Bibliotheksverbände / Library Associations

The four-hour train ride back to New York offered me an opportunity to reflect on the ALA meeting.

I was invited to the Germanist Discussion Group session to introduce the work of the Goethe-Institut. This once again gave me the chance to draw academic librarians’ attention to our “Publishing in Exile” travelling exhibit. And also a chance to briefly introduce a new project called “Invisible Heritage”, which the Goethe-Institut will launch in 2010. A little known fact from Census 2000, conducted by the Census Bureau, is that 15% of all Americans stated that they have German roots. Italian, Irish, African-American, Mexican roots – these are backgrounds familiar to most Americans. But that German heritage tops the charts with 15% is a surprising statistic, even to those attending the Germanist Discussion Group. Perhaps this fact will translate to increased interest in German language courses?

Collaboration and exchange with librarians and libraries is a focal point of the work of the Goethe-Institut, so our collaboration with library associations is a major part of our work. And quite honestly, it is exciting and also interesting to see how a mammoth organization such as the ALA is organized. As head of the Europe Subcommittee since the end of last year, I also attended the board meetings of the International Relations Committee (though I should add that almost all ALA meetings are open to all members). Interestingly, there are two meetings of the board. The first was on Friday, before the subcommittee met on Saturday. The second board meeting was on Monday, at which the committees reported on their meetings. I wasn’t quite clear about the significance of the two meetings. But perhaps it makes sense in that it gives the various groups a chance in the interim to revise certain resolutions (the one concerning the earthquake in Haiti, for example). Or the extremely controversial paper, “Traditional Cultural Expressions“ (and how librarians should handle this), which required revision over the weekend. But the committee could not come to an agreement on approving it. Another paper under discussion was the update of the ALA’s “2015 Strategic Plan”, which is more international in character that its predecessors. Which the International Relations Committee is quite pleased about, of course. Once the ALA’s Strategic Plan is approved, the IRC will begin work on its next five-year plan. The evaluation of the Strategic Plan that covered the last five years is now complete. And understandably, I was very happy to see that the Goethe-Institut is the sole international partner to be named in the evaluation.

After ALISE ended I’ve been attending the ALA Midwinter conference. There are no programs offered at the Midwinter meeting. It is, rather, a time for all of the various committees, working groups, roundtables, etc., to meet. As only those librarians who belong to these groups are present, it can be concluded that c. 6,000 people within the ALA are active in committee work. This is an impressive number, even if it represents only roughly 10% of the ALA’s 63,000 members. Does the same proportion of the 6,500 members of the “Berufsverband Information Bibliothek (BIB)” (German Library Association) also belong to a working group or committee? The question there, of course, being whether the BIB offers enough committee work for 10% of its membership to participate in.

Given the size of the ALA, the enormous number of committee members is not surprising, nor is the fact that the ALA’s structure is extremely complex. Committees report to boards, and the boards then presumably report to the ALA Board of Directors itself. Sometimes this can be quite confusing: the sub-committees of the "International Relations Round Table (IRRT)" and the "International Relations Committee (IRC)" meet at the same time and in the same room. But they report on their meetings to different boards (IRRT and IRC). But the chairs of these two groups apparently also report to each other. The groups within the "International Relations Round Table" are divided according to the issues they deal with (partnerships, publications, etc.), whereas the IRC groups are divided by region (Europe, Africa, the Americas, etc.). The head of the IRC is a permanent position within the ALA, while the president of the IRRT is elected each year. Interestingly, there is no established exchange among the subcommittees, apparently because their tasks differ so greatly. The IRC subcommittees exist primarily to respond to any given international situation that affects the respective region. The Americas subcommittee, for example, at the moment has the sad task of preparing an ALA response to the earthquake in Haiti. All of this clearly shows that the ALA is aware that – as the largest library association in the world – its influence and standing extend beyond the United States. Accordingly, the ALA’s strategic plan, which currently is being revised, states that the ALA understands one of its basic tasks to be "extending and expanding library services in America and around the world".

The main reason for my presence during the ALISE conference was, of course, the presentation of our study trip and its outcomes, but as I was registered for the conference I also attended a few of the other presentations.

One particularity of American life, American work life, is the multitude of financial grants available here for any- and everything. It is often the case that one must apply for such grants when other financial possibilities for activities and projects don’t exist. This applies to libraries as well. In one of the ALISE presentations, Chuck Thomas introduced a few of the programs and grants of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), for which the 123,000 libraries and 17,500 museums in the United States may apply. He presented in detail the National Leadership Grants, the goal of which is the promotion of museums and libraries: “National Leadership Grants support projects that have the potential to elevate museum and library practice. The Institute seeks to advance the ability of museums and libraries to preserve culture, heritage and knowledge while enhancing learning. IMLS welcomes proposals that promote the skills necessary to develop 21st century communities, citizens, and workers.” Aspects that are given consideration are strategic impact, innovation and collaboration. One strategic aspect of a study could, for example, examine how digital collections influence information policy, or the reciprocal effect of public libraries and the Internet in the context of information policy. Collaboration on projects between libraries and museums is not mandatory, but is welcomed.

A further program introduced by Chuck Thomas was the “Laura Bush 21st Century Library Program”, which supports projects “to develop faculty and library leaders, to recruit and educate the next generation of librarians.” Deadline for applications was December 15, 2009, and the LIS community is excitedly awaiting word of which applications will be funded and also of whether this program will be continue to be called by its present name, also known under the acronym LB21.

The questions and discussions that followed the presentation clearly revealed that even in the United States, where our colleagues are much more accustomed to applying for such grants, there is much uncertainty and many questions in terms of the often complex and complicated requirements. But the threshold is lower than is the case in Germany. Perhaps the participants of the study tour could give it a try and apply for a German-American project under the EU Atlantis Project.