![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Schedule:
Friday, January 17, 2025
Ballard, Level 3 (Sheraton Grand Seattle)
* noted as presenting author
Background and Purpose: Library social work is an emerging field where libraries and social workers partner to meet the psychosocial needs of library patrons. With libraries being situated as the last truly public spaces, they are positioned as centers of communities and have called upon the field of social work to assist in navigating the changing landscape of their patrons. Library social work has existed for over ten years, yet research has struggled to keep up with practice. This study was the first nationwide study on library social work from the perspective of the people who are doing the work: library social workers. This research explored barriers and facilitators to practice as well as insights on developing, implementing, and practicing library social work.
Methods: This study utilized a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. The quantitative survey focused on practitioner professional background, practice setting, practice tasks and duties, and experience in practice setting. The survey results were used to guide the semi-structured qualitative interviews, which further explored the experiences of social workers practicing in libraries. Participants consisted of social workers practicing in libraries in the United States and were recruited through various professional networking sources.
Results: Thirty-nine respondents completed the survey. Participants reported blending a mix of micro, mezzo, and macro tasks into their work in libraries. They noted that the biggest challenge, most important, and the most lacking in their work in libraries was access to community resources. Fourteen library social workers participated in follow-up interviews where participants discussed issues with role clarity, differences in professional philosophies among librarians and social workers, and a current trend in library social work programs ending due to issues surrounding inflated expectations of the work social workers can do within these settings.
Conclusions and Implications: In its current state, the field of library social work is not an interdisciplinary practice. Libraries act as host sites for social work practice to occur under the constraints and demands of public libraries without full consideration of professional social work values and ethics. Because of this tension, library social work programs are ending, whether because of social workers resigning or libraries feeling a sense of “buyer’s remorse” as social workers did not perform in the ways they anticipated due to a lack of understanding of the profession of social work. It is recommended that libraries become fully informed about the profession of social work, including an understanding of the importance of supervision, licensure, liability, and continuing education, before seeking out such partnerships. Future studies should also take into consideration the challenges of social work practice in other host sites to better understand this practice.
Methods: This study utilized a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. The quantitative survey focused on practitioner professional background, practice setting, practice tasks and duties, and experience in practice setting. The survey results were used to guide the semi-structured qualitative interviews, which further explored the experiences of social workers practicing in libraries. Participants consisted of social workers practicing in libraries in the United States and were recruited through various professional networking sources.
Results: Thirty-nine respondents completed the survey. Participants reported blending a mix of micro, mezzo, and macro tasks into their work in libraries. They noted that the biggest challenge, most important, and the most lacking in their work in libraries was access to community resources. Fourteen library social workers participated in follow-up interviews where participants discussed issues with role clarity, differences in professional philosophies among librarians and social workers, and a current trend in library social work programs ending due to issues surrounding inflated expectations of the work social workers can do within these settings.
Conclusions and Implications: In its current state, the field of library social work is not an interdisciplinary practice. Libraries act as host sites for social work practice to occur under the constraints and demands of public libraries without full consideration of professional social work values and ethics. Because of this tension, library social work programs are ending, whether because of social workers resigning or libraries feeling a sense of “buyer’s remorse” as social workers did not perform in the ways they anticipated due to a lack of understanding of the profession of social work. It is recommended that libraries become fully informed about the profession of social work, including an understanding of the importance of supervision, licensure, liability, and continuing education, before seeking out such partnerships. Future studies should also take into consideration the challenges of social work practice in other host sites to better understand this practice.