Apologies for cross-posting
Before throwing my two penny worth into the ring, I'll sketch the
background I'm coming from.
I have held IIS membership since 1985 (elected to full corporate
membership in 1990), and LA membership since 1992 but have not
gone the final mile, written the PDR and attained chartership.
As regards to the "easiness" or otherwise of attaining full
membership of either organisation my experience would indicate
that it depends on what you call easy.
Unless things have changed (and this is very possible) I would
think that it is possible to attain full membership of the LA faster
than that of the IIS, but the LA route involves the PDR in one form
or another.
I strongly support the idea of a strong professional body, and have
in my time served as an officer and/or committee member of a
number of LA committees. I also strongly support the merger and
hope that it is successful enough to act as a catalyst for the further
consolidation of a far too fragmented "Information Profession" (eg
Indexers, Archivists, School librarians etc.)
Given the above why not charter? The only short answer I can give
is that I have only ever had so much time to give to "Professional
activity" and the time that would have to be spent preparing an
PDR has always seemed to have more profitable calls on it - be
they committee work or more directly work related professional
development activities. It boils down to personal perceptions and
priorities.
I would also support the Idea of continuous professional updating
providing that it involved a scheme of accredited development
activities(courses, workshops, conferences, seminars etc.) and not
a periodic self assessment exercise. My only concerns would be
whether current staffing levels, work loads & training budgets within
the profession would be sufficient to support a meaningful
programme.
So at last to your dilemma
> My question
> ==========
> [1] Does joining via an easier route have a dumbing-down effect on
either body (or the LA, *if* it's 'harder' to join)?
I would argue that this is not relevant as while different the two
membership routes will present candidates with different
challenges the perception of difficulty is personal and not an
absolute scale.
[2] Does an easier route (or intentionally taking
> advantage of an easier route) reflect badly on our profession?
Not on the individuals in it as very few people will deliberately take
the more difficult of two paths to the same goal indeed it would
seem perverse to do so.
On the other hand I think it reflects badly on "A Profession" that is
so fragmented as to allow the option to occur in the first place (see
my comments above)
[3] Are lis-la-charter members acting in an ethically responsible manner by
> encouraging easy-route membership?
This is the interesting bit! I do not think that encouraging the use of
a perceived easier route from a choice of legitimate options can be
seen as unethical.
However if the argument, in the context of the merger, is that an
"easy" route to membership is adopted rather than a
"professionally appropriate" one (whatever that might be defined
as), I would consider that an unethical position.
PS I am a member of lis-link,and lis-iis but not lis-la-charter so if
members of the latter list wish me to see any reply they wish to
make it will have to be copied to either lis-link or lis-iis
Regards
.
Roger Fairman
Learning & Information Systems Manager
University College Worcester
Henwick Grove
Worcester, WR2 6AJ
tel:01905 855336
fax:01905 855132
e-mail:[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|