Advocacy Revisited: Newer Insights based on Research and Evidence
The Seventh Follett Lecture, Graduate School of Library and Information Science,
Dominican University, 9 February 2011
Ken Haycock

Abstract

Although a popular focus for librarians, advocacy is often misunderstood and rarely evaluated. It is not publicity, public relations, messaging, marketing, or lobbying alone. It is a planned, deliberate, and sustained effort to develop understanding and support incrementally over time. Greatest success comes through positive relationships, employing proven strategies for social influence — consistency and commitment, reciprocation, authority, liking, social proof, and scarcity.

Introduction

Advocacy is a popular buzzword in the library literature with innumerable examples of campaigns and efforts to increase funding or, more often, to stave off reductions in funding. Rarely, however, are these efforts rooted in research or evidence of effectiveness, but rather reflect a deep belief in the value of libraries and librarians and thus a need simply to “get the message out,” with sufficient volume and numbers as to draw attention. Rarely too are any evaluation metrics applied such that reports focus more on plans and efforts and less on results and lessons learned.

This presentation draws on the work of an international research team headed by the writer, examining factors affecting funding by local and provincial/state decision–makers as well as academic administrators. The unpublished draft papers include interviews with many elected politicians and decision–makers. The research team is acknowledged below.

Definitions and Context

Advocacy is a means rather than an end. It is the strategies, tactics and activities that take place between the advocate and the target, typically in order to influence a particular outcome. Indeed, current thinking in effective board governance no longer focuses on advocacy as a task for boards, rather on boards being responsible for developing sufficient and sustainable resources to accomplish the organization’s mission; advocacy is thus but one tool for achieving this end (The Source12, 2005).

Advocacy and investigation into “what works” need not be limited to support for libraries but should apply to all manner of public services seeking support. Within our own organizations, as well, advocates work up and down the ladder, with those in positions similar to our own (for example, the public library director with other municipal department heads), those in positions superior to our own (for example, the director with the city manager) and those in positions reporting to us (for example, the university librarian working with his or her department heads to embrace a specific change). Advocacy then is prevalent within our organizations and with decision–makers outside our organizations as well as in the political environment.

For the purposes of this paper, advocacy is defined as a deliberate, planned, and sustained effort to develop understanding and support incrementally over time (Haycock, 2006).

Advocacy is not solely publicity and communications, which tend to focus on us (this is who we are, what we have, where we are located, and when we are available). These efforts are often the “spray and pray” model of advocacy, providing multiple documents or messages and hoping that some of them “stick”. It is also not public relations, where we engage with others to place our stories and reports of successes, although this partnership, as with the media, is also important.

Similarly advocacy is not marketing, although this gets closer to the definition, as marketing involves understanding deeply our intended audiences, their needs, interests and desires, and how best to address them. In that sense, one could argue that advocacy is the marketing of an issue. Advocacy is not solely lobbying, although again one could argue here that lobbying is legislative advocacy.

The best advocacy is of course being “at the table”, not only when solutions are proposed but when problems are identified. In current parlance, this is becoming a player. This is where we need to be, in our cities, in our universities and colleges, in our schools and in our larger organizations, at the table when community issues are raised and analyzed and solutions worthy of support are proposed. This is where the library’s resources and services are leveraged to improve the quality of life and experiences in our communities.

Advocacy is influenced by power in its many manifestations, by context, by the tactics we employ, and by the effects we observe. Advocacy is also influenced by our image and how it is managed, by our availability and by our motivation (Tversky and Kahneman, 1982).

What Do We Know?

Many of our advocacy efforts target changes in attitude, yet this is to some extent a fool’s game. Attitudes are not behavior. We tend to measure positive attitudes rather than concrete behaviors that provide measureable support.

