Keep the name the same!

I agree.  Even in a "special" environment, "librarian" and "library" resound with users more than any of the other terms suggested.  People already know that they can get help in a library, or from a librarian, and that that's the place to go.  Some of the "center" names that started cropping up in the '70s are starting to sound dated, but a name with "library" in it sounds solid, dependable, and useful.

And for those of us who don't have physical libraries?

Even without a library, a librarian is someone who will help you.  Something like "researcher" or "information resource technologist" or whatever is only good as job title, within a particular environment.  As the title of a profession, you need something more overarching, that covers everyone who does that kind of work, no matter where or how.

I contract for a federal agency, and they're hoping eventually to allow employees to live anywhere in the continental US.  What I'm hoping for is a virtual interface, similar to Second Life, where there's a library for them to come to no matter where they live.  I could work in it from wherever, too, and be the same helpful person I am now on the phone or in person.  But whether physically or virtually, I'm always a librarian!

I don't know where to put this comment, so I'll put it here.

 I wonder if we will pick a name that in 10 years will make people wonder who belongs to the Association?  Consider the move from library science programs to information schools.  I like the information school movement, but whenever I talk about my iSchool, I have to explain what it teaches.  Will we select an association name that will have to be explained?  "uh...you know...librarians."  

BTW I have one of those job titles that is among the 2000 that SLA members are using.  In fact, I don't think I've ever had the title "librarian". But what field/area of study do I align myself with?  Library science.  Yes, I'm part of the "information industry" as are hardware and software engineers, programmers & analysts, etc.  Could they describe themselves as "information professionals"?  Could that person in marketing who runs reports be an "information professional"?  Seems like the word "information" could also be problematic or so flexible that we can make it whatever we want.  (I'm an information consultant and no one ever knows what that means!)

Yes, I'm griping and not offering up a solution.  One interesting name (already in use) is "Association of International Librarians and Information Specialists".  The "L" word helps people understand the realm of the "I" word.   Perhaps we should merge with them and take over their name?!  (joking...)

Jill, I really like your definition of the "information industry" as including hardware and software engineers, programmers & analysts. I would add librarians, information professionals, knowledge managers, research associates, marketing engineers, etc..  All of these people deal with information and I would bet that few with these titles would currently see themselves as a member of SLA.  But we could benefit from their participation in our organization and they would benefit by being aligned with this large diverse group of people who are brought together because of their common affiliation with information.  I see with a new name we could attract a larger population who would see themselves as providing value added information services.  We would still retain those who want to call themselves librarians or information professionals but we would be appealing to a much wider audience.  I keep saying that if you are a person who wants to be called a librarian, that is great.  It is a wonderful and well-respected profession.  What we hope to accomplish with the alignment and the name change is more accurately describing what members of our association do and the services we provide and the research that we have done shows that our name does not describe the broad range of services and value that we provide.

I find myself struggling heavily with this one (as I'm sure many others are).  Gloria, I can see your point in wanting the name of the organization to better indicate the value that its members provide and I can also see Jill's point about how amorphous the term information professional is.  Caryn, also, has some excellent points on the instant recognition of the terms library and librarian (whether they are thought of as dated or dusty as indicated in the consultant's report) have.  I agree that whatever the name is changed (if that happens) to, that the library profession and, indeed, libraries in whatever form will continue to exist.  After all, attorneys still exist and their major organization is the American Bar Association while for physicians it's the American Medical Association (at least in the US).  My concerns with the name change are 1) that it seems far easier for most people I encounter to understand what a library or librarian is than a information or knowledge professional; 2) We risk diluting the organization's identity so much that it begins to stand for nothing.  After all, Lawyers and Doctors have a common set of ethics and practices, and so do librarians (to a major extent).  Do information or knowledge professionals? How do we define the boundaries? Do we gain the world and lose ourselves?

We had the same problem the last time the name change came up and we ended up not changing it, although SLA decided to essentially call itself "SLA" and doesn't seem to show the Special Libraries Association name much.  Regardless, I have no problem adding "Information Professional", "Researcher" (although that's what my professors here do and they would probably be offended by that), "Knowledge Professional" or whatever to our name.  But they should be ADDED, not removing the librarians.  Putting the current buzzword of the day together with Librarian does explain our organization much better than "Information Whatever" or "Knowledge Whatever" without the name librarian in it.

I always favor something that is clear and understandable to our users. The simpler the better. If there is NO good reason to change the name of SLA, then why do so ?  If everyone votes that we must change it, then keep the acronym the same:  Special (or Specialist) Librarians Association, or something like that. This movement to 'rename' or 'rebrand' everything is a bunch of nonsense. As others have stated, it only serves to confuse users and then requires us to explain, or to define exactly what in the heck the name means! The library I work at changed its name a few years back and we still get questions about it because the name still doesn't reflect the collection OR our services. If we are 'librarians' then that should be in the name of the Association. We cannot include every permutation of every job title that is floating around out there. In 10 years the name could be obsolete.

