Getting Consensus about Competencies:
What’s Needed for Effective Library
Programs
Rebecca Joy Norlander, Knology Ltd.
RebeccaJN@knology.org
Jena Barchas-Lichtenstein, Knology Ltd.
JenaBL@knology.org
John Fraser, Knology Ltd.
JohnF@knology.org
Mary Davis Fournier, American Library Association Public
Programs Officemfournier@ala.org
John Voiklis, Knology Ltd.
JohnV@knology.org
Elizabeth Danter, Knology Ltd.
edanter@me.com
This paper presents a study of the specific disciplinary competencies required of library
programming professionals and the training pathways where they develop those skills.
Most existing competency frameworks focus on general library service or audience, rather
than the specializations required for public programming. Reflecting the emerging importance of programming to libraries’ service model, this US research study demonstrates
that excellence in programming requires a unique set of competencies not found in otherareas of library practice. The evidence shows that most public-programming competencies
are learned outside of MLIS training but could be introduced as an MLIS concentration orlearned as professional development.
Keywords: job skills, job training competencies, library programming, public programs

As US libraries transform to meet the needs of a changing nation, public programming is rising to the forefront of daily library work. While
libraries have always had a broad educational mission, many people
outside the library world still see libraries primarily as collection holders and lenders. Yet libraries are also centers for lifelong experiential
learning, hubs for civic and cultural gatherings, and partners in community-wide innovation. Alongside this shift, there has been an ongoingrefinement of what librarianship entails. Each generation has witnessedchange in the types of competencies expected from library professionals(e.g. Ammons-Stephens, Cole, ­Jenkins-Gibbs, Riehle, & Weare, 2009;© Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 2020
Vol. 61, No. 2 DOI: 10.3138/jelis.2019-0052

Getting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

189

Buttlar & Du Mont, 1996; ­McNeil &KEY POINTS:
Giesecke, 2001). Recently, the rise ofsocial media and other internet tools• This is a first-ever attempt tohas shifted the types of competendevelop a set of competencies
cies that library professionals needspecific to library public pro(Huvila, Holmberg, Kronqvist-Berg,gramming, despite a growing
Nivakoski, & Widén, 2013; Koh &need.
Abbas, 2015).
Scholars have argued for the im• Three interrelated studies atportance of competencies in the detempt to fill that gap: a review
velopment of accredited academicof existing competencies, job
programs (Lester & Van Fleet, 2008;
listings, and ALA-accredited
Rehman, 2003) and library manprogram requirements; an onagement (McNeil & Giesecke, 2001;
line survey of practitioners;
Middleton, 2003), with specific use
and a series of discussion foin hiring, performance review, andrums to validate initial findings.
professional development training(Yang, Zhang, Du, Bielefield, & Liu,
• The resulting nine competency2016). However, no research to dateareas have immediate usability
has focused on developing competenfor those who currently designcies specific to public programming,and run public programs at
despite the rapid growth of this work
libraries, and those developing(ALA, 2014). The lack of specificcurriculum for future librarycompetencies for programming proprofessionals.
fessionals may limit those working inlibrary programming in their careerdevelopment and in the management and oversight of this evolving areaof library practice.
To fill the gap, we conducted three mixed-methods studies on
programming-specific skills and training, asking the following two researchquestions:
1. What competencies are required for professionals working in library public programming today?
2. How should professionals working in library public programmingreceive training in those competencies?
In order to pursue this type of research, it was also important torecognize that developing common definitions requires embracing
the scale and diversity of library programming across library types
and the professionals who lead that work. Developing, implementing,and managing public programs may be one job responsibility among
many, or it may be the core of a full-time position. An individual may
be responsible for a single program or—particularly in larger librarysystems—they may supervise dozens of staff members who run thousands of programs.

190

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

The National Impact of Library Public Programs Assessment

This research is part of the National Impact of Library Public Programs
Assessment (NILPPA),1 an initiative of the American Library Association (ALA) to understand and document the characteristics, audiences,outcomes, and value of US library public programming. This work was
prompted by a dearth of national data available to quantify the impact ofpublic programming in libraries or in their communities.
An unpublished literature review done in the planning stages of
NILPPA determined that while some information about library programs
exists, adequate evaluative data on impact and research to describe effective
practices across the field were lacking. The review revealed that the majorityof publications on cultural programs in libraries stop at simply describing
those programs, often using anecdotes rather than more systematic inquiry
aimed at program evaluation (Benway, 2010; Harris, 2011; Hill, 2008; Sigala,
1990; Tidy, 2008). A thorough meta-analysis of the ALA archives of program
evaluation validated these findings (Fraser, Sheppard, & Norlander, 2014).
While these well-described studies demonstrate that programs achieve goals
for target audiences, the results do not align to larger questions that canhelp shape the future of library programs as a whole.
In response, ALA brought together a network of researchers, practitionerresearchers, and advisors to design a comprehensive research strategy tobetter understand the shift to increased programming in libraries and to prepare library professionals to embrace their changing role (ALA, 2014). The
findings related to competencies presented in this paper are part of the ongoing, multi-phase NILPPA initiative aimed at laying the groundwork needed
to serve the emerging needs of library workers and provide a foundation for
national metrics to assess how programming is affecting library services andusers. This research is unique in its ability to link professional skills to program impact assessment, and to establish the training needs to support both.

Key terms

The effort hinged on developing a common understanding of terms thatappear deceptively simple: public program and competency. Understanding ofthese terms may vary across library type, so it was imperative to identify definitions that could be widely agreed upon by members of the community.
For the purposes of this research, we define a public program as a service or event in a group setting developed to meet the needs or interestsof an anticipated target audience. All libraries, regardless of type, have apublic—the audiences to whom the library tailors its programs and thepeople the library serves. (Compare IMLS [n.d.] for another definitionof program.)
We adopted the Library Leadership and Management Association’s(LLAMA, n.d.) definition of competency: “Professional competencies
comprise the knowledge, skills, and abilities which are teachable, measurable, and objective and which define and contribute to performance inGetting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

librarianship.” The words teachable and measurable require further specification: We recognize that many of the competencies in question are either
not currently taught in formal educational settings or difficult to teachin those settings. We also recognize that a competency need not be fully
quantifiable to be measurable; qualitative measures are also valid.
The question of measurement helps us differentiate between a competency and a skill. A competency has two dimensions: (1) the knowledge, skill,or ability; and (2) the level of mastery of that knowledge, skill, or ability.

