How a project redesigned the use of Open Badges to recognise soft skills?

The NS4-SFC project aims to design tools to develop and recognise the soft skills of people who have been unemployed for a long time, with few or no qualifications, in a vulnerable situation, but also of job seekers and professionals in vocational training.

The project is based on an inventory of 27 skills called the “shopping list”, a soft skills lab to support their development and Open Badges to recognise their acquisition.

The idea implicit in the drafting of the project was that the Open Badges would cover each of the 27 skills identified in the shopping list, a sort of informal repository of soft skills. This was not the way things worked out, and this article traces the process that led to a rethink of the number of badges, their nature and the way they are issued.

Recognition and Soft Skills

In order to establish the framework for the recognition of soft skills, the project partners had to ask themselves a fundamental question: what is the role of recognition in relation to soft skills?

Is recognition:

• External to soft skills
• Internal to soft skills (one of them)
• Underlying soft skills (or indeed any skill)

Depending on the option chosen, the configuration of the project is not the same:

• External: the target audiences would not need to develop the capacity to recognise, as the recognition of soft skills is a matter for professionals with this capacity (trainers, support workers, counsellors, etc.)
• Internal:  the capacity to recognise should be included in the shopping list in the same way as other soft skills. This means that for this skill to be recognised, participants need to have the opportunity to practice it.
• Underlying: the ability to recognise is activated for each of the soft skills (and beyond). This means that recognition should be taken into account in the very process of acquiring and recognising soft skills, for example by setting up a process to promote reflection and recognition among peers.

Asking the question of the positioning of recognition in relation to soft skills thus raises the question of the relationship between who is recognised and who does the recognising, between the “target audience” and the project partners and supervisors: who has the “power to recognise”?

Recognition and Open Badges

As one of the aims of the project was to use Open Badges to recognise soft skills, it was necessary to agree on an understanding of the relationship between recognition and Open Badges, which are merely artefacts designed to materialise recognition.

Open Badges were created in 2011 by the Mozilla Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation with the aim of making visible the informal learning that makes up the majority of life-long learning. While formal and non-formal learning have diplomas and certificates to attest to learners' achievements, informal learning now has Open Badges.

The experience of Open Badges has shown us that, although they were designed to highlight informal learning, they are also useful for highlighting informal recognition - which is to formal recognition what informal learning is to formal learning.

The relationship between recognition and Open Badge is one of content, recognition, and a container, the Open Badge. Therefore, like an envelope containing a letter, an Open Badge can include both informal and formal recognition, such as a diploma. The envelope guarantees that the content is authentic and has not been altered, making Open Badges the technology of choice for publishing Verifiable Claims.

It is therefore important to understand that a system based on Open Badges is first and foremost a recognition system, where badges serve to make this recognition visible, verifiable and actionable. So when we say that a badge “recognises [a skill, experience, etc.]” it would be more appropriate to say that a badge “makes [a skill, experience, etc.] visible”, the badge being merely the vehicle that allows this recognition to travel unaltered.

The questions to be asked in designing such a system are the following:

• What is to be recognised?
• Why? What are the expected outcomes?
• By whom?
• According to which process and criteria?

Recognition and stakeholders

After the question of the role of recognition in relation to soft skills and the function of Open Badges, the question of the role of the different stakeholders in the recognition process arose. 

As Open Badges are the tool chosen to make this recognition visible, the question of the role of stakeholders in the recognition process can be reformulated by looking at their role in the process of designing, awarding, claiming, validating and endorsing Open Badges:

• Badge for whom?
  • Are badges only for “target audiences” or for all stakeholders? 
• What is the role of the “target audiences”?
  • Are they only recipients of the badges designed by the project partners or are they involved in their design and allocation?

Designing badges only for the “target audiences” risks reinforcing the idea that Open Badges are simply a kind of “diploma for the uneducated”, a recognition for those who otherwise have little or none, a second-class recognition for second-class citizens.

Here, the question of the asymmetry in the participant-trainer relationship arises, with, on the one hand, those who have to prove that they are worthy of recognition and, on the other hand, those who have the power to decide whether or not they are worthy, and who control the technical tools that make this recognition visible.

As the project centres around soft skills, the creation of an asymmetrical recognition system could be based on the assumption that trainers are competent, and therefore do not need badges to prove their skills, and that target audiences are incompetent, have nothing to contribute to the system, and will only be recognised as competent once they have managed to prove their skills on the basis of criteria set by people who do not have to prove that they themselves meet them.

While it is conceivable to implement socio-technical systems facilitating the participation of “target audiences” in their own recognition, the relative complexity of implementing Open Badges limits the possibilities of true co-construction. The choice of an Open Badge platform is made by the designers of the system, not by the participants, even though this determines the possible recognition processes and their appreciation.

If we start with the shopping list of the 27 soft skills, does this mean we need to create 27 badges? How many badges are needed to be recognised as competent? 3? 10? And if you don't have certain badges, does this mean you haven't mastered those soft skills? Also, should levels of proficiency be defined for the different soft skills? This would mean creating not just 27 badges, but 3 or 4 times more, depending on the number of levels chosen.

However, these choices, which are undoubtedly fundamental, are supposedly not the responsibility of the participants. These are choices that will be made “for” and not “with” the “target audiences”. Although the initial intention was for co-construction “with” the participants, the initial conditions of the system are in reality a co-construction “for” the participants.

However, there is a way out of this impasse by overcoming the asymmetry inherent in many schemes for participants: positing the scheme as a community of practice under construction in which both trainers and “audiences” are stakeholders and are equal in rights and recognition. This is the option chosen by the NS4-SFC project (see below).

Recognition and reference frameworks

The NS4-SFC project has a shopping list, an informal reference framework of soft skills. The question was raised as to whether there was a need for a more formal framework that would provide those responsible for assessing soft skills with a list of criteria that could be used in the process of approving the award of Open Badges.

In a formalised competence approach, different levels of competence are usually defined (the European Qualifications Framework has 8), with specific criteria for each of them. On a scale of 1 to 8, level 1 is not “less competent” than level 2 or 3, but “100% competent” at its level. Similarly, a level 3 is not a part of level 4, as if it were a level 4 that is missing something. Thus, at each level, criteria can be defined to validate whether one is competent or not yet competent - even with 90% of the criteria met, one is not yet competent!

Would it be possible to define several levels of competence for each of the soft skills identified in the shopping list? And if it were possible, would this be useful?

Based on a shopping list of 27 soft skills:

• Do we need to create 27 recognition points (in the form of digital badges)?
• Should levels of mastery be defined for each of them, thus multiplying the number of recognition points by three or four?
• How many soft skills do you need to validate to be recognised as competent? Three seems too little, 27 a difficult target to reach.
• If you lack a recognition point from one of the soft skills, will this be taken as an indication of “non-competence”?

The soft skill “I decide - Ability to decide, to make a decision, when faced with a set of facts” could be defined in several levels of competence, depending on whether the facts are expected or unexpected, simple or more complex:

• Deciding on the basis of known, predictable, expected, simple to analyse facts.
• Deciding on the basis of facts, some of which are unknown, unpredictable, unexpected, complex to analyse.

This could be made more complex by including the social dimension of the impact:

• Deciding [...] with a personal impact 
• Deciding [...] with an impact on those close to you (colleagues, friends, family, etc.)
• Deciding [...] with a strong social impact

By combining these two dimensions, there are no longer 4 levels, but 16, because one can decide on the basis of known, predictable, expected and easy to analyse facts with a strong social impact. It does not take much imagination to identify situations, including in a family setting, where “deciding on the basis of known, predictable facts” can have a “strong social impact”! By adding other dimensions, the complexity increases exponentially. 

The alternative to defining levels would be to recognise that a given practice combines skills of different “levels” and that a competence framework, however well designed, is only an imperfect representation of reality: “The map is not the territory", says Alfred Korzybski, creator of general semantics. Thus, a competence framework is most often a representation of prescribed work, an ideal representation, generally very different from real work.

In other words: a competence framework is not competent. Competence only exists when it is embodied in a person who implements it in a practice. The real reference of competence is the person who embodies it.

