Reimagining hiring with Open Recognition

It’s the first day of my three-week holiday so of course I woke up before 6am and I’m writing a work-related post. The reason for this is that on Hacker News just now, I saw a post entitled He who submits a resume has already lost. It’s not only a great title, but a thought-provoking post.

The author, an anonymous blogger who goes by ‘Resident Contrarian’, points out how sending out CVs and resumes is in no way to the benefit of job-seekers:

An [sic] group of 50 applicants submit resumes for a job. 10 or so of them are delusional, and get cut… Of the remaining 40, 35 are rejected… This leaves five candidates… Four of those candidates will eventually be rejected, leaving a best-of-50 candidate who will be paid as if he’s barely qualified.

Last week, I wrote that ‘hiring is broken’. I stand by that. However, we can at least partially solve this problem with Open Recognition based on Open Badges, and Verifiable Credentials. This approach allows us to not only foreground knowledge, skills, and understanding, but also behaviours, relationships, and experiences. I’ve written about this before, as has Laura, but here’s some additional reasons why we need a different approach to hiring, specifically:

1. Levelling the playing field — by encompassing behaviours and experiences Open Recognition paints a fuller picture of candidates, ensuring that employers can unearth hidden gems — and not just those who went to the best universities.
2. Trust, but verify — Open Badges offer transparency and authenticity, covering not just knowledge and skills, but also the relationships that underpin successful teamwork. For instance, a candidate might showcase their coding skills alongside their mentorship experience in a community coding club, offering proof of a well-rounded skillset.
3. Bias reduction — by taking into account personal qualities, Open Recognition can help hiring managers make more equitable decisions. For example, a candidate’s demonstrated leadership in a volunteer organisation could be weighed-up with their formal education and work experience. This ensures that qualified candidates from all walks of life get their foot in the door.
4. No more unpaid labour — “it’s a full time job to apply for a job” is a truism. Open Recognition using Open Badges and Verifiable Credentials streamlines the job-seeking process. It reduces the burden of unpaid labour, so instead of spending countless hours tailoring CVs/resumes and cover letters, candidates can focus on what matters. This includes forging meaningful relationships and engaging in valuable experiences rather than filling in online forms.
5. Mutually-beneficial match — a more transparent hiring process accounting for the full spectrum of a candidate’s strengths works both for candidates and employers alike. For instance, a company seeking a project manager with proven leadership abilities and a history of successful collaborations might quickly identify a candidate who has earned Open Badges in project management methodologies and documented their team-building experiences.

I’d really like to fix hiring so that my own kids don’t have to deal with the soul-crushing reality of applying for jobs as it is in 2023. By embracing a holistic approach to hiring through Open Recognition, I really do think we can create a more equitable, transparent, and more human approach for everyone involved.

If you’re eager to explore this further and discover how you can get involved in the world of Open Badges and Open Recognition, head over to badges.community and join the movement!

The post Reimagining hiring with Open Recognition first appeared on Open Thinkering.

Open Recognition + Critical Pedagogy = empowerment, dialogue, and inclusion

At the crossroads of education, social justice, and personal development stands critical pedagogy, a concept associated with the Brazilian educator and philosopher Paolo Freire. His conviction was that education should be egalitarian, democratic, and transformative; his work has had an outsize impact on my educational philosophy. Critical pedagogy emphasises the significance of dialogue, critical thinking, and active participation. The further I delve into the world of of Open Recognition, the clearer the links with Freire, both in essence and practice.

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire states that:

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.

Open Recognition, like critical pedagogy, is about empowering individuals to take ownership of their personal and professional development. The approach not only foregrounds knowledge, skills, and understanding, but also behaviours, relationships, and experiences.

Freire believed that through open and honest conversations, individuals could challenge existing power structures, question assumptions, and engage in transformative learning experiences. Similarly, Open Recognition offers a way for individuals to engage in meaningful conversations about their skills, experiences, and aspirations — using language and approaches that make sense to them.

