Is Your Digital Badge Credential “Credentialy”?
An impactful question to actually ask before you answer.
“Is our digital badge credential “credentialy”?
Whether or not you expressly ask this question, your design will answer it. The difference will be whether or not your answer is the result of intentional deliberation or a byproduct of de facto implementation.
Not all digital badge credentials are created equal. And that’s ok. This post is intended to encourage you to make thoughtful decisions, not to tell you that you’re doing badging all wrong.
Most approaches to digital badges are rooted in Recognition. Where I have observed implementations diverging is into one of two approaches:
- Badges that employ recognition as awards/rewards for activities and accomplishments; and
- Badges that employ recognition that, in addition to serving as an award/reward, also functions as a meaningful credential.
Who does this work for?
One way that seems to help with framing the difference between these is to consider Audience. (In my nerdy world, we use the term Consumer.) Who is the Consumer for the badge? Is this intended to be largely enjoyed by the Learners who earn it? Is it essentially a digital certificate, just for their eyes (and perhaps to be shared on mom’s digital refrigerator)?
In addition to recognition, digital badge credentials also take on an impactful Storytelling role that can help add to a deeper, richer narrative of who we are as learners and achievers.
Or, is the audience for the badge more expansive, up to and including stakeholders like admissions councilors and hiring managers?
These audiences aren’t opposed to recognition, but in most cases their own interests as consumers are rooted in finding answers to the question, “Is this person a good candidate for my opportunity?” And for that need, something credentialy is going to offer far greater utility than badges focused solely on recognition.
Credentialyness
This latter example is when our badges begin to set themselves apart as meaningful credentials. They still absolutely offer Recognition. In addition to recognition, these digital badge credentials also take on an impactful Storytelling role that can help add to a deeper, richer narrative of who we are as learners and achievers.
This is not new. Things like diplomas and coveted industry credentials have long served as communication devices. Although they rarely delve into specific or granular descriptions of what the learners know and are able to do, they have been relied upon to serve as proxies — however imperfect — for the skills and competencies that are implied by successful completion or attainment.
Despite their imperfections, they possess an undeniable credentialyness that sets them apart from other recognition devices, such as certificates of participation.
While employing badges solely for recognition remains an important use case, they will pose a risk factor to any ecosystem that also includes badges of the more credentialy variety.
And this characteristic is where credentialy digital badge credentials have the potential to really shine. What makes them potential vehicles for change-the-world transformation is that they are more than just digital versions of paper credentials: digital badge credentials contain metadata that essentially uptexts the credentials, annotating them with powerful contextual information such as a description of the credential, criteria statements about what is required to earn it, alignment to standards/competency frameworks, and evidence from individual learners with artifacts demonstrating how they each met the earning criteria.
The distinction matters
I think the existence of the term “Digital Badge” is a near universal lament held by nerds like me who’ve spent a lot of time in this space. Rather than activate background knowledge that associates digital badge credentials with credentialy things like scouting badges and characteristics that lend themselves to trust, validation, consistency, meaningfulness, and worthiness, “badges” have often suffered from misaligned assumptions tied to frivolity and whimsical applications of recognition.
If you’ve been around long enough, you’ve had to endure conversations with really smart leaders that are predicated on their associations with stickers and gold stars instead of credentials.
Who, besides the proud creator of the badge and the proud parent of a badge earner, should actually ever care about this badge?
And this cuts to the importance of considering what kind of digital badge credentials your digital badges are: while employing badges solely for recognition remains an important use case, they will pose a risk factor to any ecosystem that also includes badges of the more credentialy variety.
It’s about framing
It’s not that one kind of badge is better than the other. Rather, it’s about risk factors of intermingling credentialy badges with badges that aren’t, and the confusion or value dilution that may cause.
For example: Being named Employee of the Week is a big deal. It’s a huge honor and a recognition worth celebrating. You might even frame it and hang it on the wall. However, you probably wouldn’t hang it in the same picture frame as your diploma.
While they are both valuable recognitions, packaging them together in the same frame can have the effect of associating them to some extent, potentially diluting the perceived value of the more credentialy recognition (in this case, of the diploma).
How we digitally frame digital badges matters.
Another example: while unit level badges rooted in gamification can be great recognitions, they aren’t credentialy and probably don’t have any currency or value proposition with consumers. I’m proud of the Level 1 Weekend Warrior Badge that I earned on Duolingo for practicing on a weekend, but I’m not linking to it in a cover letter. And I definitely don’t want it framed in a space that distracts from my much more credentialy Seal of Biliteracy.
When it comes to our credentialy digital badge credentials, how we digitally frame digital badges matters.
Recognition is a valuable, underutilized tool. We have a responsibility to our (l)earners to design thoughtfully and implement digital credentials in ways that compliment and enhance the value.
TL;DR
In summary, please consider it a Best Practice to assess your badge designs and determine if they are:
- Focused on recognition
- Focused on recognition AND credentialing something
- A mix of both approaches to badging
A barometer question that may be helpful in this assessment is to ask: “Who is the audience/consumer for these badges?”
In other words: Who, besides the proud creator of the badge and the proud parent of a badge earner, should actually ever care about this badge? If we can identify the authentic consumers, we can plan accordingly.
Likewise, if we can’t identify authentic consumers, we can plan accordingly!
And finally, if you determine that your approach is a mix of recognition badges and credentialy badges, be strategic in your deployment so as to enhance value and not inflict devaluation on your digital badge ecosystem.
Thanks for reading. If you liked this post, please click to 👏👏👏 and recommend it to others! If you have thoughts to share about this, I hope to learn from your own response post!
For a delightful and nuanced dive into the concept of Open Recognition that features multiple possible examples across settings and use cases, check out Doug Belshaw ‘s I got 99 problems but recognition ain’t one on the WAO | We Are Open Coworking blog.
In addition to following Noah Geisel here on Medium, you can find him at SenorG on Twitter. Some other posts you might like:
