Journal of the Australian Library and Information

Association

ISSN: 2475-0158 (Print) 2475-0166 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ualj21

Public libraries and access for children with

disabilities and their families: a proposed inclusive
library model

Joanne Kaeding, Diane L. Velasquez & Deborah Price

To cite this article: Joanne Kaeding, Diane L. Velasquez & Deborah Price (2017):
Public libraries and access for children with disabilities and their families: a proposed
inclusive library model, Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, DOI:
10.1080/24750158.2017.1298399

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2017.1298399

Published online: 06 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ualj21

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 13 March 2017, At: 05:15
Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2017.1298399

Public libraries and access for children with disabilities and

their families: a proposed inclusive library model
Joanne Kaedinga, Diane L. Velasquezb and Deborah Pricec
a
Library and Information Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia; bSchool of
Information Technology and Mathematical Sciences, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, Australia;
c
School of Education, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Within the library profession, there is widespread support for access to Public libraries; children with
libraries for people with disabilities. However, there is limited literature disabilities; inclusive library
on the topic of access to public libraries for children with disabilities model
and their families and very little empirical research on this topic exists.
This paper reports on an investigation of factors influencing access
to public libraries for children with disabilities and their families from
the perspective of the public librarian. An in-depth study of 18 public
librarians who focus on providing access to public libraries for children
with disabilities was undertaken. Librarians from the United States and
Canada took part in both a one-on-one interview and a questionnaire.
Based on the research findings, a model for inclusive public libraries
is proposed.

Introduction
Accessibility for everyone is fundamental to the concept of the public library. This is reflected
in library mission statements and professional library literature, including guidelines pro-
duced by library professional bodies throughout the world. The Australian Library and
Information Association (ALIA) state, ‘Public libraries are safe and trusted and inclusive
public spaces where everyone is welcome’ (Australian Library and Information Association
[ALIA], 2016, p. 13).
Unfortunately, this is not always the experience of children with disabilities and their
families. Public libraries can be intimidating or uncomfortable places for children with dis-
abilities. For example, a child with autism may be sensitive to noise, bright lights and smells.
This discomfort may trigger responses including screaming or repetitive behaviours. The
parent may feel self-conscious and concerned that other library users and staff are judging
them, which may result in the child and family choosing to leave the library (Rudy, 2013).
Libraries have a long history of providing accessible services to people with disability,
preceding many other social and government organisations (Hill, 2013; Jaeger, Wentz, &
Bertot, 2015a). Specialised library services have played an important role in this; however,
almost all libraries do provide a level of access and inclusion for people with disabilities

CONTACT  Joanne Kaeding  joanne.kaeding@mymail.unisa.edu.au

© 2017 Australian Library & Information Association
2   J. KAEDING ET AL.

(Jaeger et al., 2015a). Currently, the majority of large public libraries in Australia and the
United States provide borrowing materials in different formats, including audio and digital
books. Provision of ramps, elevators and wheelchair accessible desks are also good examples
of public libraries addressing inclusion of individuals with physical disabilities.
While these initiatives demonstrate libraries have endeavoured to provide access to all,
there are always opportunities for improvement. This paper explores the perceptions of
public library access for children with disabilities and their families and concludes by pro-
posing an inclusive library model. To begin, an overview of the research surrounding public
library access follows.

Literature review
In 2013, Hill undertook a major literature review of libraries and accessibility. Hill ana-
lysed 198 published articles in the field of library and information science over the period
2000–2010, identifying the major issues and trends relating to accessibility and disability.
The author identified that the primary focus of research in this area, at 25%, was electronic
accessibility (e.g. web access). Although it was the second most common focus, the issue of
services provided to people with a disability made up only 12% of the research. The most
frequently researched disability, at 41%, was visual disability. Learning disabilities were the
next most common, making up just 9% of the literature. Hill notes that her review con-
firms the findings of previous studies into this field, undertaken by authors such as Davies
(2007), Saumure and Given (2004) and Williamson, Schauder, and Bow (2000). These
studies showed that very little research investigated what people with disability might want
and need from libraries. There was also limited research involving the social and attitudinal
aspects of disability as they relate to library accessibility.
A later literature review by Small, Myhill, and Herring-Harrington (2015), as part of their
research into access and inclusion in libraries, reported similar results. Like Hill (2013), they
found that there was limited research into access and inclusion for people with disabilities
other than sight or hearing, such as intellectual or developmental. Small et al. (2015) found
that progress in achieving access and inclusion in libraries differed depending on the type
of library. They noted that public libraries had progressed further than other libraries, how-
ever, the focus of public libraries had been on physical accessibility and different resource
formats. The authors also revealed four major obstacles to accessible and inclusive libraries,
including: insufficient time and money; decisions made outside of the libraries’ control (for
example building developments); patrons not aware of accessible and inclusive resources
and services; and librarians lacking appropriate knowledge, skills and attitude.
An earlier study by Copeland (2011), who explored the experiences of students with disa-
bilities, had noted similar obstacles into library accessibility. In particular, that the librarian’s
knowledge and attitude to disability impacted library accessibility, and that libraries were
limited by time and financial constraints in developing accessible libraries. However, despite
accessibility challenges, patrons with disabilities loved their libraries (Copeland, 2011).
Information technology and the Internet continue to be a research focus in the area of
accessibility for people with disabilities and libraries. In 2015, the series publication Advances
in Librarianship published an edition on the topic ‘Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities and
the Inclusive Future of Libraries’. Research by Jaeger et al. (2015a) and Jaeger, Wentz, and Bertot
(2015b) examined the opportunities the Internet and new information technologies provide for
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   3

increased accessibility to people with disabilities; including accessible library websites, online
resources and databases and new technology devices. Jaeger et al. (2015b) remind us that access
to the Internet and information is a human right, without which people can be suppressed and
exploited, and their article clearly outlines the role of libraries in meeting the human rights and
social justice needs of people with disabilities, particularly as they relate to digital inclusion.
Other research in the area of digital inclusion for people with disabilities and libraries
explored e-resources and the issues for library collection. Schmetzke (2015) found that librar-
ians responsible for collection development of accessible e-resources lacked training and that
collection development policies were not adequate in regard to accessible e-resources. Related to
this is the issue of library web page accessibility. Research findings reveal that despite attempts to
develop accessible library web pages, accessibility remains an issue, and in particular much of the
online content is not accessible (Lush, 2015; Riley-Huff, 2015; Youngblood, 2015). Youngblood
(2015) and Riley-Huff (2015) discuss the legal issues of library web pages not meeting accessi-
bility standards; with some academic libraries having complaints filed against them.
In the Australian context, research by Fitzgerald, Hawkins, Denison, and Kop (2015)
examined the Australian public libraries and digital access and inclusion for people with
disabilities. The authors found that despite the interest from public libraries there is a dearth
of research into digital access and inclusion for people with disabilities and public libraries.
Predominantly the research discussed above has not differentiated the age of the people
with disabilities. Although the findings have potential relevance to children with disabilities,
research focused directly at public library access and inclusion for children with disabilities
is limited. One study undertaken by Prendergast (2016) researched how public librari-
ans provide for and support early literacy development for children with disabilities. She
interviewed both public librarians and parents of children with disabilities. Prendergast’s
major findings were: the curriculum in library schools did not prepare librarians to support
the needs of children with disabilities and their families; there was a disconnect between
librarians and families of children with disabilities; and that outreach played an important
role in developing interactions between them. She also commented that collaboration with
other professionals, such as speech pathologists working in the area of disability, could bring
benefits for librarians and families (Prendergast, 2016).
Another study undertaken by Adkins and Bushman (2015) researched public library
programmes for children with disabilities, surveying 39 children’s librarians and interview-
ing five. Adkins and Bushman (2015) results indicated that a limited number of children’s
librarians provided programmes for children with disabilities, however, those that did were
very enthusiastic and were primarily responsible for the continuation of such programmes.
The programmes were not marketed and relied on community contacts to reach patrons.
Like Copeland (2011), Adkins and Bushman (2015) found the primary challenges for the
librarians were a lack of training, followed by a lack of time and money.

Definitions
Disabilities
For the purpose of this paper, the following United Nations International Children’s
Emergency Fund [UNICEF] definition of children with disabilities up to the age of 18 will
be used.
4   J. KAEDING ET AL.

… [children who have] long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which
in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society
on an equal basis with others. (United Nations, 1989, as cited in UNICEF, 2013, p. 4)

Access
The term ‘access’ as it relates to public libraries and children with disabilities and their
families is used in this study in a broad sense. It includes physical, intellectual, sensory,
emotional and psychological accessibility. For a public library to be accessible, participants
need to be able to both physically attend and also to participate at a meaningful level.

Families of children with disabilities

The phrase ‘families of children with disabilities’ will be used to include the following:
• Immediate and extended family members (parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, and
uncles)
• Carers/or guardians/nurses or allied health care worker

Universal design
This paper will use the following definition of universal design.
… the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent
possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. (Center for Universal Design,
1997, p. 2)

Problem statement
People with a disability are the largest minority group in the world (United Nations
International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2013; p. 4). In 2009, 7% of children under 14
in Australia were identified as having a disability, which equates to approximately one in
13 children. Of the long-term disabilities children experience, intellectual and psychiatric
disorders were identified as being the most common for children under 14 (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2012, ‘Disability rates’ section, para. 1 and ‘Long-term conditions’
section, para. 2–6).
Children with disabilities have a right to access public libraries; however, there are bar-
riers to the reality of this for children with disabilities and their families. Notwithstanding
the widespread support for increased access to libraries for people with disabilities, these
barriers still exist and the literature reveals research into children with disabilities and
public libraries is limited.
It is the aim of this research to explore the public library professional’s perspective of
access and inclusion of children with disabilities and their families. It is intended that the
results of the study can be used to elucidate how public libraries provide access for children
with disabilities and their families and to inform future practices in this area. Different
types of disabilities will not be specifically looked at, but a broad approach will be used in
the research.
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   5

The research questions of the study are:

• What are the issues of accessibility and inclusion for children with disabilities and
their families visiting a public library?
• How do library staff experience these issues?
• Why do so few public libraries focus on accessibility and inclusion for children with
disabilities and their families?
• What can public libraries do to increase access and inclusion for children with disa-
bilities and their families?

