Yes, let’s try that!

First, in following up All of a Twitter, let’s clear up a misunderstanding. That “simple answer” paragraph (“If it happens in a CILIP-sanctioned space, it’s official; if it happens down the pub or in someone else’s space, it isn’t.”) was intended to provoke debate, not to dismiss the value of social media. As the rest of my blog post tried to make clear, I was seeking to open up discussion about an issue which is anything but simple - and which is, clearly, fundamental to our professional future.

I went on to make an observation (that there’s a widening gap between the culture of the institution and the culture of the network) and ask a question: How can we best combine the authority of our Institute and the democracy of our network? That word “our” also got misunderstood: I meant it in the sense of “belonging to all of us” not in the sense of “owned by CILIP.”

Phil’s response, on his blog (that's Phil Bradley at http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/ ), agreed with me about the widening gap, and offered a clear answer to my question: move beyond “CILIP-sanctioned” spaces to engage with those shared networks where the real conversations are taking place - http://philbradley.typepad.com/phil_bradleys_weblog/2009/02/cilip---epic-fail.html . Phil’s more recent “shopping list” for CILIP offers a number of helpful suggestions: go where the conversations are (on Twitter, Facebook, or wherever), open up CILIP blogs for comment, explore web tools and resources, and speak up for the value of a liberating (“Yes, let’s try that!”) not a repressive (“No, you can’t do that.”) approach to engagement with social media - http://philbradley.typepad.com/phil_bradleys_weblog/2009/03/go-to-where-the-conversations-are.html . All the subsequent comments, on my blog and on Phil’s, indicate that you’d all agree with Phil’s proposals. Indeed, I really like the suggestion of an open forum using Web2 so that we can all contribute to a collectively generated wish list.

So – Yes, let’s try that! I’ll talk with colleagues at Ridgmount  Street and with the CILIP Trustees (all of whom are already actively engaged with this discussion) and we’ll see what we can do to move CILIP in the direction signposted by Phil and others. There will be challenges, of course, and important issues to address (around branding and resourcing for example), but we'll do our best to get moving.

A number of the comments posted have moved from issues around social media to issues around the future for CILIP and our profession. So let me return to my comment that CILIP (like many organisations) is conflicted between authority and community – or (to put it in a way which chimes more with this discussion) between systems and conversations. This is also where my other comment (about social networking changing the dynamic of institutionalised professionalism) comes in – a comment which perhaps helps to explain why there’s so much emotionality (to put it politely) in some of the comments posted (particularly on Phil’s blog) after the initial response from Phil.

Why all the emotion? You’re “angry” with CILIP, “ashamed” of CILIP, “embarrassed” by CILIP, “disillusioned” with CILIP. And, as for me, well I’m a disgrace: arrogant, autocratic, patronising. Some of that emotionality is based on misunderstanding my (and CILIP’s) point of view. But some of it is based on a sense of frustration and irritation with CILIP which those of us who have current responsibility for the stewardship of CILIP need to understand and address. People get passionate about their profession (and that’s a good thing) and so they get emotional when they feel let down by their professional body – and there’s no bigger let-down for a profession which has its roots in opening access to information than a professional body (or its CEO ) appearing to value authority and control more than democracy and unfettered conversation.

So let me try to explain my thinking – and show why I think the discussion about using social media is also a discussion about the future for professionalism.

We can’t simply (as some comments have suggested) ignore the issue of authority. After all, we’re a profession which prides itself on authenticating information as well as providing access to information – “authority control” is a skill we practice. And any profession worthy of the name has to have systems in place to authenticate and accredit professional practice. The problem (and that sense of frustration and irritation) arises when an organisation’s systems and a community’s conversations get out of kilter with each other – when the gap appears to widen between the organisation and the community, between the institute and the network,  between “us” and “them”.

As an organisation, CILIP needs systems. Looking inward, we need systems of governance and management. Looking outward, we need systems of consultation, representation, regulation. These are the “official channels” of CILIP – the systems which enable us to do our job as a professional body. These systems have, of necessity, characteristics linked to concepts like “authority” and “control.”

