He makes some interesting points. He tries to distance himself from the
exercise, saying that the first he knew about the contents of the survey
were when it was shown to him on Friday afternoon. Unfortunately, this
may be a little disingenuous, as the e-mail publicising the survey is
timestamped 15:30, so his approval (tacit or otherwise) was probably
being sought.
He doesn't defend the indefensible ("I agree entirely that ‘The
Knowledge People’ is as grim as it gets") but is clinging to the message
that CILIP needs to re-brand and change its name. He dances around the
"Library" and "Librarian", while simultaneously claiming that a minority
of CILIP members who use ‘Library’ or ‘Librarian’ in their job role.
What he doesn't do is discuss why we ended up with "CILIP" in the first
place. Everyone agrees that we need something like "Information
Professionals" and "Institute" or "Institution" (although "Information"
and "Institution" don't run well together.) Quite a few want "Library"
and Bradley seems to agee with them. Bung in "Chartered" and CILIP
defines itself! There really doesn't seem to be any practical
alternative - and he doesn't address this.
He does name the guilty people: Spencer du Bois - does anyone know
anything about them and what (if anything) they are good at?
John Briggs
On 29/05/2013 16:07, Healey Nicola (WESTON AREA HEALTH NHS TRUST) wrote:
> Dear All
> Just in case you have not seen this - comments from Phil Bradley
> in todays CILIPemail newsletter about re-branding
> http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/presidentphil/archive/2013/05/29/rebranding-cilip.aspx
|