Next Article in Journal
An Analysis of Three Decades of Increasing Carbon Emissions: The Weight of the P Factor
Previous Article in Journal
The Agricultural–Ecological Benefit of Digital Inclusive Finance Development: Evidence from Straw Burning in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/su15043244
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Are Librarians Ready for Space Transformation? A Systematic Review of Spatial Literacy for Librarians

by
Yiping Jiang
1,*,
Yanhua Chen
2,
Yanqi Wu
1,
Xianlin Yang
1 and
Wenyan Yu
1
1
Library, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China
2
Library, Hangzhou Foreign Language School, Hangzhou 310023, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3244; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043244
Submission received: 28 December 2022 / Revised: 3 February 2023 / Accepted: 9 February 2023 / Published: 10 February 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To achieve transformation, libraries must undertake a profound and rapid reconfiguration of space. The spatial literacy competencies of librarians are directly related to the construction and service level of library spaces. This paper clarifies the concept of spatial literacy and its constituent elements. Using the method of systematic literature review, the current status of research on librarians’ spatial literacy is analyzed from three aspects: spatial theory, spatial method, and spatial practice by focusing on the trajectory of library space-related literature.

1. Introduction

In recent years, public demand for cultural consumption has been rising, and people’s demand for libraries has gradually shifted from the initial demand for simple reading to the pursuit of public space and cultural experience. To achieve the transformation, libraries must re-examine their values and carry out a profound and rapid reconfiguration of space [1]. As the implementers of library space construction and service innovation, librarians’ spatial capacity building should be prioritized in the strategic planning and implementation of spatial innovation [2]. Although readers have different space needs for different types of libraries, and the space characteristics vary from library to library, promoting space innovation is a challenge every library faces. It is not enough to rely on frontline librarians alone to meet the challenge of “spatial reengineering” but it also requires the joint efforts of all library professionals. This paper, therefore, refers to librarians in a broad sense, as library professionals who carry out activities in three areas: practice, research, and education [3]. This study will systematically study the spatial literacy of librarians to provide a new research perspective for the reconstruction of the function of library space and the transformation of its value.
At present, the focus of research on library spaces has been on the construction of spaces, the exploration of services, and the discussion of practices, while research on the spatial literacy of librarians in the transformation of library spaces is somewhat lacking. The Library Transformation: Strategy 2022–2025 argues that libraries create physical and digital spaces for the exchange and validation of ideas while their professionals bring their knowledge and experience to the research process through an interactive exchange. The strategy calls for the RLUK Space program, launched in 2019, to continue the dialogue between librarians and architects to further transform the space for upgrading [4]. The New Media Consortium Horizon Report (2015 Library Edition) suggests that rethinking the role and skills of librarians is one of the challenges that libraries will face in the future. The lack of expertise is currently a major constraint to the construction and development of library spaces. This paper, therefore, wants to delve into the following two issues.
  • Q1: What kind of spatial literacy should librarians possess?
  • Q2: What is the current status of spatial literacy among librarians?

2. The Connotations of Spatial Literacy for Librarians

2.1. Spatial Literacy

In a disciplinary context, the definition of spatial literacy places more emphasis on the understanding of “space”. For example, geographers consider spatial literacy to be the inherent ability to make sound use of geospatial knowledge and geospatial skills to solve geospatial problems [5]; mathematicians consider spatial literacy to be the ability to imagine and translate geometric shapes and real objects flexibly [6].
Some scholars have also proposed to break through disciplinary boundaries and elaborate from a comprehensive “literacy” perspective. Literacy is a collection of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. It is not only knowledge that is valued, but also competence and the importance of attitudes [7]. Therefore, literacy does not only point to the knowledge of a particular discipline but also emphasizes that one can actively use methods to acquire knowledge and skills, and its goal is not only to meet basic needs but also to help individuals participate effectively in social activities, pursue life goals and promote individual development. Based on this perspective, geographers Bednarz and Kemp suggest that spatial literacy is the careful, experience-based description of spatial relationships across many domains and encourages the development of expertise in spatial thinking and reasoning [8]. Goodchild conceptualizes spatial literacy as a set of perspectives, knowledge, skills, habits of mind, and dispositions [9].

2.2. Components of Spatial Literacy

In order to deconstruct the concept of spatial literacy in depth, we further analyzed the components of spatial literacy. Scholars’ accounts of spatial literacy, although similarly formulated, are broadly structured around three dimensions: theoretical, methodological, and practical, as shown in Table 1.
In the theoretical dimension, spatial literacy requires the mastery and understanding of theories of spatial knowledge, which is the basis for guiding people in spatial research and construction; in the competence dimension, spatial literacy requires the possession of methods and skills to solve spatial problems, which is a prerequisite for spatial practice; in the practical dimension, spatial literacy requires realistic activities to actually carry out spatial construction practices and to be able to solve spatial problems in practice in an efficient manner.

2.3. Spatial Literacy for Librarians

On the basis of other disciplines’ approaches to the conceptual construction of spatial literacy and with reference to existing research results in Library and Information Science (LIS), this paper proposes that spatial literacy refers to the ability to master spatial knowledge and theory, apply spatial research methods, and carry out the practice of library space renovation and construction, i.e., including three aspects, such as spatial theory, spatial method, and spatial practice. The spatial theory is the basis for forming spatial literacy, the spatial method is the core for perfecting spatial literacy, and spatial practice is the key to expanding spatial literacy [12].