I appreciate these comments and this discussion because it forces me to go back and look at our history as well as the more recent alignment research in order to take part in these conversations in a meaningful and informed way.  The alignment project is very much about language and how we describe what we do as information professionals; how we add value to the products we supply; how we make it possible for our companies and employers to make informed decisions.  If one of the first battles we have to fight each time is explaining our name then that is a problem.  I will state again that there is no problem and nothing standing in your way if you want to call yourself a librarian.  Libraries in some form will continue to exist, although probably not to a great extent in corporate America.  We are seeing a greater trend among our SLA colleagues to our members being embedded within their organizations.  But we are all doing similar work in providing validated information services.  And there are other professionals, not calling themselves "librarians" that are too providing information services in a broad definition of that word.  What we are seeking with the alignment project and a possible name change is to create a big tent association where we will all benefit by the diversity. 

Alison refers to our last attempt in 2003 to change our name.  I will point out that we did vote to change the name, we just did not necessarily like the alternative, and the vote was complicated.  So at that time 6 years ago we knew, even without all the research we currently have from the alignment project, we knew that our name was not working for us.  Sharon states, "If there is NO good reason to change the name of SLA then why do wo?"  If you read the alignment research you will see that there IS a good reason to change the name.  "Special libraries" rates low in all of the research in understanding and in portraying a vibrant valuable company resource.  The name is limiting.  We will be a stronger association because of the alignment research that gives us the tools to describe our value and we will be a stronger association with a name that reflects our value.

I'm not sure those in non-corporate environments understand what a big obstacle our name is to those outside the profession (or outside academic or govt environments).  My immediate bosses did not support my attending the SLA conference because, among other things, "you're not a librarian."  I've had intelligent people say to me when I described my job as "librarian":  "I guess they need someone to maintain the collection," as if I guarded books for a living---when in fact my job is 90% research.  We all know this is the work of a reference librarian (I'm an "embedded" one in our lingo), but although you can argue to execs that they're short-sighted and should get past the name to understand the value of the association and its programs, the fact is, execs do not have to do this.  And as the alignment research supports, they do not.  As Sharon says above, "I always favor something that is clear and understandable to our users."  My users do not understand SLA, and it would be great to choose a name that they could relate to.  That doesn't mean you can't call yourself a librarian, or whatever you choose.  But the name of the association is limiting, as Gloria says.

Some have mentioned that the name change will confuse people about who we are and what we do. I thought the research showed the opposite - our customers, whether they be in a corporate, government or other 'specialized' setting, are ALREADY confused about who we are and what we do. There may be a name recognition to the term 'librarian' but how often is that followed up with longing reminisces of their time spent in the local public library as a kid! I don't want to be associated with memories of children's reading time if my library is focused on providing post-graduate information resources to an extremely busy clientele. That would be damaging when it comes time to justify the continued existence of space, staff or budgets.

We are professionals and have a profession - I don't recall anyone in SLA saying that any of us needed to change OUR job titles to match the new name of SLA (whatever it ends up being). My view is that librarians and other 'traditional' names will continue to be welcome and an important part of SLA. The name change discussion is a realization that our association is ALREADY bigger than those traditional titles and traditional stereotypes. I don't have a specific name to suggest but hope that others like the research organization can come up with something that is descriptive of us without alienating our existing members.

Rather than continuing to stick with dated terms like 'acquisitions' and 'reference', why not explain to our customers and stakeholders in terms they understand, like 'purchasing' and 'research' (which was also in the Alignment presentations). I wonder if being called an 'information researcher' would bring more professional credence to the employee rather than being called a 'librarian' in a post-graduate setting? This, I think, is why the association needs to explore a name change.

Isn't one of the big issues underlying this discussion the fact that librarians don't get the respect they deserve for the valuable contributions they make to their organizations? By respect, I'm including issues of pay, budget threats, professional development, space issues, and training. If our specialized libraries are viewed in the traditional sense of a public library for a corporation, it will not be visited nor supported. Financial pressures force tough decisions from management and given the choice of cutting what they view as an unused collection of old books/journals versus cutting the legal department, who do you think is going to get cut?

Are we doing everything we can to ensure that we're REALLY providing the value we think we are? I challenge each local situation to examine themselves with a cynical lens to make sure that their contributions are truly valued by their customer base. If the library is resting upon its proverbial laurels and providing no real value to their paying customers (paying either through charge backs or overhead costs), they'll be prime candidates for cutting. If there are valuable contributions being made and the respect still isn't there, they I'd question the marketing and communication with key stakeholders to make sure that the message is getting up in a way that makes sense to them. If we're doing a great job but no one knows it, I wouldn't be surprised when the cuts come!

We are on the wave of a foundational change in our culture, similar to when printing presses transformed the landscape from manuscripts to print. When was the last time you studied handwriting to discern the author of a card catalog card to judge its accuracy? That skill set died with MARC and online catalogs. Rather than simply embracing what has worked in the past, let's look at what our user communities NEED and determine the best way to give it to them. The future (which is already here) will most likely involve some mix of technology and human interaction, but this is the same thing that John Cotton Dana struggled with when distinguishing between public Carnegie libraries, academic libraries, and our specialized libraries. He recognized that we were different because we needed to use the latest technology in different ways and we needed to manage our collections in different ways. He also recognized that the name was temporary since a better one could not be agreed upon.

Some things change and some things remain the same.

Earl - thank you for bringing up ethics. One thing I am not seeing - unless I missed it somewhere - is how to bring SLA's ethics discussion into the Alignment Project and name change discussions. The word "ethics" is nowhere to be found in "Core Values" listed on the Alignment Portal (see "Define").  I really like how the Alignment's "Key Messages can apply to all of us regardless of where we work because this is what we do. But how we do it - ethically - seems to be missing there. Thanks.