The present research: Competencies and training for public
programming

The goal of this descriptive research effort was to reflect community-wide
understandings both of core competencies needed in library public programming and of the types of training to support professionals in developing
these competencies. We employed a mixed-methods approach, commencing
with exploratory qualitative studies and followed by a field-wide survey ofprogramming professionals and a series of discussion forums to assess thevalidity and inclusiveness of our recommendations. All research was undertaken with professionals working in academic settings, programming practitioners, library administrators, and an advisory group drawn from acrossthe library programming field. We received additional feedback through apublic blog site where we shared information as the project developed toensure that members of the library programming community could follow
our process and contribute their thoughts as our work developed.
In Study 1, we reviewed existing competency frameworks from acrossthe library field and related fields. We then analyzed advertisements fromlibrary jobs and materials from ALA-accredited graduate programs fromaround the United States. In Study 2, we distributed an online survey
on needed skills and training pathways to the American Library Association (ALA) Public Programs Office’s (PPO) Programming Librarianemail list. We reviewed preliminary results with an advisory panel andthen redeployed that survey to ensure that our data contained enoughresponses from different library types to ensure inclusivity in our results.
We concluded our work with Study 3, a validity assessment of our tentative
findings through a series of live and online discussion forums.

Study 1: Identifying existing programming-related competencies

Methods
To develop our research strategy for later phases, we reviewed existing
competency frameworks for the library field and related fields, competencies listed in advertisements for library jobs and library career websites,
and websites from ALA-accredited master’s degree programs2 from aroundthe United States.
The review of existing competency frameworks and associateddocuments included the ALA Core Competencies (ALA, 2009); the

191

192

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

WebJunction Competency Index for the Library Field (Gutsche & Hough,2014); the American Dream Starts @ Your Library Evaluation Report(ALA, 2015b); the results of the skills and knowledge survey from Envisioning Our Information Future (Abels, Howarth, & Smith, 2017; Abels &Saunders, 2017; Simmons College SLIS, 2017); the Remake Learningcompetencies (Remake Learning, 2015); the Visitor Studies Association
Evaluator Competencies (VSA, 2008); the Competences for Democratic
Culture (Council of Europe, 2016); and the Young Adult Library Services
Association Teen Services Competencies (YALSA, 2017). There was substantial overlap between these sources, but each helped to elaborate adetailed list of potential competencies that appeared to reference public
programming for review by the field. In reviewing these existing competency frameworks, we did not limit ourselves to competencies that were
explicitly identified as programming-related.
For comparison with this initial dataset, we reviewed approximately
50 listings posted on two major job sites: the ALA JobList and the Metropolitan New York Library Council jobs page. These encompassed bothacademic and public library positions. To assess these sources, we utilized
key word searches for “outreach,” “programming,” and “instruction” andalso reviewed responsibilities and qualifications for leadership positions
like directors. Lastly, we examined the resources available on INALJ.com,
including library job listings across the US, articles, and resources aboutfinding a library job.
We also reviewed the programming components of 58 ALA-accredited programs.3 As information was not presented in a standardized way
across degree programs, one researcher on our team navigated througheach program website, which included reviewing as many of the following
materials as were publicly available: program overview, curriculum, course
listings and descriptions, specializations or foci within the program, andcompetencies expected of graduates.
Results
Existing competencies indexes
Of all the documents reviewed, three frameworks provided the coresources for potential public-programming competencies. While the ALA
core competencies (ALA, 2009) were broad, five sets of competencies wereidentified as particularly relevant to public programming: Foundations of
the Profession; Technological Knowledge & Skills: Reference & User Services; Continuing Education & Lifelong Learning; and A­ dministration &Management. The 2014 update of WebJunction’s Competency Index(Gutsche & Hough, 2014) offered a compatible set of competencies,
with their Public Services Competencies appearing most relevant to thedelivery of public programming, and a number of other relevant specificcompetencies appearing in Essential Library Competencies and LibraryManagement Competencies. Finally, the Young Adult Library Services

Getting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

Association’s (2017) framework, which was updated concurrently with the
beginning of this research, explicitly identified programming as a focal
point throughout, such that all of their core content areas were explicitly
related to programming.
Other resources suggested additional specific skills. The IMLS-funded
Envisioning Our Information Future report (Abels et al., 2017; Abels &Saunders, 2017; Simmons College SLIS, 2017) sought to identify the mostneeded competencies for library professionals in the face of technological change. Among the skills identified, those that were most central toprogramming effectiveness were interpersonal communication, customer
service, cultural competence, and interacting with diverse audiences. The
American Dream Literacy Initiative, which supports programming for
adult English Language Learners (ELLs), identified the importance of
linguistic and intercultural skills for working with their particular populations. In addition to library-related resources, we also explored aligned
organization frameworks related to job-specific skills. The Visitor Studies
Association’s evaluator competency framework (VSA, 2008) for informal
learning settings identified specific skills related to learning theory, business practice, and social science research and evaluation methods.
Career resources and listings
Our review of career resources and online job listings further demonstrated that public programming requires a combination of skills that,taken together, are distinct from the other areas of library work. The
listings we reviewed revealed the importance of communication skills, theability to work as part of a team, adaptability, and knowledge of current
trends in library work. Programming-specific skills and requirements mostfrequently listed in these ads included training or experience in teaching,presentation skills, customer service, diversity or inclusiveness, digital media or marketing, program promotions, information literacy, and social
media.
Review of ALA-accredited programs
The review of ALA-accredited degree program websites4 revealed considerable variability in emphasis across graduate degree programs. Based on
our review, 41 of the 58 programs offered specializations or concentrations within the master’s degree, many of which were potentially related
to public programming. However, only four of them had a community
engagement specialization, which was deemed most likely to be related to
public programming. Fifty of the 58 programs offered courses that address
programming. All of these courses were electives, and the most common
foci were young adults, children, storytelling, and cultural diversity. However, the only information we had for many courses was the title. Less thanhalf (27) of the 58 programs identified an explicit programming-relatedcompetency expected of graduating students.

