Professionalization: Variance, frustration and disparate levels within security, risk, intelligence...and resilience

Security, risk and intelligence continue to struggle with acceptance and scales of demonstrable, consistent 'professionalism'.

That is, making clear distinctions between 'craft' or alchemy-style practices to that of a bonafide profession and/or science.

Most recently, intelligence scholars and academics have lamented:

"Private sector intelligence is on its way to professionalization, but the road is a long one and the destination is uncertain.??" (Robson Morrow, 2022)

Which echoes observations and sentiments made in recent years by security sciences and criminology scholars:

"Based on the appetite for professionalisation among our security managers, and the success of professional projects in comparable occupations, this study concludes that security management should embark on a professional project of its own.?"

(McGee, 2006)

"The importance of being able to convince external stakeholders of the professionalism of security risk management is well recognised within the practitioner community"

(Wakefield, 2014)

Not surprisingly, risk sciences and risk management researchers observed the same issues with the attempts to make 'risk' a legitimate profession too:

"The scope of risk management is extensive. Selecting key dimensions depends on the standpoint of the individual which, inter alia, is likely to be influenced by his or her training, qualifications, experience and membership of professional groups" (Waring and Glendon, 1998)

Overall, a clear, consistent and objective set of criteria is required in order to determine if an individual or practices is a commensurate profession, such as those exhibited by engineering, medicine, law, accounting, etc.

Key stages of 'corporate security professional project':

1. Engaging in collective dialogue to establish shared will and consensus regarding the professional project
2. Developing the capacity for occupational negotiation
3. Defining the profession's boundaries
4. Instituting the boundaries through professional qualifications; and
5. Creating a professional Monopoly by controlling the supply professionals

(McGee, 2006)

Security Risk Management: Foundations of professionalism:

1. Defined standards and a code of ethics
2. And established knowledge base including professional journals
3. Recognised association(s) as a form of discussion and development of the profession
4. A measurable set of competencies along with appropriate certification programs; and
5. An educational discipline preparing the student in the professions specific functions and philosophies

(Simonsen, 1996)

Collectively, these aforementioned criteria and units of analysis form the basis for consumers, courts, professionals and regulators to determine not only the inclusion of the security, risk and intelligence practitioner and practices as that of professional, but also scales of competency and experience too.

Professional practice, in particular public, corporate and commercial application of security, risk or intelligence should also include ethical and moral boundaries, guidelines and standards.

"In security risk management, ethics and integrity lie at the heart of professional practice, because of the responsibility to protect and trust being placed in security practitioners to do so."

(Wakefield, 2014)

Further to the collective suite of competencies, science and psychology must also supplant both the knowledge-base and education, as threat, hazard and subsequently risk manifest and present differently to different people, cultures and industries.

"The context(s) in which risks are perceived to exist and which risk management responds set the scene for identifying an understanding relevant hazards and threats and analysing the corresponding risks" (Waring and Glendon, 1998)

Hence, distancing oneself from that of a 'craft', alchemy or unstructured application of undisclosed knowledge remains the essential first step for not only the profession but those asserting or claiming to be a practicing professional.

"Private sector intelligence is professionalizing, but currently exhibits several indicators of being more of a ‘craft’ than a profession. A key indicator is reliance on ‘the skill of the individual practitioner’ rather than leveraging a robust body of existing knowledge and educating new practitioners from this accepted set of standards.?"

(Robson Morrow, 2022)

The same scales of objective analysis and demonstrable proof apply for those recently seeking to also add resilience to their unverified and vague list of credentials.

In sum, security, risk, intelligence and resilience remain emergent professions, only when measured against specific criteria such as education, unified body of knowledge, objective qualifications and specified experience.

These basic tenants distinguish any profession from that of a craft or outlier practices reliant on personal anecdotes and unspecified sources informing routine practices.

Courts, consumers, governments and professional bodies across security, risk, intelligence and most recently resilience are increasingly seeking verification and confirmation of professional status in any one or more of these disciplines.

As a result, the professionalization of each of the vocations can only be assured or sustained by continued adherence and quality standards by both practitioners/professionals and those seeking services or advice on security, risk, intelligence or resilience.

dosis sola facit venenum?- 'only the dose makes the poison'

Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP MSyI M.ISRM

Security, Risk & Management Sciences

References:

Maria A. Robson Morrow (2022): Private sector intelligence: on the long path of ?professionalization, Intelligence and National Security, DOI: 10.1080/02684527.2022.2029099?

McGee, A. (2006). Corporate security's professional project: An examination of the modern condition of corporate security management, and the potential for further professionalisation of the occupation. MSc Thesis, Shrivenham: Cranfield university

Simonsen, C. (1996) The case for: Security management is a profession, International journal of risk, security and crime prevention, 1(3), pp. 229-232

Wakefield, A. (2014) Where next for the professionalisation of security?, in Gill, M. (ed), The Handbook of Security, 2nd ed, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.919-935

Waring, A. and Glendon, A. (1998) Managing Risk: Critical Issues for survival and success into the 21st Century, South Western Cengage Learning, p.4