remote work. I like the freedom of just making a cup of tea in the middle of working and. . . all that. And I feel like I get a lot done this way also. (P1)

All interviewees perceived that their organisations were well prepared for future challenges and would draw upon lessons learnt. They were also receptive to the use of future new technologies. This shows the adaptability of the library profession, which has characterised it for long time (Martzoukou, 2021; Smith, 2020; Witt and Smith, 2019). Although P1 reported that creating new services had not been as fast as they would have wanted, changes were possible within their rather large organisation -all the public libraries in one city. This reflected the situation of public libraries more generally (Haasio and Kannasto, 2020; Matthews, 2020).

We have used Zoom in the. . . but it doesn’t matter what is the application. We would have whatever is the meeting application that we use. Whatever that is available to us, we will use that. And yes, we understand that our services must be either partly or fully online in the future. (S1)

At least we have now gained a lot of experience on what would happen if we suddenly have to close our doors. So, surely if it should happen again for whatever reason, knock on wood, then at least there would be much more ready concepts of what can be done. (P1)

Finally, Covid-19 exhaustion was a key feature of their experiences, for example, from longing to be with their colleagues, to online meeting overload, to wanting to restart physical services. Again, resilience was key to getting through the challenges brought up by the pandemic (Eblida, 2020a; IFLA, 2020).

Of course, everybody has had problems, we had problems, but they solved them. I’m so proud of my team, ‘they did it’, ‘we did it’. (S1)

I have felt really proud of my colleagues, in these situations. (P1)

[. . .] But at this time, I think that we are all exhausted about this, and we are frustrated about now knowing when this ends [. . .] (S1)

Public library staff were particularly overwhelmed by their everyday duties in addition to Covid-19 pandemic related responsibilities, and consistent with the literature on the topic (Matthews, 2020; Smith, 2020).

Figure 5 offers interpretation of the participating libraries’ challenges and responses to the Covid-19 restrictions from interviews undertaken. Whilst each library type had their own challenges, similarities appeared. This is interpreted as information professional’s roles and goals of service provision were influenced by their experiences during the Covid-19 restrictions, which bound them as a whole profession. Thus, key differences are defined by type of library, professional’s role, and perception of the professional self. For example, special and public libraries worked on ways for improving customer reach, to show them that they ‘were still in businesses’, as P1 reported. For some academic libraries, ensuring IL learning through online teaching was a concern. Relevant similarities are found in the challenges and responses, as well as in the perceptions of the social aspects of work, which at the time when the research took place consisted of Covid-19 exhaustion and resilience not only to prevail, but to reassess the professional practice and take action.

Figure 5.

Libraries challenges and responses.

Discussion

The results provide a detailed picture answering the research question. Firstly, the challenges faced depended on library type and were those reported in the wider literature. Academic and special libraries did not distinguish between digital literacy and information literacy, and public libraries addressed it as digital support. The Finnish policy context defines both as media literacy, which was reflected in the practice of the research participants. Key responses included digital preparedness, fast and effective communication, organisational and managerial support, teamwork, librarianship as professional identity of information service and resilience.

Secondly, New customer needs included being informed about whether their libraries were still in business and what actions were taken. All libraries moved to remote working and provided services online. Additionally, academic libraries addressed their budget for e-materials and increased requests. Public libraries increased their variety of online services, favouring social interactions; and expanded their provision of digital support services to improve access for disadvantaged customers.

The integration of the methods also brought together the three library types (Bryman, 2006; Hitchcock and Onwuegbuzie, 2020; Lieber and Weisner, 2010; Pluye et al., 2018). Three models were developed from the results (Figures 6 –8) considering the wider context, library types and responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Firstly, the Context model (Figure 6) frames the IL, digital services, and support prior to the Covid-19 restrictions; and libraries’ approach to the challenges. This is based on survey and interview responses representing a strong professional identity in relation to type of library. Participants clearly identified their customer groups, their needs, and digital support required (Pierson et al., 2019). That was also confirmed through the websites’ audit, showing consistency.

Figure 6.

Context model.

Figure 7.

Library type context.

Figure 8.

Responses’ cycle.

Secondly, the Library type context (Figure 7) represents each type of library’s standpoint. This was key to understanding their specific challenges and responses, while they all shared similarities, allowing generalisations. For instance, all libraries provide IL and DL support in a variety of ways; nonetheless, according to IL teaching tradition, academic libraries have a more formal and structured approach (e.g. ALA, 2015; Andretta, 2005; Hicks, 2018). However, as this research has found, public and special libraries began to formalise and structure their digital support much more because of Covid-19 restrictions. Understanding general and specific contexts is important because they happen simultaneously (Brophy, 2007; IFLA, 2020; Lloyd, 2010).

Finally, the Responses’ cycle (Figure 8) summarises the key results from this multiple case study, and identifies two challenges related to change, response to the change, and challenges that result. Change comprises the initial restrictions from the Finnish government; followed by agile responses from libraries and their umbrella organisations, where applicable. All participating libraries responded by moving all the work and services remotely and online. Throughout, participants expressed that their libraries were fit-for-purpose, as the move was smooth because there were already established online services and staff had the right equipment for working remotely. Moreover, staff were knowledgeable in digital resources and services, and developed new skills accordingly. This aligns with research on library professional adaptability (e.g. Seadle, 2016; Tredinnick, 2019) and on libraries responses to the Covid-19 pandemic (ALA, 2020; IFLA, 2020; Witt, 2021).

Responses to change required consideration of how to operate remotely and online. Libraries resourced online applications for IL teaching and DL support to customers, work meetings (formal and informal), and for work chat (formal and informal), to keep a sense of normality, and co-presence at work.

Participants reported a sense of achievement in relation to supporting their customers, however customer reach and actual participation in the DL teaching and digital support was perceived as challenging (Crawford et al., 2020; Hicks, 2020; Smith, 2020). Participants also reported awareness that their library responses were not fixed and that there were more opportunities to improve their DL and digital support provision.

Challenges resulted from this change and grew and changed as the pandemic developed. For instance, professionals’ and customers’ DL was addressed. Moreover, marketing of old and new library services (physical and online) was essential so customers would gain awareness and use them. Nonetheless, customer use of devices, access to online information and thus to the available services, was questioned by professionals.

It is worth noting that participants’ experience and feelings about remote work are an important part of the service delivery experience. As the Covid-19 pandemic unfolded, restrictions remained longer than expected, which brought various positive and negative feelings from service providers, whose expectations had altered as the Covid-19 pandemic unfolded. The dominant feeling was of pride regarding individual and team achievements, and mostly positive despite their awareness of the rigidity of the situation, reflecting a clear resilience amongst the profession (Eblida, 2020a; IFLA, 2020).

Limitations

Since this is a descriptive case study, it is important to consider possible limitations regarding internal and external validity (Connaway and Powell, 2010: 80–81). Both types of validity were addressed by supporting the data analysis with a literature review and the triangulation of methods, thus through use of theory and pattern matching (Yin, 2018: 42–46, 175). However, this research may be limited due to the small size of the sample, as a result of the challenging times caused by Covid-19 and the resulting library staffworkload. As such data saturation was not fully achieved in order to guarantee that enough consistent data had been gathered (Creswell and Creswell, 2018: 186), and it could be argued that data is missing (Hitchcock and Onwuegbuzie, 2020), and there could potentially be response bias (Creswell and Creswell, 2018: 157).

However, despite these limitations the research has important value, with analytic generalisations made in this study being intended for theoretical propositions, as is the goal of case study research (Yin, 2018), rather than being applicable to the entire library population of Finlandor libraries globally. This research is valuable too because of the method used during social distancing by using reflective practice as a way to gain qualitative insight.

