Evolution of the AIC Code of Ethics/Guidelines for Practice

Ethics and Standards Committee
Supplement Number 1

Part 2

This document was scanned from AIC Newsletter, Vol 16, Number 5, September 1991. This electronic version has been separated into two parts for improved retrieval

Observations on the
Structure of our
Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice

One of the present fact-finding activities of the Ethics and Standards Committee has been an in-depth comparative study of codes of ethics of professions outside the field of conservation. A wide variety of professional organizations were contacted and codes of ethics from the following groups were found to be particularly useful: The American Bar Association; American Dental Association; The American Institute of Architects; American Institute of Graphic Arts; and the American Society of Appraisers. These codes were examined carefully with respect to content and structure.

Among the most striking observations drawn from this review is that none of the other documents have the bipartite structure that characterizes the AIC's Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice (COE/SOP). Instead of separating ethical principles from related suggested standards for practice, each, in one fashion or another, groups suggestions for, or discussions of specific ethical practices along with the discussion and statement of the relevant ethical principle. Because of this, these codes avoid the redundancies, ambiguities, and organizational problems of our COE/SOP. This is an extremely important observation because the committee's review of past commentary from within and without the AIC clearly indicates that much of the difficulty in practical use and application of the AIC's COE/SOP, stems from the bipartite structure.

The committee also noted in their review that all of these other codes contain carefully worded introductory sections which precisely define the purpose of the document and as well make very clear the distinction between statements of ethical principle and statements describing suggested ethical practice. In the AIC document, these important distinctions and definitions remain somewhat ambiguous. For example, in its Preamble, the Code of Ethics defines itself as a document which "expresses principles and practices which will guide the conservator in the ethical practice of his profession." The Preamble to the Standards of Practice is somewhat less ambiguous ("the following standards and procedures are approved by AIC as detailed guidelines to professional practice"), but the Preamble never defines "guideline" with precision.

It is clear that the drafting of an introduction which defines precisely the function of the entire document and which clarifies the distinctions between the ethics and standards should be included in any future modifications of the AIC COE/SOP.

Structural Alternatives

In terms of structure, the codes from these other professional groups fell into two basic forms.

1. Hierarchical

The codes of The Bar Association and the American Institute of Architects, for example, have structures which present each ethical principle and all corresponding standards of practice in a precise three (or four)-tiered hierarchical structure, each part having a clearly defined function:

a. Canon:

"Statement of axiomatic norms," "general concepts from which the Ethical Considerations and the Disciplinary Rules are derived," "broad principles of conduct." (The lawyers have nine canons, the architects five.)

b. Ethical Standard (architects) or Ethical Consideration (lawyers):

"More specific goals toward which [one] should aspire in professional performance and behavior;" they are "aspirational in character and represent the objectives toward which every member of the profession should strive." "They constitute a body of principles upon which [one] can rely for guidance in many specific situations."

c. Rules of Conduct (architects) or Disciplinary Rules (lawyers):

"Unlike Ethical Considerations are mandatory in character. [They] state the minimum level of conduct below which [one is]... subject to disciplinary action."

d. Commentary (a fourth tier is included by the architects):

Provided for some of the Rules of Conduct, a "commentary is meant to clarify or elaborate the intent of the rule. The commentary is not part of the Code...but will assist those seeking to conform their conduct to the Code and those charged with its enforcement." As an exercise, the committee reworked a small part of our COE/SOP into hierarchical form using portions of the present text without any editorial modifications, and produced the following example:

Canon:

Obligations to Training and Professional Knowledge. The conservator has the obligation to share his knowledge and expertise with his colleagues and with serious students [COE-IV.A]

Ethical Standards:

E.S. 1: Contributions to the Profession's body of Knowledge. The conservator should show his appreciation and respect to those from whom he has learned and to those who have contributed in the past to the knowledge and the art of the profession by presenting without thought of personal gain, such advancements in his technique of examination and treatment which may be of benefit to the profession. [COE-IV.A]

E.S. 2: Full Disclosure. The originator of a novel method of treatment or a new material should make a full disclosure of the composition and properties of all materials and techniques employed. The originator is expected to cooperate with other conservators and conservation scientists employing or evaluating the proposed methods or materials. None of the above is intended to infringe upon the proprietary rights of the originator. [COE-IV.A]

E S. 3: Trainees and Interns. The conservator, private or institutional, has the responsibility to undertake the training and instruction of apprentices, trainees und interns, but only within the limits of his expert knowledge and the technical facilities available. [COE-IV. B].

In addition to the clarity of organization and the unambiguous statement of each ethical principle and its related practices, the hierarchical format offers two other advantages that may be of particular value to us:

1. It lends itself easily to the clear presentation of any variations in the interpretation of standard practice as might be required by the needs of our different areas of specialization (e.g. as Commentaries). Because this would diminish the need for individual interpretation, the code might thus provide greater assistance to the individual conservator in determining the best course of action.
2. Using the Rule of Conduct or Disciplinary Rule tier, it offers a means of presenting any specific practices we feel are so important that non-compliance would provide grounds for some disciplinary measures.

Of course, restructuring the AIC Code into a hierarchical format demands a very clear definition of each tier; these definitions may be very close to those of the architects and the lawyers, or may vary depending on our particular needs.

2. Topical

The codes of the American Institute of Graphic Arts (graphic designers) and of the American Society of Appraisers also group "ethic" and relevant suggested practices together. They are structured, however, more by topic than by broad principle. For example, the code of the American Society of Appraisers is broken into eight main topics:

1. Introduction
2. Objectives of Appraisal Work
3. Appraiser's Primary Duty and Responsibility
4. Appraiser's Obligation to his Client
5. Appraiser's Obligations to other Appraisers and to the Society
6. Appraisal Methods and Practices
7. Unethical and Unprofessional Appraisal Practices
8. Appraisal Reports

Under each main topic, all relevant suggested practices are described, often with some explanation of the ethical rationale behind the recommendation.

This topical approach to restructuring should require less reworking of the present AIC Code than the hierarchical because the COE and SOP are already arranged topically. (The main topics follow the Roman numerals.) In essence, it would require the grouping of related statements in the COE and SOP together under a specific topic, and elimination of redundancies. Modifications of the present topical breakdown may of course be required; this would include the elimination of some topics and/or the inclusion of others. Topical restructuring, however, may not fully serve to clarify sufficiently distinctions between statement of ethical principle and statements describing suggested ethical practices.

Observations

The Ethics and Standards Committee began its study by comparing the hierarchical and bipartite structures used in codes of ethics and standards of practice of professional organizations in and outside the field of conservation. During the review, the committee has recognized the importance of structure not only as a vehicle, but also as a method of reinforcing and emphasizing certain points. (The committee noted that the bipartite structure seems rather unique to conservation; not surprisingly, as many of the other conservation codes are based on the AIC Code.

With respect to the hierarchical approach, it is important to note that the committee found the task of creating the example given above to be a very difficult undertaking. This is because the AIC COE/SOP contains very few statements that can function in their present form as actual canons. Thus, adapting our code into a strict hierarchical form would require the creation of statements of canon, some adapted from present statements and others created to define the spirit of the present COE/SOP

Perhaps a combination of the topical and hierarchical approaches might fit our needs more naturally, that is, using a 3 or 4 tier structure, topically arranged, but with statements of ethical Canons only in those sections where appropriate and useful

It is a consensus of the committee that the potential advantages offered by alternative structures should be explored in future discussions. Two possibilities that appear to have great potential value are possible modifications of the forms presented above or a combination of the two.

In addition, the committee felt that:

1. As noted above, whatever final form the COE/SOP takes, it is essential that it is prefaced with an introduction that clarifies the distinction between principles and practices and that clearly defines the function of the document and its parts. A table of contents, or a subject index, would also be of great benefit.
2. The role of specialty groups in any revisions of the COE/SOP must be decided, especially in regard to the presentation of variations in any specific practices presented. If it is felt that the presentations of such variations are important to any COE/SOP revisions, as brought out above, the committee felt that restructuring would very likely facilitate the inclusion of such material.

