Op Ed – Random Ramblings

Op Ed — Opinions and Editorials

Random Ramblings — The American Library Association, Not Just for Librarians

Column Editor: bob Holley (Professor Emeritus, Wayne State University, 13303 Borgman Avenue, Huntington Woods, MI 48070-1005; Phone: 248-547-0306) <aa3805@wayne.edu>

Think quickly. Who belongs to the American Library Association? If you answered librarians, you’re only partially correct. I know for sure because I’ve been an ALA member since 1973 and haven’t been a librarian since 2000. I was a library science professor until 2015 and then retired. I’ve frequently been annoyed when ALA hasn’t recognized this fact. My prime examples are official surveys on what I want from ALA or what my opinions are on library issues. One of the first survey questions is often about what type of library I work in without any choice in the list beyond the traditional answers of academic, public, school or special. I consider Against the Grain as a good place to express my concerns because the mix of library and non-library attendees at the Charleston Conference would indicate that many readers may be ALA members but not librarians, just like me. As far as I can tell from my research, ALA doesn’t provide statistics about how many members are non-librarians. I’ll identify categories where I believe non-librarians are ALA members, provide some evidence on their numbers and importance, and conclude with my thoughts on why this issue is important for ALA.

Categories of Non-librarian Members of ALA

The categories below appear in the order of how close they are, in my judgment, to the traditional profession of librarianship. Many ALA members who are not librarians may have been librarians earlier in their careers. Furthermore, the same person can belong to multiple categories. For example, I’m both a retired LIS professor and a member of my local public library board. With the strict definition of librarian as having an MLIS or its equivalent as defined by the ALA member categories cited below, many who work in libraries aren’t considered librarians. Under the looser definition of “a person who works in a library” according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, support staff, library assistants, and other categorizations describing employees where the MLIS is not a requirement may also be called “librarians,” especially in common speech. (https://dictionary. cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ librarian) The same distinction may apply to some higher-level positions such as business manager, human relations staff, donor relations, and other positions. In this column, I’ll make the distinction between these two groups where appropriate.

The first two non-librarian groups in ALA are those who wish to work in libraries and those who no longer work in libraries. Library science students and recent graduates most likely make up the majority of the first category that also includes formerly employed librarians who are out of work but wish to be rehired by a library. The second category consists of those who have worked in libraries but no longer do so and don’t plan to return. Retired members like me are the most obvious, but others may have moved on permanently to other fields but remain ALA members. Both students and retired members can join ALA for a reduced rate or for nothing if the retired member has been an “active,” paid ALA member for at least 25 uninterrupted years.” I like the term that the ALA membership page uses for those voluntarily or involuntarily unemployed — “in transit” with the following comment: “In a difficult economy this category can be helpful to those in career transition or those just beginning their careers.” (http:// www.ala.org/membership/ala-personal-membership)

The next group is the staff of professional organizations that support libraries but whose main function is not library service. The American Library Association employees would fit in this category except for those who work in its library. The staff of other independent national library associations with a specialized focus are also not traditional librarians including those employed by the Special Libraries Association, the Medical Library Association, and the Catholic Library Association. The same is true for the staff of many local, state, and regional organizations. To these groups, I would add consortium staff whose function is to provide library services to their members that are fulfilled without having a library. Though slightly different, I would add the government civil servants employed at all levels with responsibilities for libraries. The most prominent example might be the institute of Museum and Library Services, but similar bodies can exist at other governmental levels. On the other hand, most state libraries have collections and provide traditional library services.

Another large group of non-librarians with a strong interest in libraries are members of various library advisory boards, elected or appointed trustees, and supporters of Friends of the Library organizations. I will also include volunteer library workers though they might more appropriately be placed in the section on library workers. The members in this category may have enough interest in libraries to become members of ALA.

The large number of companies and individuals who produce or sell materials, supplies, and services represent a significant group of potential ALA members, though I don’t have any idea of how many join. One way to identify these types of services would be to look at the index of exhibitors at the ALA Annual Conferences or Midwinter Meetings. A non-comprehensive list would include publishers of all types, suppliers of both books and serials, computer hardware and software providers, database vendors, dealers for furniture and library-related supplies, movers, and consultants. All these groups might join ALA for competitive reasons, to keep up with trends in the library world, or simply because they believe in libraries.

My own former situation comes next as a library educator. The ALA Committee on Accreditation lists about sixty schools that offer the master’s degree in library science. In addition, “for a career as a school librarian in a pre-kindergarten through 12th grade setting, a master’s degree with a specialty in school librarianship from an educational unit accredited by continued on page 31

Op Ed — Random Ramblings

from page 30

the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) (formerly NCATE) and recognized by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) is also appropriate.” (http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/ accreditedprograms/directory) An additional thirty schools fall into this category according to the CAEP website. (http:// caepnet.org/provider-search?state=&program=ALA&tab=program#progresults) These faculty may have varying interests in what ALA has to offer since the As-

sociation for Library and information

Science Education “is the global voice of library and information science education”; (https://www.alise.org/) other special library associations may be more relevant; and some faculty focus on information science. Nonetheless, many library educators like me consider ALA to be their primary or secondary library association.

My final group includes two peripheral possibilities. Authors may join ALA to learn more about marketing to libraries or perhaps because they were impressed with the organization during a publisher sponsored visit to a conference. Even less likely are members of the general public because

those with an interest in libraries probably are included in one of the categories above by joining library friends groups or serving on governance bodies.

Evidence for Non-Librarian Members

What proof do I have that non-librarians belong to ALA? The most definitive evidence comes from the various ALA units that focus specifically on the various groups above. With the strict “librarian” definition of working in a position that requires an MLS, the first group is the Library Support Staff Interests Round Table formed in 1993 by a merger of the ALA Members Initiative Group and the Council of Library/Media Technicians. The membership portion of its charge is “to provide a forum within ALA for addressing a wide variety of issues relating to library support staff…” (https:// sites.google.com/site/alassrt/history) As of 2018, the latest year for membership statistics on the ALA website, this round table included 419 members. I wish to caution readers that membership statistics for this and other ALA units below most likely understate the members of each category that belong to ALA since general ALA members can participate in most subsidiary group activities without officially joining. I belong to a second group, the Retired Members Round Table. On the assumption that it was founded in 2011, the first year when membership statistics are available, “the Retired Members Round Table (RMRT) shall exist to develop programs of particular interest to retired persons from all types of libraries and all forms of library services….” (http://www.ala.org/rt/rmrt/) I applaud the fact that the term “library services” clearly indicates a broader scope than only those who have worked in libraries. Membership in 2018 totaled 295.

One division and one round table have an explicitly non-librarian membership. The first is the division with the largest membership of the units on my list. United for Libraries. To quote the official description, “United for Libraries is a division of ALA with approximately 5,000 Friends of Library, Trustee, Foundation and individual and group members representing hundreds of thousands of library supporters. Begun in early 2009 with the merger of Friends of Libraries U.S.A. (FOLUSA) and the Association of Library Trustees and Advocates (ALTA), the new division brings together Trustees and Friends into a partnership that unites the voices of those who support libraries to create a powerful force for libraries in the 21st century.” (http://www.ala.org/united/about/organization) To give comparative statistics, the official membership in 2018 continued on page 32

was 4,052, an impressive 7% of the total ALA individual membership for that year. In addition, seven state libraries have “partnered with United for Libraries to provide all library staff, Trustees, Friends Groups, and Foundations with the benefits and resources of statewide group membership (SGM). Access includes benefits, resources, and training,” a benefit that greatly extends its reach. (http://www.ala.org/united/states) In fact, I’m eligible for these benefits as chair of my local library board.

The last group is the Exhibits Round Table (ERT), established in 1954, whose mission is “to be a resource for exhibitors — providing information and best practices related to ALA conferences [and] to act as a liaison between exhibitors and the Association.” (http://www.ala.org/rt/ert/) This round table had 408 members in 2018.

To summarize this section, 8.9% of ALA members are not librarians under the strict definition of having the MLS degree and 8.2% under the looser definition of working in a library. This figure assumes that few or no members belong to more than one group but also does not identify any members that belong to the category but are not members of the unit that deals with its interest. The second factor is most likely much more important than the first.

A second set of useful statistics would be the number of ALA members who joined with a special status at a reduced rate from that paid by “librarians as well as others employed in library and information services or related activities in positions that: (a) require a master’s degree; (b) require a state level certification; or (c) are managerial.” These pertinent membership types are Student, Non-Salaried/in transition (“librarians earning less than $30,000 per year or not currently employed”), Library Support Staff, Retired, Friend (“individual friends of libraries and members of special citizens caucuses interested in participating in association work”), Trustee (“those not employed in library and information services or related activities who, through their personal commitment and support, promote library and information services as members of governing boards, advisory groups, etc.”), and Associate (“those not employed in library and information services or related activities who, through their personal commitment and support, promote library and information services (e.g., friends and special citizen caucuses and/or individuals interested in participating in the work of the Association)”). I tried to obtain statistics on the use of each membership option from ALA Headquarters but was unsuccessful because of the heavier workload caused by COVID rules and staff furloughs.

