Why accreditation matters
Todd Defren told me he never meant to start a controversy, calling his post on accreditation for communicators a throw-away post. But between the comments to his post and those to Kami Watson Huyse’s—whose post supporting accreditation sparked Todd’s post in the first place—the accreditation discussion has taken on a life of its own.
To summarize, Kami believes more accredited communicators will result in an improvement in PR’s image. It’s not the accreditation itself, she wrote, but rather the learning acquired during preparation for the test. Todd believes that accreditation tests candidates only on the values of the organization that offers it. PRSA’s accreditation, for example, reflects the association’s particular viewpoints; further, Todd sees the organization as behind the times and therefore accrediting based on outdated principles and practices.
I am accredited, carrying the “Accredited Business Communicator” (ABC) designation from the International Association of Business Communicators. I received my accreditation in 1984 following a lengthy process that included submission of a portfolio and a daylong written and oral test. I entered the process in order to prove to one person that I could do it. (That’s another story.) I finished the process with an inventory of skills and knowledge where I was weak. I focused over the next couple years on firming up my knowledge in those areas. Even though I passed the test, I identified my shortcomings. I wouldn’t have been able to do that if I had not gone through the process. To me, that’s all the benefit I need to convince me of accreditation’s value.
Todd also objects to the notion of mandatory accreditation—as do I. Accreditation is not certification and should not be treated as though it is. Certification is required in most countries for doctors, accountants, lawyers and other professions for which it is suitable. In these lines of work, there are right answers and wrong answers, and not a lot of grey in between. There’s a right way to tally the ledger that does not allow for any “creative” bookkeeping. In communications, however, it’s all grey areas; there is no test that can establish that a communicator knows the correct approach to a challenge. There could be a hundred correct approaches.
The value of certification is that customers (or patients) know that the professional serving them has been certified by a standards body as qualified and competent. If a professional acts outside the bounds of the standards—an incompetent misdiagnosis, an accounting error, etc.—customers can take action. For professions like communications, there are just too many variables, too many right ways to tackle a communications effort (including some that haven’t been thought of yet). Communicators innovate new approaches every day.
Some countries do require certification for public relations practitioners, it’s worth noting. But I find accreditation to be a much better approach. Accreditation does not test the depths of a communicator’s knowledge. Instead, it is designed to confirm that the communicator grasps the fundamentals of communication, from tactics to management. That can be worthwhile to employers and clients. You don’t need accreditation to be a well-rounded, experienced communicator, of course, and those who do seek accreditation do it for different reasons. But the value of the process made it worthwhile for me.
09/06/06 | 3 Comments | Why accreditation matters