In facilitating dialogue over power dynamics, Open Recognition nurtures a sense of community and belonging. It empowers individuals to share their stories and learn from one another, and this exchange of ideas and experiences not only contributes to personal growth but also fosters a sense of collective responsibility and solidarity

Critical pedagogy is grounded in the belief that education should be a vehicle for social change and empowerment. Open Recognition aligns with this vision by providing ways for individuals make meaningful contributions to their communities, challenge the status quo, and actively participate in shaping their own futures.

So it’s fair to say that Open Recognition and critical pedagogy share a common goal: the empowerment and transformation of individuals through dialogue, inclusion, and active participation. By explicitly embracing the principles of critical pedagogy, it’s my belief that Open Recognition can help create a more inclusive and equitable world.

If you’re interested in Open Recognition, critical pedagogy, and doing something different than the status quo, I’d highly suggest joining badges.community!

The post Open Recognition + Critical Pedagogy = empowerment, dialogue, and inclusion first appeared on Open Thinkering.

Embracing the Full Spectrum: towards a new era of inclusive, open recognition

Earlier this month, Don Presant published a post entitled The Case for Full Spectrum “Inclusive” Credentials in which he mentioned that “people want to work with people, not just collection of skills”.

We are humans, not machines.

Yesterday, on the KBW community call, Amy Daniels-Moehle expressed her appreciation for the story that Anne shared in our Open Education Talks presentation about her experiences. Amy mentioned that the Gen-Z kids she works with had been excited when watching it. They used the metaphor of showing the full electromagnetic spectrum of themselves — more than just the visible light that we usually see.

It’s a useful metaphor. Just as the electromagnetic spectrum extends far beyond the range of visible light, encompassing ultraviolet, infrared, and many other frequencies, the concept of Open Recognition encourages us to broaden our perspective. As I’ve said before, it allows us to recognising not only knowledge, skills, and understanding, but also behaviours, relationships, and experiences

I remember learning in my Physics lessons that, with the electromagnetic spectrum, each frequency band has its unique properties, applications, and value. Visible light allows us to perceive the world around us. Ultraviolet and infrared frequencies have their uses in areas such as medicine, communication, and security. Other creatures, such as bees, can actually see these parts of the spectrum, which means they see the world very differently to us.

Similarly, it’s time for us to see the world in a new light. Open Recognition acknowledges that individuals possess diverse skills, competencies, and experiences that might not be immediately apparent or visible. Like the ultraviolet and infrared frequencies, these hidden talents may hold immense value and potential. Instead of doubling-down on what went before, we should be encouraging environment that embraces and celebrates this diversity. We can unlock untapped potential, create new opportunities, and enable more human flourishing.

In the same way that harnessing the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation has led to groundbreaking discoveries and advancements, I believe that embracing Open Recognition can lead to a more inclusive, equitable, and thriving society. By acknowledging and valuing the myriad skills and talents each person brings, we can better collaborate and learn from one another. What’s not to like about that?

Note: if you’re interested in this, there’s a community of like-minded people you can join!

The post Embracing the Full Spectrum: towards a new era of inclusive, open recognition first appeared on Open Thinkering.

Reinventing the Fortress: using Open Recognition to enhance ‘standards’ and ‘rigour’

Imagine a formidable fortress standing tall. Long the bastion of formal education, it’s built upon the pillars of ‘standards’ and ‘rigour’. It has provided structure and stability to the learning landscape. These days, it’s being reinforced with smaller building blocks (‘microcredentials’) but the shape and size of the fortress largely remains the same.

However, as the winds of change begin to blow, a new force emerges from the horizon: Open Recognition. Far from seeking to topple the fortress, this powerful idea aims to harmonise with its foundations, creating a more inclusive and adaptive stronghold for learning.

Open Recognition is a movement that values diverse learning experiences and self-directed pathways. So, at first, it may appear to be in direct opposition to the fortress’s rigidity. However, upon closer inspection, rather than seeking to tear down the walls of standards and rigour, Open Recognition seeks to expand and reimagine them. This ensures that the fortress is inclusive: remaining relevant and accessible to all learners.

