Evolution of the AIC Code of Ethics--Professionalism


Evolution of the AIC Code of Ethics/Guidelines for Practice

From the Ethics and Standards Committee

Professionalism and the Code of Ethics

This document was scanned from AIC Newsletter, Vol 19, Number 1, January 1994.

As revision to the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice (formerly called Standards of Practice) moves forward, the Ethics and Standards Committee has received the thoughtful comments of many AIC members, reflecting a serious probing of these documents, the purpose of our profession, and the place of these documents in it. In this context, it is clear that the revision is not an isolated exercise, but part of a general process of redefining the practice of conservation and its role in the preservation of cultural property. The process has been lengthy and challenging, among other reasons because:

the conservation profession is changing in ways that demand new definitions of purpose, membership, goals, and objectives;
conservation professionals are individuals with diverse backgrounds and interests who, according to the AIC mission statement, collectively work "to coordinate and advance the knowledge and improved methods of conservation needed to protect, preserve and maintain the condition and integrity of objects or structures"; and
our organization must recognize that it operates within a larger context composed of other national and international preservation organizations.

From Practitioner to Professional

The use of the terms profession, professional, and professionalism in reference to conservation signals a change in the development of the field. The first of five long-range goals recently developed by the AIC Board and shared with the membership for comment is to "increase professionalism of the conservation field." The characteristics most commonly associated with a profession (also listed in the AIC statement of goals), include

a systematic and theoretical body of knowledge incorporating a written core of knowledge and defined practical skills;
vehicles for intensive education and training; and
a mechanism for self-definition, including codes, standards, membership standing, and certification. An important point to keep in mind is that "professions" exist on a continuum: as occupational groups gradually possess more and more of the above-mentioned characteristics, they become increasingly professional.

As we examine our history as a discipline, most would agree that the conservation profession is just beginning to establish a written core of knowledge, that it has relatively young training and educational programs, and that it is still wrestling with various ways of defining the profession. At the same time, the AIC has had a Code of Ethics document since 1967 and a Standards of Practice document since 1963 (both were revised in 1979). Both documents were the first of their kind for any group of art conservators, and other conservation organizations have used them as the basis for similar documents

Ethical codes are usually associated with mature professions. Such professions have been granted authority and community sanction because they have a special expertise that the lay public does not have. Ethical codes serve to protect the public from abuse by professionals who have a "monopoly" power owing to their knowledge and skills. These documents usually contain a built-in regulative code that compels ethical behavior by the membership, and typically there is a mechanism for enforcement. Codes tend to be normative, not descriptive, because they assume a certain degree of consensus about what the profession does

In considering the history of the conservation profession, one might be surprised to find that, in the absence of a systematic body of written knowledge and given the relative youth of its training and educational programs, this profession had created very detailed documents--the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice--that endeavored to define the profession and establish the norms of ethical conservation practice, albeit with only an informal enforcement process. Viewed from another perspective, however, these precedent-setting documents can be seen as a response to the relative paucity of the other key criteria that establish a profession. The original documents assumed the lion's share of responsibility for ensuring professionalism. They attempted to define what conservators do, how they should do it, what is and what is not good conservation practice, and, by extension, who may be called a conservator.

Today, as the Code and Standards are being revised, these documents no longer need to carry such a heavy load. The profession is evolving rapidly and takes a much broader view of conservation than was envisaged even 10 years ago. The responsibility for defining the profession has been distributed more equitably among the educational programs, the increasing body of professional literature, and through the "culture" that is passed on within the profession. The profession is cautiously able to restructure its documents based on different needs

During the revision process, the Ethics and Standards Committee has tried to create an aspirational Code of Ethics that addresses the broad ethical issues, especially those that protect the public interest and do not depend on professional "fashions." This approach has also included developing broad statements of principle in the Guidelines for Practice that can define more clearly where our practical responsibilities lie. The committee believes that the documents must provide the foundation for individuals to make their own judgments as to the appropriateness of their actions in a range of situations. However, the committee has also recommended that commentaries be added to the Guidelines for Practice because unique circumstances that have a direct bearing on the decision-making process exist in each of the conservation specialties (see AIC News, November 1993, for a discussion of the commentaries). The committee believes that the specialty groups, when appropriate, must define the actual procedures that constitute ethical practice. These groups are in the best position to state clearly the subtle distinctions between correct and incorrect, good and bad practice, and the commentaries can address these points successfully.

Ethical Conduct

The revision process is not yet complete. Members have raised pertinent questions in response to the proposed draft. Do we base ethical conduct on a complete description of what we do as professionals, or does ethical conduct merely address certain areas in which the behavior of professionals is prone to abuse, i.e., qualifications, disclosure, conflict of interest, use of title and designations, laws and regulations, advertising, and health and safety? Are the Code and Guidelines being expected to form a de facto certification procedure when this function would be better left to a formal process? How much can we expect from a Code without both a formal certification process and a more comprehensive mechanism for handling disciplinary procedures?

As the question of enforcement figures more prominently in the comments that the Ethics and Standards Committee receives, we believe that an open discussion of this issue is required, and we welcome your comments and thoughts. In preparation for a final discussion of the proposed documents, we urge each of you with lingering doubts, questions, comments, or recommendations for changes in wording or content to make your thoughts known to the committee. Please contact: Donna Strahan, Walters Art Gallery, 600 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201.-- Carol Aiken and Donna Strahan, co-chairs, Nancy Ash, Robert Espinosa, Dan Kushel

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