Accreditation

What is accreditation?
Types of accreditation
Statutory accreditation
Authority accreditation
Peer accreditation
Self accreditation

What is Accreditation?

To be accredited is to be ‘officially recognised’ or ‘generally accepted’.  It is ‘having guaranteed qualities’ (Concise Oxford dictionary). Accreditation is akin to a licence: accreditation is linked to ideas such as vouching for, providing a warrant for, authorising.  An assessment process is a measure of accomplishment and in itself, it rarely ensures a right to ‘do’ something.  The real power centre is in the hands of those who have the power to authorise, to licence and to approve who can do what with what, where with whom, for what reward.  Accreditation is the means of controlling the activity, and controlling the position the activity holds amongst other activities that are either in competition with or at odds with the one in question.  Accreditation enables those who are included to know they belong to a distinctive body and to proclaim a common form of recognition, to expect others to know what their status is generally regarded to be worth. 

Traditional methods of accreditation rely upon the new entrant measuring up to the required standards of the elders and betters of the practice in question.  Traditional rituals, (usually in the form of examinations or assessments) are devised to maintain obstacles at the point of entry to discourage the faint-hearted and to create an aura of exclusivity for those who enter safely inside .
In earlier times, accrediting a traveller to act as an envoy, for example, would be an important requirement.  In order to ensure people were who they said they were, credentials were important as a means of distinguishing the fake from the genuine. There is no longer the need to formalise individual ranks and status.  We do not live in a society governed by fixed notions like ‘The Great Chain of Being’ and a belief that everyone should know his place and no one shall move.  The Divine Right of Kings passed away some time ago and with it went the certainty of rank and status assuring privileged positions and treatment.  In a more open and democratic world, no one need fear being duped by someone posing as belonging to one class when in reality they belong to another. 

The social fabric will not collapse overnight if someone from a humble background actually makes it into the ranks of the successful, as was once feared.  It is from notions such as these that the need for legalistic forms of accreditation derives and still draws their strength.  At a time when most people will move careers (and maybe even professions) every few years, what value is it to spend a fortune getting accredited to an activity that may be your livelihood for only a few years?  Well, it enables you to have access to other similar professions when the time comes to move: all part of the social conspiracy that to which professional status gives you access.  It exempts you from having to go through the same rigmarole everyone else goes through.  It is a form of social membership card that provides entry to all manner of privileges.  Accreditation is, therefore, much to be prized and many new practitioners find themselves only too willing to discover that their former, strongly held convictions about being person-centred and open to negotiation are quite easily sacrificed in order to get accreditation to practice with a professional organisation.

Types of Accreditation

There are four principle types of accreditation:

• Statutory
• Authority
• Peer
• Self

Statutory Accreditation and Authority Accreditation are usually linked together, but need not be so. Similarly, Self and Peer Accreditation tend to go together, but need not do so.  The first two types of accreditation are familiar types that we meet in the medical world and in other well-established professions.

1. Statutory Accreditation

Where some group has a legal framework established by the state to prescribe its parameters (the statutory element), there is likely to be another separate authority that regulates the activity. Within a profession, it is often its own internal body.  This body, established by statute and responsible to some governmental agency, is charged with the task of managing the activities of the membership, supervising the licensing of its own membership and performing the legally approved task.  The result, in short, is to ensure the profession is firmly embedded within the hierarchy of influence that we know as the ’establishment’.  Being part of the established order in almost everyone’s mind is a recipe for conservatism and caution.  Activities that have any great claims to radicalism or innovation do not seek such a form of regulation and position.  To be so ‘established’ is a by-word for having become a well-adjusted member of the social order. This is something that psychotherapy is unlikely to ever, in truth, be able to claim and if, it were, would no doubt ensure its complete impotence as a social force.
Here the law of the land determines that practitioners and professionals are registered.  This is almost always linked to authority accreditation. Statutory powers are used firmly to cement and establish professional oppression.  It is conceivable that statutory accreditation could be combined with self and/or peer accreditation as a transitional stage in the move towards de-professionalisation .  It would also foster more radical educational initiatives, since some of the issues that self and peer accreditation raises would revolutionise the teaching, and more importantly, the education of the practitioners.

Claimed Benefits

1. Safety and protection of the public. We have only to think of the case of the BSE crisis to recognise how flimsy a form of defence this is. There is a misplaced sense of confidence by the general public in official bodies established to protect the public interest actually being able to perform effectively in the interest of the citizen, rather than in the interests of the Government of the day.  Whilst we still live within an authoritarian state that determinedly tells us what we can and cannot do, that has no freedom of information act, no charter of citizens rights and where we remain subjects of a monarch, we are unlikely to see either public authorities become more accountable or more responsive to the needs and wishes of the citizenry.

2. Clarity of where responsibility lies and clear methods of accountability.The Bristol Hospital trust, which took ten years to bring an enquiry forward into infant deaths, is a glaring example of how misplaced public confidence is in such systems. The great attraction of such systems is that they sound as though they are the kind of dependable institutional protection that we need, but they are rarely responsive to the public mood until a great deal of anguish has already been generated.

3. Providing public reassurance. In the two above examples we see an increasing scepticism in the public mood that undermines confidence in other institutions and in the sphere of public life itself.

Limitations

1. The reassurance such accreditation gives is often open to widespread doubt. The public soon loses confidence in other related bodies when individual agencies that are under pressure are seen to be working ineffectively.

2. Statutory bodies are often very conservative in relation to embracing new practices, or encouraging new forms of practice. The link between statutory bodies and the socio-political establishment means they are often under the control of like-minded people who all share a similar outlook; one considerably removed from that of the population at large.

In systems of statutory accreditation, the way lies open to all manner of avoidances, temptations and collusions. It has only a limited and well-circumscribed place in a democratic society: one that needs to be well regulated by members of the public, along with those with a particular contribution to make.  Many public bodies have traditionally been ‘stuffed’ with experts who, whatever differences they may have, all have a common social standing and a well-established view of what is good for us.  The English class system may be breaking down, yet this form of operating is still in evidence, reducing the scope for the citizen to be an influential actor in public life.  The lack of ordinary members of the public sitting upon regulatory bodies is a national disgrace and an illustration of how far our social and civic affairs are in the hands of professional elites – elites that have largely replaced (where once they were synonymous with) social class elites of previous generations.

2. Authority Accreditation

This is the traditional form of accreditation: one provided by an external body.  It may be some government agency, a statutory or semi-statutory body that is awarded the authority to ‘licence’ practitioners or the special powers of a membership association.  Examples include the UKCC for nursing, the accreditation of doctors, accountants and lawyers.  Many bodies wishing to gain kudos will ‘ape’ the authority accreditation forms of those who are already licensed in fields they perceive are related to their own, or which they wish others to believe are in some way comparable to the position they wish to occupy. The world of psychotherapy with its UKCP is clearly attempting to give the impression that it stands in a similar relationship to its powers as the UKCC for nursing does, i.e. that it is a statutory body. The UKRC , the latest version of registration for counsellors, is following similar lines and attempting to create in the minds of the public a sense of similarity and status to that of the UKCC for nursing.

When a body is given the authority, or more usually takes it or ‘persuades’ the field to accept its authority, then it is usually accompanied by a strong determination to stamp out or marginalise alternative forms of practice and accreditation in an effort to keep others out.  Such forms of accreditation are at odds with the spirit of the times and the move towards more autonomous groups, network organisations and the empowerment of the individual to make wise choices about their own decisions. 

Authority accreditation is a means of perpetuating dependence upon authority and retaining power by those who have it over those who seek the imprimatur to practice: not something likely to promote innovation and new ways of practice. 

