Continuing professional development as lifelong learning and education

ABSTRACT

Continuing professional development (CPD) is a substantial, but hitherto largely unappreciated component of lifelong learning and education (LLL/LLE). CPD encourages analysis of the LLL/LLE of those with high education in early years. It draws attention to the influence of particular organisations, professional associations and regulatory bodies, not only as suppliers of LLL/LLE, but also as facilitators of perpetual cycles of learning and in so doing connect lifelong learning with individual identities as professionals. This study highlights the importance of bringing a sociological perspective into understanding participation in LLL/LLE through consideration of a wider range of stakeholders. Data is presented on these organisations’ CPD policies from a large-scale survey carried out in the UK triennially between 2003 and 2018, in addition to interviews, focus groups and other surveys of employees of these organisations in the UK, as well as in Australia, Canada and Ireland reported in many publications. The development path of CPD and the changes this has led to for the exercise of professionals’ lifelong learning and for the functioning of these organisations themselves is analysed. CPD policies and programmes are portrayed as a structured system distinct from university continuing education and training.

KEYWORDS:

• Continuing professional development
• sociological perspective
• structured system

Introduction

All potential lifelong learners and the full range of influences on participation need to be considered to fully understand lifelong learning and lifelong education (LLL/LLE). We argue this should include the LLL/LLE of professionals who now largely learn according to continuing professional development (CPD) policies and programmes. This requires recognising CPD as a system for supporting and regulating the learning of professionals throughout their working lives (and beyond into retirement for some). CPD involves both lifelong learning and lifelong education that is, both what Billett calls a personal fact and an institutional fact (Billett, 2010, p. 407) because CPD is more than courses and professional bodies assess more than pre-designated education activities: including private reading, social interactions, and reflections on working experiences. CPD introduces professionalism as encouraging, and for many requiring, individuals to undertake LLL/LLE regularly and systematically.

We use the term professional bodies to include both professional associations and regulatory bodies (Friedman & Afitska, 2023). Autonomous single organisations traditionally both represented and regulated professionals in the UK (Millerson, 1964). Elsewhere, notably in the United States, Australia and Canada, these functions are undertaken by different organisations, the regulatory roles by State or Provincial level government agencies. In the UK the two roles have been separated for medical and nursing professions and for more since 1990s legislative changes (legal services, architecture, pharmacy health care and social work), but for many professions particularly in the business, arts, technology and education sectors, a single organisation still performs both functions.

We analyse the substance and significance of CPD as LLL/LLE: substance in terms of its extent and nature, and significance in terms of implications for assessing support for participation in LLL/LLE. Our primary data source is PARN surveys of UK-based professional bodies undertaken every three years since 2003 (see APPENDIX). We review the intersection of CPD and LLL/LLE strands of literature. We review definitions of CPD and note its diffusion in the UK since the 1970s, amounting to a transformation of professional bodies into more formal supporters and regulators of LLL/LLE. We elaborate effects of CPD on relations between UK-based professional bodies and their members. CPD introduces obligation and compulsion into motivation to participate. Incorporating CPD into analyses of LLL/LLE contributes to a sociological approach to participation, highlighting the role of organisations outside public education provisions in institutionalising LLL/LLE; influencing learner focus rather than replacing it, and highlighting commitment to professionalism as a motivator for participation in LLL/LLE framed largely by professional bodies. It contributes to frequent calls for a wider range of stakeholders to be considered in stimulating LLL/LLE (UNESCO, 1990, 2000, 2021).

CPD and LLL strands of literature

CPD is undertaken by millions in the UK and in many other countries (Friedman, 2012). It is surprising that with so many engaged in this type of lifelong learning it is rarely mentioned in the LLL/LLE literature. Even more rare are references to professional bodies and their role in CPD. A recent example is a UK Government Office for Science report on participation in learning across the life course. It shows that professional occupations have higher participation rates for learning among adults than other occupational groups without mentioning CPD or professional bodies (Walport & Leunig, 2017). Continuing Professional Education (CPE) is the preferred label in the United States. It sometimes includes what is called CPD in the UK (Cervero, 2001; Houle, 1980). Treatments of CPE in the USA have occasionally figured in literature on adult and continuing education (Coady, 2015, 2020; Jeris, 2010) and lifelong learning (Del Gaizo & Laudermith, 2021). Analysts of CPE have criticised its focus on courses and its disjuncture from actual professional learning and practice improvements (Webster-Wright, 2010). The label CPD was introduced in the UK to replace CPE, recognising that professional development includes more than attending courses (Gardner, 1978). This is comparable to the shift in emphasis from lifelong education to lifelong learning (OECD, 1996).

