If you've not read this blog post from Bob McKee, CILIP's Chief Executive entitled All of a twitter then you might want to take a quick look - I'll sit here and wait for you; it's quite short so won't take long.
Welcome back. I like Bob - he's a nice chap and very personable, but I can't articulate enough how wrong he is on this issue, though I'll try. He says 'There's some twittering at present about whether CILIP has (or should have) any "official" presence on various lists or micro blog sites. Sorry Bob, but we were discussing this on Twitter two weeks ago. The boat has long since left on this one and we've moved onto other things related to CILIP now. This in itself is worrying - if you'd actually looked at Twitter you would have known this, so clearly you're being briefed and are blogging about it without any real understanding. That's fair enough in a way, because no-one can be on top of everything, though if it's important enough for you to blog, surely it's important enough to research a little yourself.
The more important issue isn't that, it's the delay in a response. Two weeks is not only unacceptable, it's insane. We don't live in a world where people have the leisure to take their time crafting a response; we did back in the day when websites were the way to get a message out, but then we moved into a response time of hours with blogs, and now we're at minutes with Twitter. As a rule of thumb, I'm finding that a mention of an organization or company on Twitter is getting me a response within a couple of hours now. And these are companies, both large and small, who feel that it's important to respond to comments from individuals, both good and bad. Less than this is sending out a very poor message indeed. Now, I know that the answer here is going to be referred to lack of staff, limited facilities and so on, and that's simply a cop out. An effective use of resources, monitoring blogs etc can be automated, take very little effort to set up or use and information can then be disseminated through the organization quickly. In my courses I teach librarians how to do this, and in most cases it's just pointing them towards the right tools. If they can do it on a personal level, surely we can expect the professional body to do the same thing?
Let's move on. "The simple answer, of course, is no." Why is that an 'of course'? It's neither hard or difficult to set up, and it's not time intensive. I appreciate that it's not easy to choose which emerging technologies or resources to use, but Twitter is pretty widely reported these days, hundreds of librarians and libraries are using it, CILIP groups are active on it, so why 'of course'?
The next section really did make my jaw drop. "In terms of "official" activity, cyber life is just like real like (sic) - if it happens in a CILIP-sanctioned space, it's official; if it happens down the pub or in someone else's space, it isn't." This is a classic 'ownership' issue - if we say it's real then it's real, and if we say it isn't real, then it's not. If I'm in a CILIP sanctioned space (whatever that is!) do my words and arguments take on more meaning than if I'm not? Or perhaps I need to have an official CILIP representative to add some gravitas to my comments? We don't live in a world when the organization or PR department can control the message any longer - things have moved on, and the webpage/site, while important, is no longer the sole place in which activity can take place. You cannot own the space any more and by not participating you're not stopping the conversations taking place, you're not stopping people making up their own minds, you're simply not involved or engaged. Moreover - just how insulting do you want to become? What gives you the right to tell people that their views don't matter?
Now, before you start using the "official" bit with me let me expand on that slightly. I understand that an official comment isn't the same as an unofficial one. However, your lack of engagement, except in channels, places and under situations you control is not only unprofessional it's insulting to all of these people who do care enough about the organization to spend time talking about it. We can't always do that with 'official' representatives around, but that doesn't mean that what is said isn't accurate or useful or valid, and it certainly doesn't mean CILIP shouldn't be involved. I'm getting an image here of CILIP standing with its fingers in its ears going 'la la la, we can't hear you.'
The question is raised 'how does an organization maintain a culture of inclusion, while retaining a methodical approach to work planning, managing and decision making?' CILIP doesn't currently have a culture of inclusion though; quite the opposite. That's already been made clear with the concept of CILIP sanctioned space. It's further made clear on your very own weblog 'CILIP members may post comments'. Not anyone else. That's not a culture of inclusion (and plenty of other professional organizations welcome comments from non-members), that's a culture of exclusion. By not engaging with people in a variety of different places, by ignoring them that's not a culture of inclusion, it's an isolationist policy. I deal with librarians almost every day who see it as their role to get information to people however they need it - face to face, by email, via websites, via social networking; they see the ability to share and include as a good thing. Yet the professional body itself is taking the exact opposite view!
However, to attempt an answer to the question posed, I would say that it's necessary to explore these networks, to try things out, to play with them and to see if they can be incorporated into daily work flows. Not to dismiss them out of hand because they're not in CILIP sanctioned space. If you don't explore these resources you're not going to be able to answer that question! You should be doing the exact opposite of what you're currently doing.
There certainly is a widening gap between the culture of the institute and the culture of the network. You're able to acknowledge that, yet you can't seem to be able to get passed that. Yet other companies, other organizations and, dare I say it, libraries are already embracing new approaches, different ways of working and different ways of engaging. This isn't new - in order to answer the question just *look around you*. Perhaps even actually engage in 'non CILIP sanctioned' places. Encourage staff to do so. Stop trying to control everything, and explore new methods.
The question is asked 'how do we deal with this gap, bringing together the best features of an institute and network'. You do it by doing it. You start by trying things out, by embracing a culture of change, by accepting the possibility that things can work differently, by allowing staff to get involved, by looking at Twitter, and Facebook and everything else that's out there. You accept that you're not going to get everything right, and accept that even if you get things wrong you're learning. You try and set an example. If I want to see what is happening in British Librarianship at the moment - the last place that I would look for guidance and examples of good practice would be at the professional body; I'll go into the field and talk to librarians who are doing it. Who are using Twitter, Facebook and the rest of it, who are prepared to try things out to see what works. CILIP is not doing this - CILIP is still sitting in splendid isolation, talking about 'sanctioned spaces'. CILIP is denying a voice, deliberately, to people who might want to engage, but in places and times of their choosing. CILIP is ignoring the possibilities afforded by Twitter by not even looking at how they could be used. I almost weep for the many good, effective and professional people who work there - people that I know want to do more than they're able to at the moment.
I am ashamed of CILIP.
Next (and sorry, but we're not finished yet), we have the astonishing phrase 'just to test whether anyone actually reads this stuff'. Yes, we do. Why would you think that we wouldn't - because it's you who is saying it, or because it's in a weblog? Or is it because, if it was up to you, you wouldn't be reading it if it was someone else?' Are you reading this, Bob? I'll bet money that you're not. Or, if you do, it's because it's been brought to your attention. Because if you assume other people aren't going to be reading your material, it's probably because you're not reading theirs. We continue - 'how can we best combine the authority of our institute with the democracy of our network?' Well, because CILIP is not engaged with it's staff, clients, members and other interested parties, why do you assume that you have much authority? Individuals working in your organization have authority - huge amounts of it, and I listen to them, when I get the chance. Your groups have tremendous authority as well - but CILIP? You're abrogating that authority every single day that you're ignoring the discussions, by clinging to the concept of 'sanctioned space', by desperately trying to cling to control when it's slipping through your fingers, away from your network and out into social spaces. Also 'our network'. That again speaks volumes, because the whole thrust of the internet is towards shared space, community networking, and away from closed networks. Tragically I don't think you even understand how wrong that question is.
Last of all, and we've finally got here, 'Answers on a blog post, please, to this address. And no peengeing'. I have no idea what that last word means, so forgive me for ignoring it. In the two responses, both by the same person, we have the statement 'I would leave a comment if I could work out how'. It's one final, sad reminder that CILIP doesn't want discussion, it doesn't want to engage, it simply wishes to control it's 'sanctioned space'. That's a dreadful situation, and bitterly upsetting. However, unlike CILIP - if you want to respond you're more than welcome to - my blog comments are open to anyone who wants to make a comment, and I'll post anything you care to say to me Bob. I doubt that you will, because I doubt that you're interested enough to engage in conversation, though I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong.
Welcome back. I like Bob - he's a nice chap and very personable, but I can't articulate enough how wrong he is on this issue, though I'll try. He says 'There's some twittering at present about whether CILIP has (or should have) any "official" presence on various lists or micro blog sites. Sorry Bob, but we were discussing this on Twitter two weeks ago. The boat has long since left on this one and we've moved onto other things related to CILIP now. This in itself is worrying - if you'd actually looked at Twitter you would have known this, so clearly you're being briefed and are blogging about it without any real understanding. That's fair enough in a way, because no-one can be on top of everything, though if it's important enough for you to blog, surely it's important enough to research a little yourself.
