Video arsenal
Six LinkedIn cuts (4:5), five TikTok/Reels/Shorts (9:16), one long-form walkthrough (16:9). Same research, matched to where each audience lives.
LinkedIn cuts · 4:5 · 45–105s
Vertical reels · 9:16 · 15–30s (TikTok / Reels / Shorts)
Long-form walkthrough · 16:9
Music video · 16:9 · The song of the study
Written arsenal
The full written corpus — methodology brief for researchers, Medium article for parents + policy readers, community-newspaper op-ed, and Substack-style essay.
Ready-to-share kit + distribution
Platform-native posts plus a distribute block with canonical URL, attribution snippet, and embed code — so anyone amplifying this has the pieces in one place.
Distribute
Join the conversation
The IMLS study names seven open research directions. Here are the threads we think are most worth picking up — whether you're a librarian, researcher, parent, policy analyst, or funder.
Open questions the study flags for future research
- Measurement: are participation proxies (books checked out, library cards issued) reliable stand-ins for reading engagement? The study says probably useful — let's prove it.
- Program efficacy: which specific library program elements — training, curriculum, staffing — actually move the needle? Intervention studies welcome.
- Digital resources: only 24% of the manuscripts addressed digital offerings. What does engagement look like when a library hands a child a tablet vs. a picture book?
- Reach: what works for engaging children who don't walk into the library — immigrant families, rural households, caregivers with competing demands? Outreach research is undersupplied.
- Caregiver perspectives: directly integrate caregivers' voices in evaluating library programming effectiveness.
Tagged conversation: if you write or share on this, link it to the source report. Source, then commentary.
Download the full report (PDF) · IMLS publication page