Lack of attention to CPD and professional bodies in LLL/LLE literature may be due to several factors. One is scarcity of information on CPD. CPE in the US has been described as a shadow education enterprise without a repository of statistics to describe it (Cervero, 2001, p. 19). This also applies to CPD. There is no government, or government supported, repository of statistics on CPD in the UK. The Labour Force Surveys (LFS) and Adult Education Surveys (AES) report learning activities that could indicate participation in CPD, but they do not ask if it is CPD or organised by professional bodies. Second, lack of attention may be due to incompatibility with espoused primary aims of LLL/LLE which have been proposed as a ‘corrective function’ for shortcomings of the education system (Dave, 1976, p. 52). Faure et al. were concerned with the exclusion of ‘hundreds of millions of illiterate people’ (Faure et al., 1972, p. 44) including those who dropped out of school or who had never been to school. These concerns persist (UNESCO, 2022). LLL/LLE analysis has emphasised the need for participation by those in educational deficit, with little early education or without positive learning experiences and in consequence are less likely to be motivated to engage in adult learning, a Matthew effect (Merton, 1968; Walberg & Tsai, 1983). Related policy focuses on early school leavers and migrants (Tuparevska et al., 2020). Equity is a persistent concern in the LLL/LLE literature (Chapman et al., 2006) stimulated by concerns to achieve social justice (Vargas, 2017) and to counter social exclusion (Stenfors‐Hayes et al., 2008). Dedicating resources to CPD may be regarded as counterproductive to these concerns, contributing to the haves, thereby threatening social cohesion. A third factor is the dominant emphasis on psychological factors on participation. The ‘institutional side has often been ignored in previous theorisations of adult lifelong learning participation’ (Boeren, 2016, p. 97).

CPD could connect to new concerns within the community of LLL/LLE analysts and policy makers. First, has been the change in emphasis among those advocating LLL/LLE for its contribution to economic growth and meeting the technological challenges of Industry 4.0 (Hodge et al., 2021) reflecting the neoliberal view of the importance of market forces (OECD, 2019; UNESCO, 2021; World Economic Forum [WEF], 2020). However, neoliberal economists see professional bodies and professions as barriers to entry into elite occupations, as impediments to the working of competitive markets (Friedman & Kuznets, 1945; OECD, 1985) even suggesting that CPD could act as another barrier (Office of Fair Trading, 2001). Second, there has been criticism of reliance on individual and psychological study of participation in LLL/LLE. A complementary sociological approach has been called for, attending to the supply side of LLL/LLE and focusing on education institutions and employer generated opportunities for LLE (Boeren, 2016; Courtney, 1992; Jarvis, 2007; Regmi, 2020). This suggests a role for professional bodies. Professional bodies and other organisations and groupings have been identified in the political economy of adult learning systems approach (Desjardins, 2017) and more explicitly in the model of multilevel governance in adult and further education (Schemmann et al., 2020; Schrader, 2009). Schrader’s intermediate level explicitly includes professional associations, accrediting agencies and scientific services institutes. These analyses are oriented to the complex German system of multilevel political entities and have been used to compare systems across European countries in the varieties of capitalism approach (Hall & Soskice, 2001) in which Saar et al. (2013) examine the interaction of early education structures with trade union influences and welfare systems on participation in adult education. Professional associations and CPD are not referred to, though employer associations are. The emphasis in Germany and other Continental European countries has been more on the state and universities, which are closely aligned with the state, rather than autonomous professional bodies (Macdonald, 1995). Universities in the UK have traditionally concentrated on research and theory rather than practical professional education (Millerson, 1964). In spite of UK government policies in favour of adult education in universities from the 1970s, long-standing extra-mural departments dedicated to continuing education have withered (Jones et al., 2010) though the Open University provides CPD. Boeren’s model of integrated governance also identified intermediate level operators.

Recognising CPD as LLL/LLE entails appreciating that millions of lifelong learners are not only highly educated individuals but are also members of particular social institutions which aim to improve professional practice. Professional bodies are not only providers of LLE but also frame and systematise it, placing LLL/LLE into a context of regular planning and evaluating consequences of LLL/LLE activities. In keeping with the personal sense of LLL as well as the institutional sense of LLE, reflection is itself considered part of CPD, reflection not only on courses but also on working and social experiences. This is beginning to be appreciated in specific instances (Chen et al., 2021).