Based on this observation, is a formal competence framework for soft skills a prerequisite for their recognition? Would the shopping list, which is only an informal reference, defining neither criteria nor levels, be “improved” by adding criteria and levels? Improved for whom? In what way? A formal reference would certainly facilitate the work of validating that a person complies with the standard defined by the reference. But is this what we should be aiming for? 

If reification consists in considering an idea, a practice or an abstraction as a concrete reality, that is to say, in “materialising” or “fixing” it in a tangible form, how can we go the other way around, and start from this fixed materialisation to recreate the living thing that gave it form? How do we “dematerialise” and “recontextualise” the reference framework in a living entity (hypostasis)?

If a reference framework is the reification of a practice, then its dematerialisation would be possible through the construction of the community of practice that might have been at its origin. This is what has been proposed and implemented in Next Step4-SFC.

The proposal was to redefine the project as “creating a community of practice on the issue of soft skills” whose “reified practice” would initially be the shopping-list, the informal repository of soft skills produced during a previous project.

The shopping list proposes a definition of the field of soft skills by proposing a vocabulary, words to describe a practice. The process of recognising soft skills builds relationships between these words, people and their practices, and in doing so, creates the reference framework of the community of practice, a dynamic and living framework.

Thus, if a [competence-based] reference framework is the formalisation of the recognition of a [professional] practice, and its reification in a document, we can conclude that there is no need for a reference framework to recognise, that the process of recognition is itself produces the reference framework. 

This does not mean that a reference framework is useless, but that it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for creating a recognition system. With the shopping list, we have a tool that is perfectly suited to initiate a recognition process that results in a living reference system embodied in people. And if the shopping list did not exist, it would not take long for the community of practice to recreate it to formalise the domain of its practice.

Open Badges are a practical tool to capture (reify) recognition by making each member of the community of practice an “expert” on soft skills.

This allows us to imagine a “reverse skills reference framework” created from the bottom up, using the data collected and captured in Open Badges during multiple “recognition pathways”. With a reverse reference framework, people (and badges) are no longer asked to align with a pre-existing reference, there is a dynamic reference pointing to the skill, i.e. the people who embody it. 

NS4-SFC: a community of practice

A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who share a common interest, passion or area of expertise and who collaborate regularly to deepen their knowledge, share ideas and improve their skills. Communities of practice can be informal or formal and can exist in a variety of contexts, such as the workplace, associations, etc.  

Some key features of a community of practice:

• Common domain: Members of a community of practice share a common area of interest around which they exchange knowledge and experience.
• Community: Members of a CoP interact and collaborate regularly, creating a sense of belonging and community. They support each other, share ideas and resources, and learn from each other.
• Shared practice: Members of a CoP develop a set of common practices, tools, techniques and languages to address problems and challenges related to their field of interest. This shared practice evolves over time as members acquire new knowledge and skills.
• Informal learning: Learning in a CoP is primarily informal and takes place through exchanges, discussions, mentoring and joint problem solving.
• Heterogeneity of skills: CoP members have varying levels of expertise, from novices to experts. This diversity allows for an exchange of knowledge and mutual learning, fostering professional and personal development.

In sum, a community of practice is defined by a common area of interest, commitment, shared practices and continuous informal learning. For Etienne Wenger, what defines a community of practice is learning, creating meaning and identity.

Thinking of the NS4-SFC project as a community of practice (under construction) offers many advantages:

• It reduces asymmetry: project partners, trainers and “audiences” participate in the same community
• Recognition is intrinsic to the community of practice which is naturally organised around recognised levels of expertise
• The badges reflect this recognition in an organic way
• The sense of belonging to a community is a form of mutual recognition that is empowering
• Recognition of the community contributes to the recognition of its members, and vice versa
• It remains to be defined what the “practice” is that characterises this community: NS4-SFC defines itself as a community of practice that explores the issue of soft skills: 
• What is it? How is it defined?
• What is it for?
• How does it develop?
• How is it recognised? (which brings us back to the first question!)

In order to make the pathway from the periphery of the community (the trainees) to its centre (the experts) visible, the project uses a “maturity matrix” of soft skill practice: 

• I discover
• I explore
• I integrate [into my practice]
• I support 

Thinking in terms of community reduces the pitfall of asymmetry between us (the trainers) and them (the participants) to that of a progression where participants are potentially future trainers, not just badge collectors.

Which Open Badges for soft skills?

The answer to the question of “which Open Badges for soft skills?” depends on the context in which it is asked. 

If the context is a training or even certification scheme, the natural tendency will be to create as many badges as there are soft skills, or even to group some of them together in a single badge to reduce the number, and possibly to offer badges at several levels. The objective of certification needs a standard and the badges will serve the purpose of making this standard visible.

On the other hand, if the context is one of a community of practice, the aim is not to force participants to align themselves with a static norm, but to recognise their position within the community. For this reason, it is not necessary to define dozens of badges, but simply badges that position members in relation to each other.

We have therefore used the “maturity matrix” mentioned above to define four approaches related to the mastery of soft skills:

• I discover: I'm interested and would like to know a bit more about the subject;
• I explore: I consciously implement my soft skills and reflect on how I do this and how I might develop them;
• I integrate [into my practice]: I know my strengths and weaknesses and implement my soft skills in my practice to adapt to the context and/or adapt the context;
• I support: I develop tools and/or practices to help members of my community of practice become aware of and master their own soft skills.

With four badges that recognise the different “approaches” of the members of the community of practice we can initially move away from the 27 badges implicitly imagined from the shopping list. This does not mean that there will be no badges explicitly referring to elements of the shopping list, but that this is a point that can be decided with and by the “participants”, the recognition by the community of practice of its “approach” being already a form of recognition than can be presented to a potential employer. Beyond the potential value to a future employer, such a badge has immediate value in building self-esteem and developing a sense of belonging to a community in which one can progress.

By proposing four structuring approaches of the community of practice as the foundations of the recognition system, we avoid proposing the individual as a sum of attributes (in this case soft skills) and the “deficit” model in which the presumption of competence is replaced by that of incompetence: “If you don't have the badge, you are not competent”.

The recognition of soft skills is not done by soft skill, nor by groups of soft skills, because behavioural knowledge does not exist independently of the practices in which it is implemented. The recognition of a practice necessarily precedes the recognition of a skill, a practice which also necessarily involves several skills.

Thus, we recognise:

• A person [who engages in practices], then
• A practice [which uses skills], then
• Skills [which mobilise knowledge, technical and non-technical skills (soft skills) as well as values, an element too often ignored].

Thus, for the approach of “I integrate in my practice”, what is recognised is the capacity to articulate the different soft skills for oneself and in relation to other participants in a community of practice: being aware of one's weaknesses is the condition for calling on others for whom this is a strength: someone can be aware of their lack of capacity for personal initiative and rely on someone else to help them take initiatives at a time when they feel that an initiative must be taken but they don't know which one. Thus, it is possible that a practice requiring personal initiative can be successfully carried out by a person who has no initiative, but 1) knowing that they have difficulty taking initiative 2) knowing a person who likes to take initiative, they determine together the possible initiatives and how to choose the best one.

The approach of “I integrate” involves more than the simple mastery of a soft skill, but, with awareness of your strengths and weaknesses, the ability to act by strategically implementing your soft skills to adapt and/or adapt your environment of action.
Building the community of practice of soft skills

Soft skills do not exist outside the social and professional practices that condition their development. These are numerous and diverse, and it is safe to say that one soft skill is not expressed in the same way in different practices: “decision making” is not the same for a footballer as for a baker.

Can we therefore define a community of practice for soft skills? Probably not, but it is possible to define a “community of practice for reflection on soft skills”, on the importance we place on them, on what facilitates their development and mobilisation in different contexts. A community of practice focused more on the why and the how than on the what.

Creating an environment that allows for the involvement of the “target audience” in this reflection, considering the participants as people we can learn from, are core values on which the NS4-SFC project is based. The simple request for a badge for “I discover soft skills” is the entry point into the soft skills community of practice. The “I practice soft skills” badge is a useful tool for mapping the different practices implemented and their bearers.

With Open Badges, we have the perfect tool for “co-constructing this reverse reference framework” by making competence visible, i.e. the people who embody it and the community of practice in which they participate.