193

194

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

Our review may not be exhaustive, since each program is structured
differently, few offered publicly available course descriptions, and programs
do not use terminology consistently. In particular, the lack of a standardized
definition of services was a challenge. Some universities explicitly included
programming activities under services, while others didn’t, leading to some ambiguity in our results. For those reasons, we believe that our review may slightly
underestimate the representation of programming in these degree programs.

Study 2: Field-wide survey about competencies and training

Methods
In parallel to Study 1, we surveyed ALA PPO’s current Programming Librarian opt-in mailing list to identify individual perspectives on priority
skills, knowledge, and abilities. The survey solicited information on thefollowing:• skills needed to successfully run public programs;• self-assessment of ability to run public programs;• pathways to learning those skills (e.g., through a degree program,from colleagues, etc.);• competencies that should be part of degree programs even if they
currently are not; and• institutional characteristics, such as type of library and size of community served.
We employed open-ended questions so we could triangulate bottom-up
data from the survey with top-down data from the competency frameworks.
The survey was deployed in two waves: a first general wave, followed byan advisor workshop to discuss tentative findings and potential gaps in thedata, and then a second wave to expand participation by underrepresented
groups. Specifically, in the second wave of the study we sought additional
representation of professionals working in rural libraries, tribal libraries,
research and academic libraries, state libraries, special libraries, and K–12
school libraries, and academic instructors. Based on feedback from ouradvisors at the mid-point, we added a preamble to clarify definitionalquestions, similar to “key terms” above.
Comparison of results from both waves confirmed that there were no
major differences in responses. However, the second wave led to some
additional variation between and within groups underrepresented in thefirst wave. On this basis, we aggregated all responses for analysis.
Participants
Given that this study was designed to address the lack of a standardized
understanding of library public programming, participant self-selection
was an important part of the research design. Our goal was to reachthose individuals who saw public programming as an important part oftheir work and were willing to offer their perspectives toward a shareddefinition.

Getting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

In the first wave, the survey was distributed to the Programming Librarian email list, which included 5,321 email addresses, of which 92 werereturned as unrecognized. To ensure inclusion in the second wave, thesurvey was distributed in collaboration with the Association for Rural andSmall Libraries (ARSL); the American Indian Library Association (AILA);
the Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums (ATALM); andthe Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA).5 We received a totalof 1,249 responses across both waves (wave 1: n = 791; wave 2: n = 458).
Community demographics were roughly representative of the nation
as a whole, and the combined data represented sufficient responses fromUS library workers in each key category of library type, as estimated by ALA(2015a), to explore variation for statistical significance. We targeted those
who are shaping the field (academic instructors) and those who were more
likely to participate in hiring or overseeing staff (directors and administrators). At the same time, we recognized the value of hearing from librarians,
coordinators, and others who are engaged directly in programming work.
The majority of respondents identified their current position as either
Other library staff member or Other (Figure 1). Common write-in answers included adult services, administration, children’s/teen/youth coordinators,
and public/reference/instructional librarians.
Results
Self-Reported Ability
Overall, respondents were positive about their ability to run public programs (Table 1).

Figure 1: What is your current role?
Additional institutional characteristics of respondents can be seen in Supplement
S1, Tables S1.1 and S1.2. available at https://utpjournals.press/doi/suppl/10.3138/
jelis.2019-0052.

195

196

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

Table 1: Responses to the question “Do you believe that you personally havethe skills or abilities necessary to successfully run public programs at libraries?” (n = 1, 247)
Frequency
Always230

Almost always

519

Usually

337

Sometimes

138

Rarely16

Almost never

5

Never

2

In an open-ended question, respondents explained their responses.
The most common bigram6 (two-word phrase) among the responses, excluding both English stop words (see Lewis, Yang, Rose, & Li, 2004) andwords found in the prompts, was years experience (n = 23), suggesting that
comfort depends on time using the skills rather than training. At the single-word level, work* was the most common single word (n = 233), while
year* was third (n = 201), and experi* was thirteenth (n = 118), confirming
our interpretation.7
Programming librarians reported that they are generally supported bytheir institutions and colleagues—as well as by local businesses, community
members, and organizations. We learned that the social nature of the job
leads many to call on colleagues for support or training. A few rare exceptions did not feel they received sufficient institutional support. Despite
a general sense of confidence, many participants indicated less comfort
leading programs in specific content areas such as technology, multilingual
programs, or engagement with some cultural or age groups.
Degree status and training
Most respondents had completed a library degree (74%, n = 919). The
remainder had not (20%, n = 256), were currently enrolled in an MLIS
program (3.3%, n = 42), or had started but did not complete their degree(1.7%, n = 22), with nine individuals either unsure or choosing not toanswer. For comparative analyses, we reduced degree status to a binomial
variable by combining No, Currently enrolled, and Some courses. Those working in higher education were most likely to have graduate degrees, while
those in public libraries were least likely (Table 2).
Using an ordinal logistic regression, we assessed the effect of degree
status on self-reported ability, controlling for library type, community type
(Urban, Suburban, Rural), and population size. Degree status did nothave a statistically significant effect when these factors were held constantGetting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

Table 2: Number and proportion of MLIS degrees by library type.
n
MLIS

p
MLIS

Higher Education or Research

279

0.89

Special

27

0.84

K–12

46

0.75

Other

22

0.73

Public516

0.66

Note: n Higher Education = 312, n Special = 32, n K–12 = 61, n Other = 30, n Public = 776.
We received too few responses from tribal and state libraries to report on them, since itwould have limited statistical power.

