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.
Thank you Phil for generating this debate with your thoughtful response to Bob McKee's blog. For those who are reading this thread, please remember that it began in response to Bob McKee's blog, which - whatever he may choose to call it - is like every other blog, a PERSONAL viewpoint. As a CILIP Councillor, I can say that his personal views are not necessarily representative of Council's view, and are certainly not mine. I use, to a greater or lesser extent, most major 'Web 2.0' communications tools and understand their value. I believe that (and I shall continue to work towards this) - although it may take time - CILIP will eventually engage with you all as you would wish.
Posted by: Chris Armstrong | February 28, 2009 at 03:22 PM
Interesting - I'm not really from the library world, but stumbled across discussion of a Delicious-based tool of mine on a CILIP blog. I think the resulting conversation and list of links illustrates your point about distributed conversation quite well:
http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/update/archive/2009/02/05/100-social-media-projects-sharing-library-2-0-inspiration.aspx
Posted by: Steph Gray | February 28, 2009 at 05:43 PM
Just had to say that I found your article very interesting. Thanks for a piece of good work. Cheers.
Posted by: peterK | March 01, 2009 at 09:44 AM
CILIP: the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals is the leading professional body for librarians, information specialists and knowledge managers.
So what exactly is it leading in? There is currently a story about the closure of Wirral libraries on its site, this would have been an excellent use of something like Twitter to find out from the people what is going on, instead of dealing with the government bodies and doing what it thinks is right CILIP should be talking to the people at the coal face and helping them; other wise what on earth are we paying these inflated membership fees for? I have been a member for a few years now, but it is only because I'm currently doing a degree and get a student sub that I am a member, but if I stop being a member I'm not allowed to use ACLIP. I have complained several times about the extortionate prices of their courses without any success, I am afraid they need to do alot more than embrace Twitter to repair their image.
Posted by: Mrs Walsh | March 01, 2009 at 10:44 AM
As the creator of the "unofficial" CILIP members group on Facebook, I too have experienced their apathy when it comes to social networking.
I very rarely look at CILIP Communities, and was surprised when I checked in one day last year to see that my group had been discussed. Having been made to feel slightly like a naughty schoolchild for daring to set up the group, I replied on the thread and got in touch with a CILIP marketing person to invite them to become involved in the Facebook group. I didn't hear anything else from them.
In a way, it proves to me the democracy of social networking in that CILIP members are choosing to use what speaks to them. It's a real shame however that the members of our professional organisation are choosing to stay behind.
Posted by: Suzanne | March 01, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Thinking about this over the weekend convinces me we're touching the tip of a very big iceberg here - which is, fundamentally, about how social networking can change (for the better) the dynamic of institutionalised professionalism.I need to do some thinking about that - and all your comments are helping me do that thinking, so thank you. It's not particularly nice to be called patronising, controlling, autocratic and antiquated, but if that's how some of you see CILIP (and by extension the CILIP CEO) then we'd better do something about it!
I do my best thinking on trains and I've got a couple of long train journeys tomorrow. So I'll post something on Wednesday. I hope (and I mean this genuinely, not patronisingly) it will be helpful to the discussion .
Cheers. Bob.
Posted by: Bob McKee | March 02, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Mandy, there are around 23000 views that 'represent CILIP', don't forget, which is I think one of the points of this discussion - and they're certainly not all antiquated. And I'd love to hear them all via Tritter (along with those of non-cilip members!!).
Debby Raven (CILIP Gazette editor)
Posted by: Debby Raven | March 02, 2009 at 10:34 AM
PHIL'S TWITTER ARTICLE IN NEXT 'LIBRARY AND INFORMATION UPDATE' MAGAZINE
As I mention in my 'Blogwatch' column in the new issue of CILIP's member magazine Update, a 4-page article looking at how LIS pros can use Twitter will appear in the next issue.
And it's written by Update's 'Internet Q+A' columnist... Phil Bradley :-)
Don't miss it!
Rather than 140 characters long, however, it is in fact 13,151 characters long... ;-)
By chance, my latest Blogwatch column also included a link so that CILIP members can view Tweets about 'CILIP'.
I had no idea that there was going to be *quite* so much to read about CILIP on Twitter at this time...
Also, if you're interested in how to you can use social media tools to increase your PR effectiveness – and how to monitor the conversations about your organsiation - I gave a presentation that covered many of these 'PR 2.0' issues to CILIP's Commercial, Legal and Scientific Information Group late last year.
It was titled: 'PR and Media Know-how - for personal and organisational effectiveness'.
Anyone – including non-members of CILIP – can read a pdf of the presentation here:
http://communities.cilip.org.uk/files/folders/32052/download.aspx
(sorry some pix get a bit grainy on the pdf)
Phil Bradley was one of the people who kindly offered me great advice about what to include (as did others: Sheila Webber, Euan Semple, Karen Blakeman etc etc).
Matthew Mezey
(News Editor, Library and Information Update magazine)
Posted by: Matthew Mezey | March 02, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Hi Phil - adding some general support over here - http://socialreporter.com/?p=527 - with a reference to OpenRSA. Maybe time for OpenCILIP?
