Revalidation to remain voluntary for the profession

Following consultation with members, the CILIP Board has decided that an Obligatory Revalidation scheme will not be introduced at present. 

Revalidating remains optional. In order to revalidate, members need to log a minimum of twenty hours of CPD activites and submit a 250 word (maximum) reflective statement. Revalidating is free of charge and members log their activities on the CILIP Virtual Learning Environment.

This wide-ranging Obligatory Revalidation consultation featured a high response rate, especially for the questionnaire, which had 2,366 responses. While there is considerable support for revalidation in principle (obligatory or not) and an understanding of the potential benefits, this consultation indicates that the opposing view is also strong.

We will continue to focus on the other key elements of our action plan to engage with employers to strengthen the status of the profession and CILIP members, specifically through:

What is obligatory revalidation?

Obligatory Revalidation would mean that all members who hold Certification, Chartership or Fellowship would be obliged to submit a portfolio for revalidation annually.

In a ballot of members in November 2015, CILIP Members voted against a proposal to adopt Obligatory Revalidation by 51% to 49%.

What were the results of the consultation?

The two main advantages, for those who voted in favour of obligatory revalidation, were the raising of professional standing and evidence of CPD. There were a small number of members who, whilst supporting the scheme felt it was not robust enough. 

Chart showing of responses to questions "What do you consider the main advantage of obligatory revalidation for your professional development?". Results are 50.49% Raises professional standing, 38.21% Shows evidence of CPD, 2.23% Good for appraisals, 3.63
The top three reasons cited for voting “no” included: not being required for work or career progression; professional experience outweighs the necessity to revalidate; and the perceived additions of regulations to the profession. Employer support was also considered an issue with a slight majority suggesting that employers do not support revalidation. Chart showing of responses to question "Please tell us your reasons for voting against obligatory annual revalidation". Results were 10.02% Proposed scheme is not robust enough, 39.00% I do not have time to do it, 45.72% My professional experience outweig

Recurring themes in free-text, email and verbal comments from participants throughout the consultation included:

  • Any revalidation scheme needs employer support in order to be successful
  • A scheme needs to be robust in order to be meaningful and credible and should include a compulsory element. It demonstrates professional competence and is in line with other professions
  • While many were in favour of the revalidation concept in principle, they were not in favour of obligatory/compulsory
  • There is already an overload of work and time pressures without adding this additional burden
  • It was felt that there were more important activities than this for CILIP to spend time and resources on
  • Any scheme should be flexible to allow for different working practices, e.g. unemployment periods, career breaks etc

Luke Stevens-Burt, Head of Business Development (Member Services) at CILIP, said:

"I would like to reassure members about some of the concerns raised about revalidation in the consultation results. For instance, there is no charge to revalidate and CPD does not have to cost a lot to maintain. It can take numerous forms - from professional conversations to e-learning modules on the CILIP Virtual Learning Environment, reading journals and Update magazine.

“We are committed to leading the development of a highly skilled information, knowledge and library workforce. We will do this by supporting members to develop their skills and knowledge through learning opportunities and Continuous Professional Development, and working with employers to invest in information skills and capacity in their organisations.”