There is a relative silence in the literature about the experiences of dyslexic students in Higher Education (HE) libraries. Researchers have called for evidence of dyslexic students' experiences in HE to better understand the challenges and opportunities that belay modern HE journeys (Hamilton-Clark, 2024; Jacobs et al., 2022). Academic outcomes for dyslexic HE students are notably dissimilar to those of their non-disabled peers, and literature highlights the important role academic libraries can play in supporting students to maximise their outcomes in HE (Anderson & García, 2020; Scoulas & DeGroot, 2022). Congruently, in the current investigation, I ask: “How do we understand the experiences of dyslexic library users in the university academic library?”.

The first challenge to any library is navigation. Sometimes referred to as ‘wayfinding’ in the literature (Scaife & Walton; Wise, 2024), users must navigate library spaces and systems to actualise their tasks. Navigating a library can be difficult, as navigation mechanisms in this complex space are often predicated on literacy skills; reading signs, remembering sequences, and spelling search queries correctly are required skills to move through libraries effectively. Research has identified several barriers to navigation in libraries. Confusing and contradictory signage has caused library users to feel distracted and unmotivated, disengaging from their tasks (Scaife & Walton, 2022; Wise, 2024), making library classification systems increasingly difficult to traverse. Prevalent across many HE institutions throughout Europe, the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system is renowned for its complexity from the outset (Chiavaroli, 2019), requiring skills rooted in a normative approach to literacy to maximize the use of the system. Unsuccessful attempts to use the DDC often relate to literacy barriers and can result in incomplete assignments and incorrect information retrieval (Chiavaroli, 2019). Withstanding this complexity, there is an additional conflict between the skills required to navigate libraries and the traits that define dyslexics.

In the UK it is estimated that around 10% of the population is dyslexic, where this estimation rises to 9-12% across Europe more broadly, according to the European Dyslexia Association. In UK legislation, as in many other European countries, those who are dyslexic are typified by difficulties with short-term memory and literacy skills (such as reading, writing, and spelling), and are considered disabled under UK legislation. As discussed, to navigate a library users must employ skills poised on normative literacy (styles and ways literacy is used according to each society); reading signs, memorising floorplans, and spelling words correctly in search queries - required skills that are dissimilar from the ways dyslexics are conceptualised. While multiple theories seek to provide evidence for a causal explanation for the difficulties dyslexics experience, the contemporary theory of Lexism (Collinson, 2022) is seldom considered but adds a nuanced perspective to this social issue.

The conditions to identify someone as dyslexic are arguably constructed by Lexism, meaning those who do not adopt a normative approach to literacy are othered (Collinson, 2022). Literacy standards are constantly in flux, and those who do not adopt these standards can be identified as dyslexic. Likewise, not exhibiting traits valued by society (such as literacy skills) can lead to Stigma and discreditation, or fear of becoming discredited (Goffman, 1963). Notably, considering Lexism, I use terms like ‘a dyslexic person’ rather than ‘a person with dyslexia’ as I seek to (re)claim identity in the first instance rather than linguistically distancing myself and others from it (Botha et al., 2023). As experiences in libraries are constructed amongst others, the former two concepts are congruent with my objective as I seek to illuminate the experiences of dyslexic library users, highlighting where inclusion is fostered and where it can be bolstered.

Rooted in a social constructivist approach, I co-produce data with four dyslexic HE students from the UK to understand their experiences of their HE library. Being dyslexic myself, I chose to embed activities and methods that enabled the co-production of data – I knew that I would shape participants' stories in my writing and wanted to be transparent about that rather than claiming to be objective. Likewise, working with participants shaped how I carried out the research, as participants' stories caused me to rethink many of my own experiences as I sought to see situations from their points of view. In essence, co-production was unavoidable in this research, as the participants and I had our own perspectives on what it is like to be dyslexic. Rather than seeking to remain objective, I embraced subjectivity during the investigation (Charmaz, 2014) and selected methods that would afford greater power to the participants over how the project developed. Myself and the participants engaged in walking interviews, photo methods, and member-checking protocols to ascertain participants' experience of their HE library. The walking interviews took the form of a go-along, where participants decided what they wished to photograph and I got to ‘go-along’ with them to their desired location (Carpiano, 2009). At their sought destination, participants took photos to show what impacted their experience in the library via a photo voice activity (Shaw, 2021); participants were taking photos to voice their experiences. This method was uniquely congruent to the investigation, as it enabled the participants and myself to bypass the need for written words to reach a shared understanding. We both brought our respective positioning to the photos captured, and they meant something different to each of us at first look, but through conversation, we established the meaning of the photos as the participant intended them. The member check protocols enabled me to collaborate with participants through the investigation, as they reread interview transcripts and checked the conclusions I drew from the data, ensuring my understanding aligned with what they wished to convey (Birt et al., 2016). Resultant themes detail participants' experiences of barriers in the HE library and highlight positives for further development that aided their engagement and promoted inclusion with the space and services.

