 |
The Society:
From Birth to Maturity
page
3
Introduction
SAA Membership
SAA Leadership (Council & Officers)
Research and Publication
Annual Meeting Analysis
Financial Profile
Presidential Perspective
SAA in a Comparative Context
End Notes
SAA
Leadership (Council & Officers)
(Click on
images to enlarge.)
Changes in the composition of the Society's leadership clearly reflect how the
Society itself has changed over this fifty-year period. The nine-member Council
of 1940 had only one woman and no minorities. By 1965, the size of Council had
grown to twelve, two of whom were women, but there were still no minorities.
By the beginning of this decade, the change was dramatic--five of the twelve
members were women; an additional member was a minority.
  
The gender shift
is only one measure of change. The educational background of the Society's leaders
has also changed. In 1940, 44 percent held Ph.D.'s and virtually all Councilors'
degrees were in history. By 1965, the percent of Ph.D.'s had risen slightly
(50 percent), but the number of those with a master's degree grew from less
than a quarter to a third. Twenty-five years later, the number of the Society's
leaders who possessed a doctorate had declined, while those with a master's
degree increased dramatically to nearly 60 percent. Some held dual master's
degrees, with a growing number holding a master of library science. Thus while
the trend is increasingly toward post baccalaureate professional education,
especially in schools of library and information science, the Ph.D. in any field
has declined in importance for membership on Council.9
As the size of
the Society has grown, the age of those in leadership positions has dropped,
meaning that members are moving into leadership positions at an earlier age
and stage of their careers. This has important implications as the profession
matures and membership growth stabilizes. As one might expect in a new organization,
in 1940, nearly half of the Council members were in their 30s. By 1965, the
largest number of Councilors were in their 50s, but by 1990 the range of ages
clustered in a single area--all but one were in their 40s.10
Just as age,
educational attainment, and gender have changed over these fifty years, so too
has the type of employing institution represented by our leadership. During
the early years of the Society, leadership came primarily from the National
Archives and state historical societies and archives, a pattern that persisted
into the 1960s. By the 1990s, however, those representing colleges and universities
emerged as the largest single unit, followed by the National Archives and Records
Administration and state historical societies and archives. A category not represented
in 1940--consultants--was represented in both 1965 and 1990.
Yet another way
to show the changes in the Society's leadership is to look at those who have
been selected as Fellows, the highest honor the Society bestows on a small number
of its members. In 1958, the Society began naming Fellows for all past years,
and then selecting a few each year to join the original group. By 1965, eighty
SAA members were also Fellows--more than three-fourths were men. By 1990, the
number of Fellows had grown to over one hundred, but the percentage of women
grew by only 4 percent to 28 percent. If one looks only at those elected fellow
in the twenty-five-year period between 1965 and 1990, the number of women rises
to nearly a third. Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia accounted
for roughly half of the Fellows in 1965, most coming from the National Archives.11
Viewed from today's
perspective of accelerating change, these fifty years represent more evolution
than revolution. And yet, the changes are significant for the trends they reflect.
The profession has evolved from its early historical roots to a more educationally,
ethnically, and sexually diverse group with younger leadership.12
While the Society has not reached its full potential, its growth has slowed.
As a mature organization, it takes on the characteristics of stability. Even
though this may be true of the size and composition of our Society, it cannot
be true of the work we do and how we do it. That must continue to be re-examined
and renewed by vigorous debate and new initiatives. The challenge for us as
a maturing organization is how to retain the zest that brought us into the profession
as we face a period of little or no membership growth and increasing job pressure
driven by ever-growing user expectations. How do we continue to serve without
becoming servants?
|
|
