TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> A problem that was pointed out by others is that not
> everybody is eligible for a given evaluation or testing
> protocol - ex. the people who can't legally let you see
> their portfolio.
That is assumption, not fact. We don't know the specifics around how
cases like this will be handled.
I feel like we're asking a toddler to parallel park a Chevy Avalanche...
What part of 'initial stages' are we not understanding with regard to
the certification effort?
> I've also raised the point that once your program gets
> big enough, you are almost forced to leave behind any
> labor-intensive evaluation practices in favor of more
> testing-oriented certifications.
Maybe. Again, we don't know the construct. If it's 3 people chained to
a desk evaluating this stuff, then perhaps your prediction will be
true. But, they're still planning this stuff out.
> So I would want to see a classification system or a
> categorization for the certs that would let people in
> TW niches be represented properly.
Likely the case as well.
> The testable body of knowledge needs to be organized
> such that:
>
> a) it is easily and repeatably accessible to all
> (when anybody comes looking, there's one obvious
> path in, and the content is mostly constant, and
> there's a defined "end" - i.e., not totally open-ended
> until you discover you self-paced/self-selected
> studied for the wrong test...)
>
> b) it offers equivalent blocks or checkpoints for
> people in widely divergent industries and workflows
> that nevertheless fall under the rubric 'techwriter'.
This is precisely why they chose the evaluation route. Because you
have people (who even commented as such on my blog post about this)
who firmly believe that their role of "technical writer" or "technical
communicator" simply cannot be defined (in which case I cry
"bullshoy") and that they wear too many hats to possibly be evaluated
on a objective scale of any kind. Them's not my words. Again, I think
this position is, well, laughable. If you can't define your job, how
the heck are you performing it, and being evaluated by your
boss/client/self for any type of advancement or continuation?
> If there's a group of people that you simply don't have
> a way to evaluate (at this time), then please say that
> very obviously on your website(s). Legitimate techwriters
> will need to point to an acknowledged reason why they don't
> have your certification once you become the certification
> heavyweight.
A very good point. And it will create new goals for including those
types (barring any kind of wizardry- or mysticism-heavy roles; those
require evaluation by Hogwarts).
> The basic modules should be freely accessible (and free-gratis)
> because:
>
> a) pay is low or non-existent at-and-below the ground floor,
> and most people are already paying for a formal education
> at this-or-that institution
>
> b) they should be, well, basic.
I disagree. Free certification is about as valuable as a ring out of a
gumball machine.
> I would also allow the taking of the tests/evaluations without
> requiring that a person has formally completed each of your
> study modules.
Sure. If they want to pay to be tested or evaluated blind, let 'em have at it.
> You can build a fee structure onto continuing education if
> you want that to be a profit center, and on higher-level
> testing/evaluation that certifies the levels above basic.
Certification is not about continuing education. This is not a
accredited diploma or certificate of course completion.
> If there's a second general level of competence to
> certify, then avoid having it require experience in
> different industries. Wouldn't want to hold back a
> really excellent documenter of silo equipment and
> safety gear because s/he never wrote for Merck-Frosst
> and doesn't know Mil-spec from a hole in the ground.
Well of course.
> So, the point of that was to suggest that certification
> be kept as inclusive as possible, without sacrificing
> real, valuable criteria.
I think that's the goal.
> Except as, possibly, a joke, don't make a category
> that can only be attained by somebody who wrote for
> _all_ of NASA, a nuclear submarine builder, Glaxxo-Wellcom,
> IBM, John Deere, Lehman Bros., the Australian Department
> of Lands and Resources, MI-5, and ... the training
> manul for Hamburger U. Unless you want it to be
> something of an Honorary PhDucky like the CSPA "E"
> license and the Oscar for Lifetime Achievement.
STC would not be certifying on criteria best left for another industry
or practice's area of expertise. That'd be extreme overkill and
nothing would ever come of it as it'd be far to vast to get arms
around.
Gain access to everything you need to create and publish information
through multiple channels. Your choice of authoring (and import)
formats with virtually any output. Try Doc-To-Help free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
