The challenge ... is nothing less than defining the nature and scope of our field. While we engage in a robust debate over whether professionalization of our field will be helpful or harmful, we get closer every year to becoming a profession. The fundamental characteristics of a profession include a recognized body of knowledge, an agreed-upon set of skills, and a mechanism (such as a certification board) for defining who is in and who is out.* * *The problem here is that if we do not develop sophisticated mechanisms for credentialing in our field, clumsy legislative or regulatory attempts will be made by those outside the field or those seeking to enter it. The opportunity that invites us – and has been inviting us for some time – is to strike the right balance between rigorous standards on the one hand and openness to innovation on the other.* * *With experience from ... accrediting basic training programs and certifying advanced level practitioners[,] the ... field might then be ready for the challenging task of setting baseline entry-level requirements that will protect the public while at the same time holding the door open for people of all backgrounds. If we seize this opportunity to define our own field, and go about the task remembering that we have more in common than what separates us, I believe we will succeed in staving off the occasional attempt of people outside the field to tell us how to do our work.
Although these arguments sound familiar, Hoffman is not describing Ombuds, but mediators. (The Future of ADR, via Boston Law Collaborative; See also mediator blah...blah...)
No comments:
Post a Comment