Lived Patron Experiences of Dysconscious Ableism in Public Library Spaces
In Brief
This paper explores the lived experiences of disabled patrons in public library spaces, investigating how dysconscious ableism manifests in their daily interactions. Dysconscious ableism is an impaired or distorted way of thinking about disability and that tacitly accepts dominant ableist norms and privileges. Drawing on critical theory and ethnographic methods, the paper uncovers pervasive, oppressive experiences and challenges within library environments. Specifically, this paper presents four key ways dysconscious ableism surfaces in disabled patrons’ experiences. Patrons seek out community and belonging while often feeling judged or dismissed. Patrons engage in access and comfort seeking such as when navigating physical and sensory-related barriers. Patrons with non-apparent disabilities experience skepticism toward their disability authenticity and identity resulting from limited understandings of disability. Lastly, disabled patrons engage in emotional and cognitive management labor to navigate stigma and maintain dignity, reflecting internalized oppression and dominant ableist norms. By centering these previously underrepresented voices, this research offers a critical understanding of dysconscious ableism in public librarianship. It advocates for genuinely inclusive and supportive library environments that prioritize lived experience in design and practice.
Introduction
Public libraries serve as vital community spaces, offering free access to books, technology, internet, cultural programs, and job resources, while helping close the digital divide (Horrigan, 2016; Howard, n.d.; IMLS, 2021; Public Library Association, n.d.; UNESCO & IFLAI, 2022). Yet, disabled patrons often face barriers including microaggressions, inaccessible facilities and services, discriminatory comments, and inconsistent access to assistive technologies and formats (Anderson & Phillips, 2021; Kimura, 2018; Liu, Bielefield & McKay, 2019; Muir, Thompson & Qayyum, 2019; Siraki, 2021). These experiences are examples of dysconscious ableism—an impaired, distorted or incomplete way of understanding disability (Broderick & Lalvani, 2017).
Dysconscious ableism is also found in Library and Information Studies (LIS) scholarship. Disability frameworks may be omitted (Oud, 2018), reduced to legal compliance (Adkins & Bushman, 2015; Graves & German, 2018), or framed through deficit-based medical language (Adesina, Saliu & Ambali, 2018; Kleynhans & Fourie, 2014; Sambo, Rabiu & Shaba, 2016). Adkins and Bushman (2015), for instance, used “mental retardation” years after Rosa’s Law (2010) replaced it with “intellectual disabilities,” reflecting both documentary epistemic injustice and dysconscious ableism (Broderick & Lalvani, 2017; Smith & Patin, 2024). Adkins and Bushman’s use of “special needs” further reinforces a medicalized, infantilizing view of disability (Gill & Myers, 2023).
Many LIS researchers default to medical, legal, or charity models, often misusing identity-first language without understanding its cultural significance (Gibson et al., 2021). Methodologies also reveal ableist assumptions that exclude disabled voices and rely on non-disabled staff or parents (Adkins & Bushman, 2015; Gibson & Martin, 2019; Prendergast, 2016). Prendergast, for example, interviewed librarians and parents about early literacy for disabled children but omitted the children themselves and did not acknowledge this.
A growing body of LIS scholarship has centered disabled perspectives: Oud (2018) interviewed disabled academic librarians; Yoon et al. (2016) conducted accessibility testing with visually impaired users; Adesina et al. (2018) surveyed disabled university patrons; Anderson (2018) analyzed autistic users’ forum discussions. While critical research has addressed disability in academic libraries (Schomberg, 2018) and raced and gendered practices (Smith & Patin, 2024; Wagner & Crowley, 2020), disabled experiences in public libraries largely remain underexplored.
Broderick and Lalvani (2017) identified dysconscious ableism among graduate students preparing as public teachers. Public libraries and schools share intertwined histories and missions. In 1830s New York, for instance, legislation enabled public schools to purchase books and establish libraries using tax funds (ALA, 2011). Both professions have long been dominated by white, female-presenting individuals, shaping their workforce and professional culture. This gendered composition has contributed to lower salaries compared to male-dominated fields (Ali, 2022; Ettarh, 2018; Hathcock, 2015; Lawton, 2018; Will, 2020). Historically, both have faced inconsistent funding, relying primarily on local taxes with limited state and federal support. As human service fields, they are deeply committed to fostering community growth through education and learning spaces (Allegretto, García & Weiss, 2022; Matthews, 2021; National Organization of Human Services, 2015; Ren, 2013; Wheeler, 2021).
