The new issue of “The Conservator, Vol. 31, 2008” has a very relevant article (Stan Lester, “Putting conservation’s professional qualification in context”) evaluating the United Kingdoms PACR accreditation process, since it has been in place for the last eight years. In the context of discussing the purpose behind the PACR, “There was a strong view that it needed to be assessed through means that were both valid for the kinds of work that conservators do (not, for instance, using a paper-based portfolio, a written examination or a contrived project) and robust enough to withstand external scrutiny” (p. 6)
It is interesting that Dr. Lester specifically rules out a written examination as being a valid and defendable measure of a conservators competence, since it is the only option AIC seems to be considering.
Jeff Peachey
certification for conservators 
2 Comments
I could not agree more strongly with Christopher Augerson’s evaluation and with the suggestion that he and, in AIC News, Barbara Appelbaum and Paul Himmelstein have put forth that AIC’s proposed certification plan be replaced with enhanced versions of current Professional Associate and Fellow programs.
I further concur with Stan Lester’s conclusion that a written test not be used. It has long been shown in the psychological literature on testing that testing modes should be consistent with the modalities assessed, therefore that the performance- and thinking-based skills of conservation work should be tested by means that indeed measure performance and thinking. Could anything be more obvious?
Many more objections could be listed. Many. But I think it is more appropriate to consider what should be done to engage the membership in discussing certification and learning what everybody thinks makes the most sense–whether the Augerson-Appelbaum-Himmelstein proposal or the current AIC proposal. Keep in mind that only a rough fifth of the membership responded to the summer survey on the proposed AIC model. This means that four fifths need to be heard from.
A talented conservator who inpaints beautifully and has a light touch cleaning may hate and be bad at paper work – but I would prefer such a person work on a painting rather than the one who does long glorious reports and would be certified.