Home
Conference
Committee
Speakers
Program
Papers
Exhibition
Virtual Exhibition
Sponsorship
Issues Forum
Satellite Events
Search
Back to ALIA
Neil McLean Macquarie University
This paper aims to provide context for one of the primary purposes of the Conference, which is to develop a national information agenda. In doing so, it will look at the core values of ALIA as the key professional body, explore the range of professional issues that have been expressed by librarians through the public Issues Forum over the past few months, examine various factors surrounding the development of an information agenda and finally, speculate on the key themes that might arise out of the conference presentations of potential relevance to the formation of a national information agenda.
The actual conference presentation will build on this analysis and be much more focussed on identifying strategic options for consideration by ALIA in the development of a national information agenda.
Given the recent announcement of the ALIA core values statement,(1) it seems reasonable to begin this paper by placing this statement in context for the development of any national information agenda. The statement is as follows:
'A thriving culture, economy, and democracy requires the free flow of information and ideas.'
Fundamental to that free flow of information and ideas are Australia’s library and information services. They are a legacy to each generation, conveying the knowledge of the past and the promise of the future.
Library and information services professionals therefore commit themselves to the following core values of their profession.
1. Promotion of the free flow of information and ideas through open access to recorded knowledge, information and creative works.
We assert that this access across time and across cultures is fundamental to a thriving culture, economy and democracy.
2.Connection of people to ideas.
We guide, inform and educate the seeker in defining and refining the search, and foster intellectual freedom and all forms of communication.
3.Commitment to literacy, information literacy and learning.
We enable independent and formal lifelong learning by providing resources and expertise to meet the needs of learners, and of the human spirit.
4.Respect for the diversity and individuality of all people.
We accept each request without bias and in confidence, and strive to meet it with all our resources and expertise.
5.Preservation of the human record
We seek to preserve the cultural memory, knowledge and evolved wisdom of humankind, to explain the past, illuminate the present and inform the future.
6. Excellence in professional service to our communities.
We strive for integrity, competence, personal growth, and service to our profession and to our communities.
7. Partnerships to advance these values.
We advocate cooperation between all library and information services, and with related agencies, for the private and public good.'
In the most recent issue of inCite(2) , Alan Bundy reflects on the rationale and importance of the statement of core values. He says:
'It is perhaps a sign of the times that there is an increasing interest in just what are the core values which underpin corporate, governmental and professional sectors in society, and that it is incumbent on all of them to be able to convey unequivocally and concisely why, in societal terms, they exist. It is particularly important that a profession can readily convey what it professes.'
He goes on to say the advantages of a single statement are:
The utilitarian value of having such a statement to assist in attracting new members and in acting as a catalyst for stimulating professional reflection is abundantly clear and needs little further exploration.
The use of such a statement to explain in societal terms why the professional organisation exists, why the values are important to society and why society should provide more resources to support the goals and objectives underpinning the core values, is a much more complex matter. As Alan Bundy observed:
'The challenge with goals is their achievement. The challenge with values, of course, is how to live up to them.'
The historical reality is that society has a fuzzy, and probably limited, perception of what librarians stand for and do, and financial support for what they (librarians) do has waxed-and-waned according to changes in the political, social and economic climate.
John Levett is correct, as pointed out by Alan Bundy(2), in his assertion that:
'No other [profession] has exhibited quite the same disinterested concern for the way individual lives may be enriched, and personal empowerment enhanced by access to what is called information'.
It is not, however, a conviction readily understood by key stakeholders in our society. The challenge is to add value to the concept of partnerships, through a much more convincing demonstration of how the values can be translated into actions which are both recognised and appreciated by the communities to which they are directed.
The library profession has no natural monopoly on most of the core values they espouse and the challenge is to find ways of adding value to society on terms that society understands and will support in political and economic terms. This is the key to the development of information agendas and it is fraught with danger because the battle needs to be fought primarily around the needs and perceptions of the recipients, which in 'real-life' are often far-removed from the professional emphasis, as conveyed by librarians.
It is not just a matter of better marketing of our values and services (although this may have a place) but rather a matter of seriously engaging our communities in ways where they perceive real value in what we have to offer.
In thinking about how to engage with our respective communities, it is important to distinguish between internal professional issues, which need attention in building 'a state of readiness', and issues which require negotiation and agreement by our user constituencies and by funding agencies. Such a distinction is important to avoid misunderstanding, and perhaps disappointment, with the purpose and potential outcomes of this Conference.
There has been a most spirited engagement on the conference public issues forum and many interesting issues have been canvassed. Most of the issues, however, seem to be matters for internal debate within the profession in order to be in a stronger position to engage meaningfully with our communities. For example, industrial issues, professional image, performance measures and metadata are all important to the professional membership, but they are unlikely to be the 'shop-front' for a national information agenda. Such issues are not the natural point of engagement in furthering the goals and objectives inherent in the core value statement, although there will be times where they require political advocacy, particularly in the industrial relations area.
An important outcome of the conference will be to collect and analyse the wide range of issues raised by members and to develop mechanisms within ALIA to address these issues. Some assessment will be necessary also, the impact of these issues on the 'state-of-readiness' to deliver the strategies encompassed in any national information agenda.
In preparing for this Conference, the organisers readily acknowledge that there is no consensus on either the concept of an information agenda or on the purpose of such a policy document. There is agreement however, to the proposition that any such policy statement would need to look beyond the sometimes parochial professional concerns, in a manner that will seriously engage funding agencies and engage leaders capable of influencing their particular communities.
In seeking such engagement, it is perhaps useful to explore the various factors impinging on the preparation of high level strategic planning statements. History shows that there is almost always a tension between those who believe such statements should be couched in lofty rhetoric reflecting the core values of the professional organisation, in this case ALIA, and those who believe that a healthy pragmatism is necessary based on 'issues-of-the-day' and based on the 'language' of current political ideologies. There are a number of reasons why the former approach has to be modified, if it is to be effective. The primary reason being that Australia (and the UK) share a common dislike for the lofty rhetoric that has become the hall-mark of many policy statements in the US. There have been repeated attempts in the UK to develop a national information policy and all have failed, because they failed to engage the politicians of the key communities, who might have been reasonably expected to support them.
In the Australian context, the current political climate encourages a more pragmatic approach where value propositions have to be clearly defined. Social passion does not appear to be a political winner and as Hugh McKay(3) has noted, Australian society is going through a period of disengagement from the so-called'big social issues' and this needs to be taken into account in any strategic assessment. In other words, it is unlikely that a full-blown social vision with significant resource requirements would have widespread appeal to governments, or to the populace at large.
The more pragmatic approach is not, however, without its pitfalls. Choosing the political mainstream agendas on which to 'slip-stream' the strategic framework is no easy matter, given that such political agendas can change fairly rapidly. Adopting the language of the prevailing political climate is also problematic. For example the current preoccupation with the knowledge economy seems a natural starting point for developing a national information agenda. There are however, inherent tensions between the economic imperatives driving the rationale for the knowledge economy and the democratic rights to have access to the freeflow of information.
It is inevitable however, that a politically astute strategy be adopted and that the debate be carried out on society's prevailing terms, rather than any predetermined professional viewpoint. History shows that a string of fairly recent vision papers such as the 2020 Vision: Towards the Libraries of the Future(4) and the Investment in Information and Knowledge Infrastructure: a Strategic Framework for Australia's Research Enterprise(5) have not been able to translate the vision into practice. Many vision documents are admirable in their own right, but they fall on predominantly'deaf ears' at the time of publication. This suggests that timing is an important critical success factor, which needs to be taken into account in the current exercise.
The recent Peak Bodies Forum(6), confirmed that:
'There is a tradition of voluntary cooperation in the library sector and now there is a need to extend new partnerships and enhances in an environment where the traditional barriers between sectors and institutions is breaking down.'
In making this assertion, the following observations were noted:
All these factors need to be taken into account in developing a national information agenda.
Having read the brief summaries provided by the speakers for the Conference, as well as a few of the papers already available, a number of themes emerge which are likely to develop further during the conference. These themes can be summarised as follows:
1. Collaboration
The term collaboration is used in a range of contexts, both by librarians and by speakers. The potential sharing of ideas, information resources, professional expertise, reference services and technical infrastructure are all part of the collaborative theme. There are dangers in seeing increased collaboration as a panacea for better information infrastructure. Librarians have been committed to the concept of collaboration for many decades with very mixed results.
2. Rebuilding communities
There is some penetrating analysis from Hugh McKay and others about the sense of loss of community, both in urban and rural communities, over recent years. The prospect of building virtual communities based on the Internet, together with the use of libraries as a physical manifestation of the rebirth of communities, are twin planks that are bound to receive some attention, because they satisfy political, economic and social factors.
3. Research and innovation
There has been widespread upport over the past two years linking research and innovation to the successful building of a knowledge economy. Several strands are woven into this theme. The concentration of research expertise to be competitive in the global community, the linking of researchers in universities to industry; reliable access to global information resources etc. The case for strengthening the information infrastructure for research was compiled by McLean(5) on behalf of the Coalition for Innovation in Scholarly Communication (CISC) in 1999 and many of the points raised in that paper will be pursued by Malcolm Gillies and others during the conference.
4. Providing access to Australia’s research output and cultural heritage.
Access and preservation issues relating to Australia's research output and its cultural heritage are bound to be high on the discussion list and are likely to be central to any plan for national action.
5. Information literacy
Information literacy is a matter close to the heart of many librarians and is likely to arise directly, and indirectly, during the Conference. It remains problematic because many of the constituencies represented by the speakers would not necessarily recognise the language wrapped around this problem by librarians and some would not accept that it is the province of librarians to solve this matter of generic skills. Addressing the issue in terms of any national action requires a strong sense of ownership across many stakeholders and a willingness to seek practical realisable solutions.
6. The knowledge economy
The term 'knowledge economy' is now used as a point of reference for a wide range of strategic initiatives within the public and private sectors. It has developed a language of its own which is primarily driven by economic imperatives but sits comfortably with much of the literature on knowledge management and the concept of a learning organisation. Librarians need to be wary in terms of how they position themselves in this knowledge economy syndrome, because many leaders in the field do not even think of the role of librarians as information providers when referring for example to best practice knowledge management. Engaging meaningfully in these areas presents a major professional challenge in terms of the language and tone of any national information agenda initiatives.
7. E-Learning networks
The education and training sectors are now seriously engaged in the development of collaborative e-learning networks, which may span national or international boundaries. The 'folding' of information networks into these emerging e-learning networks is only beginning to receive attention. It presents a major opportunity for partnerships with the education communities, but there is much work to be done in making such a partnership a reality.
8. Developing value propositions
It has proved notoriously difficult over the years to articulate the value of information to the public or to specific communities. It has proved even harder to convince relevant stakeholders and funding agencies of its worth. Almost universally, information provision is regarded as a cost and not an investment offering tangible returns. Much work has been devoted to this matter in the corporate sectors in the US and Europe in terms of developing methodologies and performance measures indicating the links between information provision and productivity. It has not prevented, however, the elimination of information services during the periodic recessions that have occurred over the past two decades.
Given that the need for additional resources is one of the driving forces behind the concept of a national information agenda, the development of value propositions needs to be handled with great care.
9. Access to global scholarly information
Over the past few years there has been a constant preoccupation with Australia’s increasing vulnerability in terms of ability to purchase the global network of scholarly information. CISC, the Academies and the universities have devoted considerable time to this problem over the past year, but to little effect. Australia has failed to follow the lead of countries such as the UK, Canada and many Asian countries in collaborative national purchase of these expensive electronic information resources and the reasons for failure in these initiatives in Australia deserves close analysis.
This list is not meant to be exhaustive and, no doubt, other themes will emerge as the Conference proceeds.
The underlying assumption for this Conference is that we need to engage with our various user communities on their terms in developing information agendas. There appears to be at least three potential ways of achieving such engagement, none of which are mutually exclusive. These are:
1. To create a new and powerful vision of how a mixture of electronic access and physical provision can enrich a wide range of communities leveraging off common technical infrastructure, shared information provision and shared access to information expertise. The UK, Canada and New Zealand are moving towards such a vision and the means by which they approach such a task deserves close scrutiny.
2. To identify two key issues relevant to each of the four sectors represented at the Conference which could act as a catalyst for further engagement and for the development of a joint strategic directions framework. This may prove to be a more productive process, and could help guard against the prospect of a 'deaf-ears' response to information policy initiatives.
3. To prepare a range of so-called value propositions which would highlight the opportunities for partnership and provide a firm basis for further dialogue with each sector. This is a much more pragmatic approach but it may be helpful in helping our respective communities understand both the nature of our services and the rhetoric that underpins our professional exchanges.
It is essential that mechanisms be found to carry forward the ideas arising out of the Conference and to find ways of presenting a coherent program of action. This is no easy task. It needs to be acknowledged at the outset, that there are no 'quick-fixes' in developing such ambitious agendas. Almost certainly changes in 'mindsets' will be necessary within the library and information profession and the task of engaging our partners on their terms is likely to be a long drawn-out process.
The Program Committee for the conference recognised in the initial planning stage the nature and complexities of the challenges arising out of this Conference and is committed to further work in terms of summarising outcomes.
The ALIA Board of Directors obviously has a major commitment to taking forward the issues and provides therefore a primary focal point for bridging the gap between the profession and the targeted communities.
It will be important also, to take advantage of the Issues Forum which was set up for this conference as a means of soliciting feedback to the proposed action programs and of gaining widespread commitment to the outcomes.
In addition, the various peak bodies within the library and information profession need to be actively engaged, both in terms of realigning their own particular policy agendas and as an important source of advocacy.
Most importantly of all, will be the formulation of joint programs of action in collaboration with the peak bodies representing the various user communities. This will require a great deal of energy and determination from leaders within the library and information profession and ALIA, as the professional body, needs to be mindful of how to achieve this goal.
This brief analysis of the dynamics underlying the desire to reposition our national information strategies demonstrates that no magic solution is likely to emerge as a result of this Conference at Darling Harbour.
There is however, a wonderful opportunity to listen carefully to leaders in our respective communities and to begin the task of rethinking both the rhetoric and the direction of our national planning initiatives.
No amount of strategic planning will succeed, however, without a renewed commitment with the library and information profession to be bold, innovative and determined in shaping a new vision for information provision in Australia.
1. See inCite, vol 23, May 2002.
2. Bundy, Alan inCite, vol 23, May 2002.
3. Mackay, Hugh. Australia at a turning point. Australia Library and Information Association Conference, May 2002.
4. 2020 Vision: Towards the libraries of the future. Libraries Working Group of the Cultural Ministers Council. Commonwealth of Australia, 1996.
5. McLean, Neil Investment in information and knowledge infrastructure, a strategic framework for Australia's research enterprise. Macquarie University, April 1999.
6. For a summary of the Peak Bodies Forum, see inCite, vol 23, May 2002.