Similar patterns of dysconscious ableism may exist in LIS preparation programs. Without critical reflection and disruption of ableist mindsets, such biases may shape library services, contributing to ongoing exclusion. This paper arises from a wider study on how dysconscious ableism operates in the mindsets of public librarians and the policies of public libraries, leading to impacts on the lived experiences of disabled patrons (Myhill, in press). This paper specifically reports on how dysconscious ableism affects disabled patrons in public libraries, using firsthand accounts to explore how ableist norms inform library environments and interactions.
A Note About Language
As a disabled scholar (visit the ethnographic section below, “Positionality and Reflexivity”), I use identity-first language to affirm disability as a valued identity and stand in solidarity with the community. This choice reclaims stigmatized terms as expressions of pride and empowerment, reflecting respect, resilience, and belonging. While I honor those who prefer person-first language, identity-first language resists marginalization and aligns with how many define themselves through shared history and strength (Foley, 2024).
Theoretical Framework and Methodological Approach
In this section I discuss my rationale and uses of critical theory and ethnographic methods to guide the underlying study. In particular, the concept of dysconscious ableism arises from critical disability studies (CDS), and I apply a critical lens in conducting ethnography.
Critical Theory
Critical theory holds that while the world is knowable, knowledge is shaped by dominant social values and interests, and is not neutral or objective (Diem et al., 2014). It exposes how seemingly impartial systems perpetuate inequality across race, gender, ability, and other identities, aiming to foster social transformation by centering marginalized lived experiences, and offering comprehensive insights into systems of oppression (Gill & Myers, 2023; Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009; Rokay, 2021). Reflexivity and researcher positionality are key to this approach (Madison, 2012). Within this framework, CDS radically rethinks disability through political and socio-cultural lenses, rejecting deficit-based views. CDS critiques binary thinking and institutional co-option of disability discourse, while employing tools like intersectionality, feminist ethics of care, and collective responsibility to advance equity (Bohonos, 2019; Dirth & Adams, 2019; Kafer, 2013; Loyer, 2018; Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009; Schomberg, 2018).
Broderick and Lalvani (2017), drawing on King’s (1991) seminal work on dysconscious racism, introduced “dysconscious ableism” to describe how pre-service teachers often retain deficit-based views of disability. Broderick and Lalvani defined “dysconscious ableism as an impaired or distorted way of thinking about dis/ability (particularly when compared to criticalist conceptualisations of dis/ability), one that tacitly accepts dominant ableist norms and privileges.” (p. 895). To better understand this concept, I distinguish it from associated concepts. Unconsciousness (“not” conscious) describes what we’re unaware of, a term often used to explain implicit bias (Beegly & Madva, 2020). Subconsciousness (“below” conscious) refers to beliefs beneath awareness. Dysconsciousness (“ill/bad” conscious) suggests flawed or distorted awareness of internal or external realities. Each prefix—un, sub, and dys—creates distinct meanings about awareness.
For the purpose of the study, I defined dysconscious ableism to operate in societal practices and beliefs that:
- reflect a limited, incomplete, impaired, or distorted way of thinking about or understanding of disability; or accept deficit and culturally sanctioned assumptions, myths, and beliefs about disability, or
- tacitly accept dominant ableist norms, privileges, and the status quo, or present no fundamentally alternative vision of society, or
- promote inequity or inaccessibility or segregated treatment or exploitation of disabled persons.
Ethnographic Methods
Critical ethnography, rooted in critical theory, seeks to uncover hidden power structures and elevate marginalized voices (Gulati et al., 2011; Madison, 2012; McCabe & Holmes, 2013). Ethical research in this tradition emphasizes cultural humility, reflexivity, and deep respect for participants’ autonomy and well-being (Farrugia, 2022; Loyer, 2018; Vincent, 2018). Researchers must recognize their own positionality and use their work to promote equity and liberation (Madison, 2012). Madison urges scholars to reflect on the ethical purpose of their research and to intentionally share their lived identities and privileges to clarify their relationship to the work. Reflexivity, Madison argues, is essential for examining assumptions and guiding researchers to question the origins of their theories and paradigms. It prompts critical awareness of which voices are excluded or overly generalized, encouraging more inclusive and mindful scholarship. For the purpose of this paper I use the term “inclusive” to refer to the experiences of spaces, services, and programs where all persons are well-treated, valued, and included in core decisions – especially including those who have been historically excluded from these experiences (Ortlieb, Glauninger & Weiss, 2021).
