Urban public libraries in a rapidly changing environment: Environmental and professional changes as reflected in library plans and the perceptions of library leaders

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to discuss how current library planning in urban public libraries perceive (i) their role as promotors of literature and reading in an age dominated by screens, digital consumption of information and culture and a reduced interest in reading and (ii) how the library as a public sphere institution is perceived in an age of increased conflicts and tensions. It is a case study, comparing the public libraries in Budapest and Oslo – the capital cities in two countries both firmly anchored in the European Union/the European Economic Area, but with important differences regarding some of today’s central conflict issues. What is the role of institutionalised professional norms versus external political influences in shaping the ways libraries respond and adapt? The analysis of planning documents is supplemented with qualitative analysis with librarians from the two case libraries. One major finding is that the traditional role of libraries as institutions promoting literature and enlightenment, and traditional norms of neutrality dominate in the planning documents and in the responses from the persons interviewed. One major conclusion is that although the plans reflect the complex and manifold role of today’s urban public libraries, the traditional role of libraries as agents for literature and enlightenment still plays a defining role. The interviews also indicate that the norm of neutrality, giving access to all sides and perspectives, is strong, although first and foremost by librarianships’ obligation to truth and science and also by political trends and tendencies, which vary somewhat between the two countries.

Background and introduction to research topic

Thirty years ago, one of the authors of this article wrote a doctoral dissertation comparing how three metropolitan public libraries – the libraries in Oslo, Budapest and Gothenburg handled similar change impetuses, for example digitisation and market-oriented ways of thinking inspired by New Public Management which had started its offensive in the public sector. The way these changes were met and coped with were analysed against the background of environmental turbulence, where Budapest and Hungary in the middle of the transformation process from socialism to western type liberal capitalism had the most turbulent environment, and the structuring power of traditional institutionalised norms within public librarianship with their weight on equality, free access, public enlightenment and democracy. Did these professional norms lose their structuring power when confronted by profound and rapid environmental changes, or did they seem to affect how these change impetuses were received – acceptance or rejection of reforms and molding and adaptation in the implementation (Audunson, 1996, 1999).

One major conclusion in the study was that environmental change impetuses related to environmental and political developments, for example digitisation and market-oriented ways of thinking at the expense of traditional professional quality criteria, were the major elements structuring the change process. Professional norms did, however play a significant role. If the library leader managed to adapt and mold the change proposals to professional norms, that tended to reduce conflicts and ease implementation. In one case (Gothenburg) where the library director employed external consultants, that tended to be a base for resistance and conflict: The library director is primarily listening to non-professionals and forget the traditional values of public librarianship.

In the years that have passed since the research referred to above was undertaken, environmental turbulence and change with possible consequences for public libraries have deepened, accelerated and partly taken new form. Social media and the ubiquitous use of screens have impacted and changed patterns of reading, information seeking and communication. The whole public sphere of which libraries are part have been affected and transformed (Audunson et al., 2025). Other challenges are related to social and political conflicts. Shall libraries be neutral sources of information in relation to issues such as the climate change, equal access, conflicts related to LHQTB+, and war in Europe to mention a few, or should libraries take a stand and be active agents? (Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022). Fake news and fake science are other issues which has come to the forefront particularly during the last decade. Add to this the challenges stemming from the rapid development of artificial intelligence.

Research questions

How are developments such as these (social media, ubiquitous use of screens, restructuring of the public sphere, increased conflicts and war in Europe, fake news) reflected in the role and strategies of urban public libraries? That is the central research question of this article. We will focus particularly on the following two sub questions:

1. How do the libraries define and shape their role as promoters of reading in a time dominated by digital platforms and reading on screens?

2. How do libraries perceive and shape their role as public sphere institutions in the tensions-ridden field between being a neutral source of information and the responsibility to take a stand and being an active agent when important values are at stake?

The empirical material we use to elicit our research questions consists of the two libraries strategic plans supplemented with qualitative interviews with the library directors and selected staff members.

The comparative rationale – why compare Oslo and Budapest?

Why have we chosen to compare Oslo and Budapest?