3. Methods

Literacy is a quality of people’s behavior and way of thinking, and the evaluation of this subjective thought and consciousness has traditionally been difficult; literature is a record and manifestation of human thought and perception and can visually reflect the subjective consciousness of people. The examination of relevant literature allows the most stable and mature parts of spatial literacy to be summarised and collated. This paper, therefore, adopts a systematic literature review approach, which has the advantage of being “a retrospective study of a specific issue in which well-defined scientific methods are used to identify, select and evaluate studies and synthesize their results” [13].
To ensure a systematic review of eligible articles, the review was conducted in four steps, following the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [14], including establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria, literature search and study identification, data screening and extraction, and data analysis [15].

3.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

In order to ensure that the literature found was relevant to the specific objectives, criteria were developed for inclusion before conducting a structured search. Firstly, the research topic had to be related to “library space” or to the three dimensions of “spatial literacy”. Secondly, the research subject category was limited to Library and Information Science (LIS). Thirdly, peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertations were chosen as the category of literature. Fourthly, the publication date was up to 2021.
Exclusion criteria include, firstly, that the study of library space is not a major part of the article but is only mentioned in passing. Secondly, although library space is the subject of the article, the content does not relate to librarians, or the author is not a library professional. Third, other types of literature, such as books, newspapers, conference papers, etc.

3.2. Literature Search and Study Identification

In order to improve the search rate of relevant literature, two comprehensive subject-based full-text databases were selected in Chinese and non-Chinese: China Knowledge Network (CNKI) and EBSCO Academic Search Premier (EBSCO ASP), respectively, and a comprehensive search strategy was used to retrieve relevant literature with the search strategy: space AND (research OR study) AND librar*. The types of literature selected were journals and dissertations.

3.3. Data Screen and Extraction

The screening process was a two-step process: firstly, when searching at CNKI, the subject category was checked “Library Intelligence and Digital Library”, and when searching at EBSCO, the Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts database was selected. In this way, the subject of the literature was limited to the scope of Library and Information Science (LIS). Moreover, books, newspapers, and other document types were excluded, and only journal papers and dissertations retained; secondly, two researchers with a professional background in LIS independently assessed and screened the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the literature one by one to exclude literature with low relevance. The inclusion and exclusion process of the literature is shown in Figure 1 (retrieved on 20 January 2022).

3.4. Data Analysis

The full text of the filtered literature was downloaded from the database and reviewed by three researchers specializing in LIS and the data was extracted and collated with the help of a self-created data tool in the Microsoft Excel program, which included the title of the article, date of publication, author, author’s affiliation, abstract, research topic, and research subjects. The research themes were divided into two levels; firstly categorized according to the three dimensions of spatial theory, spatial methodology, and spatial practice, and secondly, extracting the detailed elements of the research, indicating which theory, which methodology and which form of spatial practice was used.

4. Results

4.1. Number of Literature

According to the process of literature screening shown in Figure 2, there are 3969 pieces of literature on library space in Library and Information Science (LIS), accounting for 58% of the total 6807 pieces of relevant literature. It is evident that LIS accounts for just over half of the contribution to the existing library space research results, and many other subjects (such as IT, Architecture, Education, and so on) are also concerned with the construction of library space. By eliminating books, newspapers, and other types of literature and retaining journal papers and dissertations, as well as manually screening to exclude those with low relevance, this study finally retrieved 1501 library space-related documents (including 1438 journal papers and 63 dissertations). After manual screening, there were only 28 papers on spatial literacy of librarians, and the research in this area is not rich and mature enough.

4.2. Timing of Publication

A comparison of the timing of publications (2000–2020) in the literature on “library space” is shown in Figure 2.
As can be seen from the graph above, research related to library spaces is generally in a growth phase, especially after 2017, when the growth in research results was more pronounced.

4.3. Subjects of Research

An analysis of the subjects of the literature reveals that there are 883 pieces of literature studying the spatial issues of university libraries and 367 pieces of literature studying the spatial issues of public libraries. Scholars are much more concerned with the space issues of university libraries than with the space issues of public libraries.

4.4. Research Content

The research content of the literature was analyzed in terms of the three dimensions of spatial literacy, the results of which are shown in Table 2.

5. Discussion

5.1. Spatial Theory Dimension

A review of the literature reveals that there are relatively few studies related to library space theory. There are 15 papers on learning theory, architecture theory and place-making theory, 9 papers on space production theory, 3 papers on community space theory, 6 papers on social capital theory, 8 papers on experiential space theory, 3 papers on interaction space theory, and 2 papers on the hierarchy of spatial attributes theory.
Learning theory, architectural theory, and placemaking theory: Fleming, a scholar in the discipline of urban planning, states that in order to build successful informal learning spaces, it is necessary to consider three theories—learning theory, architectural theory, and placemaking theory—and their relationship to each other [16]. Scholars in library science have researched and explored library spaces from the perspective of building informal learning centers in libraries. The quality of learning spaces is closely related to the quality of student learning, and dealing with the relationship between learning and space [17] can help students grow and succeed [18]. Informal learning spaces are created with active and rational use of technological devices [19,20], and dealing with the interaction with resources [20]. It is also important to focus on user experience and to understand patrons’ preferences for formal and informal learning and recreation [21,22], and therefore to create a library place atmosphere, for example, by creating a café space [23] in the library.
Spatial production theory: Drawing on spatial production theory, there has been a paradigm shift in the study of library space in librarianship. Library space is no longer just a “document container”, but a participant in the “production” of library services. Library services need to be constantly developed, designed, used, and transformed through “space” and so on in order to recreate the services [24]. Based on the internal logic and external form of library space production, it is possible to promote the transformation of library space from a production vehicle for knowledge innovation to production itself, and to promote the generation of various relationships and behaviors of service knowledge innovation in libraries, thus promoting the transformation of library space construction and services [25,26,27].
Social capital theory: Libraries have sought to actively participate in the creation of social capital in several ways: by facilitating or organizing meetings, providing informal meeting places, building links between community groups, creating a friendly environment, and meeting the educational needs of the community. In addition, scholars have concluded that three main factors influence the potential for social capital creation in libraries: the library building and space, the library staff and volunteers, and the library’s connection to the community [28,29,30].
Experience space theory: Library experience space theory emphasizes the subjective feelings of users as the basis and aims to enhance the psychological satisfaction of users, and the experience levels, in increasing order, are: functional experience, sensory experience, emotional experience, brand experience, and design experience [31]. Nowadays, driven by new demands, human beings have entered the “heart era” of the “experience economy” to meet spiritual needs, and libraries should analyze readers’ preferences for sensory experience and space selection [32,33], and improve the physical and spiritual environment to enhance readers’ satisfaction with library space. To enhance patrons’ perception of the beauty of library space and to enjoy the information and other services provided by the library with pleasure [34,35].
Third Space Theory: In 2009, the IFLA Congress, with the theme of “Libraries as Third Space”, formally introduced the concept of “third space” proposed by sociologist Odenberg into the field of graphical information and clearly proposed that libraries, as a public cultural space, should create a new spatial pattern and psychological feeling for the public. At the conference, it was clearly stated that libraries, as a public cultural space, should create a new spatial pattern and psychological feeling for the public [36]. The “third space” has made the space content substratum breakthrough become the hot spot of space research, proposing that the space should be reader-centered, trying to create an open, inclusive, and diversified cultural space, to achieve the value of complementary and spiritual interaction with the community’s diversified space subjects, such as bookstores, coffee shops, etc. [37].
Community space theory: Beagle, an American scholar, proposes that libraries should create a shared learning space, which specifically includes three parts: physical environment, virtual environment resource support, and physical/virtual environment management. The space is mainly designed to support students’ academic exchange and social interaction [38]. Libraries should differentiate functional areas when designing the community in the spatial environment, such as open reading spaces, independent learning rooms, multifunctional lecture halls, and electronic reading rooms, and adjust the area of the area and the design style according to different functions [39].
Interaction space theory: The library interaction space theory asserts that different functional spaces in libraries have the potential to provide interactive activities for users and that users can enjoy a wider range of freedom in libraries in addition to receiving data and information [31]. The design of library interaction spaces should start from the relationship between readers’ psychological needs and interaction spaces [40], focus on the interaction between users and library elements, and conform to readers’ behavior patterns. The layout of the space should reflect the concept of culture, harmonize the ecological environment, and incorporate advanced technology [41].
Spatial Attribute Hierarchy Theory: The concept of library spatial attribute hierarchy was first proposed by F. Kent, who summarized the spatial attributes and characteristics of libraries by examining the attributes and elements that attract users’ participation in libraries. Based on the Malos Hierarchy framework of thought, four library spatial attributes were proposed that would attract users to the library. From low to high, they are accessibility and connectivity, functionality and availability of activities, sociality, and comfort and brand image, which form a good inspiration for library space design [42]. Some scholars have also constructed a structured framework of a hierarchy of readers’ needs to assess space [43].
In terms of the current state of library space theory, there are currently two main paradigms in the library profession for the analysis and study of space theory: the horizontal paradigm and the vertical paradigm. The horizontal paradigm, i.e., using theories from other academic fields for the study of library space. With the breakthrough of contemporary spatial concepts on traditional spatial epistemology [44], libraries have started to introduce well-established theories from other fields to guide the study of library space, mainly including spatial production theory, place theory, learning theory, social capital theory, etc. The vertical paradigm refers to the fact that as the study of library space continues to deepen, scholars explore and develop theories of library space from the perspective of the library’s own values, which now mainly include: the theory of spatial attribute hierarchy, the theory of interaction space, the theory of experience space, the theory of third space, the theory of community space, etc. A comparison of the two paradigms reveals that the horizontal paradigm is more fruitful, and librarians are more likely to draw on the theoretical achievements of other disciplines to explain the spatial transformation of libraries. The vertical paradigm, on the other hand, is relatively short of research theories, and there are few theoretical studies that explore the value system of libraries in depth from the spatial characteristics and construction connotations of libraries themselves and have yet to clarify the logical relationship and integration mechanism between the construction of library functions and the spatial value of libraries.