Posted by: David Wilcox | March 02, 2009 at 01:58 PM
Your comments, and those of Bob highlight the issues that arise when we consider the future of the information profession: amongst these issues are the problem that we don't have a protected professional niche - look at computer science and management disciplines and see how many move into information retrieval, search engine development, and knowledge management to name but a few areas that are frequently lost to the profession, and yet these are the areas where flexible, forward thinking librarians would be well placed to prosper. We don't have a single professional identity, and we don't have a dynamic approach to career pathways and entrepreneurial scoping of real world developments (and in this I include cyberspace as part of the real world). Alas the problems of the profession are all too well matched by a professional organisation that looks backwards to a "golden age", and that is sadly led by colleagues from a different world. Don't get me wrong Bob and colleagues are great people, but CILIP should in my humble opinion be out there promoting the diversity of the information profession, pushing the boundaries of where our people can make contributions, and dare I say it - stimulating members to look beyond the traditional profession. Unfortunately CILIP is at present more keen on pomp and authority than responsiveness, guidance, and leadership. Evidence: If you want evidence of interest in the future take a look on special interest groups in Facebook etc., take a browse around the web 2.0 world and you will find individuals working on the future, doing real work, and real thinking: they are the ones who may work in schools and academia, in libraries, and in business roles and for whom the unofficial world of cyberspace allows connectedness, collaboration, sharing, and a sense of identity. Compare this with the offerings of the official professional organisation, and a few websites and seminars look poor by comparison.
Bob claims to have stimulated discussion, I think not, he has just highlighted for close scrutiny the demise of CILIP as a leader of its professional membership.
Posted by: Ed | March 02, 2009 at 03:22 PM
I honestly am staggered at Bob McKee's post. I thought being an information professional involved keeping up to date, being part of a network, a community of practice. That means using whatever tools are out there to participate in that community - of which Twitter is but one.
Thank you for your response Phil, you say it all. I just hope CILIP listen.
Posted by: Juanita F-J | March 03, 2009 at 09:36 AM
It's the debate and not that medium that matters to me. That people care enough to raise the issues and air their views is vital. When the dialogue stops we should really start to worry. Thank you for this post Phil. You’ve started a lively debate.
I admit that wearing both a CILIP ‘members hat’ and a ‘staff hat’ can be a challenge for me. I’m often about to react to something when a little voice in my head asks whether what I say will be construed as ‘official’ rather than personal. Something that I need to get over I know – I’ll work harder on it!
Setting up CILIP Communities in 2006 was quite a steep learning curve. We were spending member's money on developing a communications resource and it was important that it be a "member-benefit". If CILIP is going to have a valuable role in the LIS arena it needs members and those members need to get benefit. Finding the balance between creating an open space and one where the wider LIS community can engage can be challenging. People could rightly say “why should I join CILIP when I can get all the ‘bits’ that I need” without paying an annual fee? The pilot period changed initial thinking and we opened up the blogs to everyone. That was 2.5yrs ago and we are currently finalising the platform upgrade. We’ll look at what we can (and should) do to open things up more.
I don't want to appear 'too worthy' - I'd really like to find ways to engage more widely.
Posted by: Lyndsay (Rees-Jones) | March 03, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I'm not a librarian but I teach new media to undergrads. I just wanted to say what a great example of the medium your blog post is Phil - a wonderfully web 2.0 way of engaging with and advancing a discussion. I'm using it in classes now!
Great stuff
Posted by: nigel gibson | March 03, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Colleagues
Just to let you know that I've posted a fairly lengthy piece on my blog this morning reflecting on this discussion. It's called "Yes, let's try that!" because it provides - I hope - a positive response to Phil's shopping list.
Cheers,
Bob
Posted by: bob mckee | March 04, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Well, Council is doing something. http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/council/archive/2009/03/04/cilip-open-session-on-how-we-should-use-web2.aspx
Posted by: Pete Smith | March 04, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Phil, reading this has made my day - as so many people have said above this was a beautifully crafted and well thought out response (which I've just tweeted to my own megre network). About sums up many of my concerns with the way CILIP handles communications. Well done!
Posted by: llordllama | March 05, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Personally, I feel a little concerned about this series of postings. As a "solo" worker in information and research, I'm feeling isolated and would like to use this new technology to try and get some answers, and some co-operation. Trouble is, they didn't exist when I was doing my professional training more years ago than a care to remember and I just plumb don't know how.
I feel worried that Bob has become a "whipping boy" for those with technological nous, and that people like me who would like to get involved in these technologies but don't yet have the experience, are keeping our heads below the parapet in case we get them shot off!
Information about this posting, for example, and the blog from Bob, only came about because I've just had the courage to join JISCmail. In other words, the only people responding are the IT savvy and their responses are unsurprisingly predictable. Everyone else hasn't even heard of what this debate is all about, and yes I agree Bob's own voice wouldn't have been heard either for these people.
