“If we are not explicitly inclusive, we are implicitly exclusive” — On Equity in Recognition
In my last post, I spoke a lot about firsts — and another first was me agreeing after a lot (A LOT) of reluctance* to delivering a keynote to people who are the thinkers and movers and shakers of the world of open recognition, badging, and skills on an international scale. In December 2023, I visited Vienna, Austria and spoke at the ePIC Open Recognition Conference. In my talk, I blurted out the phrase above and haven’t been able to forget it.
I’ve long grappled with actualizing a vision for truly holistic recognition, valuing people’s full capabilities regardless of origins. One major pain point is the centering of education providers over the individual. This often limits possibilities in defining “legitimate” knowledge, focusing only on what those institution provide. In other words, we’re in an environment where we must be explicitly inclusive to avoid implicit exclusion when considering recognition of skills, knowledge, and abilities. Why?
Reason #1: Scarcity mindsets stand in the way of empowerment.
Scarcity mindsets suggesting “too many” credentials dilute meaning serve institutional self-interest over individual journeys.
The co-opting of recognition and skills that higher education has pursued can be inappropriate, breeds inequity, and harms before it empowers. The ivory tower wins every time this argument is made.
When we do this, we are implying that anything not gained from a formal institution is irrelevant. Truthfully, if this were true, we could apply to jobs with our college transcripts and no reference checks would ever be needed to validate our qualifications. But we don’t — we need the informal votes of confidence to recognize someone’s achievements.
We must shift our mindsets: more credentials does not dilute the value or importance of formal education credentials. Instead, it empowers individuals to tell their holistic stories.
Reason #2: Language matters.
Every moment we codify different types of recognition by defining them by what they are not, we are inherently promoting one as more important and powerful than the other.
Non-degree or alternative credentials, are seen as less-than immediately. Name things what they are rather than defining them by what they are note.
Our language often unintentionally marginalizes the expertise people accrue outside of traditional curricula by signalling it as alternative, less-than, or unworthy compared to degrees. Recognition of skills and knowledge must be valued in their own right and not be seen as deficient, and in order for that to be true, each should be labeled what it is.
The goal, then, is to empower individuals to tell their stories and translate their abilities and skills into something that others will understand regardless of the how.
Reason #3: Expanding to holistic recognition requires validating the informal.
And, as we name and begin to expand what we recognize, we must do so explicitly. Making room for every kind of learning, assertion, and recognition ensures is valued — otherwise we suggest it isn’t.
Lifelong learning through formal pathways and life-wide learning through experiences we gain through work, play, and life writ large must co-exist. Remember, we are hired and invested in because of our personalities, our propensity to do things, our potential — not the qualifications we walk in the door with.
An ecosystem of recognition that is inclusive and empowers the individual at its core requires flexibility. In this future, institutional knowledge intersects fluidly with self-authored wisdom and knowledge allowing the individual to share their story.
This move lets us begin to disrupt systemic barriers through individual empowerment without being in conflict with the role of education providers or employers.
The path forward requires rethinking assumptions. Imagine if we designed recognition to amplify self-determined journeys. If connections between life experiences and knowledge were fluid. If people’s skills and expertise were valued based on their own merit, not preconceived hierarchies.
With open and inclusive recognition, people author their own stories. Skills gained in life writ large empower careers and advancement. Broadened definitions of “learning that counts” give agency to self-directed paths. Candy Ho shared this in her talk shortly after mine and I think it’s apt: What does it mean for us to acknowledge someone’s life stories and journeys to help identify and activate the constellation skills and knowledge they have?
While technology like digital badges and wallets can help move in this direction, we must evaluate whether we are engaging in ethical practices and being explicitly inclusive. As the architects of this space, we must also be the social conscious of the movement, ensuring the world of credentialing grows for the good of people and society.
*Seriously, more reluctance than I’ve ever had — shout out to the fierce women and countless friends who pushed me to try this and supported me in the room as friendly and encouraging faces or virtually through messages and reminders to breathe… you know who you are.