(Figure 2). In fact, the only significant effects were for two library types:
Respondents from K–12 and public libraries had higher confidence ratings
than others.8
Nearly all respondents reported learning programming skills on thejob, with many reporting informal training and other learning from colleagues, or some combination of these (Table 3).
Responses to an open-ended follow-up question about training experiences also revealed that hands-on learning was key to developing
skills relevant to programming. Many reported feeling unprepared for
public-program management at the start of their careers and becoming
comfortable only after direct experience. For others, seemingly unrelated
past experience—in fields including retail, teaching, and theater, as well
as non-professional experience like party planning—helped with skill
development.
Respondents who mentioned their graduate degree were mixed about
its value relating to running library public programs: Of 874 respondents
to this open-ended question, 119 mentioned that their degree experience
had helped them in their role as a programming librarian, while 110
disagreed directly, citing irrelevant courses or outdated curricula. Some
described their MLIS training as focused on theory that might not beapplicable to real-life programming. Others noted that their theoreticaltraining in graduate studies gave them a framework for understanding
their role, their community, and what services they ought to offer. Those
who described coursework as unhelpful often cited professors unfamiliar
with day-to-day program management, changes since they had completed their degree, and a lack of coursework in marketing or budget
management.
For the many survey respondents who attribute competency development primarily to time on the job, formal training may not be able
to simulate the constraints that crop up in the real world. As one stated,“Formal training isn’t a requirement, but planners need to know their

197

198

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

Figure 2: Beliefs about public programming skills plotted against completion of an MLIS
degree.
Note: Infrequently summarizes Sometimes – Never from Table 1.
Question text: Do you believe that you personally have the skills or abilities necessary to
successfully run public programs at libraries? and Have you completed a MLS / MLIS degree?

Table 3: Responses to the question “How did you acquire relevant skills or
abilities?” (n = 1,247)
Frequency
On the job

1,161

Informal training

919

From colleagues

775

MLIS program

506

Other formal academic training

325

Other

323

N/A (I do not believe I have necessary programming skills)

14

Note: Most respondents selected multiple answers. The median respondent selected 3
different answers. Only 129 respondents selected a single answer, including 11 of the 14
who did not believe they had programming skills.

Getting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

personal and institutional constraints. If at a university, when are midterm
exams offered, what competing events are already calendared, what timeof day is best.”
Competencies
Two open-ended questions requesting clarification on (1) skills andabilities necessary to programming and (2) core knowledge and skills
that should be part of a library degree offered a valuable perspective.
An emergent coding of all responses was compared to the results of an
automated quantitative analysis;9 these produced similar results. The
quantitative analysis of the full data set revealed the top 20 bigrams(two-word phrases) for each question, which were summarized into thefollowing nine key competency categories identified in the emergent
coding:• knowledge of the community, including open-mindedness andlistening skills, intercultural and diversity skills, and group-­
specific competencies such as language skills or knowledge ofchild development;• interpersonal skills, including customer service, communication,
networking, public speaking, facilitation, and “people skills”;• creativity, including the keywords flexibility and problem-solving;• organizational skills, including project management and time
management;• event planning;• outreach and marketing;• content knowledge;• financial skills, including budgeting, grants, and fundraising; and• evaluation, including knowledge of statistics and benchmarking.
While an organizational competency was the most frequent bigram
in responses to both questions, the way in which it was framed differed
substantially. For the question about necessary skills, respondents
answered organizational skills with highest frequency, while project management topped the list of core knowledge in MLIS programs. Overall,competencies framed as less teachable personal characteristics were
far more common as responses to the first question, yet these werepredominantly expressed as teachable skills in response to the second
question. For example, compare people skills (personal characteristic)
with customer service (teachable skill). The same can be said for knowledge[of the] community versus community needs. Similarly, the creativity category
appears only on the list of skills needed in practice (skills creativity) while
financial skills (grant writing) appears only on the list of desired MLIS
program content.
We produced a visualization to illustrate the comparative hierarchy
within each question (Figure 3).

199

200

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

Figure 3: Top 20 bigrams for “What skills are necessary?” (L) and “What skills should bepart of MLIS degree?” (R).
Note: The relative size of each bigram represents its frequency. Note that stripped-out
stop words are often clearly reconstructable, e.g., attention_detail.

Variation in responses
Using logistic regression analysis, we also examined variation in the threemost frequent responses by training status (informal only vs. both formal
and informal), degree status, library role, library type, and library population. There were no statistically significant differences between those who
mentioned organizational skills and those who did not, nor did we find any
for communication skills. However, library professionals with an MLIS degree
were almost four times more likely to list project management as a needed
skill than those without a degree. Similarly, they were also more than twice
as likely to mention project management as something that should be taught
in academia. We did not see significant results for grant writing or event
planning. Those who mentioned project management in either question weremore likely to mention it in the other one.
Partnerships
Based on our project advisors’ experience and expertise, we explored how
respondents discussed partnerships in our data set. More than 120 respondents mentioned partnerships or relationships in at least one response,
and they described both institutional and individual relationships. Thesewords appeared most frequently in questions about needed skills (n = 74)
and core MLIS skills (n = 56), while also arising in their self-assessment
and personal learning pathways. Partnerships with other organizations
were seen as important for providing materials and expertise for programs,
understanding community needs and desires, raising awareness of library
programs, and library staff professional development.
Summary of Study 2
The results of Study 2 largely corroborated Study 1 in terms of bothtraining and competencies. Library professionals did not uniformlyGetting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

agree that library degree programs taught them necessary skills for
programming. The range of competencies we developed by synthesizing responses was intended to reflect the maximum variation within
the data set, rather than a consolidated single set of competencies.
We felt confident that our tentative range of competencies broadly
represented the voices of the field; this synthesis laid the foundationsfor Study 3.

