What’s in a name? Shakespeare’s Juliet wondered about this in Act II, Scene II of Romeo and Juliet. She says, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet.” The library and information profession has struggled with job titles for years. Should we be called “librarians,” “information professionals,” or something else? In some settings, the word “librarian” is unquestionably appropriate. Take children’s librarians, for example. Wouldn’t “children’s information professional” sound odd? What would the kids think?

In other settings, the job title of librarian implies being in a particular place, the library. The profession has long been defined by a building, unlike other professions. The trend toward being embedded in the fabric of the employing organization undercuts the tethering of job to building. The expansion of job duties beyond those performed in a library likewise cuts the cord between job and place.

As job titles change and job functions evolve, what does this say about our loyalty to library associations? Should the names of associations reflect the shift from being known as librarian to being called information professionals? Or are there enough members who feel strongly about the “L” word to resist a change in nomenclature? In most countries, the national association is known as the Country/Name Library Association or Library Association of Country/Name. Two add the word “Information”: Australia (Australian Library and Information Association) and South Africa (Library and Information Association of South Africa). The U.K. is an outlier. Its national association is the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). Formed in 2002 by a merger of the Library Association and the Institute of Information Scientists, this move was not without some rancor, for, at the time, several devotees of the two original associations refused to join CILIP. More recently, CILIP adopted the tag line “The library and information association,” just in case no one outside of CILIP realized what it was.

The American Association of Law Librarians (AALL) floated the idea of a name change in 2015. The proposed new name was Association for Legal Information. The membership resoundingly rejected the idea. With 59.51% of the membership voting (a very high turnout), 80.11% voted “No.”

An international organization, the Special Libraries Association (SLA) tried twice in the past to change its name. In 2003, the membership (actually, a very small percentage of the membership since the vote required members’ physical presence) voted in favor of changing the name from Special Libraries Association to Information Professionals International (656 were for the change; 343 against). The voting, however, was a two-step process, with a second vote required to change the association’s bylaws. The total number of votes for the second round did not meet the necessary majority. Hence, the bylaws were not changed, and the name change did not happen. It was a bizarre, Byzantine procedure that essentially pleased no one.

SLA tried again in 2009. This time the proposed new name was Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals (ASKPro). It was put to a vote of the entire membership, thus avoiding the 2003 fiasco. Despite that precaution, ASKPro was a no go, and members hoped that was the end of it.

Never say never. This year, as part of its overall reorganization campaign, new names are being considered once more. During the Leadership Symposium, held in January 2020, one slide boldly proclaimed that SLA would have a new name in 2020. Four choices were listed on the slide:

• The Information Association
• Information Professionals Community (IPC)
• International Association of Librarians and Information Professionals
• Information Professionals International (IPI)

Note that only the third one contains the L word. Possible tag lines to follow the new name were as follows:

• The global association connecting specialist librarians, information professionals, data specialists, and researchers
• Bridging Disciplines, Building Communities
• The professional home for information professionals and their strategic partners. Our members manage, create, analyze, and solve problems with information for organizations and their stakeholders.

 Again, only one has the L word, and the concept of special or specialization is largely lost.

Commonalities can be found about association name changes. Association members don’t like top-down decisions. They are amenable to name changes but routinely dislike the names their executive boards approve. They want a say before it comes to a vote. But is this practical? Can an association truly deal with names submitted by thousands of its members? Does membership drop when name changes are proposed and subsequently defeated? Does the very idea of changing an association’s name decrease member loyalty?

In a pitched battle between those who identify as librarians and those who don’t, the loser is the association. If a name connotes value, but current and potential members don’t see their value reflected in the name, they will not renew or sign up as a new member. Conflict happens when one group sees disrespect for the noble profession of librarianship, while another view is that the L word connotes old-fashioned, stuck-in-the-past, Luddite tendencies. Battle lines are drawn. Acrimony occurs. Fissures within associations grow. Loyalty is eroded, as is trust. Members complain their boards are not sufficiently transparent.

The financial picture, certainly for both ALA and SLA, is dire. Both face significant shortfalls. SLA’s reorganization effort seeks to alleviate its fiscal pain by consolidating unit bank accounts into one account held at headquarters. ALA admits to “unplanned deficits” and overspending. It reported a $2 million shortfall. Its governing body of librarians was taken by surprise at the amount of the overspending.

The fiscal dilemma is an indication that all is not well with library associations. Associations in general, not only those for librarians, face declining membership. This translates to decreased resources. The essence of the value proposition for associations is not what it was. Networking? There’s social media. Continuing education? MOOCs. Conferences? Webinars. Publishing? OA. For library associations, turf wars between traditionalists and non-traditionalists are creating a no-win situation.

Roses are red, Violets are blue.
I’m a librarian, How about you?

Roses are red, Violets are blue.
Info pros rock, Why don’t you?