COVID, Disinformation, Technology, Budget Cuts: Can Knowledge Management Help Libraries Overcome Challenges?

2.1.1 COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic induced anxiety and stress among the general population, impacting libraries and their users (Kosciejew 2021; Obenauf 2021). Smith (2019) discussed various challenges faced by the public, which impacted public libraries. These include reduced trust in government, disbelief towards reliable information, decreased community engagement and civility, a shrinking middle class, resistance to taxes, shorter attention spans, declining reading habits, lack of diversity, insufficient recognition, and obstacles in library education. The necessity of implementing social distancing measures and ensuring public safety during Covid led to temporary closures or restricted access to library facilities. This affected vulnerable populations who relied on public libraries for internet access, educational support, and social interaction (Guernsey et al. 2021). Sheikh et al. (2023) conducted a bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 related literature published in the Library and Information Science journals. The themes and keywords they identified in the literature touched upon the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and how libraries responded to them. For example, in the theme, “library management,” and sub-theme, “managerial challenges and strategy,” some of the keywords are lockdown, impact, distribution, crisis, business continuity, and sustainability.

Similarly, they identified other themes in the areas of library services, education in libraries, library technology, and the wider impact on the information society, ranging from social media communication to helping bridge the digital divide to tackling Covid-related misinformation. Rivera-Macias and Casselden (2024) investigated the challenges experienced by different types of libraries in the Helsinki metropolitan area of Finland by asking library staff to reflect on the digital literacy services that they offered during the pandemic. The library staff found it hard to reach library patrons requiring digital support. They also highlighted the impact of teleworking, technology use, and the social aspects of working from home.

Ashiq et al. (2022) summarized seventeen studies on how libraries encountered challenges during the pandemic. These challenges, summarized in Table 1, encompass human and infrastructural issues, workplace anxiety and stress, impact of the infodemic and changes in information-seeking behavior, and leadership and planning concerns. We use Ashiq et al. (2022) as a theoretical lens to guide the library challenges aspect of our study.

Casselden and Paxton (2024) talk about how previous behavior patterns were interrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with changes in the use of public library resources and greater use of digital resources. In a mixed methods study, they investigated the views of public librarians on the provision and promotion of audiobooks in public libraries in England and Wales during the pandemic. They recommended ways in which audio books can be used and promoted better through social media.

2.1.2 Disinformation and Fake News

Libraries undergo a vetting process that online sources may lack. This vetting process is crucial and libraries play a key role in ensuring the validity of research. They do so by gathering trustworthy information in their collections, which could typically be peer-reviewed or verified in other ways (Mudditt 2015; Shannon and Bossaller 2015). The proliferation of social media has led to a vast amount of information being disseminated without rigorous vetting processes. Making it difficult for libraries to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the sources they provide. With over 62.3 % of the global population engaging with social media platforms, spending an average of 2 h and 23 min per day browsing and posting content, the validity of online information has become difficult to monitor (Chaffey 2024). Sullivan (2019) argues why librarians cannot fight fake news as they address the crisis without looking at its deeper issues, whereby librarians may see misinformation as something concerning students, audiences, the public, even educated people, or “others without the skills that supposedly inoculate librarians against fake news” (97). “Absent an understanding of our all-too-human vulnerability to misinformation, librarians risk characterizing the problem as somehow outside of themselves” (97). Librarians hesitate to take a frontline stance against politicized misinformation due to concerns about neutrality and to avoid political entanglements (Tripodi et al. 2023). Apart from the traditional services offered by libraries, libraries now provide digital literacy training programs and services to the user community which requires more effort. Through interviews and workshop discussions of public library staff from Washington State in the U.S., Young et al. (2021) suggest three areas in which researchers can support public libraries in helping to combat disinformation: 1) designing effective programming; 2) developing tools that help librarians keep up-to-date on relevant misinformation; and 3) intervening in the political and economic contexts that hamper the freedom of librarians to engage in controversial topics.