Research design
Methodology
An in-depth study of 18 library professionals with experience in providing access and inclu-
sion to public libraries for children with disabilities was undertaken. Librarians, from the
United States and Canada, took part in both a one-on-one interview and a questionnaire.
A mixed method research approach was employed, applying Charmaz’s (2014) grounded
theory as the research design. The mixed method approach involved collecting data in
both a quantitative (closed) and qualitative (open) format. The mixed method approach
was chosen as it has the potential to give multiple dimensions and perspectives to the
research. The data were compared to provide a greater depth of understanding of the dif-
ferent perspectives and to reveal inaccuracies between the two data-sets. The comparisons
also highlighted differences between what actually happens and what the participant values.
For example, a participant might value making connections with families of children with
disabilities; however, this might not translate to practice. Creswell (2014, p. 215) notes the
mixed method approach can provide ‘a stronger understanding of the problem or question
than either [qualitative or quantitative] by itself ’.
Grounded theory is described by Creswell (2014) as a design of inquiry which involves
developing a general theory or model, based on the analysis of the participants’ views. In
this research grounded theory, influenced by Charmaz’s social constructivist approach, was
applied. This theory allowed the research to address not only ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions,
but also ‘why’ (Charmaz, 2008). In grounded theory, all information is considered data
(Creswell, 2014). The theory also offers a systematic approach to analysing qualitative data
and has been used in this research to develop a model of inclusive practice for children
with disabilities in public libraries.
The qualitative method involved one-on-one interviews on location with each partic-
ipant. To ensure validity and consistency in the interview process, a common protocol to
conduct the interview was used with each participant. The protocol included outlining the
research project, describing the interview process, explaining the research information
sheet and ethics approval, detailing the interviewer’s responsibilities, and developing a rap-
port with the participant. To allow for flexibility in participant responses, the interviews
were semi-structured and consisted of nine open-ended questions. The questions were
designed to prompt discussion and were used to ensure consistency in the topics covered
in each interview. Using semi-structured interviews allowed co-construction between the
participant and the interviewer. This meant the interviewer and participant could pace the
6   J. KAEDING ET AL.

discussion; that is, to go into greater depth on a topic, explore a topic from a different stance
or to return to a topic. This approach respected the individuality of the experiences of each
participant. Charmaz (2008) refers to this interview process as intensive interviewing and
recommends intensive interviewing in grounded theory as it allows emergent leads and
ideas to be followed.
The quantitative method involved participants answering an online questionnaire. The
questionnaire consisted of 41 items that encouraged respondents to reflect upon their expe-
riences and knowledge relating to providing library services to children with disabilities
and their families. It contained 33 multiple-choice items, five open-ended items and three
Likert-type scale items. The Likert-type scale required participants to select from a five-point
rating system. The questions were used to gauge a participant’s perspective of an issue; for
example, ‘How would you rate access and inclusion for children with disabilities at your
library?’ In each of the questionnaire activities, participants were required to consider their
assessment and experiences of current and future inclusive practices of the library at which
they work and public libraries in general. The research was granted ethics approval by the
University of South Australia Research Ethics Committee.

Data collection and analysis

Survey Monkey was used to capture the online questionnaire data. The quantitative data
from the questionnaire were translated into percentages. Answers to the open-ended ques-
tions were analysed iteratively. The answers were initially coded, as more questionnaires
were analysed the codes were then used to develop concepts, once all the questionnaires
had been analysed the concepts were categorised.
The one-on-one interviews were hand scribed and hand coded. As recommended by
Charmaz (2014), the data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously. The coding of
data began with the first interview. As further interviews were completed, the coding was
continually revisited and influenced by new data. The coding process required questions
to be asked about what the data meant in the context of the study. This type of questioning
led to constant analysis and informed the continuing data collection.
Each sentence of the data was coded, with codes coming from the data. The codes were
used to describe the actions in the data. Charmaz (2015) recommends analysing the data
with the question ‘What is happening here?’ (p. 405). After several interviews were coded,
the codes were grouped together into categories. To check for accuracy, a descriptive sum-
mary of the participant’s perspective was written and given to the participants for comment
and member checking.
Categories and sub-categories were teased out from the codes and then clustered. Memo
writing was used throughout to explore, test and develop theoretical analysis of the data. In
using this continuing process, gaps in data could be identified and further data could be col-
lected. From this process, a model of an inclusive public library emerged. Theoretical sampling
was used to test the rigour of the model. Surprising results were re-examined with the follow-
ing questions explored. How did they fit with the literature? How did they fit with the data?
The data from the questionnaire and the interviews were collected concurrently, analysed
separately and the results were then compared. The comparison of the data added a depth
of understanding to the perspectives of the participants and identified consistencies and
inconsistencies.
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   7

Participants
Eighteen participants with experience in the area of access to public libraries for children
with disabilities and their families; including two authors who have published how-
to-manuals on the topic were recruited for the research. All of the participants took part
in both the interview and the online questionnaire. The participants represented 16 public
libraries and two cultural institutions. Due to the concentration of key professionals in
the field, participants were from five different states in the United States and two different
provinces in Canada. Research was undertaken on location. Of the participants involved,
15 worked at a library that focused on access and inclusion for all children with disabilities.
The disability focus at the remaining three institutions was: mental (autism) at two libraries
and sensory (vision and hearing) at one.

Recruitment
To ensure validity of the data, purposive sampling was used to select participants. Palys
(2008) describes purposive sampling as a method that enables a researcher to make strategic
choices about who the participants are. For this research, only participants with demon-
strated experience in providing inclusive public library services to children with disabilities
were invited to take part in the research. Participants were contacted directly by email.
Eighteen professionals responded to the invitation. The following criteria were used to
select the participants interviewed:
• authored a journal article, a ‘how-to’ book, an online blog or other publication on the
topic of access to public libraries for children with disabilities;
• developed and produced a training package on the topic;
• presented a paper on the topic at a national conference;
• responsible for an international collection of resources for children with disabilities
and their families;
• member of an online network for public libraries interested in access and inclusion
for children with disabilities; and
• recommendations from other professional librarians based on the participants expe-
rience in providing public library children’s services to children with disabilities.

Findings
The key topics explored in both the questionnaire and the interview were:
• library demographics;
• accessible and inclusive children’s library services offered;
• impetus for the development of accessible and inclusive children’s library services;
• library barriers to accessible and inclusive children’s library services;
• factors supporting accessible and inclusive children’s library services; and
• future library plans for access and inclusion.
The following is a discussion of the findings from both the questionnaire and the inter-
view on these topics.
8   J. KAEDING ET AL.

Higher Socio-Economic 61.1

English Speaking 61.1

Average Socio-Economic 38.9

Lower Socio-Economic 33.3

Other 33.3

Non-English Speaking 16.7

Figure 1. How would you describe the community your library serves?
Note: Table will not equal 100% as respondents were asked to choose all that.

Programs children 94.4

Library staff attitudes 88.9
Awareness children 77.8
Information technology 66.7
Appropriateness collection 66.7
Library's physical 55.6
Communication difficulties 44.4
Other Library Visitors 38.9
Other 16.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 2. Has your library made attempts to address any of the following barriers?

Library demographics
The 18 libraries involved in the study answered the online questionnaire in full. The demo-
graphics of the libraries revealed through the questionnaire are described in Figure 1.

Accessible and inclusive children’s library services

Participants were asked during the interview to describe how their library worked towards
improving access for this group of their community. Responses revealed the following
categories: staff training, library programmes, partnerships, collection development and
physical barriers (space and equipment). In the online questionnaire, participants were
given a list of eight possible barriers to public library access for children with disabilities
and their families, as well as an open-ended option. They were asked to choose all of the
areas that their library had attempted to address and to include any others not listed. As
can be seen in Figure 2, similar findings to the interviews were revealed. The questionnaire
indicated that the most common areas libraries have attempted to address were:
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   9

Targeted Story Times 72.2

Inclusive Story Times 61.1
Other 44.4
Outreach 44.4
Assistance Dogs 44.4
Crafts 33.3
Music Programs 33.3
Gardening 16.7
None 11.1

Figure 3. Does your library offer any of the following library services or programmes for children with
disabilities on a regular basis?

• library programmes;
• library staff attitudes, sensitivities and awareness; and
• understanding the characteristics and needs of children with disabilities in their
community.
The participants’ focus on these three areas is evident throughout the rest of the ques-
tionnaire and interview findings.
A barrier that was noted in the open-ended option of the questionnaire was an economic
barrier. The libraries of both of these respondents waived fees and fines for children of dis-
abilities and their families. However, this was not raised as a significant issue by any of the
participants in the interviews. Many of the libraries perhaps chose to tackle easier barriers
like collection development of inclusive literature and technology.
When asked in the questionnaire about the kinds of programmes that the libraries ran
regularly for children with disabilities the results showed an even spread of responses.
Figure 3 details the most common responses. Participants were also given the opportunity
to list other programmes that they provided for children with disabilities. Of the nine other
responses given, activities that focused on social interaction (e.g. gaming nights) made up
the greatest number (62%) of responses.
The interviews indicated that there was some discrepancy between public librarians
as to whether library programmes should be inclusive of all children or targeted only to
children with disabilities. One participant explained that she saw targeted programmes as
being, ‘… the bridge to inclusive programs’, which was her goal for the families. The tar-
geted programmes gave families the confidence to attend library programmes, after which
they would transition to inclusive programmes. For this participant-targeted programmes
provided a marketing avenue to broader more inclusive programmes.
The interviews also suggested that many of the participants believed that any kind of
programme could be made suitable if the theories of universal design for learning and
universal design for building and multiple intelligences were used to plan the programme.
One participant in the interview expressed this as: ‘It’s not the topic of the program that
is important, but how you deliver the program’. The results of the questionnaire revealed
that not all participants employed universal design and/or multiple intelligences, with two
10   J. KAEDING ET AL.

Wheelchair friendly 77.8

Cozy space 66.7
Quiet spaces 50
Large, clear signage 44
Non-allergenic cleaning 38.9
Outdoor spaces 27.8
Natural lighting 27.8
Low allergenic furniture 22.2
Low sensory spaces 22.2
Subdued lighting 22.2
Other 16.7
Light dimmers 16.7
Low allergenic building 11.1
None of the Above 5.6
Increased Lighting 5.6

Figure 4. Has your library made any of the following changes to the physical environment with the intent
to improve access for children with disabilities?

participants skipping this question. Of the participants who answered the question, 70%
employed universal design and/or multiple intelligences when planning a programme that
included children with disabilities. This equates to 61% of the total participant group that
use universal design and/or multiple intelligences in programme development. It is inter-
esting to note that when asked in the questionnaire about training available for library staff,
17% responded that universal design and/or multiple intelligences training was available.
Without further investigation, it is difficult to know whether increased availability of training
would lead to greater use in programme development.
In order to find out what physical environment changes libraries had made to improve
access, the online questionnaire asked the question: ‘Has your library made any of the fol-
lowing changes to the physical environment with the intent to improve access for children
disabilities?’ The most common response (77%) was, ‘Ensured the library was wheelchair
friendly’. The next most common response (66%) was ‘Created cosy spaces for children’.
Figure 4 shows that the remainder of responses was more evenly spread, for example, 50%
of respondents reported that their library had created quiet spaces for children and 44%
had installed large clear signage.
The interviews and on-site visits revealed that virtually all libraries used purpose-
dedicated programme rooms in which to run their programmes. This enabled them to
manipulate the environment to suit the needs of the children attending the sessions.
Participants had purchased specific equipment and toys with examples such as: cushions
or mats so each child knew where to sit; adapted craft equipment; toys that represented
people with disabilities; and switch toys.
Towards the end of the online questionnaire, participants were asked about future plans
for increasing access and inclusion to their library for children with disabilities and their
families. The responses were varied with the greatest number (38%) describing that they
wanted to focus on staff training and development. The next most common response (16%)
was introducing or developing technology in particular iPads for children with disabilities
to use as a communication aid.
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   11