5.2. Spatial Method Dimension

In this paper, the searched literature was screened to identify relevant literature that used specific research methods. There are 55 papers about survey methods, 33 papers about interview methods, 17 papers about observation methods, and 4 papers about GIS techniques.
Survey method: This is the most commonly used method in library space research and includes questionnaires, literature surveys, etc. The survey method will be used alone or in conjunction with other methods to obtain data on space use. The survey method collects data in two main areas: patron-related data: including the investigation of spatial attributes that influence patrons’ space choices [45,46], patrons’ perceived differences in library space and usage preferences [47]; and space use-related data: including data on the evaluation of library space construction and renovation [48,49], and quantitative data on space usage patterns [50,51].
Interview method: This is a more in-depth research method, the main purpose of which is to provide an enhanced analysis of key issues in existing research or weaknesses in research. A variety of interview formats were used in the study of library spaces, including individual interviews [52,53,54], focus group interviews [55,56], group interviews [57,58], etc. It was mainly used to collect qualitative and quantitative data so as to come to a deeper understanding of readers’ space preferences and to focus on deeper issues of space use [59,60], etc.
Observation methods: With the continuous enrichment of technological tools, the number of research methods for library space observation has increased, including the use of video to record space usage [61], the use of software or web programs to record seat scanning data [62], the use of observation note methods to record and compare long periods of space usage data [62], and the collation of activity or service logs to summarize user content generation patterns [63].
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology: GIS tools and mapping tools are specialist research tools for geospatial research and are currently being tried out in the study of library space. GIS technology can visually track and analyze the layout of furniture and space [64], mapping methods can collect user activity trajectories and usage preferences [65], and visual traffic scanning (VTS) methods [66] can visually monitor space use.
From the summary and analysis of spatial research methods, it is easy to see that there is a growing wealth of current research methods for the construction and use of library space. But it is also worthwhile looking deeper into what problems these methods mainly address. Scholars generally agree that there are three types of research questions: descriptive, relational, and causal. Descriptive research questions aim to observe and record data; relational research aims to show the relationship between two or more variables; and causal research aims to demonstrate that one variable affects another variable or variables [67]. Further documentation of the literature on research using spatial method reveals that the majority of studies currently remain in descriptive question studies (29), such as preliminary studies on the status of space use and space utilization; studies on relational questions (4) focus on the relationship between space construction and service quality and service innovation [68,69], and the relationship between space services and user perception and user education [70,71]. Studies on causality issues (6) studied factors influencing readers’ willingness to use the space [47,72,73], the impact of library space on students’ learning behavior, information behavior [74,75], the impact of library space on campus culture [76], etc. From the current situation, librarians need to introduce more advanced and effective spatial research methods to explore more deeply the characteristics of readers’ experiences, the social group relations of readers and the social role of library space.

5.3. Spatial Practice Dimension

From the statistical results of the literature, the results of the librarians’ spatial studies have focused thematically on three spatial forms such as information sharing spaces, learning sharing spaces, and makerspaces [77], among which there are 288 literature related to information sharing spaces, 364 literature related to learning sharing spaces and 240 literature related to makerspaces. The research on these three is not fragmented but is progressive.
Information Commons (IC): Information Commons was an innovative form of library service in the 1990s that used advanced technologies such as computer technology and networking. “IC emphasises an online environment, so the library’s design and layout of IC spaces emphasises flexibility”. Typical examples of library IC spaces in practice include [78] Loyola University (Richard J Klarchek), USA; University of Pennsylvania (David B Weigle), USA; Roger Williams University Library LC. The LC at Williams University Library, USA; the Information Commons at Sheffield University Library, UK; the “SMLE” Multiple Learning Area at National Taiwan Normal University Library, Taiwan; the Information Commons at Shanghai Normal University Library; and the Information Commons at Zhejiang University Library.
Learning Commons (LC): Learning Commons is a shift in the form of space in libraries at the beginning of the 21st century to meet the needs of patrons for collaborative learning and work. LC focuses on the allocation of space for individual learning and collaborative team learning [77]. Typical examples include the McLaughlin Library at Guelph University, Canada [79] and the LC at Stauffer Library at Queen’s University, Canada [80].
Makerspace: The purpose of makerspaces is to enable readers to share resources and create collaboratively and complete ideas in a space. The year 1873 saw the Women’s Library and 1905 saw the Carnegie Library open up space for services that teach craftmaking techniques. The concept of library makerspaces was formally introduced by Lauren Smedleyzui of the School of Information at Syracuse University, U.S.A. The richer exploration of makerspace practices is mainly in the U.S.A. In early 2012, the US government-built makerspaces in 1000 schools across the U.S.A. Libraries are active promoters and implementers of such experiential maker practices. In this process, the Chicago Library “You Media” Digital Media Lab, the North Carolina State University Hunter Library Makerspace, the Simpson Library Think Lab at the University of Mary Washington, and the Hiroshima University Library BIBLA Space, and the Gosha University Hall of Conscience in Japan have emerged [81].
Case study research is the best presentation of results and dissemination of experience on space construction practice; therefore, we further statistical analysis of library space construction cases based on the analysis of space practice research. These case studies mainly focus on the following issues: the necessity and feasibility of space construction, functional target positioning, construction mode, service content, operation mode, management mechanism, and guarantee mechanism, and some special space construction experiences are shown, such as the construction of library data sharing space for think tank innovation services [82], the construction of library sharing space in MOOC environment [83], the layout design of maker space based on 3D printing service based makerspace layout design [84,85], etc. Further classification and analysis of the cases show that there are 146 case studies in the literature, among which are 30 cases in public libraries and 116 cases in university libraries. From the analysis results, there are more summaries and analyses of experiences in the construction of university library spaces, while there are fewer summaries of practical experiences in public libraries. The university library is a small society, and its service objects are limited to university teachers and student readers, so the implementation of its experience has certain applicable prerequisites and needs to be tested and landed in a larger social group. It is also easy to see from the changing patterns of spatial cases and practices that spatial forms change to meet the changing spatial needs of readers, from information sharing and learning sharing to innovative development, and that spaces change because of people. Therefore, Entering the new century, library architecture is more focused on the relationship with people and their place in the library [86].

6. Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research

6.1. Limitations of the Study

There are three main limitations to this study. One is that this paper adopts a literature review approach to analyze the spatial literacy of librarians by focusing on the trajectory of literature related to library space. However, not all librarians and practitioners document their experiences of space construction and spatial research ideas, so in order to be able to fully investigate librarians’ space management competencies, an empirical investigation should also be conducted, and another study by the current research team is an empirical study of space services and management [87]. Secondly, our selection of literature was limited to peer-reviewed journals and dissertations. Newspapers, books, or chapters in books may also contain research related to library space, and the addition of this section may change the findings of the study. In addition, this paper defines librarians’ spatial literacy based on the real needs of space construction. However, libraries make spatial changes based on readers’ needs, and library spaces are changed to realize readers’ spatial needs. Therefore, by including readers or the drivers of readers’ needs in the definition framework of librarians’ spatial literacy, the description of librarians’ spatial competence will be more comprehensive.

6.2. Suggestions for Future Research

The spatial transformation and development of libraries need to be supported by a systematic theoretical system. The exploration of the value of library space and the development of spatial practice should be based on the actual situation of libraries, and we should not just rely on theories imported from other disciplines but should really clarify the inner dynamics and main mechanisms of the transformation of library space.
In order for libraries to fulfill the social role of space and create the spaces that readers really need, librarians must, on the one hand, understand “space”, master the methods of developing and studying space, maximize the observation of readers’ spatial experience and use, and understand the interrelationships between different functional spaces [88]. On the other hand, librarians must also understand “people” and have the means to explore and analyse the relationships between readers’ social groups. By thinking in terms of the social needs of readers and positioning services, they can break through descriptive research and truly understand the relationship between readers in the space, the relationship between readers and the space, and the relationship between readers and librarians, and thus also understand in greater depth the causal relationships between the various elements of the space.
The study of library space theory and the implementation of methods are ultimately tested by the practice of space construction. Therefore, librarians should be brave enough to face the challenge of reshaping the value of space and constantly experiment with new space construction solutions and service models. At the same time, the entire library industry should form a synergy and establish a smooth collaboration and exchange mechanism between different types of libraries, to summarise and reflect on the experience and lessons learned in a timely manner and to create more fine examples of space construction. For example, the IFLA Green Library Award and the Public Library Award are effective examples of library space practice and provide models for library space change and development that can be drawn upon and referred to. It is also important to rationalize the role of readers’ needs in driving spatial practice and to explore ways and means to develop spatial practice based on readers’ spatial needs, which is important for the development and enhancement of librarians’ spatial literacy.

