The Case for Annual Revalidation of the Chartered Scientist Qualification
Find an Expert

Interested in becoming a member?

Click here for information on how Individuals and Businesses can benefit from becoming a member of the Institute of Corrosion.

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!

Click here for all the latest job vacancies in the corrosion industry.

The Case for Annual Revalidation of the Chartered Scientist Qualification

The Case for Annual  Revalidation of  the Chartered Scientist Qualification
By Mary Arbuthnot
Introduction by Douglas Mills

The Institute is a licensed body of the Science Council. This means that suitably qualified individuals can apply to become Chartered Scientist. Information on how to go about this is given on our website. Myself and Brenda Peters are the Council representatives. Recently the Science Council decided (somewhat controversially!) to opt for annual revalidation. What  follows are edited sections of an article (edited by DJM) written by Mary Arbuthnot which discusses why this decision was taken and outlines its benefits to the individual chartered scientist.

The article is mainly based on an interview Mary had with Ali Orr, the Deputy Registrar and Diana Garnham, the Chief Executive of the Science Council. Hence many of the views expressed are those of her interviewees.

The 2008 Science Council review of CPD requirements produced clearer CPD standards and moved from the original five-year revalidation requirement to annual revalidation phased in by 2011. To meet these requirements, Chartered Scientists will need to keep an accurate record of their CPD achievements for submission each year, subject to scrutiny by auditors, in order to remain active on the Register. This change in timing is the result of a general consensus by the Science Council’s licensed bodies that a five year gap for revalidation is too long and causes scientists to procrastinate recording their CPD until the last minute. It is hoped that a two year transition to annual revalidation will reduce this bottle-neck effect and allow ample time to make regular CPD recording both habit-forming and hassle-free. Reassuringly for those who fear a paperwork nightmare ahead, sophisticated technology now exists and is being developed for the professional market which enables registrants to manage their CPD and revalidation
online, streamlining the process, making it paperless and much less cumbersome than in years past.

But CPD and revalidation are not without controversy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been resistance to change, and a backlash against revalidation amongst some members of the CSci community who perceive it as time-consuming, ineffective, prone to dishonesty, and condescending.  While acknowledging the validity of their concerns, the Science Council hopes to slowly win people over. Chartered Scientists need to develop a more reflective practice through engagement in CPD, which most scientists do anyway on a daily basis without even realising it. There is both a technical and conceptual side to revalidation and CPD, with the old CPD system relying  heavily on the technical “input-based CPD” built around points earned for hours invested attending industry conferences or reading journals, This is  useful but has its limitations. Now there is a more reflective ‘output-based CPD’ which is about measuring the benefits of CPD to your practice in a much broader way. For example, if you’re a psychologist who goes on a statistics course, you can demonstrate how you’ve used what you’ve learned to benefit your practice, even though statistics isn’t directly related to your field.

Understandably, increased scrutiny over the auditing period, as well as disciplinary complaints (peers reporting the infractions of their colleagues), can make many Chartered Scientists nervous. But the auditing process is not intended to catch hard-working scientists out, but instead to maintain CSci’s integrity and highly regarded reputation. People need to be reassured that if they’re still in employment it’s probably because they’re valuable and doing CPD without even realising it.  Registrants should be aware that the audit will be peer-reviewed and  assessors will always be Chartered Scientists like themselves, not some highly-paid consultant without any knowledge of the field. Once the revalidation transition is complete, a sample audit of 2.5% of registrant’s returns will be scrutinised by a minimum of two trained assessors. They will ask questions like, “Has your CPD been a mixture of different learning activities? Have you shown the benefits to your work? Has the CPD improved the quality of your practice?”  For those Chartered Scientists required to submit their CPD log to another registration body, the Science Council has signed up to the Hampton Regulations, which mean CSci’s don’t have to double up on paperwork.

While there might be a tendency to focus on the negative perceptions of revalidation, it is believed that the positive benefits to the individual far outweigh any potential burden. A 2007 government white paper for the NHS echoes this thinking, stating professional regulation “…should be as much about sustaining, improving and assuring the professional standards of the overwhelming majority of health professionals as it is about identifying and addressing poor practice or bad behaviour in the small minority.” And in a speech to the Science Council Licensed Bodies, Dame Carol Black noted that, on the subject of revalidation, reflective practice is crucial to maintaining professionalism and that a good professional wants to continue to be one and the process of revalidation attests to that fact .

A broader aspect of having CPD as part of the regular revalidation process is that it diversifies a scientist’s skill-set to meet the challenges of the 21st century business world. This comes at a time when increasingly the science sector is finding “T-Shaped professionals” in short supply. In this analogy, the stem of the letter ‘T’ represents a deep knowledge in a home discipline (whether it be chemistry, mathematics, biology etc.) while the horizontal top of the ‘T’ represents a broad set of transferrable skills, or individuals capable of interacting with and understanding specialists from a wide range of disciplines and functional areas. In the bigger picture, CPD helps professionals understand the objectives they are working towards and take ownership of their career progression, which in turn improves their productivity and creativity. Keeping up-to-date in one’s field ultimately means greater job satisfaction and a deeper commitment to one’s company and colleagues. On an individual level, regular tracking of one’s CPD progress isn’t just for revalidation – the chances are most scientists will use this data to enhance and keep their CVs, bios, and websites up-to-date too. 

End Note :  based on closing part of MA’s article but modified by DJM to make more relevant to Corrosion  community.
Increasingly scientists don’t identify themselves with just one body of professionals and this is particularly true of people working in the corrosion area. CSci is the scientific equivalent of the Euro, a currency of professional recognition that transcends the borders of any one discipline and empowers scientists to be collaborative instead of shutting them in their box… whether they are a microbiologist, an engineer or a corrosion scientist. This new method of revalidation encourages this and once employers recognise it, they should become very keen to support suitably qualified members of their work force to become Chartered. And this applies to people working in the corrosion and protection area as much as anybody else!