Appreciation of CPD as LLL/LLE is also relevant for strands of literature on the professions and professionalism. Professionalism had been proposed as a third logic of controlling work, distinct from markets and bureaucratic-management control (Freidson, 2001). While some new knowledge occupations such as non-academic researchers have been found to be subject to market control (Pernicka & Lϋcking, 2012), the primary challenge to professionalism has been from the growing influence of management control as professionals come to work primarily in large scale organisations including professional services firms (Evetts, 2009, 2014). This has stimulated two changes, first a form of organisational professionalism imposed from above by employers and managers to facilitate occupational change and discipline (Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2008; Fournier, 1999). Professionalism from above referring to domination of the state, has long been recognised as a feature of German professions (Macdonald, 1995). Second a melding of professionalism and management or hybrid professionalism (Noordegraaf, 2007). This melding has been stimulated by professionalising management occupations through professional bodies such as the Chartered Management Institute and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in the UK, each with extensive CPD programmes. In addition, ‘managementalising’ professionals through CPD has occurred. General management skills were most commonly recommended as a prescribed CPD topic after ethics, by 47% of the rather low proportion (28%) of professional bodies that prescribed specific topics for inclusion in CPD (PARN, 2021). This can be linked to new emphasis on agency in institutionalist theory. Not only do ‘institutions shape organisational structure and actions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991) but also professionals and professional bodies influence institutions, the former as ‘lords of the dance’ (Scott, 2008) and the latter as organisation actors affecting institutions as they react to challenges (Greenwood et al., 2014). Professional bodies have introduced and developed new policies and programmes of CPD as part of their own exercise of agency as organisations contributing to their growth and sustainability (Friedman & Afitska, 2023).

What is CPD and how widespread is it?

Definitions of CPD are varied and most express multiple aims. A frequently used definition was proposed by the Construction Industry Council in 1986:

The systematic maintenance, improvement and broadening of knowledge and skills, and the development of personal qualities necessary for the execution of professional and technical duties throughout the individual’s working life. (Friedman et al., 2000, p. 41)

Other definitions express different aims. CPD has been described as ambiguous and contested due to strong differences in understandings of its aims and effects (Friedman & Phillips, 2004). This has also been found with CPE (Cervero & Daley, 2016). A frequent aim among health professional bodies is to protect patients and the general public. ‘to ensure [health care professionals] retain their capacity to practice safely, effectively and legally within their evolving scope of practice’ (HCPC, 2009)., For others it is a career development mechanism and a way of ensuring you are personally up to date thereby mitigating risks associated with ignorance of up-to-date laws and techniques available (IOSH, 2010). CPD was introduced in recognition that professional competence for life should not be assumed to be guaranteed by early age qualification (Friedman, 1962).

Professional bodies had always provided opportunities for members to continue learning post qualification. CPD was introduced as a more formalised and regular way of tracking members’ learning activities. In the UK CPD policies emerged in the 1970s and by 1987 had penetrated half the professional bodies based on a survey of 123 professional bodies (Friedman, 2012; Welsh & Woodward, 1989). By 2018 virtually all either had a CPD policy (91%) or accepted CPD provisions of other professional bodies (a further 2%) (PARN, 2021). In 2006 with an estimated 85% of UK professional bodies with CPD policies, penetration was estimated at 71% in Australia, 66% in Canada and 67% in Ireland (Friedman, 2012, p. 99). CPD is now a global phenomenon. All accounting professional bodies world-wide were advised to move to compulsory CPD in 2006 (IFAC, 2004). Having a CPD policy and programme or subjecting members to one, has become the mark of a serious professional body in the UK and elsewhere (Friedman, 2012).

Despite CPD policies being almost universal among UK professional bodies, the number of members of professional bodies actually carrying out CPD is less than professional body membership. CPD is not compulsory for all professional bodies and even for those with a compulsory policy a small number of members do not comply. PARN estimated overall professional body membership at 5.2 million and those engaged in CPD at 3.4 million in 2008 (PARN, 2009). This was based on estimates of the percentage of members carrying out CPD according to different CPD policies among 27 UK-based professional bodies. These percentages were then grossed up by the overall estimates of the proportion of all professional bodies with the different CPD policies and their respective memberships.

From a recent survey of 1001 adults commissioned from a public panel base company (Toluna) and drawn for equal males and females aged 18 and over in the UK, 34% had undertaken CPD. This was higher for men (38%) than women (31%) and those aged between 26 and 49 (42%) (Pitts et al., 2021, p. 103). Particularly significant in confirming the value of CPD were the 40% who answered yes to the question – When choosing a professional to provide a service, would you seek to verify that they undertake CPD? Unsurprisingly more who have undertaken CPD and were members of professional bodies said yes (68%) but even among those that were not members of professional bodies and had not done CPD 25% said yes (Pitts et al., 2021, p. 127). A recent review of literature on education concluded ‘ … nurses value continuing professional development and believe that it is fundamental to professionalism and lifelong learning (Mlambo et al., 2021, p. 1).