‘What happens originally, is that some group of people who are necessarily self or peer accredited as F’s engage in a further, higher order act of self or peer accreditation and authorise themselves to engage in the unilateral authorisation of others to become F’s.  Thus experts/professionals maintain their privileged caste; they create in aspiring F’s an appetite for similar status and similar powers so that these aspirants will conform to the imposed accreditation game in order to become caste members. 
The contradiction of the game is the people who first gave 'properly qualified' this kind of meaning, necessarily exempted themselves from the definition imposed on others. These methods exclude any kind of self and peer assessment prior to accreditation, and exclude any negotiation between the prospective F and the authorities about the accreditation.’  J. Heron, Facilitator Styles.

Claimed Benefits

1. Maintains standards, of the status quo, at an intellectual, vocational organisational and political level.

Such an arrangement is often favoured because it implies a strong form of social control and it certainly provides for the psychological and social security needs of many by maintaining a hierarchical social system with power vested very firmly with the accrediting professionals who control entry.

Limitations

1. The deep internal contradiction inherent in the enterprise, as the originators betray the radical impulse of their original purpose. For example, it purports to be a method of maintaining high standards, both of professionalism, training and education yet the method that is used is at odds with the educational goal.  The self-monitoring and sensitively aware professional is educated by a method that provides no opportunity for this to find any real expression. At the same time she is somehow supposed to acquire this ability by a method which actually prevents the individual holding to the worth of her own experience, as opposed to that of those in power who have to be appeased.

2. Authority accreditation is bound up with an oppressive educational and social system.  It promotes intellectual, vocational and professional conformity, fear-ridden concerns about what others may think. There is a distinct lack of awareness, by those trained in this method, about these contradictions and so we have highly competent individuals who have the talent of critical thinking in just about everything except the method in which they were trained. It also has as a corollary that it necessarily emphasises intellectual and cognitive skills over interpersonal and affective skills, since an authoritarian system is oppressive in the form of the provision, the impositions upon the student and the operation of the system.

This amounts to a form of political exploitation: of oppression by professionalism. Professionals maintain the myth of superior excellence and expertise from which ordinary human beings are necessarily debarred and which it would be irresponsible and dangerous for them in any degree to practice.  The professionals by the educational, accreditation and social system they run, condition their clients to see themselves as inadequate and dependent.  Psychodynamically, the professions deal unawarely with their own unacknowledged, distressed dependency needs by conditioning others to be dependent upon them.  The result is that the clients are manipulated by being labelled, classified, categorised, interpreted and analysed in the names of ‘diagnosis’ and ‘treatment’.

3. Self-accreditation, Peer Assessment, Peer Accreditation

Here, we move to altogether more novel forms of accreditation and ones that are usually linked to some shared form of assessment.  In other words, those getting accredited are usually also making assessments.  Underlying most forms of self and peer assessment methods is the idea of a community of peers; folk who share a commitment to practice and to being openly accountable to others about how they go about that practice.  It is voluntarily entered into and becomes a strong source of personal, as well as professional, development in itself.  Practitioners are presented with the challenge of making appropriate claims about their competence, having them rigorously explored and potentially modified in the light of feedback. The key question to ask is:
‘What are the attributes and expertise I want to claim I have, in order to offer myself as competent to do this work before my peers?’
Peer assessment may confirm, or not, a form of self-accreditation since it is the individual who is making the claim and the peers who are witnessing it - with more or less harmony.  It is unlikely in any community of peers that an individual will self-accredit in the face of strongly expressed reservations and concerns from their peers - though this could and would be allowed to happen since primacy is being given to self-accreditation. 
‘On the other hand if peer authorisation and prior assessment are exercised in an entirely unilateral manner, without any negotiation with the potential F, then we simply have authority accreditation. It seems, therefore that peer accreditation necessarily involves negotiation between the potential F and her peers.’  John Heron p 42, Facilitator Styles.

Claimed Benefits

1. There is accountability to a wider group and the suggestion of a community of peers in a shared endeavour. For those agitated over protection of the client, it is straightforward to explain that you are accredited to practice with a group of other practitioners who meet every …. (whatever the frequency) to renew their commitment to practice.