Conclusion

The implications and relevance of this research are observed alongside the objectives as follows:

O1. To identify challenges met by Finnish public, academic, and special libraries since the start of the Covid pandemic.

The participating libraries encountered similar challenges to those reported in the wider literature, the initial one was: how to continue serving their customers under new health and safety measures, originating from the restrictions from March 2020. The second one was: uncertainty since restrictions fluctuated until the spring of 2021. Both key challenges were due to the novelty of the Covid-19 pandemic and the national direction. It is certain that globally much has been learnt from this experience and libraries are better prepared for future complex situations.

O2. To contextualise digital literacy in Finland and discover specific challenges during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Besides of the relevance the policy-practice relationship regarding media literacy in Finland, challenges met depended on the library type. Nonetheless, these can be categorised in two levels of access: customer access to technology and ensuring access to customers.

O3. To consider library customers’ new needs in relation to digital literacy.

Customer needs were not so generalisable, due to the nature of library customer service. For instance, online support of socially oriented events at public libraries; and acquisition of e-materials for subjects or patrons that have not requested them prior to the Covid-19 in academic and special libraries. Yet, altogether, e-materials were in high demand for all libraries as well as digital training for library staff.

O4. To identify responses and solutions public, academic and special libraries have worked on to meet such challenges and customer needs.

The solutions demonstrated the libraries’ ability to adapt to the challenges met. In summary, moving to remote work seemed agile, academic libraries addressed their budget for e-materials and increased their requests; special and public libraries increased their variety of online services. In addition, public libraries also expanded their provision of digital support services to improve access for disadvantaged customers.

O5. To analyse micro-level experiences from libraries’ staff in Finland via reflective practice.

Participants’ reflection illustrated the significance that the role of their professional identity played in their practice. Furthermore, this was highly influenced by the Finnish cultural-character concept of sisu, or inner strength formed by tenacity, grit, perseverance, hardiness, and resilience. All of this means that the act of reflection has to be contextualised in each research project where it is applied.

Finally, including public, academic, and special libraries alongside staff from diverse roles, enabled a broad perspective of responses and demonstrated that despite some differences, all library professionals stepped up to provide for their customers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Future research would benefit from examination of the work of special libraries to learn from their experience, as this research was enhanced by their collaboration. Throughout the conversations held during this research, it was noted that library staff already have exercised a great deal of reflection due to the Covid-19 demands. The use of reflective practice as a research tool for LIS professionals is highly beneficial as a research tool, but also as a means of better understanding the reasons behind library responses.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Berenice Rivera-Macias

Biddy Casselden

Author biographies

Berenice Rivera-Macias is an independent researcher. She has previously worked in research in higher education learning and teaching. Research interests include multiple literacies, information professionals as teachers, as well as teachers in their various roles.

Biddy Casselden is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Computer and Information Sciences at Northumbria University. She has worked as an academic for over 20 years, previously working as a chartered librarian in academic, commercial libraries. Research interests include digital literacy, social inclusion aspects of public libraries, and information literacy.

References

Aalto University (2021) Harald Herlin Learning Centre. Available at: https://www.aalto.fi/en/locations/harald-herlin-learning-centre (accessed 28 May 2022).

Abrigo

Torres

(2022) Face-to-face with the new normal: Libraries’ readiness and perspectives toward the changing service environment. Library Management 43(3/4): 280–295.

ALA (2006) Characteristics of programs of information literacy that illustrate best practices: A guideline. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/characteristics (accessed 10 March 2020).

ALA (2015) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (accessed: 10 March 2020).

ALA (2020) COVID-19 Recovery. Tools, publications & resources. Available at: http://www.ala.org/tools/covid-19-recovery (accessed 18 March 2021).

Alajmi

Albudaiwi

(2021) Response to COVID-19 pandemic: Where Do Public Libraries Stand? Public Library Quarterly 40(6): 540–556.