As a community, the people who inhabit CILIP (and the wider library and information community) need conversations. Some of these conversations take place in “CILIP-sanctioned” spaces (Branches, Groups, CILIP Communities, meetings at Ridgmount Street), some take place in shared spaces elsewhere: Twitter or Facebook or Phil’s blog or the Tipperary Inn, Mere End, Warwickshire where I spend a convivial evening most Tuesdays. These are the “semi-official” (Branches, Groups, etc) and “unofficial” spaces and conversations  which are part of the context for all organisations – surrounding the organisation, permeating the organisation, interacting with the organisation so that - ultimately - the institute (back to Charles Handy) becomes the network.

As our profession (or at least the KM end of it) knows better than most, these semi-official and unofficial conversations can be chock-full of valuable knowledge and intelligence about what’s going on around us: for CILIP and our professional community,  they're full of good stuff about what’s going on in the real world of leading-edge professional thinking and practice.  So there has to be – for our profession in particular but also for all organisations in general – a process of interaction between official systems and unofficial conversations.

This is where the future of professionalism comes in.  As a Local Authority Chief Executive writes in the current issue of Public library journal, if professionalism means the opposite of amateurism, then great; but if it means protectionism, then forget it. Charles Leadbeater has written an excellent piece on professionalism (“Production by the masses: professionalism and post industrial public services” in Production values; futures for professionalism, Demos, 2006) which differentiates between a traditional “industrial” model – all about status, power, control, and dependency – and a “post industrial” approach which is about service and sharing and co-production.  Leadbeater draws on the work of Ivan Illich (always a good thing) noting how the traditional dominant protectionist/elitist model of professions developed through “the institutionalisation of their knowledge and power into systems” and contrasting this with the concept of “post industrial convivial institutions” which “would work through conversation rather than instruction.”   I like this analysis which chimes very well with the blog discussion we’re having – which is, fundamentally, about shifting the balance in the way our professional community organises itself, between institutionalised systems and convivial conversations. And (as the Tuesday night regulars at the Tipperary would testify) I’m all for conviviality! Arguably, it’s the input from those convivial conversations which breathes new life and vigour into systems and organisations which would otherwise become ossified and institutionalised and (as many professions are perceived to be) elitist and protectionist.

Writing by commentators like Leadbeater (We-think: the power of mass creativity) and research by agencies like the Oxford Internet Institute (www.oii.ox.ac.uk ) demonstrates how social and political dynamics are being transformed by engagement with social media. The same is true for communities of professional practice – in their internal interactions as well as the interactions with their clients/users/customers. So professional bodies, like CILIP, have to respond to the new dynamics, not only by engaging with social media but also by finding ways to foster interaction between the unofficial and convivial conversations of social media and the formal systems which make up the “official channels”. If our vision for CILIP is an inclusive and democratic and vigorous community of professional practice (and it is) then we need to rethink the balance between our institutionalised systems (recognising their centrality to our purpose) and our convivial conversations, recognising their importance to our vitality.

Now you might think I’m making heavy weather of all this when you’d rather CILIP just got its finger out and got on with putting Phil’s wish list into practice. But, for me in my CEO role, the stewardship of CILIP and the future for professionalism are vital considerations - and a number of your comments illustrate the challenge we have as a profession to stake out our ground and define our future.  What this discussion on my blog and Phil’s blog has shown me is that engaging with social media is actually about rethinking the way we do professionalism – and therefore core business for CILIP’s future and the future for our profession.

Engaging with social media in the ways suggested by Phil and other commentators will help CILIP continue on the journey away from the traditional elitist/protectionist form of professionalism and towards a modernised (collaborative, conversational, convivial) professionalism fit for purpose in the modern world. A collaborative CILIP built around conversation not instruction - modelling a collaborative professionalism which redefines our role and value for the information age -  Yes, let’s try that!