7. Conclusions

Libraries are constantly exploring and innovating spatial forms, from the initial information arcades to the functionally rich shared spaces, to the hot maker spaces of today. The changing spatial forms also require librarians to improve their spatial literacy and competence. Based on the reference and summary of existing research results, this study provides a conceptual analysis of librarians’ spatial literacy from three aspects: spatial theory, spatial methodology, and spatial practice. A systematic literature review is used to summarise and analyze the current situation of librarians’ spatial literacy from three aspects: spatial theory, spatial methodology, and spatial practice. Library spatial theories are not yet abundant, but librarians have tried to use them to summarize construction laws and solve practical problems by combining their own theoretical excavations with the expansion of theories from other disciplines. There has not been much research into the use of spatial methods in libraries, but as spatial technologies and methods continue to be enriched, librarians are beginning to focus on the value and usefulness of spatial methods for space management. The increasing practical experience in building and transforming library spaces will also help librarians to improve their spatial theories and methods. All in all, the improvement of librarians’ spatial literacy will ultimately lead to a win-win situation for both readers and libraries, with the needs of readers being met and the value of libraries being stimulated and expanded. Therefore, libraries should let librarians improve their spatial literacy and explore spatial practices together on the road.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.J.; methodology, Y.J. and Y.W.; software, Y.C. and W.Y.; validation, Y.C. and X.Y.; investigation, Y.J., W.Y. and Y.C.; data curation, Y.J. and Y.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.J. and Y.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.C., W.Y. and X.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Fund of the Chinese Ministry of Education [grant number 17YJA870003] and the Philosophy and Social Science Fund of Zhejiang Province [grant number 21NDJC039YB].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Xiao, X.M. The Value of Libraries as Public Cultural Spaces. Libr. Forum 2011, 31, 62–67. [Google Scholar]
  2. Xu, H.Y. The theoretical basis of library space innovation and service practice response. Library 2021, 4, 52–59. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yu, L.Z. Introduction to Librarianship; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  4. RLUK Space: Hybrid and Blended Working Approaches and the Role of Space in Libraries. Available online: https://www.rluk.ac.uk/rluk-space-hybrid-blended (accessed on 16 March 2022).
  5. Han, J.R. Research on GE Utilization Strategies Based on the Cultivation of Geospatial Literacy of Secondary School Students; Northeast Normal University: Changchun, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ye, C.M. The cultivation of spatial concepts in primary school mathematics from the perspective of core literacy: Reflections on the teaching of “figure and geometry” in primary school. J. Fujian Educ. Coll. 2020, 21, 90–91. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lin, C.D. A Study of Core Literacies for Student Development in the 21st Century; Beijing Normal University Press: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bednarz, S.W.; Kemp, K. Understanding and nurturing spatial literacy. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 21, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Goodchild, M.F.; Janelle, D.G. Toward critical spatial thinking in the social sciences and humanities. Geojournal 2010, 75, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lin, J. Analysis of the elements of geographic spatial literacy based on core literacy. Teach. Learn. Exam. 2017, 21, 16. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shen, J.H. A Single-Subject Study on the Development of Spatial Literacy among Geography Teacher-Training Students; Shanghai Normal University: Shanghai, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  12. He, L. Exploring the Formation Mechanism and Cultivation Ways of Geospatial Literacy among High School Students; Sichuan Normal University: Chengdu, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cardenas, C.M. Evaluación post ocupacional en bibliotecas: Una revisión sistemática. Cienc. De La Inf. 2017, 7, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Methods of systematic reviews and meta-analysis preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 8, 336–341. [Google Scholar]
  15. Yu, D.; Chen, J.; Li, X.; Yan, Z. Trajectory of Teacher Well-Being Research between 1973 and 2021: Review Evidence from 49 Years in Asia. Public Health 2022, 19, 12342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Harrop, D.; Turpin, B. A Study Exploring Learners’ Informal Learning Space Behaviors, Attitudes, and Preferences. New Rev. Acad. Librariansh. 2013, 19, 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Spencer, M.E.; Watstein, S.B. Academic library spaces: Advancing student success and helping students thrive academic library spaces: Advancing student success and helping students thrive. Portal: Libr. Acad. 2017, 17, 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sandelli, A.; Cunningham, S.J. Ethnography in Student-Owned Spaces: Using Whiteboards to Explore Learning Communities and Student Success. New Rev. Acad. Librariansh. 2019, 25, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Teleha, J.C.; Sims, I.; Spruill, O.; Bowen, A.; Russell, T.; Exner, N. Library Space Redesign and Student Computing. Public Serv. Q. 2017, 13, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ramsden, M.; Carey, C. Spaces for learning? Student Diary Mapping at Edge Hill University; Edge Hill University: Ormskirk, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mkyc, A.; Dkwc, A.; Ethl, B. Effectiveness of overnight learning commons: A comparative study. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2020, 46, 102253. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang, X.Z.; Yang, C.; Ma, J.; Li, L. Analysis of factors influencing students’ autonomous activities based on SP survey. Intell. Inq. 2019, 6, 54–60. [Google Scholar]
  23. Deng, Q.; Allard, B.; Lo, P.; Chiu, D.; See-To, E.; Bao, A. The role of the library café as a learning space: A comparative analysis of three universities. J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 2017, 51, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yan, X.B. Exploration of library service reengineering based on space production theory. Libr. Constr. 2014, 12, 5–7, 11. [Google Scholar]
  25. Peng, S.L. The inspiration of Levi’s “spatial production” theory for library transformation and development. Libr. Constr. 2021, 1, 105–113. [Google Scholar]
  26. Griffis, M. Living History: The Carnegie Library as Place in Ontario. Can. J. Inf. Libr. Sci. 2010, 34, 185–211. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ilako, C. The Influence of Spatial Attributes on Users’ Information Behaviour in Academic Libraries: A case study; University of Borås: Borås, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  28. Miller, J. A Comparative Study of Public Libraries in Edinburgh and Copenhagen and Their Potential for Social Capital Creation. Libri 2014, 64, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vårheim, A. Public libraries: Places creating social capital? Libr. Hi. Tech. 2009, 27, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Johnson, C.A. How do public libraries create social capital? An analysis of interactions between library staff and patrons. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 2012, 34, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, Y. Study on Space Optimization Design of College Library in Post-Digital Map Era; Shenyang University of Architecture: Shenyang, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  32. Cox, A.M. Learning bodies: Sensory experience in the information commons. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 2019, 41, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Noh, Y.; Ro, J.Y.; Jeong, D.K. A study on users’ perception of the role of library in the sharing economic era in Korea. Libr. Hi Tech 2019, 38, 654–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, C.Q. Library space layout design based on spatial experience theory. Inn. Mong. Sci. Econ. 2018, 18, 130–131. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhao, A.J. Principles and Strategies for Creating Cultural Space for Animation in Libraries. Libr. Inf. 2017, 4, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
  36. Elmborg, J. Libraries as the Spaces Between Us Recognizing and Valuing the Third Space. Ref. User Serv. Q. 2020, 50, 338–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zang, H.D.; Kou, Y. Study on the construction of public library space in the context of cultural scene theory. Libr. Stud. 2021, 2, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fennewald, J. The Tombros and McWhirter Knowledge Commons at Penn State. Pa. Libr. Res. Pract. 2015, 3, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wu, C.L. Research on the Design of Community Space Environment in University Libraries; Dalian University of Technology: Dalian, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  40. Chen, D.L. Research on the Design Strategy of Interaction Space of University Library based on the Evaluation of Usage Conditions; Hefei University of Technology: Hefei, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jin, F. Reader-centered design of interaction space in libraries. Contemp. Libr. 2011, 4, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chen, Z. Space design concept based on library space attribute hierarchy theory. Libr. World 2014, 5, 1–3, 8. [Google Scholar]
  43. Christoffersen, D.L.; Farnsworth, C.B.; Bingham, E.D.; Smith, J.P. Considerations for creating library learning spaces within a hierarchy of learning space attributes. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2021, 47, 102458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yan, X.B. From production in space to production of space--New trends in the transformation of library services. Libr. Forum 2015, 35, 27–31, 49. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hong, F.L.; Wu, Y.W. A study on readers’ behavior of learning shared space in university libraries: A case study of four universities. Libr. Stud. 2020, 23, 31, 63–72. [Google Scholar]
  46. Cha, S.H.; Kim, T.W. What Matters for Students’ Use of Physical Library Space. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2015, 41, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cao, F.F.; Guo, J.; Yang, X.M. An empirical study on factors influencing users’ willingness to use makerspace in public libraries. Libr. Intell. Work 2018, 62, 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang, X.Q.; Liu, Q.; Ma, L.H.; Deng, J.; Qiao, X.F. A model for evaluating public library makerspaces. Libr. Constr. 2020, S1, 192–195. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mamolu, A.; Gürel, M. “Good Fences Make Good Neighbors”: Territorial Dividers Increase User Satisfaction and Efficiency in Library Study Spaces. J. Acad. Libr. 2016, 42, 65–73. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lux, V.; Snyder, R.J.; Boff, C. Why Users Come to the Library: A Case Study of Library and Non-Library Units. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2016, 42, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. May, F. Using and Experiencing the Academic Library: A Multisite Observational Study of Space and Place. Coll. Res. Libr. 2015, 6, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Wang, N. Identification and Analysis of Resistance and Constraints to the Development of Creative Space in College Libraries—An Analysis of Rooting Theory Based on Nvivo. New Century Libr. 2020, 10, 34–41. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cao, J.R. An empirical study on the evaluation of learning commons in higher education libraries. Libr. Stud. 2020, 8, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  54. Christian, B.; Maria, H.; Agnes, M. How Public Libraries are Keeping Pace with the Times: Core Services of Libraries in Informational World Cities. Libri 2018, 68, 181–203. [Google Scholar]
  55. Burhanna, K.J.; Burhanna, K.J.; Seeholzer, J.; Seeholzer, J.; Salem, J.; Salem, J. No Natives Here: A Focus Group Study of student perceptions of web 2.0 and the academic library. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2009, 35, 523–4532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rempel, H.G.; Hussong-Christian, U.; Mellinger, M. Graduate Student Space and Service Needs: A Recommendation for a Cross-campus Solution. J. Acad. Libr. 2011, 37, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Oliveira, S.M. Space Preference at James White Library: What Students Really Want. J. Acad. Libr. 2016, 42, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bjrneborn, L. Serendipity dimensions and users’ information behavior in the physical library interface. Inf. Res. 2008, 13, 370. Available online: http://www.informationr.net/ir/313-374/paper370.html (accessed on 9 May 2022).
  59. Marino, M.; Lapintie, K. Libraries as transitory workspaces and spatial incubators. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 2015, 37, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Montgomery, S.E. Library Space Assessment: User Learning Behaviors in the Library. J. Acad. Libr. 2014, 40, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Webb, K.M.; Schaller, M.A.; Hunley, S.A. Measuring Library Space Use and Preferences: Charting a Path Toward Increased Engagement. Portal Libr. Acad. 2018, 8, 407–422. [Google Scholar]
  62. Dominguez, G. Beyond gate counts: Seating studies and observations to assess library space usage. New Libr. World 2016, 117, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kim, T.Y.; Gang, J.Y.; Oh, H.J. Spatial usage analysis based on user activity big data logs in library. Libr. Hi Tech 2019, 38, 678–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gullikson, S.; Meyer, K. Collecting space use data to improve the UX of library space. J. Libr. User Exp. 2016, 1, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  65. Khoo, M.J.; Rozaklis, L.; Hall, C.; Kusunoki, D. “A Really Nice Spot”: Evaluating Place, Space, and Technology in Academic Libraries. Coll. Res. Libr. 2016, 77, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Given, L.M.; Archibald, H. Visual traffic sweeps (VTS): A research method for mapping user activities in the library space. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 2015, 37, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Steinberg, S.L.; Steinberg, S.J. GIS Research Methods; Esri Press: Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  68. Yang, K.; Huang, S.T. Study on the identification and evaluation of service quality of library maker space. Library 2020, 8, 78–84. [Google Scholar]
