Research Proposal: Revaluating Accessibility at our Libraries

Even if our libraries are ADA compliant, they may still not meet patrons' needs.

May 30, 2024

white concrete building under blue sky during daytime — Photo by JACQUELINE BRANDWAYN on Unsplash

Preface

This is a hypothetical research proposal I created for a MLIS class. It is by no means perfect - I received an 85 out of 100. Nevertheless, I’m very proud of it. This is the first research proposal I’ve written, and I learned a lot. I expect my next proposal will be even better.

I made some edits to the original document including removing some identifying information.

Introduction and Research Question

Ara & Soroya (2018) write, “A library, which is accessible for anyone irrespective of any prejudice such as age, gender, education, faith, professional, societal and financial status etc., is called a public library” (p. 12). It therefore follows that accessibility is no mere convenience the public library offers but a core component of its identity.

The issues of accessibility are varied. Hemsley et al. (2014), for example, found communication problems between healthcare providers and children with cerebral palsy were prevalent in hospital settings. It is reasonable to assume similar problems will occur for library patrons with cerebral palsy. In another study, MLIS graduate students reported feeling generally unprepared to work with patrons with disabilities or address activities related to accessibility (Pionke 2020). Hill (2020) conducted research on the digital accessibility of Ontario public library websites and found that thoughtful framing can positively impact patron’s perceptions and experiences.

This proposal, however, will be limited to the physical accessibility, or the “built environment” because such examinations are rare (Hill 2020, p.4).

The Americans with disabilities act (ADA) of 1990 has greatly improved the accessibility of American buildings (Church & Marston 2003). Unfortunately, some buildings of the [hypothetical library] system were constructed prior to the ADA laws going into effect. This severely inhibits the accessibility for patrons with mobility issues. Moreover, the ADA’s “standards-based” measurements of accessibility does not consider the number of accessible routes or the quality of those routes (Church & Marston 2003, p. 84). Thus, the branches that are ADA compliant are not necessarily as accessible as they could be. Hill (2020) calls this “technically accessible” and notes that legislation alone cannot guarantee accessibility (pp. 1-2).

It is, therefore, the purpose of this research proposal to reassess the accessibility at the library. The proposed research question is to determine the barriers and facilitators to accessibility of the library for patrons. Additional questions include:

What challenges do patrons face when using the library system?
What are cost-effective ways in which the library can address those challenges?
What assistive technologies or services does the library provide?
What are the patrons’ feelings about those services or technologies?
What would patrons like to see added or changed to better address their needs?

Because accessibility is critical to what a public library is, it will be necessary to ascertain a comprehensive understanding of what is working (i.e., facilitators) and what is impeding (i.e., barriers) accessibility.

Literature Review

There are a number of published research articles on the topic of accessibility. Many of them concerned themselves with “assistive technologies, tools and services, and library usage by persons with disabilities” (Yadav & Singh 2022, p. 68). Yadav & Singh (2022) found that Indian Institutes of Technology students highlighted the need for accessible formats, assistive technologies and trained staff. Moreover, libraries needed to promote awareness of services (p. 82).

Pionke (2020) explored library graduate students’ perceptions of disability and accessibility education. He found that students felt unprepared to work with patrons with disabilities and recommended integrating a robust curriculum of disability education with practical skills to help students be prepared for real-world challenges.

Ayoung, Naazi-ale Baada & Baayel (2020) had similar findings to the above-mentioned articles. The researchers also added a lack of physical infrastructure (e.g., wheelchair ramps) as a barrier to accessibility. Moirangthem & Phuritsabam (2022) repeat the infrastructure problem as well as the digital problem of accessibility raised by Hill (2020). In addition to robust accessibility training, Moirangthem & Phuritsabam (2022) recommend that libraries adopt universal policies to prevent some libraries or branches within a library system from lagging behind.

From this literature review three themes start to emerge. First, libraries need to address the physical infrastructure. This may require remodeling aging Carnegie buildings (Copeland 2011 as cited in Hill 2020). Also, library infrastructure decisions should consider both absolute and relative access to enhance inclusivity for people with disabilities (Church & Marston 2003).

Second, future librarians need comprehensive training (Ayoung, Naazi-ale Baada & Baayel 2020; Moirangthem & Phuritsabam 2022; Pionke 2020; Yadav & Singh 2022).

Third, libraries need to provide assistive technologies, including digitally inclusive spaces (Ayoung, Naazi-ale Baada & Baayel 2020; Hill 2020; Moirangthem & Phuritsabam 2022; Yadav & Singh 2022).

Ayoung, Naazi-ale Baada & Baayel (2020) point out a major difficulty libraries face when trying to address these three themes: budget. The authors write:

The cost of a technological and communication infrastructure far exceeds the budgets allocated for library and information systems (Madhusudhan, 2010). This is corroborated by Khetarpal (2014), who contends that assistive technologies are either limited or non-existent in low-income-per capita countries (p. 174).

Moirangthem & Phuritsabam (2022) came to a similar conclusion: “lack of fund[s] is the most important constraint in providing equal access” (p. 12). For this reason, identifying the problem isn’t enough. Libraries and researchers need to come up with cost-effective solutions.

Finally, it is worth noting that communication is a growing concern. Ara & Soroya (2018) investigated expectations and perceptions of library services and found that besides closing the accessibility gap, librarians need to improve communications. This problem is compounded when patrons have a disability such as cerebral palsy (Gulmans et al. 2009; Hemsley et al 2014), or even if they are very young. Watson, Abbot & Townsley (2006) found that children's voices are essential for service improvement in a healthcare setting and that inclusive research practices lead to better services for children with complex health needs. There is no reason not to assume this wouldn’t also be the case for those same children trying to utilize their local library. Children's voices being included in library research may also improve library services.

Thank you for reading Inverted Gentleman Reviews. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Methodology

The proposed research will use a mixed method approach utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data. The data will be collected primarily through surveys made available to patrons who physically enter the library. The surveys will be a combination of paper and digital accessed by scanning a QR code. Appendix A contains the list of survey questions.

Surveys are appropriate because the study can take a large sample size in a relatively short period of time and produce unbiased representation (CSSLOhioStateU 2013). Also, given the sensitive nature of the topic, surveys will provide anonymity and, thus, promote more participation and produce more reliable results (CSSLOhioStateU 2013).

The surveys will be supplemented by semi-structured interviews with library staff, specifically, librarians and managers. Appendix B contains a guide that the interviewer will use to conduct the interview. However, the guide is not exhaustive, and the interviewer may wish to deviate from the guide depending on the responses of the interviewees.

Interviews and their semi-structured nature are appropriate for this research because open-ended questions may lead to “unexpected insights” and the causes of perceptions (Gorman & Clayton 2005, p. 125). Also, interviews can gather a large quantity of rich information in a fairly short amount of time (Gorman & Clayton 2005).

Sampling and Data Collection

The population the research will survey are physical, in-person adult users of the library with self-reported mobility issues. Excluded are patrons who only use digital materials, such as the Libby app or the library website. Non-users are also excluded. As such, the sample will be taken from in-person users of the library. Paper surveys and QR links will be made available to all patrons who enter the library, but surveys without self-reported mobility issues will be discarded. The sample will be random.

The surveys will be made available for eight weeks in order to collect a large sample size and to provide ample time for completion by the surveyed. The data will be analyzed in the remaining seven weeks of the project. Surveys will be anonymous in that survey response sheets will not ask for identifying information. Surveys will also contain a consent form.

The surveyed will be asked to 1). fill out a paper survey during their visit and return it to staff before they leave; 2). fill out the paper survey at their convenience and return it to staff at their next visit that is within the eight-week time frame; or 3). scan the QR code and complete the survey at their convenience within the eight-week time frame.

The surveys will be administered and collected by library staff, but their participation will be nominal. Specifically, staff will make patrons aware of the survey, answer questions and collect and store the paper surveys until the researchers collect them at the end of the eight weeks. Staff will be instructed not to read survey responses. Digital surveys will be conducted by and stored in Qualtrics. Paper surveys will be put into Qualtrics before analysis (see next section).

Librarians and managers from all branches will be asked to participate in the interview portion of the study. Ideally, there will be at least one representative from each branch. More may be permitted if time allows.

Interviews will be conducted for 10 weeks contemporaneously with the surveys. Five researchers performing one interview a week will more than cover the potential 40 interviews to be conducted. Interviews are anticipated to be 30 to 60 minutes long. Interviews will be recorded (audio), transcribed and coded (see next section). The data will be analyzed in the final weeks alongside survey data. Follow-up interviews are not anticipated but could be conducted in the final weeks of the study if absolutely necessary.

Data Preparation and Analysis

The collected surveys will be analyzed using the Qualtrics software. Using this software the team will be able to create charts and graphics, determine mean and standard deviation and perform Chi squared tests for validity. It is hoped that the data will give an accurate picture of how patrons with mobility issues feel about the library’s accessibility. Once that picture is established the research can answer the primary question: what are the barriers and facilitators to accessibility of the library for patrons?

As stated, interviews will be recorded, transcribed and coded in the manner suggested by Saldaña (2016, pp. 5-7). The five researchers will be responsible for coding their own interviews. They will keep a detailed codebook to facilitate coherence and avoid confusion. The researchers will perform the coding throughout the project. The researchers will look for patterns in disability type, demographic, recurring barriers, recurring facilitators, complaints, suggestions and desired improvements. Those codes will be further refined into categories, or “consolidated meaning” where appropriate (Saldaña 2016, pp. 9-11).

The codebook will include at a minimum the following entries (adapted from Bernard & Ryan 2010 as cited in Saldaña 2016, p. 28):

Code name
Detailed description of the code’s qualities
Criteria for what data are include or excluded
Examples of data to be included and excluded

The interviews are supplementary data to the main data collected in the survey. The data collected here will be used to clarify, add to and verify (Gorman & Clayton 2005) the data collected in the surveys. The hope is to better understand the barriers and facilitators to accessibility as identified in the surveys.

Reports

The survey data will be reported using the charts and graphs generated by the Qualtrics software. This will demonstrate visually how in-person adult patrons with mobility issues feel about the library’s accessibility, what challenges they face, what changes they’d like to see and what services are provided. Interview data will be discussed in the text of the presentation where relevant to the aforementioned charts and graphs.

This proposed research project will contribute a better understanding of what is working and what is not working in terms of library access. With this understanding, improvements can be made with special attention focused on the biggest problems. Smaller problems can be deferred. This will ensure the greatest amount of improvement with minimum time and costs.

Limitations to the Study

There are two foreseen limitations to the proposed study. First, in-person patrons who have certain disabilities such as severe cognitive impairment may not be able to take the survey. While a librarian or caregiver might be able to help this hypothetical individual take the survey it is still likely to be a determent. This will affect sampling and, thus, the data. Similarly, patrons who cannot access the library due to the limitations of accessibility here studied may be excluded from the sample. Those patrons may have also migrated to online uses of the library, which is not being studied.

Second, every branch library is different. Some are ADA compliant while others are not. While this proposal is a system wide study to create an overall picture of accessibility, future research may consider a branch-by-branch method.

Because communication and cognitive abilities are not part of this study, future research may wish to explore the effects of neurodivergence on accessibility as mentioned by Gulmans et al. (2009) and Hemsley et al (2014). Incorporating children’s points of view may also be fertile grounds for future studies (Watson, Abbot & Townsley 2006). Internet accessibility as described by Hill (2020) is yet another area of possible research.

Work Plan

Week 1 (beginning of): Make surveys available at library branches. Begin scheduling interviews.

Weeks 1-8: Library staff make patrons aware of the survey, answer questions and collect and store the surveys. Researchers conduct interviews at a minimum of one per week. They also transcribe and code the interviews.

Week 8 (end of): Surveys are collected and no longer made available.

Week 10 (end of): All interviews are complete, transcribed and coded.

Weeks 9-14: Data is prepared and analyzed.

Week 15: The report is put together.

Appendix A - Survey Questions

Introduction

This survey intends to determine users' satisfaction with their libraries’ accessibility. It will also help determine what, if any, improvements can be made to the libraries’ accessibility. All answers are private and confidential.

This survey is designed as part of an exercise in survey development for [my class]. Your participation is completely voluntary. The data collected will be used only for educational purposes, will not be used in research, and will not be published.

Do you consent to participate?