Impetus for the development of accessible and inclusive children’s library services
The questionnaire revealed that the most common reason (27%) for focusing on acces-
sibility for this group of the community was requests from the families of children with
disabilities. The second most common reason (18%) was that the participant saw a need in
the community. Only 5% of participants had been prompted by government laws to focus
on this area. Interviews with participants suggested there was a passion and a belief in the
importance of increasing access for this group.

Barriers to accessible and inclusive public library services for children

The questionnaire also asked participants what they thought the greatest barrier to access
and inclusion for children with disabilities and their families was. They were able to identify
up to three barriers. Figure 5 shows that the variance in percentages between responses was
marginal. The largest number (55%) of participants responded that library staff attitudes
and sensitivities was one of the greatest barriers. The next most common response (50%)
was that library programmes do not cater for children with disabilities, and 44% identified
the library’s physical environment (noise, lighting, etc.) as a barrier.
The respondents were then asked what they thought prevented libraries from addressing
barriers to access. Lack of knowledge on how to address the barrier was noted by 77% of
respondents, 66% described limitations on staffing resources and 61% identified limitations
on financial resources.
Once again the interviews showed similar results. All of the participants felt that the
greatest barrier to access was staff attitudes and knowledge. One participant explained, ‘It
not so much that their needs are not being met but that they are not even being considered.
Most people don’t even know how many people with disabilities there are in their commu-
nities or that children have disabilities’. A lack of marketing and advocacy to the families
of children with disabilties is a barrier that can be dealt with through staff training and
resources. Learning how to market to and advocate for the group changes staff perceptions
and attitudes towards making the group welcome in the library.
A number of participants also raised during the interview the issue of the sociocultural
perceptions associated with literacy and disability, for example, ‘What does literacy for a

Library staff 55.5

Libraries do not cater for childre… 50
Library's physical environment 44.4
Other library visitors 38.8
Libraries do not know the… 38.8
Communication difficulties 27.7
Other 22.2
IT 11.1
Collection resources not appropriate 0

Figure 5. What do you think are the greatest barriers to access for children with disabilities and their
families?
Note: Table will not equal 100% as respondents were asked to choose more than one answer.
12   J. KAEDING ET AL.

child with a disability look like?’ One respondent explained, ‘… libraries are often seen as
books and if you do not believe your child will read, you may not see a purpose to the library’.
It is also interesting to note that despite 61% of the questionnaire respondents listing limi-
tations on financial resources as a barrier to libraries focusing on access for this group, it was
barely mentioned during the one-on-one interviews. The predominant feeling during the
interviews was that issues of funding could be worked around and that improvements could
be made within current constraints. Limitations on funding were not seen as a valid excuse
for lack of focus on access and inclusion for children with disabilities and their families.

Factors supporting accessible and inclusive children’s library services

An open-ended question in the questionnaire asked: ‘What one thing do you think would
have the greatest impact on increasing access if it could be implemented?’ The biggest
response (38%) was staff training in disability. This response confirms that staff attitudes
and sensitivities are considered by the participant group to be the greatest barrier to access
for children with disabilities and their families. The next most common response (27%) was
reaching out to families of children with disabilities. In the interviews, all of the participants
discussed the importance of partnerships to achieve this. Partnerships were also considered
to be an important way of getting to know your community of children with a disability and
their families. It was interesting to note that 94% of the participants had formed partner-
ships with external organisations involved with children with disabilities and their families.

Future library plans for access and inclusion

Finally, participants were asked in the questionnaire about future plans for increasing access
and inclusion to their library for children with disabilities and their families. The responses
were varied with the greatest number (38%) responding that they wanted to focus on staff
training and development. The next most common response (16%) was introducing or
developing technology, in particular iPads for children with disabilities to use as a com-
munication aid.

Discussion
From the analysis of the interviews and questionnaires, six common elements of access
and inclusion emerged. These elements were evident to different degrees in the public
libraries and cultural institutions visited and not all of the libraries had addressed every
element. When the libraries were analysed collectively, these six elements emerged as the
commonalities in libraries that focused on improving access and inclusion for children with
disabilities and their families. These elements have been used to create a model for public
libraries wanting to provide better access and inclusion for children with disabilities and
their families. This model could be the starting point to developing a more inclusive library.

Inclusive libraries model

The model (Figure 6) identifies the key elements that libraries focused on to improve access
and inclusion. These are: collections, physical barriers (space and equipment), partnerships,
programmes, training and marketing. The elements are all bound by supportive manage-
ment and are not interdependent, nor do they all have to exist for a library to undertake
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   13

Figure 6. Inclusive library model.

accessible practices, however, the more elements a library focuses on the more accessible
and inclusive it will be.
The following discussion reveals how the public libraries involved in the study used the
aspects of each element of the inclusive libraries model to improve access and inclusion
for children with disabilities.