To create harmony between these seemingly conflicting forces, it’s important to first acknowledge that the fortress of standards and rigour does have its merits. It provides a solid framework for education, ensuring consistency and quality across the board. However, this approach can also be limiting, imposing barriers that prevent many learners from fully realising their potential.

Open Recognition brings flexibility and personalisation to the fortress. By validating the skills and competencies acquired through non-formal and informal learning experiences, Open Recognition allows the fortress to accommodate different sizes and shape of ‘room’, allowing the unique talents and aspirations of each individual to flourish

The key to harmonising these two forces lies in recognising their complementary nature. Open Recognition strengthens the fortress by expanding its boundaries, while standards and rigour provide the structural integrity that ensures the quality and credibility of the learning experiences within.

Educators and employers, as the guardians of the fortress, play a crucial role in fostering this harmony. By embracing Open Recognition, they can cultivate a more inclusive and dynamic learning ecosystem that values and supports diverse pathways to success. In doing so, they not only uphold the principles of standards and rigour but also enrich the fortress with the wealth of experiences and perspectives that Open Recognition brings.

As the fortress of standards and rigour harmonises with Open Recognition, it becomes a thriving stronghold of lifelong learning, identity, and opportunity. Far from crumbling under the weight of change, the fortress is invigorated by the union of these two powerful forces, ensuring its continued relevance and resilience in an ever-evolving world.

The post Reinventing the Fortress: using Open Recognition to enhance ‘standards’ and ‘rigour’ first appeared on Open Thinkering.

The old ‘chicken and egg’ problem about microcredentials kind of misses the point

I’ve been online long enough to know that you should copy to the clipboard text you’re about to post as a comment. That way you don’t lose it. Don Presant’s blog ate my comment on this post, so I’m posting it here.

For context, Brian Mulligan wondered about the burden that employers/institutions face when an application that contains a large number of digital credentials. He wondered whether anyone is working on tools to ease the burden of validating and evaludating the credential.

My response:

Brian, you make good points here – and ones that have been made before. The problem is that both hiring and Higher Education are broken. And by ‘broken’ (as someone has been through the entire system and has a terminal degree) I mean broken.

So we’re now in a situation where people ask a series of questions to candidates before they look at their CV. This is ostensibly for diversity and unconscious bias (which I fully support) but also because CVs do a terrible job at differentiating between candidates.

Given that many microcredentials simply take existing ‘chunky’ credentials such as degrees and diplomas, and break them down into smaller parts, they’re not solving the problem. They’re just allowing universities to make more money by prolonging it.

Instead, we need full-spectrum recognition of individuals. We’ve been at this ever since the start of my career – first with eportfolios, then with badges, then with blockchain, and now with Verifiable Credentials. The issue is that people mistakenly think it’s the credential, badge, or portfolio that needs to be validated. It’s not, it the identity of the individual.

We’re not going to live in a world where everyone has their own domain, sadly, so we need verification systems that allow people to claim and controlled identifiers either publicly or anonymously identify them. If you think about it, you shouldn’t have to apply for jobs, because jobs should come looking for you. I think the systems that are being built now, coupled with some of the AI that Don was talking about, so I think we’re getting closer to solving all of this.

For those dissatisfied with the false dawn of microcredentialing, I’m working on a ‘Reframing Recognition’ email course which I’m hoping to have ready after I get back from holiday. It’ll help people understand why Open Recognition is a much better approach. Come join badges.community to find out why.

The post The old ‘chicken and egg’ problem about microcredentials kind of misses the point first appeared on Open Thinkering.

Realigning Microcredentials with Open Badges

In a previous blog post, I discussed how microcredentials have deviated from Mozilla’s original Open Badges vision. This post explores some ways in which microcredentials can be realigned with those initial goals and better empower individuals and communities.