Study 3: Validity to the field

To finalize a recommended set of public programming competencies,
our third study set out to test the validity of the themes that emerged inStudy 2. We sought to understand both preferences in types of training,particularly which competencies might be better suited to formal learning
opportunities, and how a competencies framework might reflect theincreasing emphasis on social learning noted by our expert advisorycommittee.10
Methods
To pursue this validity study, we organized a series of discussion forums
that could be structured according to library type or program audience,with questions used to determine the best ways to develop necessary
skills. We felt that a maximum variation qualitative study could best
represent the broad range of library settings and the range of skill
requirements.
We held five 90-minute discussion forums, three in person (withemerging library leaders, academic librarians, and rural librarians) at
the 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans. The other two wereconvened virtually (K–12 librarians and professionals from across librarytypes). To accommodate schedule conflicts, we also conducted three separate 30-minute interviews with tribal librarians.
Forums and interviews were conducted using a semi-structured protocol, with questions focusing on programming experience, necessary skills
for programming, and pathways to learning those skills. Multiple researchers reviewed notes from each forum to elicit key findings and emergent
themes; a single researcher synthesized notes from interviews with tribal
librarians. Quotations from forums were checked against recordings; quotations from interviews were confirmed with interviewees.
Participants
We spoke with a total of 41 practitioners across the six groups (Table 4).
Members of the ALA Emerging Leaders program worked in suburban
public libraries, urban library systems, academic libraries, and K–12 libraries, while the mixed group included public, state, specialty, and academic
library professionals. All three tribal librarians worked at tribal collegesor universities on Native American reservations. Respondents worked in arange of roles, at varying levels of seniority.

201

202

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

Table 4: Number of librarians in each discussion forum.
Group

Formatn

K–12 libraries

Digital forum

7

Academic libraries

Live forum

8

Rural libraries

Live forum

9

Emerging library leaders

Live forum

8

Mixed library types

Digital forum

6

Tribal libraries

Interviews

3

Results
Although each library type had some unique affordances, most topics
seemed to be represented across library type.11 Frequently mentioned
competencies generally fell into two main categories—interpersonal skills
and organizational skills12—with a subcategory of managerial skills mentioned by those who oversaw programming. Interpersonal skills included
social and emotional skills, necessary for maintaining good relationships,
while organizational skills were more internal and operational. Those insupervisory roles were more likely to mention organizational skills. Resource­management—both time and money—was considered a high-priority
management skill, but participants noted that the specific skills were­context-dependent. In general, they saw volunteer and partnership management as part of this resource management competency.
Irrespective of role, a number of participants also mentioned metacognitive skills—including flexibility, collaboration, and learning how tolearn—that are present throughout the proposed framework, in particularat the mastery level, but do not map directly onto single content areas.
For the remainder of this section, we focus on variation in the specificcompetencies.
Assessing community needs and desires
Across library types, participants focused on assessing community needsin order to prioritize programming that would be most valuable to theirservice public. Related skills included designing programs with all ages andabilities in mind, being aware of cultural backgrounds and languages, andinterpersonal skills. Staff in supervisory roles, particularly in larger librarysystems, were especially likely to note the need to develop skills needed toserve diverse communities.
When discussing community-responsive programming, variation between groups suggested that there is no consensus on the best approach,with participants commenting on the limits of both formal and informal
needs assessment. Community needs was also an all-encompassing category,incorporating access accommodations, parking and transportation, broadGetting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

community interest, and fit with curriculum in academic and school libraries. Academic library workers conceived of their publics as consisting
primarily of students and faculty. The tribal librarians did not describe
their needs-assessment process explicitly but noted that they prioritize
youth programming. These librarians also noted a shift away from information literacy to programming that is driven by the interests and needsof young people.
Evaluation
In addition to assessing community needs, all participants agreed that
evaluation and impact measurement competencies were central to thework. Academic library staff defined impact more narrowly as grades, while
K–12 schools focused on overall student performance, and special libraries
were more concerned with measuring community benefits. Professionals
working in rural and tribal libraries were more likely to focus assessment
on improving program development techniques, rather than identifying
change in participants.
Marketing and outreach
Librarians across types highlighted generating awareness of programs asa time-consuming and critical skill, whether they referred to it as communication, marketing, or outreach.
As with other competencies, the details varied by library type. School
librarians were focused on graphics skills for social media, while academic
librarians emphasized the need to attract students away from competing
events. Meanwhile, participants in the mixed-type group noted the needto craft effective messages to generate awareness that libraries are notlimited to books: “Just getting the word out about our programs is the biggest struggle we have.” Tribal librarians, on the other hand, concentrated
on connecting with people face-to-face, through social media, and radio:“[Radio] is the tribe’s sovereign communication method.”
Outreach was essential not only for program audiences but also forgenerating buy-in from stakeholders. Academic library staff highlighted
the need for buy-in because their bureaucratic hierarchy can be time-consuming, but the model remained the same across all participants. We
noted that emerging leaders at all levels were more likely to talk about“managing up” and advocating for their programs with supervisors. For
school librarians, these skills were more focused on selling programs laterally, to their teacher colleagues.
Summary of Study 3
The discussion forums further validated the findings from the community survey, and in some cases they provided additional context about theunique affordances and challenges of each library type. For example, academic librarians placed stronger emphasis on subject-area expertise than
did professionals in other types of libraries, and tribal librarians focused

203

204

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

heavily on the skills to reflect, represent, and support tribal identities andvalues. Respondents with and without library degrees noted that many
important skills were transferable from other fields, suggesting that there
are multiple effective pathways to a career in library programming.

