Developing the Capable Practitioner: Professional Capability through Higher Education

Citation

O’Reilly, D., Cunningham, L. and Lester, S. (1999), "Developing the Capable Practitioner: Professional Capability through Higher Education", Education + Training, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 384-392. https://doi.org/10.1108/et.1999.41.8.384.2

I have been familiar, and fairly comfortable, with the notion of “reflective practitioner” for a few years now. This may go some way to explain the question that was buzzing around my head as I approached this text which was: “is there a difference between the reflective practitioner and the capable practitioner?” I think the answer is “not a great deal” but irrespective of the level of familiarity readers might have with ideas about reflective practice they will find much of value in this book.

In the wake of Dearing, Fryer, Kennedy and The Learning Age Green Paper we are unquestionably in the midst of a rich debate about the “learning society”, the necessity of such for the turbulent times ahead and the implications and responsibilities which may be integral to its successful functioning. Such debate forms the context and stimulus for this book. As I was reading it I came across a review in The Times of Open Minds – Education for the 21st Century (Royal Society of Arts) where the essential message appeared to be the need for schools to get “beyond facts to competence” and to facilitate in all pupils the ability to learn. In Developing the Capable Practitioner the issue is for higher education to get “beyond competence”, though quite what to remains a little more hazy.

That higher education has a responsibility to reflect and debate what we understand by graduate skills and abilities is, at least for me, an absolute given. Indeed, the significance of a notion like “capable practitioner” suggests an influence for higher education far beyond the annual output from undergraduate programmes. This is the position adopted in this eclectic collection of readings, for whilst graduate employability is central, the book successfully embraces discussion about postgraduate programmes and ongoing and continuous professional development.

Unsurprisingly an underpinning theme throughout the book is the difficulty of pinning down “capability”, but it is this very difficulty which results in some well‐argued critique of current practice. One example is the contribution from Holmes who challenges the current, dominant model of the capability curriculum in higher education. Holmes advocates an alternative which involves consideration of the notion of graduate identity; a process of identity formation and re‐formation where “becoming a graduate” provides a useful organising framework for the provision of context, activities and assessment in the week‐by‐week practice of a course programme.

Other key themes integral to the collection as a whole are those of moving from concept to practice and assessment. The latter is perceived as particularly problematic. Lester, for example, notes that too often the “assessment tail wags the learning dog” and that educational systems are obsessed with assessment and accreditation, arguably to the detriment of “capability”. Such soundings struck a chord for this reader. Casual observation of developments in “QA” in my own institution over the last year suggests bumpy times ahead and it was a pity that somewhere in the book there was not a more focused critique of such emerging practice vis‐a`‐vis the efforts to get “beyond competence” and towards the “capable practitioner”.

The concluding chapter, which usefully attempts to bring together some of the key arguments, notes accurately that the questions posed in the book are important ones. “Capable, intelligent practitioners – people who can work effectively in messy, indeterminate situations as well as in more neatly defined ones, manage conflicts of value, look beyond the solutions to problems and retain their humanity (and even humour) while they do so – are vital if we are to develop sustainable societies, economies and environments”. Inevitably there are more questions raised than answers provided but such is the character of the current debate on the “learning society” which at last is beginning to acquire a critical edge.

The book will be of interest to any members of FE/HE who themselves are reflective practitioners. I doubt its ability to convert or change “mindsets” but this is not to devalue its contribution. Its value will be to enhance and enrich the insight and understanding of those in FE/HE who wish to ensure that the agenda in the new millennium is far more than simply how to accommodate greater numbers within the system or how best to meet narrowly conceived employer needs.