This section considers the substantial evidence given to the review in the form of discussions in all capital cities, written submissions and discussion at the Sydney Workshop held on 18 March 1997 in relation to the needs of the profession and industry into the 21st century. The needs have been clearly articulated to the review and include both present needs and those identified by the growing emergence of the transition from an industrial to an information age.
4.1 Challenge of the Information Era
FLIN attached to its submission to the review a copy of the study, "Building Books and Bytes," published by the Benton Foundation in the United States concerning the level of public support for libraries as they confront the digital world. The report states in part that:
"This research suggests that libraries have their work cut out for them if they do not want to reside on the margins of the revolutionary new digital information marketplace. The younger generation - wedded to desktop computers - may provide a particular challenge.
But this battle is not the libraries' battle alone. At issue is the very notion of a public culture - that nexus of schools, hospitals, libraries, parks, museums, public television and radio stations, community computer networks, local public access, education, and government channels of cable television, and the growing universe of non-profit information providers on the internet. This public opinion research affirms the need for alliances among these institutions to define their relative and collective roles in an expanding marketplace of information."
The Executive Director of ALIA in a speech at the Curtin University of Technology in 1996 referred to some of the current challenges for libraries as follows:
"The library today must be able to demonstrate its relevance and cost effectiveness to whatever public or private organisation 'foots the bill.' The library is our access to the world of knowledge and is part of the world's knowledge economy. We must form partnerships with the professions around us and demonstrate that with the development of new information technologies libraries are more relevant, more essential than ever before. We must continue to protect the interests of our users from [those] who seek opportunities to erode our hard won rights of access to information. We must pursue the rights of equity of access to information of our communities. In short, we must have the capacity to think strategically, to become the information warriors of the 21st century."
In its submission, the NSW Branch Council of ALIA highlighted structural changes taking place in the library industry which in its view will necessitate a strong body to speak on behalf of library workers. The submission stated:
"The major question to be addressed in this review is the relevance of the Associations in the life of information workers now and into the future. One of the ongoing topics discussed over the last decade appears to have been retention of members and the attraction of new members ... Members of the NSW Branch Council attending the all day meeting in February participated in a facilitated discussion of the future of the profession and the need for representation by one or more organisations. Although the discussion was not structured according to the issues outlined for this submission, the resulting consensus of opinion derived from the discussion provided insights into where this group felt the profession would be in ten years time and how a professional body could be relevant to the individuals working in the industry and to the organisations providing the services required."
While the review received a large number of oral and written representations that the existing organisational structures suffer from a number of weaknesses, it is apparent that these weaknesses will undoubtedly grow in importance and become more apparent with the growth of the information age. These challenges are clearly recognised by leaders in the profession and industry and this review is about both existing and future needs of the library sector.
4.2 Existing Concerns
The review received a large number of representations across Australia demonstrating an enormous amount of goodwill towards improving library representation. The library sector believes that there is considerable room for improvement in relation to existing representation and coordination by ACLIS and ALIA. These representations were made to the review at each of the meetings held in capital cities and in a large number of written submissions made to the review. Concern about library representation falls into a number of categories which are set out in detail below.
Concerns about library representation outlined in this section need to be seen in the context of the overall performance of ALIA and ACLIS. As the review was specifically directed to the issues of library coordination and representation there is a danger that weaknesses in this area will be seen as overall concerns of the organisations. This is not the case. For its part ALIA is an effective advocate in relation to professional standards and development, publishing and industrial relations, and ACLIS, given its limited resources, has achieved a high reputation for its work in the copyright field. Accordingly, the concerns identified in this section represent constructive criticism in order that the library and information sector may build on its success by improving its representational and coordinating capacity.
Too Many Library Bodies
Concern was expressed that the existence of large number of bodies representing various interests in the library sector creates several problems. The first is that the existence of a large number of bodies places financial strains on the ability of organisations to be members of a number of bodies for particular needs and interests. At present, due to significant structural changes taking place in the Australian economy, there appear to be significant financial constraints upon both public and private bodies in maintaining a large number of subscriptions to representative industry bodies. For example, a typical comment made to the review is set out in the submission by the Victoria University of Technology as follows:
"Until recently we were members of CAVAL (the regional library cooperative), ACLIS, CAUL, VATIL (Victoria TAFE College Librarians), VALA, AIMA, and ALIA. We were also members of other bodies such as the State Film Authority for the purpose of borrowing. We would have liked to have been a member of other bodies such as ASET and CAUSE.
We have recently reviewed our memberships because of cost and have retained only CAVAL (because it gives us access to reciprocal borrowing for our members) and CAUL, because of its major relevance to our activities. We have dropped our ACLIS membership and have only an ILL voucher membership to ALIA."
The Queensland University of Technology Library also expressed concern that:
"Whatever the outcome of the present review, QUT Library does not believe that it will be able to continue its current level of participation in, and financial contribution to, a plethora of library organisations."
