It’s just over a year since I completed my doctoral studies into identity construction amongst KE staff, and now that I have emerged from the post-submission euphoria, I find myself reflecting on my findings again. Whilst it is true that I developed a typology of KE staff, it is the element around notions of a KE profession which I find to be the most unresolved and left ‘floating’.
When you consider the theories about how professions emerge, there is one angle which I believe to be curiously underdeveloped, this is the role of imagery and visions in confirming the existence of a profession. A profession and its associated specialist knowledge, skills and practices have to be recognised by those outside the immediate community, or how else will the expertise that exists amongst the members be recognised?
When reflecting on the nursing profession, it can be argued that the average layperson has a vision of ‘the nurse’ and what she or he does, and although perceptions may change over time, the nursing profession’s primary directive remains unchanged: that is, nurses care for the sick. Nursing also has the added advantage (or disadvantage) of a history and a media presence which promulgates multiple images of the profession to the general public. It has a position in society whereby most, if not all people, will have had some form of contact with someone linked to the nursing profession. The same cannot be said for KE. It can be, and has been, argued that the KE name conjures up nothing because it’s an amalgam of all sorts of skins, and that the only people who know about KE are primarily KE practitioners. A few years ago, I recall a tongue-in-cheek presentation I gave about skills and competencies required to work in KE. In it I suggested a combination of Capt. James T. Kirk (curiosity and courage), Ghandi (political resilience), Paul McKenna (reading people and situations), Freud (creative thinking) and finally Jean François Gravelot (juggling and balancing). Whilst this may have captured the complexity which exists within various KE roles, I am the first to admit this level of hybridisation does not lend itself too easily to a simple image or vision of a KE professional. However, there is a serious point to be made. What makes a KE professional a KE professional? If you close your eyes, what do you ‘see’ when you think about a KE professional? If you cannot visualise your profession and its membership, then how can you expect others unrelated to the field to ‘see’ it?
As an embryonic profession, I believe it’s time for KE to have a serious imagination-fest if it is to avoid Eric Carle’s (1998) mixed-up chameleon scenario. PraxisAuril and its associated communities are now in a position whereby visibility and external recognition are critical to advancing the occupation into a profession transition process. Until the KE community is able to clearly articulate its distinctiveness, views such as those I found in my research are likely to continue for some time.
I don't feel I'm recognised as part of a profession, no... I feel collectively maybe we're recognised as a profession within our own immediate circles within higher education but outside of higher education, no. (Director, KE)
Therefore, a little plea from me, as training and staff development to improve practices and strengthen the ‘art of KE’ become the norm, remember to spend a little time thinking about the KE self and how this should be visually presented to those outside the KE community.
Dr Debbie Lock, Career Chameleon, Boundary Hopper and ex-Home-Grown - Type A KE individual