Firstly, it’s essential to emphasise the importance of informal and non-formal learning. Experiences such as volunteer work, self-directed online learning, and engaging in communities of practice have immense value. Microcredential issuers should think more widely to recognise a broad range of learning, allowing individuals to showcase not only their knowledge, skills, and understanding, but also their behaviours, relationships, and experiences.

Interoperability and decentralisation are crucial for a thriving microcredential ecosystem. Open standards and protocols can enable seamless sharing and displaying of badges across platforms. Microcredential providers need to think not only about their own issuing, but that of others. How can learners showcase learning that has taken place elsewhere? In addition, how can we use approaches such as Creative Commons licensing to encourage the reuse and remix of badge metadata? The move to Verifiable Credentials will allow badges without images, which will make collaboration around taxonomies even more important.

Thirdly, accessibility and reducing barriers to entry are vital in countering the commercialisation of microcredentials. Universities and other microcredential providers are no doubt feeling the squeeze in the current economy, but free or low-cost learning opportunities make for a more inclusive learning ecosystem. After all, the original vision for Open Badges was to widen participation and recognise different kinds of learning.

Open Recognition plays a key role in realigning microcredentials with the initial Mozilla Open Badges white paper. Along with approaches such as ungrading and Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), we can focus on formative aspects such as learner growth and development, rather than solely on traditional summative evaluation methods. This approach can help build trust and ensure microcredentials are meaningful to employers, educators, and learners alike.

Finally, building a diverse ecosystem is essential. At the moment, microcredentialing seems to be almost entirely about the formal education to employment pipeline. However, wider collaboration can ensure the relevance, sustainability, and utility of microcredentials. Community-driven initiatives and partnerships can foster innovation, create new opportunities, and encourage widespread adoption of the original Open Badges vision.

So, in conclusion, realigning microcredentials with the original Open Badges vision has the potential to empower learners, recognise diverse skills, and foster a more accessible recognition ecosystem. By implementing the strategies discussed in this post, we can contribute to the revitalisation of the Open Badges movement and create a better future for learners worldwide.

---

Image CC BY-ND Visual Thinkery for WAO

The post Realigning Microcredentials with Open Badges first appeared on Open Thinkering.

5 reasons why microcredentials are not Open Badges in name, spirit, or ethos

I was talking with someone today who reflected that Open Badges effectively lost its theoretical underpinnings when Mozilla handed over stewardship of the standard in 2017. I think this is true, which is why Open Recognition is a much more interesting space to be now than the monoculture than is microcredentialing.

This post outlines some of what I think has been lost in terms of the extremely fertile period of time from 2011 until 2016. For those not aware, I was involved in the Mozilla community around badges from mid-2011, went to work on the Mozilla Open Badges team, became their Web Literacy Lead, and then have consulted on badge-related projects since leaving Mozilla in 2015.

Here’s my list of how microcredentialing has taken us away from the original vision, especially compared to the Open Badges white paper and subsequent work by Mozilla, HASTAC, and the Connected Learning Alliance:

1. Centralisation — the Open Badges ecosystem was designed to be a decentralised system based on ‘backpacks’. An zeal for control has led to centralised control over the issuing, validation, and management of badges. This has had a negative impact on the diversity of issuers and issuing platforms.
2. Limited interoperability — despite interoperability being baked into the Open Badges standard, some of the more corporate and large-scale badge issuing platforms have gone out of their way to reduce the value this feature. .
3. Narrow focus on job skills — Open Badges were supposed to recognise that learning happens everywhere, particularly outside traditional formal education settings. However, microcredentials are earned almost exclusively for skills which may be useful in the world of work, and issued by institutions and companies. This undervalues the importance of informal learning experiences and overlooks other important aspects of personal and professional growth.
4. Commercialisation — some organisations have taken a profit-driven approach to microcredentials, emphasising ‘brand value’ and revenue generation over accessibility and openness. This not only limits the availability of free or low-cost learning opportunities, but undermines the original intent of the Open Badges system.
5. Barrier to entry — the original vision was that anyone could create, issue, and share badges. However, some microcredential platforms have established barriers to entry, such as fees or partnership requirements, which can make it difficult for smaller organisations or individuals educators to participate in the ecosystem.

