As we enter the usual strategic planning cycles brought on by new presidencies and annual meeting plans, I note a spate of depressing news for some of the major associations in the information space. ALA report a $2m shortfall in operating budget, tied to various but not well-explained factors, none of which appeased the members. You can read the gory details here. In that, you’ll also notice that the midwinter gathering had a significant 11% drop in attendance, posing questions about its purpose, while some librarians questioned the value of an association that seems more intent on supporting the institution of libraries than the workers within them. Fair question.
In parallel, I note from other online discussions that SLA now reports it has lost 54% of its membership since 2014, which suggests some real challenges ahead while they consider (again) a name change and a further dues increase. I know from my time as ASIST president, membership numbers are a constant concern, and one has to imagine that the time is soon approaching, if we’re not there already, when the idea of joining or retaining membership of an association will seem alien rather than routine.
I always ask myself now, why drop $200+ every year to be a member of any group. Some provide journals (good and, let’s be honest, not so good) that I can probably access anyway through work, some discount annual meeting attendance for members by the equivalent dollars, but more than this, what value do I get from joining? It used to be more obvious, and surely related to identity and community, but one development perhaps unforeseen of the new information infrastructure is the rather poor effort at harnessing this we see from any professional association and the rather easy way that other channels provide similar sense of involvement.
Of course, size matters, and maybe in the medium term, mergers of a few related associations would make some sense. I’ve often suggested (to the horror of some) that ALISE be made a special interest group of ASIST, and now I wonder if SLA might consider something similar. After all, there’s more uniting than dividing some of these players. Maybe the alternative is the opposite move – keep associations small, virtual and affordable, but allow them to combine for important gatherings. Or align associations around particular tasks (conferences, virtual resources, publishing) rather than replicating each within every group. I mean how many treasurers, officers and chairs do we need in a tiny discipline or professional community?
No solution makes sense though until we rethink the purpose and value of professional associations in the most basic sense. I still try to believe, but I’m beginning to wonder if the form has served its purpose, at least as currently implemented. Instead of strategic planning cycles, maybe it’s time for something far more radical, temporary, tech-mediated community structures that we can enter and leave seamlessly and cheaply grouped according to particular goals, clustered intelligently by interest rather than name. Worth a try?