CiG RIP
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 4:28PM I've just received an email from the City Information Group stating it has gone into insolvency - another victim of the credit crunch. Although I have not been a member for several years, I am sorry to see it go. In the past I have attended a number of their events and found them very useful.
CiG's demise has got me thinking about the role/value of such groups in the information/library world. The ease with which information professionals can now network online with like-minded colleagues perhaps undermines one of the key benefits of professional bodies. With services such as LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Ning, information professionals can network and share information with others without having to pay membership dues. I know there are frequent debates amongst CILIP members about the value of being a member. I suspect that the pressure will only increase on such bodies to demonstrate the value they offer to members in the fragmenting information landscape.
For the record, I'm a paid-up member of CILIP and the SLA.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (3)
Martin,
As a member of CILIP (and I'm on a group committee), and leading an initiative to set up 'communities' for another professional body in my work role, I was really interested in your reflections on this issue.
My experience has been that groups can be attractive as a membership benefit...as long as shifts in communication, networking and knowledge sharing are taken into consideration - and that members are involved in any resulting changes as much as possible.
We've been trying to do this, and are now offering communities in a similar way to CILIP groups, although they have a different governance structure and an online presence on a custom-built professional networking and community-based site. Although it is early days, I've seen that members get additional benefits through this site including access to experts, resources, and the facility to engage with policy consultations.
I am not trying to compete with social networking sites, but really don't think that they can promise the same level of quality of information, access to their membership body and experts, and perhaps even control over personal data.
Clare,
I agree with you that off-the-shelf networks are not always appropriate, particularly when confidentiality of content is important. CILIP Groups is a good example of a body experimenting with new technologies to help members communicate. I have to confess that I have not used CILIP Groups for a while but seem to remember that the initiative met with some enthusiasm at the beginning but lost traction in terms of active users rather quickly. Despite my agreeing with the need for confidentiality in some communities, part of the problem with CILIP Groups may have been the closed nature of the community which restricted discussion. I notice that the newly launched CILIP Communities seems to be attracting more interest from members - 11 new members on the 1st July. However, to take part in the online discussions you still need to be a member of CILIP. This may be a good idea and encourage people to join CILIP as well as allowing a larger forum for discussion amongst existing members. However, I can see an argument for opening up the online discussions to non-CILIP members to allow a wider range of views and opinions to permeate. It would also allow the search engines to index the discussions which would introduce CILIP and its mission to the wider public.
I agree. The initiative I run actually has a 'co-professional' membership category for non-members i.e. other professionals and organisations in the industry. Thus, the site members have some protection from the public eye, but have access to a much wider network.