The people remaining loyal to the original, revolutionary vision of badges are all talking about Open Recognition these days. Microcredentials are ‘dead metaphors‘ which lack power in terms of human agency and individuals and communities being able to tell their story.

I’m looking forward to continuing to fight the good fight.

---

Image: cropped screenshot taken from homonym.ca

The post 5 reasons why microcredentials are not Open Badges in name, spirit, or ethos first appeared on Open Thinkering.

Verifiable Credentials and Open Badges 3.0: What’s changed?

Note: cross-posted at LinkedIn

Open Badges are web-native digital credentials that allow anyone to recognise anyone else for anything. One popular approach is microcredentialing, although there is a growing movement around Open Recognition.

It’s not long since the third major version of the standard was released, with this one aligning with the W3C’s Verifiable Credential data model. If that sounds like a mouthful, and if reading specification documents makes your eyes glaze over, here’s a few highlights to explain what’s new.  

1. A Farewell to Email Addresses

Although it’s technically been possible to use something other than email addresses in previous versions of the Open Badges standard, almost nobody has done so. Using an email address as an identifier can be problematic in terms of privacy, security, and long-term maintenance, as email addresses can change or become inactive over time.

Verifiable Credentials use a decentralised identifier (DID), which provides a unique, persistent, and secure way of proving who you are. This can be based on virtual wallets built into web browsers and smartphone apps, although they don’t have to be. In fact, you can generate a DID from a phone number or email address. 

The DID method ensures greater privacy and security, as well as long-lasting recognition of achievements, independent of changes in the recipient’s email address. Although there may be a little bit of confusion to begin with, hopefully badge platforms will make this extremely easy to use.

2. Image-free recognition

One of the mandatory requirements of Open Badges is to use some sort of image. In fact, the metadata is hard-coded into the image as part of the ‘baking’ process. I do like a good badge image, but sometimes they can be a barrier to recognition because organisations want to ensure consistency with a house style. 

With Open Badges v3.0, the alignment with the Verifiable Credentials data model means that there is no longer any requirement for an image. Verifiable Credentials are primarily focused on data and use something called JSON-LD (a standard for linked data) to describe the content. This approach means that the badge/credential is both human- and machine-readable.

While I hope it’s not the end for images in badges, I do think that it’s incredibly helpful to be able to recognise others quickly and easily. 

3. Greater control

With Open Badges, the badge earner has to either share none of the details (the metadata) about their badge, or all of it. Verifiable Credentials allow for more granular control using ‘Verifiable Presentations’. This means that holders can choose what information to share and with whom, giving them greater autonomy and flexibility.

There are all kinds of things possible with this approach, including for example having an ID card in the form of a Verifiable Credential. Using the Verifiable Presentation approach, an individual could, for example, remain anonymous while still being able to prove that they are of a legal age to buy alcohol, or have the correct licence to drive a car.

In a learning context, someone could choose to create a Verifiable Presentation of several of their badges/credentials for the purposes of applying to university or for a job. Alternatively, the Verifiable Presentation could be made up of different people’s data showing the skills and achievements of a cohort. It’s very flexible.

Conclusion

As the technological landscape of learning and development continues to evolve, it’s important for educators and organisations to understand what’s possible. While Open Badges v2.1 is a great standard upon which to build, the opportunities with v3.0 using the Verifiable Credentials data model are exciting! I’m looking forward to starting to issue badges using the new approach, and sharing more information as I go.

---

Image CC BY-ND Visual Thinkery for WAO

The post Verifiable Credentials and Open Badges 3.0: What’s changed? first appeared on Open Thinkering.

Climbing the Mountain of Assessment: Comparing Ungrading, Open Recognition, and RPL

Note: cross-posted at LinkedIn

Ungrading, Open Recognition, and Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) are distinct yet related ways of improving the assessment of learning. At a time when assessment is in the spotlight due to advances in AI technologies, it’s worth exploring their similarities and differences — as well as how they can be used together.

Let’s explore this further using one of my favourite metaphors: walking in the mountains ⛰️

Ungrading is akin to focusing on the process of learning, rather than the outcome. It’s like a Sherpa guiding a climber up a mountain, emphasising the skills and knowledge developed along the way rather than simply reaching the summit. Through ungrading, educators can provide personalized feedback and support that allows students to reflect on and improve their learning journey.

Open Recognition, in contrast, is like providing multiple paths to the summit. It’s like creating a mountain range with different peaks, each representing a different set of skills or knowledge. This approach allows individuals to showcase their competencies and achievements in ways that are recognised across different contexts, such as earning badges that demonstrate their skills.

RPL is like mapping out the best route to the summit. It’s like a mountaineering guide who takes the time to understand each climber’s abilities and experiences, and then tailors a plan that meets their specific needs. Through recognising prior learning, individuals can receive credit for their existing knowledge and skills, and identify the most efficient and effective way to reach their goals.

So, in summary, while ungrading emphasises the process of learning, Open Recognition offers multiple paths to its recognition, and RPL focuses on customising the learning journey. By using (and potentially combining) these approaches to assessment, educators can improve the quality of learning and recognition in a variety of contexts.

---

Background image to Venn diagram by Jerry Zhang

The post Climbing the Mountain of Assessment: Comparing Ungrading, Open Recognition, and RPL first appeared on Open Thinkering.

Wake me up when you’ve stopped talking about microcredentials for workforce development

Note: this post had a previous title: Keeping alive the dream of an open, democratic, web-native way of giving and receiving recognition

---

This is a response to Justin Mason’s excellent provocation / blog post “Thinking Out Loud” About Why Static, Online, Competency-Based Microcredential Courses Are Boring. I want to use this post to get a bit more radical than Justin as I don’t have to include a disclaimer about my employer’s opinions 😉

Justin makes four points in his post:

1. Higher education’s primary value isn’t in curating and disseminating instructional content.
2. Static, competency-based microcredentials in higher education probably won’t solve the “skills gap.”
3. “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”
4. Competency-based micro-credentials focus on workforce development to the exclusion of liberal arts education

Despite having four qualifications from universities, I don’t actually care that much about the continuation of Higher Education in its current form. It’s also been more than a decade since I’ve been employed by a formal education institution. So I want to highlight a point that Justin makes which reminds me that all but the most prestigious universities are about to be eaten alive:

In theory, we could develop practical microcredentials for all the contexts. But who has the resources to do that? You know who has the resources to at least try? LinkedIn, and huge companies like it. For example, you know who has a vast collection of LinkedIn Learning courses and is now promoting skills assessments to compliment them, and is awarding badges? You know who’s partnering with large higher education systems and other companies to develop microcredentials around LinkedIn Learning? Yup. If you’re developing short, online, static, competency-based courses + microcredentials with the idea that you’ll create a large collection of them, ask yourself if your institution has the resources to build microcredential collections that will compete with LinkedIn Learning’s microcredentials in scope and quality. And then allow yourself to have a good cry.

Dividing up existing courses into bite-size pieces will hasten the demise of Higher Education institutions, especially if they partner with organisations such as LinkedIn. Using a third-party provider to give students access to courses that make them more employable is all well and good, but at some point they will cut out the middleman. Why pay tens of thousands to go to university to get a series of microcredentials you can get from the same provider for less (or while working)?

Universities will realise too late that what they’re selling are experiences and signals. What they’ve got the opportunity to move into is recognition of the unique nature of each learner. So instead of making ever smaller generic credentials, they’ve got the chance to provide bespoke recognition.

I really believe that the next step higher education takes toward making itself more accessible, inclusive, and equitable is through the recognition of life-wide learning. I wager that microcredentials, or something very much like them*, will probably be a big part of how recognition of life-wide learning works. But if microcredentials are understood to be 100% about workforce development, then I worry they’ll contribute to the workforce-ification of public higher education, and that’s something I don’t want to see happen. I wish, oh how I wish, that faculty and administrators who advocate for higher education’s public mission would stop simply identifying microcredentials with workforce development. Instead, I would ask them to consider how microcredentials could be one available tool that helps us extend the reach of public higher education to previously unserved people, as well as extend the lens of liberal arts learning to encompass lifelong and life-wide learning! Seriously, our rapidly changing world needs that lens!

People need income to live, which usually means that they need to work. Most work, but not all work, comes in the shape of ‘a job’ which entails an employer. This does not mean that we need to tailor our whole education system to please employers. As Justin mentions, the ‘skills gap’ is a convenient fiction peddled by large organisations who do not want to spend money on training and development. It’s only recently, after all, that graduates were expected to be immediately ‘work ready’ for employers.

But even if we did want to please employers, the way that Higher Education seems to be approaching microcredentialing seems to be backwards. Instead of creating generic content that then needs to be applied to an area, the world of work requires extremely contextual and domain-dependent recognition of knowledge, skills, and understanding.

[K]nowledge and skills tend to be embedded in contexts. People (okay… mostly my relatives) bemoan higher education for being too abstract. Learning should be practical, they say. What my relatives don’t realize is that an amount of “abstractness” is necessary if you’re developing curricula intended for any and all contexts and learners. Take, for example, an introductory microcredential on project management. The trouble is that project management in the construction industry looks significantly different from project management in the health care industry or software development industry. Even within a given industry, project management will differ from one organization to the next. So microcredential designers must consider tradeoffs. They can either build a “practical” microcredential curriculum that is 80% useful to 5% of their potential learner-consumers, or they can build an “abstract” curriculum that is 40% useful to 80% of their potential learner-consumers (those percentages are made up examples).

A microcredential itself is not ‘content’ but rather a signal of having learned or mastered something. While a university might want to control the value of the different kinds of credentials it offers, it’s not quite as simple as that. As the illustration at the top of this post shows, there are many facets to take into account. What Higher Education institutions need to bear in mind that, as part of this great unbundling, there is no actual requirement that they are the ones who issue valuable forms of recognition.

The work that I’m involved with at the moment (alongside Justin!) through Keep Badges Weird and the OSN Open Recognition working group involves thinking about what happens when a Community of Practice takes the place of an institution. I think we could see the return of guilds run as a form of co-operative trade union which would recognise and legitimate workers within a given domain. They could push back against the overbearing power of employers. I think it would be massively preferable to the situation in which we find ourselves right now.

Most of the questions that badges have raised over the last 12 years have been ‘trojan horse’ in nature. What do we mean by ‘quality assurance’? How can we do assessment at scale? What’s the minimum viable qualification? In fact, when I was on the original Mozilla Open Badges team, the main opposition to badges came from exactly those kinds of universities that are now jumping on the ‘static, online, competency-based’ microcredential bandwagon. I suspect they’re, either consciously or unconsciously, looking for ways to embrace, extend, and extinguish an open standard to try and firm up their position within the ecosystem.

Perhaps I’m getting older, but I see a lot of issues that on the surface look like they’re about skills and credentialing that are actually deeper and more structural. There are assumptions about power relations baked into every conversation I have had over more than a decade in this area. At some point we’re going to need to have some real talk about that as well. My view, unsurprisingly, is that we need more democracy and autonomy in the workplace, and that this starts with this being practised within our education systems.

For now, though, I’d encourage those who see the world through the lens of microcredentials to read some work that my colleagues and I have done in this area over the last few years. I’d suggest reading these three posts, focused particularly on Open Recognition in the workplace:

• What is Open Recognition, anyway?
• Open Recognition is for every type of workplace
• I got 99 problems, but recognition ain’t one

Once you’ve done that, come and introduce yourself to the KBW Community, start earning some badges for recognition, and see if we can keep alive the revolutionary dream of an open, democratic, web-native way of giving and receiving recognition!

The post Wake me up when you’ve stopped talking about microcredentials for workforce development first appeared on Open Thinkering.