Why This Is the Right Name

I have written and spoken extensively about why SLA should change its name.  Now I want to tell you why I think the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals is the right name.

As SLA's chief executive officer for more than six years, I have traveled all over the world to speak to groups of librarians, business people, government officials, nonprofit executives and many more about SLA's work and the critical role our members play in their organizations.  I have watched focus groups, chatted with seatmates on endless plane rides and during countless conferences, and exchanged thoughts with the people I worked with when I served as the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

In nearly all of these encounters, I surprise people.  Why?  Because I tell them things that they do not know.  For example:

• Our members work for some of the world's most successful organizations-universities, major corporations, government agencies, healthcare groups and many more.
• Our members' skills include the ability to verify, consolidate and analyze information, turning it into actionable knowledge that organizations use to make better decisions.
• In addition to their expertise in organizing, categorizing, cataloging, classifying, and disseminating information, many of our members are proficient in new and emerging communications technologies, knowledge management, competitive intelligence and other practical uses of information.
• Our members play a critical role in our universities, helping students and professors find the best ways to conduct research, deal with intellectual property issues, incorporate digital content into instruction and more.
• Most of our members hold advanced degrees in library or information science; many hold advanced degrees in law, education, business and science.

Information professionals are a bit like full-featured "smart phones" that people are using only to make phone calls!

Recently, I have begun to tell people I meet that I work for a group of professionals involved in strategic knowledge--people who use their training in library and information science and similar areas to get organizations the information they need to be successful. It works; they understand.  Why?  Because it is true--and it is not new. 

The very first sentence of SLA's Competencies for Information Professionals in the 21st Century--last revised in 2003--reads:

An Information Professional ("IP") strategically uses information in his/her job to advance the mission of the organization.

In other words--you are strategic knowledge professionals, just as physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, and therapists are all health care professionals.

The special librarians and information professionals I know are among the brightest, hardest working people I have ever known--people who make the organizations smart enough to hire them equipped to be more effective in today's world.  You have been hiding behind stacks of books for far too long; you are worth more than you make, and your contributions are not as widely recognized as they should be.

If there was another name for SLA that would appeal to every member, I believe it would have been identified some time over the past one hundred years.  And even if it had, we might still be searching--not for a name we all like, but a name that conveys the value of special librarians and information professionals to the people who hire them.  Because the buck stops there.

When you cast your vote on the proposed name change, I ask you to consider not whether you like the name Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals, but whether it does a better job than SLA in conveying your value to organizations that hire people like you.

Comments

[Lynn McBee]

I totally disagree and am fed up with being crammed with your position. You surely do not speak for this old member and I'm more than a little tired of these constant attempts to manipulate opinion.

[John Crosby]

Janice, once again your perspective - and your style - shine through in your message. Notwithstanding the curmudgeonly rants of the few, I know that the rank-and-file membership respects you and your opinion. They may not always agree, but they do respect you.

I needed no convincing because I have been around long enough to know how important this change is to the profession. But you've provided me with more information to educate others.

Keep up the good fight.

[Carol Gross]

Unfortunately, what this and everything else I have read has failed to explain is how well the people who might hire me and my peers will understand the abstract phrase "strategic knowledge." It is actually nothing like "health care professional" because everybody knows or can parse out what "health care" means. In ASKPro (a trendy little acronym), it's not even clear whether "strategic" modifies "knowledge" or "professional." I'm in the field and I don't quite understand it, so I feel that those outside the field are not going to understand it. We are wasting our time with rebranding to improve what we are *called* when we should be striving to improve perceptions of what we *are*.

[David Midyette]

I agree with Lynn. I feel like we are being told and herded to a conclusion rather than asked for our opinions. Data are wonderful things, but what is lacking with the research is time depth. When did these corporate level executives STOP liking the word "Library?" Is this a new phenomenon, or have they disliked it for the past 100 years? Why is the term being dropped altogether rather than being included? If this TRULY is a push to inclusion, then it seems that keeping the term "Library" in the name would "include" those of us who ARE librarians and work in libraries. I feel horribly excluded from the discussion, not because I have no venue to express my opinion, but because there is no appearance of even asking a representative group of members what they think.

This whole campaign, and it is just that, is relying on the frequent placement of the key terms "Strategic," "Knowledge," and "Professional" in such a way that they cease to become shocking. They quickly become part of the background and people quickly accept them as commonplace.

Guy St. Clair's piece that circulated yesterday was liberally peppered with these terms just like this post, and others past and future have been and will be.

In the end, I cannot help but feel that we are being told and sold this bill of goods on a name change with no open forum for real, directed discussion. Online voting is wonderful, but it eliminates the discussion that should normally accompany a change of this magnitude.

One thing that I have not seen is whether it takes a simple majority to pass the name change or a 2/3 majority. Like the Constitution that establishes our federal government, I would think that something this substantial, rebranding ourselves AND our profession, should require something more than a simple majority.

I am voting against this name change, but still agree that we need to consider a more expansive and inclusive name which DOES reflect the diversity of our association, not a name which appeals to the current crop of corporate executives.

[Richard P. Hulser]

Janice,
Your outline is a good one and useful in explaining our value to others. Our association has incredible librarians doing what they do best and they should continue to do so when and where it makes sense for them - no reason to do otherwise, no matter what the name of the association. If librarian is known and appreciated by management, great! At the same time, there are many of us using those same skills and experiences but in non-traditional jobs and venues and we need to expand the association to be inclusive, not exclusive, of the very large part of the membership in these positions. I am looking forward, building on core library and information management skills and techniques, not looking backward.
Corporate executives (and university presidents and other administrators too by the way), did not stop liking the word 'library' and 'librarian', they just simply align the words with traditional, stereotypical capabilities of just managing books and that is it. They have been doing this since at least 30 years ago. I know, I have experienced it throughout these decades -- not just in the college and companies where I was employed, but working with many senior management clients at other companies, universities, government offices and cultural institutions as well.

I agree with your statement, let's look to whether the new name does a better job conveying our value than the current name SLA. I think it does and will be voting FOR the new name!

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502691569]

This is my third time through this name change discussion. What you are saying about ASKP today was said of IPI a few years ago and about IMS a couple decades ago. I have been involved in many forums in each of these efforts. Reflecting back on my long career, it occurs to me now that for those librarians and others who believe they are being held back or undervalued in the workplace the action least likely to change that situation is a new name for SLA. All the time, money and effort spent on this issue could have been better invested in programs and resources to educate members in effective methods of changing attitudes and structures within their home organizations. From those who believe a name change will somehow have a positive impact, I would prefer to see some research into name changes adopted by other professional associations and what impact those changes produced rather than more of the hackneyed "what's our image" reasearch. To paraphrase an old English playwright, if the future is not as we would have it, the fault is not in our stars nor in the name of SLA.

[Judith Siess]

we never called ourselves strategic or information professionals--only HQ has done that.
i've long held that HQ is so out of touch with the average member--and this is more proof of it.
you should listen to us--not we listen to you--remember, WE ARE YOUR BOSSES!!!

i haven't been this disgusted with HQ since they tried to raise our dues back about 25 years without telling us what they were going to do with the money (do cut out if we didn't raise the dues). they just "assumed" we'd blindly do whatever they asked.

30-year member

[David Midyette]

Perhaps we need a change in leadership more than we need a change in name?

[Cindy Shamel]

I am totally on board with the name change. I have always called myself an information professional and look forward to an association name that includes those of us who provide information services outside of a library setting. Cindy Shamel, MLS, Owner, Shamel Information Services

[betsy]

"In other words--you are strategic knowledge professionals, just as physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, and therapists are all health care professionals."

Yes - all heavily licensed, regulated, and defined professions, unlike the vast majority of us (if not all of us) that are/could be members of SLA/ASKP. Health care professionals are well defined in the public's imagination, but "strategic knowledge professionals" are not.

So my question, which I don't see being answered, is how the association will be able to define and fix that title. Surely you don't expect us to do it all on our own, individually? That's great for our current employers (if we are successful), but how do we sell the idea to potential employers? How will the definition become fixed for the public? If given the option of a CFO, military commander, lawyer, or librarian, will they put the librarian in the SKP category?

If we say yes, what is the association's game plan? Should we just jump blindly?

[Jeanne - Another concerned member]

One question which I haven't seen come up with this rhetoric about "knowledge professionals" is:
Isn't EVERYONE a "knowledge professional"? A nurse is a professional with knowledge in medicine and nursing. A financial analyst is a professional with knowledge of finances. A teacher is a professional with knowledge of children's development and ways of learning.
Instead of defining the broad range of titles held by members, the new name dilutes our strengths. What will our conference sessions be like under this new umbrella? Will the membership include so many and become so broad that discussions become meaningless - because no one has a common language/goal/understanding of our profession?
I will vote NO and plan to take my dues to an organization that is focused on promoting "libraries" in all its virtual forms.

And for the record, I'm not "curmudeonly" which depicts decrepit old people who refuse to change with the times. I happen to be a proud Gen-X librarian with almost 13-years of experience who has held titles including Manager of Information Services as well as Manager of Library Services. Through it all, I've identified myself with being a "Librarian" - and taken time and pride in broadening my colleagues' and executives' minds as to all the many and varied talents that title encompasses.

[Ann]

Hmmm... I still won't be voting for ASKPro because I still don't know what it means. I am not a "knowledge professional." How does this make me different from anyone else in another profession? How would I explain that to my current or future employers?

I too am not an "old" or "curmudgeonly" member, but a new, Gen-X librarian with only 4 years of experience. I joined SLA because it describes what I do--I work for a special library in a small museum. We're not a public library, we're not an academic library, we're not an art museum, so we're not an art library. I felt this organization represented what I do--but ASKPro does not.

[sp lafalce]

I will vote no on this. It seems clear to me that the motivation behind this is to increase the scope of the association's membership by appearling to individuals who either do not work in non-academic or non-public libraries/information centers, or who do not have MLS degrees ( or who are not working to attain such a degree).

By dilluting the membership base to include non-librarians or non-library/IC employees, I would imagine the expectation is that there would be more membership dues ($) being paid into SLA's coffers. Also, a broader membership base would appear to be advantageous, in terms of marketing potential, to the many information vendors who either underwrite SLA's activities, or who have employees who are active SLA members (by virtue of academic degrees).

SLA's mission should be aligned with what its members need and want, not aligned to the supposed perceptions of HR departments and consultants. I can almost guarantee that the average HR or C-level Exec doesn't care a lick about SLA's name or mission.

The notion that changing SLA's name will improve the profession's image is chimerical, at best. At worst, its a sell- out by the people who run the association and presume to represent us.

[Ramin]

Why not give the members the right to propose names and then vote and choose from the top 10 proposed names?

[KitKat]

What is the purpose of "Strategic"? Do we use knowledge in a more strategic way than other people? Doesn't it make more sense to go with something clear and straightfoward like the "Association of Knowledge Professionals" or even better in my mind, the "Association of Information Professionals"? Those to me are clear and straight to the point. I AM an information profesional.

[Chuck Tornabene]

I will vote no because this is a silly alternative that defines the term fluff. Special Libraries Association is a sub-optimal name that I personally hold no affection for but it certainly beats this lame alternative.
Leadership is totally out of touch with the rank and file. This rebranding effort is perhaps the ultimate proof of that. It's high time to elect new blood that will focus on substantive issues.

[Juanita Richardson]

Janice - I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your leadership in working with the board and our association for these past several years. I think you have very eloquently here defined why we need to make this change - and I think Assoc for Strategic Knowledge Professionals is very descriptive of the association to which I want to belong. Regards, Juanita

[Carol]

"Why not give the members the right to propose names and then vote and choose from the top 10 proposed names?"

Posted by: Ramin | 13 November 2009 at 12:07 PM

I agree with this, and then a runoff of the top selections to eventually garner a two thirds majority of voting mambers. The choice of ASKP or SLA just sems too stark of a choice - even if people want a change, this may not be it. At this point, there is too much controversy, animosity and acrimony associated with this particular vote.

[John Crosby]

I'd like to take a moment to comment on the nature and tone of discussion on this page and on other platforms. You see, I'm a firm believer that the mettle of an association's membership shines through - good or bad - in times where change is imminent. I've been there, and I've seen the good and the skill in the SLA membership. And while thoughtful dialogue is taking place in many corners, What I see from some is nothing more than disappointing.

Dissent is something I fully support. It allows for intelligent people to disagree but still appreciate the common ground on which we stand. But this is only true so long as discussion centers on the merits. When dialogue turns to condemnation, ridicule and even insults, one has to wonder about what drives the people committing these acts.

To those who choose that path: you do not represent the future of this profession; you do your profession a disservice. We have 30 days to go in the voting, and I'm certain the debate will rage on beyond that point - no matter the outcome. But please, show people who are new to this association what makes it special by keeping your words above board.

[David Hook]

@Ramin & Carol:
That approach was tried in the past (2003, I believe). Membership voted in favour of changing the name, but could not reach a consensus on what name to change to. If you ask 10 members on what the organization should be called, you'll get 10 different responses, and no agreement, which is why the committee did all the research to come up with a choice that would be agreeable to the greatest number of people, even thought it's not likely to be anybody's first choice of name.

[David Hook]

@David Midyette:

Back in 2003, the majority of the membership voted in favour of a name change. The leadership is responding to what the majority of the membership wants.

[David Midyette]

@ David Hook: I am not against change. I am, however, against caving in to corporatespeak. I've read the research and looked at all sides of the argument, and I do not believe that this is the appropriate name choice. It is NOT inclusive of the total membership and if anything, goes to another extreme. Not all of the membership works in a corporate setting, and I feel that this name sells the membership short. I also, again, do not like the way it has been foisted on the membership. I cannot believe for one second that with all of the research that there could not be several alternatives placed before the membership for a vote. If nothing else, the discussions on this issue do indicate a desire to evolve and develop a new name. It is just that this push appears librariphobic. We have been the Special Library Association for 100 years, and I do not see the need to kill the "L" word to make us more palatable. Everyone keeps saying that the name change doesn't change what we do or what we call ourselves. If it truly is that insignificant of a change, then why not keep the "L" word in the name to show our rich heritage as well as our bright future. I cannot help but feel that this is a blatant attempt to kill the word Library. Yes this is a diverse group of professionals, and I agree that we need a change of name to reflect that, but killing one term which has been the core of the association for 100 years is simply ludicrous. This is not a process of inclusion, it is a process of corporate rebranding to pander to the whims of non-information professionals.