The more important issue isn't that, it's the delay in a response. Two weeks is not only unacceptable, it's insane. We don't live in a world where people have the leisure to take their time crafting a response; we did back in the day when websites were the way to get a message out, but then we moved into a response time of hours with blogs, and now we're at minutes with Twitter. As a rule of thumb, I'm finding that a mention of an organization or company on Twitter is getting me a response within a couple of hours now. And these are companies, both large and small, who feel that it's important to respond to comments from individuals, both good and bad. Less than this is sending out a very poor message indeed. Now, I know that the answer here is going to be referred to lack of staff, limited facilities and so on, and that's simply a cop out. An effective use of resources, monitoring blogs etc can be automated, take very little effort to set up or use and information can then be disseminated through the organization quickly. In my courses I teach librarians how to do this, and in most cases it's just pointing them towards the right tools. If they can do it on a personal level, surely we can expect the professional body to do the same thing?
Let's move on. "The simple answer, of course, is no." Why is that an 'of course'? It's neither hard or difficult to set up, and it's not time intensive. I appreciate that it's not easy to choose which emerging technologies or resources to use, but Twitter is pretty widely reported these days, hundreds of librarians and libraries are using it, CILIP groups are active on it, so why 'of course'?
The next section really did make my jaw drop. "In terms of "official" activity, cyber life is just like real like (sic) - if it happens in a CILIP-sanctioned space, it's official; if it happens down the pub or in someone else's space, it isn't." This is a classic 'ownership' issue - if we say it's real then it's real, and if we say it isn't real, then it's not. If I'm in a CILIP sanctioned space (whatever that is!) do my words and arguments take on more meaning than if I'm not? Or perhaps I need to have an official CILIP representative to add some gravitas to my comments? We don't live in a world when the organization or PR department can control the message any longer - things have moved on, and the webpage/site, while important, is no longer the sole place in which activity can take place. You cannot own the space any more and by not participating you're not stopping the conversations taking place, you're not stopping people making up their own minds, you're simply not involved or engaged. Moreover - just how insulting do you want to become? What gives you the right to tell people that their views don't matter?
Now, before you start using the "official" bit with me let me expand on that slightly. I understand that an official comment isn't the same as an unofficial one. However, your lack of engagement, except in channels, places and under situations you control is not only unprofessional it's insulting to all of these people who do care enough about the organization to spend time talking about it. We can't always do that with 'official' representatives around, but that doesn't mean that what is said isn't accurate or useful or valid, and it certainly doesn't mean CILIP shouldn't be involved. I'm getting an image here of CILIP standing with its fingers in its ears going 'la la la, we can't hear you.'
The question is raised 'how does an organization maintain a culture of inclusion, while retaining a methodical approach to work planning, managing and decision making?' CILIP doesn't currently have a culture of inclusion though; quite the opposite. That's already been made clear with the concept of CILIP sanctioned space. It's further made clear on your very own weblog 'CILIP members may post comments'. Not anyone else. That's not a culture of inclusion (and plenty of other professional organizations welcome comments from non-members), that's a culture of exclusion. By not engaging with people in a variety of different places, by ignoring them that's not a culture of inclusion, it's an isolationist policy. I deal with librarians almost every day who see it as their role to get information to people however they need it - face to face, by email, via websites, via social networking; they see the ability to share and include as a good thing. Yet the professional body itself is taking the exact opposite view!
However, to attempt an answer to the question posed, I would say that it's necessary to explore these networks, to try things out, to play with them and to see if they can be incorporated into daily work flows. Not to dismiss them out of hand because they're not in CILIP sanctioned space. If you don't explore these resources you're not going to be able to answer that question! You should be doing the exact opposite of what you're currently doing.
There certainly is a widening gap between the culture of the institute and the culture of the network. You're able to acknowledge that, yet you can't seem to be able to get passed that. Yet other companies, other organizations and, dare I say it, libraries are already embracing new approaches, different ways of working and different ways of engaging. This isn't new - in order to answer the question just *look around you*. Perhaps even actually engage in 'non CILIP sanctioned' places. Encourage staff to do so. Stop trying to control everything, and explore new methods.
The question is asked 'how do we deal with this gap, bringing together the best features of an institute and network'. You do it by doing it. You start by trying things out, by embracing a culture of change, by accepting the possibility that things can work differently, by allowing staff to get involved, by looking at Twitter, and Facebook and everything else that's out there. You accept that you're not going to get everything right, and accept that even if you get things wrong you're learning. You try and set an example. If I want to see what is happening in British Librarianship at the moment - the last place that I would look for guidance and examples of good practice would be at the professional body; I'll go into the field and talk to librarians who are doing it. Who are using Twitter, Facebook and the rest of it, who are prepared to try things out to see what works. CILIP is not doing this - CILIP is still sitting in splendid isolation, talking about 'sanctioned spaces'. CILIP is denying a voice, deliberately, to people who might want to engage, but in places and times of their choosing. CILIP is ignoring the possibilities afforded by Twitter by not even looking at how they could be used. I almost weep for the many good, effective and professional people who work there - people that I know want to do more than they're able to at the moment.
I am ashamed of CILIP.
Next (and sorry, but we're not finished yet), we have the astonishing phrase 'just to test whether anyone actually reads this stuff'. Yes, we do. Why would you think that we wouldn't - because it's you who is saying it, or because it's in a weblog? Or is it because, if it was up to you, you wouldn't be reading it if it was someone else?' Are you reading this, Bob? I'll bet money that you're not. Or, if you do, it's because it's been brought to your attention. Because if you assume other people aren't going to be reading your material, it's probably because you're not reading theirs. We continue - 'how can we best combine the authority of our institute with the democracy of our network?' Well, because CILIP is not engaged with it's staff, clients, members and other interested parties, why do you assume that you have much authority? Individuals working in your organization have authority - huge amounts of it, and I listen to them, when I get the chance. Your groups have tremendous authority as well - but CILIP? You're abrogating that authority every single day that you're ignoring the discussions, by clinging to the concept of 'sanctioned space', by desperately trying to cling to control when it's slipping through your fingers, away from your network and out into social spaces. Also 'our network'. That again speaks volumes, because the whole thrust of the internet is towards shared space, community networking, and away from closed networks. Tragically I don't think you even understand how wrong that question is.
Last of all, and we've finally got here, 'Answers on a blog post, please, to this address. And no peengeing'. I have no idea what that last word means, so forgive me for ignoring it. In the two responses, both by the same person, we have the statement 'I would leave a comment if I could work out how'. It's one final, sad reminder that CILIP doesn't want discussion, it doesn't want to engage, it simply wishes to control it's 'sanctioned space'. That's a dreadful situation, and bitterly upsetting. However, unlike CILIP - if you want to respond you're more than welcome to - my blog comments are open to anyone who wants to make a comment, and I'll post anything you care to say to me Bob. I doubt that you will, because I doubt that you're interested enough to engage in conversation, though I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong.
Phil- here is what I posted on Bob's blog. I have made similar points about not listening to non CILIP folk before..
We stop worrying about our authority- we certainly stop assuming it. We don't worry about official spaces or unofficial; we get involved. If CILIP is its members then with all the blogging and twittering they do CILIP is already involved, whether it's sanctioned by Ridgmount Street or not.
Phil Bradley is right- you have no choice Bob. if we are to claim any 'authority' in the field of information, we get out there and blog, twitter- whatever the game is. And we open up to non CILIP members too.
Posted by: Pete | February 27, 2009 at 12:46 PM
This just about sums up CILIP for me - I am a young librarian, keen to learn about library skills new and old, but CILIP does not speak to me. I am looking forward to the day when employers won't ask about accreditation to CILIP any more - they are so antiquated.
Posted by: Demeter | February 27, 2009 at 01:04 PM
Phil,
Bob's post has made me very angry about CILIP's outlook on the world outside CILIP. Have added my tuppence-worth to his blog post, but thought I would include here my final comment:
And for anyone else according to OED to peenge is "To whine, complain in a whining voice; to mope, fret."
Posted by: Clari Hunt | February 27, 2009 at 01:32 PM
And I meant to add - well done, you've answered him far more thoughtfully and comprehensively than I think I could! And you've started a debate on it!
Posted by: Clari Hunt | February 27, 2009 at 01:33 PM
The lack of engagement in information technologies by the professional body for information professionals is one (of many) reasons that I have never been a member of CILIP. Two examples that spring to mind are
1. the clunky RSS feed they introduced a while back, which was too late in the day, and didn't say what it was an RSS feed for (a blog, training, courses, news, etc.?: it is very slightly clearer now: on one part of the site is it "new content", on another "news"), and
2. the lack of an RSS feed for their vacancies, which I still can't believe doesn't exist.
Posted by: Tom | February 27, 2009 at 01:47 PM
I agree completely with you Phil. It adds strength to your case that I first was alerted to this post via twitter, then clicked through to your post - and only then was made aware of what cilip were saying. And sympathised completely with the people who commented "I would respond if I could work out how". I'm very interested in collaborative working and networks - how they work, why some work and some fail - and thus was excited to see how the cilip communities would turn out. I visited once, finally managed to get in - but haven't been back, they dont alert me to ongoing conversations - there are a lot more exciting discussions going on elsewhere, in spaces I dont have trouble accessing.
Posted by: Julia | February 27, 2009 at 01:50 PM
Beautifully, eloquently written Phil...
I confess I feel more disillusioned with CILIP with each passing day. Much like Demeter (above), I feel I have very little in common with the organisation... It's demoralising when your own professional body doesn't understand you! CILIP seems to me to be negative and defensive, focused on 'old fashioned libraries' which don't realy exist any more. Certainly not enthusing and inspiring the IPs of 2009.
Instead of embracing the cheap, easy and open medium of blogging, Bob is clearly doing it against his will. I suspect it *will* get him attention, but if all his posts are so negative it'll only succeed in alienating even more of the membership. Deeply disappointing of an organisation that is supposed to have an open minded and enthusiastic approach to information and communication.
Posted by: jothelibrarian | February 27, 2009 at 02:04 PM
I agree, RSS feed for vacancies is just so basic that I can't understand why it's not there.
We spend so much time as a profession marvelling at the pace of change in information work, but seem to be unable to apply that to the way our professional body works. CILIP has had to retrench lately, and will probably have to do so again, but that's all the more reason to use new and innovative ways of doing what we're here to do.
I was, until today, the only commenter on Bob's post.. and we claim 21,000 members
Posted by: Tom Roper | February 27, 2009 at 02:07 PM
The CILIP attitude to Twitter is disappointing but far from surprising. I can't comment on 'All of a Twitter' as I let my membership lapse many years ago. I'm by no means a 'young librarian' but I am still keen to learn new skills and try new technologies and new communications media. Blogs, Twitter etc allow me to follow and engage in professional debate and conversation in a way that official communication channels fail to do.
Posted by: Alison Williams | February 27, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Tom Roper: Incidentally, if Phil is indulgent enough to let the plug pass, I created an RSS feed for CILIP jobs: http://www.aurochs.org/internet/blogging/ciliprss.php (caveats here: http://www.aurochs.org/aurlog/libraries/cilip/ciliplisjobnetrssfeed.html). There have been a few recent problems with Google Reader not registering old content as read, but this should hopefully now be fixed.
Posted by: Tom | February 27, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Having been accused of CILIP bashing myself, in the past, I was tempted not to comment on this, but reading Bob's post does make you despair for our profession. We are in a profession that is under threat in many ways, whether economic, social or technological. Many of us have realised that to survive we have to adapt and that means trying to stay ahead of the curve in developments that could either help us individually as professionals or to help us deliver a better service to whom-so-ever our end users are.
CILIP should be leading discussion and leading the exploration of new tools and services that can help their membership survive in the profession that have chosen, not procrastinating on the sidelines or even worse taking the 'you come to us' approach.
