Risk: Qualifications, Experience and Acquired Expertise Across Various Disciplines and Education Channels

"Risk" knowledge, experience and qualifications are acquired. That is, the specific aspects, processes, methods, influence, ideology, science and cultural factors associated with risk in all its forms, silos, and applications originate from and must be communicated via specific means within specific contexts. And for all students, there must be a teacher, mentor or someone to learn from.

So, the big question is, where is 'risk' knowledge coming from and who is teaching it?

What representative proportionality do various disciplines and professions have specific to risk?

The most expedient, consistent and universal practice would be measuring how many hours a student has spent studying, assessing and validating education associated with any given subject, including risk. Using this metric is where the first noticeable, divergent factor with risk occurs. The arts, literature, business administration, accounting, and economics channels tend to contain the least volume of risk sciences content or measurable time invested exclusively on risk as a specific module or curriculum component. The distribution tends to remain relatively consistent from Bachelor to Master's and Doctoral Degrees. Those that teach the programs have similar risk representation or proportionality too.

Paradoxically, these qualifications and disciplines dominate risk organisations, associations, discourse, discussions and publications. These realities and metrics are routinely overlooked or excluded from government, corporate and organisational 'risk assessments', until there is an accident, investigation, scandal or wholesale failure. These practice comparisons and evidence-based metrics are routinely absent from recruitment and HR hiring, promotion or retention process too.

In short, risk may well be a made-up title and self-determined qualification of both graduates and 'teachers' on the subject. It pays dividends to check, ask and enquire. Or 'risk' may be a randomly acquired job title, rather than that acquired by formal, verifiable education and specific learning within related contexts or environments.

These factors and realities profoundly impact insurance, liability and professional practices/standards.

Locking yourself in the library and reading all you can on medicine doesn't make you a doctor. The same principle applies to all other professions, sciences and technical skills, such as risk.

Conversely, reading and writing a book about science or scientific principles is not a proxy for a science degree, nor does it make you a scientist.

Facebook followers, Instagram likes, books sold, YouTube views and various other 'influencer' metrics are equally not a proxy for court accepted expertise, academic knowledge and formal qualifications. Nor is adding 'passionate', 'disruptor', 'tranformational' or other expressions. Nor is adding even more abstract or repurposed mathematical ideologies or practices to all manner of issues, events, experiences or topics and calling it 'quantitative risk' assessment or management.

Because the analysis of the individual, citations and specific 'expertise' remain tenants of advanced analysis and academic/professional pursuits.

That is, are you applying empirical, evidence-based risk-informed knowledge and advice to specific contexts, organisations, communities or threat/hazard/dangerous situations or are you just following the herd or even worse, some random person's anecdotal narrative(s).

This applies to journals, publications, primary data, surveys, research, books, articles and 'white papers'. Which is why forensic analysts, professionals and academics go straight to the bibliography or list of citations before accepting or including any recommendations, advice or methodology. This includes risk practices and processes.

But this is the just the tip of the iceberg on this subject, which is why I've unpacked and analysed this phenomena in more detail, in other articles and research projects, such as those listed below:

In sum, receiving medical advice from your accountant or an engineer may present as ridiculous or unlikely, the equivalent takes place everyday when it comes to matters or topics associated with risk.

While it makes for a researchers and practitioners nightmare, it introduced considerable risk, liability and harm into 'risk-related' practices, beliefs and accepted norms. This is why legal, engineering and medical licensing, certification and registration is required. In comparison, you can just call your self, be appointed, apply or wake up one morning and add 'risk' to your resume, skills, or run webinars and the like, sharing all manner of thought bubbles to whomever will listen, in leiu of qualifications, a degree or legitimate, objective verification of what is and remains a science comprised of various elements, actors and disparate scales of knowledge or complexity.

I recommend setting up a spreadsheet. Map, measure and rate skills, qualifications and specific claims associated with 'risk'. Because it is the first thing I do when doing forensic, scientific or investigative analysis on organisations, cultures, practices and beliefs associated with risk, as an expert witness, analyst or when investigating why 'accidents', errors or failures occured. In most cases, it stems from this undeclared and hidden (dangerous) practice of self-authored titles and experience, routinely endorsed by random and poor HR facilitation whereby 'risk' is shoehorned into someones title, somewhere along the spatiotemporal timeline.

Ridley Tony

Risk, Resilience, Safety, Security & Management Sciences

Risk Management Security Management Crisis Management

Risk, Security, Safety, Resilience & Management Sciences