2. Motivates self-preparation and sharpens up self-assessment. The rigour of a self and peer assessment and accreditation system, as those who have entered into it thoroughly will testify, is a daunting experience.  Not simply because it is challenging to account for practice, but also because other peers are supporting the claimant to make the best of their claim.

It is often a challenge when put to it, to actually state what level of work a practitioner can now undertake.  Under claiming is a real difficulty in the early stages of self and peer assessment procedures.  A form of collective collusion to minimise the skills, attributes and understandings can come into play out of the imported fears that any claim to effectiveness will be looked upon with suspicion and leave the claimant open to unsupportive challenges ‘to prove it’. Recognising that such a process requires a great deal of emotional maturity and sensitivity and a good deal of practice before it goes ‘live’ is crucial.

3. Does everything claimed for self-accreditation listed below. Perhaps the advantage of this system over the one below is the combination of personal authority, which is held as the primary requirement in self-accreditation, with the validation and challenge of peers.  Clearly a way lies open for self-accreditation to be no more than the expression of delusional fantasies.  At best, self-sustained claims are strengthened by support and validation from others, who stand to gain nothing from their assent.  Freely entering into such an arrangement is a strong guarantee of a healthy open-mindedness on the part of a practitioner who practices alone much of the time. Getting some corroboration about how they regard their work can be reassuring.  Of course, there is nothing to stop a practitioner entering into such a process with their clients as the assessing group.

Limitations

1. Opportunities for peer group pressure, partisan intrigue and schisms at a certain stage of development, especially if this is an attempt to side step the conventional world, but remain somehow attached to it. One of the limitations of all new initiatives is the mixed motives of those signing up.  There are the genuine radicals, there are the genuine doubters and there are others who no one can be quite sure about. 

There is also the much vexed question of how to proceed. If we meet as peers, how are we to facilitate ourselves through the complexities of a process that may be unfamiliar to many?  If there are strong rivalries and ego positions at stake, the process can easily and swiftly become deformed.  For example, it may be that people are committed to the process in theory and even want to put it into practice but have anxieties about each other’s reputations as a result of hearsay and rumour.  When those involved realise they have no guarantees to anything (any more than any other system guarantees anything) some feel that they are better off joining the conventional world. After all this, being an ‘outsider’ may be all right, but it promises nothing more secure, or of more value, than what awaits with the payment of professional fees.

2. It can undermine a potential individual member if the negotiations are not clear and practised ahead of time. For a new entrant to the process, a lack of understanding of the stages and the sequences can make the actuality too daunting to manage.  On the other hand, nothing by way of explanation can do full justice to the practice.  It is therefore important for those involved to provide some outline and some willingness to go as far as possible, to enable a new arrival to get a ‘feel’ for what is to come and maybe some practice at it before they go ‘live’.

3. Who is to be an ‘accrediting peer’? How is she to be chosen and by whom? The selection of the group is clearly a matter for consideration and depends upon the activity that is being accredited.  Interestingly enough though, since what is really being tested out is the sincerity and accuracy of one person making a claim that their peers will stand by, it is not always necessary to know the deep intricacies of the practice in question. What is important is that there is a willingness not to let disquiet go by unexplored and not to falter when a person is clearly using modesty as a way of hiding their talents even from themselves.

4. How does this work?   Few people have any real experience of the complexities of the process. The notion of self and peer assessment is so deeply counter-cultural that there is little experience of how to operate such a system with any degree of sophistication.  But as more and more people experience more participative learning approaches, attend participative research and co-operative inquiry research projects, and generally become more familiar with collaborative styles of working that reduce barriers to sharing information and which encourage more openness to the other, then such methods will become more and more familiar.  However, there is no doubt we have a long way to go.

4. Self-Accreditation

Self-accreditation embodies the concept of personal accountability. Within this there are three major elements:
I can give account for my actions.
I can give voice to my experience.
I can stand by my thoughts.
I invite my peers to enter into dialogue with me.  In doing so, I am willing to be open to challenge and clarification that may lead to change.  It is difficult to make real change without first knowing where I am.  If I am only pretending where I am, if I have no commitment to being accountable, then I may act as I like, give voice to experience which is inauthentic - however passionately felt at the time - and adopt whatever rationale happens to suit me in the moment. 
The crucible for this process is immersion in the peer principle and self and peer assessment. Yet there can be places where self-accreditation means little more than that the individual simply puts up a plaque on the wall and waits for clients to come.  They may seek some support from others or they may be part of a group who have put real effort into providing a way of evaluating what it is they each do, how they do it, to what standard, over what range of clients and so on. They provide a shared forum to hear and support one another’s claims.  They may even operate an informal system of support and a means of managing complaints.

Claimed Benefits

1. Preserves and enhances the creativity and self-direction of the individual.  Only by repeatedly affirming the worth of the person and their right to be the judge of their own actions will we begin to shift the dead weight of conformity that restrains us all.  Self-assessment is a primary, a necessary, precondition for any valuable creativity.

2. Whenever we do something for the first time we are in effect saying that we have chosen to accredit ourselves as competent, at least to make the attempt. Such opportunities and conscious efforts help to give a push to further growth, awareness and vigilance in relation to the process of one’s own and another’s development.

3. It takes time to prepare, claim and maintain. It leaves the learning open to the level of understanding and the maximum degree of self-direction. It honours the primacy of self-assessment.

‘For the human condition is such that, in the last analysis, each person is her own best judge: the ultimate authoriser of competence within.  Competence that depends on its legitimating from without is surely less than true competence.’  J. Heron, Facilitator Styles.

Limitations

1. It is open to the manipulative, the deceivers and the charlatans.  There are, however, some in-built controls.  The more distress-distorted or compulsive the individual, the more this will appear in practice.  Self-directing learners can soon distinguish those they wish to work with from those they do not. It is unusual for the individual concerned to be totally unknown to those in the work and surrounding it; quality control is informally maintained.

2. The period of learning may be too short and the claiming may be too grand. The earlier a claim is being made, the less the subtlety of the distinctions of actual practice, as opposed to supposed practice, will be apparent

3. Those receiving the service are at the mercy of the practitioner; there is no seal of approval or quality. People are not children and attempts to treat them that way simply infantilises them.  It only encourages them to develop, or to maintain, a protracted dependency upon others who are competent in ways they aren’t and perpetuates professionalisation and élitism. It runs counter to the whole self-help movement that will increase in other fields - law, education and medical matters. Looking to external bodies to provide the imprimatur inhibits the growth and development of everyone. Heron pointed out that by 1977 and certainly since: 

...most of the competent facilitators in this country who work across industry, business and social and personal life were and are for the most part working as self accredited practitioners.  No formal system operates and the work has managed to develop with all the attendant problems that occur even when some formal authority accreditation exists.  Two things follow from this.  Firstly, the relative efficacy of self-accreditation is underlined.  Secondly, those who are self-accredited are in no position to demand other forms of accreditation from others.’

Time Limited Statements

Accreditation statements should be time limited.  They should be statements that reflect the levels of competence, or areas of practice for a given period, say one to three years, and should then be renewable.  They may be renewable in as much as the individual submits an account of continuing work in the field and is re-accredited or, in a more rigorous group, the practitioner has to re-submit for a live self and peer assessment process.  Groups of practitioners interested in promoting their own development, or improving standards of performance, may develop levels of accreditation to which individuals can aspire.  This would make it possible for members of such a peer learning community to contribute to the culture of practice and theory as time goes by and keep alive the spirit of collaborative inquiry out of which they have grown.

Whilst such a scheme may sound both simple and ambitious, the fact that it has not been attempted may indicate something.  The world of counselling, (as exemplified by BAC for example,) which is an ideal activity for this process to be incorporated, does not use such a system in its accreditation of counsellors.  Instead, it relies heavily on written documentation submitted to panels of experts who decide without seeing a counsellor in action.