Definitions
Before delving too far into a discussion on how to better organize alternative credentials as a policy strategy, I want to first establish a few grounding definitions. The nature of innovative and emergent work means that consensus has not yet been achieved on the guiding principles of alternative credentials. Even the definition of the term ‘alternative credentials,’ itself, is in flux. Maxwell & Gallagher (2020), offer a simple definition of alternative credentials as “credentials that are different from traditional academic degrees” (p. 104). Others, such as Jim Fong (2016) and his associates at the University Professional & Continuing Education Association (UPCEA) argue that alternative credentials are “competencies, skills, and learning outcomes derived from assessment-based, non-degree activities and align to specific, timely needs in the workforce” (p. 1). One can find dozens more definitions of alternative credits available, but most have a few key elements in common, most notably that alternative credentials are:
- 1)
Not academic degrees,
- 2)
Postsecondary in academic/intellectual rigor (though there is an emergent range alternative credentials at the secondary level, those are out of scope of this chapter),
- 3)
Focused on specific skills (as opposed to generalizable knowledge, i.e., the liberal arts),
- 4)
Awarded by IHEs, government agencies, and private companies (both for and non-profit), or via partnership combinations of the three,
- 5)
Shorter, more nimble than traditional academic programs (taking leaners anywhere from a few hours to less than a year to complete), and
- 6)
Typically, although not necessarily always, use outcomes-based assessment pedagogy
A critical challenge of having no unified definition is that there is confusion from IHE’s, employers, policymakers, and students as to what these products are, and for whom are they are for. Writing about microcredentials (which is a sub-category of the broader alternative credentialing movement), Elisabeth Rees-Johnstone (2021) notes that:
Employers’ lack of familiarity might be explained by our sector’s continuing lack of clarity as to what constitutes a microcredential. . . So long as the definition continues to be debated, presenting microcredentials to employers as a viable credential will continue to be problematic, which is ultimately a disservice to learners.
Much of the confusion on the marketplace is not only due to varying definitions, but also to the diverse range of programs that are considered alternative credentials and the terminology for those programs being incorrectly used interchangeably (e.g. a badge is a form of microcredential, but not all microcredentials are badges).
Alternative credentials, as a term, is really an umbrella description for a host of different types of educational products and services (Fong, 2016; Fain, 2018). This includes Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs; such as Coursera and Edx); boot camps; academic certificates (both for credit and non-credit); professional certifications (e.g. PMP, SHRM); industry certifications (e.g. AWS certification, CompTIA A+); microcredentials; badges; industry-developed academies (e.g. Grow with Google); apprenticeships; government-led training programs associated with licensure; and in-house corporate training, just to name a few. It also even includes skills-based, alternative pathways to acquire a traditional academic degree, such as competency-based education (see Clawson & Girardi, 2021). Not all the programs or educational services on this list are new, in fact many have roots that can be traced back decades or even centuries (Kurzweil, 2018).
Though most alternative credentials are awarded outside the academy, and are non-credit in nature, academic departments at colleges and universities are still a major player in the development of shorter form, credit-bearing alternative credentials. These are typically in the form of for-credit certificates. Certificates may be designed as a series of stackable, modularized programs that lead toward a full degree; or they may exist entirely independently as a standalone educational unit. It is easier to measure demand for for-credit academic certificates than it is to measure demand for other non-credit alternative credentials because IPEDS, and other national datasets, track for-credit certificates. That demand for for-credit academic certificates has increased measurably over time. Carnevale et al., (2012), writing for the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, noted that “In 1984, less than 2 percent of adults 18 and older had a certificate as their highest educational attainment; by 2009 that percentage had grown to almost 12 percent” (p. 4).