Why stop posting here? Mostly just a feeling that I needed to shake things up a bit, to put some serious effort behind a few other ideas that I've wanted to work on for a while. Making a clean break just felt right.

There may still be some activity on this site as I back-fill some old posts from other blogging platforms. My goal is to eventually have this as a (more or less) complete archive of my personal blogging from early 1998 to this year. That's a background project of mine that I plan on allocating a bit more time to in 2010.

A huge thanks to Karl Dubost for hosting this blog for so long. In addition to providing this infrastructure, Karl has supported and inspired me in more ways then he may realize. That you are reading this today is due in no small part to him, so you can thank (or blame!) him.

So: where I'm at:
* Professional writing: http://edbilodeau.wordpress.com
* Social networking: http://www.facebook.com/edward.bilodeau
* Photography: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilodeau
* Bookmarks: http://delicious.com/ebilodeau

If you are a reader of this site, please feel free to connect with me at any or all of these places.

Thanks,

Ed Bilodeau
St-Lambert, Quebec
December 2009

I have to say that when I read the editorial by Janice Lachance in the latest Information Outlook comparing promoting the association with selling fabric softener, I was worried. Now I see that I had every reason to be.

While I agree that the name change is necessary, and that it should not include references to librar* terms, Association of Strategic Knowledge Professionals is a poor choice for naming the association.

It is clear that the the terms were chosen (1) to use terms that test positively with decision-makers, and (2) form a nifty acronym. In other words, it was chosen to promote the SLA and the work of information professionals, and not to represent the membership.

"Strategic" appears to have been included to suggest value, but you can't promote something as valuable by simply slapping a label on it (unless you are selling fabric softener). In our case, you need to demonstrate how the activities of information professionals contribute to the attainment of organization objectives. You need to demonstrate it effectively and repeatedly, and you need to consistently link that performance to whatever name you choose to call yourself. Simply including "strategic" in the association name is unlikely to improve the recognition of information professionals. What is more likely is that it will suggest to decision-makers that information professionals in fact have a rather misguided understanding of how branding works.

I can understand wanting to include "knowledge" in the name. "Information" isn't seen to have much value to organizations. Despite having access to an abundance of information, they appear to be unable to derive much value from it. Just as data managers moved up the ladder to become information managers, we often see a movement from information up to knowledge. However, the fact remains that by and large what we work with is information. Yes, all librarians need to understand the role information plays in the creation, sharing, acquisition, and application of knowledge, but that does not make us knowledge professionals. That understanding is critical do providing information services to our clientele, but it does not define our area of expertise. We are information professionals, and there is nothing wrong with that! "Knowledge" as a concept is already overused and misused to such an extent that its effectiveness as a promotional tool is quite limited. It might have been effective a decade ago, but these days is more likely to be greeted with a raised, sceptical eyebrow than anything else.

As an acronym, ASKPro suggests a reference service or product, but not a professional association. It also suggests an association with libraries and librarians, something I though the SLA wants to move away from.

Association of Strategic Knowledge Professionals isn't likely to mean much to business and industry. As a branding effort it is too transparent to be effective and it likely to be more of a detriment to the association's alignment activities.

It is also questionable whether "strategic knowledge professional" will resonate with the SLA's membership. As others have suggested, if the SLA has to explain to its own *members* what the term means, there is a problem.

I think the SLA executive have to go back to the drawing board on this one. I'm concerned, however, that this one was even made public and put forward to membership. Going forward with a name change for a membership organization is a huge risk, and it is my opinion that the SLA executive has fumbled the ball on this one. We'll know for sure after the vote takes place.

While I will continue to support the SLA's efforts to being about a name change, you can be sure that I for one will be voting against Association of Strategic Knowledge Professionals as the future name of the organization.

Dare I say it? "Say No to ASKPro!"

(sorry...)

"[The SLA is] no longer an association of 'special libraries' as more than 50 percent of our members do not work in a 'library.'"

Nothing about where members do work, and if it is a library under a different name, or really something else entirely. The only thing clear is that the SLA exec wants to move away from being associated with libraries.

" There is nothing wrong with being a librarian or working in a library but there are instances when it limits how we are perceived and what we have to offer."

So: moving away from the term 'librarian' as well.

All librarians are info professionals, but not all info pros are librarians. Specialized libraries are information-providing units within an organization, but not all info-providing units are libraries. It means something more to be a librarian, and to work in a library.

"After an information professionals first job, the MLS is less emphasized. It is the experience and performance that is valued. The MLS degree is a means to an end and the credential to get one in the door. SLA realized this many years ago when they removed a professional library degree as a requirement for membership. And it has not hurt the association."

No, because it broadens the potential (paying) membership of the organization. The SLA, which has recently raised membership rates to cover increasing costs, has no interest in restricting who can join, so there is no way they would re-introduce the MLIS as an entrance requirement.

But as someone whose job it is to help deliver an MLIS program, and to help students earn their MLIS degree, I have to wonder about the SLAs continuing and public devaluation of this degree.

It is clear that a focus on librarians, libraries, and the MLIS degree are not considered to be in the best interest of the SLA. They'll gladly have librarians join, and even I think that librarians may benefit from membership in the SLA. But I don't think that specialized librarians can look to the SLA to represent their best interests.

Given all this, I think that it would be in the best interest of all that the SLA change their name so that it no longer includes the terms 'library' or 'librarian', since this will more accurately represent the reality of the SLA today as well as the direction in which the organization appears to be going.

This leaves specialized librarians without a true professional association to assist and represent them. Could this be an opportunity for the ALA? Or time to consider something else?

Update: I've commented on the SLA's original post, trying to be as constructive as possible. If you are an SLAer, I encourage you to do the same.

Update: Please don't read too much into this. A bit, maybe, but not too much!

Today was also the day the scaffolding came down from 3661 Peel, a clear sign that we're open for business, and that the semester is *finally* underway.

The key points:

* Information on academic programs should be prominent and seek to not only describe content, but to answer student questions about time, costs, etc.

* Financial aid calculators are very popular with students

* Students like video, but only if load-times are quick and no additional plug-ins are required (i.e. use Flash video)

* The high-school students targeted by college sites were not all that interested in news and announcements... I wonder if that would be the same for our applications ( i.e. grads)

* Colleges are making greater use of Facebook and Twitter to interact with students

The report was carried out for the US Department of Education by SRI International, and was conducted as a meta-analysis of existing literature on the research into the effectiveness of online education. The short version of this is that they look at the findings of related research and use stats to pull them together say something useful about a general hypothesis, in this case, the effectiveness of online learning.

Putting aside any concerns about the validity of the approach (which I don't have specifically, although I am naturally weary of the insights gained from observations buried under two levels of statistics and therefore abstraction...), the quality of the results is surely dependent on the quality of the studies in sampled. Here is some more information on what SRI based their analysis on:

* They conducted a literature search from 1996-2008 and found only five studies "that both compared the learning effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction for K–12 students and provided sufficient data for inclusion in a meta-analysis." These five studies were all published in the 2006-2008 timeframe.

* They broadened their search to look at distance education in general, and found a total of 99 papers that included some comparison on face-to-face and online learning. Of these 99 papers, only 9 related to K-12 students, the others dealing with higher education, continuing education, etc.

They conclude that blended learning (a combination of online and face-to-face) provides the best results. However, they also note that their findings do not point to the online nature of learning being more effective:

Despite what appears to be strong support for online learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium, In many of the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages. At the same time, one should note that online learning is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than is face-to-face instruction. [Emphasis theirs]

They also note several other weaknesses with the source studies: "[Many] of the studies suffered from weaknesses such as small sample sizes; failure to report retention rates for students in the conditions being contrasted; and, in many cases, potential bias stemming from the authors’ dual roles as experimenters and instructors."

My take-away from this report is that there is value to looking at traditional face-to-face learning and seeing how best to incorporate online resources and interactions, while at the same time taking this opportunity to re-evaluate the basic course structure, content, planning, and assessment methods.

Like any technology, however, there is a chance that the detection system will malfunction, which could cost Apple money (if it fails to detect abuse) or the customer money and time (if it registers abuse when none occurred). Hopefully Apple will have service policies in place that allows their employees to intelligently service customers, and not simply rely on the detection technology: "Well, the computer says you abused it, so that's that."

(Of course, I suppose it is always possible that someone could hack the detection tech, causing it to always read OK.)

It would be great if this technology could be used not only by Apple to avoid having to service devices but by consumers as well to better diagnose and avoid problems with their devices. But somehow I don't expect that is Apple's intention.