The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries and the Values of Transformational Change

Karen P. Nicholson is Manager, Information Literacy, at the University of Guelph, a PhD student at the University of Western Ontario, and a faculty member with the ACRL’s Information Literacy Immersion programs; e-mail: [email protected]. The author would like to thank Wendy Holliday, Dr. Pamela J. McKenzie, Courtney Waugh, and the reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this essay. © 2015 Karen P. Nicholson, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC. In his article “The McDonaldization of Academic Libraries?” Brian Quinn explores to what extent and to what effect academic libraries have become “McDonaldized,” according to the concept developed by sociologist George Ritzer.1 Quinn identifies a number of ways in which the four dimensions of McDonaldization—efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control (typically realized through the substitution of technology for human labor)—are evident in academic libraries. Tiered reference service, self-check machines, and self-guided tours all represent ways in which libraries have sought to become more efficient. “Just-in-time” approaches to collection development—including a greater reliance on interlibrary loan and document delivery services, part of a larger trend toward access over ownership—and standardized approaches to information literacy instruction also provide greater efficiencies. Calculability is represented in the focus on quantity, such as inputs (like financial resources, number of staff, gate counts, number of volumes) and outputs (for instance, circulation stats, online transactions), as a surrogate for quality. McDonaldization is also apparent in the growing predictability of academic libraries’ collections resulting from the use of approval plans and journal aggregator databases. Likewise, Quinn suggests, most libraries offer the same suite of core services. Finally, in addition to their hierarchical structure and reliance on rules and regulations—typical of bureaucratic systems, and in itself a form of social control—the increasing use of technology in libraries serves as a mechanism of rationalization and control. Although Quinn concedes that “there are obvious advantages in maintaining a wellorganized and efficient work environment,” ultimately, he sees the “bureaucratic, McDonaldized environment” characteristic of academic libraries as a form of irrationality: