Hi all

 

Mary Hilliard wrote:

 

"On a personal note, I have found that my degree in English and Latin

have served me well in developing communication and classification

skills.  My years as a systems analyst developed my knowledge of

technology and enhanced my appreciation for systems thinking.  And my 4

years as a teacher in urban public schools prepared me for difficult

work situations.  Along the way, I also learned that what you know must

be translated into something that someone wants and that sometimes

involves marketing.  Somehow, I think that I couldn't have learned these

things except by my life's experiences, but my academic preparation also

provided an important element in preparing me as well."

 

I believe that Mary has made an extremely important point here - that
education (rather than training) provides one with many skills that are
useful in understanding why you are doing something, rather than just
the 'how' (along with my mantra, No experience is ever wasted).  Amongst
the other skills and qualities that an educated (rather than trained)
person might possess are: 

*      critical thinking, 

*      problem-solving, 

*      the ability to operate effectively with and upon a body of
knowledge, and the development of a theoretical infrastructure on which
to build new developments and trends so that they can be understood in
context, 

*      an international perspective, 

*      the ability to undertake lifelong learning, understanding its
importance and relating it to what is already known

*      effective problem solving

*      a commitment to ethical action and social responsibility

*      effective communication - both written and oral

*      collaborative abilities, 

*      how one discipline or profession is related to another and where
its boundaries are; 

*      how issues in another discipline can be modified for
incorporation into one's own, and 

*      a wider and deeper understanding of how the world works.

 

What is learned is perhaps less important than how it is learned.
Perhaps this is why the ICRM is in favour of the idea that candidates
already possess an undergraduate degree, as such skills should be
acquired at this stage.  While it may well be argued that some
individuals may acquire these skills and abilities without formal
education, most would agree that this is not the case.  We do tend to
consider that those who have not completed high school, as a whole, not
to have the same levels of understanding and reasoning that we would
expect from those with more advanced education.  

 

The early universities - the Sorbonne, Oxford and Cambridge -
concentrated only on these aspects: familiarity with particularly bodies
of knowledge was perhaps less important than knowing how to understand
them.  However, as the realities of the contemporary world have kicked
in, universities have increasingly become places which can prepare
graduates for doing a job of work - earning a living.  Universities thus
developed faculties of law, medicine and the like - what can be regarded
as the 'traditional' professions.  Now, of course, many others have been
added.  Education and training for such professions still requires the
development of the qualities listed above; in addition, graduates must
learn HOW to do the job.  

 

No university expects, and neither should any organisation, that their
graduates are able to walk into a particular organisation and
immediately perform a role that is specific to that organisation.
However, such graduates should be in possession of abilities to perform
the basic tasks that are required, and understand how they contribute to
the achievement of the goals of the organisation as a whole.  In an
earlier posting, I mentioned how certification fits into this model - it
demonstrates that, after practicing a profession for a while, the
graduate has become fully competent in executing the tasks required, and
thus can be held responsible.  It is important to be able to assume such
responsibility.  In order to achieve this, organisations need to make a
contribution in time and effort.

 

The historical model for other ways of earning a living - becoming a
farrier, wheelwright, tailor, weaver and so forth was quite different.
The qualities listed above were not seen as important, but HOW to do the
job was.  Thus we have the apprenticeship model, where one learns on the
job.  Training an apprentice was typically a time-consuming experience,
and over time, learning how to do these jobs was transferred to
technical colleges of one kind or another.  This type of work is not
professional in the true sense of the word: the work is to do with
making and/or using tools (hence 'technical').  The work is not a
response to a societal need, in the broader sense, in the same way as
education, law or medicine.  However, as 'professionals' tended to enjoy
greater economic and social status, and as new bodies of knowledge and
new roles emerged, there has been increasing blurring between the lines
of what is professional and what isn't.

 

There is clearly still a demand for the highly educated professional,
however - why else would students (and their families) spend so much
money on time on university or college?  Would you have open heart
surgery performed by a nurse who had assisted in such operations, or a
cardiac surgeon?

 

To return, therefore, to my earlier point of discussion: there IS a
difference between education and training and certification and
continuing professional development and  competencies.  We have touched
on all of these aspects during this discussion.  A hallmark of a
profession is, I believe, still a tertiary level education.  We have
agreed that the ICRM demands this, but will accept a number of years
experience in lieu.  We have also agreed, I think, that certification is
desirable and probably necessary, particularly because of the nature of
our work in an increasingly litigious environment, and one that is
keenly aware of the social responsibility of organisations.  

 

We also agree that there is certainly place for university-level courses
in RIM.  I think I would add that such university-level courses could,
perhaps, be developed with the attainment of the CRM in mind: in other
words, the syllabus of such courses should consciously prepare
individuals for the CRM exam, as well as, perhaps, ensuring that all the
competencies (as are currently being developed) are incorporated.
Perhaps this could indicate greater involvement between ARMA,
practitioners and educators.  We have already agreed on the desirability
of increased cooperation between educators and practitioners.  ARMA
could play a role in identifying which courses best prepare one for the
CRM through a recognition process.

 

Also in this dynamic and lengthy discussion, we have established that
the development of competencies is related to analysing and defining the
diverse roles and specialisations of RIM, so that employers can have an
increased awareness of what is necessary or possible in certain
positions.  I am still not sure how the competencies will relate to the
CRM?  Perhaps Steve or someone can help me here, or perhaps these have
still be to be developed.  

 

There are, however, still two outstanding questions for me.  These are:

 

1.        Why is the CRM still, practically, a uniquely North American
phenomenon?  Thanks to Peter, I can see that many jobs in the US now
specify it.  However, this is far from the case elsewhere, even though I
note the interest from other countries.  I would suggest that one reason
for this is that its status is rather misunderstood.  I have to thank
all of those who have provided, with great patience, considerably more
detail than is immediately apparent from the ICRM page.  Another reason
might be the perception that the CRM is relevant in the US only,
developed for US purposes.  Perhaps further international collaboration
between other professional associations and the ICRM is required.  Yet
another reason may be, for many, the continuing costs of maintaining the
CRM, which in Majority World countries is huge.

2.        Why is a broader view of RIM not adopted?  While I would agree
that there is a considerable amount to learn regarding how contemporary
RIM is practiced, I do not see a more universal approach being adopted
by, for example, ARMA, which can be compared, for example, to the
understanding of Information Management adopted by the University of
Texas School of Information, the University of Washington School of
Information, the University of Michigan School of Information, or the
Indiana School of Information, to mention but a few.  Perhaps alliance
and collaboration with other information professions will strengthen,
rather than weaken, us.  There has been mention of librarianship and IT,
but, very strangely, no mention of the RM relationship with archives
(indicating to me a general lack of understanding of continuum theory).
Many areas of the information professions are recognising similarities,
rather than differences; many jobs require a wide variety of skills.

 

It remains for me to thank those of you who have read thus far.  And
Bruce White CRM, PMP, no matter what Steve says, we all love you.

 

All the best

Sue

 

 

 

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