I attended this workshop which informs all candidates working towards CILIP Qualifications: Certification, Chartership and Fellowship of further details, at CILIP HQ in London. It was facilitated by Franko Kowalczuk who included some great, dry-witted anecdotal humour about his experiences as a long-standing portfolio assessor (thank you Franko). There were 30 of us, all with the same anxieties, reservations and doubts all on the journey towards self-actualisation, attempting to reach our full potential and gain recognition for the work we do.
What’s great is that there’s much more flexibility in professional registration now:
Candidates can now choose their level to work towards, so if I wanted to, I could now choose to work towards Chartership instead of graduating from Certification especially as I am starting a new role.
Submission of your portfolio is all made online, and the turn around from submission to assessment is much faster than the past three month wait. There’s an abundance of information on CILIP’s website and VLE.
If you have created a bibliography, don’t just list what you have read (as I have, Harvard dissertation style) state what you have learnt from your reading.
All evidence created is beneficial for the process of your career development but you only need to select the evidence that portrays your best light and meets the criteria, 12-15 items of evidence, 5 in each criteria.
Ask questions, but also answer them!
Demonstrating your learning, reflection and evaluation is key to meeting the criteria! Just meet the criteria!
I had a brief discussion with another candidate, a law librarian, who had recently discharged herself from post-graduate study because she felt it was irrelevant to her current role and that working towards Chartership was much more suited to her and costs significantly less, yes indeed! We also discussed her organisation’s appraisal procedure, two in a year, compared to my experience of one in three years! I think she gained an appreciation for her organisation’s ‘tiresome’ policy and I have certainly been reassured that policy can really vary between organisations.
I also understood from the Workshop that at least one candidate was having challenges with their mentor; they asked if their mentor could disapprove the submission of their portfolio. I couldn’t tell whether this was because they were unable to accept constructive criticism or if their mentor felt that the candidate needed further development and was attempting to encourage working on further evidence for that reason, hence discouraging submission on the portfolio. I certainly feel that I’m in a rush to complete this portfolio and obtain my nominals. In hindsight, what I really need to do is slow down, digest and embrace this opportunity to learn and develop rather than obtain the nominals without the learning experience or even submit the portfolio and fail.
I’m quite fortunate in my mentorship, I’m open to (constructive) criticism and really enjoy accepting direction; an objective stance; someone that can challenge my opinions; encourage further thoughts and reflections; set the appropriate pace and push me further, despite how knowledgeable, competent and ready I may think I am (not that I think I am)!