The current investigation shows how dyslexic students’ experiences of wayfinding in their HE library can be understood through the concepts of Lexism and Stigma (Collinson, 2022; Goffman, 1963), where barriers due to normative literacy played a large role in their experiences. Participant experiences are characterized by: confusing layouts; a fear of stigma (Goffman, 1963) when struggling with signage and systems (Scaife & Walton, 2022; Wise, 2024); inaccessibility of library systems, such as the DDC (Chiavaroli, 2019; Scaife & Walton, 2022); and creative solutions to address literacy-based accessibility barriers in their library (Clarke, 2013; 2021). Participants’ novel ideas about what could be improved in the library, align with suggestions from the literature that posit alternatives to literacy-based systems for navigation. Instead of relying solely on a text-based system, like the DDC, employing visual icons and markers was suggested by participants to delineate academic resources, going beyond a system based on normative literacy (Clarke, 2013, 2021). Such changes stand to benefit many students who may be othered by Lexism; a system of classification which does not rely on normative literacy can extend to students who study outside of their first language and those who may not be versed in HE services and systems, in addition to dyslexic students. Stemming from the living experience of those who should benefit from the systems and services in the library, the results presented hold the power to offer user-led change, representing a minority sample of students who have been notably absent from HE Institutions (HEIs). Given the unprecedented expansion of modern HEI cohorts to include a diverse student population, lessons learned from this investigation offer insights that can pave the way for enhanced inclusion and equity for dyslexic students and students who experience issues with normative literacy in the HE library.

ANDERSON, L. L., and GARCÍA, S. A. V. 2020. Library usage, instruction, and student success across disciplines: A multilevel model approach. College & Research Libraries, 81(3), pp.459. BIRT, L., SCOTT, S., CAVERS, D., CAMPBELL, C., and WALTER, F. 2016. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?. Qualitative health research, 26(13), pp.1802-1811. BOTHA, M., HANLON, J., and WILLIAMS, G. L. 2023. Does language matter? Identity-first versus person-first language use in autism research: A response to Vivanti. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 53(2), pp.870-878. CARPIANO, R. M. 2009. Come take a walk with me: The “Go-Along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health & place, 15(1), pp.263-272. CHARMAZ, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. Sage. CHIAVAROLI, M. 2019. Ditching Dewey: Take your collections from enraging to engaging and position your library for 21st century success. Public Library Quarterly, 38(2), pp.124-146. CLARKE, R. I. 2013. Color by numbers: An exploration of the use of color as classification notation. Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 32(2), pp.222-238. CLARKE, R. I. 2021. Library classification systems in the US: basic ideas and examples. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 59(2-3), pp.203-224. COLLINSON, C. 2022. Dyslexics and Othering: an anti‐definitional approach to Lexism. British Journal of Special Education, 49(1), pp.24-40. GOFFMAN, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. HAMILTON CLARK, C. H. 2024. Dyslexia concealment in higher education: Exploring students' disclosure decisions in the face of UK universities' approach to dyslexia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. JACOBS, L., PARKE, A., ZIEGLER, F., HEADLEAND, C., and DE ANGELI, A. 2022. Learning at school through to university: the educational experiences of students with dyslexia at one UK higher education institution. Disability & Society, 37(4), pp.662-683. SCAIFE, B., and WALTON, G. (2022). Improving Wayfinding in a UK Higher Education Institution Library. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 14(3), pp.2-27. SCOULAS, J.M. and DE GROOTE, S.L., 2022. Impact of undergraduate students’ library use on their learning beyond GPA: Mixed-methods approach. College & Research Libraries, 83(3), p.452. SHAW, P.A., 2021. Photo-elicitation and photo-voice: using visual methodological tools to engage with younger children’s voices about inclusion in education. International journal of research & method in education, 44(4), pp.337-351. WISE, K. 2024. You can go your own way: Conducting a signage audit in a health library. Health Information & Libraries Journal.