Continuing Professional Development and Career Success: Is There a Causal Relationship?

Citation

McDermott, E. (1999), "Continuing Professional Development and Career Success: Is There a Causal Relationship?", Library Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 89-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/lm.1999.20.4.89.6

In a profession that considers that ongoing training and continuing professional development (CPD) is, generally speaking, “a good thing” this report is bound to generate a great deal of interest. Convergence, local government reorganisation, advancing technology and restructuring are causing some career paths and jobs to disappear creating changing career paths. In the late 1990s, there are very few organisations left in the UK which have not felt the force of change. Even extremely successful and profitable organisations are looking to introduce yet further efficiency and restructuring initiatives. In the traditional sectors of public and academic libraries the decline of expected career paths and the development of a flexible workforce have spread confusion and insecurity. In this changing environment it is reassuring that the British Library should recognise the importance of, and fund a research project to investigate this area.

This report has much to say to those concerned library and information workers who are searching for an answer to the question “Continuing professional development and career success: is there a causal relationship?” Many want to know, in this time of change when workers can no longer rely on the system to look after them, what they can do about their own careers. What strategies can they employ to ensure successful career development?

Based on interviews with successful professionals, this report examines the perceptions and opinions of the part played by continuing professional development and other factors in career success. The literature review section is very well written and gives the reader an idea of the discourse surrounding CPD. While not comprehensive, it touches on most of the important issues. The results section encompasses some meaningful and quite enlightening discussion. Most importantly, the writers recognise the difficulty in defining the concept of CPD. This came across clearly during a discussion of respondents′ varying definitions leading to a precise examination of the definitions of CPD for the purpose of the research project. The space given to the definitions indicates how important and difficult it is to research in such an inconstant and imprecise area, as both CPD and career success are subjective concepts, meaning different things to different people. There is food for thought in the analysis of the telephone interviews during which interviewees were asked about the factors considered to be significant in career success. Gender, geographic mobility, age, personality, presentation, accent and networking were all considered. Attitudes and another indefinable concept, personality, are also considered.

Much of this report is both useful and interesting, but I can not help feeling that the title is rather misleading. The question in the title begs an answer, which is not, and could not be, clearly given. Given the concern generated by the changing context of LIS in the UK some people may be disappointed. Furthermore, the introduction gives the impression that a straight comparison will be made between three professions chosen for their common characÑterÑistics: information, accountancy and human resource management professions. In the event it is evident that there is no simple or straightforward answer, and the writers have to admit that a fair comparison is not possible, given the imbalance of the samples of the three professions.

However, it is not merely a matter of numerical imbalance, as proving or disproving a causal relationship in an area such as this could not possibly be done using the qualitative methods in this research. The relationship between CPD and career success cannot be fully explained using this research method, as there is no meaningful measurement of either concept in the three professions investigated. A different method would have been necessary to deliver the promised comparable profiles. Consequently there is no basis for a valid comparison, leading the reader to wonder why the other professions were included at all. In other parts of the report the impression is given that the analysis has been somewhat shallow. For example, the changing nature of CPD as an individual′s career progresses leads the reader to wonder whether the relationship between CPD and career success is not merely a correlation rather than a direct cause and effect relationship, but this is not addressed. In the same way, there is no sound basis for comparison between the factors identified in the literature review. For example, while gender is acknowledged to be a significant factor in career success, the gender of the case studies is not identified, demonstrating a certain amount of gender blindness typical of the partial nature of the report.

Overall, I do not mean to be negative about this report as it does have much intrinsic value. The succinct case studies are especially commendable, providing, as they do, real life scenarios with individuals′ perspective on career success. It is here that the elastic and ambiguous concepts of CPD and career success are given meaning expressed through the words of interviewees. The narratives are very accessible and interesting providing pithy comments on CPD and career success. There is, of course, a wide variation between them, perhaps reflecting the diversity of the library and information profession and the changing and different career paths to be found in the different sectors. If the writers decide to disseminate the results of their research in any form other than this report I would hope that they expand and concentrate on this part of the document. I am sure this will not be the last word on this subject and this exploration provides some stimulating ideas for further research from impressions gained from interviewees.