Accreditation

Thanks to Ylva Playerdahnsjo <y.m.t.playerdahnsjo [at] dundee__ac__uk> for
responding to my mail posting regarding this issue.

I must apologize to all English conservators for not using the OED.
My unabridged Random House Book of Words provides less comprehensive
coverage of our familial tongue, but none the less my point was
glass clear.

I don't think anyone is questioning the interests of all
conservation people in the need for high standards in our work.  It
is the method(s) that seems to keep people at odds.

Here are several points relating to the singled out passages that
you employ to clarify your argument against Mr. Thompson's previous
statements:

1.  There is nothing strange about high standards.  Ex: We all agree
sunshine is a good thing--even the most pale of us.

2.  There are already laws on the books in most states that regard
failure to perform agreed upon work standards.

>Surely this just means that an accredited conservator needs to have
>all the necessary training, understanding, experience and ability in
>conservation to be able to practice in a full professional capacity,
>( making independent decisions about treatment etc etc ) as opposed
>to a person who has been shown how to carry out a very narrow range
>of treatments, and works under supervision. You  certainly need to
>be generally competent before you specialise, as I am sure the
>specialist friends that Jack Thompson refers to all are.

3.  Here is the rub in the above paragraph.

>... an accredited conservator needs to have
>all the necessary training, understanding, experience and ability in
>conservation to be able to practice in a full professional capacity,
>( making independent decisions about treatment etc etc )...

Without touching the dictionary, I would ask what machine decides
the above restrictions?  Who judges understanding?  A highly
educated buffoon is still a buffoon.  I would appreciate if someone
could flesh the quote to explain about understanding, experience,
ability, and necessary training are.

4.

>... Conservation is not a "white collar profession",
>but has evolved out of a mosaic of different backgrounds, which is
>of course why it is so difficult [to] identify what it actually is.

Are you kidding me?  I have met just a few people in conservation
who don't insist that they have white collars--Eton at that.
Searching for 'greater professionalism' inevitably leads to insiders
overestimating the field within which they operate.  Sort of like
writing your own resume, it gets bigger and better the more you
edit.

>... But
>we all share the same, basic enthusiasm and commitment to our chosen
>profession ( I use the term in a general sense here ) and I guess we
>would all wish to see standards ( again, the general meaning )
>upheld and improved.

5.  I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Cordially,

Bryan Owen
Frederick Law Olmsted NHS
99 Warren St.
Brookline, Ma., USA
02445

                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 12:87
                  Distributed: Thursday, May 13, 1999
                       Message Id: cdl-12-87-014
                                  ***