  69. Liu, J. An empirical study on the improvement path of university library service innovation based on creative space. J. Acad. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2020, 4, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
  70. Xia, N.C.; Chen, M. Study on the influencing factors of knowledge sharing in information sharing space of domestic university libraries. Mod. Intell. 2011, 31, 3–7, 10. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ji, C. The perfect combination of information sharing space and E-Literacy education: Insights from the analysis report of IC in 36 American universities. Intell. Sci. 2009, 27, 1347–1350. [Google Scholar]
  72. Cao, F.F.; Guo, J.; Yang, X.M. An empirical study on the willingness to use library makerspace based on TAM. Libr. Stud. 2018, 1, 24–33. [Google Scholar]
  73. Xiao, P.; Yang, X.N. An empirical study on users’ willingness to use information sharing space: An example from the library of Binhai Campus of Tianjin Foreign Studies University. Library 2016, 6, 86–91. [Google Scholar]
  74. Woo, E.M.W.; Serenko, A.; Chu, S. An exploratory study of the relationship between the use of the Learning Commons and students’ perceived learning outcomes. J. Acad. Librariansh 2019, 45, 413–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Janssen, M.A. The Role of Information in Governing the Commons: Experimental Results. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Beavers, K.; Cady, J.E.; Jiang, A.; Mccoy, L. Establishing a maker culture beyond the makerspace. Libr. Hi. Tech. 2019, 37, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jiao, X.Z. Research on the Problems and Countermeasures of Physical Space Reengineering in University Libraries in China; Liaoning Normal University: Dalian, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hu, Y.H.; Xu, Q. A comparative study of domestic and international IC construction. Libr. Stud. 2008, 8, 66–70. [Google Scholar]
  79. Lu, C.G.; Ma, G.D. Learning Commons: A seamless learning environment for libraries to create universities. Mod. Intell. 2009, 29, 201–204, 207. [Google Scholar]
  80. Liu, J.Y. Analysis of the idea of constructing learning sharing space (LC) in university libraries in China. Library 2011, 4, 108–110. [Google Scholar]
  81. Chen, J.; Tan, F.L.; Liu, Y.Y. A study on the path of building creative spaces in university libraries. Library 2021, 7, 77–81, 90. [Google Scholar]
  82. Wu, Y.Z.; Xiang, X.; Zhang, L.M. Research on the service model of library data sharing space for the construction of think tanks. Intell. Sci. 2020, 38, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wu, T. Construction of Library Telepresence Information Sharing Space in MOOC Environment. Libr. Work Res. 2017, 6, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  84. Jiang, M. A study on the practice of public library makerspace service based on 3D printing—Shanghai Library as an example. Publ. Wide Angle 2020, 1, 61–63. [Google Scholar]
  85. Jin, Z.M. A Brief Review of 3D Printing Services at Dalhousie University Library Makerspace. Libr. Constr. 2015, 10, 63–67. [Google Scholar]
  86. Wu, J.Z. A new space for both virtual and real: Reflections on the next step of libraries in the post-epidemic era. Libr. Constr. 2021, 4, 6–11. [Google Scholar]
  87. Jiang, Y.P.; Chen, Y.H.; Chi, X.B. A theoretical model and empirical analysis of university library readers’ spatial cognition. Libr. Hi Tech 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Feng, J. Research and reflection on the new position of user experience librarians. Chin. J. Libr. Sci. 2022, 48, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 03244 g001 550
Figure 1. Literature inclusion-exclusion process.
Figure 1. Literature inclusion-exclusion process.
Sustainability 15 03244 g001
Sustainability 15 03244 g002 550
Figure 2. Timing of publication of library space research literature.
Figure 2. Timing of publication of library space research literature.
Sustainability 15 03244 g002
Table
Table 1. Spatial literacy components.
Table 1. Spatial literacy components.
AuthorsSpatial Literacy Components
Han, 2009 [5]① Geospatial concept② Geospatial representation tools③ Geospatial reasoning
Lin, 2017 [10]① Geospatial perspective② Geospatial view③ Geospatial capabilities
Shen, 2020 [11]① Spatial knowledge literacy② Spatial perspective literacy③ Spatial ability literacy
He, 2020 [12]① Spatial cognition (including geographical location, spatial distribution, spatial shape, etc.)② Spatial thinking (including spatial connection, spatial imagination, spatial analysis, etc.)③ Spatial ability (including spatial reasoning, spatial use, spatial perspective, etc.)
The US Department of Labor’s Geospatial Competency Model (GCM)① Knowledge of geography subjects② Use of GIS, mapping, field research, etc.③ Performing spatial statistics, etc.
Sustainability 15 03244 i001Sustainability 15 03244 i001Sustainability 15 03244 i001
Spatial TheorySpatial MethodSpatial Practice
Table
Table 2. Research content.
Table 2. Research content.
DimensionalityResearch Content (Number of Papers)
Spatial theoryLearning theory, architectural theory and placemaking theory (15), space production theory (9), community space theory (3), social capital theory (6), experiential space theory (8), interaction space theory (3), the hierarchy of spatial attributes theory (2)
Spatial methodSurvey method (55), Interview method (33), Observation method (17), Geographic Information System (GIS) technology (4)
Spatial practiceInformation Sharing Space (288), Learning Sharing Space (240), Creative Space (364)
Note: The literature is organized statistically according to the principle of non-exclusivity of studies. That is, the same piece of literature can be counted in each category repeatedly. For example, if both survey and interview methods are used in the literature, both methods are counted simultaneously.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wu, Y.; Yang, X.; Yu, W. Are Librarians Ready for Space Transformation? A Systematic Review of Spatial Literacy for Librarians. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043244

AMA Style

Jiang Y, Chen Y, Wu Y, Yang X, Yu W. Are Librarians Ready for Space Transformation? A Systematic Review of Spatial Literacy for Librarians. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):3244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043244

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiang, Yiping, Yanhua Chen, Yanqi Wu, Xianlin Yang, and Wenyan Yu. 2023. "Are Librarians Ready for Space Transformation? A Systematic Review of Spatial Literacy for Librarians" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 3244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043244

APA Style

Jiang, Y., Chen, Y., Wu, Y., Yang, X., & Yu, W. (2023). Are Librarians Ready for Space Transformation? A Systematic Review of Spatial Literacy for Librarians. Sustainability, 15(4), 3244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043244

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop