True Partnership or Power Play? Rethinking Equity in Library Collaborations

In an era of increasing consortial collaboration, strategic partnerships, and shared service models, academic libraries are leaning on each other more than ever. From resource-sharing initiatives to cooperative digital preservation, the language of partnership abounds. But behind the rhetoric lies an uncomfortable truth: many so-called “partnerships” are structurally inequitable.

What happens when one institution does the bulk of the labor, foots the bill, and maintains the infrastructure, while others reap the benefits? Is that really a partnership—or just a more palatable version of power consolidation?

When Contributions Are Unequal

Let’s say Institution A funds the platform, contributes developer time, moderates the community, and produces documentation. Institution B gets access to the same tools and services with little to no material or labor investment. Is that fair? And more importantly, is it sustainable?

We need to be honest about the dynamics at play:

• Financial capital often determines who gets to make decisions.

• Labor contributions are frequently undervalued or invisible.

• Smaller institutions, despite being innovative and agile, can be marginalized.

This imbalance can undermine the very goals collaborations claim to advance—like inclusivity, shared governance, and collective impact.

What’s at Stake When Smaller Libraries Are Silenced

Smaller libraries often bring the most innovative, nimble, and user-responsive practices to the table—but too often, their contributions are overlooked or dismissed. When their voices are drowned out by larger, better-resourced partners, we lose:

• Local expertise that reflects community-specific needs.

• Creative approaches born from constraint, not abundance.

• Ethical leadership—small institutions often make decisions with equity and access at the forefront.

• Alternative models that could challenge and improve dominant systems.

Exclusion doesn’t just hurt the small library—it hurts the whole ecosystem.

Smaller institutions are often the source of innovation and deep community engagement—yet their strategic insights are routinely sidelined. When their voices are missing from the conversation, the resulting services reflect privilege, not the diversity of need across the field.

Holding Onto Power, Disguised as Partnership

When dominant institutions maintain control over shared infrastructure—choosing the tools, setting the agenda, and defining success metrics—collaborative language can mask hierarchical realities. The result? Power is not shared; it is protected.

Institutions that do the heavy lifting may not always do so to hoard control. Sometimes, they step up because they have the capacity or see a need. But if their labor isn't acknowledged, reciprocated, or governed through equitable frameworks, we risk perpetuating extractive relationships that resemble the very systems we claim to resist.

When Transformative Leadership Doesn’t Align with Our Values

It’s tempting to assume that anyone driving big change in our field must be leading with shared values—collaboration, inclusion, service. But that’s not always the case.

Transformative leadership can still be extractive.

Sometimes, the institutions or individuals credited with "leading innovation" are doing so through models that centralize power, marginalize others, or flatten complexity in favor of scale. These leaders may introduce widely adopted tools, frameworks, or platforms—but if the terms of participation exclude meaningful input from smaller or under-resourced institutions, then that transformation is not equity-driven. It’s empire-building, cloaked in progress.

We need to interrogate not just what is changing, but how it’s changing—and who benefits from that change.

A flashy pilot program doesn’t guarantee shared governance.
Institutional prestige doesn’t equal institutional humility.
And “thought leadership” that doesn’t invite dissent is just branding.

In other words, we must resist the narrative that transformation alone is inherently good. Transformative leadership must be accountable to the values of fairness, transparency, and mutual recognition. If it’s not, then it’s not leadership—it’s dominance repackaged as innovation.

Toward More Equitable Collaboration: Solutions We Can Pursue

Let’s move beyond critique. Here are practical, solutions-oriented strategies that can rebalance these collaborations:

1. Shared Governance Models

Ensure that all participating institutions have a voice in decision-making, regardless of their size or financial contribution. Rotate leadership roles to distribute power over time.

2. Transparent Contribution Frameworks

Create clear rubrics that value both financial and labor contributions—project management, meeting facilitation, tool maintenance, or community building should all “count.”

3. Resource Pooling with Tiers

Instead of equal financial contributions, develop tiered models based on institutional size or capacity. This avoids penalizing under-resourced libraries while still encouraging collective buy-in.

4. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that Center Equity

Design formal agreements that include principles of labor equity, credit attribution, and accountability structures for ongoing evaluation and renegotiation.

5. Recognition and Reciprocity

Publicly acknowledge labor contributions. When institutions take on extra work, others should look for ways to reciprocate—be it by offering different resources, staff support, or advocacy.

6. Flexible Infrastructure

Design systems that allow others to opt in at different levels of engagement and contribution. Not every library can lead a project, but all can support it in ways that are recognized.

The Partnership Litmus Test

A simple test for any collaboration:

If your institution were to walk away today, would the partnership collapse—or would it adapt?

If the answer is collapse, then it may be time to redesign your model. True partnerships are resilient, mutual, and self-reflective. They share not just resources, but responsibility, credit, and care.

When Credit Doesn’t Follow Contribution

In many collaborations, the institution doing the most visible labor—writing the documentation, managing the community, piloting the technology—is not the one whose name ends up on the white paper, the keynote, or the press release.

Instead, it’s often the larger, better-resourced institution that garners recognition, funding, and visibility. Their names carry institutional prestige, media attention, and grant capital, often eclipsing the ingenuity and effort of smaller partners. This erasure isn't just unjust—it actively distorts the narrative of who contributes value in our field.

When visibility flows disproportionately toward institutions that already hold power, the cycle of inequity deepens: credit leads to more resources, which leads to more leadership roles, which leads to more credit. Meanwhile, smaller institutions that contributed meaningfully—sometimes even carried the project—remain in the shadows.

Final Thoughts

Libraries, especially in academia, have long been pioneers in collaboration. But it’s time to interrogate the equity of those relationships. Let’s commit to building partnerships rooted in fairness, not favoritism—where power is shared, not stockpiled, and credit is distributed, not hoarded.

We don’t just need to include smaller libraries in the room—we need to center their leadership, amplify their contributions, and correct the narrative about who drives progress in our field. Their equity isn't a liability to manage but a strength to build around.

Let’s value the labor. Let’s share the credit. Let’s redesign collaboration as a space of accountability, recognition, and mutual respect.