Who should represent the full spectrum of information professionals?

Maybe it's time for CILIP to decide - is it still the Library Association under the skin, or does it want to represent the full spectrum of information professionals?  Doubtless other organisations will be be casting an eye.

Alison Raisin and Peter Griffiths in The Government Libraries Journal (June 09) highlight some interesting points and comment on qualification and competencies. Not just for librarians but also for Knowledge and Information management (KIM) professionals within government. It seems that Library posts within government still need a CILIP recognised qualification whereas roles that encompass Records, Knowledge and other aspects of Information Management don’t.

One interesting outcome of this is the resultant one way traffic in terns of job moves. Librarians can move on out - but KIM people can't move into library jobs. The Knowledge Council is looking to rectify this in part by encouraging KIM practitioners to recognise themselves as part of a professional community and then identify and develop skills and learn how to apply them. The departments need to develop a skills pipeline for the future in conjunction with this.

This opens out many opportunities for those of us in this field. Now is an exciting time to widen our skills and the arena in which we can apply them, when our known world appears to be shrinking as a result of efficiencies through outsourcing, increased use of Web 2.0 technologies and the credit crunch.

It is vital that someone takes up the challenge to harness these new energies and create new larger networks by interweaving the strands of the information profession. Who will do it? Who wants to? Who is farsighted enough to see the benefits for our future information generation?

It is particularly interesting that comments have continued to flow to our blog after the SHR breakfast at the beginning of July at which Professional Associations were the hot topic.  Everyone knows something needs to be done - but who is going to proactively step up and do it? - Sue Hill 

Comments

[Tim Buckley Owen]

Very interesting observation, this. I was recently commissioned to do a very short piece for September’s Information World Review magazine contrasting what you need to do to qualify as a librarian with the requirements for an archivist. Researching this piece, I was struck by the remarkable similarities between CILIP’s and the Society of Archivists’ academic and professional qualification regimes. The system Sue describes certainly does seem to favour those with CILIP qualifications at present. But with the growing importance of effective record keeping for accountability and compliance purposes, it seems to me that government departments are missing out by not insisting on appropriate qualifications for record keepers as well.

[Amanda Quick]

This is an important issue. Sadly, silos are still alive and well - even within the library sector and definitely once we look at the wider LIS arena. If we don't enhance, announce and apply our transferable skills, we risk increasing irrelevance. In the information society, most professions lay claim to a measure of knowledge and information skills - this will become a threat if we do not work together to develop a brand that is inclusive yet distinctive.

[Neil Infield]

I have also been fascinated to see the discussion leading on from the SHR Breakfast blog.

I agree that we need more cooperation and even consolidation within and across the profession, but I personally don't feel CILIP is up to the job.

[Edwina Wontner]

I agree that this is an issue and working for a government department, I am aware of non-CILIP members that are perfectly good at their jobs but don't have the CILIP stamp of approval. They are effectively discriminated against under the current set up.

[Alison Raisin]

Bringing the various strands of the KIM profession will be toughand if CILIP doesn't tackle it who will? More seriously for evryone, what will happen if they don't?
If CILIP take it on they face the challenge of continuing to demonstrate relevance to its current predominantly library based members at a time when membership numbers are causing concern, while widening the remit to KIM. I have already heard many complaints (from outside the government sector) about the non-library content of Gazette. Equally there are a number of highly skilled KIM professionals (both with abd without CILIP approved qualifications) who have given up on CILIP because of its overwhelming focus on the library world.
Where to start? If you look at teh beginning of the process there are many KIM degrees and masters not recognised by CILIP even when they recognise the library focused qualifactions at the same institution. At least some of these courses produce graduates with the skills we need in the wider KIM work.
Then there is Umbrella. Maybe next time we need a strand for the broader profession and invite Records Management Society and Society of Archivists along? We should be looking for where we can work together and build recognistion of the common skills, not enforcing the differences.