Compliance policies and regulatory role

Initially, CPD at professional associations was voluntary, a service provided to members to help them keep track of their learning, though CPD was compulsory for the very few regulatory bodies with a policy at that time (Rapkins, 1996). According to the PARN series of surveys, professional bodies with voluntary policies declined from 42% in 2003 to 16% in 2018 and compulsory policies rose from 14% to 37% (Friedman & Tinner, 2016; PARN, 2021). Mixed policies (generally compulsory for fellows or Chartered members and voluntary for the rest) rose from 17% to 27%. With almost all of these having a compulsory component, 64% of professional bodies had at least some members under a compulsory policy backed by sanctions. The range of sanctions for non-compliance includes suspension and expulsion from the professional body, but these are sanctions of last resort. Sanctions start with warnings and remedial CPD, move up to loss of designatory titles or status and prevention from holding certain offices in the professional association (Friedman & Tinner, 2016). The path of CPD policy from voluntary to compulsory compliance echoes the introduction of voluntary examination entry requirements for professional bodies in Britain in the 19^th century which eventually became compulsory (Millerson, 1964).

Some professional associations have ‘obligatory’ CPD. This may be regarded as an aberration by those unfamiliar with professional culture. Surely there are only two options, compulsory or not compulsory? Obligatory policies reflect a traditional view of professional control. Obligations or duties of individuals to act in certain ways are specified in professional ethical codes (Friedman et al., 2005). Those with obligatory policies treat CPD in the same way as other obligations in ethical codes: such as respect confidentiality, manage conflicts of interest or act with integrity. Sometimes the obligation to carry out regular CPD is an explicit item, but it can also be expressed as an obligation to maintain competence (Friedman et al., 2005). The culture of obligatory CPD was strongly expressed by this interviewee:

It is said that we are our own best judges. Certainly as a professional, if you have been trained to think in a professional way, in a methodical way, in an honest way, then you should be honest with yourself in terms of whether you can do or know X …. after all, Professionals sign up to a Code of Conduct which has inherent implications about the currency of their competence. (Friedman & Woodhead, 2008, pp. 136–7)

Roughly a quarter of professional bodies have had obligatory policies throughout the period from 2003 to 2018. By the 2018 survey a majority with an obligatory policy (71%) had sanctions for non-compliance (PARN, 2021).

The rise of compulsory policies has introduced a new motivation for participation in LLL for professionals: to avoid sanctions from their professional bodies. This has led CPD to be identified as a form of coercive lifelong learning (Beighton, 2021). Coercive can mean different things. One definition is to ‘persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats’. A milder definition is ‘to compel to an act or choice’ (Merriam-Webster, 2022). Compulsory CPD is closer to the latter for most professionals. The two most important motivations for engagement with CPD from a survey of 7,275 professional members of 23 different professional bodies in 4 countries in 2008 were ‘I feel it is my duty as a professional to do it’ and ‘I do it to improve performance in my current role’ with 87% and 83% responding that it was important or very important (from among 8 options). Below this was because ‘My professional/regulatory body requires me to do it’ (74%) and ‘I do it to develop as a person’ (71%). Considerably less important was ‘I do it to further my career in general’ (61%). Only 40% was ‘I do it to further my position with my current employer, and 14% ‘I do it because I want to change careers’. The ordering of motivations had changed according to a more recent survey of 1001 members of the public in the UK. The reasons most commonly cited for undertaking CPD were that they were mandated to do so (45%) and to improve performance in my role (45%); with 29% reporting they undertook CPD because they felt it their duty as a professional to do it (Pitts et al., 2021).

Other studies in the UK in the early 21^st century affirmed professional commitment as a more important motivator than employability or career orientation for CPD participation among human relations professionals (Rothwell & Arnold, 2005) and accountants (Rothwell & Herbert, 2007). The mix was different where traditions of independent professionalism are less strong. For accountants in the Philippines the top two enablers of CPD were requirement for growth or advancement and need to comply with government or regulatory requirements (Mendoza, 2013). At least in the UK, CPD has become infused with the general force of professionalism as a motivating factor, though this appears to have weakened somewhat with the spread of compulsory CPD.

With CPD members have become more closely tied to their professional bodies. Rather than involvement confined for most to receipt of journals and newsletters and sporadic attendance of events based on interest, now most regularly submit CPD returns. They consult professional body staff to clarify requirements as well as conversing with other members comparing CPD compliance experiences. Commitment to act according to the ethical code is monitored by omission, the professional body is only involved when a complaint is received. CPD involves monitored acts of commission. Arguably monitoring provides a continual reminder to members that their professionalism is tied to their LLL/LLE. It builds the view of professional body involvement as more than a ticket to status and material benefits gained from initial qualification. It continually reproduces the connection.

How has CPD changed professional bodies?

