RE: Fear of certification (was:Definition of Engineer )(was: What to do?)

["Giordano, Connie" <Connie -dot- Giordano -at- FMR -dot- COM>]

No other communications profession is as frightened of the concept of
certification/accreditation as technical communications seems to be.
Licensing is a completely different issue, and I haven't seen any really
credible arguments for why it would be necessary. At the same time, every
argument I've heard against certification has been full holes and rather
pathetic scare tactics.  

1) Technical writing is too broad to be able to provide certification. Horse
hockey--Business Communications is an even broader profession and the IABC
has a very credible, very arduous certification process.  Same with public
relations and PRSA. And ASTD is quickly moving in that direction for
training.

2) Certification will take away jobs from qualified writers:  Horse hockey
again.  Certification in other communications profession is voluntary, and
is not a job requirement in marketing, PR, corporate communications,
training, or employee communications.  How do I know?  I have PR
accreditation, but I've held jobs in all of these other professions with
nary an eyebrow raised at lack of certification in other fields, nor have I
ever been denied a communications job for lack of IABC accreditation.  Last
time I checked, employers generally try to find some (frequently
ineffective) means of screening incompetent or unqualified employees out.
Degrees, job titles, tool sets and scores on some weird psychological tests
are examples.  None of them are completely effective or ineffective.
Accreditation is just another means, but not the only means, to get a feel
for an applicant's ability.  Remember half the people with M.D. attached to
their names graduated in the bottom half of their class.  Doesn't
necessarily make em' bad doctors.

3) Certification just an excuse for exclusivity:  no more so than a graduate
degree, or country club membership.  As near as I can tell all of the
serious discussion related to accreditation in technical communications has
never even born mention of not being allowed to associated with
non-accredited professionals.  Of course John Posada could fill me in if I
missed something on that score. There is a discussion list devoted to
hashing out the pros and cons of certification/accreditation, and not all
the list members are in agreement on whether it should even be
attempted--hard to believe ain't it ;)



What thinning of the ranks?  Moving the jobs offshore doesn't thin the
ranks, it provides opportunities to aspiring professionals in other parts of
the world at what is perceived by the offshoring company to be reduced
costs.  Don't know if that particular perception will be realized, but the
jury is still out on that one.  I think it's the height of arrogance to be
insulted or frightened by the prospect of other communicators joining our
little world.

Many of the people I've known who've gone through a certification process
haven't done so to try to improve their social circles or their pay scales,
and probably would be miserable failures if that were the reason.  They've
done it to test themselves against accepted best practices, to improve their
abilities and knowledge, to shore up self-confidence or to explore related
aspects of their professions. Doesn't sound like such a half bad idea to me.
Will it prevent incompetents from entering the profession?  Absolutely not.
Will it stop off-shoring? Not bloody likely, as long as companies see
improvement in the bottom line. It's a path to establishing professional
standards for yourself, and quite possibly for the whole field.  It sure
isn't anything to be afraid of.

Connie P. Giordano
Senior Technical Writer
Advisor Technology Services
A Fidelity Investments Company
704-330-2069 (w)
704-330-2350 (f)
704-957-8450 (c)
connie -dot- giordano -at- fmr -dot- com
 
"Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause I'm afraid
that we've been cheated here on Earth" - Clint Black "Galaxy Song"




-----Original Message-----
From: k k [mailto:turnleftatnowhere -at- yahoo -dot- com] 
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:44 PM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: RE: Definition of Engineer (was: What to do?)





Chuck Martin:
> I'd venture to say that most
> people--including decision
> makers--probably
> believe that if someone walks in claiming to be,
> say, an electrical
> engineer, that the claim is backed by some minimum
> amount of education. Too
> many of the same people believe that if someone
> walks in claiming to be a
> technical writer, that, well, how hard can writing
> be?
> 

How is this perception problem going to be solved by
licensing? The problem comes from the other people
comparing what they know to what they think tech
writers know. If they believe the tech writer's
training has not been as complete and arduous as
theirs, or that the writer's training has been in
subjects that are not as relevant, they'll still
consider the tech writer a lesser being no matter how
many initials he has behind his name. The only way
licensing could possibly have any effect on the minds
of these people, is if they believe it certifies the
tech writer as having gone through training equal to
theirs. But the fields are so different there is no
way to form a valid comparison. 



Walden Miller:
> However,
> certification is not a way to
> achieve better writers.  It might even lead to weird
> hiring situations in
> which a very good writer could not be hired because
> he lacked the
> certification necessary to be considered a tech
> writer.
> 

Amen. As I pointed out in an earlier post, if we
restrict the number of "certified" writers without
closing off other means whereby companies can hire
writers, we will just limit our employment
possibilities and at the same time give companies
incentive to explore alternative hiring. Licensing
would be nothing but an expensive PR ploy. It would
give employers no incentives and it would place no
requirements on them. The laws that restrict use of
the word "engineer" are effective for engineers
because they're laws, not just image polishing. Coming
up with some procedure where we do nothing but meet
our internal licensing requirements would cost money
but cannot possibly have anywhere near the same
effect. 

My response to the licensing idea is also emotional.
To reiterate what I wrote earlier, requiring licenses
would put out of work some people who are perfectly
capable, but they just don't have the requisite
sheepskin. I cannot and will not support any idea that
would cost the jobs of some of my compatriots. The
idea of thinning our ranks as a way of addressing our
problems is the idea of taking the first step on a
downward spiral. If we are indeed in an image trap, we
will not be served in the long run by gnawing off our
leg to escape. The next time we run into a
problem/trap, will we gnaw off the other leg as well?



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.