Bayla Singer raises some interesting points.
 
The difficulty which I have with discussions about professionalism is
that, in the main, they are conducted at the expense of the profession.
 
I have participated in this sort of discussion many times over the years
and it seems to always come down to exclusionary language.  The object of
certifying professional competence remains unchanged since trade guilds
were established in the middle ages, and that is to control the number of
hands held out for whatever money is floating by.
 
I have sat in meetings where certification was being discussed and its
various forms were being designed.
 
When I've told the people involved that there are federal rules and
regulations regarding certification (promulgated by the Commerce
Department) and that those rules are based on the principle of the lowest
common denominator, interest begins to subside.  Not exclusionary enough.
 
The language used in support of "professionalism" will be pious, but,
then, the same may be said about the Spanish Inquisition.
 
When I respect a person's professional activity, it is not because of
their degree or certification.
 
The field of museology concerns the universe and our relationship to it;
surely there is enough room in there for anyone interested in exploring
and staying to tell the tale.  And those who are afraid to explore and
fear explorers will sit on committees and draft interminable statements
of intent to develop professional standards of practice, and they will
not care to learn that the term <standards> has a particular legal
connotation.
 
Smilin' Jack
 
Thompson Conservation Lab
Portland, OR
 
[log in to unmask]