My final investigation of the importance of non-librarians in ALA was to examine the status of ALA Presidents during their term of office for the last twenty years. I searched their employment history in Wikipedia and LinkedIn and with a general Google search if the first two didn’t provide the needed information. I apologize if I’ve overlooked any history of library employment. As an aside, I would suggest a project to evaluate the Wikipedia biographies of ALA Presidents to enrich them with greater detail as needed. Eight were not officially librarians as President though all but two had been librarians during their earlier careers. The two who were never librarians are Maureen Sullivan (2012-2013), a consultant for twenty-nine years, and Loriene Roy (20072008), LIS professor. Two were retired librarians: Jim Neal (2017-2018) and Molly Raphael (2011-2012). The roles for the others were: Loida Garcia-Febo (2018-2019), consultant; barbara Stripling (2013-2014), LIS Professor; Camilla Alire (2009-2010), consultant and LIS professor; and John W. berry (2001-2002), head of a library consortium. Since I remember her well, I’ll add Patricia Schuman (1991-1992) who was a publisher. What this brief analysis shows is that someone who has never been a librarian can win the ALA presidency and that not being a librarian during the voting period doesn’t appear to have derailed their election bids.

implications

The principal implication of this discussion is that the American Library Association has a much bigger tent than just current librarians and has the potential to appeal to those who have never been and never will be librarians but who have an interest in libraries. Beyond the large group of retired librarians, their reasons for joining may be serving on library governing boards, helping libraries as volunteers, planning to become librarians, or hoping to make money by providing services or goods to libraries. Making up 8.2% of ALA membership, if membership in special subgroups is an accurate indication, isn’t a trivial figure, especially since my calculations based upon joining an ALA subunit probably greatly underestimate their numbers.

ALA is currently facing financial difficulties. Focusing more attention on non-librarians with a history of joining ALA is one potential way to increase membership. One good incentive already in place is the reduced membership rates for the categories given above. Perhaps this rate could even be reduced further if the potential member joins one of the units for non-librarians. Another possibility is a lower rate for new members in the first few years as is the case with regular members.

The desire to increase membership may partially explain why many of these specialized groups, except for the Exhibitors Round Table, have been formed recently. This leads to a concern that the proposed reorganization of ALA may disband the division and round tables with a focus on non-librarians. The report on “Forward Together: Recommendations for a reimagined American Library Association governance model – Next Steps and Timeline,” submitted to Council during 2020 ALA virtual Council Meeting recommends the following for round tables: “1.1: Forward Together recommends an increase in the minimum number of dues-paying members to one percent of ALA’s membership unless identified as a strategic priority by the Board of Directors.” (page 5) None of the non-librarians round tables discussed above would have met the 1% membership criterion of 579 in 2018. To quote Aaron Dobbs’ email (9-1-2020) in response to a question from Nancy bolt, current Retired Members Round Table Chair-Elect: “My understanding of the Forward Together (FT) proposal is that smaller RTs should find relevant partners with whom to merge or get phased out in a few years. I think this is all the Small Roundtables (SRT) that I represent on Council — each has less than 1% of ALA membership.” With the narrowly focused interests of the small round tables in this column, I believe that they would find it hard to find relevant partners. I am also concerned that these groups will lose influence in ALA if Council is disbanded. Non-librarians have been able to win elections to this large body through their reputations in the field and targeted voting. With voting for fewer officers, members of these groups might have a lessened clout. Counter evidence would be my analysis above of their success in ALA presidential elections.

The next recommendation is for ALA to be ever mindful that not all its members are librarians. I began this column by stating that I’m annoyed when any ALA document, speech, or casual comment from central staff or ALA member leadership at any level assumes that everyone in the organization is a librarian. All surveys should have an “other” possibility when asking what type of library the respondent works in. As an aside, I would even encourage that ALA discussions on library research suggest ways to make sure that all researchers find ways to include non-librarians in their surveys if they might have valid viewpoints to share.