Management
Throughout many of the interviews with public librarians, the influence of a supportive
library director and senior library staff was often referred to. For example, one public librar-
ian commented, ‘… my manager is fantastic, I do not have a budget for the accessible pro-
grams that I run, I only have to ask and I get the funds I need’. In the online questionnaire,
participants were asked to rate the level of support from management for inclusive library
services for children with disabilities. Two respondents skipped the question. Of the 16
participants who answered the question, 12 considered their management to be supportive
or very supportive and four classified their management as indifferent or not supportive.
This translates to 67% of the total number of participants had a supportive management and
33% did not. Whilst participants were not directly asked how indifferent or unsupportive
management manifested itself, research literature on this topic may give an insight. The
literature shows that the primary challenges for librarians providing accessible and inclu-
sive library services included lack of skills and knowledge, a lack of time and insufficient
money (Adkins & Bushman, 2015; Copeland, 2011; Small et al., 2015). These are all areas
that management are either responsible for or can take a lead in.
The influence of a supportive management is evident in the responses in the question-
naire about library funds. Of the libraries that indicated they had a supportive management,
14   J. KAEDING ET AL.

Table 1. Management support and libraries with a DAIP.

Management support
Very Not No
­supportive Supportive Indifferent ­supportive Opposed response Total
Libraries with a DAIP
Yes 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 4
No 14 8 0 3 1 0 2 14
Totals 18 11 1 3 1 0 2 18

100% were able to utilise library funds for improving accessibility. This compares to 33%
for those with an indifferent or unsupportive management.
The role of supportive management is also important in regard to developing a disability
access and inclusion plan or policy (DAIP) see Table 1. Although the questionnaire found that
only seven of the 18 libraries in the study had an access and inclusion plan or policy at the
council level and only four at a library level, none of the libraries with an unsupportive manage-
ment had one. Management is responsible for disability access and inclusion plans or policies.
Interestingly, not one of the libraries during the interviews raised the topic of a disability
access and inclusion plan, yet the questionnaire results indicate that those libraries that
had a DAIP also had better results in regard to funding, council support and community
awareness. In particular, the questionnaire showed the following results for the libraries
that had a library disability access and inclusion plan (DAIP):
• one hundred per cent also had a council DAIP, compared to 28% without a library
DAIP;
• one hundred per cent indicated they knew their community of children with disabil-
ities, compared to 71% without a DAIP;
• one hundred per cent rated their library management as supportive, compared to 66%
without a DAIP;
• seventy-five per cent rated their council as supportive, compared to 58% without a
DAIP; and
• one hundred per cent were able to use library funds to improve accessibility, compared
to 71% without a DAIP.

Collections
The results from the interview and questionnaire revealed a discrepancy in the area of collec-
tion development. In the questionnaire, 66% responded that they had focused on collection
development in the context of inclusive library services. However, the interview and visit to
each library revealed that in fact all of the libraries had a collection of materials for children
with disabilities or their families. There was great diversity in the size and type of material in
the collections and the collections were as varied as the community that the library served.
Examples of inclusive collection development from the libraries visited included:
• books in the main children’s collection that had a child with a disability as a protagonist,
however the disability was not the focus for the book;
• audio and book kit collections of popular titles for all ages;
• a range of formats available for the same title;
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   15

• HiLo (high interest, low difficulty) and ‘dyslexia friendly’ collections that are interfiled
in the main children’s collection;
• books with tactile pictures and books with sign language;
• broad parenting collections on the topic of children with disabilities in general and
also specific disabilities; and
• toys.

Physical barriers (space and equipment)

Physical barriers involved creating a library that is accessible, welcoming and comfortable
through the physical aspects of the library. In many ways, this element is the area that
libraries have traditionally focused on when attempting to improve access for people with
disabilities. It is possibly the most visible and perhaps the most tangible particularly when
sourcing or allocating funds. Physical barriers included wheelchair accessibility, adaptive
equipment and adjustable furniture. There were other aspects of physical barriers that were
not always obvious, some of which included: lighting, flooring, noise levels and accessible
toys. Interestingly, only 77% of the libraries in the questionnaire had ensured that their
library was wheelchair accessible, despite this being a requirement of the American Disability
Act. This element also involves information technology, including software, hardware and
web access. Web access is also included in the American Disability Act. The questionnaire
showed that 66% of libraries had made changes in this area. The interview and library visits
revealed that for many libraries this involved the availability of one computer with adapta-
tions. Very few of the libraries had ensured that their websites were disability friendly, or
that they provided easily accessible technology for communication within the library (e.g.
iPad, communication board). The questionnaire confirmed this finding, showing that only
22% had made their catalogues or websites disability compliant.

Partnerships
The questionnaire data found that 94% of libraries have developed a partnership with an
external individual or organisation that works with children with disabilities and their
families. Of this group, 88% of the libraries had developed the partnership in order to
assist them in understanding the characteristics and needs of children with disabilities
and their families. The interviews revealed that libraries had influential roles in the part-
nerships, which reached out much further than their immediate community. The range
of partnerships formed was very broad, including: schools, disability boards, allied health
professionals, transport authorities, hospitals, art galleries and museums.

Programmes
The programmes element is in some ways the most challenging for public libraries. Some
of the challenges include:
• What makes a programme accessible for children with disabilities?
• Do libraries develop programmes that are inclusive for children of all abilities or pro-
grammes targeted only to children with disabilities?
16   J. KAEDING ET AL.

• What sorts of programmes are suitable?

• Who will develop and run the programmes?
Despite the challenges, 94% of the participants responded in the questionnaire that they
do provide programmes for children with disabilities and 50% indicated that they believed
unsuitable programmes was a major barrier to access for children with disabilities and their
families. It is important to note that participants were chosen for their experience in access
and inclusion. Although experience in inclusive programmes was not a necessary criterion,
programmes are a large part of children’s library services.
Interviews highlighted that the programmes provided by the libraries were varied in
their content, presenters, frequency and audience (inclusive of all children or targeted only
to those with disabilities). There was no one ideal programme.

Training
Another area that was found to be important in the development of an inclusive library is
staff training. Previous research identified a lack of training in access and inclusion was a
major problem for librarians (Adkins & Bushman, 2015; Copeland, 2011). The results of the
questionnaire were similar. Respondents were asked what they thought prevented libraries
from addressing barriers to access. The greatest response, at 78%, was lack of knowledge. An
open-ended question in the questionnaire asked what one thing would make the greatest
difference to increasing access if it could be implemented. The responses were coded and
categorised, with the greatest response, at 39%, being the category of training library staff.
A majority of the participants indicated in the questionnaire that their library had acted
upon the need for training in this area, with 78% of the libraries reporting provision of
some level of staff training related to disability.
The importance of training is also evident in the questionnaire result that 55% partic-
ipants believed staff attitudes and sensitivities was the biggest barrier for children with
disabilities and their families visiting a public library. This raises the question as to whether
this result would be as large if all library staff received disability awareness training?

Marketing
Marketing was another important area of inclusive libraries. The questionnaire responses
showed that 94% of the 18 libraries had marketed their inclusive children’s services to their
target group. Of the types of marketing used, flyers and websites were the most popular,
followed by direct contact with organisations for people with disabilities. The questionnaire
also revealed that 28% of the respondents believed marketing would have the greatest impact
on access if it were implemented. This was second to the highest response of training.
Towards the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked if they had any other rec-
ommendations for increasing access in to this group of the community, the most common
response was in the category of reaching out and promoting to families.
The importance of marketing was also revealed in the literature. Small et al. (2015) in
their article on developing accessible libraries and inclusive librarians, recommended:
Clearly and aggressively market library resources, technologies and services that specifically
target people with disabilities, particularly those with which many within that group may be
unfamiliar. (p. 80)
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   17

Several other findings are worth noting. In particular, despite only 11% of the question-
naire respondents identifying technology to be a barrier for children with disabilities, 66% of
the libraries had addressed the issue of technology for children with disabilities. One possible
conjecture as to why this might be is that technology maybe considered an easier barrier to
address than, for example, community attitudes, which 38% of respondents considered to
be a barrier. It would, however, be incorrect for libraries to make this assumption. In their
research into Internet access by people with intellectual disabilities, Chadwick, Wesson, and
Fullwood (2013) note the high levels of literacy, language and processing skills required to
use information technology.
Another interesting finding is that 66% of libraries indicated in the questionnaire that
they have addressed the appropriateness of their collections for this user group; yet no
respondents in the questionnaire considered this area to be a barrier to access. Again, is this
considered to be an easier barrier to tackle? Are librarians more comfortable with collection
management than the development of inclusive programs? It would be useful to know from
families of children with disabilities how much of a barrier the library collection presents.

Limitations
The main limitation of this study is that it focuses on the perspective of the public librarian
and does not involve the families of children with disabilities. Further research from the per-
spective of children with disabilities and their families is vital to informing the effectiveness
of the inclusive libraries model discussed in this paper. Involving children with disabilities
and their families is also fundamental to discovering attitudes, beliefs and understandings
about libraries from the perspective of this group of the community. Another limitation
is that the research does not look specifically at different types of disabilities but instead
uses a broad approach. A narrower focus would be required to obtain results for specific
disabilities.

Conclusion
This research has confirmed findings from Prendergast (2016); Adkins and Bushman (2015);
Small et al. (2015) and Copeland (2011). These studies found that librarians consider the
following areas to be important in the provision of public library access and inclusion for
children with disabilities:
• training;
• supportive management, in relation to funding and staff time;
• partnerships; and
• marketing.
The research has highlighted three additional areas that librarians consider to be key to
providing access and inclusion: collections, physical barriers (space and equipment) and
programmes. Together these elements have formed a model for an inclusive library. The
model provides a possible entry point and structure for public libraries to improve access
for children with disabilities and their families. The next step is to undertake research with
families of children with disabilities to establish whether the elements of the inclusive library
model will meet their access and inclusion needs.
18   J. KAEDING ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship,
Catherine Helen Spence Scholarship 2014; Public Libraries of South Australia Rod East Award 2014;
and Australian Library and Information Association Twila Ann Janssen Herr Research Award for
Disability Services 2014.

Notes on contributors
Joanne Kaeding is a doctoral candidate with University of South Australia, researching ‘Access to pub-
lic libraries for children with special needs and their families’. Kaeding is the Programs Team Leader
with the Adelaide Hills Council. Jo is the current recipient of the following awards: South Australian
Catherine Helen Spence Scholarship, Public Libraries of South Australia Rod East Memorial Award
and the Australian Library and Information Association Twila Ann Janssen Herr Award. Kaeding is
a committee member of the Australian Libraries and Information Association Children’s and Youth
Services and is past secretary of the South Australian Libraries Children’s Youth Services.
Diane L. Velasquez is a programme director of the Information Management program and lecturer at
School of Information Technology and Mathematical Sciences at University of South Australia. She
teaches management, project management and supervises placements in the capstone project course
and practicals. Her research includes website evaluation, digital libraries and management in public
libraries. She has a PhD in LIS from University of Missouri, an MLS from University of Arizona, an
MBA in management from Golden Gate University in San Francisco, and a BA in political science
from San Jose State University. She spent 20 years working in corporate America.
Deborah Price, PhD, MEd, MEd Studies (Ed Psych), Grad Cert Maths Ed, B Ed (Spec Ed), Dip T is
Program Director Master of Teaching and Lecturer Inclusive Education and Wellbeing for School
of Education, University of South Australia. Her pre-service teacher education and research special-
isations integrate educational psychology, inclusive and special education, disability, social justice,
cyberbullying, and learner and educator wellbeing fields. She is Deputy Director of University of
South Australia, Centre for Research in Education (CREd) Wellbeing Research Group, member
of CREd Pedagogies for Justice Research group and executive member of Australian Curriculum
Studies Association.

References
Adkins, D., & Bushman, B. (2015). A special needs approach: A study of how libraries can start
programs for children with disabilities. Children and Libraries, 13, 28–33.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Children aged 0–14 years with a disability – 2009. Australian
social trends: June 2012 (cat. no. 4102.0). Disability rates over time, Section, para. 1 and long-term
conditions of children with a disability section, para 2–6. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/
AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30Jun+2012#Disability
Australian Library and Information Association, Public Libraries Advisory Committee. (2016).
Guidelines, standards and outcome measures for Australian public libraries. Retrieved from
https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/Guidelines%20Standards%20and%20Outcome%20
Measures%20for%20Australian%20Public%20Libraries.pdf
Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved from http://www.
ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/docs/poster.pdf
 JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION   19

Chadwick, D., Wesson, C., & Fullwood, C. (2013). Internet access by people with intellectual
disabilities: Inequalities and opportunities. Future Internet, 5, 376–397. doi:10.3390/fi5030376
Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and grounded theory method. In J. Holstein & J. Gubrium
(Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397–412). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2015). Grounded theory: Methodology and theory construction. In J. Wright (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. (2nd ed., pp. 402–407). Oxford:
Elsevier Science & Technology. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.44029-8
Copeland, C. (2011). Library and information center accessibility: The differently-able patron’s
accessibility. Technical Services Quarterly, 28, 223–241.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davies, J. E. (2007). An overview of international research into the library and information needs
of visually impaired people. Library Trends, 55, 785–795. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.
edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.204.7296&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Fitzgerald, B., Hawkins, W., Denison, T., & Kop, T. (2015). Digital inclusion, disability, and
public libraries: A summary Australian perspective. In B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot
(Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of libraries, advances in
librarianship (Vol. 40, pp. 213–236). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1108/S0065-
283020150000040019
Hill, H. (2013). Disability and accessibility in the library and information science literature: A content
analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 35, 137–142. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2012.11.002
Jaeger, P. T., Wentz, B., & Bertot, J. C. (2015a). Accessibility, inclusion and the roles of libraries. In
B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive
future of libraries, advances in librarianship (Vol. 40, pp. 1–8). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing
Ltd. doi:10.1108/S0065-283020150000040008
Jaeger, P. T., Wentz, B., & Bertot, J. C. (2015b). Libraries and the future of equal access for people
with disabilities: Legal frameworks, human rights, and social justice. In B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger, &
J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of libraries,
advances in librarianship (Vol. 40, pp. 237–253). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
doi:10.1108/S0065-283020150000040020
Lush, B. (2015). Managing accessible library web content. In B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot
(Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of libraries. Advances in
librarianship (Vol. 40, pp. 169–189). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1108/S0065-
283020150000040017
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research
methods (Vol. 2, pp. 697–698). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Prendergast, T. (2016). Seeking early literacy for all: An investigation of children’s librarians and
parents of young children with disabilities’ experiences at the public library. Library Trends, 65,
65–91.
Riley-Huff, D. A. (2015). Supporting web accessibility with HTML5 and accessible rich Internet
applications: Insights for libraries. In B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Accessibility for
persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of libraries. Advances in librarianship (Vol. 40,
pp. 143–167). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1108/S0065-283020150000040016
Rudy, L. (2013). Opening public libraries to people with autism. Retrieved from http://autism.about.
com/od/copingwithautism/a/Opening-Public-Libraries-To-People-With-Autism.htm
Saumure, K., & Given, L. (2004). Digitally enhanced? An examination of the information behaviours
of visually impaired post-secondary students. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science,
28, 25–42. Retrieved from https://drlisagiven.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/saumure_given_
jils_20041.pdf
Small, R. V., Myhill, W. N., & Herring-Harrington, L. (2015). Developing accessible libraries and
inclusive librarians in the 21st Century: Examples from practice. In B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger, &
J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of libraries.
20   J. KAEDING ET AL.

Advances in librarianship (Vol. 40, pp. 73–88). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
doi:10.1108/S0065-283020150000040013
Schmetzke, A. (2015). Collection development, e-resources, and barrier-free access. In B. Wentz,
P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of
libraries. Advances in librarianship (Vol. 40, pp. 111–142). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing
Ltd. doi:10.1108/S0065-283020150000040015
United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. (2013). Children and young people with
disabilities fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/disabilities/files/Factsheet_A5__Web_
NEW.pdf
Williamson, K., Schauder, D., & Bow, A. (2000). Information seeking by blind and sight impaired
citizens: An ecological study. Information Research, 5(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/
ir/5-4/paper79.html
Youngblood, N. E. (2015). The digital inclusiveness of state library websites. In B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger,
& J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of libraries.
Advances in librarianship (Vol. 40, pp. 193–211). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
doi:10.1108/S0065-283020150000040018