Consensus, conflict and social capital: the conceptualisation of democracy in recent public library research

In professional discussions, and in much research, public libraries are widely considered to be important institutions for the promotion and enactment of democracy. Public libraries' role as institutions with great democratic value and importance are cornerstones in the field's self-perception (Wiegand, 2015) and democracy is the principal tool used for legitimising public libraries (Yamagishi et al., 2024). This “library faith” that frames public libraries as intrinsically important for the development of democracies finds nourishment in the Enlightenment tradition, but historical evidence cannot fully substantiate this claim (Wiegand, 2015). While libraries are information sources important for democratic societies (Budd, 2015), public libraries have also existed in totalitarian regimes, promoting ideals far from the liberal democracy of our time (Andersen et al., 1985; Stieg, 1992). Previous research has indicated a lack of empirical studies on the relationship between public libraries and democracy (e.g. Audunson et al., 2020; Buschman, 2018; Jaeger et al., 2013; Wiegand, 2015). Several recent studies have sought to fill this gap and provided empirical findings that, at least partly, show how public libraries contribute to democracy (e.g. Appleton and Hall, 2023; Audunson et al., 2019a, b, c; Koizumi and Larsen, 2023).

In an anthology with the emblematic title “Libraries and Democracy: the Cornerstones of Liberty”, former ALA-president Nancy Kranich summarizes the ideas prevalent within the library sector concerning the relation between libraries and democracy and frames libraries as “uniquely democratic institutions” (Kranich, 2001, p. 6). Revisiting the topics covered in “Libraries and Democracy”, Kranich (2020) asserts that libraries today are well aligned with notions of civic participation as they move from “merely informing citizens to engaging them in the issues of their communities” (p. 145). This example showcases how understandings of the way public libraries promote democracy evolve over time, arguably in close connection to societal and political changes, but the function of democracy as a main ideal underpinning the rationale of public libraries seems to remain a constant.

Despite the deep-rooted relationship between public libraries and democracy, John Buschman has framed democracy in Library and Information Science (LIS) as an unfinished or even discontinued idea (2007; cf. Eckerdal, 2017). The notion of democracy, and what is meant when we talk about democracy, is often taken for granted, or vaguely presented in a common Enlightenment tradition criticized as shallow by Buschman (2007). This line of thought risks leading to ideologically coloured speculation rather than useful scientific studies and previous research calls for the use of current theoretical perspectives on democracy to investigate the relation between public libraries and democracy (Ignatow et al., 2012). In this critique lies a call for LIS research to more clearly develop and connect clear theoretical perspectives on democracy to studies focusing on public libraries and democracy, or in other words, to more clearly articulate the “philosophical ties between libraries and democracy” (Jaeger et al., 2013, p. 377).

More than a decade later, LIS as a discipline has matured, and when it comes to research on public libraries – the type of libraries most often associated with democratic values and the focus of this article – an increasing number of publications explore and theorize their democratic functions (Buschman, 2018, see also Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen, 2025). This development calls for a systematic review of recent research to take stock of the current theoretical landscape of public library research. The purpose of this article is hence to provide an overview of how democracy is theoretically understood in recent research on public libraries and their role in democracy.

The study presented in this article reviews recent research on public libraries and democracy and investigates the focus and the theoretical underpinnings of these studies, and the key contributions made by the use of the main theoretical understandings of democracy.

Three research questions guide this study:

1. What theoretical notions of democracy are commonly represented in research on public libraries?

2. What is the focus and research design of this research?

3. What are the key contributions to knowledge made by using the main theoretical understandings of democracy?

After the analysis of the reviewed literature, theoretical understandings of democracy commonly represented in the literature will be critically discussed and potentially fruitful new avenues for public library research will be suggested. Next, previous public library research focusing on democracy is outlined before the research design of the present study is presented.

Democracy is a contested concept in public library research (Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen, 2025) and the meaning of the concept depends on the theoretical perspective applied (Eckerdal, 2017). While it is often assumed that public libraries are vital promoters of democracy and that democracy is an important ideal to strive for, this ideal is rarely defined. While accounts of democracy cannot produce clear guides for how to live in society, since all accounts of democracy are partial and given meaning by certain choices (Buschman, 2024), Robert A. Dahl, a leading researcher within modern political science, has presented a widely adopted account by establishing that the foundational logic of democracy is the principle of political equality (Dahl, 2020 [1998]). The main arguments for democracy, according to Dahl, connect to the main problem of politics: to avoid autocratic rule.

Few systematic literature reviews relating to public libraries and democracy have been published. One recent example, mainly focused on how public libraries contribute to overcoming social divisions, is provided by Igarashi and colleagues (2023). In this review, social division and rising inequality are framed as the main threats against democracy. Public libraries are found to contribute to overcoming social division mainly by reducing inequality (through mitigating digital, economic and demographic divides) and by promoting interactions between different groups of people (Igarashi et al., 2023). Another review, focusing on democracy as a contested concept in public library research, discusses how public libraries have contributed to democracy and identifies tensions in current research (Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen, 2025). Until the turn of the millennium, democracy has been understood chiefly as liberal democracy and public libraries have historically contributed to democracy both through cultural democracy (focusing on access and diversity) and democratization of culture (focusing on providing quality content). Theoretically, Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen (2025) find that among researchers from Scandinavia and the United States, the public library has frequently been studied, and theorized, as a public sphere during recent decades. Within this research tradition, three strands of approaches to study public libraries are identified: to study public libraries as public sphere departing from the Habermasian public sphere theory (Habermas, 1989 [1962]); to study public libraries as meeting places, related to the notion of third spaces (Oldenburg, 1999); and to study public libraries using the Mouffe's (2005) theory of agonistic pluralism (Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen, 2025). These two latter perspectives, the Habermasian and the Mouffean views on democracy, are identified by Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen (2025) as a main source of theoretical debate between contemporary public library scholars, something we will return to below. While these previous studies provide valuable insights concerning scholarship on public libraries and democracy, when it comes to theoretical perspectives on democracy in public library research, no previous comprehensive literature reviews have been published.