In OCLC’s 2008 study From Awareness to Funding (DeRosa and Johnson, 2008) and its later supplement Perceptions of Libraries, 2010: Context and Community (DeRosa, Cantrell, Carlson, et al., 2011), it is clear that support is there, but not commitment, that there are many people who don’t know about libraries, and that support is only marginally related to use. So, don’t focus on the user. Focus on changing behaviors, not just attitudes.

Perceptions of the librarian are highly relevant, as “passionate librarians” who are involved in the community make a positive difference to ongoing support. This points to the importance of hiring for attitude as well as aptitude. (This is a positive finding with the ongoing restructuring of reference and information services underway to embed librarians in the community through partnerships with business and neighborhood organizations.)

The study continues to note that the library occupies a clear position as a provider of practical answers and information, but this is a crowded space. We need to reposition. For example, belief that the library is a transformational force in people’s lives is directly related to their level of funding support.

Our common focus on the “digital divide” might be a losing proposition as more users have Internet access at home, and the “divide” is less about equipment (physical access to information), than effective use (intellectual access). Aligning our mission and importance with welfare, as important as that may be, is too narrow a focus, and opens us to the “compassion fatigue” being experienced by politicians and funders. Enabling society and each individual to access and use information effectively can transcend class and workplace.

A few other findings: increasing support may not necessarily mean a trade–off with financial support for other public services; elected officials are supportive ... but not committed to increased funding; and engaging super supporters and probable supporters is critical. This means that we have to identify and cultivate them.

Sadly, library leaders are seen positively, but not perceived to work with politicians or other community leaders for community development or betterment.

A reasonable proposition resulting from this and similar perception studies would be that the library is not in the business of information provision so much as it is in the business of community development.

So we know that librarians and their leaders would engender improved support if they focused on: transformation not information; critical community infrastructure not simply the institution; the future rather than the past; and, demonstrating a return on investment for the individual rather than general altruism for others.

What Works

Lessons from Advocacy

Advocacy, again, is a planned, deliberate, and sustained effort to develop understanding and support incrementally over time. Effective advocates can delineate what has worked for them, and indeed these are common in training materials (see, for example, advocacy handbooks and resources on the American Library Association Web site and its academic, public, and school library divisions, and the Canadian Association of Public Libraries). Have an elevator (thirty second) speech ready that speaks to benefits, not library jobs or features. Always look to connect agendas with decision–makers (supporting our proposal will help to advance your agenda); remember that people do things for their reasons, not yours; advocacy is always about respect, if for no other reason than that the decision–maker holds the power. I recall when I was an elected school board chair being surprised by advocates who would come out to tell us how stupid we were, how we didn’t care about children, how no one they knew voted for us, and then ask for funds for their favored project. Advocacy is also much like banking: you can’t make withdrawals if you have never made a deposit, in other words, appearing only at budget time is like making a withdrawal if there has been no effort to develop understanding and support, the context for “the ask”, over time.

Many of our current efforts are more like rites of passage, without any assessment of value. A prime example is the annual “legislative day” when library advocates descend on elected representatives (usually their aides actually) and make their pitch. These popular events are window dressing for a seeming lack of interest in meeting with representatives and aides in their home constituencies, where local concerns are clear and paramount. As one representative indicated to me, legislative days probably do no good whatsoever, but they would be noticed if they weren’t carried out, in other words a necessary use of time but with no effect.

Instead of these “spray and pray” efforts, imagine if advocates were selected, two per constituency, trained and charged with knowing their representative and senior staff, with talking points, and ready to move on an issue immediately. There could be planned succession such that a cadre would be developed and supported. Regular reports and assessments could inform state and national planning as to issues, agendas, impact. So much better than having ill–prepared “advocates” descend on the capital to talk about themselves and their jobs. It is just so not about us.

Lessons from Marketing

Advocacy is similar to marketing an issue.