Despite important differences between public libraries in Hungary and Norway in general and Budapest and Oslo in particular, we do find many parallel developments. Both libraries have adapted to modern ideas of public librarianship focusing on other services than the traditional ones, for example, the library as a meeting place and community developer. Both are firmly rooted in the traditional library values of promoting democracy, equality, cultural experiences and an informed and enlightened citizenship. Both have experienced a surge in library use. In Oslo. In Oslo, the number of visitors exploded from 3 million per year in 2019 till 5.4 million in 2023, In Budapest, number of visitors surged from 6.8 million in 2019 till 11 million in 2024. In both cities the surge in library visits has not resulted in a corresponding increase in lending figures, indicating that the libraries strategies of profiling themselves as meeting places beyond books and literary activities have been successful. Both libraries participate in IFLAs Metropolitan Libraries Section, which is an important arena for exchanging ideas and diffusing norms and standards in the field.

Of vital importance for our research questions, both libraries are facing the challenges referred to under paragraph 1 above. The political and social environment under which the two libraries are adapting to these trends and developments are, however, somewhat different. One example here is the LHQTB-issue. The Scandinavian countries, Norway included, have a liberal view on these issues. The organisation working to promote these issues receive generous grants from public budgets. For all practical purposes it is compulsory for Norwegian schools and public institutions to celebrate the pride month by raising the rainbow-flag and urging their employees to take part in the March even if the parents of the pupils in the schools in question are sceptic. The library strategy for the city of Gothenburg for the period 2024–2028 states that ‘employees and managers should also work with norm awareness regarding sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender-transcending identity or expression’ (Göteborgs Stad, 2024: 3). At Deichman, traditional library norms regarding providing access to a plurality of perspectives and viewpoints were challenged in 2021 when some librarians expressed that they would no longer promote Harry Potter due to viewpoints J.K. Rawlings had expressed on transgender. In Hungary and Budapest, where governmental policies are more strongly oriented towards traditional family values and with legislation aiming at protecting children from literature which is promoted in Norway and the other Scandinavian countries, the situation is different. Norway and Hungary, then, can be portrayed as representative for two conflicting trends or models in Europe: the national conservative model skeptical to liberal values and the liberal model.

Do such differences in political contexts affect library policies and library plans?

The ongoing war in Europe and the Middle East are other conflict areas which might challenge the libraries’ traditional role as neutral public sphere institutions giving access to all sides of an issue and where there are differences in the political environments in which the two libraries operate.

How do these two urban public libraries which belong to the same professional field, rooted in basically the same professional values, norms and standards but functioning in social and political environments that differ along important dimensions handle and adapt to the external challenges referred to, is interesting.

Theoretical approach: Institutionalism

Our theoretical perspective in this article is rooted in institutional theory.

Institutional theory is preoccupied with rules, norms and standards which we take for granted (Audunson, 1996, 1999; March and Olsen, 1989) and which literally take on an objective and material existence. The obligations associated with a marrying, norms related to being a teacher or to being a parent might serve as examples. Such norms are perceived as having an objective existence external to us; often they are codified in laws and ethical documents, for example, professional ethics and, they are strongly internalised in our role as a spouse, a parent, a citizen, a teacher or a librarian. What kind of situation is this and how should I as a librarian react and behave in this situation? (March and Olsen, 1989).

The principle of free borrowing is an example of a norm in public librarianship which we take for granted and which contribute to constitute the field. The same is the case for the principles of equal access, pluralism in selection policies, freedom of access to information and the democratic mission of libraries to mention a few. These professional norms structure behaviour: they define what it means to be a librarian and decide, to a large extent, what a librarian should do in a given situation – what good professional practice is (Audunson, 1996, 1999). These norms have achieved universal status and are laid down and institutionalised for example in IFLAs and UNESCOs Public Library Manifesto (IFLA, 2022).

Within this common and constituting set of norms, libraries might choose differently when facing. Fraser-Arnott (2021) has studied public libraries’ mission statements and how libraries, within a common institutional framework, develop individual institutional identities. Her data stems from the US and Canada, Widdersheim, Koizumi and Larsen (2020), taking a broader comparative perspective, show how Norwegian, Japanese and US public libraries have shaped the role of libraries as public sphere institutions somewhat differently, with Norway focusing upon libraries as physical meeting spaces whereas Japanese focus more upon their role as institutions for the literary public sphere.

From time-to-time environmental changes challenges such professional norms. New Public Management and market-oriented ideologies might challenge the principle of free borrowing and the mission of promoting equality. The changes in reading due to the ubiquitous presence of screens and tense conflicts also means libraries and librarians must relate to represent such environmental trends challenging established professional norms and standards. Political developments challenging the

The profession might handle such environmental changes in different ways. Taking the proliferation of digital platforms as an example, responses might be.

