What follows are discussions that members have had with one another and with leadership in various forums. We thought these might be useful as you review the alignment project and proposed name change.
The core of what we do hasn't changed, so we should still be calling ourselves librarians. Terms such as "info pro" and "knowledge manager" are inaccurate and have hurt the profession.
What has probably hurt this profession more than anything is not recognizing that our members' roles and duties have expanded beyond what most people think of when they hear "librarian" or "library." Again, keep in mind that the Alignment research is not saying members need to change their titles. There is nothing wrong with being a librarian or working in a library but there are instances when it limits how we are perceived and what we have to offer. Becoming an association open to a broader membership can only enhance and help people understand the value of librarians and all our members. That said, in a recent discussion with fellow Minnesota Chapter members, many agreed that "information" was too vague and easy to confuse with similar or overlapping professions such as Information Technology. We need something new but just because "info pro" may not be the best name, doesn't mean that "librarian" is a one-size-fits-all solution.
Why doesn't the Alignment Project stress the value of an MLIS/MLS?
After an information professional's first job, the MLIS/MLS is less emphasized. It is the experience and performance that is valued. The MLIS/MLS degree is a means to an end and the credential to get one in the door. SLA realized this many years ago when they removed a professional library degree as a requirement for membership. And it has not hurt the association. SLA Leadership is seeking ways with the Alignment Project to open up our membership to more people who are information professionals but do not have an MLS/MLIS. They believe (and attendance at annual conferences has shown) that the diversity of interests will be beneficial to our association and profession as a whole. Anne Caputo notes that, "Just as we see people with the MLIS/ MLS degree doing many things outside the traditional boundaries of the library- we also see many people doing high-level professional research and information work who do not have the MLIS/MLS degree."
Jill Strand says: "Having been raised in a family of professors and university leaders, I understand and respect the value of an advanced degree. While I think my MLIS is important and helps me to do my job better, I know that experience counts for a lot as well. As the manager of a midsize law firm library, I could probably do some parts of my job somewhat better if I had a law degree. Yet I am certain that my experience and lessons learned from SLA colleagues, courses and conferences is what will help me to do a great job."
Many members see the Alignment Project as detrimental to the profession by not emphasizing our degree. Some have said advertising jobs that don't require and MLS or MLIS on the SLA website is insulting.
After an information professional's first job, the advanced degree is less emphasized. It is the experience and performance that is valued. The MLIS/MLS degree is a means to an end and the credential to get one in the door. SLA realized this many years ago when we removed a professional library degree as a requirement for membership. And it has not hurt the association. We are seeking ways with the alignment project to open up our membership to more people who are information professionals but do not have an MLS. We believe the diversity of interests will be beneficial to our association and profession as a whole. Some of our members who have taken positions that did not require an MLS and were advertised on our website used their professional degrees to turn these positions into something that more accurately reflected the skill set they brought to bear on the work. In addition, I would say that some of our members who have taken positions that were advertised without a requirement for an MLS are very happy to be working and to have that job and not "insulted."
Is the Alignment weighted towards the corporate sector (75% of research participants are from this sector)? Does this accurately reflect the make-up of the membership? How is SLA empowering members in technical services or academic librarians; is it emphasizing librarians in corporate environments at their expense?
The research was weighted to the corporate, specialized sector because it does actually accurately reflect the makeup of SLA. We have always been supportive of our members who work in technical services and this is reflected in many of the services we offer including 23 Things and many of the Click U offerings. Our new academic division was a direct response for increased emphasis on our academic colleagues. They were being served in their particular subject expertise, but now with the Academic Division we are addressing specific issues that academic librarians face overall not just their specialty area. We do not in any way think the alignment project is emphasizing corporate information professionals at the expense of academic information professionals. On the contrary, we are so convinced that this information accurately reflects the state of our profession overall and how it is viewed by people outside of our profession that we are making the research available to all information professionals whether they are SLA members or not.
The less than favorable reaction to the word "librarian" - was this result primarily from the corporate sector? Did academicians feel the same? Were there academic C-Level types in the research, or only corporate?
The less than favorable reaction to the word librarians was a result across the board from information professionals as well as people outside of our profession. As I said, the research was largely focused on a corporate setting, but is valid across the spectrum. Academicians probably have a somewhat favorable reaction to the word librarian because the academic setting is different. Libraries are important and necessary in an academic setting and though the staff there are being downsized just as in the corporate setting, there is not as much of a trend toward closing academic libraries. But a number of our members in academia have given up the word librarian as a title and many of our library education programs are changing their names and leaving out library to reflect a much broader skill set that is now required of information professionals.
How is the Alignment Project supposed to help "back end" librarians, who never interact with clients/decision makers face-to-face?
The alignment project will help the "back end" librarians because they do interact with clients and decision makers. And, in fact, this is the first way it helps them because it demonstrates to them that they do have a role to interact with decision makers. These "back end" librarians use their information skills to influence decisions in all aspects of the information profession from technologies and infrastructure to purchases. The Alignment Project shows them their value and gives them the language tools to talk about the value they bring to their employer no matter what the setting.
Some of our members have stated the tools and formats we use have changed but that the core of what we do hasn't changed, so we should still be calling ourselves librarians. They said the terms "info pro" and "knowledge manager" have hurt the profession because they are inaccurate and too nebulous. The core of what we do has changed as well as the tools, the words library and librarian are stifling for many of our members.
Many of our members do not work in a physical library; they are embedded within their organizations. The word librarian is confining to many of these people because they do so much more than is conveyed by that word. But please understand, if anyone wants to continue to call themselves a librarian that is fine. That is great. But please do not hold back so many others who do not see this as a positive. There is room in our association for both but the name has to be welcoming to librarians as well as those who have adopted a different title but who are in the business of providing information, information professionals.
Even members who've had budget cuts seem to be against the Alignment, saying that no matter what we do decision-makers aren't going to value us (even after we've approached them with facts suggesting otherwise).
This is a cop out, saying no matter what we do it won't change peoples' minds. As I have visited companies and libraries these past two years, I have seen what a positive attitude can do. I have met CEO's who do know their information professionals and who value the work they do. If we do not stand up and state our value we cannot expect anyone else to do it for us. The alignment project gives each of us the tools we need to communicate value, to speak in terms that businesses understand, to convey that we are forward looking and are true assets to our employers no matter what the setting. Now it is our responsibility to get the word out. We have the tools whether we are librarians or knowledge managers or information professionals we need to take responsibility, take action and stop complaining that it is too hard, or no one will listen. They will listen if we speak knowledgeably and proudly of the value we provide. It is up to each of us to take responsibility for our careers and our profession.
Is the Alignment research truly reflective of all SLA members?
Information professionals and leaders in a wide range of professions and types of organizations were interviewed as part of the Alignment research. (See the Alignment Portal for details.) While the largest sector in our membership is represented by corporate information professionals, this changes over time. We are deliberately reaching out to other areas as evidenced by our newer divisions, Government and Academic in particular. These have grown rapidly and represent some of the larger divisions within SLA. We will continue to be responsive to these requests from our members and will use this responsiveness to attract new members. The formation of the newest division focused on taxonomy is a bow in part to technical services where this discipline often resides.
Some long-time members or those who have had budget cuts seem to be against Alignment, saying that no matter what we do decision makers aren't going to value us.
As she has visited companies and libraries over the past two years, Gloria Zamora has seen what a positive attitude can do. She has met CEO's who do know their information professionals and who value the work they do. "If we do not stand up and state our value we cannot expect anyone else to do it for us, she says. "The Alignment Project gives each of us the tools we need to communicate value, to speak in terms that businesses understand, to convey that we are forward looking and are true assets to our employers no matter what the setting. We have the tools and whether we are librarians or knowledge managers or information professionals we need to take responsibility, even if it is hard or you think no one will listen. They will listen if we speak, knowledgeably and proudly of the value we provide. It is up to each of us to take responsibility for our careers and our profession." Anne Caputo has also said, "If you carry a defeatist attitude you will be defeated. We want an association filled with people who believe they can make a difference and a contribution and then go out and prove it."