Discussion and proposed competency framework

ALA’s Core Competencies of Librarianship (2009) include knowledge,
skills, and abilities that are necessary for programming professionals, but
the relationship, hierarchy, and specific demands of the work suggest that
programming professionals require additional competencies, many ofwhich are currently learned outside libraries and library degree programs.
Proposed library programming competency areas
Many of the skills identified in these studies were similar to those foundin other competency indexes. However, the proposed prioritization,
hierarchy of need for mastery, and specific work with group dynamics
and community organizations are unique to library public-programming
professionals.
1. Organizational skills. Works toward managing time and projects efficiently
and effectively at multiple levels: individually, institutionally, and in collaboration
with outside organizations and agencies.
Organizational competencies are represented in the general ALA competencies described as Administration and Management. One distinction
emerged in this research: Collaborative management with outside organizations and agencies relies on diplomacy skills that are not highlighted
in other sources.
2. Knowledge of the community. Works toward understanding the communities for which programs are developed, including their particular needs andinterests; building respectful, reciprocal relationships with community members andorganizations; and ensuring access to a wide variety of programs for all community members, especially those who have historically been underserved or face otherchallenges to access.
This area of competencies includes open-mindedness and listening
skills, intercultural and diversity skills, and group-specific competencies
such as language skills or knowledge of child development. Compare
YALSA’s (2017) community and family engagement and equity of access
content areas, which served as the basis for the language used in our
definition.
3. Event planning. Works toward planning, managing, and implementing
events that are both developmentally and culturally appropriate for their intended
audiences.
Note that event planning includes two types of skills: logistical skills
and the ability to create appropriate environments for different audiences.
Logistical skills include managing scheduling and logistics for multiple programs occurring in parallel, resource management at the event

Getting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

level, and fundraising at the event level. While the logistical aspects of thiscompetency are present to some degree in other frameworks, our research
confirmed that the scale and complexity of managing multiple events—­
often on the same day—elevated this competency beyond basic skills.
Environment-building skills include “[cultivating] high-quality, developmentally appropriate, flexible learning environments that support
service populations individually and in group experiences” (YALSA,
2017) and scaffolding age-appropriate “peer-to-peer knowledge sharing”(Gutsche & Hough, 2014, p.40). This subset of event planning includes
the ability to organize frequent reconfigurations of event spaces while
ensuring safety, accessibility, and navigability; and the ability to create
flexible and modular spaces that can be used for an increasing range ofprograms. Part of the latter subcategory includes the ability to “[design]
flexible and multi-use spaces to accommodate a variety of programs andservices” (Gutsche & Hough, 2014, p. 26).
4. Financial skills. Works toward budgeting, seeking funding for, and managing the finances of a program or suite of programs, often in collaboration withexternal partners.
While we noted resource management as part of event-planning competencies, this competency addresses financial management, particularly
beyond the level of the single program. Our results suggest that the pressure to secure grant funding, negotiate sponsorship, and manage budgets
collaboratively with external partners were necessary programming competencies. At higher levels of management, we expect that programming
professionals will increasingly be involved in budgets related to space use,
rental, and construction or renovation.13
5. Evaluation. Works toward using statistical and qualitative tools to measureprogram effectiveness and impact on all community audiences, including those thathave historically been un- and underserved; and using this information to iteratively improve the development and delivery of programs.
Our results suggest that public-programming professionals have moreneed of culturally responsive evaluation and tools for addressing variationin relatively small populations, rather than large-scale survey tools. These
competencies also include knowledge of how to understand un- and underserved audiences within the service population.
6. Outreach and marketing. Works toward communicating information
about programs to all community members who could potentially attend or benefit,
using a variety of digital and analog channels in ways that are culturally anddevelopmentally appropriate.
These competencies emphasize communicating about programs inways that meet the service community’s interest and needs; collaborating with individuals and organizations; and using a variety of digital andanalog channels, including graphic design of marketing materials. Ethically sharing results of evaluations and other assessments falls into thiscontent area, as do building support, maintaining good public relations

205

206

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter

through communication, and building effective relationships to support
programming.
7. Content knowledge. Works toward sufficient knowledge of program content to deliver, manage, or evaluate programs, according to role.
Our research showed that those directly involved in program implementation as teachers or facilitators had different content knowledge
needs than those involved in management or oversight. These competencies are likely specific to job, library, and community culture.
8. Interpersonal skills. 14 Works toward communicating effectively and appropriately with all stakeholders and audiences to provide consultation, mediation,and guidance during programs and in other contexts relating to programs.
These competencies—based on ALA core competency 5C (ALA,2009)—include customer service, communication, networking, public
speaking, facilitation, and general “people skills.” We note that this content area often intersected with knowledge of the community in thatappropriate engagement often required knowledge of community norms;
however, this competency highlights the programming professional’s performance rather than their knowledge.
9. Creativity. Responds to challenges and problems with inventiveness, flexibility, and creativity to resolve them.
Respondents to our survey also described this competency describedas having highly developed “flexibility” to manage change and refined“problem-solving” skills. This competency included everything from visualcreativity—such as the ability to design communications materials—toinventiveness with program topics and methods to meet service community needs. It also included the ability to “roll with the punches” and findlast-minute solutions to everything from absent volunteers to equipment
issues.
Training in library programming competencies
More than 25% of survey respondents had not completed a library master’s degree, and more than 20% had no library coursework at all. Even for
those with a degree, most attributed many of their programming-specificskills to on-the-job experience or training outside their degree program.
Examination of academic curricula affirmed these results: While no school
explicitly offered a concentration in public programming, most offeredsome coursework, and the potential to offer this type of concentration
seems possible.
Many of the competencies in the framework we propose above are
currently taught in MLIS training programs at the entry level. An explicit
programming competency framework would support LIS educators indeveloping tracks or concentrations that aggregate these skills in a clear
learning progression. At the same time, other skills may be more suited
to lateral transfer from other academic programs or professional development targeting those with specific interest in programming. Because many

Getting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programsof these content areas will require professionals to learn continuously overthe length of their careers, teaching metacognitive skills and dispositions
will also be important for any academic concentration in programming.

