This phase presents the findings derived from the questionnaires completed by training providers, employers, and learners. Through a thematic analysis of the questionnaire responses, several key themes emerged concerning the factors that influence engagement with CPD. To explore perceptions of CPD accreditation, the analysis draws on responses that highlight perspectives on participation trends and the driving forces behind CPD provision and uptake. References to individual respondents are provided in brackets (e.g., R1, R2, R3) to indicate direct quotations.

As an exploratory study, the questionnaires were designed to include open-ended questions that encouraged detailed and, at times, unanticipated responses. This flexibility enabled the identification of themes that may not have been foreseen prior to data collection.

Among the Training Provider respondents, 72% reported that their training activities were accredited. Of these, 66% indicated that they were very familiar with the concept of Continuing Professional Development (CPD), while the remaining 34% were somewhat or slightly familiar. Furthermore, more than 80% of respondents conceptualised CPD as a continuous process through which professionals actively enhance, maintain, and broaden their skills, knowledge, and competencies throughout their careers.

Approximately half of the Training Providers with accredited activities associated accreditation with quality assurance, perceiving it as an indicator of the credibility and rigour of their training provision. This perspective was exemplified in comments such as: "To give legitimacy to our activities and a level of quality assurance for our clients" (R41) and "To ensure I am training to a high standard" (R38). Additionally, 10% of respondents viewed accreditation as a means of "adhering to global or international professional standards," thereby reinforcing the perceived link between accreditation and professional credibility. A further 10% believed that CPD accreditation itself enhanced the credibility of their training activities.

The duration of CPD accreditation among Training Provider respondents varied considerably. Sixteen percent had held accreditation for less than one year, 38% for one to three years, 11% for three to five years, and 27% for more than five years. On average, each training provider reported having approximately ten accredited activities.

In terms of the accreditation process, 25% of respondents indicated that they were required to submit only a sample of their activities, or in some cases, nothing at all, whereas the remaining 75% were required to submit all courses for assessment. Regarding submission methods, 52% of training providers reported submitting their activities via the CPD accreditation organisation's website, while 38% submitted through email. Sixty-six percent of training providers reported receiving individual accreditation numbers for each activity, 17% did not, and a further 17% were unsure whether individual numbers had been assigned.

With respect to awareness of the CPD accreditation organisations' criteria, 72% of respondents stated that they were aware of the specific criteria, frameworks, or standards against which their activities were assessed. In contrast, 20% reported that they were not aware, and 8% were unsure. Regarding feedback, 61% of respondents indicated that they received detailed feedback on their submitted activities, 27% received only limited feedback, and 12% received none. Among the 28% of respondents who were unsure or unaware of the accreditation organisations' criteria, frameworks, or standards, 22% nonetheless reported receiving feedback on their courses. For most training providers (66%), the accreditation process took between two weeks and over one month to complete, while 13% reported obtaining accreditation in less than one week. Furthermore, 61% of training providers reported having been required to resubmit some of their materials following their initial accreditation.

When seeking CPD accreditation, training providers reported undertaking a range of verification and due diligence activities prior to selecting an accreditation organisation. Specifically, 61% indicated that they examined the cost of accreditation, while 63% reviewed the organisation's terms and conditions. An equal proportion (63%) reported verifying the accreditation organisation's official office address and contact details. Additionally, 58% examined the organisation's assessment criteria, and 44% reviewed the frequency and process by which accreditations are reviewed. Furthermore, 44% of respondents checked the accreditation organisation's registration details with Companies House, and 36% verified its status with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

Accreditation fees also varied considerably. Twenty-two percent of respondents paid less than £500, 33% paid between £501 and £1,000, 42% paid between £1,001 and £5,000, and 2% paid more than £5,001. When asked how customers could verify their CPD accreditation, the majority (36%) cited the use of a certificate of accreditation from the accreditation organisation, followed by 30% who reported including the accreditation number on their activity certificates.

Eighty percent of respondents indicated that CPD accreditation had a positive impact on their business, with half of the training providers reporting that accreditation supported the marketing of their training activities. Several respondents highlighted the need for a software solution that would allow their learners to record and manage their CPD activities. This was illustrated by comments such as: "A centralised dashboard for learners to track all their CPD hours across different providers would greatly increase the long-term value and usability of CPD-accredited training" (R30) and "Some form of independent register of CPD hours received by learners" (R25).
It is also noteworthy that, despite most training providers perceiving CPD accreditation as beneficial for their business, some respondents considered CPD to have little value outside of formal qualifications. This perspective is reflected in R48's comment: "Other than for qualifications it is not relevant to the education sector as there is no benefit to the user in collecting CPD 'points'."

