Disclosure:  I am not a librarian, but I am proud to work for 11,000 of them. Over a long career, I have been a legislative assistant to a congressman, newspaper copy editor, nonfiction book editor, executive speechwriter, and, for the past 14 months, SLA’s strategic communications director. 

This may not appear to be a logical career progression, but it has been. I was able to move up the career ladder by becoming the go-to person for good information.  I am a librarian’s daughter, and I have relied heavily on my ability to find, verify, and organize information rapidly in every job.  I have had to become knowledgeable in subjects that range from aviation legislation to quilting techniques to use of automated defibrillators and in disciplines that have included market research, strategic planning, branding, and reputation management. I have moved from typewriter to computer, and have taught myself to evaluate and use proprietary databases and how to monitor news and social networking. All of my previous employers have been large, successful organizations, in the government, corporate and nonprofit sectors, but only one had trained librarians.

Yet when SLA first contacted me about the job I now hold, I almost didn’t return the call.  I had never heard of SLA (except as it related to Patty Hearst, which shows how ancient I am), and I had no idea what a “special librarian” was.  So I did a little research.  My conclusion:  Where has SLA been all my life?

Had I known about SLA, I would have joined years ago. I could have learned so much about how to do it right instead of making it up as I went along.  I probably would have gone for an MLS.  I hope that I would have been able to contribute something as well—maybe how to tie information to outcomes or how to give an effective presentation. I don’t think my participation would have diluted SLA’s focus on the information profession in any way.

I would like to give my own highly personal answers to some of the questions being asked about the proposed name change. In light of the tenor of some of the discussions, this may be a career limiting move, but I have come to care for SLA and its members a great deal.

Would welcoming more non-librarians into SLA dilute the organization’s programs or the value of a library/information science degree?  I don’t think so. There are a lot of people like me out there—people who would love to be part of an organization like SLA if they only knew how closely your work relates to theirs.  Being part of SLA would show them just how much they have to learn and increase respect for your unique abilities.  More significantly, it would teach them the true value of information professionals.  In doing so, it would influence them to create new positions for information professionals in the organizations that have never had them—and that is most organizations.

Does the word strategic in the proposed name apply to knowledge or professionals?  Both, I think.  The knowledge you provide is certainly strategic, as opposed to unimportant. And you are strategic professionals—that is, professionals who support your organization’s success.

Does the term strategic knowledge apply only to people who work in the corporate sector?  Certainly not.  Academic librarians, for example, have always known and supported their employers’ most important strategic goal:  education.  Like people who work in other sectors, the more they can help people see how they contribute to that critical goal, the safer their jobs will be.

Are librarians, special or not, professionals?  Of course!  You are engaged in a profession for which most of you qualified with an advanced professional degree. Unfortunately, it is a profession that is not sufficiently understood or appreciated.  You can only educate people who are motivated to learn, so the idea that we can somehow educate the public about your value is unrealistic. 
Finally, are the words in the proposed name some kind of trendy management jargon that will seem outdated in a few years?  The word knowledge has been an important part of SLA’s lexicon since it was adopted in 1915 as part of SLA’s slogan.  My etymology reference puts the first use of strategic, with pretty much exactly the same meaning, at 1810, and every employer I have worked for over 30+ years has had a strategic planning process that directed the ways in which they allocated resources.  I don’t think it is likely that strategic, knowledge or professional will change meaning any time soon.

As a communicator, I support the name change because it positions SLA as an organization that represents professionals who deliver something critical: the knowledge that their enterprises need to succeed.
Posted by Maura Kennedy