If the Alignment were about nothing more than that "others" don't understand what we do and that we just need to try harder to prove value, then the prodigious effort that's gone into it (and continues with the name change brouhaha) would surely be ridiculously oversized for small gains.   It's not just a question that "others" don't understand what we do; it's a question of what they already do understand about librarians - about the pervasive and entrenched stereotypes that many of our stakeholders still buy into.
 
Over my many years of conducting focus groups, interviews and surveys for information centers in a wide range of organizations, I've heard this phrase too many times from a stakeholder:  "So and so [fill in the name or title of a librarian] is different, they're not like a regular librarian."  In fact, I heard it again recently from a professor in an academic institution, offering praise for an information professional embedded in an academic program:  "She's a professional, just like us [faculty] - not like those other people in the library."  That is extremely painful to hear; I'd like to never hear it again - but I probably will.

These are anecdotes - I have files full of them.  Each one of these anecdotes carries implications about salaries, roles and the ability to wield influence within an organization.  The Alignment research findings are much more than anecdotes - they come from an extensive, valid research process and they tell us that there is a more effective way to position ourselves as a profession, to present ourselves and our capabilities to our organizations.  With all of the smart, talented, dedicated members in SLA sincerely working to convince our organizations of the value of our profession, shouldn't we have accomplished more by now?  Why, after so many years of talking about this, are we still asking our association to do more to support us in this effort?

I believe it's because our (the collective "us" in the association) approaches haven't been effective enough; because, they haven't been based on sufficient knowledge of our collective market.

SLA has heard us, understood that a new approach is in order, and has undertaken the research necessary to find out "what is" so that we can figure out what that approach should be.  The "what is" that SLA uncovered may be difficult to look at.  Who  wants to hear that the word we use to define our cherished profession isn't viewed as positively in the marketplace as we view it and may even be a hindrance?  But, not looking won't make the research findings go away, won't make them not so.  One thing we can say when we do look closely at the findings is: "oh, is that what's been in the way all along?  It's just about a name - not about our competencies and capabilities?  That's not so hard to fix."  And that's what our association has set about to fix first as it uncovers and delivers a new approach for us to use to strengthen and enlarge our positions!

SLA understands that it can't help us reposition without first repositioning itself.  That, to me, is what the Alignment and the name change is about.    Will our stakeholders and others understand what we do better if the association (and we) change the name - will we still need to explain? 

My personal feeling is: probably much less than we do now because we won't be explaining that we are somehow different or more than the name we use to call ourselves implies. 

We will at least not be spending so much energy just trying to come from behind, but will be in a much better position at the gate to reach the goal we envision (better salaries, more influence within our organizations, and more challenging use of our capabilities). 
I urge everyone to read and reread the findings.  This is the key we've been handed to unlock the door to our future.  Let's use it!
(and forgive me because brevity isn't my virtue)

Mary Talley
Chair, DC/SLA Professional Enhancement Committee
President-Elect, DC/SLA 2010