Going where other libraries cannot reach

This is the second post that reveals one of the "theories" that revealed itself during my research: another unique aspect of children's mobile libraries. Again it is so obvious that I am embarrassed writing it, a mobile library can get to places that a static library can't. Yes, I realise that a static library by the nature of it's name, cannot go anywhere, and therefore the service element of a static library needs mobile people, people who are prepared, eager and able to go out to visit the library. (You can tell I have just done a Phd, I am now all philosophical, pedantic and analytic). A library that can move can reach people who would not, or can not be sufficiently mobile or motivated to get on a bus, or get in a car, or even walk to their nearest library. 

Lack of mobility, difficulty of transport or geographic location are only a few reasons why some children do not visit their local library. Children told me that they didn't like the static library in their town, or their mum wouldn't take them, or it did not have such a wide variety of books ("books that I like"), as the children's mobile library. There is definitely a psychological aspect to the inaccessibility of a library building. Entering a box on wheels is not as foreboding. The static library opening times are also a factor, during the day, children are at school, nursery or play group. The beauty of a CML is that it can hunt down the groups of children where they are, when they are, they go to schools at school time, they go into the streets at home time, or holiday time. Children use CMLs without their parents, sometimes they have the supervision of teachers or other educational staff, but Adults are in the minority, and CMLs that stop in streets attract many unaccompanied children. This means that children can be independent of adults and learn to use a library although their parents do not.

There is a phrase that appears to be used by social scientists to describe a set of people who do not access the services of which they are entitled. These people are termed the "Hard to Reach" people who either choose not to access services or do not know that there 
are services that might help them. For some reason, library services are better dealing with "The hard to reach" than others. I looked at the way that CMLs tried to find those groups.
CMLs visit places of financial disadvantage, as well as some well to do area's, but I found that  the socio-economic class of the child CML customer is irrelevant.

Family attitudes to reading, books and literacy, negative or positive, cut across socio-economic divides, therefore, the CMLs need to go to all area's to capture the children who's parents are not that bothered about books in the home. I attempted to find the dominant socio-economic or ability group of CML visitors, and I have to say that no specific group of any type dominated the visitors that I met. They were a complete mixture. In that mixture were children who's families certainly encouraged reading, and some children who were so far advanced in their reading skills, in ability and speed, that an ordinarily household would not have been able to hold all the books the child read. Those children certainly benefited from a free, never ending supply of reading matter. At the other end of the scale were children who were afraid of touching books, or did not know how to hold one and turn the pages. These children were gently encouraged to have a go, and  at least gained the experience that books contained words and pictures that were there to convey a message. Two things can be concluded, the CML is of use to children of every ability and, in order to reach the hard to reach, and children of low ability, you have to take the total mixture.

It is rather unfortunate that only a very small percentage of the child population of the UK actually have access to a CML. When I wrote the thesis, about 9 months ago, 16 local authorities of a total of 228 operated 26 children’s mobile libraries in a range of geographic locations. From my current investigations, this has gone down to 12 authorities and 21 vehicles, a sad reflection of the economic climate. However, the CMLs that I know about visit children located anywhere. Not all CMLs go to all the types of location on the following list, for various reasons, but at least one CML go to such places as Schools, Special Schools, Nurseries, Pre-school groups, parks, streets where children live, children's secure units, traveller sites, fair-ground permanent sites, farms, urban areas, rural areas, inner city and city estates. If one CML can visit such locations, then surely others can also. Although CMLs do not visit each child in the UK, they hold the potential to do so. CMLs can reach all children of all abilities. 

The above diagram shows my simple argument. It just needs funding and the will to achieve such a situation.
 

Thinking aloud

Over the past six months, instead of getting down to do proper work I have had to write up a "First Year Report", which is really not a report at all, but a "Literature Review", which I find really frustrating. I am a doer more than a thinker although I do think about what I do! The position in which I now find myself is that because of the reading, writing process, having to justify the reason for investigating children's mobile libraries, of fitting the research into government policies, of finding out one thing and suggesting another, I have been thinking around in circles and not really progressed.

