Accreditation is a complex issue that has tested members of this and other professional bodies for many years. Many proposed accreditation solutions are very complex and require a lot of administration. ASTC does not have the resources to operate a complex system; for our system to work successfully it must be simple and, to a large extent, self-administering.
The Westies group has been discussing accreditation for a while, and we believe we have found a simple way to do it.
Why do we need an accreditation system?
Technical Communication has
We are not well known as a profession. That is something we must do something about and accreditation will help us do it.
Many technical communicators are not aware of ASTC and why they should be members.
The profession has a broad scope and it’s getting broader. Example: Collins submarine project. Documents about machinery, ventilation systems, hydraulic systems, electrical systems, electronic systems, navigation systems, weapons systems, and so on. All written, illustrated and published by members of our profession.
When people start seeing Janet Taylor, MASTC on business cards they will want to know what it’s about. Tell them. When employers start asking for ASTC membership – or accreditation – our membership will rise. Trainers have done it, accountants have done it, and we can do it too.
You’ve put a lot of effort into learning your craft. You have gained the recognition of your peers.
When you present your card to a prospective employer, MASTC tells the employer that the society has faith in your abilities.
Every business card becomes an advertisement for the profession.
We argue that if accreditation is mentioned in CVs, it will only be a matter of time before the news gets around the employment industry. The end game is to make people realise that a Technical Communicator is a trained and experienced professional.
If we can get it right we can make it easier for employers to find the right Technical Communicator for their vacancies. And that should make life better for everybody.
How does the accreditation system work?
We recognise that the skills a person needs in one workplace are not necessarily the skills needed in another.
We require a standard that keeps people employed while being attainable by all of us.
We recognise that experience is probably the most important asset of a technical communicator.
We recognise that suitable training is valuable, but it is not, and can never be the arbiter of a person’s fitness as a technical communicator.
The model we use is similar to many other accreditation systems. This is no accident, because we looked at many of them, particularly the model used by the National Institute of Accountants. However, our model is uniquely ours.
These are the same four grades of membership that most professional bodies have. We already have a grade of Student Member. What we are doing is adding the grades for practising professionals.
Membership of ASTC is necessary for all grades.
Student Grade
Engaged in suitable training
Wants to be a Technical Communicator
(We already have this grade)
Associate Member
Has suitable training
Has a Technical Communicator job
Has less than three years’ experience
Member
Has suitable training
Has more than three years’ experience
Fellow
Has academic and vocational training
Has more than eight years’ experience
Has three years in a leadership role
Has been a presenter at at least one ASTC annual conference
The grade of Fellow is not granted lightly.
This is how it could be used:
Once we get going, CVs and business cards will start appearing with the accreditation terms (student, associate, member, fellow) on them, and that will immediately lift our profile and our public image a little. It might lift membership too.
Standards
The entry standard must be high enough to command respect, but low enough for us to reasonably reach.
Setting standards is really difficult, especially in a profession as broad as ours. We can’t set standards for everything, but we must have a minimum standard that is acceptable to the majority.
We do not want to alienate anyone.
We need a minimum standard that any practicing technical communication professional can reach, although some might have to extend themselves a little.
We decided on a mixture of training and experience.
We know that no matter how carefully we refine it, the level of standards will always be wrong, but we can adjust it up or down as necessary.
This proposal gives us a point from which to get moving. If we try to get everything perfect first, we’re unlikely to overcome the inertia and we will never have an accreditation system.
Training
Successful completion of tertiary training does two things:
These are both necessary attributes of a technical communicator.
Define ‘suitable’ training
A lot of us have argued for some time that the ability to write isn't something you acquire in a course, and there are many good Technical Communicators out there with no formal qualifications of any kind. However, training certainly helps, and the best writers are probably those with both training and experience-honed skill.
The one sticking point is that we need some sort of measure, and we’re agreed that a university degree is not much of a guide. This model recognises TAFE qualifications and short courses as well as degrees.
Suitable training would include core generic training such as writing, illustrating and project planning. These subjects need not be all in one course.
A 'suitable' course is a tertiary course in TW, journalism, communication or anything else that might reasonably form a good base. It can be TAFE or university. It might be engineering, science, law or whatever the candidate is to write about. This approach recognises the value of training that's appropriate to the communication work undertaken.
The key is the suitability for the work that the member does.
We recognise that training suitable for one job might be useless in another. For example, to a person who is writing a maintenance manual for a motor vehicle, a mechanic’s trade certificate is more valuable than a law degree.
Assessing Training
Although a simple accreditation system such as the model proposed by this document could operate without detailed scrutiny of the candidates’ training, sooner or later it will be necessary to assess the available training and make decisions about what training is appropriate and what isn’t. This is the task of an ITAB – an Industry Training Advisory Board – which would need to be nation-wide.
Our ITAB would need to have representatives from ASTC (NSW) and ASTC (Vic) and perhaps representation from other states. It might also need representation from the local STC chapter. Setting up the ITAB is not a trivial task.
The recommendations of the ITAB would be sent to the VETAB – the Vocational Education and Training Board – which could then make determinations about necessary training for technical communicators.
Note that the VETAB may accredit training and training institutions, but it does not accredit individuals and would not provide accreditation for technical communicators.
Skills
The assessment of skills has been a major issue with every attempt to create an accreditation system.
Our group has been down this path, and we will continue our work on tabulating skill sets with a view to creating some order from the present chaos.
But ASTC is not, and probably never will be in a position to examine candidates to see if their skills are sufficient for a practising technical communicator. Someone else must do it for us.
Assessing skills
If a candidate has held down a job for three years, the employer has been paying the candidate for those skills for three years. If the candidate was inept, the employer would stop paying and find someone else.
The employer puts money on the candidates' skills. No other assessment method rates the adequacy of skills against cash.
By doing the work, the candidate is being assessed every day.
There is no need for a certificate from the employer; the fact that the candidate still has paid employment is every bit as convincing as a certificate.
We acknowledge that using the employer to assess the skills for us is taking a leap of faith. Some workplaces are more demanding than others, so the standard will vary. Some workplaces will accept a standard below what our members might consider to be acceptable, while other workplaces will insist on very high standards. This variation is the cost of having the candidate’s employer do the skills assessment for us.
We also acknowledge that contractors might have to glue several contracts together to get the three years. We see no problem with that.
Perhaps a requirement for the candidate to submit some sort of statement of qualification and experience would be an improvement, but we do not wish to assign the task of reviewing the statements. The statements would only be used for settling disputes.
Experience
We’d like to see associates working in documentation teams where they can have the benefit of a good mentor. However, this is one of the things we can’t control.
Who will do theAssessment?
We are aware that committees often have difficulty attracting members for necessary administration tasks. We believe that expecting committee members to assess candidates would add a burden that committees might not be able to manage effectively.
We propose auto-assessment in most cases. This requires insignificant extra administration work for the Committee.
Who does this apply to?
That is, everyone who’s interested. Although every member can be assigned an accreditation level very simply, there should be no compulsion for members to use it.
Could it be a national system?
Of course this proposed system could be administered by a national body, but we don't have one and there is no point in waiting for one. But a national committee is not the only way.
ASTC (Vic) and ASTC (NSW) might operate the same system but with differences in details of administration and assessment. However, the differences of administration would probably be small and they would have no effect on the standard of work produced by members.
If ASTC (Vic) and ASTC (NSW) use a similar form, carrying a footer that identifies the issuing state body, the system would have the appearance of being national, while having the simplicity of local administration.
What Next?
Now we have a model.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s our model, and it can be made to work.
Add comments and build on it.
If we think constructively and act positively we can build an accreditation system that will work for us.
If we react negatively we may never have an accreditation system - until one is forced upon us by the government.
Air your opinion with your ASTC colleagues. Your opinion is also welcome on the Austechwriters list by sending a mail to austechwriter@freelists.org
home