the greater good of our industry. The same
is true of engagement with professional
bodies, however mandatory membership is
for practice.
If we take a market approach to
professionalisation, there is little evidence
that clients and audiences are demanding
that events are provided and organised by
those with professional status. In my research
so far, the discourse is centering more upon
the social approach to professionalisation.
The concern is for our identity as a
trustworthy industry of the highest quality
and for individuals to be valued and rewarded
as professionals in their own right. Whilst
there are justified criticisms of the traditional
model of professionalisation, we may still
require some of its characteristics of unity,
concordance and external legitimation.
what that ‘need’ is and whether the traditional
approach to professionalisation is the most
appropriate route to take. Please contact me
if you have any views on this or would like to
be involved in moving our professionalisation
agenda forward. Your view may be that we
have spent long enough on this subject and
that we need to move on to other issues that
require our attention.
The events industry has grown exponentially
and there are many disparate specialist
bodies claiming to represent events, some
of which have their own knowledge base,
competencies and certifications. Many
of these bodies have come together as
BVEP. With our strapline of ‘connecting
Britain’s events industry’ it is time for us to
decide, collectively, whether one body of
knowledge, one professional institute and one
educational structure is what we need and
so whether BVEP wholeheartedly supports
it. More importantly it requires not just words
but action to implement the activities needed
of a profession. My research aims to identify
08