Learning for a security career

The number of qualifications available in the security sector has been increasing in recent years, a factor mirrored by the steadily expanding course listing within The Security Institute’s (TSI) annual Yearbook and Directory of Qualifications. This development reflects the greater focus on appropriate levels of training, education and development that we’re seeing across society, and which are actively encouraged by Government initiatives.

In fact, it could be said that the security sector is at last beginning to catch up on other disciplines where such a planned and focused approach began as far back as the 1970s.

During the course of this evolutionary phase, some interesting trends have undoubtedly emerged. While there’s now a broader spectrum of security qualifications, there’s almost a complete dearth of first degree courses, with the Universities at Leicester and Portsmouth being notable exceptions. A situation that compares unfavourably with the US, where there are many security-related foundation degrees.

There are indeed some additional first degree courses in the UK aimed at our police colleagues, but these might not be of any real interest to many security practitioners.

Why should this be the case? If security isn’t a true profession in the same way as the law or medicine (as some of our critics suggest), then surely it’s even more appropriate that we should have our own HND, BTEC or foundation degrees? Academics with whom I’ve debated the subject often seem to want to focus solely on the academic aspects, keeping security on a theoretical level. I for one cannot accept this view. There are many examples of highly specific, vocational first degree courses at universities around the country covering subjects like marketing, Human Resources, tourism and logistics.

Not an obvious profession

One possible explanation for the current situation is that security is still barely recognised as a career, and is certainly not seen as an obvious choice of profession for young people entering higher education. This is a clear relic of the past, when virtually all security management positions were filled by those leaving the police or armed services. It’s not long ago that all physical security positions in Government were openly advertised as being attainable only by those with the requisite police or military ranking.

Given this scenario, it’s plain to see why the first courses aimed at the security practitioner tended to be part-time, distance learning Masters degrees or post-graduate diplomas – all viewed as being more appropriate to the already-employed individual.

As the complexity of the security task in today’s organisations has increased, so too have the number and variety of advertised vacancies. In the late 1970s, the security press carried perhaps two or three jobs each month. In fact, Police Review carried more security vacancies. Now, though, there’s a thriving recruitment sector with five or six companies competing in a labour market still largely dependent on those taking a second career.

It’s evident that we do need capable and competent young people to be entering the profession in order to help client organisations meet today’s security threats and challenges head-on, and to develop their capabilities within the sector. The existence of appropriate qualifications will play an important part in making this a reality.

Within the current course framework, there’s also a possibility that some of these individuals will progress towards a higher degree. This scenario will mean that a young person with little previous security experience will still need to be taught a high proportion of the basics while in the job. Even an individual with a considerable amount of previous security experience may have benefited from the grounding in security basics offered by a less theoretical course.

Why should it downgrade the educational process to teach a potential security manager about the value, structure, construction and use of fences?

Training versus education

Training is all about learning how to do specific things, while education has a key role in developing the analytical skills of students so that they can better interpret (and draw sensible conclusions from) particular situations and issues. TSI places considerable value on the benefits to an individual of completing any first degree course.

However, I firmly believe that a vocational degree – ie one that’s specifically intended to equip an individual for a particular type of job – should afford students a broad overview of each element of the security manager’s role, even in those instances where given individuals aren’t necessarily destined to make use of every single facet of this.

A grounding in the basics of security (including the law, management, criminology, employee relations, financial management, security technology, technical report writing, situation crime prevention, physical security, fire, Health and Safety and disaster preparedness) will give them the confidence to make a significant contribution very quickly.

To those critics of this ‘practical approach’, I’d say: “Why should it downgrade the educational process to teach a potential security manager about the value, structure, construction and use of fences?”

I’ve no doubt that the current climate will continue to encourage rapid development in the qualifications serving our sector – with interest in security reportedly being expressed by some of the new universities whose vocational (rather than research-based) bias has given rise to a two-tier university sector. It’s absolutelty essential we all ensure that whatever emerges from the system truly meets the needs of today’s professionals.

Attracting the best people

All of us involved in promoting the profession also need to work on attracting the best people into the sector. We must always encourage young people to believe that security is a viable career option as soon as they complete higher education, and that it offers considerable variety and scope for professional development. A major advance here would be to make available suitable literature providing guidance on the types of opportunities and career paths available, and on sources of support for prospective sector entrants.

In conjunction with this, not only do we need the right spectrum of qualifications but also a recognised professional development framework that offers guidance on what types of qualification may be appropriate in relation to particular circumstances and experience levels. This would allow individuals to make fully-informed decisions based on an industry-accepted model.

Finally, we must instil in security practitioners the belief that the learning process never ends, whether they have attained a foundation degree, degree, MSc or PhD. A commitment to Continuing Professional Development is vital. This will continue to be a major focus for TSI.