Vem har trampat på Glaskupan? : En kritisk diskursanalys av debatten 2015 om stök på folkbibliotek
(2016) ABMM54 20161Division of ALM and Digital Cultures
Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences
- Abstract
- This master’s thesis is a discourse analysis of a media debate, which mainly took place in the summer of 2015, concerning disturbing situations caused by patrons in public libraries. In the early stages of the debate a lot of attention was spent on defining the patrons causing violent and threatening situations towards librarians and other patrons. Soon the media debate also came to focus on what the public library should be and for whom it should exist. In this thesis we investigate how the writers of the articles in the media debate presented images of who they deemed to be the problematic patron, how they expressed their views of the librarian and how they described what the library should be. We include a librarian’s perspective, and... (More)
- This master’s thesis is a discourse analysis of a media debate, which mainly took place in the summer of 2015, concerning disturbing situations caused by patrons in public libraries. In the early stages of the debate a lot of attention was spent on defining the patrons causing violent and threatening situations towards librarians and other patrons. Soon the media debate also came to focus on what the public library should be and for whom it should exist. In this thesis we investigate how the writers of the articles in the media debate presented images of who they deemed to be the problematic patron, how they expressed their views of the librarian and how they described what the library should be. We include a librarian’s perspective, and investigate how public library staff describe how they interpreted and received the media debate about disturbances, and how they discuss the media debate one year later. In the thesis we apply critical discourse analysis, institutional theory and Erving Goffman’s theory of stigma. The method utilized is critical discourse analysis, in the way described by Norman Fairclough. To answer our research question concerning how librarians respond to this specific debate, qualitative interviews were used to gather material which we also analyzed as texts using critical discourse analysis. The study shows that different groups of patrons are stigmatized in different ways in our studied texts. Groups are stigmatized through tribal stigma but also through appearance, smell and behavior. We found two library discourses in our studied texts and they differ depending on what the editorial writers expect the library to be. The first and most visible discourse in the texts focuses on paper books, reading and learning, the second discourse we found in the texts focuses on democracy and the library as a meeting place. We also argue that librarians are made invisible in the texts, for the benefit of the institution, the institution is hence made agent at the expense of the librarians agency in texts produced by editorial writers but also by librarians themselves. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8876780
- author
- Nordlander, Elisabet LU and Karlsson, Nora
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Who broke the Bell Jar? : A discourse analysis of the 2015 media debate about disturbances in Swedish public libraries
- course
- ABMM54 20161
- year
- 2016
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- library and information studies, information studies, public libraries, critical discourse analysis, CDA, stigma, institutional theory, media debate, patrons, librarians, biblioteks och informationsvetenskap, ABM, kritisk diskursanalys, stigmateori, institutionell teori, mediedebatt, folkbibliotek, användare, bibliotekarier
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8876780
- date added to LUP
- 2016-06-22 13:43:03
- date last changed
- 2016-06-22 13:43:03
@misc{8876780,
abstract = {{This master’s thesis is a discourse analysis of a media debate, which mainly took place in the summer of 2015, concerning disturbing situations caused by patrons in public libraries. In the early stages of the debate a lot of attention was spent on defining the patrons causing violent and threatening situations towards librarians and other patrons. Soon the media debate also came to focus on what the public library should be and for whom it should exist. In this thesis we investigate how the writers of the articles in the media debate presented images of who they deemed to be the problematic patron, how they expressed their views of the librarian and how they described what the library should be. We include a librarian’s perspective, and investigate how public library staff describe how they interpreted and received the media debate about disturbances, and how they discuss the media debate one year later. In the thesis we apply critical discourse analysis, institutional theory and Erving Goffman’s theory of stigma. The method utilized is critical discourse analysis, in the way described by Norman Fairclough. To answer our research question concerning how librarians respond to this specific debate, qualitative interviews were used to gather material which we also analyzed as texts using critical discourse analysis. The study shows that different groups of patrons are stigmatized in different ways in our studied texts. Groups are stigmatized through tribal stigma but also through appearance, smell and behavior. We found two library discourses in our studied texts and they differ depending on what the editorial writers expect the library to be. The first and most visible discourse in the texts focuses on paper books, reading and learning, the second discourse we found in the texts focuses on democracy and the library as a meeting place. We also argue that librarians are made invisible in the texts, for the benefit of the institution, the institution is hence made agent at the expense of the librarians agency in texts produced by editorial writers but also by librarians themselves.}},
author = {{Nordlander, Elisabet and Karlsson, Nora}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Vem har trampat på Glaskupan? : En kritisk diskursanalys av debatten 2015 om stök på folkbibliotek}},
year = {{2016}},
}