Describes a model of professional competence which attempts to bring together a number of apparently disparate views of competence, including the “outcomes” approach, a key feature of UK National Vocational Qualifications, and the “reflective practitioner” approach, suggested by Schon and now well recognized within professional education programmes.

is a Senior Policy Adviser with the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), a Department of UK central government. Originally qualifying as a Chartered Engineer, he has been actively involved in vocational training for the past 22 years. He joined the Manpower Services Commission (later to become the DfEE) in 1983, where he became responsible for research into learning technology, especially the application of advanced technologies (including computers and satellites) to training. He later switched his focus to higher levels skills areas and oversaw the development of competence-based`o ccupational standards'' and National Vocational Qualifications in the Management area. He is currently responsible for advising on government policy in the field of management education and professional development. His Doctoral research centred on the acquisition of professional competence.

In an earlier article, published in 1996, the authors described a provisional model of professional competence which attempted to harmonise the "reflective practitioner" paradigm (developed by Schön and now espoused by many professional education programmes) with competence-based approaches. The latter included both the "functional outcomes" approach and the "personal competence" approach. Views on the composite model were sought from readers of this journal. The model was also tested as part of a programme of empirical work across 20 different professions. This paper offers a revised version of the model which takes account of the suggestions made by a significant number of respondents, as well as observations from the empirical work.

Focuses on the nature of professional practice based on research conducted with practitioners via interviews and questionnaires. Aims to determine how practitioners actually tackle professional problem solving. Discusses reflection, specialised knowledge and repertoires of solutions, among other factors, and examines differences in professional practice according to age, gender and membership of various professions. Finds that although specialist knowledge is crucial to successful practice, improvisation is a key factor. Suggests that a combination of applied knowledge and reflection is important in professional practice.

2005) Professions, Competence and Informal Learning. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 337 pp. ISBN 1-84376-408-3; £69.95.The authors of this book are recognised experts in the field of professional development. One is a senior policy advisor of the Department for Education and Skills, and the other is a professor of professional development. The book discusses the historical and sociological background of the concept of profession. It then outlines the debate relating to professional competence and the ways of achieving it. Finally, the authors offer their own contribution to this debate by reporting their findings from interviews and surveys of multiple professional groups. They offer this as evidence to support their 'third paradigm of professional development' which combines the technical-rational approach with the reflective practitioner approach and adds lifelong learning for good measure.The contents are divided into four parts: 1) covering the history and sociology of professions, 2) the nature of professional competence and professional practice, 3) professional development -theory and practice, and finally, 4) beyond the here and now (a discussion of continuing professional development and international perspectives).Section one, the account of the history and sociology of professions, is detailed and interesting, but fails to take proper account of the gender and power issues inherent in definitions of professions. Current hierarchies in professional status and education are embedded in their discussion; for example, they express disapproval of the move towards graduate status in nursing on the grounds that they do not need this level of education 'to do their job effectively' (p. 44).Section two, relating to professional competence, is a comprehensive summary of relevant theories about learning, competence and professions. As a literature review, it is excellent; in section three, however, the authors create, from this rattle bag of ideas, a model of competence that seeks to include them all. They claim that the model is validated by asking professionals to comment on it. Not surprisingly, there is agreement that all these elements make up professional competence. An