In a recent study where the notion of public libraries as meeting places is critically discussed, Carlsson et al. (2023) use four notions of democracy to analyse how librarians understand and perform the democratic mission of public libraries: (thin) liberal democracy, social-liberal democracy, deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism (cf. Povitkina and Jagers, 2022). (Thin) liberal democracy focuses on the freedom and autonomy of individuals, and positive rights (such as living standard or access to information) are not included in this view on democracy. This view is rarely fully expressed in library settings as it means that the role of public libraries becomes narrowly focused on providing information to individuals upon request. The social-liberal view on democracy instead focuses on positive rights and equality (Asara, 2020), and the idea found in both library policy and research that public libraries should promote democracy is connected to this perspective.

Echoing the ideal standards based on political equality suggested by Dahl (2020 [1998]), deliberative democracy entails a view on democracy based on participation and “decision making by discussion among free and equal citizens” (Elster, 1998, p. 1). Deliberative democracy is the perspective underpinning the importance of public libraries for democracy when framed in terms of a public sphere or arenas for public debate, and within public library research, this perspective has been closely associated with the influential Habermasian view on deliberative democracy (Carlsson et al., 2023). A central concept coined by Jürgen Habermas and often applied in public library research (for an overview, see Widdersheim (2017)) is the public sphere, representing an arena where “private people come together as a public” (Habermas, 1989 (1962), p. 27). In this arena, rational discussion (deliberation) takes place where the quality of the argument is focused and where the end goal is to reach consensus. Public library research applying public sphere theory typically studies how libraries facilitate public sphere communication and the effects of such communication, or how public libraries are instances of public sphere communication (Widdersheim, 2017).

Framed as a critique against the premise that rational deliberation among equal participants is possible in an unequal society, agonistic pluralism sees conflict and passion as foundational for public debate. In this view, politics should facilitate passionate discussions where conflicting views become visible and where enemies can be transformed into legitimate adversaries (Mouffe, 1999, 2009). Another starting point for Mouffe is the democratic paradox, namely the inherent tension between liberty and justice (Mouffe, 2005; see also Budd, 2015). To mitigate this tension, agonistic pluralism is a theoretical perspective in opposition with the dominance of liberty at the expense of equality and neoliberal hegemony (Mouffe, 2013). Public library research adopting this perspective typically argues that libraries should aim to facilitate discussions where conflicting views can meet in agonistic debate between adversaries (e.g. Eckerdal, 2018).

We will return to these perspectives, and what these perspectives have led researchers to say about public libraries and their democratic role, when the results of this study are presented and discussed below.

The study presented in this article is a comprehensive review of scholarly literature focusing on public libraries and their importance for democracy in the Web of Science (WoS) database. WoS was selected for the study since it is a database that collects some of the most influential and prestigious international journals (Singh et al., 2021). However, it is important to note that WoS does not provide good coverage of research published in venues such as journals in other languages than English, monographs or book chapters. The following search string was used on the WoS Core collection: (TS=(“public librar*”)) AND TS=(democra*)

This search was conducted on several occasions with a final search performed on June 24, 2025. Using the label “TS” enabled a broad search including both title, keywords and abstract. 2010 was selected as a suitable starting year to explore recent research on public libraries and democracy since the beginning of the 2010's marks the rise of a global socio-political trend: the increasing questioning of liberal democracy from authoritarian populism, partly in response to the financial crisis in 2008 (for a discussion on this development, see Norris and Inglehart, 2019). Additionally, such a time frame allows developments over time to be visible while at the same time avoiding an unwieldy corpus. Limiting the search to the time period 2010–2024 ^[1], the initial search resulted in 159 hits. The initial search results were then reduced to 85 articles after removing texts not published in peer-reviewed research journals or conference proceedings, articles not specifically about public libraries or that concerned historical conditions. Editorials and reviews were also excluded since they focus on other studies, as were articles written in languages other than English. The final dataset was then downloaded from WoS as a spreadsheet to enable further annotation and analysis.

