Following a survey of members, Icon has decided to undertake a review of its Professional Standards.  The survey indicated a good level of satisfaction with the Standards, with a few areas where improvements could be made.  The review is therefore not expected to result in fundamental changes, but we are expecting to:
  • ensure that the Standards are up-to-date
  • improve their clarity and ease of use
  • make sure that they can be applied across all the contexts and specialisms that conservators work in.
As the first stage of the review, we are inviting all conservators – and other interested parties with a detailed knowledge of the Standards – to comment on the existing Standards. 

Your response is equally welcome whether you are making detailed comments about several areas of the Standards, or have one specific matter that you want to raise.

How to comment
Please make sure you have taken the time to thoroughly review the separate document which has been sent in the email and is available on the Icon website here.

Given the vital importance of the professional standards we suggest that you take the time to consider your responses on the document and then copy and paste your answers into this survey.

If you are commenting on the detailed statements, you are welcome to suggest alternative wording.

Points to think about

  • Do any of the statements no longer reflect good practice?  Standards need to be reasonably time-proof, e.g. they should not require specific techniques or technologies, but they do need to reflect up-to-date thinking about conservation.
  • Are any of the statements difficult to meet for conservators working in particular specialisms, roles or contexts?  The standards must reflect what is needed to practise as a conservator, but they also need to recognise that conservators work in different roles and contexts. 
  •  Are any of the statements confusing, poorly worded, or do they repeat or contradict other statements?  Don’t worry about minor inconsistencies in wording as we will pick these up when redrafting.
  • Are any of the detailed statements unnecessary or too restrictive? 
  • Is there anything that is critical but has been missed out?  Focus on overall principles, not details or techniques that apply to particular contexts or specialisms. 
  •  Is additional guidance needed for any of the statements?

Question Title

* I have reviewed the separate word document before proceeding with this survey.