Member Participation Task Force

Jim Rettig wrote an essay addressing Scenario #3 posited in the August 20 memo. Scenario #3 is:

You have been an ALA member for x years. Your personal financial situation (kids, mortgage, car loan, orthodontia bills, maybe some remaining student loans, etc.) prevents you from attending the ALA Annual conference and the Midwinter meeting. Your employer, for whatever reason, can’t or won’t subsidize such participation. But you want to get involved and contribute? What does ALA offer such members today? What should it offer them? How can it offer them opportunities for meaningful involvement?

Several members of the Task Force addressed the scenarios posited in the August 20 memo. Sally Gibson addressed scenario #1:

Assume you are new to the profession. You have very recently earned your MLS and are starting work in an engaging professional position. You want to contribute and get involved. You are au courant with information and communication technologies. How would you like to get involved? What tools, behaviors, technologies, whatever do you want to employ in your involvement?

In early October Task Force members edited a shared document about "If I joined ALA tomorrow, what would I want to experience?" Take a look at the document with tracked changes.

Task Force member John W. Berry submitted his ideas about ALA 2.0 from China. TO read them, follow the link in this post.

This links to Michael Stephens' response to the question about what ALA 2.0 would look like. He posted it on his "Tame the Web" blog on November 11.

This links to my response which I posted on my "Twilight Librarian" blog to the question about what ALA 2.0 would look like.

Cal Shepard interviewed three "younger" members of the profession and asked them for feedback on the Task Force's charge.

ALA president Leslie Burger appointed the Participation Task Force in the summer of 2006. Its charge is attached to this post.

ALA Participation Task Force

I interviewed 3 younger (in the profession less than 10 years) professionals. I shared the committee charge with them and asked for their feedback. Here’s what they had to say.

1. ALA is too large and overwhelming. All 3 people I talked with are members of ALA, but only one is active. (i.e. attends conference and serves on committees) All 3 prefer smaller organizations such as PLA or ACRL. “ALA is big that it’s hard to feel I’m making a difference in this organization.” “ALA is so cold.” They resent having to join ALA in order to join PLA (for example) and feel like they don’t get anything from ALA for their money. (Although they do like getting the journals.) Similarly the conferences are seen as being too big. “I don’t go to conference because I don’t get anything out of the programs. I prefer smaller conferences. They are easier to navigate and they have better programs for me.”

One interviewee said that ALA would be more effective as a federation of smaller groups – it is too ungainly now.

Even ALA’s “call for proposals” is seen as intimidating. The website doesn’t provide enough help for newbies. They would like to see content such as “Submitting Your First Proposal? Here’s How!”

2. Two of the 3 had some contact with NMRT and were active members. Even though NMRT did a lot of orientation – “it wasn’t enough.” One interviewee felt that he needed a briefing on what ALA is and does. One suggested that perhaps NMRT membership should be automatically included for first time ALA members. They still feel that the divisions/roundtables need to do a better job at targeting new members. They would have liked to have gotten a phone call from a live person welcoming them to the division/roundtable. LIRT was cited as doing a good job of welcoming and involving new members.

3. There is a perception that ALA is difficult to penetrate and is run by some sort of “old boy” network. Their impression is that committee positions are filled with “a tap on the shoulder and a whisper in the ear.” They would like to see more transparency and clear direction on vacant committee positions. They suggested posting a list of open positions and the duties required along with simple instructions about how to volunteer for a committee.

4. There is also the feeling that some ALA groups are inbred. The same people serve in the same positions over and over. The group offers the same programs conference after conference.

5. Some professionals do not agree with ALA’s political opinions. (One friend of these interviewees stopped paying ALA dues because he/she didn’t like the thought of ALA throwing their money at the “cause of the week” instead of investing in building better libraries.

6. ALA membership IS seen as a resume booster. All 3 of these interviewees really wanted to be involved in ALA when they first entered the profession. They wanted to attend conference but couldn’t afford it. Now that they’ve been in the profession for a while they would like to serve on committees but they are not being asked to serve and they don’t even know where to look to volunteer.

7. In a discussion of technological ways to build community all 3 interviewees were adamant that “it’s really hard to build online community. It has to happen on its own. You can’t make a community spontaneously generate itself.” They suggest like a one-stop community/portal for information. But “it can’t have a clunky interface or people won’t come back.” Keep it simple. “Creeping feature-itis” just makes portals harder to use. Don’t try to be all things to all people – or you won’t do any one thing well.

Cal Shepard