While illustrative quantitative results are highlighted, this review is mainly qualitative as it focuses on how democracy is theoretically framed in public library research, the focus of this research, and the results different theoretical perspectives yield. For this reason, a conceptual analysis of the selected articles was conducted. Conceptual analysis entails an analysis of the meaning ascribed to a certain concept through specifying how any phenomena can be classified as such a concept (Furner, 2004). The goal of a conceptual analysis is to increase our understanding of how certain concepts produce ideas about a given field. The concept in focus for this analysis is democracy, and the field is research on public libraries. In a first stage, all the 85 articles were read extensively with particular attention given to how the concept of democracy was framed theoretically and the overall focus of the research. During this process, a provisional overview of all the articles was outlined, describing the main focus, the theoretical perspective used (if any), the main contribution to knowledge, and the country studied. Theoretical views were identified through a close reading of how democracy is rhetorically framed, and by examining how this framing is supported by references to theoretical perspectives in previous research. In the second stage, the 38 articles that state a theoretical view on democracy were closely read and analysed. The results of the analysis of the empirical material from the corpus of selected documents are presented in the following section, structured according to the research questions of this study. To answer the first two research questions, a descriptive overview of the theoretical perspectives on democracy commonly represented in public library research is presented as well as the focus and the design of the research. Connecting to the third research question, a knowledge synthesis is formulated focusing on the key contributions to knowledge made by using the identified theoretical perspectives on democracy. In the concluding discussion, the results of the analysis are used to discuss overarching intellectual and cultural tendencies and their implications for library research and practice.

Reviewing the 85 articles included in the study reveals that a significant portion (40%) of the previous scholarship on public libraries relating to democracy does not state any theoretical perspective on democracy (n = 34). Nearly half of the studies (45%) state a theoretical view on democracy (n = 38) while a group of studies (15%) state the theoretical perspective vaguely or partially (n = 13). In Figure 1, the distribution of articles stating the theoretical perspective on democracy (n = 38) is shown for each year.

This overview shows that the number of published articles that state the theoretical perspective on democracy increases during the time period. Reviewing the articles stating the theoretical perspective on democracy shows that among the 38 studies, three theoretical perspectives on democracy are used in at least three studies: 13 articles align with Habermasian views on democracy, 10 with a Mouffean view on democracy and 3 articles use the social capital notion developed by Bourdieu (e.g. 1986).

In the following, the articles are analysed thematically, clustered according to the three theoretical perspectives commonly used in the articles included in the study. For each theme, the analysis outlines the focus of the papers using the theoretical perspective, the view on public libraries' role for democracy, the research design and then synthesize the key contributions to knowledge made by using a certain theoretical understanding of democracy.

In Table 1, an overview of the articles applying Jürgen Habermas' theoretical perspectives on democracy is presented. Articles are presented in chronological order, including the country in focus, the research approach and the journal publishing the article.

As seen from the overview in Table 1, research focusing on Scandinavian countries forms a large part of this body of research. A variety of research approaches are used, both quantitative and qualitative, and several articles are conceptual. The studies are published in journals focusing on LIS or communication research. Journal of Documentation is the most popular publication venue for this thematic cluster, collecting more than half of the publications.

The majority of studies in this cluster focus on how public libraries can, or should, function as public spheres (Appleton and Hall, 2023; Audunson, 2018; Audunson et al., 2019a, b; Johnston et al., 2022; Larsen, 2021, 2024). Among these studies, the majority of the articles are written by Scandinavian researchers and focus Scandinavian and Central European settings, often using quantitative approaches. Using survey data from Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, Audunson et al. (2019a) investigate if, and how, libraries are used as public sphere institutions and compare results from the different countries when it comes to the social role of libraries as meeting places. The comparative approach is also used by Audunson et al. (2019b), in this case through a survey among public librarians, archivists and museum professionals in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany and Hungary where a similar problem is posed as we find in Audunson (2018): the ongoing digitalisation and the increased importance of ALM-institutions as meeting places and public spheres (the so called technological and social turn). The article focuses on how professionals within the ALM field adapt to these changes. A comparative approach is also used by Johnston et al. (2022) to investigate librarians' views on their professional roles and the role of public libraries in supporting public spheres. The article reports results from an online questionnaire sent to librarians in Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Sweden.

Moving from this group of quantitative surveys to qualitative studies, Engström and Eckerdal (2017) conduct interviews and observations to explore the implementation of self-service at public libraries in Sweden, using Habermas' public sphere theory and his theory of the colonization of the life world. This theoretical framing applies a critical perspective on the economic rationale, with demands for efficiency and economic benefits, that is viewed as a threat to public spaces and the public sphere. In a qualitative study of Nordic public libraries, Koizumi and Larsen (2023) examine librarianship and the democratic spaces that public libraries offer, and their connection to deliberative democracy in the Nordic welfare states. The study focuses on book clubs, shared reading, exhibitions and meetings with political parties, and library laws and policies.

Apart from the Scandinavian and Central European contexts, a group of articles focus on the United Kingdom or North America. Appleton and Hall (2023) examine the role of the public library as a public sphere in the United Kingdom. Through focus groups with library users in England and Scotland, the role of the library space and the community aspect of public libraries is investigated. Relating to public libraries as important promoters of liberal democracy, Hoffman (2016) analyses Google Books and the claims from Google that the project furthers social justice and equal access to information. The analysis is guided by the concept of distributive justice, drawing on the works of John Rawls, and information as a primary good. Through a content analysis of public library websites, Lillebuen and Shamchuk (2023) examine to what extent Canadian public libraries contribute to civic journalism against the background of declining news media coverage in many communities. News media are viewed as essential for supporting the public sphere, and public libraries can promote civic engagement, including civic journalism.