This is a brilliant rebuttal to Bob's post Phil (large hat tip!), and should be required reading for all those in our profession.
I do have to just add one final thing though. For Bob to end with a call for comments and ask for no whining just shows either how misjudged his attempt at humour is, or quite spectacular arrogance. I'll leave readers to decide which it reads more like.
Posted by: Scott | February 27, 2009 at 03:05 PM
For pity's sake they are supposed to be an information organisation. They should be leading the field on this, not doing half-hearted blog posts!
Great article Phil and it certainly has made for a enlivened Friday pm!
Posted by: David | February 27, 2009 at 04:15 PM
Great stuff Phil! Got the debate going, just as I intended...
CILIP, like many institutions, is inherently conflicted between authority and community. Perhaps the difference between CILIP and many other institutions is that we recognise the issue and are trying to think our way through it.
So, keep your comments coming - they're helping me and others within the CILIP family navigate with care along a complex path.
Cheers,
Bob
Posted by: bob mckee | February 27, 2009 at 04:42 PM
Since I've tried, and failed, to leave a comment on the CILIP blog (I thought I had access through corporate membership, but apparently not), I'm leaving a comment here instead (thanks Phil for providing a platform!). And CILIP - seriously, you need to fix this - what on earth can you be so worried about?
I think there are all kinds of challenges to institutions in exploiting social networks (I include Twitter) effectively, and as Tom notes, this is a challenge. I'm not that convinced by many of the 'institutional' twitter accounts.
As Phil notes, the idea of a CILIP sanctioned space is extremely worrying (I seem to remember that some of the CILIP groups have pub-based meetings - presumably the pubs are specially annointed for this purpose?)
Just this afternoon a Guardian journalist (http://twitter.com/jemimakiss) tweeted a couple of points I thought CILIP could learn from - I quote them here:
"Common mistakes news orgs make with Twitter:
1) That it's all about Twitter, rather than how people are actually using Twitter and
2) They get fixed on using a tool, like Twitter, rather than working out what they want to do & finding the best tool for it. That is all"
These are the things I believe should have reflected on in his blog post - then I'd have believed he was engaged with the real challenges here.
To quote from Bob's previous post (http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/cesdesk/archive/2009/02/07/just-like-starting-over.aspx)
"Come along with us, and help to remake our profession in this new era of individual and collective responsibility."
Well - I'm trying, but you aren't making it easy.
Posted by: Owen Stephens | February 27, 2009 at 05:03 PM
I have become ever more disillusioned wih CILIP as an organisation supporting it's members over the years since I first joine, professionally and personally. I hoped they would be leading the debate and the way forward, but apparently I was (yet again) mistaken. Seems they prefer to watch from the sidelines. As I said, disappointing, again, and explains why so many of my colleagues are considering leaving.
Posted by: Katy Wrathall | February 27, 2009 at 05:03 PM
As I far I am concerned, CILIP has no authority any more. At the moment, a group of school librarians from around the world are taking part in a brilliant online course about how Web2.0 technologies can transform libraries.
Then we have a blog post from our Chief Executive like this! I am embarrassed to read this!
And that post on here from Bob is ridiculous!
It confirms for me why I have left CILIP and will not be returning in a hurry. If our own professional body cannot use the information and communications tools that are available to us now - what hope is there for our profession!
Posted by: Anne Robinson | February 27, 2009 at 05:24 PM
Am baffled as to why organisations like CILIP see themselves as having a conflict between community and authority - without their community, what's left? And doesn't the community pay the "mandarins'" wages?
Posted by: Michael Clarke | February 27, 2009 at 05:36 PM
Are they not missing the point that the 1st port of call for info for many is now social networks, we need to be involved to make sure that we are part of these discussions, have input and can encourage communities, ideas and development as well as being aware of how the profession is perceived and areas we need to address? Surely it is better to have our heads in the cloud than stuck in nthe sand as seems to be the case all too often.
Posted by: Katy Wrathall | February 27, 2009 at 05:43 PM
"CILIP is inherently conflicted between authority and community." Perhaps they can find a way out of their self-inflicted conundrum by remembering that any authority they have comes solely from their membership community.
Posted by: Jennifer | February 27, 2009 at 06:01 PM
Bob, I'm pleased to see your positive response, though the control element is still glaringly obvious.
What I'd like to see happen next is for CILIP to open up debate - many are disappointed at the lack of ability to comment on CILIP blogs - open that out for everyone to respond. You can still control comments to exclude inappropriate material, but I'd like to see you help US to help you.
Allow staff to Twitter, as CILIP staff. You've had ample demonstration of how useful this resource is, and how much interest there is in it, and how dynamic debate can get quickly. I understand that you want to get things right, but equally surely it's better to try things out and learn by *doing* rather than by talking?
I'm sure that there are plenty of us - both members and non-members - who are happy to assist you, and I suspect that we'll do it in a CILIP sanctioned space if necessary. Face to face, via a Wiki, or a LinkedIn group or some other place - or several of them. There's no need to try and do everything yourselves; lose a little of that control and invite greater participation. I'd certainly help and I'd bet money plenty of others will too.
Create your own Twitter account and start using it! Blend your posts into your blog or the website.
There have been lots of comments, both on my blog and on yours. I'd really like to see you blog again and address those points in detail. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not the only one.
Posted by: Phil Bradley | February 27, 2009 at 06:13 PM
Good comments Phil - I think Bob McKee's response to your blog verges on the patronising.....
Like some of the other posters here I am far from being a "young librarian" myself but I (unlike CILIP)can see the need for librarians to adapt and move with the times to keep pace with this crazy world - and that means using all the new technologies/tools at our disposal.
So keep up the good work!
Posted by: Chris Hall | February 27, 2009 at 07:57 PM
Hear, hear Phil! I must admit that I've never looked at Bob McKee's blog before, but that's probably because "From the Chief Executive's Desk" is a dreadfully autocratic title. It's as if we should be grateful for such precious crumbs of wisdom from the high table of CILIP authority.
The following comment, posted on his Twitter blog post today, says everything about Bob McKee's attitude: "At the risk of infuriating those of you who live in the world of "always on" networked conversation, I'm going off line now for a couple of days."
Rather than positioning himself in opposition to the increasing numbers of information professionals who are excited by the discovery and manipulation of these tools, Bob McKee should be encouraging an atmosphere of inclusion. He should be joining us in celebrating both the vibrancy and the challenges that this technology brings to our profession.
Posted by: Chris | February 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Some really interesting points have been made here, which as Leader of CILIP Council, I take on board and will feed back to my fellow Trustees/Councillors.
CILIP is indeed nothing if not it's members. Increasing member engagement is a priority for us, and we already use the Council blog and various lists such as lis-professional to engage with both members and non-members. Leading on from there, I've recently begun to use Twitter myself, as have several other Trustees.
I can already see that Twitter's going to be an important channel for me, for all the very good reasons you (Phil) and the various commentators have made. When considering ways of increasing CILIP's level of engagement with the LIS sector, I keep coming back to a comment by Euan Semple about the necessity for organisations to recognise that conversations are already happening 'out there', and that "If you're not in *their* space, you're nowhere".
I will be using the Twitter space more and more, and all those other spaces too.
Posted by: Caroline Moss-Gibbons | February 27, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Can't really say anything that hasn't already been said, but wanted to add my voice to the array of others.
Not a CILIP member as I couldn't really see the benefit, and now pleased that I'm not paying for the somewhat antiquated views that represent CILIP.
I'd be happy to be part of the debate about what CILIP should do for it's members, it might even gain some new ones, or tempt some of the old ones back.
Posted by: Mandy Phillips (@m8nd1) | February 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Excellent post, Phil. I am quite taken aback by the attitude displayed on Bob's post and by the patronising comment he posted here.
As others have said, I wouldn't have even known this debate was going on if it wasn't for using Twitter.
Feeling rather in despair about CILIP, or at least it's Chief Executive. Not only because of his views on Twitter, etc., but more because of his patronising and 'exclusive' attitude. Aggh.
Posted by: Lilian | February 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM