Tony is correct to ask whether any themes emerged from the non-renewal replies.  I tried to engage with Rob to encourage more specificity in the survey questions.  What we do not know is how these responses intersect with members’ attitudes as to what constitutes an appropriate range of collective professional activity.  It may be that the view “CILIP is not value for money” is taken by people who consider we should attempt much less through our professional association than we currently do, as opposed to undertaking it in an ineffective or cost inefficient manner. 

Can I say that if CILIP did not exist and that I consequently attempted individually to address as single issue campaigns all the professional concerns I have, I would spend many thousands of pounds annually and have no time for anything else in life.  In other words I would have reinvented CILIP from my spare bedroom.  Collective action is simply more efficient, even when it involves compromises, such as why is my professional qualification not recognised Europe wide?  Oops, there’s another action point to add to CILIP’s tasks.

Carry on CILIP, I say.

Colin Engel.

From: UK medical/ health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tony McSean
Sent: 12 December 2010 11:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CILIP Membership renewal

Some interesting figures unearthed by Rob, which should give the new Cilip regime some food for thought.  I would assume that your replies will be slewed in favour of the disgruntled, which is what usually happens, but the level of disquiet is certainly worrying.  Did any themes emerged from the non-renewal replies, or does anyone on the list have any thoughts as to where Cilip needs to go to sustain its membership numbers longer-term?

Tony

Tony McSean

+44 20 7502 1067  (office)

+44 7946 291780  (mobile)