At least he tried though. Next time, perhaps he'll think twice considering the size of the lynch mob that's been forming.
Perhaps what is needed is for CILIP to bring everyone up to speed on the advantages of different IT technologies through some free training, perhaps carried out on line, which everyone (not just CILIP members) could participate in. I think that would go a long way to both addressing the concerns of the IT-literate (as reflected in this series of postings) and the fears of the IT-illiterate, who have not felt or been able to respond.
Posted by: YorkshireLibrarian | March 05, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Phil, I totally endorse everything you say. I feel that the CILIP chief execs comments are verging on the sinister,
" a rational approach to management is potentially conflicted by the emotional affiliation of members to their peer group"
I am quite lost for words, but thankfully Phil, you weren't, and your response to this issue is everything I would wish to say, if I hadn't been rendered so speechless!
I am an Library and Information studies postgraduate student and love my work in public libraries. I have brought the benefits of web 2.0 into every assignment I have written so far and attempt to embrace it in my working life. It is demoralising to know that the body that speaks for my profession takes this view.
Posted by: Angie | March 06, 2009 at 11:37 PM
I am so delighted to have read this thread, just passed to me. Like others who have responded I too have been accused of airing Cilip business on an email list, and Bob has fought for years to keep this enclosed, limited and undercover. As some one else has saidi Phil you have summed it up expertly and completely, and as another said we are an information porfession and should be leading from the front, we should be free and open, and any confident and relevant organisation should be able to cope with commetns from members and those interested in the future.I am sure there are staff at Cilip who are capable of working in the 'new' way and would like to.
Time for a change Bob?!
f
Posted by: Frnaces Hendrix | March 08, 2009 at 11:46 AM
In the case of public libraries, not only do Ridgmount Street obtain any authority or responsibility they have from the membership of CILIP, but also and more importantly from the wider public who need public libraries. It says that in so many CILIP documents, but does not seem to be reflected in the transparency or activities of the Institute. If CILIP public libraries officials are not open to hearing and understanding discussion and comment from members of the public, how can they have any authority at all?
Authority in most fields comes not from position, but from the respect that is due to good understanding and from wise leadership.
My own view is that the public position of CILIP needs much better communication than it has-- then its members would know what they belong to and why it has public value. Employers of librarians and those actually responsible to the public for the provision of the public library service would know what the profession offers and how. At present the public position of CILIP often bears little serious scrutiny aside from a halo of historic virtue.
Posted by: Tim Coates | March 08, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Interesting. I am neither a librarian nor have I ever even heard of Cilip before. However, I see two things at play here- 1) A CEO reaching out into a new world, terrified, but more open than some here give him credit for, (I see he responded). 2) A well articulated call for recognition of the network as what is inevitable. There is no stopping evolution and we are in its grips in a historic speedup. There is room and necessity for openness on all sides of any given organization, institution, discipline or relationship(s) given the speed and impact of communication. Authority is in question. Thank you for this. Somehow, on my breadcrumb journey this morning I stumbled upon your conversation and because of the openness of the network, I am responding and probably being read. Good luck and we all know libraries are destined to be more and more functional spaces. Thank you all for your good work.
Posted by: Mary Anne Davis | March 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Guess my comment doesn't fit your commnunity?
Posted by: Mary Anne Davis | March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I gained an MSc in Librarianship in 2007, at great personal expence. I am now in my second professional post, working in digital resources, earning good money.
CILIP membership will cost me £177 a year. I have absolutely no clue why I would want to join. It would only be to make older members of the profession happy. But they will all be gone in 15-20 years anyway!
I network professionally easily through the use of blogs, twitter, Facebook as well as our joint collaborations with other institutions in the area.
I can get all my professional development mentored and paid for through the insitution I work for. I am a member of a Union for legal representation, and all new jobs are published online.
I am being nice here - you really should see how out of touch CILIP is with new librarians. Its a joke.
Posted by: Anon | March 10, 2009 at 02:20 PM
I work for one of the Bodleian libraries in Oxford, and you can't really get more columns and institutional grandeur than here! And yet, web 2.0 has been embraced enthusiastically by the library services - there is a dedicated working party (with its own wiki!) and many of the major libraries are experimenting with different sites and software to see what works and what doesn't. Surely if the Bodleian can manage this, CILIP can?
Posted by: Beth | March 10, 2009 at 05:05 PM
This debate is nothing really to do with me, (I have a professional interest in social media and an academic interest in institutional regimes, but had never heard of CILIP until I found this discussion (through twitter of course! :-), but for what it's worth the element of Dr McKee's post that stood out for me was the attribution of the quality of sustainability to institutions. I'm not sure too many regime theorists would agree with that. Most regard institutions as a set of learned and reinforced behaviours, and institutions that fail (which happens a lot) tend to be those that are unable (or unwilling) to adapt to new behavioural realities. So the question is always the extent to which institutions promote behavioural standards or adapt to prevalent behavioural standards 'outside' the institution (if that distinction is woth making).
Posted by: Chris Dymond | March 11, 2009 at 02:38 PM