The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) is considered the “global voice of the library and information profession.” IFLA has about 1500 members in 150 countries. The organization is deeply committed to freedom of information, an especially salient concern given the precarious political position many librarians and library systems are in when located in places where censorship is a true legal and social concern. The IFLA Code of Ethics also stresses the power of information as a part of democratic societies; in this way, it lines up with the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights articles 19, 26, 27, which, while difficult to enforce, promise world citizens the rights to information, assembly, association, and the free expression and creation of artistic and cultural endeavors. (What a nice way for me to sneak in information from my History MA thesis. Heh.)
IFLA’s code of ethics and best practices is far more politically direct than RUSA’s, which seems far more focused on the behavioral end of librarianship. (That’s fine, except for the things that RUSA leaves out, as mentioned in my previous post.) I think this is a great strength; the code can be applied across cultures, whereas RUSA does not address cultural differences, language barriers, and community.
From section 2, “Responsibilities towards individuals and society:”
In order to promote inclusion and eradicate discrimination, librarians and other information workers ensure that the right of accessing information is not denied and that equitable services are provided for everyone whatever their age, citizenship, political belief, physical or mental ability, gender identity, heritage, education, income, immigration and asylum-seeking status, marital status, origin, race, religion or sexual orientation.
Librarians and other information workers respect language minorities of a country and their right to access information in their own language.
Section 5 stresses the need for neutrality in the workplace as well as inclusive collection development. I find this to be an incredibly powerful passage that empowers librarians to bring as many voices as possible into librarianship, as well as the voices of patrons, no matter the location or culture.
Although IFLA’s code of ethics does not really address the issue of librarian approachability directly, it does stress that librarianship is a political and social profession, and that librarians have an imperative to serve all patrons with respect and on equal terms. These political and social concerns definitely affect the ways that librarians are perceived; without an emphasis on equality across culture, librarians might not be as sensitive to the needs of users and users may be too intimidated to approach. Staying socially open creates a friendly environment where librarians are perceived to be compassionate, curious, and helpful.
IFLA’s other publications are particularly useful for more information on current practices and trends. (The box on the left will guide you and there is a search for current and past publications as well.)
Global Perspectives on Librarian Approachability 