The second problem that arises from a large number of representative bodies concerns the reality that it is not different people representing the interests of each organisation but that it is essentially the same people who act on behalf of ACLIS and ALIA on many occasions. According to the Victorian State Committee of ACLIS:
"This represents a duplication and waste of effort and it puts too much pressure on voluntary office bearers. One association would also mean (hopefully) less executive-type meetings for the group of members who are active in both existing associations."
The South Australian Branch of ALIA expressed a similar view when it stated:
"The situation where there is both an ACLIS and ALIA branch in a small state has led to wasteful duplication of effort with the same people tending to be active in both organisations, time has been spent in co-ordination that would be better spent in achieving outcomes for the library sector as a whole."
The Riverina Regional Group of ALIA questioned whether Australia could continue to sustain ACLIS and ALIA when it stated:
"The continuation of two bodies ACLIS and ALIA seems, in such a small nation with such a small number of members, improbable. The same people with limited time and resources often represent both organisations. If just one body existed it would be more cost effective and make best use of our most valuable commodity, the experienced and skilled professionals. Merging ACLIS into a wing of ALIA is recommended."
Confusion About Nature of Representation
Concerns were expressed to the review that the existence of a large number of library bodies created a perception in the minds of others that the industry lacked a consolidated and united view. In this regard, John Shipp, University Librarian at the University of Wollongong states:
"Nationally, the library profession is perceived to lack consolidated lobbying and representation. Both ALIA and ACLIS have undertaken valuable work on behalf of the sector and have cooperated effectively on many occasions. The similarity of their titles, however, does cause confusion within the library sector as well as in the wider forums in which the two organisations operate. There is also some perception that the profession is divided due to the uncoordinated lobbying which occurs."
FLIN expresses similar concerns when it stated:
"The current arrangements consist of many library groups ... We make many submissions to the same organisations (such as parliamentary committees) and the complexity of library and information service organisations means coordination and consistency is difficult to achieve."
Similarly, the submission by the South Australian Branch of ALIA states:
"There is a risk that two voices may detract from the industry lobbying process, however there is little evidence of actual problems caused by this. There is, however, time lost in coordinating lobbying that would be better spent on actual lobbying. Lobbying should be the key objective of any or all organisations in the industry."
State and Regional Representation
Concern was expressed both at a number of capital city meetings and in written submissions that not only are there insufficient resources provided by ALIA and ACLIS at state and regional levels but that the existence of both organisations further fragments what resources are available. The view was expressed at meetings held in Darwin, Brisbane and Hobart that state and regional needs should be addressed in any new representational structures that may arise out of the review. At the very least, it was believed that a single organisation would at least address duplication of effort while at the best it was hoped that greater resources would be provided state and regional levels.
In her submission to the review, Sue McKnight, states:
"Too much of both ALIA's and ACLIS' activities are undertaken by unpaid office bearers who work in their own or their library's time. This results in a significant drop-out rate of members from office bearing positions as they become burnt out from trying to spread themselves too thinly."
The Victorian State Committee of ACLIS refers in its submission to the level of financial support provided by ACLIS and ALIA at state level. It refers to financial support by ALIA of approximately $5,000 paid out of national membership fees and to an equivalent amount provided to ACLIS by courtesy of the state libraries. It believes that a future organisational structure should, "Be self-funding and not rely on subsidies from the NLA or the state libraries."
In the 1996 calendar year, ALIA provided $108,000 to state, local presence and special interests groups on a per capita basis. For example, ALIA in New South Wales received approximately $20,000 and the Northern Territory received approximately $8,000. It should also be noted that these payments do not include funds raised at state and local levels.
In addition to the above payments, both ACLIS and ALIA provide extra funds for special projects at state level. The essential point made by participants to the review was that a single peak body would avoid existing duplication at state and regional levels and thereby make more efficient use of scarce financial and human resources.
Overlap
In its written submission, ACLIS states that an examination of the issues dealt with by ACLIS and ALIA over recent years reveals that while some issues are largely dealt with by one or other of the organisations, many issues appear on the agenda of both organisations. ACLIS provides the following examples to illustrate this point:
- and could be seen as largely an 'individual issue' in that the focus and delivery and service delivery is on and to the individual. But it is clearly in the best interests of libraries as organisations to have the best qualified staff who are across new and emerging issues;
- the operation of an efficient inter-lending and document delivery system is of critical importance for Australia's libraries and is generally recognised as an 'institutional' issue. ACLIS has invested considerable resources in the maintenance of a uniform code of practice, a standard request form, and a recommended scale of charges, as well as the exposition of policies for best ILL/DD Practice. But individuals operate the systems and the need for retraining ILL/DD personnel for new systems is an important 'individual' issue;
- the whole area of industrial relations, whether it be questions of salaries and conditions, the development and application of competency standards, or the need for workplace reform, is an issue for both institutions and individuals."
ALIA acknowledges the overlap between the two bodies and states that some level of coordination between the bodies lessens overlap. For example, ALIA states that:
"the reason that ALIA has played a more low-key role in relation to copyright has been for the practical purpose of recognising the futility of duplication of activity. It has not been a response to the proposition that copyright is an 'institutional' issue. Indeed it is difficult, on any basis of analysis, to reach such a conclusion."
