I think we should forget "Association". "Library Association" was a
false step to start with: it suggested that it was an association of
libraries, rather than librarians (to be fair, that was probably the
founders' intention.) "Association" isn't quite right either - it
suggests an amateur or scholarly society, rather than a professional
body. So, "Information Association" would be quite wrong. We need
"Institute" or "Institution" (preferably the latter.)
John Briggs
On 24/05/2013 21:19, Liz Chapman wrote:
> I agree that it's a valid point of view, although I personally happen to
> disagree with it rather strongly. But what gets me here is that the
> decision seems to have already been made! If the membership were given
> the choice between, say, "The Library and Information Association" and
> "The Information Association", and everyone voted for the latter, then I
> would be personally quite cross but at least it would be democratic. Not
> being given the choice is a whole other kettle of fish. As a librarian,
> I don't feel confident that I and my views/interests would be
> represented. Also, research has shown that "library" is actually a very
> strong brand - people know what it is (or at least think they do) and
> generally have positive feelings about it.
>
> But yes, I agree that the choices are ludicrous anyway. "The Knowledge
> People" gives me a sort of creeping shudder up the spine.
>
> Liz
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM, John Briggs <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Yes, but even if you are going to put the emphasis on "Information"
> and drop the word "Library" (and it's a valid point of view) the
> choices were still ludicrous.
>
> John Briggs
>
> On 24/05/2013 20:12, Liz Chapman wrote:
>
> I went through every question suggesting that they should add in the
> word 'library'. Not actually giving the OPTION of having a
> name/slogan
> etc with the word library in seems odd at best.
> Liz
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM, John Briggs
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
>
> Does anyone else have a bad feeling about the CILIP re-branding
> exercise? The names they are consulting on are ludicrous.
> --
> John Briggs
>
>
>
|