Lakhasly

The public library that we are familiar with today formed during socio-political innova-tions of the 19th century.We first review relevant literature pertaining to institutional culture in public libraries with particular focus on bureaucracy and creativity.This transformation aligns with the notion of citizens becoming "co-creators of value" through collaboration with public services (Foth, 2018). This shift invites the public Ebrary to evolve (Boyle et al., 2016) beyond its traditional role of service provider to become a community collaborator and necessitates the development of new creative services and facilities (Light et al., 2016). In response, public libraries internationally have started to emphasize creativity and innovation. Notable examples include the DOKKI public library in Aarhus, Denmark. (Serholt et al., 2018), and New Zealand's Puke Ariki library. In Australia, public libra-ries developed strategic plans that prioritized creativity and collaboration and estab-lished makerspaces, hacker spaces, creative studios, and open labs (Bilandzic et al., 2016; Carvalho et al., 2016). Encouraged by the rise of inexpensive technologies, libra-ries collected resources to enable creative practice (Johnson, 2016) and; (iii) provided training programs like, "How to use a 3D printer" and "Hack the evening" (Bilandzic, 2016) to activate the library's collections, facilities, and creative spaces.Melbourne's first Public Library opened in 1854, claiming to be one of the "first free public libraries in the world."" Ever since, public libraries have acted as service providers for their communities by (i) developing public spaces and facilities; (ii) curating and managing collections; (iii) responding to customer requests for information or resources, and; (iv) delivering pro-grams and events to activate the library's collections, facilities, and services. Over the past decade, public libraries have been recognized by scholars and policy-makers as potential "third places" facilitating community engagement and development Houghton et al., 2013; Oldenburg & Brissett, 1982) outside homes and workplaces.On the one hand the institutional aspects of the library continue to employ bureaucratic processes to control how and when customers and staff can access and use public assets; on the other hand the contemporary library simultaneously invites staff and customers to meet, create, collaborate, and innovate, however they like, at all hours.This article is structured as follows.

The public library that we are familiar with today formed during socio-political innova-tions of the 19th century. The first publicly-supported municipal library appeared in Boston in 1848, two years later the UK's Public Library Act of 1850 promised free access to information and literature for the public. Melbourne's first Public Library opened in 1854, claiming to be one of the "first free public libraries in the world."" Ever since, public libraries have acted as service providers for their communities by (i) developing public spaces and facilities; (ii) curating and managing collections; (iii) responding to customer requests for information or resources, and; (iv) delivering pro-grams and events to activate the library's collections, facilities, and services. Over the past decade, public libraries have been recognized by scholars and policy-makers as potential "third places" facilitating community engagement and development Houghton et al., 2013; Oldenburg & Brissett, 1982) outside homes and workplaces. A third place provides people with opportunity for social interaction, a sense of belonging to community, and a different lived-experience from home (first place) or work (second place). Scholars and policymakers proposed that libraries leverage their third place status and expand beyond the role of service provider to include the practice of creativity and collaboration with their communities (Light et al., 2016). This transformation aligns with the notion of citizens becoming "co-creators of value" through collaboration with public services (Foth, 2018). This shift invites the public Ebrary to evolve (Boyle et al., 2016) beyond its traditional role of service provider to become a community collaborator and necessitates the development of new creative services and facilities (Light et al., 2016).

In response, public libraries internationally have started to emphasize creativity and innovation. Notable examples include the DOKKI public library in Aarhus, Denmark. (Serholt et al., 2018), and New Zealand's Puke Ariki library. In Australia, public libra-ries developed strategic plans that prioritized creativity and collaboration and estab-lished makerspaces, hacker spaces, creative studios, and open labs (Bilandzic et al., 2016; Carvalho et al., 2016). Encouraged by the rise of inexpensive technologies, libra-ries collected resources to enable creative practice (Johnson, 2016) and; (iii) provided training programs like, "How to use a 3D printer" and "Hack the evening" (Bilandzic, 2016) to activate the library's collections, facilities, and creative spaces. Libraries also recruited specialist creative practitioners and restructured for agility, such as shift-ing from top-down hierarchies to more collaborative matrix structures."

The contemporary public library expressed the aim to be creative, collaborative, and innovative, which required social, spatial, and technological shifts (Bilandzic et al., 2018). Socially, customer interactions began to change from transactions, where tomer would borrow resources or seek information from the library, to collaborations, where the customer and librarian would work together toward an outcome. Spatial changes saw spaces that were traditionally allocated for quiet reading, research, or meet-ings, transformed into play areas, makerspaces, and studios for creativity and collabor-ation. For this purpose libraries also invested in new technological resources like 3D printers and podcasting equipment, These institutional changes were both challenging and exciting, allowing the library to shake off its dusty 19th century image and trans-form into an entity suited for 21st century society.

However, amid these shifts, the public library remains a government entity rooted in larger institutional norms, frameworks and administrative processes that are often slow, risk-averse, and bureaucratic (Castell, 2016; Lodato & DiSalvo, 2018). This prompts the need to navigate the clash between the free spirit of creativity and the rules and regula-tions of public institutions. Motivated by examining this clash to propose possible adjustments in institutional processes and workplace culture, this article reports case study situated in a regional public library context in Australia.

While creativity and innovation are favored by many high-level government strat egies, bureaucracy, too, has merits and remains the mainstay of a reliable public service.
This begs the question of how the library is expected to facilitate the diverse messiness of human creativity-a culture that is spontaneous, unexpected, and rapidly changing-within its institutional framework that prefers long-term planning, predictability, and sta-bility. The library's evolution from records management, archive and collection service to one that could also foster creativity, innovation and collaboration can cause tensions.

These tensions are expressed in various ways. Our study's findings suggest that librar-ians comfortable with the status quo and the traditional ideology of what a public library should be, might struggle to adapt to pressures caused by an emerging creative workplace and constantly changing society. At the same time, library staff newcomers face frustrations, too. Our study's findings suggest that staff educated in modern design practices might struggle in a traditional library that touts creativity and innovation but maintain the status quo supported by entrenched bureaucratic institutional norms. A collision of organizational and as Lodato and DiSalvo (2018) argue, "ideological"-cul-tures ensues. On the one hand the institutional aspects of the library continue to employ bureaucratic processes to control how and when customers and staff can access and use public assets; on the other hand the contemporary library simultaneously invites staff and customers to meet, create, collaborate, and innovate, however they like, at all hours. Both the traditional bureaucratic public library service and the contempor-ary creative public library service attempt to provide value for the institution and its customers. Public servants and library patrons risk being caught in the crossfire of this culture clash. This article unpacks this culture clash and discusses learnings derived from frontline exposure to these frictions..

This article is structured as follows. We first review relevant literature pertaining to institutional culture in public libraries with particular focus on bureaucracy and creativity.

Guided by a "design institutioning" framework (Huybrechts et al., 2017; Teli et al., 2022) that examines the nature and design of institutional systems, structures, and actors, we then apply a case study approach to investigate how a regional public library establishes and maintains opportunities for creativity and innovation to occur, particularly inclusive creative spaces. We conclude by synthesizing our findings and making recommendations.