Multiple learning opportunities have always been provided to members and registrants by professional bodies. According to Millerson every association provided one or more of the following: libraries, lectures, exhibitions, conferences, week-end courses, journals, special publications, joint meetings, research groups, visits, international conferences, refresher courses, local sections, special student societies. ‘They serve as means of extending knowledge, circulating information, maintaining technical standards, quite apart from any role in the education of students and trained professionals’ (Millerson, 1964, pp. 139–40). Professional bodies continue to provide this range of educational services and learning opportunities, but with CPD a fundamental transformation has occurred in professional bodies involving the following:

Changed focus for monitoring and recording learning activities

Rather than monitoring and assessing the success of activities as services provided to members by adding up attendance and collecting feedback on each activity, professional bodies began recording, monitoring, and evaluating CPD participation of individuals over time. Focus shifted to assessing whether an activity undertaken by an individual counted for their CPD and whether the accumulated total would be judged as sufficient. This was a completely new approach to post qualification education compared with Millerson’s description around the mid twentieth century. Individuals’ learning rather than the supply of activities became the focus of education efforts.

Emergence of specialised CPD unit or department

Before CPD the work of keeping track of attendance at activities that could contribute to professional learning would have been undertaken by the sections of the organisation providing the services. Activities provided by branches and special interest groups would have been collected by branch and interest group staff and volunteers. Administrators and events specialists at headquarters would provide support and record information on conference activities and technical updates. With CPD, staff were hired to run a new department or section. Many of those hired were educationalists, rather than members of the profession being represented or regulated, and rather than general administrators. New activities to support learning, such as mentoring were organised through those departments (Friedman & Phillips, 2002). A survey of 162 professional bodies carried out in 1999 found 28% of CPD schemes were run by people with an education background (Friedman et al., 2000). Some would have been influenced by the new appreciation of lifelong learning for social well-being (Faure et al., 1972) as well as its importance for human capital development (OECD, 1996). Many CPD specialists expressed a sense of isolation, believing they had more in common with CPD specialists in other associations than with others within their own organisation (Friedman et al., 1999, p. 116). This encouraged them to form and support a CPD forum in 1993. It became a special interest group of the UK Inter Professional Group in 2004 and a special interest group of PARN in 2018 (Senior, 2015). They were also catered for by eight CPD conferences where books detailing CPD research were launched. For a summary of topics see the introduction to Friedman and Tinner (2016).

Extension of the range of activities included

CPD is more than courses as is commonly reiterated (Todd, 1987 citing Gardner, 1978). With CPD, professional bodies moved from recording and monitoring events and training activities to include informal activities such as reading, networking and socialising as well as reflecting on working practices. Their inclusion within CPD has specifically been recognised by the label ‘non-verifiable’ activities. Many professional bodies specify a required proportion of verifiable CPD activities, that is, recorded by someone other than the professional themselves. They accept that some non-verifiable activities will also count. For example, see https://www.accaglobal.com/gb/en/member/cpd/your-guide-to-cpd/cpd-what-you-need-to-do.html. The UK General Dental Council required 250 hours of CPD over a five-year period with only 75 required to be verifiable. Reading journal articles was clearly non-verifiable but the British Dental Journal included some papers with multiple choice questions at the end and completing the questionnaire allowed dentists to accumulate verifiable hours (Tredwin et al., 2005).

Systematic cycles

Initially, CPD was recorded by inputs, evidence of activities measured by hours spent or by a points system with hours on some activities counting for more credit, such as presenting at a conference being worth more than merely attending. This is still common among regulatory bodies. However, professional associations influenced by an EU project (EUSCCCIP, 1998), introduced CPD cycles, expecting that members plan their CPD, reflect on it and evaluate it. In this CPD specialists had been influenced by Kolb (1984) who argued that learning should involve a set of stages including reflection and that it should involve perpetual cycles. The typical learning cycle in professional bodies has 4 stages: plan, act, evaluate, reflect (Friedman, 2012, p. 15). Some have variations on this. CIMA has a 6-stage cycle by expanding the planning stage into three parts: define your role, assess your development needs, and design your programme as well as the usual act, reflect and evaluate (Friedman, 2012, p. 16). Kolb’s system is focused on individual learning and has been criticised for reducing social connections to cognitive phenomenon thereby missing complex referents, such as the facilitative role of professional bodies (Holman et al., 1997; Seaman, 2007). The CPD cycle helps to frame activities associated with LLL within a perpetual system of supports over the long run. The cycle becomes a recognisable wrapper around LLL for professionals with professional bodies actively involved not only as suppliers of CPD but also influencing professionals’ motivation to participate. This has been cemented by measuring CPD by outputs rather than counting hours or inputs.