• - Accepting. The changes might be welcomed and implemented: Digital platforms and screens represent the future. If libraries are to stay relevant, they must embrace the change.

• - Rejecting. Digital platforms and extensive use of screens counteract the mission of libraries of promoting reading and literary experiences. Libraries should be skeptical of such technologies.

• - Molding. Digital platforms and digital readings have come to stay. When implementing such technologies and services, libraries should adapt the implementation so that it is compatible with the libraries’ traditional role and values of promoting reading and literary experiences.

Developments challenging professional norms and standards do not only stem from the external environment. Professional education, in our case LIS education, is vital when it comes to transferring such norms to new generations of professionals. Over the last decade, however, we have experienced a tendency within public librarianship to employ staff members with other educational backgrounds than a degree in LIS. This tendency has been particularly strong in urban and metropolitan public libraries. There can be many reasons for this, for example, the changed library roles, the challenges and challenges that appear in addition to the classic library services, the limited number of new staff, insufficient salaries, etc.

In Oslo, 60% of the staff members in the city’s public library had a degree in LIS in 2014. Only 4 years later, that proportion had been reduced till 37 (Bergan, 2019). That process has continued since then. It seems reasonable to hypothesise that new staff members without a degree in LIS are less rooted in professional norms and standards and that a staff where the proportion with a LIS degree is so significantly reduced, has less capacity of socialising new members into professional norms and standards.

Does this development result in library organisations where the capacity of professional norms and standards to structure developments and adaptations to environmental trends are weakened?

One central concept in institutional theory is isomorphy (Cusick, 2020; DiMaggio and Powell, 1993). Isomorphy means that organisations tend to become more and more similar, adopting the same recipes for good organisational practice.

Isomorphy might have several sources:

• It can be forced upon an organisational field by superior authorities, When the Norwegian Parliament in 2013 made an amendment to the mission statement in the Norwegian law on public libraries, stating that libraries should be independent meeting places and arenas for public debate in their communities, that was an external decision by an authoritative body which libraries had to adapt to. Funds administered by the National library dedicated to supporting projects in local public libraries aiming at developing this part of the libraries’ role have contributed to the process.

• It can be rooted in the quest for legitimacy. Documenting that you are updated when it comes to implementing new technologies, today for example AI, or dominating political priorities might contribute to enhancing a library’s legitimacy, today for example green policies.

• It can be rooted in exemplary practices from organisations within the field which are prestigious and regarded to be successful – mimetic change. Over the last years, the new urban libraries in Helsinki, Finland (Oodi), Aarhus, Denmark (Dokk1) and Seattle are examples of libraries which have achieved an iconic status, and which have inspired library projects in other cities and countries.

Do the library policies expressed in the strategies studies and the qualitative interviews reflect isomorphic change and, if so, are they rooted in any of the flour forms described above?

Methodology

We base our research on two kinds of empirical data. The first one consists of the strategic plans. We have analysed the strategic plans for both libraries for the period 2021–2027 (Budapest) and 2019–2028 (Oslo). In the case of Oslo, this period is covered by three documents – one for the period 2019–2022, one concretisation based on this document for the period 2021–2025 and then the presently valid plan for the period 2025–2028. In addition, a plan was adopted in 2023 for the period 2023–2026 but withdrawn due to a change in city government in 2023. Budapest has one comprehensive plan covering the whole period 2021–2027. Through close reading of the three texts, we try to identify and compare elements relevant for our research questions.

In addition to document analysis, we rely upon qualitative interviews. All together ten qualitative interviews, five in each city were undertaken. In both cities the library director was interviewed. In Oslo, the respondents in addition to the library director consisted of three department heads, two of them heading local branches and one leading a department in the central library. The fourth respondent was a relatively young librarian having mediation of literature as her responsibility.

In Budapest, two department heads in the central library and two branch directors were interviewed in addition to an interview with the library director.

We have also used the currently valid library plans for the cities of Gothenburg and Copenhagen and the Swedish Royal Library’s guidelines for public library plannings as a kind of benchmark. The Swedish library law states that municipalities and regions with a responsibility for libraries shall develop library plans and the Royal Library has developed guidelines for library planning. The guidelines give recommendations regarding the topics a plan should cover such as the democratic mission of libraries, the promotion of reading and culture and groups with special needs, as well as recommended methods in the planning process. The library plan of Gothenburg is developed within this framework. Danmark is known for having public libraries of a very high quality. Comparing our two cases with the metropolitan cities of Gothenburg and Copenhagen and the Swedish guidelines, therefore, seems relevant.

The interviews were semi structured. Respondents were informed on beforehand which topics we wanted to discuss. The topics were: (1) How do you perceive the library’s role related to public enlightenment in the age of AI? (2) What are your thoughts and reflection on the traditional role of libraries of promoting books and reading in relation to other roles, for example, the role as a meeting place, a community developer etc.? (3) What about reading on screens and the ubiquitous use of smart phones and tablets versus reading on physical formats? (4) Libraries, freedom of expression and libraries as a public sphere institution: should libraries take a stand on issues such as climate change, war in Europe, LGHTB+ etc., or should the library give access to all perspectives and viewpoints without taking a stand?

The time dedicated to each of these topics varied from interview to interview.

All interviews were tape recorded. The sound files were transcribed by using the AI tool Autotekst developed by Oslo University. The transcripts were analysed manually.

Earlier research

Audunson compared how the public libraries in Budapest, Gothenburg and Oslo met similar external change impetuses, first and foremost digitalisation and market orientation. (Audunson, 1996, 1999). The major research question was to investigate the structuring power of field-internal professional norms versus the influence of field-external change impetuses when it came to handling change processes. The main finding was that the field external impulses decide, but that LIS-internal professional norms play a role. If a leader manages to link proposed changes with professional norms and traditions, conflicts and resistance become less tense, and implementation becomes easier.

Widdersheim et al. (2020) have compared library policies in Norway, Japan and the US. Theu find that in Norway there is a strong emphasis on the relationship between libraries and democracy with a focus on libraries as physical meeting places. Japan, which like Norway has a strong centralised governmental structure, focuses more on the literary public sphere. The links between libraries and democracy are less apparent compared to Norway. In the US, unlike Norway and Japan, there is no national law supporting libraries. Legitimation must be mobilised locally and seems to be rooted more in educational and recreational purposes then public sphere considerations.

Engström (2022) reflects upon the presupposition, often taken for granted, that public libraries are open and accessible to all. Are library plans and policies based on that presupposition as a given fact – libraries are open and accessible – or as a not fully realised goal? She concludes that library policies should be based on realising the potential of openness and accessibility, making room for pluralistic communities and agonistic conflicts if they are to be institutions promoting democracy and inclusion.

Kawamoto et al. (2022) have analysed the national library strategies in Norway and the library plans in the city of Oslo for the period 2014–2022. They conclude that Norwegian public librarianship has done that which Engström recommends, that is, opening up in order to make the library accessible for new groups.

Hanell et al. (2022) have analysed how Swedish librarians navigate in and experience a changing political landscape, especially the growth of right extremism. Do they experience political pressure due to such changes? The main conclusion based on their survey seems to be that the majority of librarians do not experience inappropriate pressure.

Findings – the strategic plans

Budapest continuity – Oslo changing priorities?

The strategic plan in the Budapest public library covers the period 2021–2027. The current plan is a part of a rotating planning system, and the introduction states that it builds upon and represents a continuation of the preceding plan, covering the period 2014–2018.

Two years into the planning period, in 2023, a change in the leadership took place. A new director took office. She continues to work within the framework of the 2021–2027 strategy, which is not surprising, because the new director was the leader of the group that developed the current strategic plan.

The Oslo-situation seems more volatile. Since 2014 one has had a system with four-year planning periods, the first one from 2014 till 2018. A new plan was adopted in 2018, valid for the period 2019–2022. Then the library presented its strategy for the period 2021–2025. The 2019–2022 plan was the plan of the city council, whereas the 2021–2025 document stand forth as the library’s operating plan.

In the spring of 2023, the left-wing city council which had been in power since 2015, presented its proposal for a library plan covering the period 2023–2026. That document represented a return to a document more clearly politically anchored compared to the 2021–2025 plan. Local elections in September 2023 resulted in a new right wing city council coming into office. The new city council withdrew the 2023–2026-plan.

Approximately simultaneously, a change of library director took place. The change of director had nothing to do with the political change at city council level, and the new director had been one of the top leaders of the library producing the 2021–2025 plan and giving input to the city council’s 2023–2026 plan. However, the fact that the new director took office in a situation characterised by a planning void due to the retraction of the plan adopted by the former city council, probably gave her an opportunity to put her stamp on the priorities and direction of the plan which now had to be developed – an opportunity which maybe the Budapest director has not had to the same degree.

One result of this difference is also that the situation in Oslo seems more unstable and changing than in Budapest. Priorities are not the same in the 2025–2028 plan as in the preceding plans and the structure and format of the document has changed.

The political status and anchoring of the plans

Both the Budapest plan and the Oslo plan are anchored politically. In Budapest, the plan was approved by the Committee of Human Resources of the Assembly of Budapest, the supreme political body of the city. In Oslo, the city councilor for cultural affairs presented the plan before the city council, which the city council took note of. ¹

In Oslo, both the 2019–2022 plan and the withdrawn plan from 2023 were clearly political documents bearing the stamp of the city council. The 2021–2025 plan stands forth as the library’s plan more than the city council’s. When reading the 2025–2028 plan one also gets the impression that this document reflects the library’s priorities. The introduction, for example, is signed by the library director, not the politically responsible city councilor. On the 19th of December 2024, however, the city council discussed a proposal from the city councilor for culture urging the city council to take note of the proposal for a new library strategy. In the city councilor’s proposal, it is stated that the strategy supplants the library plan 2019–2022, thus giving the new plan a clear political anchoring.

The structure and methodological approach of the plans

The two currently valid planning documents have very different formats. The Budapest plan is an analytical document, analyzing environmental relations on a European, national and city-level as well as technological, economic and social environments and professional developments as reflected in IFLA trend reports It, relies on methodological planning tools such as SWOT analysis (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) and PETS analysis (political, economic, social and technological). It is a comprehensive text of 35 pages. It explicitly links library plans and library initiatives to city wide programs of the Budapest municipality, the smart city program, the Budapest elderly strategy and the so-called Home in Budapest program, to mention a few.

The Budapest plan also contains a relatively detailed analysis of the situation in the different local branches and proposes concrete measures to refurbish the branches to improve their attractivity and increase accessibility, building on a continuously updated investment and renovation plan. The goal is to open at least one renovated or new branch yearly.

The current Oslo-plan is a much more cursory document, and it is more declarative, less analytical. We do not, for example, find a review of the situation in the different branches and townships as we do in the Budapest plan, In the 2019–2022 plan, we do, however, find an evaluation of the network. ²

In the 2025–2028 plan, a short introduction signed by the library director summarises the challenges: (1) The crisis of reading. People read less than before, (2) The challenge of engaging people in the democratic process and promoting social dialogue, (3) The challenge of making the library accessible for all. Based on these, the plan formulates three major goals (make reading important in people’s lives, strengthen local democracy and making it simple to use to library), four measures across the three major goals (create enthusiasm and inspiring cultural experiences, create attractive library spaces, create engaging content and facilitate meetings between humans) and a vision (a reading city, a vibrant local democracy). Then a series of concrete initiatives related to each of the major goals are specified. Example: Deichman makes literature and reading important in the lives of the citizens of Oslo (major goal 1 – my emphasis). We are testing out new methods to promote the joy and culture of reading (Measure 1, major goal 1 – my emphasis). Both goals and measures, then, are expressed in the present tense. The plan decibels what the library does and the values it promotes – not what it intends to do. It describes, thus, the present stage, not as usual in planning documents, a preferred future stage, gives the plan the character of a narrative telling the story of what the library does. Quotations from users’ telling illustrating stories related to their library use and what the library means to them strengthen the plan’s character of being a narrative.

The Oslo-plan for the period 2025–2028, then, seems to express one of the two perceptions described by Engström (2022): accessibility and participation as a realised fact, not a non-realised potential which the plan shall help realise.

The visions and role of the library as expressed in the plan

The vision of the Budapest public library is summarised in the following formulation: Inform, integrate, inspire: Our city, our library, our story. The vision, then, highlights information, that is, access to knowledge and information, integration, that is, promoting a unified city avoiding fragmentation, and inspiration, that is, giving its users stimulating experiences promoting creativity and activity. Simultaneously it focuses upon ownership and creating ownership and a common identity though promoting joint stories: our city, our library, our story. The terminology with the repeated use of possessive form of the pronoun our – ours – focuses upon community and the last part – our story – associates partly with the traditional role of libraries related to promoting literature, but even more to a kind of communal creativity: we, the citizens, create our story together.

The vision can be interpreted as a concrete proposal of how the library can contribute to the overall goals of the city. The library positions itself as instrumental in realising the overall strategy of the city it is supposed to serve, for example the goal of developing Budapest into a smart city (Fodor and Kiszl, 2022), goals related to policies vis a vis elderly people, environmental policies to mention a few. The formulated visions, goals and proposed initiatives are deduced from the strategies of the city.

Simultaneously as the plan explicitly takes the city’s overall strategy as its point of departure, it also links itself to developments on the international library scene, for example IFLA, underlining that it draws on experiences from metropolitan libraries worldwide.

That is very different in the Oslo plan for the period 2025–2028. Contrary to the Budapest plan with its references to the overall city strategy and international librarianship, there are no explicit links between the priorities in the library plan and the priorities at city level nor to the international field of public librarianship in the current Oslo plan. When the present city council took office in October 2023, a comprehensive policy document was presented to the City Parliament. (Hammersborgerklæringen, 2023). The library plan contains no references to the goals and priorities of this policy document. ³ The vision formulated in the plan explicitly connects the promotion of reading with a vibrant local democracy: A reading city, a living local democracy. Based on that vision, the strategy formulates three main goals:

• Deichman makes literature and reading important in the lives of the citizens of Oslo.

• Deichman strengthens local democracy.

• Deichman simplifies library use.

Promoting democracy by promoting reading is, of course, not in contradiction with the city platform’s visions, goals and priorities. When the city council’s platform in its introductory vision paragraph proclaims that it aims at making Oslo the world’s best city to live in from birth through all life stages to old age – a city promoting quality of life in the broadest sense as well as promoting transparency and democracy, the library’s vision is well in harmony with this. However, contrary to the visions in the plan of the Budapest library, it is not an explicit operationalisation of goals and visions at the superior level. The plan, thus, profiles the library as instrumental in relation to a set of generic values such as democracy, freedom of expression and community, not in relation to priorities and programs other policy fields and institutions bear the main responsibility for realising. That is the case for all the planning documents analysed from the 2019–2022 document up to the current plan.

The traditional role of promoting reading versus the new role of the library as a meeting place

Within public librarianship there has been an increased focus upon on other roles and functions than the traditional ones related to book borrowing, reading promotion and public enlightenment. That has been reflected in the planning documents of both cities. The Budapest plan states that public libraries of the 21st century deliver services going far beyond the traditional ones. The plan focuses upon the library as a space for promoting creativity and innovation, an arena for learning and a meeting point fostering community and participation – a perception very much in line with the four-space model of Jochumsen, et al. (2012).

The same has been the case in the Oslo public library. The library is much more than books, according to the library director in Oslo from 2014 till 2024. (Stokland, 2019).

In Budapest, however, traditional tasks and the traditional role of libraries still play a major role. In 2023 the city council declared Budapest the capital of books. According to the plan, the library’s role in that project continues to provide it with opportunities regarding the role of promoting reading and literature. The plan underlines “the library’s role in supporting education, training, and lifelong learning,” that is, public enlightenment, also a central part of the public library’s traditional role.

The new roles should supplement, not supplant, the traditional ones. That was clearly reflected in the qualitative interviews, clearly expressed by a department head in the central library: “In Hungary and the metropolitan library we want to preserve our traditional services. But we want to renew them . . . we are a library; we must offer library services but be open to new challenges.”

The same respondent also referred to programs combining new services with the traditional literary oriented ones, particularly in relation to children. Robot-sessions are very popular, in accordance with Hungarian practice, he said. “But we usually start such a session with a children’s story or a part of a novel. What the children do in the robot session, then, is based on the story. In this way, literature and new needs, literature and technology can be combined.”

Whereas the Budapest plan stresses the continuity since the planning process of which the present plan is integrated into started in 2002, the current strategic plan in Oslo for the period 2025–2028 seems to represent a break and discontinuity of the earlier plan. Promoting reading, literature and books are infrequent terms in the 2019–2022 plan as well as in the operational plan for the period 2021–2025. Building bridges is a key concept in the operational plan. The library was perceived as an institution building bridges between people and groups by promoting meetings. The key concept of building bridges is not to be found in the current plan. In the 2025–2028 plan, the focus on reading and books is back whereas the key concept of building bridges is not mentioned. A reading city – a living democracy. That is the title of the plan’s introduction signed by the library director. The library aims at making reading important in the lives of the citizens. Respondents we interviewed agreed that the increased focus on books and reading represents a necessary correction of the priorities of the former plan, which tended to deflate the role of reading and literature.

The correction of the course in Oslo does not mean, however, that promoting meetings is abandoned. It is a question of correcting the balance between traditional and new services.

The library as a democratic space and arena for democratic debate

Although the strategic plan of the Oslo public library can be interpreted as a return to the traditional value of promoting literature and reading, the library as a democratic space promoting public debate is still a very major topic. In her introduction to the plan, the library director states that the library shall “nurture and protect” democracy, motivate its users to take part in the public debate, be a platform for dialogue and critical thinking and promote and defend freedom of expression. Building and strengthening community based democratic participation is seen as a cornerstone and point of departure with respect to this. Being a platform for critical thinking logically implies promoting access to different perspectives, ideologies and viewpoints, also those in opposition to.

The Budapest plan refers to the necessity of improving the library’s role as a community space facilitating real human interaction and to the library as an institution promoting democratic participation. It is less specific than the Oslo plan when it comes to using value-laden terms such as ‘dialogue’, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘freedom of expression’. Formulations referring to developing the library as a community space and promoting ‘real human interaction’ lie very close to being a platform for dialogue.

None of the plans contain explicit formulations regarding the library’s stand in relation to the issue of neutrality versus post neutrality. How shall libraries and librarians navigate in today’s troubled waters? The qualitative interviews indicate that the librarians in Budapest and Oslo think along identical lines. Librarians shall give access to all opinions on an issue. As a professional, however, librarians are committed to truth and science. One does not promote public enlightenment by promoting fake knowledge negating scientifically grounded knowledge. That was a viewpoint presented by both Hungarian and Norwegian respondents. But at the same time – questioning established knowledge lies at the heart of a scientific approach, and one must be careful that defending truth does not deteriorate into unscientific censorship at odd with that scientific approach. As the library director in Oslo formulated it:

As the last large open commons used by practically everyone, we have to offer a broad spectrum of viewpoints and attitudes. And as I like to put it: we do not own the truth, but we shall help you who borrows from us to form your own grounded engagement. I shall not tell you what to think about for example the climate crisis. . .We shall help create reflecting and thinking people, not drive everyone into the same track.

The library director’s formulations are representative for the respondents in Oslo as well as Budapest. One other respondent from Oslo refers to an outline for policy guidelines for Deichman which is being discussed. One of the sentences in the proposal which she believes will be a part of the final documents, state that the library shall provide a platform for an enlightened public debate but not take side, that is, a neutral role. In both cities, however, the respondents almost unanimously agreed that there must be some modifications to this: the library should not promote material contrary to established scientific knowledge, for example, material propagating alternative medicine for which there is no scientific basis.

We did also find some differences between respondents in the two cities: In Budapest two respondents expressed fear of censorship affecting the role of libraries as neutral providers of information negatively. One of them feared self-censorship. Libraries are dependent upon governmental authorities for their resources. That might lead two, maybe unconscious, self-censorship if the authorities have expressed strong attitudes on an issue. The other, expressed fear of direct government intervention, narrowing the room libraries with regard to acquiring and societal pluralism. In Oslo, one of the respondents with a central responsibility for collection development, expressed the viewpoint that with regard to children’s literature, there are considerations modifying the general concept of neutrality: books with outdated and discriminatory terminology, for example, Negro or Eskimo, should be removed from the shelves. On the other hand, books showing (and normalising) alternative family constellations, for example families with two mothers or two fathers, should be actively welcomed.

Improving access

Improving access is a central goal of the plans in both cities. There are basically three ways to accomplish this goal: the first one is to develop the libraries as attractive physical meeting places – inviting community living rooms with low thresholds. This is in correspondence with the idea of libraries as meeting places, which has become dominant over the last decade or so. Both libraries have had comprehensive refurbishing programs in order to make the branches attractive meeting places. The second way to increase accessibility is to utilise information technology to give 24/7 access. The third way is to give the users physical access to the library also outside regular opening hours, so called extended opening.

As for Oso, the plan gives priority to the first and third of these. That is the case for all the planning documents for the periods we have analysed. Extended openings and attractive physical spaces are prioritised. Little is said explicitly about digital solutions and digital access, apart from a sentence in the 2019 documents stating that digital and physical spaces can enrich each other (Bouaamri and Barátné Hajdu, 2022).

The Budapest plan also prioritises developing attractive physical spaces and a lowering of the thresholds. Extended physical openings are not explicitly dealt with. If the goal of 24/7 access is to be realised via digital access or a combination of digital access combined with extended openings, is not specified. The Budapest plan also goes into how the Covid pandemic transferred users over to digital platforms with consequences for the library and the libraries’ role in accomplishing the city government’s goal of making Budapest a smart city. In general, then, the Budapest plan is more preoccupied with digitisation and digital access than the Oslo plan.