I bring both privilege and lived experience to this work. As a white, cisgender male, U.S.-born, middle-class, able-bodied person fluent in speech, sight, and hearing, I’ve benefited from trust, access, and resources often taken for granted. Yet, I’m also an adoptee, suicide attempt survivor, recovering alcoholic, and someone managing depression, anxiety, and Tourette syndrome. Raised by a disabled adoptive mother, I’ve long worked alongside disabled communities. My public library experiences have been shaped by privilege—uninterrupted access, personal transportation, and no need for assistive technologies. These realities inform my understanding and highlight the need to center disabled patrons’ experiences.
With over 30 years in disability services, legal and educational training, and experience teaching accessible library services, I bring expertise to this study. Still, I recognize the potential for unconscious assumptions and strive to balance my knowledge with respect for library professionals and disabled individuals’ lived expertise. I engaged in formal reflexivity before recruitment and coding, and informally through memoing to track my evolving understanding.
Ethical recruitment was central to this study, prioritizing participant welfare, dignity, privacy, and voluntary engagement. Aware of potential power imbalances due to my credentials and role, I practiced cultural humility to reduce coercion risks (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998). Recruitment aimed for diverse disability representation while acknowledging historical exploitation in research (Stack & MacDonald, 2018). Grounded in the presumption of capacity, the study affirmed all adults’ decision-making rights, including those with intellectual disabilities (Carey & Griffiths, 2017; Foley, 2024). Accessibility was supported through Easy Read materials (Harding, 2021) and optional support companions. A nine-member Advisory Group of diverse disabled colleagues—including people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals—met quarterly and received mid-quarter updates to provide feedback and guidance throughout the study. Outreach included flyers, newsletters, social media, and disability networks, with a goal of enrolling six to eight disabled public library patrons.
Participants self-disclosed their ages ranging from 19 to 59, with a median age of 34. They further identified with physical, intellectual, mental, neurological, and learning disabilities, and neurodivergency (Table 1). In meeting these participants below, I practiced an anti-oppressive research practice that demands intentional inclusion, reflection, and representation of lived identities to honor and affirm participants, disrupt dominant power relations, produce rigorous scholarship, and contribute to transformative change (Madison, 2012).
Table 1
Summary of Patron Demographics
| Patron | Age | Gender Identity | Disability Status |
| Richard | 59 | Male | Parkinson’s |
| Alice | 19 | Female | Intellectual & Developmental Disability |
| Ben | 31 | Male | Down’s Syndrome |
| Georgina | 34 | Female | Neurodivergent and PTSD |
| April | 26 | Female | Autism spectrum and Undifferentiated connective tissue disease |
| Turner | 50 | Male | Autism, bipolar disorder with schizoaffective disorder, major depression |
| Polly | 42 | Female | Velocardiofacial Syndrome, Learning Disability, physical limitations |
I conducted semi-structured interviews with participants in their preferred format: two in person, two by phone, and three via Zoom. All participants provided informed consent for audio recording. Breaks were offered during interviews, and one participant had a family member present to assist with communication. Participants were informed they would receive transcripts for review and that all identifying information would be anonymized (Carey & Griffiths, 2017). All participant names are pseudonyms.
Critical thematic coding was guided by the work of Broderick & Lalvani (2017), King (1991), Kafer (2013), and Okun (2021), serving as a flexible framework rather than a rigid structure. Coding was iterative, with memos used to define emerging themes (Madison, 2012). For instance, I developed the code “Management Labor” to capture the emotional and cognitive work disabled patrons perform in managing others’ assumptions and navigating inaccessible spaces.
Disabled Patron Experiences
Disabled public library patrons presented experiences that reflect the operation of dysconscious ableism across four key themes: finding community and belonging, access and comfort seeking, disability authenticity and identity, and management labor. I discuss these themes in turn.
Finding Community and Belonging
Patrons interviewed shared mixed views on the public library as a welcoming space. For Ben, who identified as a White, heterosexual male with Down syndrome, the concept of the community was central. He appreciated tailored, though segregated, programs like karaoke, chair yoga, and sensory-friendly movie screenings. These offered joy and connection: “I participate in many programs as well. Like, like, yeah, like, I’m in [Agency]1. So, we do like karaoke sometimes when we sing and dance and just have fun.” Ben advocated for “more programs for people who have Down syndrome,” emphasizing how much he and his friends enjoyed them, perhaps because these events presented affinity experiences where participants felt they belong rather than othered. He especially valued spending time with disabled peers and mentors at the library. Polly, who identified as a Mixed-raced, heterosexual female with a learning disability and physical limitations, echoed this, recalling her time with [Social Service]2, which took disabled groups to the library. She found librarians “immensely helpful and accommodating.” Yet these programs perpetuate the segregation of disabled patrons (Gill & Myers, 2023).
In contrast, Georgina, who identified as a neurodivergent, pansexual, “Black American” female with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), emphasized the need for improvements to feel welcome. They called for diverse, open-minded staff “who look like me, who navigate the world…in different and varying ways,” challenging the norm of “white cis women in library spaces.” Georgina felt pressure to perform as a “good” patron—reading or using computers—rather than experiencing the library as a community space: “There’s not this other space for, like, community.” This comment of being a “good” patron highlights societal expectations of status quo behavior. Georgina hoped libraries could become places “where all types of different folks…can come to a space and feel like they’re seen and welcomed and not like they’re a burden.” Concerns also emerged around library policy enforcement. Georgina mentioned people being removed for “certain reasons,” suggesting vague or unfair practices. Such experiences may deny experiences of community as they erode trust and deter future visits.
Ben also recognized broader societal stigma: “A lot of people are not OK with me having Down syndrome. But I can’t control that.” Ben’s experiences of judgment reflect the accepted deficit and culturally sanctioned beliefs about disability. Richard, who identified as a White, heterosexual male with Parkinson’s, felt dismissed and overlooked by library staff when discussing technology: “I sometimes find people can’t come to grips with a disability and an expertise.” Richard’s account of microinvalidation further reflects society’s limited or distorted way of understanding disability. Ben recalled microinsultive experiences in high school: “Well they talked to me, but I felt like they’d talk right, right through me,” which reinforced feelings of invisibility. April, who identified as an autistic, White, bisexual female with physical limitations, remarked on the experience of a microaggressive denial of identity or privacy, “It can be uncomfortable when people seem to question or stare at me. I would be much more comfortable if someone approached me directly and asked about my situation.” Collectively these microaggressive experiences reflect dysconscious distorted understandings of disability that marginalize disabled individuals, reinforce feelings of invisibility, and limit their full participation. These accounts highlight the operation of dysconscious ableism and the need for libraries to foster more inclusive, affirming environments, where disabled patrons are not only accommodated but respected as belonging members of the community.
Access and Comfort Seeking
Patrons expressed appreciation for the proactive accessible features in their libraries, suggesting a modest understanding of universal design principles. Richard noted the value of “ramps in and out of the parking lot,” while April described having an “easy time getting around” in a wheelchair. April appreciated quiet, secluded areas that offered “an extra level of calm for those who need it.” Polly praised the “little cubbies … where you could just go in and sit down and just, like, not get distracted when you’re reading,” adding that the dividers seemed soundproof and encouraged focus.
However, patrons also identified barriers. April preferred “more ambient lighting … as opposed to the bright, harsh lights.” Turner, who is autistic and sensitive to noise, said, “I do really prefer the old-style library,” where librarians expected silence. He explained, “I have, what’s it called, collapsed tolerance for … normal everyday noises,” and found library programming overwhelming. These examples highlight ongoing challenges with sensory accessibility and present no fundamentally alternative vision of library culture.
Patrons also described needing more assistance. April wanted librarians to proactively check on patrons but noted that while staff were “always willing to help,” this sometimes compromised her independence. Alice, who identified as a White female with an intellectual disability, struggled with small print and locating accessible materials like large print or easy-read books. She believed libraries could better support disabled patrons “by helping others to be successful,” though she did not specify how. These accounts suggest that while some accessibility features exist, gaps that tacitly accept dominant ableist norms remain and limit the creation of fully inclusive, comfortable, and empowering environments for disabled patrons.
Disability Authenticity and Identity
Patrons shared challenges around authenticity and identity. April, an ambulatory wheelchair user, who could stand and walk for limited periods, described feeling judged for using a wheelchair: “When I stand up to do something, it often leads to questioning looks, as if people are doubting whether I need the wheelchair or not. It can make you feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.” Richard also questioned his sense of belonging after applying twice to the home delivery program without a response. Home delivery allows patrons to check out materials from home and have them delivered because of a challenge they experience getting to the library. He suspected the library staff limited the service to those with more visible impairments, leading to his feelings of exclusion: “In the library I think they question whether or not a disability is … apparent by looking at someone.” He added, “People question it thinking that they’re getting some type of better deal.” These discourses reflect the exhausting burden of proving one’s disability when librarians hold limited and incomplete understandings of disability. Yet, Richard also reinforced the medical model, stating that disability must be diagnosed, referencing the rigorous process he underwent for Social Security benefits.
Internal identity struggles also emerged. Ben said, “I see the person. I don’t see the developmental disability,” yet wore a ‘Lucky Few’ tattoo. He explained it symbolized having three copies of the 21st chromosome rather than the standard two, which is the genetic identifier for Down syndrome. Despite past bullying, he embraced this visible marker of disability pride. Georgina expressed uncertainty: “There’s still a lot of things that I don’t understand,” signaling an ongoing journey with disability identity. Polly, by contrast, said, “I’m happy with sharing,” and emphasized treating people as individuals. These narratives reveal the complexity of disability identity—reflecting deficit and culturally sanctioned assumptions and beliefs about disability—how it is shaped by external judgment, internalized oppression, and the tension between visibility, validation, and self-acceptance.
Management Labor
Patrons described the emotional and social labor involved in navigating library spaces. Three patrons shared the difficulty of asking for help, often tied to anxiety and fear of stigma. April recalled, “I ended up waiting for about five minutes, longer than I’d like to admit, before I finally flagged someone down for assistance,” and yet described feeling like a burden when asking for help. Polly noted, “It’s just hard to approach someone and say hey I need this.” Turner, who identified as an autistic, Mixed-race, asexual male with bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder, added that “shame” can be a barrier: “Someone might actually be embarrassed to have a specific need that no one else has.” These experiences reflect the tension between needing support and internalized expectations of independence, tacitly accepting dominant ableist norms.
Power dynamics and scrutiny also shaped patrons’ experiences, who labored to manage others’ expectations and judgments. April described being judged for using accessible parking due to her young appearance. Turner shared, “People think that autism is, like, imaginary. … even my own parents have told me … I was making things up.” This societal skepticism toward non-apparent disabilities contributed to feelings of marginalization and required Turner’s mental labor management of others’ distorted ways of thinking about disability. Ben recalled being judged in special education. Georgina emphasized the need for quiet spaces to manage PTSD. Turner further noted, “People often assume I don’t like them … I am on the autistic spectrum … maybe I do come off as cold,” highlighting the emotional toll of navigating the social misperceptions of librarians and the general public about neurodivergence.
Polly’s account of chronic pain, multiple surgeries, and difficulty with communication and reading emphasized the ongoing physical and mental labor of managing disability. Despite needing help, she hesitated to ask, fearing she was imposing. This reluctance, shared by others, reveals how dominant ableist norms and scrutiny make everyday activities—like visiting the library—emotionally taxing. These narratives underscore the invisible labor disabled patrons perform to access public spaces, manage stigma, and maintain dignity in environments not fully designed for them.
In summary, this analysis of patron experiences found the value of both tailored and inclusive programs and diverse, open-minded staff to foster a sense of community. Accessibility issues, such as appropriate lighting and noise levels, are crucial for accommodating sensory sensitivities. Disabled patrons face challenges in asking for help due to anxiety and societal stigma. This analysis also emphasizes the need to recognize and respect the authenticity of non-apparent disabilities and the emotional labor involved in managing others’ expectations and judgments. Altogether, these discourses present operations of dysconscious ableism – reflecting distorted understandings of disability, accepting the dominant status quo, and promoting inaccessibility and segregated experiences.
Discussion
This paper presents a first of its kind application of critical theory and methods that center the lived experiences of disabled public library patrons. Their experiences in public libraries reveal how dysconscious ableism manifests in everyday interactions and environments. The findings of this paper have focused on four key themes: finding community and belonging, access and comfort
seeking, disability authenticity and identity, and management labor. These themes illustrate how disabled patrons navigate systemic barriers and social expectations in public libraries that reinforce exclusion and marginalization.
Disabled patrons often engage in labor to manage others’ discomfort, navigate inaccessible environments, and advocate for their needs. This labor includes emotional and cognitive efforts to avoid being perceived as disruptive or burdensome, to explain one’s disability, or perform normativity (Reeve, 2012). For instance, patrons like April and Georgina felt compelled to justify their presence or behavior to avoid judgment. Such experiences reflect how public library spaces are structured around non-disabled norms, requiring disabled individuals to adapt rather than expecting institutions to be accessible (Gill & Myers, 2024). This labor is a direct consequence of dysconscious ableism, which normalizes exclusion and places the burden of accessibility on the individual rather than the system (Broderick & Lalvani, 2017).
Disabled patrons frequently seek environments that support their sensory, physical, and emotional needs. Quiet spaces, ambient lighting, and clear signage are not luxuries but necessities for many (Muir et al., 2019). Turner’s need for low-stimulation areas to avoid panic attacks and April’s preference for calming environments highlight how standard library settings fail to accommodate neurodivergent and disabled users. CDS calls for universal design practices emphasizing that accessibility should be embedded in the fabric of library services—not treated as an afterthought. Dysconscious ableism is evident when the status quo is that libraries rely on reactive accommodations or ignore the diverse needs of disabled patrons altogether (Broderick & Lalvani, 2017).
The sense of belonging in a library is shaped by how disabled patrons are perceived and treated. Richard’s expertise was dismissed, he believed, due to assumptions about his capacity, while Alice and Georgina faced barriers related to print size and seating comfort. Ben found community through segregated programming, which, while appreciated, underscores the lack of integrated inclusion (Gill & Myers, 2023). Communication barriers and reduced staff availability further alienate disabled patrons, as Polly and Richard noted. These experiences reflect a broader pattern of othering, where disabled individuals are seen as outsiders or burdens. CDS critiques this exclusion, arguing that true inclusion requires not just physical access but cultural and relational belonging (e.g., Gill & Myers; Mingus, 2011). Dysconscious ableism operates here by maintaining environments and practices that signal who is welcome and who is not.
Patrons’ relationships with their disability identities varied. Georgina expressed ambivalence due to her non-apparent disabilities, while Polly embraced transparency. Richard’s frustration with service limitations based on visible impairments points to systemic biases in how disability is recognized and validated. CDS views disability identity as complex and intersectional, shaped by social narratives, personal experiences, and political contexts (Foley, 2024). The lack of recognition for diverse expressions of disability—especially non-apparent or neurodivergent identities—reinforces dysconscious ableism by privileging narrow definitions of disability and ignoring the lived realities of many individuals (Broderick & Lalvani, 2017). Libraries, as public institutions, play a role in either challenging or perpetuating these norms through their policies, services, and staff training.
In sum, across these themes, disabled patrons’ experiences reveal how dysconscious ableism permeates public library spaces. It manifests in the expectation that disabled individuals manage their own inclusion, in environments that fail to support diverse needs, in practices that subtly exclude, and through policies that validate only certain forms of disability. Addressing these issues requires a shift from compliance-based approaches to ones rooted in disability justice and universal design (Mingus, 2011). Libraries must center disabled voices in policy development, proactively design accessible spaces, and challenge ableist norms that hinder equity. Only then can they fulfill their mission as truly public and inclusive institutions (Gill & Myers, 2023).
Conclusion and Future Research
In an era where accessibility is essential to equitable public services, libraries must evolve to meet the diverse needs of all patrons, including those with disabilities. Librarians must foster environments that are not only physically and digitally accessible but culturally affirming and socially supportive. This may be implemented, in part, by reimagining disability as a natural and valuable aspect of human diversity, embracing collective responsibility, ensuring disabled voices and texts are centrally involved in decision-making processes, and designing programs that challenge ableist norms and celebrate disability culture.
But there is a need for further research to understand a wider range of dysconscious ableist experiences among public library patrons and staff with disabilities, who have different disabilities and marginalized identities. For instance, research might better understand how widespread Ben’s sentiments about community and segregated programs are in the disability community and what more inclusive opportunities the library might provide. Additionally, I focused this study in a single county in [Inland] State including a mid-sized city. There is a need for comparative work in other regions such as with greater rural and urban environments. Additional data could further contextualize the findings of this study through observations of how librarians conduct their practices. As a framework for understanding the experiences of disabled patrons and staff, much is yet to be understood about the operation and effects of dysconscious ableism in the public library.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to my Lead Pipe editors, Jaena Rae Cabrera, Jessica Schomberg, and Morgan Rondinelli, whose insightful feedback greatly enriched this article. I also extend my sincere thanks to my colleagues J.J. Pionke, Leah Dudak, and Carrie Murawski for their thoughtful suggestions on early drafts, which played a key role in shaping the piece and making it a strong fit for Lead Pipe.
References
Adesina, O.F., Saliu, U.A. & Ambali, Z.O. (2018). An assessment of the resources and services provision for the disabled library users in University of Ilorin and Federal College of Education (Special) Oyo. Library Philosophy & Practice, May, e1818-1842.
Adkins, D. & Bushman, B. (2015). A special needs approach: A study of how libraries can start programs for children with disabilities. Children & Libraries, 13(3), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.5860/cal.13n3.28
Ali, S. (2022, March 15). Female-dominated careers pay less as gender gap persists. The Hill. https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/598337-female-dominated-careers-pay-women-lower-wages-than-men-as/
American Library Association . (2011). First school library? https://www.ala.org/tools/first-school-library
Allegretto, S., García, E., & Weiss, E. (2022, July 12). Public education funding in the U.S. needs an overhaul. Economic Policy Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED622919.pdf
Anderson, A. (2018). Autism and the academic library – a study of online communication. College & Research Libraries, 79(5), 645-658.
Anderson, A., & Phillips, A. L. (2021). Makerspaces designed for all: Creating equitable and inclusive learning environments in libraries. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 806–807. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.569
Beegly, E. & Madva, A. (2020). Introducing implicit bias: Why this book matters. In E. Beegly & A. Madva (Eds.), An introduction to implicit bias: Knowledge, justice, and the social mind (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bohonos, J.W. (2019). Including critical whiteness studies in the critical human resource development family: A proposed theoretical framework. Adult Education Quarterly, 69(4) 315-337.
Broderick, A. & Lalvani, P. (2017). Dysconscious ableism: Toward a liberatory praxis in teacher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(9), 894-905, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1296034
Carey, E. & Griffiths, C. (2017). Recruitment and consent of adults with intellectual disabilities in a classic grounded theory research study: Ethical and methodological considerations. Disability & Society, 32(2), 193-212.
Diem, S., Young, M.D., Welton, A.D., Mansfield, K.C., & Lee, P. (2014). The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(9), 1068-1090.
Dirth, T.P. & Adams G.A. (2019). Decolonial theory and disability studies: On the modernity / coloniality of ability. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(1), 260-289.
Ettarh, F. (2018, January 10). Vocational awe and librarianship: The lies we tell ourselves. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/
Farrugia, P. (2022). Recruitment of Indigenous study participants in Canada: Obligations or constraints? An ethical reflection. Canadian Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 100-106.
Foley, A. (2024). Understanding technology access for people with intellectual disability through Participatory Action Research. In J. Seale, J. (Ed.), A research agenda for disability and technology (pp. 61-84). Elgaronline.
Gill, M. & Myers, B. (2023). Introduction: Recognizing student voice in inclusive higher education. In M. Gill and B. Myers (Eds.), Creating our own lives., xi-xxxi. University of Minnesota Press.
Gibson, A., Bowen, K. & Hanson, D. (2021, Feb. 24). We need to talk about how we talk about disability: A critical quasi-systematic review. In the Library With the Leadpipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2021/disability/
Gibson, A.N. & Martin, J.D. III (2019). Re-situating information poverty: Information marginalization and parents of individuals with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 70(5), 476-487.
Graves, S.J. & German, E. (2018). Evidence of our values: Disability inclusion on library instruction websites. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 18(3), 559-574.
Gulati, S., Paterson, M., Medves, J. & Luce-Kapler, R. (2011). Adolescent group Empowerment: Group-centered occupations to empower adolescents with disabilities in the urban slums of north India. Occupational Therapy International, 18(2), 67-84.
Harding, R. (2021). Doing research with intellectually disabled participants: Reflections on the challenges of capacity and consent in socio-legal research. Journal of Law and Society, 48(Suppl. 1), S28–S43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12331
Hathcock, A. (2015, October 7). White librarianship in blackface: Diversity initiatives in LIS. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/lis-diversity/
Horrigan, J.B. (2016, Sep. 9). Libraries 2016. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/09/PI_2016.09.09_Libraries-2016_FINAL.pdf
Howard, J. (n.d.). The complicated role of the modern public library: Something for everyone. Humanities: The Magazine for the National Endowment of the Humanities. https://www.neh.gov/article/complicated-role-modern-public-library
Institute of Museum & Library Services (“IMLS”). (2021). Understanding the social wellbeing impacts of the nation’s libraries and museums: 2021 report. https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/swi-report.pdf
Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kimura, A.K. (2018). Defining, evaluating, and achieving accessible library resources. Reference Services Review, 46(3), 425-438.
King, J. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133-146.
Kleynhans, S.A. & Fourie, I. (2014). Ensuring accessibility of electronic information resources for visually impaired people. Library Hi Tech, 32(2), 368-379.
Lawton, S. (2018, March 5). Reflections on gender oppression and libraries. Public Libraries Online. https://publiclibrariesonline.org/2018/03/reflections-on-gender-oppression-and-libraries/
Liu, Y. Q., Bielefield, A., & McKay, P. (2019). Are urban public libraries websites accessible to Americans with Disabilities? Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(1), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0571-7
Loyer, J. (2018). Indigenous information literacy: Nêhiyaw kinship enabling self-care in research. In K.P. Nicholson & M. Seale (Eds.). The politics of theory and the practice of critical librarianship (pp. 145-156). Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.
Madison, D.S. (2012). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Matthews, A. (2021). Reversing the gaze on race, social justice, and inclusion in public librarianship. Education for Information, 37(2), 187-202.
McCabe, J. & Holmes, D. (2013). Nursing, sexual health and youth with disabilities: A critical ethnography. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(1), 77-86.
Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies? Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580701850330
Mingus, M. (2011, August 21). Moving toward the ugly: A politic beyond desirability. Leaving Evidence. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/moving-toward-the-ugly-a-politic-beyond-desirability/
Muir, R., Thompson, K. M., & Qayyum, A. (2019). Considering “atmosphere” in facilitating information seeking by people with invisible disabilities in public libraries. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.17
Myhill, W. (in press). The Operation of Dysconscious Ableism in Public Librarianship. Library Quarterly.
National Organization of Human Services. (2015). Ethical standards for human services professionals. https://www.nationalhumanservices.org/ethical-standards-for-hs-professionals
Okun, T. (2021). White supremacy culture – still here. Retrieved Jan. 6, 2024, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XR_7M_9qa64zZ00_JyFVTAjmjVU-uSz8/view
Ortlieb, R., Glauninger, E. & Weiss, S. (2021). Organizational inclusion and identity regulation: How inclusive organizations form ‘Good’, ‘Glorious’ and ‘Grateful’ refugees. Organization, 28(2), 266-288.
Oud, J. (2018). Academic librarians with disabilities: Job perceptions and factors influencing positive workplace experiences. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice & Research, 13(1), 1-30.
Public Library Association. (n.d.). Public libraries: Partners in workforce development. https://www.ala.org/pla/initiatives/workforce/series
Reeve, D. (2012). Psycho-emotional disablism in the lives of people experiencing mental distress. In J. Anderson, B. Sapey & H. Spandler (Eds.), Distress or disability? Proceedings of a symposium held at Lancaster Disability, 15-16 November 2011 (pp. 24-29). Centre for Disability Research, Lancaster University.
Ren, X. (2013). New York state public library systems and their services. Public Library Quarterly, 32(1), 46-67.
Rokay, M. (2021). Critical ethnography as an archival tool: A case study of the Afghan diaspora in Canada. Archivaria: The Journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists, 91(June), 176-201.
Rosa’s Law. (2010, Oct. 5). Public Law 111–256, 124 Stat. 2643.
Sambo, A.S., Rabiu, N. & Shaba, A.A. (2016). Physically challenged students and their information needs. Library Philosophy and Practice, Summer(1), 1461-1475.
Schomberg, J. (2018). Disability at work: Libraries, built to exclude. In K.P. Nicholson & M. Seale (Eds.). The politics of theory and the practice of critical librarianship (pp. 116-127). Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.
Siraki, A. (2021). Too many spoons: Library workers and disabilities. Library Leadership & Management, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.5860/llm.v35i3.7500
Smith, M. & Patin, B.J.H. (2024). Giving voice through reparative storytelling: correcting racist epistemic injustices in LIS. Library Quarterly, 94(4) 441–457.
Stack, E.E. & McDonald, K.E. (2018). We are “both in charge, the academics and self-advocates”: Empowerment in community-based participatory research. Journal of Policy & Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 15(1), 80-89.
Tervalon, M. & Murray-Garcia, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117-125.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”) & International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (“IFLAI”). (2022). IFLA-UNESCO public library manifesto 2022. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385149
Vincent, B.W. (2018). Studying trans: Recommendations for ethical recruitment and collaboration with transgender participants in academic research. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(2), 102-116, https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.1434558
Wagner, T.L. & Crowley, A. (2020). Why are bathrooms inclusive if the stacks exclude? Systemic exclusion of trans and gender nonconforming persons in post-Trump academic librarianship. Reference Services Review, 48(1), 159-181.
Wheeler, J. (2021). “How much is not enough?”: Public library outreach to “disadvantaged” communities in the war on poverty. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 91(2), 190-208.
Will, M. (2020, April 14). Still mostly white and female: New federal data on the teaching profession. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/still-mostly-white-and-female-new-federal-data-on-the-teaching-profession/2020/04
Yoon, K., Dols, R., Hulscher, L., Newberry, T. (2016). An exploratory study of library website accessibility for visually impaired users. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 250-258.