  1. What is the objective? Is it clear and measurable?
  2. Who is the target group? Who is important in that group? Who is the opinion leader?
  3. What are the strategies? Who are the specific targets? What are their issues? Where and when do they meet? How does one best communicate with them?
  4. What are the most appropriate communication tools for this specific group? Note that this is step # 4 in the process! Too often we start with the tool (brochure; video; legislative day) rather than doing the necessary research first.
  5. Evaluation: not what we did, but whether the objective was achieved. Not the activities (we had a very successful meeting) but the result (how could the effort have been successful if funding went down?).

(This model draws on the work of Pat Cavill, which has appeared in several advocacy handbooks; see, for example, the Canadian Association of Public Libraries, 2001.)

We should focus less on the features that we offer, more on the advantage to the individual, and even more on the net benefit to that individual and his or her sector (literacy, small business). The business librarian and related databases (features) are interesting, but less helpful in gaining support than demonstrating the relevance to small business in using market research to bring a product to the consumer (advantage), and that is also less helpful than demonstrating how the use of these library resources supported small business in the community to hire more staff and grow their businesses (benefit). The local fitness center promotes healthy living and longevity, not the number of clean towels and available treadmills; we need to do the same.

Lessons from Management and Leadership

Just about the only definition of leadership that all researchers could agree with would be that leadership is a process of social influence through which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task (Chemers, 1997). This act of social influence is of course an advocacy effort by a different name and means.

Jim Collins extended his classic work Good to Great (2001) to include the social sectors (2005). In essence, the purposes and strategies were similar: replacing profit with accomplishment of one’s mission. (There is similarly a move to replace the term “nonprofit” with “not–for–profit,” making clear that the purpose is not to make a profit, where the auto industry might be “non–profit” by accident rather than design.) If indeed the “mission accomplishment” is the “bottom–line” goal of the not–for–profit, and if the board has a responsibility to develop sustainable resources for that mission, is it measurable? Too often library mission statements read the same (“connect people with the world of information and ideas”) but the behaviors of the staff in our institutions reflect more accurately that of the Hard Rock Cafè (“love all, save all, serve the planet”).

What then are our measures? As an “industry” we are seemingly unique in having no commonly agreed upon key success factors (KSFs), making it extremely difficult to focus and have clear priorities. If we cannot agree on these “KSFs”, it becomes challenging to communicate our purposes and successes. Do we favor inputs (dollars per capita; allocations to specific programs)? Outputs (circulation; reference transactions)? Outcomes (school readiness; student achievement; small business development)? Or even a great societal impact? If one takes the example of the ubiquitous summer reading programs, it becomes clear how challenging this is ... is success measured by participation? Increased participation? Percentage of the target population? Circulation? Improved reading motivation and ability? Some of the more critical and social assessments require collaboration with schools and teachers, something more honored in the breech.

Lessons from Prior Research

We suffer as a sector from the “curse of high public satisfaction” which results from low expectations. Elected officials and senior administrators deal with constant complaint about the state of soccer fields and response time by agencies, but rarely with complaints about the library — why then would additional monies be necessary? We also suffer from the “curse of knowledge,” which makes it more difficult for us to convey our message in terms that are simple, succinct, and stick.

Prior studies make clear what does not work for libraries:
Demand for services: sadly, increased use and demand does not lead to increase funding (Allen, 2003; Estabrook and Lanker, 1995)
Entreaties from patrons/customers: too often these individuals are inactive as players in the budget–setting process, at least as compared to other consumers of community services (Estabrook and Lanker, 1995);
“Advocacy” by stakeholders and lobbying by boards: studies from 1930s to present demonstrate problems with boards and their advocacy efforts (Robbins–Carter, 1984);
Perceptions of service: there is considerable difference between librarians and decision–makers in what is important, what are the key success factors (Aunduson, 1995; Hubbard, 1996; Kann–Christensen and Pors, 2004; Mittermeyer, 1994; 1999; Shavit, 1985; Smith and Usherwood, 2004); there is also an inability by libraries to adapt to new government priorities (Kann–Christensen and Pors, 2004);
Lobbyists: the evidence here is unclear; indeed, in some cases lobbyists have been seen to be a nuisance rather than a help (Winton–Glisson, 2006).

And what does work:
National culture: some countries support libraries more than others; where there is generalized trust in government agencies, where libraries and community building advance trust, and where spaces are for all (Varheim, Steinmo and Ide, 2008);
Socio–economic and educational contexts: generally the better educated and higher income in the community the better the support for libraries (Blake, 1988);
History: the best predictor of funding is what was given previously (Hubbard, 1996);
Connecting with changing agendas: the ability to demonstrate congruence with changing government agendas leads to improved funding (Bailey, 2007);
Legitimacy: where state and local agencies agree and are congruent, there is better support (Tversky and Kahneman, 1982); where, for example, the state librarian and local public library directors disagree, there is no action typically (Ward, 2004);
Trust: money is given to those we trust; trust involves knowing you, believing that you have good character, are competent in your job, having confidence that you will do what you say you will do, that others find you credible, and that your objectives are congruent with mine (Mortensen, 2008);
Relationships: having a relationship with a decision–maker is key to any other success (McClure, Feldman, and Ryan, 2007) and a positive personality (Shavit, 1985);
View of colleagues: funders will not usually deviate from partisan initiatives or caucus colleagues (Hubbard, 1996).

Other industries are finding similar results. Rosenblum and Anderson (2006), for example, developed a “values pyramid” to demonstrate what led to effective advocacy results for water reclamation projects. The base factor was environmental — is this an issue? The next level was technical — if this is an issue in the community, can we address it? Can we deliver? Next is the economic factor — what is the cost? To us? To the funder? Is it beneficial and effective? Only next is the political factor considered — is there support or the possibility of support? Last, and most important — and this is the critical lesson for libraries from this research — is the proposition congruent with the values and beliefs of the decision–maker? It is not the message, it is not the numbers; it is the connection between the issue and its proposed solution and the values of the politician and/or senior bureaucrat.

Studies of politicians generally have found that efforts are most influential when aligned with their personal values and beliefs and measures of ideology with a shared belief about the outcome; they are motivated by satisfying constituents, gaining influence, and making good policy; and most decisions are made in small groups (Jensen, 2007).

Coalitions and networks of groups and individuals are helpful here. Interestingly, politicians look to lobbyists most to provide a summary or overview of the issue with the implications for their sector. Some politicians are motivated by quantitative data (give me the evidence that libraries affect literacy measures) and others by qualitative data (let me hear my constituents’ stories). Both are important.

From Advocacy to Influence

Advocacy, like leadership itself, is a process of social influence. The work of Robert Cialdini and colleagues (Cialdini, 2009; 2007; 2001; Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini and Sagarin, 2005; Cialdini and Schroeder, 1976; Cialdini, Demaine, Sagarin, Barrett, Rhoads and Winter, 2006; Cialdini, Trost and Newsom, 1995; Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler and Darby, 1975) provides considerable insight in this area. Six universal principles of influence have been identified: reciprocation; authority; commitment/consistency; scarcity; liking; social proof.

Reciprocation suggests that we are more willing to comply with a request from someone who has previously provided a favor or concession to us. In other words, we feel obliged to return favors. We thus treat each other fairly and with respect. Even adding a post–it note to a report you are providing to someone makes a difference in reciprocation.

Authority notes that we are more willing to follow the suggestions of someone who is a legitimate authority. We look to experts for advice and direction. A family literacy specialist, for example, may be a more effective advocate for library programs than the director or a board member. A police chief who makes clear that literacy is the major crime fighter and libraries are critical (and yes, this has happened) carries more weight than the library director.

Commitment and Consistency is well known to advocates. After committing oneself to a position, we are more willing to comply with requests for behaviors that are consistent with that position. We don’t like to appear inconsistent. We also act in ways consistent with our values; in the political environment this could be our ideology. This is becoming the most significant finding in our research to date.

Scarcity is self–evident, the less available something is, the more we want it. We try to secure those opportunities that are scarce or dwindling. This is particularly important for libraries. Are we unique in our resources and services? Are we perceived to be? If we position ourselves as “free”, how can we be seen as scarce? How do we assign value to “free”?

Liking means that the more I like you, the more I want to say yes. We are more willing to comply with the requests of friends or other individuals we like. In the political environment, even meeting someone has benefits. To paraphrase Woody Allen, showing up is indeed sometimes 80% of life.

Social Proof involves social validation. We are more willing to comply with a request or behavior if it is consistent with what our colleagues are thinking or doing. Just as library directors speak to each other, meet with each other, compare notes with each other, so too do city managers, school principals, provosts and others who make decisions affecting our support and services. An example might be municipal budgets. Library directors compare dollar support per capita. Our research team looked at social proof and found that city managers and finance directors do not compare dollars per capita but rather percentage of the municipal budget. In one geographic area, for example, the dollar support per capita ranged from $23 to $76 but the percentage of the municipal budget was consistent at four percent. In another area the same occurred, although the percentage was closer to two percent.

There are lessons here as well. When they think about persuasion, most people emphasize their own experiences too much, rather than depending on data or techniques. Research and evidence are critical to successful efforts. People want to be consistent and committed, so show how your proposal aligns with their values. Individuals want to be liked, so practice seeing the good in them. People tend to follow the majority; by establishing norms, you can get them to act as you wish. Admit your errors: demonstrating honesty increases your influence.

Common influence strategies used by business leaders include ingratiation (make them feel important), assertiveness (make demands), exchange benefits (trade–offs) and upward influence (appeal to higher levels of authority). The most successful tactics, however, were rationality (explain your reasons), inspirational appeals, consultation and coalitions (enlist others to influence) (see Chemers, pp. 75–77 for original citations). Note, however, that rationality can be bounded by experience and available information (Tversky and Kahneman, 1982).

The least successful are sanctions (administrative means for compliance or threatening voter reaction) and blocking (prevent your target from achieving his or her goal).

While advocacy is common among librarians and their leaders, it is rarely funded through a line item, assigned internal priority, and supported through training. The seminal work Forces for Good (Crutchfield and McLeod, 2008) presents six “best practices” of high impact non–profits. These include offering advocacy efforts and service, such as shared training and drawing on contacts, harnessing market forces, and leveraging the power and resources of business (to fund advocacy for literacy or business resources, for example); engaging individuals from outside the organization (keeping effective former board members and directors engaged); working with and through other organizations (a common front for literacy); learning to adapt and sharing leadership by empowering others.

Advocacy efforts — funded, supported and ongoing — are more likely in larger and older organizations with government funding than in others, but still only 30–50% of these organizations devote time and money to advocacy.

Gladwell’s work (2002) emphasizes the importance of concentrating resources on a few key areas — identifying and engaging the connectors, the mavens, the salespeople. He points to the need to test our intuition, and not to do what we think is right as we will too often be wrong. Also, recognize phases — the early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, the laggards, and allocate resources accordingly.

Summary and Conclusions

Advocacy is a planned, deliberate, and sustained effort to develop understanding and support incrementally over time. It thus requires a plan, with a focus on critical relationships and networks, on the appropriate approach, on the context (for the individual target and system; for the organization; for the organization’s culture; timing), and on the issues (plan for arguments that support and are against; assess costs/benefits to the target; investigate vested interests and needs; provide examples and benchmarks) (Barnes, 2007). It is deliberate and sustained, requiring great effort over time. It also requires research and evaluation to ensure appropriate allocation of time and resources to best effect. Exceptional advocacy efforts have been documented in the literature when support has actually decreased. Too often activities, ranging from the studies of validation of our work to billboards, make us feel good but have little effect; the bottom line is whether our objectives were achieved, not whether we felt good about the effort.

In summary, advocacy is about leadership, meaning that we learn to connect agendas and exercise social influence; is about relationships and influence, meaning that networks and connections become critical, especially with politicians and senior decision–makers; is understanding the target — his or her values, networks, connections, previous promises, colleagues, and context; is understanding the range of possible strategies and tactics and choosing appropriately and strategically; and, is part of life in the organization, and should be funded, supported, and measured.

We have learned that some of our assumptions are false. Although our research base documents some of the best practices for affecting decisions, these tend not to be used. The overarching issue is factors affecting decision–making, not why libraries are or are not funded. Behaviors need to be changed, not simply attitudes, although that is of course an antecedent.

Interviews with dozens of politicians and senior officials in government and the academy indicate that theories of influence have utility and are evident in each of these settings.

While there is no one right answer, as situations and contexts vary, there is evidence about what works, and it is generally not what we are doing now. A critical new role dilemma is how to move advocacy based on evidence up the priority list in our organizations.

We need more action–based research projects. Most of all we need leaders who understand and exercise social influence in their organizational and political environments.

References

Allen, B. “Public Opinion and the Funding of Public Libraries.” Library Trends 51 (2003): 414–423.

Anderson, C. M. “How Social Networks Influence Attitudes: Social and Informational Effects of Attitude Heterogeneity and Arguments.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2008.

Audunson, R. “How do Politicians and Central Decision–makers View Public Libraries? The Case of Norway.” IFLA Journal 31, no. 2 (2005): 174–182.

Bailey, G. M. “Allocating State Funds for Public School Library Media Programs: A Case Study of Education Policymaking in Maryland.” PhD diss., University of Maryland–College Park, 2007.

Barnes, B. K. Exercising Influence Workbook: A Self–study Guide. San Francisco: Wiley, 2007.

Blake, V. L. P. “Joining City Hall: The Role of the Public Library Director in Obtaining Local Support for the Public Library.” PhD diss., Rutgers The State University of New Jersey–New Brunswick, 1988.

Canadian Association of Public Libraries. “Library Advocacy NOW!.” Last modified 2001. http://www.cla.ca/divisions/capl/advocacy.

Chemers, M. An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.

Cialdini, Robert. Influence: Science and Practice. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Cialdini, Robert. Influence: The Science of Persuasion. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Cialdini, Robert. “Harnessing the Science of Persuasion.” Harvard Business Review 79, no. 9 (2001): 72–79.

Cialdini, Robert and N. J. Goldstein. “Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity.” Annual Review of Psychology 55 (2004): 591–621.

Cialdini, Robert, L. J. Demaine, B. J. Sagarin, D. W. Barrett, K. Rhoads and P. L. Winter. “Managing Social Norms for Persuasive Impact.” Social Influence 1 (2006): 3–15.

Cialdini, Robert and B. J. Sagarin. “Principles of Interpersonal Influence.” In Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives, edited by T. C. Brock, M. C. Green, T. C. Brock, and M. C. Green, 143–169. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.

Cialdini, Robert and D. A. Schroeder. “Increasing Compliance by Legitimizing Paltry Contributions: When Even a Penny Helps.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34 (1976): 599–604.

Cialdini, Robert, M. R. Trost and J. T. Newsom. “Preference for Consistency: The Development of a Valid Measure and the Discovery of Surprising Behavioral Implications.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (1995): 318–328.

Cialdini, Robert, J. E. Vincent, S. K. Lewis, J. Catalan, D. Wheeler and B. Darby. “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door–in–the–face Technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (1975): 206–215.

Collins, J. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap ... and Others Don’t. New York: HarperBusiness, 2001.

Collins, J. Good to Great and the Social Sectors: A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

Crutchfield, L. and H. McLeod. Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High–impact Nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass, 2008.

DeRosa, Cathy and Jenny Johnson. From Awareness to Funding: A Study of Library Support in America. Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2008.

De Rosa, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Matthew Carlson, Margaret Gallagher, Janet Hawk, Charlotte Sturtz, Brad Gauder, Diane Cellentani, Tam Dalrymple, and Lawrence J. Olszewski. Perceptions of Libraries, 2010: Context and Community: a Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 2011.

Estabrook, Leigh and B. Lanker. “A Survey of Public Libraries and Local Government.” Urbana–Champaign: Library Research Centre, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois, 1995.

Gass, Robert H. and John S. Seiter. Persuasion, Social Influence and Compliance Gaining. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2011.

Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books, 2002.

Haycock, Ken. “Boards — Advocacy.” Ken Haycock and Associates. Last modified 2006. http://www.kenhaycock.com/media/ppt/Boards_Advocacy.ppt.

Hubbard, E. R. “A Conflict of Values: An Inquiry into the Impact of Local Political Decision–making on the Funding of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh in Three Selected Decades.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1996.

Jensen, J. L. “Getting One’s Way in Policy Debates: Influence Tactics Used in Group Decision–making Settings.” Public Administration Review 67 (2007): 216–227.

Kann–Christensen, N. and N. O. Pors. “The Legitimacy of Public libraries: Cross–pressures and Change Processes.” New Library World 15 (2004): 330.

McClure, C., S. Feldman and J. Ryan. “Politics and Advocacy: The Role of Networking in Selling the Library to Your Community.” Public Library Quarterly 25 (2007): 137–154.

Mittermeyer, D. “The Public Libraries Boards of Trustees versus the Committees of City Council: A Power Game.” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 19 (1994): 1–17.

Mittermeyer, D. “Public Library Effectiveness: An Analysis of Values, Interests and Benefits.” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 24, no. 4 (1999): 1–32.

Mortensen, K. Persuasion IQ. Saranac Lake, NY: AMACOM, 2008.

Robbins–Carter, J. “Political Science: Utility for Research in Librarianship.” Library Trends (Spring 1984): 425–439.

Rosenblum, E. and J. Anderson. “The Water Reclamation Matrix: A Framework for Sustainable Urban Water Use.” In 2nd IWA Leading–Edge on Sustainability in Water–Limited Environments. edited by M. B. Beck and A. Speers. London: IWA Publishing, 2006.

Shavit, D. “Federal Aid and State Library Agencies: Federal Policy Implementation.” Contributions in Librarianship and Information Science. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1985.

Smith, K., and B. Usherwood. “The Political Perception of the Public library: The Australian View.” Proceedings of ALIA, 2004.

The Source12; Twelve Principles of Governance that Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource, 2005.

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” In Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases edited by D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky, 3–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Varheim, A., S. Steinmo and E. Ide. “Do Libraries Matter? Public Libraries and the Creation of Social Capital.” Journal of Documentation 64 (2008): 877–892.

Ward, R. “State Library and Local Public Library Relationships: A Case Study of Legislative Conflict within South Carolina from the Principle/Agent Perspective.” Public Library Quarterly 23 (2004): 43–60.

Winton–Glisson, S. W. “The Study of the Decision–making Process of Oklahoma State Legislators and K–12 Educational Funding.” PhD diss., Northeastern State University, 2006.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Dean Susan Roman and the faculty of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science for the opportunity to work with them during the 2010–2011 academic year. His ideas and propositions have also been informed by the investigations of his doctoral students, particularly Stephanie Hall and Cheryl Stenstrom, who are focused on the factors affecting funding decisions for public libraries.

About the author

Ken Haycock is professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia and at San Jose State University, where he also coordinates the Center for Information Research and Innovation. Dr. Haycock holds graduate degrees in Business Administration, in Education, and in Library and Information Science. A prolific writer and speaker, he has been honored with national and international awards for his contributions to teaching, research, and service, by groups as diverse as the American and Canadian Library Associations, the American and Canadian school library associations, the Association for Library and Information Science Education, the honor societies Bet Phi Mu and Phi Delta Kappa and the Governor–General of Canada. Dr. Haycock held the Follett Chair in Library and Information Science for 2010–2011.