Qualitative data reveals staff support for decolonisation initiatives in Norwegian public libraries, suggesting gaps in knowledge and engagement.
Based on Norwegian colonial history, complicity in neo-colonialism, discrimination in Norwegian society and the role of the public library, there is a necessity for questioning how the public library – an institution built on colonial history and imported systems – fulfils its social mandate. This study maps staff attitudes towards the implementation of decolonisation initiatives in Norwegian public libraries, contributing to academic discourse on decolonisation in Norway. Qualitative data was collected in an interpretivist paradigm using a multi-stage strategy with a latent approach and analysed thematically. Questionnaire responses collected from 35 public library staff across 9 of Norway’s counties informed semi-structured interviews with four participants via an iterative process. Data analysis revealed three themes: acknowledgement of coloniality, contradictions and subjectivity and responsibility and challenges to decolonisation. A lack of knowledge on how colonialism impacts public libraries amongst staff and a need for decolonisation was identified in terms of the acknowledgement of coloniality and disparities between participant responses. Despite this, positive attitudes were expressed towards fostering education regarding decolonisation and the possibility of implementing initiatives. It is concluded that there is a lack of discussion on decolonising Norwegian public libraries, and a prevalence of whiteness particularly in discussions of solidarity and neutrality, cementing coloniality in the institution. As such, intentionality emerged as a significant consideration in light of existing challenges and the potential identified in participant attitudes. This study therefore recommends further research to confirm findings and greater staff initiative to foster discussion and education for meaningful engagement with decoloniality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dale et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: