So here I am at the fall meeting of ALA muckety-mucks (division presidents and councilors, Executive Board, etc.) and we’re finally getting down to brass tacks: as an association, what drives us, and what holds us back?
It was gratifying to hear nearly every division say: technology. (Not the only answer, but a biggy.) We don’t have enough of it in ALA, it’s not good enough, it’s not fast enough, there aren’t enough ITTS staff, etc.
Budgeting for technology has improved, but not enough. This is still an association that doesn’t equip its mobile staff with laptops or even Blackberries. This is still an association (of information professionals!) that was largely unautomated even five years ago. This is also the association that in the name of budget efficiencies bought the content management system from hell and then had too few people to implement it. As for the ALA website, it needs the kind of help that only money can deliver.
Yet it’s the technology that can enable 66,000 members to communicate, do business as an association, share ideas and activities, teach one another, and in the area of information technology, make us leaders instead of followers. It’s the technology that will make us relevant to the next-gen librarians who grew up with it.
Posted on this day, other years:
Is there a super-secret meeting for just the ALA cool kids? I’m so out of the loop….
In the fall, ALA has a meeting that gathers the executive board, divisional presidents, divisional councilors, and divisional executive committees. (LITA also has a spring meeting.) For the last two years, the fall meetings have focused on the ALA Strategic Plan (just as LITA has focused on its own strategic plan). A lot of the big-picture planning and work happens at the ALA fall meetings, where we spend a lot of time… meeting!
It is also the organization whose house magazine, arguably a central venue for US library discussion, languishes off-web.
It is also the organization which oversees a set of journals which languish off-web, as if not concerned with visibility, impact and influence.
Again, compare Educause who has a good website, supports a range of online community interaction, and has two useful publication (Educause Quarterly and Educause Review) online.
Interesting points, Lorcan. I’m curious about the set of journals, though. Are you talking about the division journals, such as Public Libraries and the LITA quareterly? I’ve not viewed American Libraries as a “central venue” for US library discussion, which, I suppose supports your point.
Karen–what’s going on with the ALA online communities initiative? It’s sort of off my radar, which can’t be a good thing.
This is not to excuse but to explain: ALA has a much broader and more complex mission than EDUCAUSE, and ALA is much more of a legacy organization. If you look at the EDUCAUSE tagline on its website, it says “EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit association whose mission is to advance higher education by promoting the intelligent use of information technology.” The information I need to complete this thought is a bit complex for me to cobble together during the meeting I’m sitting in right now, but has to do with the difference between ALA’s stated mission on its website and the traditional tagline in the handbook of organization. Some on Council advanced the idea that our tagline no longer fit us, but this was stonewalled by the usual Luddites.
We’re getting an update on the online communities this afternoon… stand by!
Yes .. the division journals.
The complexity of mission is arguable: research and learning are co-evolving with technology in complex ways. That is beside the point I was making though, which is about the services available and the online accessibility of the journals.
We did indeed visit online communities, at communities.ala.org … wish I could believe this could change ALA. In terms of complexity of mission, EDUCAUSE has far less legacy to worry about, and does not have the competing Four Types to bog things down (academic, public, special, etc.). Imagine EDUCAUSE organized by format: that’s ALA.
The theory behind firewalling ITAL et al is that it becomes a Member Benefit. The problem with firewalling ITAL et al is that it then does not become a showcase or a lure. It’s the Times Select rationale.
Who joins ALA for the journals? Or stays in for this benefit? Or would leave if the journals were open?
And even if it were the case that people would leave, is this a reason for such policies?
I am not persuaded that ALA is more complex, but, as I say, that is beside the point I am making which is about the services on the website and the availability of the journals.
The real question is how these decisions are made, and it’s strictly by the DRE method. Nobody knows if it’s justified or not.