I have done a deal with my supervisors, who wanted me and my "hippy, touchy-feely" methodology to produce a "Literature Review". There is nothing, by the way, about the way reading is promoted on a children's mobile library. I have compromised to do a set of headings outlining what the literature review will be when I do one at the end of the data gathering and analysis. In fact, I will do an annotated set of headings, saying what would be, or is likely to be, in that literature review. As I look at what I have done so far so much seems irrelevant , so much seems to have been imposed by suggestions form the supervisors, who have their pet ideas. I am sure that they are only trying to help, but I think I would have liked more input on the how to do it, rather than the what to do.

So, what happens on a children's mobile library, and why does it matter? It matters because they are a service to communities, they introduce children to literature, some who would not otherwise go into a library. They offer a service to nurseries and early years settings to increase the number of books available to children and staff. They offer a library service, free of charge, to schools where individual children can find books or other information about things that they like. They are a free source of reading material to children who read avidly. They offer fun and interest and freedom of choice. Library services that have children's mobile libraries claim all these things, but is that what happens? Could they be better? Can they do a better job?

Most of all the service matters to the children that use it. I have also thought of the research as producing a sort of handbook of "Best Practice". Will this be good enough justification for my supervisors?

Methodologies

Today I was at a course on Qualitative Analysis, just for me to confirm that I really understand all the things I have read. While I was there I was having thoughts of how my methodology has changed from the initial thoughts, and realised that it important to write all this down to log my reasoning. The Question "Are Children's Mobile Libraries expensive toys or investments for the future?" could very well be answered simply by using government statistics, Ofsted figures for reading and literacy, library target figures and library visitor figures matched against local government expenditure on libraries, specifically the running costs of a mobile library. This sort of Quantitative research would give an answer, but not explain the reasons behind the answer. It would not show that at one particular stop, where only ten children come aboard, that the mobile library is visiting a special school and that it is the only place where those children can access appropriate books, for instance. It would not be able to tell simply by the school figures in a specific area that there are certain pockets of disadvantage in that area, certain families that have a poor literacy background and their children are benefiting by the actions of library staff and access to books and ingformation. The point is that the children's mobile library has the opportunity to access people who otherwise would not be able to have the chance to become self learners, would not thave the chance to develop their literacy skills.

This in turn leads to lower self esteem lower achievement and a less informed workforce. It becomes difficult and costly to improve these people's literacy as they become adult, is it more efficient to use the money when they are children? My aim is to asses the social and economical value of children's mobile libraries. In fact is there an impact on the literacy of parents and other family members when children borrow books? The answer to these sorts of questions can be better found by Qualitative research. There are still a variety of ways that I could choose to do this, and I have not completely made up my mind yet. I am certain that I will be a participative observer, visiting, watching and experiencing children's mobile libraries at first hand. I think I will use ethnographic methods to do that part of the research joining in storytelling and informally talking to the children. I need to find which mobile libraries will give me the best opportunity to do that so the type of sampling I use is important. I first thought that random sampling would be the fairest way. This was when I guessed that I would have a large sampling frame, say fifty or more children's mobile libraries operating in Britain. As I have discovered a much smaller number, and uncovered some of the stories of these mobile libraries I realise that each seems to have a certain uniqueness, and some stand out for various reasons. To get a well rounded sample across the range of types of Children's mobile library, then I must use purposive sampling, choosing the best ones to provide an answer.

I am not only sampling the Mobile library, however. I need to learn more about the subject. There is little literature, so I need to talk to people who know about working on children's mobile libraries, and people who have had the experience of monitoring children's literacy before, after and during the experience of regular visits to children's mobile libraries. These people will be chosen by theoretical sampling, because the will provide theoretical insights. I will use these key people to them lead me on to other people who I can interview or form into a focus group (to investigate the Reading Rocket phenomenon, teachers and nursery staff), or to gain access to mobile libraries (Mobile library staff). Could this then be Snowball sampling. I feel that an insider approach will get better, more sympathetic results that If I "Cold Called" mobile libraries.

I need to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of these methods, including my own previous experience, the experiences of the staff, the children, and any bias that could creep into the study. It could all become very subjective. I must remember to write up the experience I had of working on a children's mobile library, the experience I have had of teaching children to read and the part the experiences have to play in the research. This is Reflexivity. I need to write some advantae and disadvantage lists. Perhaps it is too early to make methodological decisions, but noot to early to have the disussions with myself. this bit of refelxivity is probalbly a bit botring for anyone following this blog, I apologise, but I need to record my thought processes, because I will forget them by my third year and wonder why I chose to do things in the way I will have done. (There are a lot of tenses in that sentence).