Discussion and conclusions

Our research questions were: (1) How do libraries define their role as promoters of reading and literature in a time of screens, digitisation and challenges to reading? (2) How do libraries define their role as institutions of the public sphere? Our research questions were framed within an institutional approach where the structuring power of institutionalised professional norms versus the structuring power of external norms and change impetuses are central.

Our data – the plans as well as the interviews – confirm that promotion of reading and literature still is a central and defining part of the role of the two libraries. The two libraries operate within a common set of professional norms. In Oslo, there has been a development of the 2019–2022 plan and particularly from the library’s operational plan of 2021–2025 which can be said to downplay the role of books and reading at the at the expense of other roles and services. In the current 2025–2028 plan, the traditional role of promoting reading is back on the top of the list of priorities and the plan establishes an identity between the library’s role as an agent for reading and its role as a democratic meeting place. The respondents in the qualitative interviews agree that this has been a necessary correction and adjustment. In Budapest, the respondents seem to agree that new roles and services should supplement, not supplant, traditional services.

When it comes to the relationship between digitalisation and reading that is not elaborated upon in neither of the two cities’ planning documents. Both plans have a focus on developing the libraries as physical spaces. In Budapest the idea seems to be to integrate services based on modern technologies, for example, robots, with the traditional promotion of literature, for example storytelling and reading. The 2019–2022 plan in Oslo maintains that digital and physical spaces fruitfully can enrich each other (Bouaamri and Barátné Hajdu, 2022). Gothenburg and Copenhagen, our two reference libraries, seems to equalise the libraries role as community meeting places and agents of reading promotion. In Gothenburg the concept of libraries as bridges – bridges between people and communities and bridges to literature and reading – is central. As documented above, that was the central concept in the Oslo library’s operational plan 2021–2025 but has disappeared in the 2025–2028-plan.

When it comes to libraries as arenas for the public sphere, we have seen that the traditional norm of neutrality dominates in our two cities. The post-neutrality viewpoint of siding with groups and perspectives, for example those of marginalised groups, is not expressed in the planning documents nor in the qualitative interviews. In both cities respondents modified the obligation of giving access to all perspectives and viewpoints when it comes to literature contradicting established and scientifically grounded knowledge. Oslo also. Another modification is found in Oslo where there is a willingness to weed out children’s literature using outdated terminology regarded as discriminatory and to welcome literature visualising alternative family constellations. This might indicate a movement from neutrality towards post neutrality. That is even more explicit in one of our two reference libraries, where the plan for example states that competencies and working methods shall be developed on the basis of norm conscious inclusion and intersectional understanding (Göteborgs Stad, 2024: 7).

The conclusion of Fraser Arnott of a leeway for differences based on different national policies and cultures within a common set of professional norms and values is supported.

One difference between the plans in the two cities, is that the Budapest plan is linked more directly to the priorities in the superior city plans compared to the library plan for Oslo. In this respect, Budapest seems more in line with our benchmark plans – the Swedish guidelines for library planning and the library plans for the city of Gothenburg. The Swedish guidelines recommend that the library plan should contain paragraphs discussing its relationship to plans at superior levels – city level, regional level, national and international level. The Gothenburg plan contains a paragraph summarising relevant plans and priorities at city level and their consequences. The Copenhagen plan is more like the Oslo plan with respect to this.

The two plans are structured differently. The Budapest plan is more analytical, whereas the Oslo plan consists of a vision and a set of goals and subgoals without making explicit the analysis lying behind the selection of those goals and subgoals. The analytical approach of the Budapest plan is in line with the guidelines elaborated by the Royal Library of Sweden and the Gothenburg plan, whereas the Copenhagen plan has a structure more similar to the one we find in Oslo.

The differences we find between the two plans regarding instrumentality in relation to overriding goals and priorities at city level and structure and planning methodologies both seem to find support in our benchmark documents.

Further research

We have seen that there are some indications of a movement towards post neutrality, for example in the interview data from one of the central leaders in the Oslo public library, stating that children’s books on alternative family constellations are actively welcomed – a trend even more evident in Gothenburg – one of the reference libraries. (Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022). Do these indications of post neutrality represent a real movement? Or what about the fear expressed by some respondents of censorship, either governmental or self-censorship? Further research analyzing data from a broader specter of countries is needed to elicit these questions.