Measuring outputs may be interpreted as the third wave of education and learning changes undertaken by professional bodies post initial qualifications, first developing a CPD policy, second making it compulsory and third responding to the criticism that merely recording CPD activities may not indicate actual learning or practice improvements. Friedman and Woodhead (2008) provided examples of pioneering work on assessing CPD outputs which have since been taken up by professional bodies in growing numbers, as for vets (Wallace & May, 2016) and dentists (Bullock et al., 2020). Friedman and Woodhead (2008) developed a model assessing professional learning by considering the extent and detail by which each of the three dimensions around activities are measured in the standard CPD cycle: planning, evaluation, and reflection. These have been incorporated into PARN’s CPD surveys. For the 2018 survey, of 70 respondents who identified how they measured CPD, 59% measured outputs or a combination of outputs and inputs. Of those 41, 93% assess reflection, 56% evaluation and 54% planning. Following the model, respondents were offered a scale allowing greater accuracy in measurement of each dimension. For planning respondents were offered simple goal setting (73%), structured review of role and competencies (41%) and linking planned activities to a competency framework (41%). For reflection it was open ended questions (42%), linking it to competencies (11%); structured review of your role (18%) and critical reflection (reflection on reflection) (37%). For evaluation assessment of learning outcomes (43%); practice outcomes (39%) and client or employer impact (35%) were offered (PARN, 2021). These measures provide a better indication of the extent to which CPD leads to actual LLL than time spent at activities.

Analytical consequences of considering CPD as part of LLL/LLE

Most literature on LLL/LLE focuses on people with an aversion to education and who do not think of themselves as learners, those on the wrong side of the Matthew Effect (Cross, 1981). Barriers to CPD are somewhat different from barriers to LLL/LLE participation for those with deficient initial education. Wessels (2007) reported types of barriers to CPD expressed by accountants including not only costs and difficulties of getting time off work or childcare, but also lack of information about what is on offer and likely benefits from activities as well as ‘dispositional’ barriers by which CPD is viewed as a distraction from actual professional practice. There has been confusion about reporting expectations and what counts as CPD particularly when policies have changed from voluntary to compulsory compliance or from input to output measures (Friedman & Woodhead, 2008; Friedman et al., 2001). There are informal reports of member ‘misbehaviours’ (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999), such as people getting someone else to sign in for them at events, attending only at the beginning and leaving before the end, or falling asleep during the event (Friedman, 2012). Some who realise they may not fulfil the required hours of CPD within the time frame expected can take up inappropriate things just to make up the requirements. Resentment against the bureaucratic requirements of reporting CPD and that compulsory CPD encourages a ’compliance mentality’ have been expressed (Friedman, 2012, p. 88).

Voluntary CPD is more compatible with LLL as self-directed learning or Heutagogy (Hase & Keynon, 2013). Professionals may participate beyond professional body expectations from concerns that service users and employers will find their expertise outdated or otherwise deficient and for some out of curiosity concerning professional practice and sheer joy of learning. However, voluntary CPD is not entirely self-directed learning. It is a system for recording learning activities chosen by individuals, but with input measurement systems, those choices are shaped and limited by the CPD framework with guidelines on what ‘counts’ as CPD (Friedman, 2012, pp. 20–28). In some professional bodies individual learning is directed towards certain kinds of activities, whether specified subjects of importance according to the professional body, such as ethics, or by aspects of the activity, such as it being verifiable. However, with output based CPD measurement the range of what can be included as CPD is widened and left to the discretion of practitioners. With output-based measurement, compulsory as well as voluntary CPD has become more self-directed as to the activities undertaken.

Consideration of the lifelong learning of professionals through CPD brings not only a neglected segment of potential learners into consideration, but also hitherto neglected suppliers and facilitators of lifelong learning. It has long been recognised at UNESCO conferences that a wide range of stakeholders are needed to achieve improved adult education participation beyond the learners themselves; employers, trade unions, non-governmental organisations and community associations (UNESCO, 1990, 2000, 2021). CPD demonstrates how stakeholders beyond direct suppliers can critically affect participation in LLL/LLE by regularising the practice, contextualising learning opportunities and influencing the goals of LLL/LLE participants. Professional bodies expect regular records of CPD activities and increasingly draw planning, reflecting and evaluating those activities into CPD, thereby embracing activities not normally thought of as education such as conversations about work in social situations or personal reflections on working practices. The influence of those who run CPD programmes extends further because they accredit others who directly supply LLE activities. Professional bodies direct supplier offerings towards their understanding of what is required for professional competence, often guided by formal competency frameworks (Lester, 2014). Roughly half professional bodies accredit external CPD courses or course providers (PARN, 2021). An interesting large-scale scheme of accrediting CPD provided by engineering employers was developed by Engineers Ireland and has been adopted by over 165 organisations (see https://www.engineersireland.ie/Businesses/Training-development/CPD-accredited-employer-standard).

Professional bodies incorporate lifelong learning into a programme of CPD involving many aspects of professional practice, as well as non-work situations. It is in some ways more pervasive than the formal education system for young people. It involves the equivalent of after school clubs and even aspects of social life unconnected with schooling, at least that is the way CPD has developed from initial focus on merely recording learning events. CPD is a system of LLL for professionals, beyond LLE.

This differs from university outreach programmes labelled continuing education and training (CET), which like professional body provisions before CPD, are primarily concerned with the performance of individual courses and assessing individual learning of that fixed material. Universities rely on adults electing to participate in CET which in turn is presumed to depend on their goals, needs and readiness to participate. Where do these motivating factors come from? Leow et al. (2022) suggest analysis of personal and work-related factors can guide university educators to appeal to potential adult learners. Here, we suggest that analysing CPD policies and programmes of professional bodies would be an important contributor to such analysis, at least for a significant proportion of CET participants and potential participants.

Individual motivation is a serious issue for those interested in adult education participation because no binding pressures are assumed to operate on individuals towards adult education (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 2017). Those with little early education or with less confidence in their learning abilities from early experiences need to be coaxed to participate. CPD concerns people who generally do not lack confidence in their learning. CPD points to something different from normal investment in education to achieve material gains in careers and different from education as an intrinsically valuable activity or following learning out of interest. Rather for many it concerns commitment to a further purpose associated with duty to professionalism (Friedman, 2020).

Motivating factors derived from professional bodies reflect two broad sources of institutional power. The hard power is of compulsion with the threat of sanctions for non-compliance, primarily of suspension or dismissal from organisation membership, but also a range of other penalties that can be imposed such as fines and demotions (Friedman et al., 2000). Statutory professional bodies can deprive an individual of their livelihood at least in their chosen occupation. The soft power is of identity formation as a professional and the obligation to carry out CPD, including expected material benefit of higher returns if you can convince others that you are at the top of your profession. Soft power was originally used to describe political power (Nye, 2004). This connects to a view of professional bodies as ‘lesser governments’ associated with the Royal Charters many operate under (Macdonald, 1995, p. 73). Individuals entering the institutional space of expectations will be encouraged to adhere to ethical codes and maintain technical competence in their identities as professionals.

The combination of soft and hard power exercised over professionals is complex. The hard power of sanctions is weakened, even when CPD is compulsory because of preference to support member CPD efforts: to reform more than punish those misbehaving. The system has trust built into it by acceptance of some proportion of CPD returns from non-verifiable, self-assessments of activities. Regulation of CPD has been to some extent forgiving, at least for infrequent offenders with many warnings and time between warnings and serious sanctions. The Institute of the Motor Industry, with a 3-year CPD cycle, gives members a year extension with further support and guidance if members do not complete the target in time. If still not compliant, they are given a further year. Then, they are downgraded, coming off the public facing professional register, though they can continue as an affiliate member (Friedman & Tinner, 2016, pp. 31–32). The General Osteopathic Council challenges those submitting returns which do not comply with expected standards requiring them to complete additional activity the following year (Friedman & Tinner, 2016, p. 125). ACCA members are asked to declare whether they have completed the requirement or if they have done some, but not all required CPD. If they choose the latter, they are coached through their submission. Those refusing to make up the difference are put through a disciplinary hearing (Friedman & Tinner, 2016, p. 95). This is different from the stricter treatment of misconduct and discovered instances of incompetence. CPD violations are treated as violations of internal professional body rules rather than public protection issues, though this is a matter of degree. With rising appreciation of the importance of CPD, sanctions may become sterner, time between mild and serious sanctions may shorten, and compliance procedures may come to be removed from professional associations to specialist regulatory bodies. CPD would then become more like state regulated formal education requirements. However, relying on the soft power of persuasion and targeted support is more in line with the culture of professionalism and arguably leads to consummate rather than perfunctory compliance accompanied by various misbehaviours. The spirit of the value of CPD for professional and personal development would be closer to the Faure ideals of LLL for good citizenship in the context of the professionalised society.

Lack of official data on CPD limits awareness of the extent of CPD and recognition of it as a component of LLL/LLE among academics and policy makers. Information on professionals participating in CPD could be included in the substantial surveys informing LLL/LLE such as the European Labour Force Survey and Adult Education Survey (Boeren, 2016, pp. 155–165), but this will require additional questions aimed at how CPD is defined and structured by professional bodies. Evidence for the rise of CPD can help contextualise an interesting finding of apparent decline of LLL/LLE from surveys carried out in 2016 in Canada and the UK (Livingstone & Raykov, 2017). Those surveys cover further education courses and employment related informal learning; however, CPD is more like non-formal learning which may not have been considered by respondents asked about informal learning (Eraut, 2000; Rogers, 2019).

Conclusions

A sea change has occurred in the extent and nature of LLL/LLE without it being appreciated, or hardly noticed in the lifelong education literature. It has occurred due to the diffusion of CPD policies and programmes in the professions. This is particularly evident in the UK and in some professions such as accounting worldwide. Currently, more than 90% of the UK-based professional bodies have a CPD policy, among which for the majority it is compulsory for at least some categories of their members. Roughly a third of all adults in the UK have been carrying out CPD. Professionals had always engaged in informally supported LLL/LLE through services offered by professional bodies. Self-directed learning had always occurred among professionals supported by their professional body’s services. This is likely to have been very unevenly practiced among different professionals and at limited moments during their careers. Knowledge of the extent of individual professionals learning was unknown. With CPD, this learning has come to be regularised, recorded and tied to expectations and responsibilities of professionalism. The learning of professionals has come not only to be supported by professional bodies but also shaped by them and in most cases, subject to a degree of compulsion with sanctions for non-compliance. Professional learning has become profesionalised: more planned, more evaluated and reflected upon as these aspects of learning have become formally set out, recorded and subject to sanctions for non-compliance.

Consideration of CPD encourages a shift in LLL/LLE research emphasis towards sociological factors. It brings into the analysis the social institution of professionalism and specific organisations, professional bodies, that frame and facilitate LLL/LLE among the well educated in addition to supplying LLL/LLE activities. This widens the range of stakeholders involved in LLL/LLE. The importance of institutions and organisations for LLL/LLE participation is demonstrated by the hard and soft power towards CPD participation exercised by professional bodies. Motivation to participate in LLL/LLE must be augmented by motivations concerning systematic features of personal identities as represented by professionalism. Professionalisation of new, lower status and less well-paid occupations will boost LLL/LLE overall and reduce inequality at least for lower middle-class individuals, though this will do little for the unemployed and most of those in precarious employment.

Overall monitoring and recording of individuals’ CPD journey, the inclusion of formal and informal activities, the CPD cycle that includes repetitive planning, reflection and evaluation, and the introduction of obligations and compulsion backed by sanctions administered by CPD specialists in professional bodies encourages us to characterise CPD is a system of LLL/LLE rather than a collection of purely psychologically generated incidents of adult learning. Putting this analysis in the context of the broad systems approaches to LLL/LLE governance of Boeren (2016) and Desjardins (2017) we can interpret CPD as at the heart of a subsystem of LLL/LLE whose appreciation can deepen understanding of the overall system.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix

The Professional Associations Research Network (PARN), established in 1998, is a research institute and a membership organisation for professional bodies. It is an independent not for profit organisation. Members are primarily based in the UK (see www.parnglobal.com). At various times professional bodies based in Australia, Canada and Ireland have become members and PARN events have been held in all these countries with country specific data reported, (see for example Friedman & Mason, 2007). PARN currently (September 2023) has 108 UK member professional bodies. Professional bodies come into, out of, and many return to membership depending on personnel familiarity with PARN work and pressures on organisation finances. Since 1998, 271 different UK based professional bodies have at one time been members of PARN. Non-members regularly attend conferences and training events and respond to surveys. The primary data reported here has been gleaned from triannual surveys carried out from 2003 to 2018 called Professional Body Benchmarking Surveys or PBBS (PARN, 2021). Dimensions of PBBS for the UK are provided in Table A1. These are long surveys completed by staff members at professional bodies. The surveys have a core of the same questions asked every year. Some terms are understood differently by different professional bodies, reflecting the autonomous nature of professional bodies and absence of an agency tasked to formulate common terminology. Accordingly, definitions were provided for terms, such as voluntary, obligatory and compulsory policies.

Table A1. Professional body benchmarking survey (PBBS) dimensions per year.

Year	Questionnaires Sent	Useable responses	Response rate
2018	646	76	12%
2015	530	99	19%
2012	475	106	21%
2009	334	74	22%
2006	334	110	33%
2003	299	129	43%

PARN surveys were sent to all professional bodies found by extensive searches through Companies House and websites, including non-members. Responses to the survey have been more likely to be provided by PARN members, though non-members varied between 25% and 50% of respondents. This may bias the results to respondents more familiar with analysis contained in PARN publications. The hunt for professional bodies has been slow and considerable as there is no comprehensive register of professional bodies. In addition to these comprehensive surveys, shorter surveys on specific subjects have been run by PARN and have been used to supplement discussion of issues covered in this article (Friedman et al., 2000; PARN, 2008, 2009; Pitts et al., 2021). In addition, PARN collects information from annual reports (PARN, 2022). A great deal of ad hoc confirmation of PARN data comes from responses of professional body employees at conferences and training events and through special interest group meetings.