Ameen

(2021) COVID-19 pandemic and role of libraries. Library Management 42(4/5): 302–304.

Andretta

(2005) Information Literacy: A Practitioner's Guide. Oxford: Chandos Pub.

Andretta

(2008) Promoting reflective information literacy practice through Facilitating Information Literacy Education (FILE). Health Information and Libraries Journal 25(2): 150–153.

10.

Asplund

Hakala

Sallama

, et al (2013) Integrating information literacy education into the curriculum at the University of Tampere, Finland. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education 5(1): 3–10.

11.

Baer

(2021) Academic librarians’ development as teachers: A survey on changes in pedagogical roles, approaches, and perspectives. Journal of Information Literacy 15(1): 26–53.

12.

Bawden

(2001) Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation 57(2): 218–259.

13.

Bhimani

(2016) E-learning and libraries. In: Haythornthwaite

Andrews

Fransman

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research, 2 edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.469–495.

14.

Boczar

Jordan

(2022) Continuity during COVID: Critical digital pedagogy and special collections virtual instruction. IFLA Journal 48(1): 99–111.

15.

Booth

Brice

(2004) Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A Handbook. London: Facet Publishing.

16.

Brice

Booth

Crumley

, et al (2004) A future for evidence-based information practice? In: Booth

Brice

(eds) Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A Handbook. London: Facet Publishing, pp.279–292.

17.

Brophy

(2007) The Library in the Twenty-first Century. London: Facet.

18.

Bryman

(2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6(1): 97–113.

19.

Burgoyne

Chuppa-Cornell

(2018) ‘if I tried this idea again: Developing faculty professional growth through reflective practice. Reflective Practice 19(6): 818–831.

20.

Buschman

(2009) Information literacy, “New” literacies, and literacy. The Library Quarterly 79(1): 95–118.

21.

City of Helsinki (2020) Helsingin seutu tilastoina (Helsinki Region Statistics). Available at: https://www.hel.fi/kanslia/helsinginseutu-fi/kaupunkitieto/helsingin-seutu-tiivistetysti (accessed 13 May 2021).

22.

City of Helsinki (2021) Libraries are ready for restrictions to be lifted. Available at: https://www.hel.fi/uutiset/en/kulttuurin-ja-vapaa-ajan-toimiala/libraries-are-ready-for-restrictions-to-be-lifted (accessed 15 May 2021).

23.

Coghlan

Brydon (eds)(2014) Reflective practice. In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd., pp.675–678.

24.

Connaway

Faniel

Brannon

, et al (2021) New Model Library: Pandemic Effects and Library Directions. Report. October. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research.

25.

Connaway

Powell

(2010) Basic Research Methods for Librarians. Library and Information Science Text Series, 5th edn. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

26.

Corrall

(2017) Crossing the threshold: Reflective practice in information literacy development. Journal of Information Literacy 11(1): 23–53.

27.

Crawford

Butler-Henderson

Rudolf

, et al (2020) COVID-19: 20 countries' higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching 3(1): 9–28.

28.

Crawford

(2014) Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning: Policy Issues, the Workplace, Health and Public Libraries. Philadelphia, PA: Chandos Pub.

29.

Creswell

(2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

30.

Creswell

(2018) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

31.

Dalmer

Griffin

(2022) “Still Open and here for You”: News Media’s framing of Canadian public libraries during COVID-19. The Library Quarterly 92(2): 129–150.

32.

Eblida (2020a) A European library agenda for the post-Covid 19 age. [work in progress]. Draft report. European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations. Available at: http://www.eblida.org/publications/eblida-and-covid-19.html (accessed: 16 March 2021).

33.

Eblida (2020b) EBLIDA checklist for library associations and libraries in the face of the Covid-19 crisis. EBLIDA Newsletter. Special Issue. Available at: https://mailchi.mp/6be6ba69f5e4/eblida-newsletter-4155773?e=cf0fcc37d0#checklist (accessed 12 March 2021).

