The culture of ALA varies from silo to silo. I suspect you’ll find different norms, values, visions in each division of ALA. LITA is as different from PLA as YALSA is to ACRL. So many members participate in their divisions and begrudgingly pay their ALA dues on top of their division dues (despite the fact that dues paid to ALA support the work of divisions in some way).

So if I had to assess, the culture of big ALA is one of isolation. The structure supports that culture with its massive silos, but to some extent, members perpetuate it by wishing they could just belong to their silo and not the big ALA.

I have hope that cross-divisional (or non-divisional) efforts will shift that culture. The dance party and Think Tank mentioned in this post don’t align themselves with any particular division, and its in these member-driven events that a new culture of ALA might rise (ironically, from non-ALA events).

Is there more ALA leadership (board, council) could do? Aside from establishing task forces and committees, what ideas do you have? I must admit, I’ve been to one board meeting and no council meetings during my membership, so I can’t answer that question. Moreso, I can’t assess whether the board or council WOULD do something if the culture supports the status quo.

To your second question: The Committee on Accreditation is in the middle of a 5-year review process of its “2008 Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library and Information Studies” document. I looked at the first round of comments on the document, and only 32.8% of respondents identified themselves as practitioners! That might contribute to why standards for accreditation of library schools are out-of-sync with practice. (Not to mention the vastly different skill sets required of practitioners in the library field.)

So is ALA engaging recent graduates? Not as much as they are engaging LIS faculty. Is this the practitioner’s fault? After all, the outcomes of new standards directly affect LIS faculty, but only indirectly affect practitioners. Naturally, LIS faculty are going to be more engaged.

Again, if we (practitioners) are going to complain, there are venues to participate in change – but finding those venues is a little difficult for those confused by ALA’s structure.

The first is the culture of the organization. After basically saving IBM from disintegration, CEO Louis Gerstner wrote in his book, “Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?”, that culture wasn’t the most important thing in remaking IBM, it was the only thing. Does the culture of the ALA and librarianship generally need examination and change?

The second is accreditation of library schools. Do the requirements for accreditation reflect today’s requirements for success as a librarian? The blog posts and comments of many recent graduates suggest that schools are not providing what today’s librarians need. What is the ALA doing to adapt accreditation to the profession’s new reality, and is the organization engaging students and recent graduates in a discussion of accreditation?

I have been in a few different places with ALA: I used to feel like a confused, uninvolved but willing member. Now I’m slightly less confused and chair of a committee. And I do still find the organization baffling.

ALA is a bit like an old building or house that’s had so many additions over so many years that you can’t even tell where it all started. People added new committees and sections to various divisions while similar functions were popping up in other silos. It’s overwhelming, when you’re a new librarian and there’s no one obvious group or place to focus your efforts.

ALA could probably use a big re-organization. But not only am I sure that’s not going to happen, I don’t think anyone who has climbed the power structure would be motivated to do that. A year-long presidency isn’t very long, and I’m sure the presidents have other pressing concerns beside trying to help a young person figure out if they should be in the ACRL University Libraries section or RUSA MARS or LITA or whatever. We just muck through this on our own and try to find a spot to sit where we live the room and the people in it.

So I get the frustration, and I think smaller initiatives are fantastic. But I agree with Eric that complaining about ALA is a bit like complaining about the government or traffic: it’s venting but probably won’t lead to anything if we don’t take action.

For me I still have a bit of sourness for ALA, even though I am very involved as a newsletter editor, a committee member, and as a Young Professionals Task Force Member. I think the thing that still gets me is this:
Participation options are plentiful for those who can work in its structure.

I’m not a fan of ALA’s structure. At all. If it were up to me we’d tear down the ALA Sandcastle and begin rebuilding. I know I’m fantasizing.

The structure is established in our history that goes back to 1876 (according to ALA’s web site). Can an organization this old and this huge and this established and rigid re-invent itself? I want it to, so badly, and that’s why I keep participating.