At state and regional levels, the consultants observed that coordination between ACLIS and ALIA varies. For example, there appears to be a high level of cooperation and coordination between the bodies in Victoria and Tasmania whereas the same level of cooperation does not exist in some other states.
4.3 Needs of the Library and Information Sector
Participants at the workshop held in Sydney on 18 March 1997 discussed the changing library environment where decisions impacting on the library and information sector are increasingly being taken at the international level. At the national level, there is a need to develop policies which take into account structural changes taking place in communications, education and industrial relations.
John Brudenall, in his submission, outlined the key influences on the library and information services sector as:
- the continued growth of international electronic networks which are breaking down geographic and language barriers for information users;
- a dramatic shift in publishing from print to electronic formats;
- an increasing level of information literacy skill within the community with many people comfortable working with information in electronic form;
- a very competitive information industry with many sources, apart from libraries, accessible by information users;
- a growing acceptance that users pay for value added information services with information users able to choose between using a library or an alternative source, basing their judgment on quality and price;
- a clash, highlighted by Internet use, between demands for censorship and increased recognition of copyright and the rights of the citizen espoused by libraries such as freedom to read and free speech;
- strong pressure at all levels of government to achieve efficiency in the delivery of services by adopting practices which challenge many of the established values and philosophies of the library profession.
There was general consensus at the workshop that a peak library body needs to direct its forces to:
- better service delivery to members;
- defining the distinctive services and skills of the profession into the next century;
- assisting members to operate effectively in the transition from the industrial to the information age;
- providing mechanisms where the members can participate and share in activities of the body with a focus on achieving specific benefits;
- influencing governments by active policy development;
- representing its members to the community;
- developing strategic alliances with other interest groups;
- being accountable and efficient.
At a number of meetings held in capital cities, representatives generally agreed that library representation needs to focus on the following issues:
- education and training, including continuing education for the profession;
- accreditation of library courses;
- industrial relations advisory services;
- coordination, preservation, and dissemination of data;
- policy issues, including copyright;
- professional ethics;
- the impact of deinstitutionalization on individuals.
The important need for library representation and advocacy was mentioned numerous times throughout the review. This need is typified in the FLIN submission which states:
"... the most important activity for a national library and information service body was to 'lobby, lobby, lobby.' This is undoubtable (ly) the most important issue for the 21st century. The position of libraries is being challenged and we need to meet this challenge by constantly communicating the key roles provided by libraries in the 21st century."
While one can argue that lobbying is not an issue but a key activity to advance library interests, the effectiveness of this activity can be diluted where several organisations speak on behalf of the same or similar constituency. Business groups have recognised this problem, and over a period they have reduced the number of peak bodies. The formation of the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) merged industrial relations activities with trade and commerce issues, and ultimately the merger of the CAI with the Australian Chamber of Commerce has led to the formation of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), a single peak business organisation which can speak with authority on behalf of business across Australia.
Similarly, the Director-General of the NLA has referred to the review the development of Museums Australia as a single organisation representing the interests and aims of all museum people in Australia after decades of fragmentation. Des Griffin, the Past-President of Museums Australia, states:
"Of course the individual associations such as the Museums Association of Australia, the Art Museums Association of Australia and the Museum Education Association held major conferences and published important journals. Their conferences and publications were of great significance. but a single association can much more effectively bring people together, create a more united profession, ensure a commitment to greater understanding and integration ...
In the formation of the single association, sometimes disparate interests come together: art museums and other museums, educators, curators, conservators, maritime museum people, and friends and volunteers and others. Despite early differences of opinion and perspective, many views eventually came together ...
Why is this single association so important? One, because any group achieves greater influence the wider its representation - divided we fall ... Two, because museums of all kinds can benefit so much from sharing ideas and successes (even failures) about their common goals."
[Museum National, Vol. 15, No. 2, November 1996]
While Museums Australia does not represent all museum bodies, it has brought together the key museum bodies, and importantly has gained acceptance from Government that it is the peak body which represents museum interests in Australia.
4.4 Conclusion
The weight of material submitted to the review reveals that while
ACLIS and ALIA are concentrating on the issues of key importance
to the library sector including professional standards, industrial
relations and copyright, etc., the absence of a single peak body
is impeding the influence of the sector on governments at various
levels and on the broader community. Although this weakness has
been recognised and accommodated for a number of years, the changing
library environment with its attendant competitors requires an
urgent resolution of library representation in Australia. This
view comes not only from within the ACLIS and ALIA membership,
but it is also the view of other sectoral bodies.
In addition, a real question arises whether two organisations can continue to be sustained in circumstances where financial constraints are necessitating reductions across the sector in subscription levels, where state libraries are finding it more difficult to continue to fund secretarial support for ACLIS, and where the future of ACLIS itself is in some doubt given the withdrawal of financial support by the National Library.
Continue or Return to the Start
| About This Site | Copyright | Privacy | Accessibility | Site Map | Site Search | Content A-Z | Contact Us |