Imagined democracy : A discource analysis of democratic theory in Scandinavian library and information science texts

What is meant when the word democracy is used in library and information science texts? Does it mean simply protecting freedom of speech? That everybody has a place in our society and that the library reflects or works towards this? Is it a combination, something more or something else? With John Buschman’s critique published in 2007 of the library and information science field’s relation to democratic theory as being incomplete and on a basic level as a starting point, I set out to look at how specifically Scandinavian library and information scientists use democratic theory today. Buschman accused the field of having too much of a focus on providing information and freedom of expression and lacking, for example, in assessing the hurdles for citizens to be informed and expressing their opinions. Buschman claimed that there was only a single narrative, or discourse, present. I pose the question if this is still the case? Using discourse analysis as a method and a specific model developed by Hedman and Hedemark, I analyze six Scandinavian academic texts from the period 2017-2025 – two with Swedish, two with Norwegian, and two with Danish corresponding authors. And ask the question what kind of discourses are present in the field today? One central finding is that the texts indicate that there is a difference regarding how democracy and demo-cratic theory is used and talked about in the three countries. In Sweden, Chantal Mouffe has become a central figure creating a discourse around the concept of agonistic pluralism. This seem to relate to the Sweden Democrats having a more radical political history as well as a tendency questioning municipal cultural policy to a greater extent than the far-right wing political parties in the neighboring countries but also relates to Chantal Mouffes theories being adapted early, originally with inclusion of minority groups in society as an aim. In the Norwegian texts, discussions about the public sphere and neutrality are represented. In Denmark, far less seems to be written about democracy and discussions about new services and initiatives in libraries in rela-tion to democracy seems to be prevalent. The words fake news, disinformation and misinformation are absent in all the texts, showing it to be potentially unaddressed regarding connecting it to democratic theory, at least in Scandinavia. Another finding is that the reading of the Scandinavian library and information texts in relation to Buschman’s own theory reveals that Buschman sees the library as a educative democratic institution while it in some of the Scandinavian texts is discussed as potentially being something more than this, showing that Buschman’s view might be reductive in regards to the public library’s democratic possibilities and that his view perhaps is based on his primary subject position working at a university library.