Conclusion

The nine public-programming competency areas identified in this research appear to reflect a unique, interdependent set of skills. Whileindividual skills within this set are relevant to other areas of librarianship,taken as a whole they characterize the unique field of programming. Developing and implementing time-dependent events while managing theneeds and expectations of diverse stakeholders, including both attendees
and partner organizations, distinguish these skills from those needed towork primarily through one-on-one interactions.
As a next step, these competency areas can also be disaggregated toindicate levels of mastery. Following this process, we envision practitioners
determining what these programming competencies look like according
to context. This will be dependent on the exact library environment andworkplace conditions for each professional—for example, specific outreach and marketing competencies will look very different for someone
who works primarily with new arrivals to an area and someone who works
with established library users. Clearly, library organizations and agencies
such as ALA, OCLC, state libraries, and state and regional cooperatives
have a role to play in helping library professionals become more proficient in these competencies. This may occur through national, state, orregional conferences that offer professional development or other training
opportunities and can occur virtually as well to reach a larger subset ofprofessionals, especially those working in rural or underserved areas. ALA
is currently seeking grant funding to develop the nine NILPPA programming competency areas into a pilot curriculum for beginner programming
librarians.
The results about learning pathways suggest that administrators for
MLIS programs could develop a concentration in public programming,
but we note that these courses would likely develop skills primarily at theentry level, which can also emerge through other paths. Independent ofa professional’s path to entering the library public programming field,
we believe that focus on these competency areas can support a life-longprofessional development path and build depth as they move up the management hierarchy.
Rebecca Joy Norlander is a researcher at Knology Ltd., a nonprofit organization that
produces practical social science for a better world. With a background in qualitative
research design and expertise in human rights education, she leads Knology’s culture
research, focusing on the ways in which cultural participation and practices advancesocial good.
Jena Barchas-Lichtenstein leads the media research at Knology Ltd. She is particularlyinterested in (un)certainty, authority, and expertise.

207

208

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, DanterJohn Fraser is President & CEO of Knology Ltd. and past president of the Society for
Environmental, Population, and Conservation Psychology (Division 34 of the American
Psychological Association). His research focuses on how collective identification withgroups influences self-efficacy and willingness to engage in positive social change.
Mary Davis Fournier is the deputy director at the American Library Association Public
Programs Office. In her 25 years of leadership work with libraries and literary organizations, she has spearheaded dozens of groundbreaking projects—in addition to NILPPA—
that have paved the way for innovation in the field, including Libraries Transforming
Communities, Building Common Ground: Discussions of Community, Civility and Compassion, and the first “One Book” resource, Planning Your Community-Wide Read. She
is currently working on a book, Empowering Communities: The Library and Community
Engagement, which will be published in 2020 by ALA Editions.
John Voiklis is a cognitive and social psychologist who studies the “social life” of humancognition, including both how people think about their social world and how they act
in that social world. He is especially interested in how people create and enforce social
norms during their everyday interactions.
Elizabeth Danter previously worked as a researcher with Knology. She has over ten years’
experience as a program evaluator assisting numerous museum and science centerorganizations. She is an adjunct faculty member at the George Washington University,
teaching evaluation theory and methods to graduate-level museum studies students.

Acknowledgments

This research was undertaken as part of the National Impact of Library
Public Programs Assessment (NILPPA): Phase I, with funding support
from the Institute of Museum and Library Services Grant # LG-96-170048-17. The authors thank Nezam Ardalan, Colleen Barbus, Michele
Besant, Joanna Laursen Brucker, Terrilyn Chun, Jen Dixon, Kate Flinner,
Janine Golden, Kathryn Nock, and Beverly Sheppard for helping shape
the research and for their participation in data collection, analysis, andreport development. We would also like to acknowledge the full staff of
the American Library Association (ALA) Public Programs Office (PPO),
who helped manage this project, the many library professionals who
participated generously with their time and opinions in the studies described in this paper, the members of the Programming Librarian online
community whose feedback was essential to the work, and the ongoingsupport of the Public Library Association’s Project Outcome team fortheir constructive input.

References

Abels, E. G., Howarth, L. C., & Smith, L. C. (2017). Envisioning our information
future and how to educate for it. Boston, MA: The #InfoFuture Project.
Abels, E. G., & Saunders, L. (2017). Core and more: Identifying key skills and qualifications for LIS [Blog post]. UNBOUND. Retrieved from http://slis.simmons.
edu/blogs/unbound/2017/05/
American Library Association (ALA). (2009). ALA’s core competencies of librarianship. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.
educationcareers/files/content/careers/corecomp/corecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf
American Library Association (ALA). (2014). National Impact of Library Public Programs Assessment white paper. Retrieved from http://nilppa.org/
planning-grant/whitepaper/Getting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs
American Library Association (ALA). (2015a). ALA library fact sheet 1: Numberof libraries in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/tools/
libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet01
American Library Association (ALA). (2015b). American Dream Starts @ yourlibrary: Multi-year evaluation program years 2008-2015. ALA Office for Diversity,
Literacy and Outreach Services.
Ammons-Stephens, S., Cole, H. J., Jenkins-Gibbs, K., Riehle, C. F. and Weare, W. H.,
Jr. (2009). Developing core leadership competencies for the library profession.
Library Leadership and Management, 23(2), 63–74.
Benway, N. D. (2010). Fine art programs, teens, and libraries: Changing lives one
program at a time. Young Adult Library Services, 9(1), 28–30.
Buttlar, L., & Du Mont, R., (1996). Library and information science competencies
revisited. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 37(1), 44–62.
https://doi.org/10.2307/40324283
Council of Europe. (2016). Competences for democratic culture: Living together
as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies. Strasbourg, France: Councilof Europe Publishing.
Fraser, J., Sheppard, B., & Norlander, R. J. (2014). National Impact of Library
Public Programs Assessment (NILPPA): Meta-analysis of the American Library
Association Public Programs Office archives. New York, NY: New Knowledge
Organization Ltd.
Gutsche, B., & Hough, B. (Eds.). (2014). Competency index for the library field.
Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
Harris, C. (2011). Music made possible at San Diego County Library. Public Libraries, 50(3), 10–11.
Hill, R. (2008). Adult cultural programming in small town libraries. Indiana Libraries, 27(2), 7–9.
Huvila, I., Holmberg, K., Kronqvist-Berg, M., Nivakoski, O., & Widén, G. (2013).
What is librarian 2.0—New competencies or interactive relations? A library
professional viewpoint. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45(3),
198–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000613477122
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). (n.d.). Museums, libraries, and21st century skills: Definitions. Retrieved from https://www.imls.gov/issues/national-initiatives/museums-libraries-and-21st-century-skills/definitions
Koh, K., & Abbas, J. (2015). Competencies for information professionals in learning labs and makerspaces. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science,
56(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.56.2.114
Lester, J., & Van Fleet, C. (2008). Use of professional competencies and standards
documents for curriculum planning in schools of library and information studies
education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 49(1), 43–69.
Lewis, D. D., Yang, Y., Rose, T. G., & Li, F. (2004). RCV1: A new benchmark collection for text categorization research. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5,361–397.
Library Leadership and Management Association (LLAMA). (n.d.). Leadershipand Management Competencies. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/llama/leadership-and-management-competencies
McNeil, B., & Giesecke, J. (2001). Core competencies for libraries and library staff.
In E. Fuseler Avery, T. Dahlin, & D. A. Carver (Eds.), Staff development: A practicalguide (3rd ed., pp. 49–61). Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Middleton, M. (2003). Skills expectations of library graduates. New Library World,
104(1/2), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800310458287
Mitkov, R. (2003). The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Rehman, S. U. (2003). Information studies curriculum based on competency definition. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 44(3/4), 276–295.
Remake Learning. (2015). Remake learning competencies. Retrieved from http://competencies.remakelearning.org/
Sigala, S. (1990). Everybody wins: Public programs in the museum library. Art
Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 9(4), 187–189.
https://doi.org/10.1086/adx.9.4.27948272