2.1.3 Technology

Technology has challenged libraries for a few decades now, with easy access to resources, discovery searching facilities, and Google Books search initiatives (MacColl 2006). Google, smartphones, blockchain, AI and other cutting-edge technologies compete for people’s attention and make it challenging for libraries to engage the user with its services, with a constant need for updates, new software, and collaboration with tech providers. Digital libraries have big starting costs and ongoing maintenance expenses for libraries. Librarians need to find new ways to secure funding and deal with copyright, licenses, and other formalities, which are more difficult than dealing with print materials (IFLA 2024). Technology helps librarians with websites and databases but also challenges them often due to lack of skills, infrastructural support, funding and awareness (Mohammed et al. 2022). Ojobor (2023) discusses how new technology such as blockchain can help libraries, but many libraries grapple with lack of enough money, electricity that doesn’t work all the time, bad internet, and not having enough skilled people to use the technology. The integration of modern technology into library operations and services, along with the escalating demands and expectations of users, necessitates comprehensive training. All these present different types of challenges for libraries.

2.1.4 Budget Cuts

The COVID-19 pandemic deeply affected library budgets, especially staffing, acquisition of materials, and library consortia services (Frederick et al. 2020; Green 2022; Johnson 2020; Machovec 2020). In a survey of 638 library directors, McKenzie (2020) found 75 % of them working with smaller budgets, which were cut by 1–9 % in 2020–21. In their study of 327 library employees in Kentucky, Hall and Duggins (2021) found that about 32.74 % of academic library staff postponed medical care due to pandemic-related budget concerns. This financial strain forced libraries to make tough decisions, including reducing staff, scaling back on acquisitions, and postponing infrastructure upgrades and new services. There is significant uncertainty about the financial recovery of libraries in the long run due to budget cuts made during the pandemic. Budget cuts create significant obstacles for libraries in their mission of providing information, education, and services to their users.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries enforced partial or complete shutdown of libraries, identifying them as non-essential services. In their study, Frederick and Wolff-Eisenberg (2020) found that libraries had to invest more in digital tools, quickly switch to remote support, and face budget cuts. This situation was particularly challenging for developing economies, where libraries often rely on government funding or support from parent institutions, both of which faced economic downturns (Salubi 2023). After a SWOT analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats faced by libraries, particularly post-pandemic, Salubi (2023) identified budgetary constraints as a weakness and threat that libraries are facing and are likely to continue to face.

2.1.5 Strengths and Opportunities for Libraries

However, the Covid pandemic also brings innovative services and practices worldwide for libraries to continue serving their communities. Library staff at the Open University of Sri Lanka used remote work periods during the pandemic to expand their collections of open educational resources and to improve access to these for students and faculty (Abeysekera et al. 2020).

During lockdown, Chinese libraries quickly adapted to digital services to promote reading (Xin 2022). Wuhan Library distributed QR codes in over fifty communities for cloud reading access and launched an online reading marathon with 15,545 participants. The National Library of China also introduced various online reading activities to keep readers engaged remotely (Xin 2022). Salubi (2023) proposed a “libraries of the future” framework where they identify several strengths and opportunities for libraries. These include trustworthy information sources, learning and teaching support, research collaboration, and digital and scholarly communication fed by technology-enhanced future information services. These services include information literacy and fact-checking to fight disinformation, data management and data literacy, preservation of cultural heritage, digital humanities, and democratization of access to accurate information and authoritative knowledge.

4.4.1 KM Awareness

Seventy participants (64.22 %) had heard of KM while 36 (33.03 %) hadn’t heard of it before. Three participants did not respond. Respondents indicated that they became familiar with KM through one or more channels including academic courses (fifty-three responses), reading and research (thirty responses), conferences and seminars (seventeen responses), work experience (twelve responses), and professional training (eight responses). Thus, they acquired knowledge of KM through a combination of formal education, professional development, and practical experience. The counts are more than the seventy positive responses as many people indicated multiple avenues through which they heard about KM.

4.4.2 Knowledge Sharing Culture

When asked if their library had a knowledge sharing culture, sixty-five respondents (59.63 %) said yes, eighteen said yes but with conditions (16.51 %), six were unsure (5.5 %), sixteen (14.68 %) said no, while four participants did not respond to the question. For those that reported having a culture of knowledge sharing in their libraries, various channels and practices are employed to encourage knowledge sharing. This includes group discussions, presentations, social media, meetings, and collaborations. Many libraries use tools like shared drives, intranets, and collaboration platforms to facilitate this culture. Some libraries also participate in consortia and organize seminars or symposiums to share knowledge. While there might not always be formal policies, the general trend is toward promoting knowledge sharing among staff and with library users. There is an emphasis on communication, collaboration, and documentation to support this culture.

These are examples of some “yes” responses: “Yes, we are pretty good at communicating knowledge throughout the organization by means of regular staff and department meetings, email and in internal Intranet to disseminate information”; “My library uses collaboration tools such as Teams to share and organize knowledge and information”; “We save and document and share. We have multiple people trained to do several jobs”; “We have a consortium with different email lists; we are able to share information easily and often”; “The most significant knowledge sharing culture of the… library is one that fosters an environment of collaboration and open communication among library staff and patrons.”

Those who indicated a qualified yes with conditions mentioned limited or inconsistent knowledge sharing: “Information between departments often travels slowly and management sometimes fails to keep staff aware of changes”; “We create documentation and lots of meeting notes, not so much active sharing and teaching”; “Practical knowledge is shared to deliver more consistent services; however, specialized knowledge tends to be siloed in pertinent departments without appropriate dissemination procedures in place. This leads to some confusion, inefficiency, and errors.”

Those who indicated a lack of knowledge sharing culture in their libraries cited factors such as technological limitations, divided practices among different departments, insufficient training and understanding of knowledge management, and issues related to management and staff turnover. Some responses highlighted challenges such as a lack of documentation, difficulties in finding the right information or personnel, and the small size of the library: “I believe our library does not have a knowledge sharing culture. The practices of different departments are very divided from each other”; “We do not have the current technological support to make this a reality”; “I believe this stems from having poor management for the last few years. The Director did not share information willingly with staff and did not leave much behind when he left”; “It’s been one of my major struggles here, finding exactly the right person who knows about exactly the thing that I need.”

4.4.3 Top Management Support and Technology Infrastructure for Knowledge Sharing

We asked if the library had top management support and technology infrastructure for knowledge sharing. Fifty-two indicated yes (47.71 %), twenty-four qualified yes (22.02 %), nine were unsure (8.26 %), eighteen said no (16.51 %), and six provided no responses.

These are some of the reasons provided indicating management and leadership support for knowledge sharing: “Our top management is highly supportive of knowledge sharing initiatives”; “The board of directors is directly involved in the day-to-day functioning of the library”; “We encourage idea generation and sharing information from conferences and events”; “We have leaders in each area of the firm and a KM system”; “Director and Friends group support novel ideas and innovations, funding materials and opportunities.” Participants also provided examples of technology infrastructure for sharing: “We do have state-of-the-art technology infrastructure for knowledge sharing”; “We use Microsoft SharePoint to share information”; “We have several places where knowledge sharing can take place, including a staff wiki and Google Drive.”

These were some of the responses for a qualified yes for management support and technology infrastructure: “Library management is supportive, however some of the town management remain somewhat skeptical about the value of the library and knowledge sharing”; “Support is there, but knowledge is lacking”; “We currently just use email, and Google Apps for education and not really a dedicated knowledge management system”; “Our technology infrastructure is improving with the dedication of a tech-savvy and super-intelligent Tech Services/IT librarian.”

Some were unsure: “If we do, then I trust upper management supports it, but at this time I am not sure.” The reasons for lack of management support and infrastructure were provided as follows: “No, we currently do not. But I hope that will change next year as the current director retires”; “People have been reprimanded for spending too much time ‘socializing’ when they were discussing programming ideas across departments”; “Our IT support is very limited (overworked) and heavily protected”; “We don’t have any such knowledge sharing infrastructure. Unofficially we share knowledge in soft form through e-mail, one-drive, or USB”; “Despite there being an internal demand for KM from the library on its holdings, we do not have the tech support to implement such capabilities”; “Our town is weak in adopting and maintaining current technologies. This is a major weakness across the entire town.”

4.4.4 Knowledge Management Practices

We asked the survey participants if their library had any KM practices (e.g., incentives or rewards for knowledge sharing; novel ideas and innovation supported or funded; brainstorming meetings, retreats, etc.). Forty-three said no (39.45 %), thirty-six said yes (33.03 %), sixteen qualified yes (14.68 %), six were unsure (5.5 %), and eight provided no responses.

This was the justification provided for lack of KM practices in the library: “There’s no incentive here to do better. The acknowledgement is only shown through words in a capitalistic society. [In] 2 years in the branch, I’m doing more work than the people who [have] been in the system for 20 years. If you are capable, they just take advantage of you”; “I like to use the analogy that if certain library folks were hit by a bus tomorrow, we would have no idea how to do their jobs because it’s not documented anywhere and most folks do not have any sort of back-up or cross-training”; “The practice is almost entirely top-down with very little incentives to share knowledge. I have already been scolded for sharing an idea directly to my colleagues without going first to my top one”; “There are no rewards for KM in my public library except maybe a thumbs up in a reply all email. We are encouraged to attend webinars and other professional development opportunities, but they aren’t really funded”; “All positions in the library are tightly controlled and unionized. No financial incentives are available. And town government’s thinking is quite limited and not aligned with library services or innovation.”

Respondents who indicated having successful KM practices listed: recognition and incentives, “Upper management provides special salary increments or promotions based on recommendations from the librarians to those who make significant contributions to our knowledge management processes,” “Incentives for knowledge-sharing include stipends ranging from $38.50 to $75 an hour,” “Travel grants and awards for submitting know-how incentivize knowledge sharing”; sharing platforms and practices, “Knowledge sharing is a part of every project, with documentation and instructions expected for future project members,” “Regular meetings, retreats, and workshops facilitate knowledge sharing,” “Library meetings, strategic planning sessions, and consortium activities contribute to information exchange”; technology and systems, “KOHA LMS is used for knowledge management,” “Funding is available for implementing knowledge-sharing systems”; training and development, “Trainings are supported and funded, and staff actively participate in teaching and learning,” “Funds are available for professional development if relevant to the current position,” “Monthly staff meetings, staff development days, and industry conference attendance are part of the learning culture”; communication channels, “Intranet, email blasts, and Shout-Out forms are employed for information dissemination and recognition”; and community engagement, “[we have] staff days for knowledge sharing, updating methods, and regular meetings of the Library Leadership Team.”

Some participants listed limited KM practices: “There’s only two of us working in the library generally, so we try to meet to discuss ideas but can’t always execute them the way we’d like”; “Verbal appreciations at staff meetings every month”; “There is no incentive or rewards, due to no such policy and budget, but we arrange brainstorming meetings and retreats”; “Innovation is supported when finances allow, retreats have happened with new leadership”; “Meetings once or twice a year, if that [counts].”

4.4.5 Perceived Helpfulness of KM to the Library

Participants were asked if adopting KM will help the library. Seventy-one (65.14 %) said yes, thirteen (11.93 %) qualified yes, ten (9.17 %) were unsure, two (1.83 %) said no, and thirteen provided no responses. Participants overall felt that adopting KM will enhance knowledge sharing, communication, and collaboration, “make it easier for people to work together,” “help in cross-collaboration between departments,” “lead to more transparent communication,” “promote better communication and inspire staff”; increase efficiency, “boost efficiency and productivity,” “cut down on staff time needed for training new employees,” “streamline processes and simplify tasks,” “help them make better decisions,” “improve customer service”; help retain organizational knowledge, “preservation of institutional repository and locally produced contents,” “maintaining continuity amidst staff turnover,” help support and train new employees “imparting hands-on training to employees,” “developing skills of colleagues,” “support any new library staff,” “help new staff learn what we do and how we do it”; and encourage innovation, “encourage new ideas,” “develop innovative and relevant services.”

The more guarded responses included not having enough information, “It sounds fantastic but I don’t know enough about it,” “there is a need to introduce the management and the employees with the concept of KM and then start to think how it will help”; yes and no, “we don’t have much organizational knowledge to benefit but I think the overall transfer and sharing of knowledge would benefit,” “Yes, if the library manager has deep knowledge and expertise, and No if his wrong ideas transferred to the newcomers”; and not having the right technology knowhow and resources for KM, “I think it could, but the technological aptitude of our librarians varies greatly, so the buy-in to learn new things isn’t always easy to come by,” “It could with the proper technology and staff time and resources to update and maintain it,” “That would be nice, but it would also be another system to maintain. We kind of operate in silos, so it would be a lot of duplicated work… We use Niche Academy and a shared drive, but it’s still quite clunky,” “Somewhat, but again, we’re small, and the effort to keep up anything formal would be more cumbersome and inefficient than what we do now.”

Some were unsure: “I would have to weigh my options, but this appears like an interesting proposal for a library,” while two said no, “I don’t really know enough about it, but things seem to be working well for us as is.”