Bibliography

Conservation Organizations, Codes of Ethics

American Institute of Conservation: "The Murray Pease Report." In Studies in Conservation, 1964, 9(3):116-21.

Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material, Inc. (AICCM): Code of Ethics and Guidance for Conservation Practice. Available from: GPO Box 1638, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia.

Australian International Council of Monuments and Sites (Australian ICOMOS): The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter), 1981.

International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS): International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter), 1966.

International Council of Museums (ICOM): Code of Professional Ethics. Available from Maison de l'Unesco, 1 rue Miollis, 75015 Paris, France.

International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works-Canadian Group (IIC-CG): Code of Ethics and Guidance for Practice, 2nd ed., 1989. Available from: Box 9195, Ottawa, Canada K1G 3T9.

Non-conservation Organizations, Codes of Ethics

American Association for the Advancement of Science Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility: AAAS Professional Ethics Project: Professional Ethics Activities in the Scientific and Engineering Societies, 1980. Available from: 1515 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

American Association of Museums (AAM): Code of Ethics for Museums. Available from: 1225 Eye Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005.

American Bar Association (ABA): Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Available, at $10.00, from: 750 North Lake Shore Dr., Chicago, IL 60611-6281.

American Dental Association (ADA): Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct. Available from: 211 East Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL 60611.

American Institute of Architects: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Available from: 1735 New York Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA): Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct for Graphic Designers. Available from: 1059 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10021.

American Society of Appraisers (ASA): The Principles of Appraisal Practice and Code of Ethics. Available from: 535 Herndon Parkway, Herndon, VA 20070-5226.

The Museums Association: Code of Conduct for Museum Curators. Available from: 34 Bloomsbury Way, London WC1A 2SF, United Kingdom.

References

Appelbaum, Barbara. "Criteria for Treatment: Reversibility," Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Fall 1987, 26(2):65-74.

Ashley-Smith, Jonathan. "Individual Responsibility in Ethical Conservation," New Directions in Paper Conservation, The Institute of Paper Conservation, 10th Anniversary Conference, April 1986, Oxford, England. [abstract]

Childress, James F. and John Macquarrie, eds. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986.

Ethics in Conservation, Art Conservation Training Programs Conference, April 28-29, 1989. Available from: Center for Conservation and Technical Studies, Harvard University Art Museums, 32 Quincy St., Cambridge, MA 02138: Susan Cicconi, "Client/Conservator Relationships in Ephemera"; Marjorie B. Cohn, "Why Should Conservators Not Be Dealers?"; Lisa Mibach, "Ethical Issues in Mass Treatment"; Panel Discussion, transcript, "Ethical Issues in Paintings Conservation."

ICOM Committee for Conservation."The Conservator-Restorer: A Definition of the Profession," ICOM News, 1986, 34(1). Also available: c/o J. Cliff McCawley, CCI, 1030 Innes Rd., Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8 Canada.

Jedrzrejewska, Hanna. "Ethics in Conservation," IIC Preprints, Stockholm, 1976. Also available from: Kungl. Konsthogskolan, Institutet for Materialkunskap, Skeppsholmen, S-111 49 Stockholm, Sweden.

Lester, Joan. "A Code of Ethics for Curators," Museum News, February 1983, 36-40.

May, William F. "Code, Covenant, Contract, or Philanthropy," The Hastings Center Report, 5, 6, Dec. 1975, pp. 29-38.

"Museum Ethics," Museum News, March/April 1978.

Saito, Yuriko. "Why Restore Works of Art?" The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Winter 1985, 143-51.

Searle, Annie, "Museums and the Public Interest," Museum News, October 1984, 53-58.

"Selected Reading on the Ethics of Conservation," New Directions in Paper Conservation, Conference Notes, 10th Anniversary Conference, 14-18 April 1986, Oxford, England. Institute of Paper Conservation, 1986.