When asked how training providers believe CPD should evolve over the next five years, opinions were varied. One respondent (R46) suggested that accreditation should be "more rigorous and regulated," while another (R33) recommended that CPD accreditation organisations should "partner with government." Additional comments emphasised the "need for clearer frameworks" (R35) and greater transparency regarding CPD evidence requirements, as reflected in R50's comment: "Doing more to highlight its importance and what evidence the criteria is for showing the activity is CPD accredited."

Upon completion of the questionnaire, respondents were given the opportunity to provide any additional comments or recommendations, to which 44% responded. Twelve percent indicated a desire to see accreditation fees reduced, specifically for smaller training providers. Other respondents once again referenced quality, with one stating: "CPD accreditation must retain a standard if it is to be recognised as a sign of quality." It was also noted that some training providers believe they need protection from those "faking CPD accreditation" (R47). Further feedback centred on inconsistencies in accreditation feedback, with R50 stating: "The assessor feedback wasn't consistent. You'd complete one course, based on previous comments, and then told this wasn't ok!" Finally, training providers expressed a desire to be involved in the implementation of CPD accreditation, with R46 suggesting: "Training providers should be invited to join the panel that discusses how CPD is implemented."

Among the learners who completed the questionnaire, 39% were in full-time employment, 19% were in part-time employment, 15% were unemployed, 14% were self-employed, and 16% were students, retired, or disabled. Of those in employment (both full time and part time) 79% are offered training courses through their employers.

The findings indicate that 59% of respondents independently finance their own training, with 75% of this group doing so on an occasional basis and the remaining 25% purchasing training on a regular basis. Furthermore, 40% of respondents reported establishing a personal budget for their continuing professional development (CPD), whereas 60% did not allocate specific financial resources for this purpose.

In terms of expenditure, the majority of respondents (45%) reported spending up to £100 annually on training activities. A further 32% indicated annual expenditures between £101 and £500, while 23% reported spending in excess of £500 per year. Regarding the frequency of enrolment, 57% of respondents participated in training on an ad-hoc basis, while the remaining 43% enrolled at regular intervals, including monthly, quarterly, or annually.

The perceived importance of CPD accreditation was also a significant finding. A majority of respondents regarded accreditation as essential, while 29% considered it to be very important. However, only 33% of respondents consistently knew which organisation had accredited the training they attended. Nearly half reported that they sometimes knew the accrediting body, and 19% stated that they rarely or never knew this information.

Prior to enrolment, 80% of respondents indicated that they always verified the accreditation status of a course as a means of assessing its quality. Additionally, 66% reported that they also evaluated the reputation of the training provider before making a purchase decision.

Following participation in CPD-accredited training, 33% of respondents felt fully qualified upon completion, while 57% felt only partially qualified, and a small minority (0.09%) reported feeling unqualified. In terms of perceived quality, 28% of respondents strongly agreed that the CPD activities undertaken were of high quality, 52% agreed, and 19% expressed neutrality or disagreement.

With respect to value for money, 24% of respondents strongly agreed that their CPD training represented good value, 38% agreed, and the remaining 38% were neutral or disagreed with this statement.

The findings indicate that 59% of respondents independently finance their own training, with 75% of this group doing so on an occasional basis and the remaining 25% purchasing training on a regular basis. Furthermore, 40% of respondents reported establishing a personal budget for their continuing professional development (CPD), whereas 60% did not allocate specific financial resources for this purpose.

In terms of expenditure, the majority of respondents (45%) reported spending up to £100 annually on training activities. A further 32% indicated annual expenditures between £101 and £500, while 23% reported spending in excess of £500 per year. Regarding the frequency of enrolment, 57% of respondents participated in training on an ad-hoc basis, while the remaining 43% enrolled at regular intervals, including monthly, quarterly, or annually.

The perceived importance of CPD accreditation was also a significant finding. A majority of respondents regarded accreditation as essential, while 29% considered it to be very important. However, only 33% of respondents consistently knew which organisation had accredited the training they attended. Nearly half reported that they sometimes knew the accrediting body, and 19% stated that they rarely or never knew this information.

Prior to enrolment, 80% of respondents indicated that they always verified the accreditation status of a course as a means of assessing its quality. Additionally, 66% reported that they also evaluated the reputation of the training provider before making a purchase decision.

Following participation in CPD-accredited training, 33% of respondents felt fully qualified upon completion, while 57% felt only partially qualified, and a small minority (0.09%) reported feeling unqualified. In terms of perceived quality, 28% of respondents strongly agreed that the CPD activities undertaken were of high quality, 52% agreed, and 19% expressed neutrality or disagreement.

With respect to value for money, 24% of respondents strongly agreed that their CPD training represented good value, 38% agreed, and the remaining 38% were neutral or disagreed with this statement.

When asked whether they understood what Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is, 80% of respondents indicated that they did, while the remaining 20% reported being only somewhat familiar or unfamiliar with the concept. The majority of respondents defined CPD as the process of developing skills and knowledge; however, some participants interpreted it differently, referring to CPD as a "learning platform" (R13) or an "independent body" (R11).

When asked what CPD personally meant to them, many respondents expressed uncertainty. Others associated CPD with quality assurance and credibility, describing it as a "sign of trust and quality" (R20) and noting that "skills are assessed up to CPD standards" (R36). One respondent remarked that "accreditation makes me feel I have achieved something that is recognised," highlighting the perceived legitimacy and sense of achievement associated with CPD-accredited training.

Respondents were also asked what would enhance the value of CPD training. Several suggested "better recognition from employers" (R45) and expressed that CPD would hold greater value "if employers recognised the accreditation" (R58). Others recommended that "more high-quality training [be] available which is cost effective" (R31). Additionally, some respondents advocated for greater standardisation across providers, suggesting that "all training providers should have to adhere to high standards for accreditation" (R49).

Similar to the Training Provider survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional comments or recommendations at the conclusion of the questionnaire, to which 31% responded. A recurring theme among these comments related to the perceived lack of employer recognition of CPD-accredited training and the need for improved mechanisms that allow learners to record, log, and share their CPD achievements as required.

The findings from the questionnaires provide important insights into the perceptions of CPD and the challenges that the industry faces around CPD accreditation among training providers and learners. Overall, there is a general positive perception of CPD but there are inconsistencies that have been highlighted as well as areas for improvement in both awareness of CPD accreditation and its implementation.

Among training providers, CPD accreditation is clearly regarded as a key marker of quality assurance and professional legitimacy. This association between accreditation and professional standards was evident in respondents' emphasis on credibility, global recognition, and assurance of training quality.

However, the analysis also revealed gaps in the transparency and consistency of accreditation processes. While most providers were aware of the assessment criteria, a notable minority remained unclear about the frameworks used by accreditation bodies. This uncertainty, combined with reported inconsistencies in feedback, highlights the need for clearer communication between accreditation organisations and providers. Additionally, variability in fees and submission requirements illustrates a fragmented accreditation landscape that may disproportionately disadvantage smaller training organisations.

Another prominent theme emerging from provider responses was the perceived need for technological solutions to record and manage learners' CPD progress. The call for a centralised CPD tracking system underscores the growing demand for digital innovation in professional learning management and monitoring.

From the learner perspective, the study indicates widespread engagement with CPD, although motivations and behaviours vary significantly. Many learners self-fund their professional development, often on an ad hoc basis, reflecting a flexible but inconsistent approach to lifelong learning. The majority of learners recognised the importance of accreditation as a measure of quality, yet a substantial proportion could not identify the specific accrediting organisation for their training. This suggests that, while learners value the concept of accreditation, awareness of the underlying structures and standards remains limited.

The findings also highlight a disconnection between learners' efforts to pursue CPD and the level of employer recognition of these achievements. Respondents frequently cited a lack of employer acknowledgment as a barrier to the perceived value of CPD, reinforcing the notion that the practical benefits of CPD depend not only on accreditation but also on organisational culture and recognition mechanisms.

Both Training providers and learners emphasised quality assurance, transparency, and recognition as critical components of an effective CPD system. There is also a shared perception that CPD accreditation should be more standardised, rigorously monitored, and potentially integrated with governmental frameworks. These findings collectively suggest that the CPD industry remains fragmented, with differing levels of understanding, application, and perceived value among stakeholders.

For training providers, accreditation serves as both a quality benchmark and a marketing advantage, while for learners, it offers a sense of trust, achievement, and professional legitimacy.

However, despite these benefits, several structural and perceptual challenges persist:

• Inconsistency in accreditation processes and feedback undermines confidence in CPD.
• Limited awareness of accreditation criteria among some providers and learners reduces transparency.
• A lack of employer recognition diminishes the perceived value of CPD for many learners.

Ultimately, while CPD accreditation is widely regarded as beneficial, it must evolve through improved regulation, greater transparency, and enhanced collaboration between CPD accreditation bodies, training providers, learners and employers to maximise its impact.

To enhance the effectiveness and impact of CPD accreditation, several measures should be considered. Firstly, CPD accreditation organisations should prioritise transparency by clearly publishing their assessment criteria, evidence requirements, and evaluation frameworks. This would enable training providers to align their offerings more closely with the assessment criteria and allow learners and employers to verify the quality and legitimacy of accredited courses with confidence. Improved transparency can also reduce confusion and build trust across all stakeholders.

CPD accreditation organisations should strengthen and standardise feedback for training providers. Structured and consistent feedback would help providers understand how to meet CPD standards more effectively, address gaps in course delivery, and enhance the overall quality of CPD accredited programmes. This would also promote fairness and reliability in the accreditation process, which was a concern highlighted by some respondents.

The development of centralised digital tools for CPD tracking is another key recommendation. An online platform or dashboard that would allow learners to record, verify, and share their CPD achievements, would improve accessibility, usability, and portability. Such a system would also facilitate employer verification and encourage a culture of continuous learning.

The CPD Register currently serves as a certification body, setting high standards for CPD accreditation organisations across all sectors. Although it is not yet government-backed, it provides a central reference point for certified CPD accreditation organisations. Greater recognition or formal government support for The CPD Register could further strengthen its authority, enhance credibility for learners, training providers and employers, and support the establishment of future regulatory frameworks for CPD. CPD accreditation bodies and training providers can collaborate proactively with The CPD Register to ensure alignment with these emerging benchmarks.

Finally, stronger collaboration between CPD accreditation organisations, training providers, and employers is recommended to ensure consistency, quality, and relevance across CPD programmes. Stakeholder partnerships can support the development of coherent frameworks, the sharing of best practices, and the co-creation of high-quality accredited learning. Additionally, raising awareness among learners regarding the purpose, benefits, and verification of CPD accreditation will help them understand its value for career development and professional credibility.

While this study provides valuable insights into perceptions and practices surrounding CPD accreditation, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study relied on self-selected questionnaire respondents, which introduces the possibility of selection bias. Participants who were already engaged with CPD and The CPD Register or had strong opinions about accreditation may have been more likely to respond, meaning that the findings may not fully represent the broader population of training providers, learners, or employers.

A second limitation concerns the self-reported nature of the data. Responses were based on participants' perceptions, experiences, and recall, which may be subject to inaccuracies or social desirability bias. As such, the reported figures and themes reflect perceived experiences rather than objective measures of CPD quality or the effectiveness of accreditation processes.

Additionally, the study did not disaggregate responses by professional sector, geographical region, or organisational size. CPD requirements and accreditation practices can vary significantly across industries and regions, which limits the generalisability of the findings. Certain sectors may face specific challenges or have different standards that are not fully captured in this study.

Employer responses were collected but were not used in this research project due to an insufficient number of completed responses. As a result, the study could not explore employer perspectives on CPD accreditation, including how organisations evaluate, recognise, and integrate CPD-accredited training into professional development plans. This limits the ability to assess the broader organisational impact of CPD accreditation and means the findings primarily reflect learner and training provider experiences.

Finally, the cross-sectional design of the study captures perceptions at a single point in time and does not account for changes over time. CPD practices, accreditation standards, and stakeholder awareness are likely to evolve, and a longitudinal approach would be necessary to understand these dynamics more fully. Despite these limitations, the study identifies consistent themes—such as the importance of quality assurance, transparency, and recognition—which highlight critical areas for improvement in CPD accreditation practices.

Building on the findings of this research project, Emma Owen's Doctorate of Professional Studies (DProf) at Middlesex University is essential for conducting a more in-depth and comprehensive investigation into the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) industry, particularly regarding the need for a standardised regulatory framework. While the initial research project identified key issues—including inconsistent accreditation processes, limited transparency, variable quality assurance, and gaps in employer recognition—it was limited by its cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, and absence of employer perspectives. A DProf-level study would enable a longitudinal, mixed-methods approach engaging multiple stakeholders, including learners, training providers, employers, and CPD accreditation bodies, to examine the practical, organisational, and policy implications of standardising CPD regulation. Additionally, it would allow for a comparative analysis of domestic and international regulatory models, providing evidence-based recommendations to enhance the credibility, effectiveness, and accessibility of CPD. By undertaking this advanced research, the DProf would address the gaps highlighted in the initial study and generate actionable solutions to safeguard professional standards, improve consumer protection, and foster a more coherent and trustworthy CPD ecosystem.