The Name Change issue was addressed and voted on six years ago and members voted to keep the same name --why are we doing it again?
Six years ago, in 2003, the association proposed a new name. The membership did vote to change the name then, but parliamentary procedure and multiple votes did not get it passed. This project was not about a name change.
Leadership (Headquarters) obviously didn't like that result and is simply revisiting it until it gets the response that it wants.
The alignment project is not about a name change, it is about setting this profession and those who practice it, into a successful future. We now have very clear, concise research and language to describe our impact and value to the bottom line of our businesses.
Although the research suggested that a name change should be considered, the elected leadership of this association hesitated to move too quickly because they wanted to explore the research.
They felt the association could not move forward on a brand or identity unless we all fully understood our value and what people outside of our profession thought about the services and value we provide.
Yet as the Board of Directors and members looked at the initial research findings many kept asking about a name change. At this point it is impossible to ignore that the validated research points to our name as something that is holding the profession and each individual member of this association back.
The Alignment Project is an expensive project using member dues (which by the way --went up this year by 15%(!) at a very difficult time when many have been losing their jobs--and it's all to support this "politicking" method by headquarters to get what they want-- i.e. using this questionable and expensive "research" to support the name change which is coming down by edict and circumvents member feedback.
The funding for the alignment project did not come from member dues. The Alignment Project is funded from long-term investments that had grown since the purchase of the Virginia building. The Board of Directors approved the funding in October 2006. For many years now, SLA has been asked over and over again by our members for information and language on how to better communicate with their bosses, hiring officials, etc. This is it. The project is a 4-year project consisting primarily of secondary and primary research, followed by consultation and presentations to the leadership and membership, consultation for communications related to the Centennial year, development of vision/mission/core values, communications plans, a branding platform, and an intranet/information portal for members' usage to rollout the project.
Alignment in and of itself is an initiative to promote our value - the name change has risen to the top simply because we want to have a solid, tested "brand" name in place that not only does a better job of resonating with organizational leaders but also better defines who we have become as a profession.
There does not seem to be any forum for general members to question or give feedback for ANY of the decisions by Headquarters --price increases, name changes, other issues?
The board of directors, who is elected by the membership, is the voice of governance for SLA. The board meets monthly via conference call and posts their agenda and minutes on the website for all members to view. There have been numerous forums for the membership to ask questions of the elected Board of Directors about their decisions.
Regarding the alignment project, for two years there have been presentations by our consultants at The Leadership Summit, the Leadership Development Institute and the annual conference, presentations to chapters and other groups by the leadership, President, President-Elect, CEO, alignment ambassadors, and members. We've held online forums to talk with the president-elect candidates, held forums in Washington, DC and Toronto, focus groups and surveys in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the UK, written columns and articles in Information Outlook and held informal meetings discussing the SLA Alignment Project. All of the research has been posted on the SLA website, including articles by members, presentations given by leadership, and a new stand-alone presentation and alignment information portal was launched in September. The information is out there for all to see and comment on. We have repeatedly asked for feedback on this initiative from all levels of membership, and we take all of it into account before moving on to the next step.
Leadership is simply a political organization who has little regard for its members and their "voice" or interests.
SLA conducts many surveys to solicit members feedback. We also have blogs and wikis where information is posted so members can voice their opinions and ask questions. The President, President-Elect and CEO visit and board members visit with chapters and divisions upon request to hear first-hand what the membership is interested in us pursuing.
Is the alignment research being funded by member dues?
The Alignment Project is funded from long-term investments that had grown since the purchase of the Virginia building. The Board of Directors approved the funding in October 2006.
For many years now, SLA has been asked over and over again by our members for information and language on how to better communicate with their bosses, hiring officials, etc. This is it. The project is a 4-year project consisting primarily of secondary and primary research, followed by consultation and presentations to the leadership and membership, consultation for communications related to the Centennial year, development of vision/mission/core values, communications plans, a branding platform, and an intranet/information portal for members' usage to rollout the project.
RSS
Feedback form
