I’ve always considered chapter participation in a professional society to be synonymous with local participation, so when it comes to selecting a chapter I always join the one closest geographically to where I live. However, in today’s world of remote access and webinar-enabled meetings, someone from Alaska could just as easily join a webinar hosted by my local chapter as I could, so the concept of “local” loses its meaning in this regard.
The topic of non-local chapter participation has recently come up in my local chapter of the Society for Technical Communication (STC). We currently broadcast a significant number of our meetings as webinars, and the intention is to do this even more in the future. It’s been suggested that since anyone can join our meetings (and we encourage anyone to do so), we should be actively pursuing non-local STC members to join the chapter. The reasoning is we charge for our meetings, as many chapters do, and we provide a discount for chapter members. Eventually, there’s a price point where it’s cheaper to pay STC to be a member of the chapter than it is to pay for each meeting individually. Under our current fee structure that price point occurs at three meetings.
I question, though, the value of spending our efforts actively pursuing non-local people to join our chapter, rather than focusing on local members. Yes, all members no matter where they are increase our membership roster, which ultimately translates to more money we receive from STC, but what would a geographically diverse membership mean for the chapter? Like all chapters, we’d like to increase participation and attract additional volunteers to help with events. A chapter member from Alaska might be able to participate in meetings via webinar as well as I could, but I doubt that person would be interested in serving on our Admin Council. He/she also wouldn’t have the opportunity to participate in events that require an in-person presence, such as our fall Membership Picnic or spring Awards Banquet.
I know the world is changing and some people prefer to experience it from their computers, but when it comes to chapter participation I think the primary value is in its local nature. I certainly wouldn’t discourage a non-local person from joining our chapter to participate in webinars, but I think the focus should be on building the local technical communication community and encouraging local participation in the chapter.
What do you think? In today’s digital age should more chapters be blurring the lines between local and non-local? We certainly have the technology to enable it—should we be embracing it more than we are?
Good thoughts, Peggy. The Alaskan member also wouldn’t benefit very much from the chapter’s job listings and listserv, which focus on job openings and events, respectively, in the local area.
If someone from outside the area wanted to join the chapter, I’d have to wonder why. Is it because we provide something — excellent monthly programs, first-rate competitions — that they can’t get anywhere else in STC? If so, then something’s awry. Whatever secret ingredient we’ve stumbled on, we need to start sharing it with other STC communities.
There’s at least one valid exception, though: Someone who’s considering relocating to this area and working in TechComm. Or perhaps even someone with ties to the area (family, business contacts) who lives in an area that isn’t served by an STC chapter.
Finally, if chapters start blurring the lines between local and non-local, then they’re encroaching on what the SIGs are set up to do. So I end up coming to the same conclusion as you: I wouldn’t prohibit someone outside the area from joining the chapter, but neither would I go out of my way to encourage it.
Thanks, Larry, you bring up some great points. The possibility of not having a geographically local chapter occurred to me, too, so in that case “local” might be “remote” by definition. I think joining a chapter in an area where you’re relocating to is a great networking step, and in that case hopefully you won’t be remote from your local chapter for very long.
As I’ve said many times in the past: chapters *are* SIGs…. based on a geographic location. Even STC.org has realized this, and tried to use “COMMUNITY” to encompass both chapters and SIGs. Personally I think this type of “encroachment ” will ultimately benefit STC and its members. It is time to prune the dead/dying branches. How many chapters/sigs are inactive?
Hi, Rick, thanks for your comment. When people join a SIG it’s because they have a common interest in the topic, I assume. Along those lines, if a chapter is a “SIG” based on a geographic location, wouldn’t people join a chapter because they have a common interest in that geographic location (i.e. they live there)? I like Alaska a lot but I probably wouldn’t join a chapter there when I live thousands of miles away.
I like the pruning metaphor. Pruning dead wood lets in light and spurs new growth. What does that mean for STC chapters?
* Acknowledging that a chapter or SIG is not a viable entity encourages members to seek out alternatives.
* The availability of virtual programs from chapters outside the geographic area increases the alternatives that a member or group of members have to learn about subjects of interest and to network with like-minded professionals.
* Without programs to prepare, a group of like-minded professionals in a geographic area can more easily come together to network and learn by piggybacking on what a chapter in another geographic is doing.
* A new chapter develops, either in its own right or as a satellite of the chapter offering virtual programming.
I don’t know how realistic this is, but I do think that shared programming has profound benefits. Plus, what percentage of Society members live or work in an area without convenient access to a geographic chapter? For them, almost all chapter participation will be virtual, if they participate at all.