Two excellent contributions
ignore at peril
f
Sent from Samsung tablet
"Dempsey,Lorcan" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
"We uncover what really counts and get across what really matters"
CILIP is not a good name because [1] you don't know how to pronounce it
[2] it gives no clue to what it is, and [3] in its expanded form is
quite long. CILIP is not one of those organizations which is central
enough for people just to know what it is.
Re-branding is about more than a name change, it is about ensuring that
the identity of the organization communicates its values and what is
valuable about it. To do this, you do have to understand 'what really
counts' and get that across effectively.
This is especially important when the advocacy role of the organization
is so important, and where ongoing professional development is crucial.
In the past CILIP may have thought about its identity in the context of
the constituents it serves. It is now very important to think about its
identity in the context of the broader constituency in which its
constituents operate, who do not have the same context and affiliations.
The phrase above is from the website of the consultants. I think it is a
good description of what this exercise should be about. However, for
whatever reason, it is clear that neither the consultants nor CILIP are
living up to what is expressed in the statement. The language used in
the survey and the proposed names were awful. As an instrument, it will
not 'uncover what really counts' about the organization, or help to get
across what 'really matters'.
How could an organisation which claims to advocate on behalf of its
members, or a consultancy with the purported aims of this one, produce a
statement of aspiration like "For everyone to have access to the
essential power of information to help change lives and create a fairer
and more prosperous society"?
Does going out with this survey now suggests that CILIP and the
consultants already know what 'really counts' about it as an
organization? It might be useful sharing that at this stage rather than
an ill-formed survey? If they don't - and the questions in the survey
suggest that they don't - it would be useful to do some work on this.
I suggest that uncovering what really counts will in large part depend
on addressing two questions. [1] How central are libraries and the
library profession - its development, promotion and certification - to
CILIP? [2] What is the 'information profession' or what are 'information
professionals'?
Answering [2] may be difficult, as all professions have been
'informationalised' in recent years, and rely on managing, mining and
acting on data. By this, I don't mean to raise any profound or
philosophical questions, or to suggest that there aren't 'information
professionals', but merely to ask a pragmatic boundary question which
affects CILIP's positioning. Whose interests do they represent here, or
want to represent, and what are they? Again, there is probably prior
work on this question also.
I suggest that questions like these are central to 'uncovering what
counts', and need to be answered before you can 'get across what really
matters'.
Lorcan
http://www.twitter.com/lorcand
http://orweblog.oclc.org
http://www.oclc.org/research
-----Original Message-----
From: Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CILIP Re-Branding
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/r
ebranding-cilip.aspx
|