The Value of a Badge

As I wrote recently, digital badges have two primary values: archiving and way-finding. They can represent and make portable the valuable data behind each of our learning experiences and they allow us to define relationships between experiences to form a network of possible learning pathways.

The archive is useful both for the learner’s personal understanding and for their public display to potential employers and collaborators. For both of these purposes archive increases in value the richer the badge data becomes. Arguably, the most valuable data for public display is the quality of the endorsement a badge confers upon its recipient. Right now, in the current Open Badges specification, the only endorsement represented in the data is that of the Issuer to the Earner:

Levels of Endorsement

In reality, of course, our learning systems are more complex than this. Organizations endorse other organizations who endorse teachers who review students and then issue badges. Regardless of who is actually clicking the button to send Tim a badge, this is how levels of endorsement work in a real world example:

Note: I use the word “endorsement” here generically to refer to any claim that bestows authority or expertise upon the recipient. “I endorse your ability to do x.”

Right now, as an earner, it is most likely that Tim Cook’s badge for this Permaculture course is going to be issued by the Phipps Conservatory. But wouldn’t he also want to know (and be able to show others) that his badge is endorsed by the national Permaculture Institute and by well-known permaculturalist and author Darrell Frey? Badges should be capturing all of the information represented in these levels of endorsement. Endorsement in triplicate (or more) provides additional depth and proof, making a badge a more convincing and valuable credential.

The Permaculture Institute endorses Phipps Conservatory by saying “I endorse you to offer the official Permaculture certification course.”

Phipps Conservatory endorses Darrell Frey by saying “I endorse you to teach the course.”

Darrell Frey endorses Liz Lynch by saying “I endorse you to teach the course as my assistant.”

Darrell and Liz both endorse Tim Cook by saying “I endorse your new expertise in Permaculture practices and design.”

Each of these levels of endorsement accrues value for the eventual recipient. These endorsements, while valuable, are different than a badge endorsement which is a specific type of endorsement that asserts the recipient is allowed to issue a badge the endorser holds issuing rights to. The levels of endorsement and the badge endorsements are connected but subtly different claims.

Note that, beyond the levels expressed in the drawing, there is the possibility for additional Endorsers to endorse a BadgeClass and add value to it. For instance, if the Mayor’s Office of Pittsburgh had an initiative in which they were supporting and advocating for Permaculture education programs they could also endorse the BadgeClass that is issued to Tim Cook.

Accrued Value of Endorsements

My proposal is that, in the next iteration of the Badge Standard that we hold on to all the value available in these endorsement chains.

Here is what the public could see:

Permaculture Design Certification Badge

1. Created by the Permaculture Institute
2. Issued by Phipps Conservatory
3. Reviewed by Liz Lynch and Darrell Frey
4. Earned by Tim Cook

Tim earned this Permaculture Institute badge on June 16, 2015 as a result of the March 12, 2015 Permaculture Design Course offered by the Phipps Conservatory taught by Darrell Frey and Liz Lynch.

The evidence submitted to earn this badge matched the approved criteria and is as follows:

• Evidence Link Number One
• Evidence Link Number Two
• Evidence Link Number Three

Here’s a rough sketch of the information involved in the course taken by Tim Cook and all the levels of endorsement:

Badge Endorsements

Okay. So, holding on to the layers of value behind a badge is great for recipients, but what are the ramifications of these endorsements in terms of actual functionality for badge issuing? Here is the possible logic:

1. By default only Creators can issue badges.
2. Creators can provide a badge endorsement to either identity type (organizations or individuals).
3. A recipient of a badge endorsement is then able to issue the badge contained or referenced within the endorsement.
4. A badge endorsement can be of two types: a limited badge endorsement or an unlimited badge endorsement.
5. The limited endorsement option allows the recipient to issue the badge, but not distribute a badge endorsement to anyone else. This is the default value. If a Creator wanted to maintain complete control of all badge endorsements in the ecosystem, they would choose only limited endorsements.
6. The unlimited endorsement would empower the recipient to both issue the badge themselves and provide badge endorsements to others at their discretion.
7. When badges are initially created, the Creator could define (and lock) a default value that empowers any and all recipients of the badge with a badge endorsement. Meaning that everyone who earns the Badge earns the ability to issue that badge to others.

So, what could this look like as a BadgeClass? (Running low on time, so forgive any missing fields, etc.)

Here’s what we have now:

What we could move to is VERY much a work in progress. I have gone through a few drafts already and am positive this is not correct yet, but below is a rough sketch to help spark discussion. I went back and forth about whether or not allowed issuers should be held in a universal endpoint listing somewhere for each badgeClass, but it seems like there is also a way to resolve it with Nate Otto’s “chains of trust” method by pointing back to an Assertion that gives the Issuer the right to issue. Specifically, I’m struggling with where to put the badgeEndorsement information.

Here we have an object for each identity sub-types: creators, issuers, reviewers, and recipients. Here is how it might work…

1. Organization1, the Creator creates a BadgeClass and issues Assertions to some individuals and to Organization2. The badgeEndorsement field just points back to the Creator object.
2. The Assertion received by Organization2 has the badgeEndorsement:issuerAllowed value as “True” and is, therefore, allowed to Issue this BadgeClass to others.
3. Organization2 then issues the BadgeClass to more individuals. In these Assertions, the badgeEndorsement field points to the original Assertion received by Organization2 that shows the issuerAllowed value as “True” and the IssuerEndorsement of the Creator.
4. With this logic in place, in theory, you should be able to follow the chain of trust all the way back to the Creator so that you can know—assuming authentic identities—that the badge you have earned came from and Issuer who was, for example, endorsed by someone who was endorsed by the Creator.
5. These multiple levels of Endorsement are not allowed if the endorsementType value is limited. If it is limited, Organization2 is allowed to Issue the badge to other, but those Assertions must default the issuerAllowed field in the badgeEndorsementObject to “False”. They can issue badges, but not badgeEndorsements.
6. If the value is unlimited Organization2 can issue regular Badges and BadgeEndorsements.

Finally, of course, there is the important issue of verification. If both people and organizations are allowed to issue badges in the future, how do we prove they are who they say they are? Do the chains of trust hold up if Issuers could just create a fake Assertion that claims they are allowed to issue?