Committee Meetings 2005

CONTENTS 1. Message from the Chairman 2. Supplementary response to Special Interest Group questionnaire 3. Annual report 2004-2005 4. Committee meetings 2005 5. Libraries in danger : report of a CILIP seminar held 26 April 2005 6. Former Library History Group committee member honoured 7. The first W.A. Munford Memorial Lecture, delivered at the CILIP Umbrella Conference, 1 July 2005 8. Notes on professional demography 9. A response to an item in the Spring 2005 newsletter 10. Bibliographical details sought 11. Libraries and Innovation : Fourth Anglo-German Seminar on Library History 1 MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN I am sure you are all aware that you have not received a newsletter for some time. Chris Baggs resigned as newsletter editor earlier this year and we have been quite unable to find a replacement. Kathryn McKee, our treasurer has kindly agreed to edit an issue to keep you informed and much of what is included consists of recent documents and minutes of committee activities. If anyone reading this is interested in becoming the new newsletter editor or knows someone who does please get in touch. The annual report gives the usual picture of varied fortunes. Over the past 18 months we have successfully replaced our secretary, treasurer and journal editor and we plan to be more visible to members by holding meetings around the country which local LIHG members can attend. We will be at the Linenhall Library in Belfast in the autumn and we hope to be in Bristol next Spring. Our main concern, however, is the ongoing review of Groups. The committee have grave concerns about the implications of the review which, we fear, threatens the future of LIHG. We also have considerable concerns about the way the data collection exercise has been organised and we do not feel that it is a sufficiently open process. Our concerns are expressed in the committee’s supplementary response to the questionnaire (see below) sent in late May. We have been assured that this will be replied to but no response has been received at the time of writing (5/8/05). Currently the Review Group’s timetable is as follows: • Recommendations from the Working Group will go to CILIP Executive Board in November and then to CILIP Council on Dec 6th. CILIP will make final decision. The chair of the Working Group, Pat Beech, plans to have a meeting of all group chairs in October if possible but no date has yet been decided. The next Working Group meeting is in early September so a date will be decided then. We, as a committee, are at a loss to understand why a meeting with group chairs was not held at an earlier stage in the data collection exercise. 2 SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE John Crawford Chair LIHG 25/6/05 Library and Information History Group: supplementary response to Special Interest Group questionnaire This is addressed to whoever is collating and analysing data at a policy level. It should be noted that responses are required where indicated. The points raised are the outcome of a discussion of the LIHG committee meeting of 30th March 2005, held at the Maughan Library, King’s College, London (supplemented by email discussions) and represent the unanimous view of the whole committee. In the interests of openness and the promotion of discussion this document will be posted on lis - cilip Procedural/methodological issues The committee decided to respond collectively only to questions 14-22 and individual committee members would respond to questions 1-13 separately as a collective response to 1-13 was deemed inappropriate. We do not understand how individual responses to 1-13 are to be collated with Group responses. Are they to be analysed separately? We consider the questionnaire to be poorly designed e.g. – under Q18 Regular reporting of agreed objectives - to whom? Qu 17 is not clearly and simply designed. We regret that the questionnaire is the only research method chosen and wish to know why no direct contact has been made with the Group to collect its views from its own point of view and thus give a qualitative perspective. A questionnaire necessarily only collects answers to the questions asked and therefore produces conclusions which reflect the questions. It is necessary also to use qualitative methods to deal with the questions which questionnaires do not ask and perhaps should have done. CILIP in Scotland held a meeting of SIGs representative to discuss the questionnaire and it is incomprehensible that the Review Group did not use similar methods. Given the poor grasp of research methodologies it would have been better if the task had been contracted out to an independent organisation. Questions 1. How are individual responses to 1-13 to be collated with Group responses? Are they to be analysed separately? 2. Why has no contact been made with the Group to collect its views directly? 3. Why was the work not contracted out? 3 Policy issues raised by the questionnaire • LIHG regrets the implication of bureaucratisation/imposition of performance indicators in Question 18. SIGs should set their own objectives and be accountable for them but not in any detail. LIHG committee members do not have time to participate in a PI culture. Spending undue time on reporting reduces the amount of time available to achieve objectives. SIG committee members give their valuable time freely and this should be spent on worthwhile activities. An improved Branch and Group annual report should be the evaluation/monitoring mechanism. • There is a fundamental question underlying the questionnaire design. Is there a hidden agenda of forced mergers and additional charges for SIG membership? • What is the real agenda - the reduction in the number of groups or a new, supplemental funding model or both? LIHG takes the view that charging for Groups would discriminate against poorer members - would income based concessions be made? • The questionnaire implies that its designers do not appreciate the value of the time freely given by SIG members. • The considerable amount of free time which SIG committee members give the work of their SIG must have direct, measurable value to CILIP which has to be balanced against the cost of financing individual SIGs. LIHG is unaware of any evidence that the Review Group is investigating this and considers this a matter of regret. • The SIG is often viewed by CILIP members as the most valuable, relevant and important part of their membership. The questionnaire implies that this is not recognised. • What is the agenda behind the future of OILS? LIHG recognises that an affiliation with CILIP brings status to the OIL and improves communication with related groups but their status and value is different to SIGs. Is the agenda to convert some SIGs into OILS? • SIGs are not just about CPD. They are a means by which CILIP members with special interests can network with each other. This is particularly important to retired members. Questions 1. Is a performance indicator culture planned? 2. What is the real agenda behind the questionnaire? 3. What are the objective criteria on which the existence of SIGs should be based? 4 Defending the independence of LIHG • We suspect there is an agenda to roll up together SIGs with superficial similarities e.g. Rare Books, Local Studies, and LIHG because they are about ‘old things’. We reject this superficial view for the following reasons: • Although one of the smaller CILIP groups LIHG is one of the world’s largest and most influential groups specialising in library and information history and enjoys international respect. We are the biggest grouping in the specialist area in Europe. This success is, at least, partly due to the fact that we are a SIG and enjoy all the advantages of the support of CILIP, which is greatly to CILIP’s credit. If we were to cease to exist as a CILIP group we would probably survive in some form but our volume of activity would be greatly reduced. • One of our committee members edits Library History (which has recently gone electronic) which is one of the two world class journals in the subject area. Although LIHG no longer owns this journal we retain intellectual property rights which represent a useful source of income for the Group. • We are active internationally – we regularly hold international conferences and we have two representatives on the IFLA Library History section, one of whom is currently chairman; 52 of our members live overseas. We have had links with the main library history group in Germany since its foundation in 1980 and with the Round Table of the American Library Association for an even longer period. Members have also been involved with international conferences in France, Scandinavia, Russia and the United States. (This is in addition to IFLA participation.) • We are a focus for achievement, activity and networking which would not otherwise exist. The organisation and production of the forthcoming multi-volume Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland took a large part of its inspiration from the LIHG which has been represented in the planning and editing of this major work for the past twelve years. The link with CILIP has been welcomed by Cambridge University Press as a positive aspect not shared by the few other works of a similar nature, worldwide. • We have a unique mission which is to research and indeed celebrate the history of our profession in the UK and also to promote research into information and book history. We are a not vocationally based group like Local Studies or Rare Books. We see considerable value in temporary alliances with other SIGs where common concerns exist.

Load more