Who could professionalisation be for?

Since we posed the question about the professionalisation of PE and science communication we’ve had lots of interesting questions. There seems to be a feeling that the sector is increasingly diverse so how can we possibly agree on enough to merit a profession?

People have noted that many in the sector are putting a science slant onto an existing profession (or trade, or craft). Writers and journalists can agree by codes of conduct of journalism, producers of shows can align themselves with theatre practitioners, performers of science shows can turn to Equity for professional development and advocacy, and scientists who communicate can continue to progress through their usual performance criteria based in their HEI.

On a practical note, in the context of this project, this raises an interesting question. Should we try to negotiate links with other sectors to see if science communication examples would apply according to their codes of conduct and professional development? Or do we think there is enough of a community of science communicators to merit a bespoke organisation or structure?

I've sketched out a diagram to try illustrate this. It's not meant to be definitive, but something to provoke discussion.

On a more fundamental note: why does STEM need its own communication and engagement profession, skills and training?

What do we mean by professionalisation?

Following an initial post on various chat lists, Facebook pages and via Twitter, several people have come back to us wanting more clarification on what we mean by professionalization. We didn’t define it at the outset as we wanted to hear how people viewed the term. And we also recognise that it might not be the right term.

Looking at a few other sectors* who have professional status or chartership programmes these are the elements that we’ve found combine to make a profession. As has been pointed out, some professions exist to prevent harm (e.g. in law, medicine, architecture…) because poor practice has serious implications. Other areas come together in professions to advocate for their sector, to ensure best practice is delivered and presented to consumers, funders and other stakeholders, and to develop a community of practice.

With that in mind, which of the following are important for science communication and PE with STEM?

1: There is an agreed body of knowledge that those entering the sector should know

2: Good practice is agreed upon

3: Values or principles are agreed up

4: Senior accreditation often includes elements of demonstrating leadership

5: Training courses are run by an accrediting body OR by others who secure endorsement from the accrediting body

6: Accreditation processes involve evidence and support from someone more senior within the sector

7: Individuals commit to keeping up to date with current best practice and knowledge

8: An accrediting body exists which oversees and/or delivers all of the above

9: There is often an expense associated (this could be incorporated into eg tuition or membership fees, or can be a separate fee)
[update** suggests these others could also be of interest]
10: Lobbying or advocacy work for the sector
11: Research of interest to the sector
12: Opportunities to raise profile, showcase work, exhibit, perform
13: Sector essentials eg insurance

* Places we've looked. We know this is limited and are going to go and look at some creative sectors 

British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy

Museums Association

Higher Education Association (and their code of practice)

Institute of Physics

Geological Society
** other places we've looked:
Equity
Crafts Council
Gloucester Guild of Master Craftsmen

What is ScoPPES?

ScoPPES is responding to the Wellcome Trust’s Informal Science Learning Review of 2012 and we want to do this in partnership with the public engagement / informal learning sector. We’ll be hosting three workshops across the South West of England in Penryn, Exeter and Bristol. If you can’t make that we’ll happily give you a ring for a chat.

ScoPPES is based in the South West, mostly for pragmatic reasons. We’re not being exclusive – just trying to be practical – if you’re not from the South West but want to contribute you’d be most welcome to join in the discussions and workshops.

The Informal Science Learning Review highlighted a number of features of the informal learning / public engagement sector that appear to limit the sector’s capacity to advance as quickly as could be expected from such a well-­‐established field. The authors suggested that professionalization could be a useful step for the sector and the ScoPPES project is exploring this idea.

What did the report say?

The authors found that the sector is diverse but converges on two broad areas: “making science enjoyable and interesting” and “inspiring and generating interest in science” (p21).

Two of the issues the authors identified related to the knowledge of informal learning that practitioners drew on and the public groups / audiences reached by practitioners:

“There appears to be no programme of training that would enable new entrants [to the informal learning sector] to acquire a basic set of professional knowledge on which they could build.” (p55).

The report describes how the majority of informal learning providers reach children and/or families, they note that very young children (under 5) and adults are underserved relative to their numbers in the UK population. The authors also described Hidi and Renninger’s model of how interest develops. The model suggests that interest is both triggered and sustained, resulting in changing behaviour as individuals progress from a triggered interest to having a more sustained and enduring interest. The review notes that the majority of providers operate in the early stages of interest development: triggering and situational interest. In presenting these findings the authors note that:

“Currently there are no system-wide mechanisms that would support individual learners’ abilities to draw on and visit multiple sectors across the system.” (p54)

They conclude that there is merit in:

“Exploring ways of offering certification and professional development of individuals working in this field.” (Recommendation 5e p7)

In Wellcome’s response to the report, Matterson and Holman agree with this last sentiment and called for a “self-­‐learning community” to further enhance, develop and deepen the sector: “We believe that it is essential for the community itself to develop its own sense of ‘profession’ that is valuable and appropriate to practitioners.” ScoPPES is an opportunity for us to consider exactly this prospect.

Some questions we’re thinking about

•  Do you agree with the central issues? Is there a ‘problem’ with the sector?
• Professionalisation is one response, and could involve: describing a shared knowledge base, agreeing values or principles, accreditation of training / professional development and practice, keeping up to date with the latest knowledge / insight relating to PE… What issues arise from this? For examples: Who would this be relevant for? Who accredits training? Who would pay? Could professionalization work for a sector which has few clear career pathways? Could professionalization really work for such a diverse sector?
• How do we bring the public voice into public engagement and into the professionalization process?
• How does the business of public engagement affect this situation?
• What changes to the system, other than professionalization, could help the sector?

Get involved

What other questions or issues do you want to discuss? Share your ideas in a workshop or by telephone / Skype conversation. Workshop information will be announced soon.

If you can’t make either of these then get in touch by email. You can send me your thoughts or we can arrange a telephone / Skype call.