Five of the articles in this cluster are conceptual articles, signalling a certain theoretical maturity in Habermasian LIS research on public libraries. Through a conceptual analysis, Widdersheim (2017) problematizes applications of the public sphere concept to the study of public libraries, arguing for the need to reconsider the substantive public sphere paradigm to avoid concealing important differences between public libraries and the public sphere. Audunson (2018) focuses on the new challenges presented to librarians and LIS by digitalisation and the increasing importance of libraries as meeting places and public spheres. With digital information sources, the role of the librarian as intermediary between user and information is challenged and the role of libraries as meeting places calls for certain competencies. Larsen (2021) connects to a debate between Buschman and Widdersheim and Koizumi on public libraries and public sphere theory. While John Buschman argues that research about the public sphere must connect to the early works of Habermas and be sufficiently linked to democracy, Widdersheim and Koizumi develop the original theory to theorize the democratic function of public libraries. In the article, the application of different versions of public sphere theory in LIS research is discussed. As to illustrate the point made in Larsen (2021, 2024) moves beyond Habermas and combines public sphere theory with the theory of civil sphere suggested by Jeffrey Alexander to analyse recent controversies in Norway concerning whether public libraries, tasked by law to provide arenas for public debate, should host actors such as far-right groups, political parties or religious groups. Lastly, and against the backdrop of how democracy is increasingly threatened by right-wing authoritarianism in several countries, Buschman (2024) presents a minimal definition of democracy specifically intended for LIS.

In the following, the main conclusions from the articles employing Habermasian views on democracy are presented thematically clustered according to the focus of the studies described above.

Among the quantitative studies focusing on Scandinavia and Central Europe, Audunson and colleagues (2019a) show that libraries are indeed frequently used as public sphere institutions, facilitating access to relevant information and public sphere meetings. The use of libraries as meeting places is emphasised in the Scandinavian countries, but overall, the traditional role of libraries is considered the most important ground for legitimization. Similarly, Audunson et al. (2019a) find that ALM-professionals still view traditional ways of promoting culture and learning as the main vehicles for legitimizing the institutions rather than activities relating to digitalisation or social aspects, something that at least partly goes against the reasoning in Audunson (2018), where digital and societal challenges are emphasised. Nuancing these results, Johnston et al. (2022) in their comparative study show that there are national variations, but a unified professional librarian culture is identified among the participants. To provide access to knowledge and culture is considered as the most important aspect of providing library services, and the social role of libraries as meeting places is emphasised, while facilitating public discourse is not seen as equally important for libraries.

The qualitative studies focusing on Scandinavia, the United Kingdom and North America also indicate that libraries have a role as public spheres. Engström and Eckerdal (2017) argue that the roles of public libraries as low-intensive meeting places can be amplified if accessibility is improved. However, this democratic potential of public libraries is threatened by the influence of an economic discourse. When self-service libraries are implemented to increase accessibility, and not to lower costs, this may support public libraries' function as public and democratic spheres (Engström and Eckerdal, 2017). Koizumi and Larsen (2023) provide rich qualitative accounts of several library activities that promote democracy: examples of how deliberative democracy is practiced at public libraries include book clubs and shared reading activities, exhibitions and meetings with political parties. These activities, as well as national laws, show a theoretical connection between Nordic public libraries and the public sphere. Appleton and Hall (2023) find that apart from the traditional mediation of print and online sources, public libraries facilitate human interaction that generates knowledge and community values thanks to shared social capital. The role of the public sphere is found to be present among the studied UK libraries, where users can participate in inclusive spaces and democratic processes. Hoffman (2016) argues that the value of information is conceptually different for libraries and Google. For public libraries, the value of information is connected to equitable access, promoting liberal democracy with free and equal citizens and the support of a public sphere. For Google, the value of information is measured in terms of profit and people are supported as customers. Rather than contributing to social justice and information, Google makes visible and adds to existing inequalities (Hoffman, 2016). Lillebuen and Shamchuk (2023) find that journalistic activities are conducted at Canadian public libraries, but not yet widely, even though the digital development creates new venues for collaboration between journalism and libraries. Journalism and public libraries are found to share the same commitment to helping citizens make informed decisions and to promoting democratic participation.

Four of the five conceptual articles seek to problematize and develop the notion of the public sphere. In the conceptual analysis provided by Widdersheim (2017), the analysis reveals two main problems when relating contemporary public libraries to the public sphere: (1) anachronism, since the public sphere, and its liberal model, describes a phenomenon that did not exist after the end of the nineteenth century and (2) anatopism, since the public sphere exists in civil society and is not a state entity, rather, it mediates between civil society and the state. In contrast, public libraries are funded, regulated and operated by states (or local governments). As a result, Widdersheim suggests that future research should apply different public sphere paradigms, with more flexibility, or revise the main paradigm. On the note of diversity, Larsen (2021) argues that one theory of the public sphere is simply not enough to explore public libraries as public spheres. Instead, to better understand the democratic role of public libraries and how this role is connected to the public sphere, future LIS research should apply theories on the public sphere beyond Habermas and develop them for public library research. Showcasing how different understandings of the public sphere can influence our understanding of public libraries, Larsen (2024) finds that arguments for stopping controversial groups from having meetings at public libraries can be justified using the civil sphere perspective, where the inclusion of minorities and the expansion of the civil sphere are emphasised. On the other hand, the cancellation of such events can be criticized using the public sphere perspective that emphasises free speech and the formation of opinions. Focusing on the role of public sphere theory in librarianship and LIS education, Audunson (2018) discusses the challenges presented by a digital and multicultural society and argues that librarians need theoretical knowledge of public sphere theory as well as an understanding of the historical roots of librarianship.

Lastly, Buschman (2024) synthesizes previous theorizing on democracy to formulate a minimal definition of democracy, but emphasises the importance of a sociology of democracy found in civil society. It is in this realm, where libraries operate, that the ideals of democracy can be expressed as a way of life and where libraries can make the most significant contribution to democracy through fostering public spheres (Buschman, 2024).

Table 2 shows an overview of the articles applying Chantal Mouffe's theoretical perspective on democracy. Articles are presented in chronological order, including the country in focus, the research approach and the journal publishing the article.

As seen in Table 2, this thematic cluster mainly collects studies from a relatively small circle of authors concentrated in Sweden. The articles are published in journals focusing on LIS or cultural policy research, and the research approaches used are mainly qualitative. Compared to the group of articles applying Habermasian views on democracy, this group of articles represents a more recent theoretical trend in public library research.

The studies in this thematic cluster tend to be qualitative, with a focus on inequalities and conflicts, and a critical view of the role of public libraries in promoting democracy. As the only example from outside of Europe, Seale (2016) examines the American Library Association's “Core Values of Librarianship” (2004) and how the core values of The Public Good and Democracy are used in library magazines, trade journals and blogs concerning the Ferguson public library, in the wake of the protests and the unrest following the shooting of an unarmed African American teenager.

The rest of the studies focus exclusively on Sweden, except for one article that also includes empirical material from Austria and the Netherlands. The first two articles from the Swedish group of studies employing Mouffe's theoretical perspective both seek to contribute with theoretical development through empirical analysis. Eckerdal (2017) examines the democratic role of libraries and activities related to information literacy and argues for a more nuanced understanding of libraries and information literacy. Empirically, the analysis focuses on changes to the Swedish Library Act and information literacy practices connected to young women's sexual and reproductive health. In Eckerdal (2018), a theoretical framework is developed, combining plural agonistics with posthumanism, for studying public library development, emphasising change as a basic condition for libraries and librarianship. Empirical examples for the analysis are drawn from a study about development projects at public libraries in Sweden, placing change as a central feature.

Focusing on library policy, Engström and Eckerdal (2019) analyse and discuss library plans from five municipalities in Sweden to examine how public libraries are described as contributing to social sustainability. In a conceptual article, Engström (2022) examines possible implications of replacing the idea of the library as public sphere with a plurality of public spheres, to acknowledge existing inequalities and conflicts. The conceptual study draws on plural agonistics and Nancy Fraser's (1990) critique of the public sphere and analyses previous empirical research on accessibility and participation.

A recent group of Swedish studies focuses on the role of public libraries in times of political conflict, where traditional values associated with liberal democracy are challenged by the far-right. Carlsson et al. (2023) investigate how Swedish public librarians understand and perform the democratic mission of public libraries against the background of contemporary political and social turbulence and critically analyse the notion of public libraries as meeting places. Hanell et al. (2024) focus on how public libraries are used as political symbols by the radical right, as part of an ongoing (re)politicization of the field of cultural policy enabled by a post-political condition. Empirically, the post-political condition is analysed using librarians' accounts of everyday library practices. Focusing on one particular source of conflict, Engström et al. (2024) study the positions of public libraries in recent cultural and library policy debates concerning Drag Story Hour at public libraries in Sweden. To make the lines of conflict visible, news articles are analysed using discourse theory and plural agonistics. Lastly, as the only example of quantitative research in this thematic cluster, Hanell et al. (2025) present results from a longitudinal survey that focuses librarians' experiences of working to promote democracy in a time when previous views on democracy are questioned by far-right politics.

Drawing on ethnographical research conducted at public libraries in Austria, The Netherlands and Sweden, and recognizing how public libraries increasingly become part of social infrastructures providing care and social support, Eckerdal et al. (2024) examine how librarians in their daily work provide care through the lens of infrastructuring.

In the following, the main conclusions from the articles are presented thematically clustered according to the focus of the studies described above.

Seale (2016) finds that ALA's “core values of librarianship” are grounded in a liberal view connecting to ideas of individual freedom and the public sphere at the expense of recognizing inequalities and power structures in society. Neoliberal economic policies and structural racism are not acknowledged; instead, people are seen as having equal opportunities to speak and participate in society. With a Mouffean view of democracy as conflict-oriented, debate and dissent can reveal alternative social orders and ways of organizing society.

Among the first of the Swedish studies in this thematic cluster, where the notion of agonistic pluralism is developed, Eckerdal (2017) argues that an agonistic perspective means that democracy entails equality and inclusion for all, and that democracy at the same time is a conflict-oriented and ongoing process. Public libraries are important democratic institutions as they are places enabling equality and the articulation of alternative, counter-hegemonic, positions. Drawing on the posthumanist and Mouffean theoretical framework developed, Eckerdal (2018) argues that libraries are “an ongoing performance in interplay with the surrounding community” (p. 1412) and for a view on the library as a verb, emphasising development and change as an inevitable condition for librarianship. How libraries can best promote democracy should guide library development, and this requires taking a stand as neutrality is not an option for librarians wanting to play a vital democratic role. As democratic institutions, public libraries contribute to democracy by transforming enemies into adversaries through agonistic debates facilitated by the institutions. Variations of this conclusion are echoed in most of the following Swedish studies.

In Engström and Eckerdal (2019), the authors find that public libraries are often framed as being part of the solution to problems connected to segregation and a lack of social sustainability, and that a large individual responsibility is placed on library users to develop sustainability. The authors argue that social unrest is caused by societal inequalities, segregation and discrimination, and that libraries should recognize these differences and contribute to democracy through offering places where social antagonism can be transformed into agonism. Engström (2022) critiques a consensus-oriented perspective as marginalized groups can be silenced when inclusion is prioritized over plurality, and when social power relations are not recognized, the “others” can be turned into enemies. By acknowledging hierarchies and power relations, public libraries can promote democracy by making room for pluralistic communities and allowing marginalized groups to create their own public spheres.

Against the background of a harsher political climate and the rise of far-right politics, Carlsson et al. (2023) show that the established view on public libraries as meeting places creates professional dilemmas for librarians and that the intended outcome of interactions in the open and accessible spaces provided by public libraries should not be consensus. Instead, librarians are encouraged to work more actively to facilitate agonistic debates between conflicting opinions and ideas, to transform antagonism to agonism. Hanell et al. (2024) find that a post-political condition of library and cultural policy, with a lack of ideological conflict, paves the way for far-right identity politics and populism framing public libraries as political symbols, rather than as actors. Instead of preserving hegemony and striving for consensus, political alternatives can be formulated, and public libraries can promote democracy through functioning as institutional arenas for agonistic pluralism. In Engström et al. (2024), the authors argue that different imaginations of the reading child, and fear and safety, underpin the conflicts around Drag Story Hour. The conflicts are seen as an example of how a previous consensus concerning cultural and library policy and the value of a pluralistic democracy is challenged by far-right politics. To move from enmity and polarization, public libraries are seen as important arenas for agonistic debate. Presenting the only quantitative study applying a Mouffean perspective, Hanell et al. (2025) show that the relation between public libraries and politics overall is stable and well-functioning, but a lack of political interest leaves room for far-right populism and instances of illegitimate political influence and pre-emptive adjustments of programming activities out of fears of what might happen are found. This development can threaten the potential of libraries to provide institutional spaces for agonistic debate.

Lastly, Eckerdal et al. (2024) argue that care practices are highly present in all types of social infrastructuring, and consequently, care is framed as an important aspect of contemporary library ethos. Three modes of social infrastructuring are identified: maintaining, building connections and drawing boundaries. Public libraries can promote a caring democracy by being spaces that consider existing inequalities as well as the complexity and reciprocity of care.

In Table 3, an overview of the articles using notions of social capital is presented. All three articles draw on Bourdieu (e.g. 1986) who is concerned with how social capital contributes to the reproduction of social inequality, two of the articles relate to the work of Robert Putnam (e.g. 2000) where social capital is seen as a vital component for democratic society, and one article references James Coleman (1988) who theorizes the collective aspects of social capital through relations of trust and reciprocity. Articles are presented chronologically, including the country focused, the research approach applied and the journal publishing the article.

As seen in Table 3, the group of studies employing theories relating to the notion of social capital represents a diverse geographical distribution and use of methodologies.

Ignatow et al. (2012), the first study included in this thematic cluster, use comparative historical and ethnographic methods and sociological theories of social capital (Bourdieu and Putnam) to investigate how public libraries contribute to democracy and the relationship between public libraries and democratic governance in Namibia, Nepal and Malawi. Applying a quantitative approach, another international comparative study is presented by Wojciechowska (2021) who, drawing on Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam, views individual social capital as an important factor for personal, social and organisational development. Assuming that the social capital of librarians can benefit the library community, Wojciechowska (2021) explores the individual social capital of librarians through a survey conducted in 20 countries.

In the third article of this group, Almahfali et al. (2024) present a case study of The Dawit Isaak Library, a public library in Sweden with expertise in curating and promoting banned literature. Drawing on Bourdieu, the authors examine how the principles of freedom of expression can be utilized to promote and enhance creativity.

Employing different methodologies and focusing on widely different empirical settings, the studies in this thematic cluster all focus on the importance of public libraries for democracy in terms of generating social capital. However, the focus and results of these studies differ significantly, partly because of theoretical nuances in how social capital is understood.

Ignatow et al. (2012) argue that public libraries contribute to democracy by generating and disseminating cultural, economic and social capital to members of non-elites, relating to dimensions of power and the vertical associations that other researchers frame as linking social capital between different social strata (see Claridge, 2018). However, their empirical study shows little evidence that public libraries (in Namibia, Nepal and Malawi) generate or distribute any substantial amounts of cultural, economic or social capital to non-elites. Focusing on individual social capital, Wojciechowska (2021) finds that librarians as a professional group tend to be open to cooperation with external actors and exhibit relatively high levels of trust in others, allowing them to promote integration and development of social capital in their communities. These findings can be related to the established distinction between bonding and bridging social capital, where bonding social capital within groups precedes the more powerful form of bridging social capital between groups (with shared interests but different social identities) (see Claridge, 2018). Additionally, librarians in Scandinavia are found to have higher levels of individual social capital compared to librarians in other countries, and librarians in rural areas have lower levels.

Focusing on a specific type of library that promotes freedom of speech, Almahfali et al. (2024) find that public libraries have a crucial role in democratic societies by advancing and protecting human rights, including freedom of speech but without violating other human rights of individuals or groups. By sharing repressed voices and banned literature, democracy is promoted, and the publishing sector benefits from social, cultural and economic capital generated by book-related activities where libraries can play important roles.

Concluding this section of the article, some notable examples of theoretical perspectives found in only one or two articles will be mentioned briefly.

Huzar (2013) focuses on the link between democracy and public libraries in library studies through a textual analysis of Michael Gorman's Our Enduring Values using the theoretical view on democracy developed by Jacques Rancière. Huzar (2013) adopts Rancière's focus on democracy “as the contestation and disruption of a given social order (p. 3) and argues that the equality of libraries, and the open possibilities for both contesting and realising their function and values, is at the heart of their democratic importance. From a Brazilian context, de Oliveira (2017) discusses the role of public libraries under the new political and social dynamics of democratic societies. Inspired by R.J. Ribeiro, democracy is understood as the acknowledgement of the other and as the expansion of rights driven by the desire of individuals. Public libraries are found to be vital for the consolidation of public spaces, and for generating knowledge and to support societal development. Critically discussing the ideological influence of neoliberalism and past public library advocacy initiatives, Jaeger et al. (2017) examine library funding and support against the background of reduced, or eliminated, federal funding for libraries in the ideological interest of reducing the size of federal government and support for public services. As federal financing and support for libraries dwindle, Jaeger et al. (2017) argue that the library sector should focus advocacy efforts on the local and state levels and collaborate across institutions and locations”. With the definition of democracy as the “experiences of justice and injustice” that provoke citizens to reflect and act accordingly (Wolin, 1996, p. 98), the article suggests that library advocacy should be connected to how libraries promote justice. Discussing conservative and liberal politics, Budd (2019) explores and argues for the possible roles of public libraries as community commons where the main contribution of public libraries to democratic society is to foster active participation in political discursive practices, a view not far from ideas associated with deliberative democracy.

Additionally, two recent Scandinavian studies contrast Mouffean and Habermasian views on democracy to discuss the meaning of a library “for all” and neutrality in Denmark and Norway (Nissen and Kann-Rasmussen, 2025) and how neutrality and activism are negotiated in Norwegian public libraries (Solum, 2025). Concerning these two main theoretical perspectives, Solum (2025) finds that ideals of the public sphere underpin how public libraries in Norway function as meeting places and arenas for debate, but some librarians express ideals echoing Mouffe's radical understanding of democracy, suggesting a more active role for libraries and librarians.

Lastly, it is important to note that while the framework with three main categories of theoretical perspectives presented above reflects three theoretical traditions mainly associated with three theorists, theoretical views develop in dialogue with other thinkers. Notable examples include the work of John Rawls on social justice that underpins research employing a Habermasian perspective (Hoffman, 2016) and the theoretical perspective formulated by Wolin (1996), and how Fraser informs research using a Mouffean understanding (Engström, 2022). While the views on democracy in these examples are nuanced, the threefold typology presented in this article reflects the main theoretical characteristics of public library research.

How we understand democracy depends on the theoretical perspective applied (Eckerdal, 2017). Consequently, to understand how research conceptualises the role of public libraries in democratic societies, we need to be aware of the different theoretical perspectives used in public library research as they influence both research focus and design, and the results, as indicated by the conceptual analysis of previous research offered above. In the following, some main findings from the analysis will be discussed and directions for future research and library practice will be suggested.

The recent increase of research articles focusing on public libraries and democracy likely reflects how democracy is increasingly challenged across the world by authoritarian politics and a corresponding need to defend and advocate democratic institutions in the face of populism, rising inequalities and the influence of neoliberal economic policies. During the 21st century, perspectives on democracy as well as ideas concerning the democratic potential of public libraries have diversified significantly in library research (Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen, 2025). This diversification, as well as tendencies of consolidation, can be seen in the results of this study. The analysis shows that three types of theoretical perspectives on democracy are commonly represented in public library research: Habermasian views on democracy, a Mouffean view on democracy, and democracy understood in relation to social capital. The Habermasian and Mouffean views on democracy are the most widely used in recent public library research. This finding is in line with previous research (Eckerdal et al., 2024; Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen, 2025; Nissen and Kann-Rasmussen, 2025; Solum, 2025) indicating that research focusing on the role of public libraries in promoting democracy mainly follows one of two strands: a consensus-oriented research tradition focusing on the value of public libraries as meeting places, deliberative discussions and public sphere theory, and a conflict-oriented critical research tradition recognizing social differences and inequalities inspired by Mouffe focusing on the potential of the library to facilitate agonistic debate.

Habermasian views on democracy, in particular relating to public sphere theory, have been applied frequently in public library research since the 1990s (Widdersheim, 2017). In the recent research analysed in this study, a significant portion of the studies focus on Scandinavian settings, and both quantitative, qualitative and conceptual approaches are used. The majority of the studies focus on how public libraries can, or should, function as public spheres contributing to democracy, and several empirical studies find that libraries are often used as public sphere institutions through facilitating access to information and public sphere meetings (e.g. Appleton and Hall, 2023; Audunson et al., 2019a; Koizumi and Larsen, 2023). Among the conceptual articles, Widdersheim (2017) argues that future research should employ different versions of public sphere theories, or adjust the main paradigm, to mitigate the tension caused by the two main problems, anachronism and anatopism, when connecting contemporary public libraries to the public sphere. Similarly, Larsen (2021) asserts that future research should move beyond Habermas and develop public sphere theories for public library research.

Seale (2016) and Eckerdal (2017, 2018), together with Hansson (2010), represent the emergence of the main competing theoretical perspective, formulated in opposition to the consensus-oriented view on deliberative democracy: Chantal Mouffe's agonistic pluralism. Public library research applying this critical perspective tends to be qualitative and mainly originates from Sweden. This research focuses inequalities, power structures and conflicts (e.g. Engström et al., 2024; Seale, 2016) and implies a politically active role for public libraries promoting democracy and social justice, in particular when values associated with liberal democracy are challenged by far-right populism. The Mouffean view of democracy as conflict-oriented has provoked researchers to argue that debate and dissent can unveil new social orders (Seale, 2016), while a lack of ideological conflict instead can leave room for far-right populism and instances of illegitimate political influence (Hanell et al., 2024). Several studies assert that the main contribution of public libraries to democracy is converting enemies to adversaries by means of agonistic debate, facilitated by the libraries (e.g. Carlsson et al., 2023; Eckerdal, 2018; Hanell et al., 2025).

Public library research adopting theories on social capital is geographically and methodologically diverse but shares a focus on the democratic role of public libraries as connected to the generation and dissemination of social (and sometimes economic and cultural) capital (e.g. Ignatow et al., 2012), mainly following the theorizing of Bourdieu (e.g. 1986) but also Putnam (e.g. 2000) and Coleman (1988). The studies make certain distinctions between different forms of social capital, but future research using this theoretical perspective could add more clarity concerning how bonding social capital (within groups) relates to bridging social capital (between groups) and the vertical mode of linking social capital (between social strata) (see Claridge, 2018). Such insights could provide useful guidance for library practice and further our knowledge of the sociology of democracy (cf. Buschman, 2024).

Public library research has developed considerably since Buschman (2007) deemed democracy to be an unfinished idea in LIS research, but much remains to be done both in terms of analytical depth and diversity as a large part of recent research (40%) does not apply a theoretical framing of democracy (see also above). Among the three theoretical perspectives identified in this study, the Habermasian tradition is the most commonly applied and arguably this theoretical tradition is the most mature, both theoretically and empirically. As the current main alternative to consensus-oriented views on democracy, Mouffe-inspired research shows promise of both theoretical and empirical development, but there is a lack of empirical research focusing on how public libraries can facilitate agonistic debate. While this activity is generally framed as the main contribution of public libraries to democratic society (e.g. Carlsson et al., 2023; Eckerdal, 2018; Hanell et al., 2025), such activities remain to be systematically researched from a Mouffean perspective like Habermasian-grounded research has studied public libraries as public sphere institutions (e.g. Appleton and Hall, 2023; Audunson et al., 2019a; Koizumi and Larsen, 2023). Such studies would also contribute to our understanding of the sociology of democracy, unfolding in civil society through the democratization of relations and societal practices, an undertheorized aspect of the role of libraries in democracies (Buschman, 2024). For library practice, the insights offered by Mouffean research can be used to reflect on the role of libraries as meeting places and their role for democracy (cf. Carlsson et al., 2023).

With a parallel to the defining dichotomy of rationality and passion as described by Nietzsche in his analysis of Greek tragedy (Nietzsche, 2023 [1872]), to analytically understand the intellectual and cultural dimensions of the two most commonly represented perspectives on democracy in recent public library research, the Habermasian and the Mouffean views can be metaphorically framed as Apollonian and Dionysian. Grounded in the Enlightenment and the firm belief in reason and rationality, Habermas then represents the Apollonian force in public library research concerned with democracy, highlighting rationality, structure and order. Positioned as a counterpoint to Habermas, and the primacy of rationality and consensus as the end-goal, Mouffe instead represents the Dionysian force, highlighting conflict and passions rather than reason as key aspects of the political realm. Apollonian advocates of liberal democracy, such as Habermas and Rawls, typically view conflict and antagonism as disturbances to overcome, while Dionysian proponents, such as Mouffe and to a certain degree Ranciére, understand conflict as a necessary outcome of plurality, which in turn is a prerequisite for democracy (cf. Schrift, 2000).

In Nietzsche's view, Western culture had favoured the Apollonian over the Dionysian since the decline of Greek tragedy, leading to an overly rationalistic culture. In line with this analogy, the results of the above analysis suggest that the same might be said of public library research, where rationalistic views on democracy have been favoured historically. Just like both Apollonian and Dionysian forces should be acknowledged for art and culture to flourish, future public library research should include room for further dialogue between emotional/conflictual and rationalistic/consensus-grounded analyses of political life. In the case of Habermas and Mouffe, a common ground can potentially be found in both theorists' critique of the capitalist system and the modern state. Such a dialogue could serve as a platform to address one of the main problems of public library research: how the influence of neoliberalism, focusing on economic aspects, measurable results and efficiency, undermines the democratic potential of public libraries (see Buschman, 2003; Engström and Eckerdal, 2017; Jaeger et al., 2017; cf. Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Larsen, 2025).

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that significantly improved the quality of the paper.