Bill
Interesting and apt observations.

The Australian Council of Professions defines a profession as follows:

'Profession' means a disciplined group of individuals who adhere to high
ethical standards and uphold themselves to, and are accepted by, the
public as possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely
recognised, organised body of learning derived from education and
training at a high level and who are prepared to exercise this knowledge
and these skills in the interests of others (Australian Council of
Professions, 2003).

Having said this, there seems to be a kind of hierarchy amongst
'professions' (especially as the term now seems to be applied to any
work which requires a specific body of knowledge, including plumbing and
hairdressing), and this perhaps reflects the history and development of
the particular profession, as well as its relationship to life and death
issues.

In general, professions were historically regarded as those activities
that responded to basic human (or social) needs - such as medicine, law
and education.  As civilisation became more complex, more professions
developed: engineering, architecture, pharmacy and other medical
specialisations, accountancy, and so forth.  It is worth noting that all
of these professions drew on basic research and theory existing, for
example, in the fields of literature, maths, chemistry, physics,
philosophy and the like.  Indeed, early education for doctors required
knowledge of Greek and Latin, Philosophy and the liberal arts.  When I
was an undergraduate (way back when), a year of Latin was still required
for those studying law and medicine (I suppose to understand all the
Latin terms used, but they usually studied classical writings!).

However, because such professions also required competent and ethical
practice, how to perform the work was also taught.  Once again, as
society grew more complex, it was necessary to control this side of a
profession, to ensure practitioners were competent in performing their
tasks (competency is thus built on a knowledge base).  Generally, an
adequate education in the field tested such competencies, so that,
having completed a medical or law degree, you were considered able to
practice.

This concept has been further refined over the years, to ensure such
competency.  Hence the development of professional associations, which
comprised a body of experienced individuals who were in a position to
ensure that standards were met.  Such associations would examine the
curricula of educational programs, and, if they were satisfactory, would
recognise or accredit them with meeting the requirements of the
profession.  In such a case, any individual who earned such a degree
would, simultaneously, meet the professional standards demanded by the
profession as a whole.  This is still the case in librarianship, and, in
Australia, teaching, marine biology, commerce, IT and a number of other
areas.

Sometimes this is enforced by continuing membership of the professional
association being compulsory, as this would help in keeping one's
knowledge base up to date.  The professional association would arrange
meetings, conferences and seminars to this end (as well as providing the
opportunity for networking with fellow professionals) and produce a
journal which reported the latest developments in the field of
knowledge, based on research completed.

Where individual examination of curricula became to complex and
expensive - for logistical reasons, as well as the general growth of
knowledge and specialisation - certification by the professional
association became an alternative process.  Hence we have, for example,
the Bar exam for lawyers.

The next step in this process is to guarantee that practitioners do in
fact undergo the certification process - and this leads us to having
such certification recognised by statute.  In other words, a
practitioner who cannot prove competency in practice - by being
successful in the certification process - would not be allowed to
practice, even though they would still, of course, be in command of the
body of knowledge relevant to the discipline.

It is worth noting that the older and more traditional professions were
the first to follow this route, particularly as they were most obviously
responding to recognised social needs, but even more particularly
because failure to practice correctly would lead to the death of
individuals (as in medicine and law, and later in engineering and
architecture).  It is worth noting that those who support these
professions, for example builders, in the case of architecture, or
bookkeepers, in the case of accountancy, needed a license, or evidence
of vocational training, in order to carry out their work.

These 'older' professions thus provide a model or archetype for the
newer professions (and newer professions will, I believe, continue to
develop because of the continuing increase in complexity and knowledge
of our society).  The RIM profession is one of these, as librarianship
was before it.  The body of knowledge required by today's practitioners
is much larger than was necessary say, 30 years ago (when I got my first
RM job - I could be trained in about a week).

For various reasons, which it is probably not worth going into here,
following the existing models is the way to greater acceptance of a
profession, so that practitioners are regarded as experts in a
particular field.  They have a 'black box' of knowledge that others
don't know, but can only describe in general terms (a doctor heals
people; an architect designs buildings).

I believe that it is part and parcel of the development of the RIM
profession to ensure that all of these criteria are met: that the social
and organisational needs to which we respond are clearly articulated;
that we continually examine, in a shifting environment, how and why we
respond to these needs (largely through research and theoretical
development); that we are able to put into practice, convincingly, what
we know, so that those social and organisational needs are met.

Ideally, therefore, there needs to be a recognised educational program
that all RIM professionals should follow, preferably leading to a degree
or equivalent at a university or college; vocational-type training leads
mostly, in my experience, to that class of worker known as the
'para-professional' (somebody who supports the professional work); the
course should be recognised or accredited by a professional association;
following that, there should be some kind of certification, possibly
mandated by statute.  In this way RIMs start enjoying the kind of clout
that many of us feel is important.

All the best
Sue


-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Roach, Bill J.
Sent: Thursday, 20 October 2005 4:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Certification in the "RIM Profession"

>>The recent discussions of certification in which the CRM is compared
to other certifications is I am afraid mixing apples and oranges.  The
case of certification or licensure of doctors, attorneys, nurses etc.
the government has by force of law conferred a monopoly on the holders
of these certifications.<<

I may be mixing a couple of different types of apples but they all fall
from a tree.  State mandated licensing is the result of either a
groundswell of desire to "enforce" a certification process or by the
desire of the legislating body to insure standards.  Who decided that
doctors, attorneys, & nurses would be "licensed" and CPA's would be
"certified" and why are the processes exactly the same?

Regardless of the designation, the path is always the same:
1. The body of knowledge required is such that a "standard" ought to
exist.
2. Those who have met the "standard" create enough interest to create a
"certification".
3. Those with certification administer the process that determines who
will be "certified".
4. When enough individuals become "certified" the group collectively has
enough political stroke to require "certification" as an eligibility
requirement for activities or positions.
5. When enough activities or positions have accrued, the certifying body
has its responsibilities codified in statute.
6. When enough "entities" (states in the US) have codified the
requirement for "certification", the Council on Uniform Laws creates a
model law that is generally adopted by individual states.

The difference between licensing of attorneys, doctors and nurses
differs from certification of CPA's is semantics.  The difference
between licensing CPA's and CRM's is based on where each organization is
in the process above.

Frankly, I believe that we would be very likely to get government to
confer a monopoly on the ICRM for certification if we were to work to
that end.  The question is this, are we ready for that?

Bill R

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance