I've just posted (on the last day) my response to the consultation to the CILIP qualifications framewrok. Here it is, if anyone's interested. To make sense of it, you may need to look at the consultation document itself , but to help the reader I've included the questions as well as my answers where I made comments.
6. Do you agree with the two proposed pathways from ACLIP to Chartered Membership Certification Scheme, point 5)?
The routes from ACLIP to MCLIP seem to me to dilute the principle of a graduate-only profession. This is something I think we should retain for a number of reasons:
• the former Library Association established the principle of a graduate only profession at a time when levels of participation in higher education were much lower than at present. If the government’s promise of 50% participation becomes reality, it cannot be argued that we are in any sense setting up unreasonable barriers.
• for those of us who work alongside other professions (in my case doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons) graduate status is a powerful argument to help users understand the high-level nature of the work we do. If they perceive information work to be something that can be acquired by “sitting next to Nelly”, they are less likely to treat our professional skills as commensurate with their own, acquired by five or six year degree courses, often with intercalated BScs, and registration with a statutory body.
• one of the characteristics of the library and information profession is that our skills are not merely technical, but are part of an academically rigorous body of knowledge. I welcome the news that CIIP is reviewing that body of knowledge and, in common with many, would welcome the opportunity to know more about the way in which that will be achieved. The current model of undergraduate degree in information work, or undergraduate degree in another subject followed by postgraduate information qualification, is necessary to ensure academic rigour and intellectual discipline within the profession.
Do you agree that the period of revalidation should be:-
3 years
No
If no, do you believe that the period of revalidation should be 4 years
No
or 5 years
Yes
The period of revalidation should certainly be five years, not less. Apart from the administrative burden both on members and on CILIP of shorter periods, a longer time scale is less conducive to reflection on development.
10. Do you agree that successful completion of two satisfactory periods of revalidation, coupled with demonstration of matching specified criteria, be introduced as a route to Fellowship?
No: we expect revalidation of every member (and I believe it should be compulsory, not voluntary). If it is perceived that Fellowship can be achieved simply by success in two revalidation cycles and some box-checking, it devalues what we claim to be the highest award in the profession
Please add here any further general comments or observations that you wish to make on the proposals for the CILIP Revalidation Scheme:
I am grateful for the extension to the deadline, which h allows me to submit some comments. I think more thought needs to be given to the structure of the post-qualification framework.. The new profession represented by CILIP is broad and has distinct specialisms within it. One possibility might be to develop a structure of specialist qualifications, to allow for recognition and accreditation at a greater level of granualarity. These should not be sectorally based( however one defines sectors which seems to me problematic) but based on the distinctly different bodies of skills within the overall bopdy of professional knowledge. There could be two levels of these, a certificate level to be undertaken a few years into the profession and a diploma level for more advanced candidates.
We have a flourishing network of cpd providers to the profession who would welcome the opportunity to service this new market
I think consideration should be give to reintroducing the thesis route to fellowship.
The issue of who assess all this effort so not trivial and will represent an extra load on those conscientious people who do their duty in CILIP. One model might be to create a network of suitably trained and supported verifies (a t the RCVS we introduced this model for veterinary nursing qualifications), who could be seconded from employment by LIS employers for a day or so a week
Recent Comments