209

210

Norlander, Barchas-Lichtenstein, Fraser, Davis Fournier, Voiklis, Danter
Simmons College SLIS. (2017). Skills and knowledge survey: Executive summary.
Retrieved from http://slis.simmons.edu/blogs/unbound/files/2017/05/Executive-Summary-for-release.pdf
Tidy, S. (2008). Travelling treasures: A touring rare book roadshow. International
Preservation News, 45, 30–31.
Visitor Studies Association (VSA). (2008). Evaluator competencies for professional
development. Retrieved from https://visa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/historical/eval_comp/evaluator-competencies.pdf
Yang, Q., Zhang, X., Du, X., Bielefield, A., & Liu, Y. Q. (2016). Current market
demand for core competencies of librarianship: A text mining study of American
Library Association’s advertisements from 2009 through 2014. Applied Sciences,6(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/app6020048
Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA). (2017). Teen services competencies for library staff. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/yalsa/guidelines/
yacompetencies

Endnotes

1. See https://nilppa.org/ for more information about the history andfindings of the broader initiative.
2. We use “MLIS” throughout this article as an umbrella term for librarymaster’s degrees, although we recognize that these degrees go by
many different names. See also note 4 below.
3. Of the 60 programs listed by the ALA at the time of research (http://
www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/directory), 58 had
English-language websites. We excluded the two that did not: at the
University of Puerto Rico and the University of Montreal.
4. Programs reviewed included those described as Master of Arts (MA),Master of Arts in Library and Information Science (MALIS), Masterof Arts in Library Science or Master of Library Science (MLS), Masterof Library and Information Science or Master of Library and Information Studies (MLIS), Master of Information Studies (MIS), Masterof Information in Library & Information Science (MILIS), Master ofInformation (MI), Master of Science in Library and Information Science (MSLIS), Master of Science in Library Science (MSLS), Master of
Science in Information (MSI), and Master of Science in Information
Science (MSIS). One of the programs reviewed for this study offereda Master of Management degree. Of the 58 programs surveyed, 38 offered combined degree programs, including both bachelor’s/­master’s
programs (e.g., BSIS/MSIS) and joint master’s programs (e.g., MLIS/
MBA, MA/MS, etc.). A handful of the programs also offered bachelor’s degrees in information or library studies.
5. Because individuals may appear on multiple mailing lists, we are unable to provide the exact number of individuals to whom the link was
distributed.
6. Bigrams are commonly used in computational text analysis to capture
topics (Mitkov, 2003). After a text is stripped of stop words (e.g.,
articles, prepositions, and pronouns), bigrams tend to capture theGetting Consensus about Competencies: What’s Needed for Effective Library Programs

combinations of keywords in a phrase. In turn, phrases (especiallynoun phrases) tend to refer to entities and concepts—the topics of thetext responses. We used bigrams because we sought to capture phrases
in the text responses that might help us enumerate the range of topics
related to public programming.
7. Of the 18 word stems appearing in more than 100 responses, the others were common words that were difficult to interpret out of context.
8. We reached most of our public library respondents (n = 691 out of776) through Programming Librarian, indicating that these respondents self-identified with programming. Meanwhile, most other respondents (n = 371 out of 470) were reached through other channels
and may have identified less strongly with programming.
9. After stripping English stop words (see Lewis et al., 2004) and prompt
words (librar*, public, program*, and success*).
10. In the past, libraries have focused on individualized models of informal learning.
11. Some skills that were not programming-specific, such as those related
to the use of technology, were also frequently mentioned.
12. For brevity and clarity, we use the final names of each content areahere.
13. As part of “Community Relations,” WebJunction (Gutsche & Hough,2014) highlights that library professionals must not only determine
the needs of their particular community and context but also shapeprograms to be responsive to those needs, communicate clearly about
their work, and collaborate with other organizations and individuals
who are trying to satisfy those needs. The next two competencies focus
on this set of skills.
14. The remaining two competency categories were described as both habits of professional practice and, to some degree, behavioral strivings
that reflect aptitude of those most likely to succeed in programming.
While many of these skills can be taught, most were reported to be
honed over time on the job.

211