Smith, Richard D. "Reversibility: A Questionable Philosophy," Restaurator, 1988, 9(4):199-207.

If you are aware of other material that is pertinent, please send a reference to the committee.

"Those who live by a code of technical proficiency have a standard on the basis of which to discipline their peers...code alone, however, will not in and of itself solve the problem of professional discipline."

Index to The AIC Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice

Advertising, COE*-V.F
Advertisements, COE-V.F.4
Announcements, COE-V.F.3; COE-V.G
Direct Mailings, COE-V.G
Letterheads, COE-V.F.2
Professional cards, COE-V.F.2
Signs, COE-V.F.I
Aesthetics, COE-II.F; SOP-II.E
AIC, COE-V.B; COE-V.H
Amendments, PART IV
Analytical Studies, SOP*-L.B; SOP-II.C;
SOP-II.D; SOP-III
Appraisals, SOP-II.F.4; COE-V.D
Approvals, SOP-V.B; SOP-IV.B
Archival material, COE-II.C
Art dealing, COE-V.E; SOP-II.F.2-3
Artists, living, COE-II.F; SOP-II.E
Authentication, SOP-I.C; SOP-IV.A.6; COE-V.C; SOP-II.D; SOP-II.F.I
Auxiliary personnel, SOP-VI.B.3(b); COE-II.H; COE-IV.B; SOP-III.C.2
Clients
    Solicitation, COE-V.G; COE-IV.G
Compensation
    Ethics, COE-II.F; SOP-II.E
    Reintegration, COP-II.E; SOP-IV.C.1c; COE-II.F
Competence, COE-II.B; SOP-II.C
Conflict of Interest, COE-V.C; COE-V.D; SOP-II.F
Consultation, COE-IV.E; SOPIV.F; COE-IV.G; SOP-II.C
Contracts
    Abrogation, COE-III.C
    Ethics. COE-III.A
    Private conservators, SOP-V
    Scope, SOP-II.B; SOP-V
    Sub-contracting, SOP-V.A.3
    With corporations, COE-III.A
    With governmental agencies, COE-III.A
    With individuals, COE-III.A
    With interns, COE-III.A; COE-IV.B
    With institutions, COE-III.A
    With trainees, COE-III.A; COE-IV.B
Documentation, See Records
Education
    Of public COE-V.A
    Self-education, COE-II.G
Enforcement, PART III; COE-V.B
Emergency Response. SOP-V.C
Examination Reports, COE-III.E; SOP-V; SOP-IV.A; SOP-III.B
Expertise, COE-V.C; SOP-II.F.I; SOP-II.D; SOP-IV.A.6
Facilities, COE-II.B; SOP-II.C
Fees
    Analytical services, SOP-III.B.2
    Changes in, COE-III.B
    Commensurate with service, COE-III.H
    Contracting, SOP-II.B
    Determining, COE-III.H; COE-II.D
    Splitting, COE-IV.H
Insurance, SOP-V.A.2; SOP-III.A.3
Integrity
    Of AIC, PART III
    Of conservators, COE-V.E; COE-V.B
    Of object, COE-II.A; SOP-II.A; COE-II.C
Intermediaries, COE-IV.D
Legal proceedings, SOP-III.C.4; SOP-III.A.7; SOP-II.D
Maintenance of historic works, SOP-I
Natural History, COE-II.C
Private Conservators, SOP-V
Professional attitudes. SOP-II.A
Professional obligations
    To artistic works, COE-II.C; COE-III.D; COE-I; COE-II.A; SOP-II.A
    To colleagues, COE-I; COE-IV.A
    To custodians or owners, COE-I; COE-III.D
    To posterity, COE-I
    To profession, COE-IV.A; COE-IV.B
    To public, COE-I; COE- V.B; COE-V.A
    To self, COE-II.G
    To trainees, COE-I; COE-II.H; COE-IV.B; COE-IV.A
Proprietary rights, COE-IV.A
Records
    Examination, COE-III.E; SOP-IV.A; SOP-V; SOP-III.A; SOP-III.B
    Photographic, SOP-IV.A.2; SOP-IV.C.2; SOP-III.B.3
    Scientific, SOP-III.B.4
References, COE-IV.C
    Treatment, COE-III.F; SOP-IV.C
Referrals, COE-IV.G
Reports, See Records
Reversibility, COE-II.E
Safety procedures, SOP-VI; Also see Security
    Accident Prevention, SOP-II.A; SOP-V.A.2; SOP-B.3
    Corrosive liquids. SOP-VI.A.4
    Environmental Hazards, SOP-VI.B.I
    Fire, SOP-VI.B.4
    Handling, SOP-VI.B.3b; COE-II.H
    Mechanical equipment, SOP-VI.A.3
    Personnel, SOP-VI.A
    Radiography, SOP-VI.A.I
    Storage, SOP-III.BI; SOP-V1.3.C
    Theft, SOP-VI.B.2
    Toxic vapors, SOP-VI.A.2
    Transportation and packing, SOP-V1.3.d
Sampling, SOP-III.A.2; SOP-III.A.4
Security, See Safety Procedures
    Contract provisions, SOP-II.B; COE-II.B
Single standard, COE-II.C
Slander, COE-IV.I
Solicitation, COE-V.G.I & 2; COE-IV.G
Treatment
    Archival, COE-II.B
    Changes in, COE-III.B
    Extent of, COE-III.D
    Guarantee, COE-III.I
    Materials, COE-II.E; SOP-IV.C.1.b; SOP-IV.A.3; SOP-IV.A.6;
        COE-III.F; COE-IV.A
    Methods, SOP-III.C.I; SOP-IV.C.I; COE-III.F; COE-IV.A
    Permission, SOP-V.C
    Proposals, SOP-V; SOP-IV.B; SOP-III.B
    Proprietary rights, COE-IV.A
    Quality, SOP-II.A; COE-II.C; COE-II.D; SOP-II.C
    Reports, COE-III.E; Also see Records
    Standards, SOP-II.A; COE-II.A; COE-II.C;
    Suitability, SOP-II.A; SOP-II.D; COE-II.D
    Time required, SOP-V.A.I; COE-III.G; SOP-I.B.3
    Warranty, COE-III.I
Volunteers, COE-II.H

An expanded reference index which includes text entries is available from the AIC office.

"A code shapes human behavior in a fashion somewhat similar to habits and rules."

To The Membership

The AIC Ethics and Standards Committee welcomes your response to the material presented in this AIC Newsletter Ethics & Standards Supplement. We would be happy to receive any general comments you may have on the issues presented above, but we also have some specific questions that focus on the subject of restructuring our COE/SOP.

You need not feel obligated to answer all the questions, nor need you feel obligated to identify yourself although it would be very helpful to the committee if you were to include your name so that we would be able to reach you for further discussion of any points you might raise.

You may either photocopy this page of the Newsletter and fill in your responses, or answer the questions on another sheet. Please send your responses by September 20 to:

Debbie Hess Norris, Chair,

AIC Ethics and Standards Committee,

106 Danforth Place,

Wilmington, DE 19810

Name (optional)

1. Do you feel that restructuring or reformatting of the present AIC COE/SOP would be beneficial? If not, why?
2. If you feel reformatting is desirable, what type of structure do you feel would best serve our needs--hierarchical, topical, combination, other (please describe)?
3. Do you feel that it would be helpful to you if the Code were to include (for example, as Commentaries) presentations of the variations in interpretation of recommended practices that might be required by our different areas of specialization?
4. Do you know of other professional organizations that have codes of ethics that you feel might be of interest to the committee? (See "Codes of Ethics others" list in the bibliography section above for the organizations to which the committee has already written.)
5. Other comments as appropriate:

[Evolution of the AIC COE/SOP] [Current COE/SOP]