My previous post on CILIP was one that generated quite a lot of interest and highlighted a few things, and indeed a few problems that CILIP may have with getting their message and value across to some of those in the profession.

According to CILIP’s website, here is why we should join:

“It entitles you to a range of services and benefits, which help you develop your skills and manage your career. It provides opportunities for you to participate in a community of people who care about professional development, and the chance to gain internationally recognised qualifications.

By joining CILIP you are also investing in the future of the profession - you help us represent the interests of the sector to government and other decision makers, to encourage young people to consider careers in our field, to ensure that university courses meet the needs of employers, and to raise the status of all those who work in libraries and information.”

Comments on my last post seemed to indicate that some people didn’t think CILIP was very good at some of this. So if we put CILIP in the dock, what are the charges against it? Too focussed on public/academic libraries? bad advocate of the profession? too insular?

“it’s still far too library (public at that) oriented to provide much of interest to me”

This was a point that was made by several commentors, including Jennifer, Hazel, and Jennie. Jennie recognised that there were going to be occasional confidentiality issues that might make covering corporate library stories in Update more difficult; a point echoed by the Update magazine news editor, Matthew. There is no doubt some truth in this, but most of those I speak to think this is little more than an excuse, and feel that CILIP doesn’t represent what they are doing - in the words of Jennifer “CILIP don’t really seem to engage with the needs of corporate/special librarians.”

Matthew, Debbie, and Elsabeth all argued that they needed our help to get our stories out there.

NG, in an emailed comment to me, wasn’t buying this: ” It’s typical of CILIP’s insular attitude that they expect everyone to go to them, like visiting the gods on Olympus, instead of CILIP getting out there and finding out about what goes in the 90% of the profession that doesn’t work in public or academic libraries.”

This is perhaps a bit harsh, as I’d argue we probably do need to meet somewhere in the middle. However, I would agree that as our professional association it should be CILIP who are encouraging and making the effort to engage us in the first place, something that is clearly not happening for many in the profession.

NG continued: “And what Matthew and cohorts seem to have entirely missed is that it’s going to take more than printing corporate library stories in update for them to have any use to us.”

This comment from NG also linked into those who thought regardless of CILIP’s perceived public/academic leanings in focus and content, when it came to action and advocacy of the profession it was letting down librarians and information workers at all levels.

Tom summed up the thoughts of many when he said “Update is an internal document. I doubt that many university or council managers outside the library read it, so I don’t think this is publicly advocating the profession at all. You [CILIP] talk of publicity, but preaching to the converted is hardly the issue. It is people and organisations outside the profession that need to be convinced. For example, when library closures are in the news, why is Ian Snowley [ … this would now be Bruce Madge , current CILIP president ] not on TV? “And to tell stories about what we achieve. Without that publicity, it is difficult for everyone to really make a case for enhanced remuneration.” Yes, but talking to ourselves about it is not going to help.

Elsabeth felt it “frustrating to read in ‘Tom’s’ post claims that CILIP ‘was very silent, for instance, on the Kent and Bangor downgrading of professional posts, or the controversies in Hampshire.’ It wasn’t - a team of people went into Bangor behind the scenes.” NG again: what the hell is the point of working “behind the scenes” to stop deprofessionalisation of roles when it quite clearly doesn’t work? It doesn’t take a union to get the information into the wider world and make a massive stink of it.

Elsabeth says “We wish that our community would have debates about what it all means from inside CILIP.” I’m sorry Elsabeth, but why not just ask us. Why not show us your interested in our opinions. Why not ask current members what they think of CILIP? what they think it does well ? what they think it doesn’t do well ? what they want to see it doing?.

I think the point about whether CILIP is vocal enough is very important. I have seen a number of news stories on libraries over the past few years on TV, and I cannot actually remember ever seeing anyone from CILIP represented. Now regardless of whether they actually were or not, the fact that I cannot remember either way tells its own story. Why are we (and I mean librarians and Info workers as a whole, not just CILIP here) not banging our own drums better?

Here is a question for you all. If you asked a random sampling of grass root members who the CILIP president was/is, how many do you think would actually know? My bet, not many. [When Tom mentioned Ian Snowley, I had no idea who he was - or that he had a blog] But the point is they/I should. Indeed more would probably know Phil Bradley. I pick on Phil (sorry Phil) because, through blogging I have gotten the know him, and because he does write for Update and provide training courses for CILIP. I also pick Phil because I think he does more to promote and enhance the visibility of the profession that most of those high up in CILIP combined.

Chartership and Professional Qualifications

Most commentors agreed that having a professional qualification was a good thing, and recognised the important role CILIP plays in accrediting the courses that award these qualifications. Most would probably not disagree with Elsabeth’s comment that “without professional qualifications, how can we expect other professions to take us seriously?”.

CILIP also offers the chance to become ‘chartered’. Commenting on Anne Welsh’s blog, James Mullen said “Chartership shows a commitment to a career in Librarianship, I’m always concerned about anyone who doesn’t want to become a Chartered Librarian as a result”.

I used to feel the same, and I think if you plan a career in public/academic libraries this is probably still true. I would personally question its value in the private sector. With all the good intentions in the world most who consider chartership are doing so because they think it will help them get a better job and financial renumeration. Sadly, I don’t think this really makes the blindest bit of difference in the private sector - when was the last time you saw an job ad in that sector asking for someone chartered???

Also, as was mentioned by Jennie “of course, once Chartered you have to remain a member to keep that Chartership, so I’ll be tied in for eternity…”

Now whilst this is not new for bodies that offer charterships, I do, again think it highlights a problem. You can be totally dissatisfied with what CILIP does, but you still need to remain a member because they hold your chartership hostage. If this is what it takes to make people want to be a member, I’m not interested, sorry.

Is the chartership good for personal development? I know people who say yes, I know people who say no. Ann Welsh reported on a talk by Caroline De Brun on why she thought chartering was beneficial for personal development. I am certainly not going to dismiss the importance of personal as well as professional development, and I know it has proved of huge value to some people.

I like the idea of CILIP. I think having a professional body can be a positive thing. So it saddens me that large numbers of its members/potential members do not feel that it has any value, or that that value is limited. The content balance of Update is not what this is all about, it is about feeling that CILIP represents us and that it is fighting in our corner to raise the profile of our profession, to raise the pay of its members, and to speak up when libraries and the profession are in the news. Does it do this well? I don’t think it does at the moment.

Personally, I still haven’t decided whether or not to rejoin.