34.

Eisenhardt

(2021) What is the Eisenhardt method, really? Strategic Organization 19(1): 147–160.

35.

Fraser-Arnott

(2019) Personalizing professionalism: The professional identity experiences of LIS graduates in non-library roles. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 51(2): 431–439.

36.

Gibbs

(2013) Learning by doing. A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University.

37.

Godwin

(2008) Conclusion. In: Parker

Godwin

(eds) Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0. London: Facet, pp.165–182.

38.

Goldingay

Hitch

Carrington

, et al (2016) Transforming roles to support student development of academic literacies: A reflection on one team’s experience. Reflective Practice 17(3): 334–346.

39.

Gorman

Clayton

(2004) Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A Practical Handbook. London: Facet Publishing.

40.

Grant

(2007) The role of reflection in the library and information sector: A systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal 24(3): 155–166.

41.

Haasio

Kannasto

(2020) Covid-19 and its impact on Finnish public libraries. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) Special Issue: Libraries in the age of COVID-19 9: 3–19.

42.

Harding

(2008) Information literacy and the public library: we’ve talked the talk, but are we walking the walk? The Australian Library Journal 57(3): 274–294.

43.

Harrison

Reilly

Creswell

(2020) Methodological rigor in mixed methods: An application in management studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(4): 473–495.

44.

Helmet (2021a) eLibrary. Available at: https://www.helmet.fi/en-US/eLibrary (accessed 26 February 2021).

45.

Helmet (2021b) Instructions for e-books and e-audiobook services. Available at: https://www.helmet.fi/en-US/eLibrary/Books_and_audiobooks/Instructions_for_ebook_and_eaudiobook_se (accessed 26 February 2021).

46.

Helminen

(2012) Information literacy in the Finnish university libraries. Scandinavian Library Quarterly 45(4): 10–11.

47.

Hewson

(2017) Research design and tools for internet research. In: Fielding

Lee

Blank

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods, 2 edn. London: SAGE Publications, pp.57–75.

48.

Hicks

(2018) Developing the methodological toolbox for information literacy research: Grounded theory and visual research methods. Library & Information Science Research 40(3-4): 194–200.

49.

Hicks

(2020) Be kind: Teaching for information literacy in a pandemic era. Journal of Information Literacy 14(2): 1–3.

50.

Hitchcock

Onwuegbuzie

(2020) Developing mixed methods crossover analysis approaches. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 14(1): 63–83.

51.

Hoechsmann

(2012) Media Literacies: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

52.

Hormia-Poutanen

Kuusinen

Saarti

, et al (2011) The teaching and research environment in Finland in 2020. Library Management 32(8/9): 599–611.

53.

Houlihan

Walker Wiley

Click

(2017) International students and information literacy: AA systematic review. Reference Services Review 45(2): 258–277.

54.

Huang

Hao

Guo

, et al (2021) A study of Chinese college students' COVID-19-related information needs and seeking behavior. Aslib Journal of Information Management 73(5): 679–698.

55.

Huvila

Holmberg

Kronqvist-Berg

, et al (2013) What is Librarian 2.0 – New competencies or interactive relations? A library professional viewpoint. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 45(3): 198–205.

56.

IFLA (2020) COVID-19 and the global library field. Available at: https://www.ifla.org/covid-19-and-libraries#services (accessed 10 March 2021).

57.

Jacobs

(2016) Falling out of praxis: Reflection as a pedagogical habit of mind. In: McElroy

Pagowsky

(eds) Critical Library Pedagogy Handbook, Volume One: Essays and Workbook Activities. Chicago: ACRL, ALA, pp.1–7.

58.

Jacobs

HLM

(2008) Information literacy and reflective pedagogical praxis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34(3): 256–262.

59.

Kakkonen

Virrankoski

(2010) Implementation of the Finnish University Libraries National Information Literacy Recommendation into academic studies at the Kumpula Science Library, University of Helsinki. New Library World 111(11/12): 493–502.

60.

Kostagiolas

Katsani

(2021) The management of public libraries during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic literature review through PRISMA. Library Management 42(8/9): 531–549.

61.

Kotilainen

Kupiainen

(2014) Media and information literacy policies in Finland. In: ANR TRANSLIT and COST “Transforming Audiences/Transforming Societies”. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/7313441/Media_and_Information_Literacy_Policies_in_Finland (accessed 27 November 2020).

62.

Laterza

Tømte

Pinheiro

(2020) Guest editorial. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 15(4): 225–233.

63.

Lau

(2006) Guidelines on information literacy for lifelong learning. Available at: http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s42/pub/IL-Guidelines2006.pdf (accessed: 2 May 2020).

64.

Libraries (2020) Covid-19 and Finnish public libraries. Available at: https://www.libraries.fi/functional-society/covid-19-and-Finnish-libraries (accessed 1 June 2021).

65.

Libraries (n.d.) Find libraries. Available at: https://www.libraries.fi/libraries (accessed 28 February 2021).

66.

Library (2021a) e-kirjat. Available at: https://www.kirkkonummi.verkkokirjasto.fi/en/-/e-kirjat (accessed 26 February 2021).

67.

Library (2021b) e-lehdet. Available at: https://www.kirkkonummi.verkkokirjasto.fi/en/-/e-lehdet (accessed 26 February 2021).

68.

Lieber

Weisner

(2010) Meeting the practical challenges of mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (eds) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 2 edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, pp.559–580.

69.

Lloyd

(2010) Information Literacy Landscapes: Information Literacy in Education, Workplace and Everyday Contexts. Oxford: Chandos.

70.

Maarno

(2019) Uutta tietoa kirjastoalan työntekijöistä. Kirjastolehti. Available at: https://suomenkirjastoseura.fi/kirjastolehti/uutta-tietoa-kirjastoalan-tyontekijoista/ (accessed: 21 February 2021).

71.

Maarno

(2020) Finnish Library Association and the EBLIDA checklist. EBLIDA Newsletter Special Issue: EBLIDA Checklist in the face of the Covid-19 crisis (4). (7). Available at: https://mailchi.mp/6be6ba69f5e4/eblida-newsletter-4155773?e=cf0fcc37d0 (accessed 28 February 2021).

72.

Martzoukou

(2013) Empowering information literacy and continuing professional development of librarians: New paradigms for learning. In: Kurbanoğlu

Grassian

Mizrachi

, et al. (eds) Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. ECIL 2013. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 397. Cham: Springer, 647–654.

73.

Martzoukou

(2021) Academic libraries in COVID-19: A renewed mission for digital literacy. Library Management 42: 266–276.

74.

Matteson

Gersch

(2020) Information literacy instruction in public libraries. Journal of Information Literacy 14(2): 71–95.

75.

Matthews

(2020) COVID-19 and Public Libraries: A Real Paradigm Shift. Public Library Quarterly 39(5): 389–390.

76.

McLean

(2008) Information literacy, Web 2.0 and public libraries: An exploration. In: Parker

Godwin

(eds) Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0. London: Facet, pp.63–74.

77.

McMenemy

Robinson

Ruthven

(2022) The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on public libraries in the UK: Findings from a National Study. Public Library Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 28 March 2022. DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2022.2058860.

78.

Mehta

Wang

(2020) COVID-19 and digital library services – A case study of a university library. Digital Library Perspectives 36(4): 351–363.

79.

Minedu (2016) Library+ services. Ministry of Education and Culture Finland. Available at: https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/4150031/Library+services/65df0ce2-685f-4c3c-9686-53c108641a5c/Library+services.pdf?t=1486723476000 (accessed 9 January 2021).

80.

Minedu (2017) Public Libraries Act. Ministry of Education and Culture Finland. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2016/en20161492.pdf. (accessed: 26 February 2021).

81.

Neuman

(2011) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Pearson.

82.

Oblinger

(2005) (eds) Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE. Available at: https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/educating-net-generation (accessed 15 November 2020).

83.

Ortega-Martínez

EDLÁ

Pacheco-Mendoza

García Meléndez

, et al (2021) Digital services adapted by libraries in Mexico to COVID-19 pandemic: A critical review. Digital Library Perspectives 37: 3–17. DOI: 10.1108/DLP-07-2020-006316 March 2021.

84.

Otike

Bouaamri

Hajdu Barát

(2022) Perception of international students on the role of university library during COVID-19 lockdown in Hungary. Library Management 43(5): 334–352.

85.

Parliament of Finland (2022) Library of Parliament. Available at: https://www.eduskunta.fi/library (accessed on: 28 May 2022).

86.

Pickard

(2013) Research Methods in Information. London: Facet.

87.

Pickard

McLeod

Chowdhury

, et al (2016) From professional qualifications to ischool@northumbria. In: Seadle

Chu

Stöckel

(eds) Educating the Profession. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Saur, pp.433–446.

88.

Pierson

Goulding

Campbell-Meier

(2019) An integrated understanding of librarian professional identity. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 68(4/5): 413–430.

89.

Plano Clark

Ivankova

(2016) Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

90.

Pluye

Bengoechea

Granikov

, et al (2018) A world of possibilities in mixed methods: Review of the combinations of strategies used to integrate qualitative and quantitative phases, results and data. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 10: 41–56.

91.

Reale

(2016) Becoming a Reflective Librarian and Teacher: Strategies for Mindful Academic Practice. Chicago: American Library Association.

92.

Reid

Bloice

(2021) Libraries in Lockdown: Scottish Public Libraries and Their Role in Community Cohesion and Resilience During Lockdown. Aberdeen: Robert Gordon University. Available at: https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1370057 (accessed: 30 March 2022).

93.

Rubin

(2010) Foundations of Library and Information Science. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

94.

Saarti

(2021) Information management during a crisis – Providing an open and reliable information infrastructure for a sustainable world. Library Management 42(4/5): 287–290.

95.

Salomaa

Palsa

(2019) Media literacy in Finland. National Media Education Policy. In: Culture

MOEA

(ed.). Finland: Grano Oy. Available at: https://medialukutaitosuomessa.fi/mediaeducationpolicy.pdf

96.

Savolainen

Oksa

Savela

, et al (2021) COVID-19 Anxiety-A longitudinal survey study of psychological and situational risks among Finnish workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(2): 794.

97.

Schön

(1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Aldershot: Avebury.

98.

Seadle

(2016) European Library and Information Science Schools. In: Seadle

Chu

Stöckel

(eds) Educating the Profession: 40 Years of the IFLA Section on Education and Training. Berlin/Boston, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, pp.26–46.

99.

Shin

Jeon

Lee

H-E

(2022) Public library needs assessment to build a community-based library: Triangulation method with a social media data analysis. Library & Information Science Research 44(1): 101142.

100.

Sipilä

Miettinen

Tevaniemi

, et al (2018) Adapting the New ACRL Framework to IL Education at Tampere University of Technology. In: Information literacy in everyday life: 6th european conference ECIL (eds Kurbanoğlu Špiranec

Ünal

, et al). Oulu, Finland, September 24–27, pp.422–432. Springer International Publishing.

101.

Smith

(2020) Information in crisis: Analysing the future roles of public libraries during and post-COVID-19. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association 69(4): 422–429.

102.

Sperano

(2017) Content audit for the assessment of digital information space: definitions and exploratory typology. In: Proceedings of the 35th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, Halifax Nova Scotia Canada, 11–13 August, pp.1–10. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3121113.3121227 (accessed 10 October 2022).

103.

Stafford

(2020) EdTech review: Teaching through Zoom – What we[ve learned as new online educators. J ApplLearn Teach 3(2): 150–153.

104.

STKS (2021) The Finnish Research Library Association. Available at: https://www.stks.fi/in-english/ (accessed 2 April 2021).

105.

Syvälahti

(2020) Pedaforumissa pohdittiin digitalisaation ja koronapandemian vaikutuksia opetukseen. Sign 52(3): 15–18.

106.

Syvälahti

Asplund

(2017) A Finnish academic libraries' perspective on the Information Literacy Framework. In: European Conference on Information Retrieval. Saint-Malo, France. Available at: http://ecil2017.ilconf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/10/D322KatiSyvalahtiJanikaAsplund.pdf (accessed: 21 February 2020).

107.

Takahashi

ARW

Araujo

(2020) Case study research: opening up research opportunities. RAUSP Management Journal 55(1): 100–111.

108.

Tejedor

Cervi

Pérez-Escoda

, et al (2020) Digital Literacy and higher education during COVID-19 Lockdown: Spain, Italy, and Ecuador. Publications 8(4): 48–17.

109.

Temiz

Salelkar

(2020) Innovation during crisis: Exploring reaction of Swedish university libraries to COVID-19. Digital Library Perspectives 36(4): 365–375.

110.

Tevaniemi

Poutanen

Lähdemäki

(2015) Library as a partner in co-designing learning spaces: A case study at Tampere University of Technology, Finland. New Review of Academic Librarianship 21(3): 304–324.

111.

Tredinnick

(2019) Twenty-nine years of the BIR Annual Survey part 2: Changing information work. Business Information Review 36(4): 149–163.

112.

Tuominen

Saarti

(2012) The Finnish library system: Open collaboration for an open society. IFLA Journal 38(2): 115–136.

113.

University of Helsinki (2022) Helsinki University Library. Available at: https://www.helsinki.fi/en/helsinki-university-library (accessed on: 28 May 2022).

114.

Virrankoski

Ala-Kyyny

Manninen

, et al (2020) Nenästä kiinni ja ponnistus ja hyppy! Kirjastot sopeutuivat koronakevääseen. Sign 52(2): 16–23.

115.

Wales

(2018) The view from within: A personal reflection on library strategy development in three academic libraries. New Review of Academic Librarianship 24(3-4): 442–456.

116.

Walton

Pope

(2011) Information Literacy. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

117.

Webber

(2008) Educating Web 2.0 LIS students for information literacy. In: Parker

Godwin

(eds)Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0. London: Facet, pp.39–50.

118.

Whitworth

(2012) The reflective information literacy educator. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education 4(1): 38–55.

119.

Whitworth

. (2016) Information literacy and information practice. In: Haythornthwaite

Andrews

Fransman

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research, 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.315–335.

120.

Widdowson

Smart

(2013) Information literacy in public libraries. Journal of Information Literacy 7(2): 160–162.

121.

Witt

Smith

(2019) Libraries in times of crisis. IFLA Journal 45(1): 3–4.

122.

Witt

(2021) Developments and trends for 2021. IFLA Journal 47(1): 3–4.

123.

Yin

(2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.

124.

Zawacki-Richter

(2021) The current state and impact of covid-19 on digital higher education in Germany. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 3: 218–226.

Researching Finnish library responses to Covid-19 digital literacy challenges through the employment of reflective practice

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Rationale

Literature review

Finnish libraries and the Covid-19 pandemic

Library professionals’ identities

Information and digital literacies

Finnish media literacy

Methodology

Research design

Sampling

Reflective practice

Quantitative methods

Qualitative methods

Data analysis

Ethics

Results

Digital services before the pandemic

Digital services during the Covid-19 pandemic

Digital literacy during the Covid-19 pandemic

Life at work

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References