{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017803210936258147, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005881417898585281, 'mean_word_length': 4.885874649204864, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Academy of Health Information Professionals: ripe for research.

The article by Baker and colleagues in this issue of the Journal of the Medical Library Association [1] focusing on attitudes of health sciences librarians in the Midwest Chapter of the Medical Library Association (MLA) toward the Academy of Health Information Professionals (AHIP) is timely. Currently, the academy has 1,155 members. More are joining the academy every year—both 2002 and 2003 saw increases in membership—and more members of the academy are from the Midwest Chapter (221) than from any other. Research that helps us to understand why some people join, and why others do not, should be viewed as a real contribution to our knowledgebase. 
 
A few comments about the conclusions of the study are important. The 2001 MLA Salary Survey reported that the mean salaries of AHIP-credentialed respondents were 28.5% higher than those of nonmembers. Baker and her colleagues rightly point out that the obvious conclusion—that academy members make more money— might be the wrong one, because no study has been done that compares the salaries of academy members and nonmembers at the same levels of experience and responsibility. Yet, they did not choose to investigate this question. Thus, this paper usefully points to a need for research that may indicate a way in which membership in the academy is beneficial. 
 
The authors also conclude from their study that the majority of librarians in the Midwest Chapter do not belong to the academy. The sample of the membership of the Midwest Chapter that participated in the study, however, appears to have been unrepresentative of the chapter membership. The paper reports that only 35% of respondents to the questionnaire are members of the academy and that 65% are not members. The chapter membership given in the paper is 430, and we know that 221 members of the academy are from the Midwest Chapter. There is actually, then, a much higher percentage (51%) of academy membership in the chapter than the survey reveals. This discrepancy between the survey results and the actual academy status of the membership of the Midwest Chapter may draw into question the validity of the results. 
 
Finally, the authors spend a great deal of time reporting the reasons given for not joining by the 65% of respondents who do not belong to the academy. Some of those comments bear more examination. A general theme among nonmember respondents to the survey seems to be that people do not join because “it isn't required” of them by their employers. Others report that they see no benefit from membership in their current employment or that membership does not offer any job security. Some of the reasons offered for not joining seem very particular; we wonder how representative of the group they may be. It is difficult to discern whether the comments reported in the paper reflect the opinion of representative respondents, or if the authors have selectively chosen these responses. 
 
This study does, however, offer us the opportunity to dispel some misconceptions about academy requirements. First, it is important when reading the paper to remember the objectives of the academy. Membership in the academy is about professional recognition, self-motivation, career advancement, prestige, networking, mentoring, and personal achievement, among other things, and not about salary improvement and job security, however tempting those claims are to make. 
 
The Baker study concludes that a more flexible program of requirements is needed. In fact, the Credentialing Committee continuously adjusts academy requirements to meet the needs of its membership. An increase in online course opportunities and points for Web page development, email discussion list ownership, and independent learning activity programs are among the recent changes that make it easier for academic and hospital librarians alike to meet their continuing education and professional development goals. In addition, recent changes have simplified the application process, most notably by removing the requirement for supporting documentation for members renewing at the same level. All information about academy requirements and application and forms is easily available on MLANET.* 
 
MLA meets the challenge to educate the membership about the benefits of membership in the academy and to support professional growth opportunities in a variety of ways. MLA chapters have played a vital role by providing education about the academy and support in the application process on a local level. MLANET continues to evolve as a responsive and interactive tool in the promotion of the academy, continuing education, and professional networking. Most strikingly, the new mentor database serves as a resource in matching provisional members with senior members who act as guides through the process and as career mentors. MLA continues to promote the academy through information and articles in the MLA News, chapter newsletters, and letters to employers. It is promising for the profession and the academy that provisional memberships are on the increase. 
 
One of the other real values of this paper is that it points to the need for further research that probes more thoroughly into questions related to promoting membership in the academy. Evidence-based practice in health care teaches that valid or useful answers cannot be obtained if the right questions are not asked. We need to make a concerted effort to determine the right questions to ask and the right methods to employ to get useful answers about the value of membership in the academy. 
 
The time has come for MLA to make a real effort to put its considerable research expertise directly into the service of the profession on questions of this sort. We need those with research credentials to get together to determine what questions can be asked and usefully investigated that would produce data bearing on the value of membership in the academy. Without this sort of concerted effort, all we can expect is more disputation over the perceived benefits of joining the academy. Also, perhaps an even more important question to study, rather than the attitude toward the academy, is the attitude toward our profession and ways to keep it vital.