This review argues that public libraries operate as fundamental promoters of social inclusion in multicultural societies not just through multicultural programs, bilingual services and culturally representative collections, but also through broader processes of social integration. Based on a systematic search of five databases (LISTA, Scopus, ERIC, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar) using the PRISMA methodology, thirty-one peer-reviewed studies published between 1983 and 2024 were identified and analyzed; of the included studies, 64% employed qualitative methods, 26% quantitative methods, and 10% mixed-methods approaches. This analysis investigates global library responses to integration through a variety of approaches and organizational capabilities. Notably, only 6% of the evidence originates from developing countries, indicating a significant research gap. Key findings indicate that integration is facilitated through four interconnected processes by libraries: survival and settlement, cultural anchoring, skill development, and bridge building, and that it is hindered by a lack of multilingual staff, resource constraints, poor policy, and institutional capacity. Organizational capacities related to institutional bricolage, cultural intelligence, network embeddedness, and adaptive learning, which impact service delivery, are moderated by policy context, geography of settlement, resource context, and community. This study proposes the Multicultural Integration Ecosystem Framework to elucidate how libraries act as agents of social cohesion across four principal pathways, each influenced by contextual factors. Instead of offering prescriptive solutions, this research provides adaptable principles suitable for resource-constrained environments, demonstrating that inclusively managed libraries are essential to fostering social cohesion, equity, and empowerment in multicultural settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seifi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: