The Development of Self-Regulation in Four UK Professional Communities

Landscape architecture

The profession of landscape architecture accounts for just over 6000 practitioners and students in the UK, of whom 3300 are qualified at chartered level. As an activity it has a documented history going back over two millennia. In Europe, professional “landscape gardeners” (designers and project managers) came to prominence from the seventeenth century onwards. The term “landscape architect” was coined in the mid-nineteenth century in New York, appearing in the UK by the end of the century. Associations of landscape architects were formed in the United States in 1899, Germany in 1913, and the UK in 1929, the last largely due to the efforts of a small group of leading practitioners, some of these were also architects or members of the emerging town planning profession. Although the early landscape gardeners largely laid out private estates, nineteenth- and twentieth-century landscape architecture was increasingly associated with public projects such as the great era of Victorian park-building, the development of the “garden cities,” and later the “new towns.” More recently the balance of employment has moved back into private, sometimes multiprofessional practices and a growing voluntary sector. The profession’s conception of its role has also evolved, so that while landscape architecture was initially almost synonymous with design, later conceptions included concern with land use, planning, ecology, and landscape management (Motloch, 2001). This change was reflected in the UK association changing its title from the Institute of Landscape Architects to the Landscape Institute (LI) in 1972, and creating three divisions concerned with design, ecology and management.

The development of self-regulation in landscape architecture was aided by the presence of adjacent but largely non-competing professions, particularly architecture. Initially, the profession followed a similar pattern of training and qualification to architects, with entry-routes staged in four parts, all examined directly by the Institute; the first three parts were discontinued in the 1980s, having fallen into disuse in favour of degree courses. Following graduation, trainee landscape architects were required to spend two years in supervised practice before taking the Part 4 examination leading to qualified membership (from 1997 chartered status). The relatively rapid and painless introduction in landscape architecture of classic artefacts of professionalisation such as an authoritative association, code of ethics, recognised degree-level training route, and a clear qualified status suggests a certain amount of closure of its professionalisation “project” (cf. Vernon, 1987), particularly when compared with the occupations discussed in the next sections. Nevertheless, the profession’s systems and processes have continued to evolve in response to a variety of external changes and trends.

The main external influence on landscape architecture in recent years has been the growth in importance of environmental matters. Although this has brought the profession into closer contact and competition with adjacent professional groups in the environmental field, on balance it has expanded both its outlook and the level of demand for landscape architects. Currently there are 31 LI-approved university degrees in the UK, as well as a process for the Institute to consider applications from graduates of non-accredited or sub-degree courses. Recent changes to its regulatory framework include replacement of the three membership divisions with a looser set of specialisms, and a number of measures designed to update post-degree entry routes. These include a professional standards framework that underpins both course accreditation and final assessment of practitioners, and a training period based on meeting the standards rather than serving a specific length of time. The LI was also one of the earlier professional bodies to adopt a practitioner-driven model of continuing development, recognising from the early 1990s that self-managed activities were playing a larger role in practitioners’ updating and ongoing development than courses organised by the Institute or by educational institutions.

Landscape architecture can be regarded as an archetypal self-regulating profession in that it does not have any legally reserved functions, it is governed by a voluntary professional association without interference from public bodies, and has a unitary governance structure (member-oriented and regulatory functions are undertaken by the same body). The profession has created a significant niche for itself on a level with, though distinct from, adjacent professions such as architecture, environmental management, surveying and planning. Its success both as a practising profession and its links to the academy ensure that it continues to attract practitioners to join and qualify with the Institute, despite the fact that the activities carried out by landscape architects are generally open to practitioners in related fields with similar or lesser levels of qualification. The profession is also widely recognised internationally, with an international federation dating from 1948 and now numbering over 70 countries in its membership.

The conservation of cultural heritage

The activity of conserving and restoring movable material heritage accounts for an estimated 3500 practitioners in the UK, of whom a little over 800 hold qualified status through the main professional body, the Institute of Conservation. Like landscape architecture it can be traced back over two millennia, although for most of its history it was practised by artists and craftspeople who were not specifically conservators or restorers. It was somewhat slower to become established as a formal profession; apprenticeship-type training for restorers appeared in the eighteenth century and university courses in conservation in the 1930s (Scheißl, 2000), but formal associations were only established around the middle of the century including one in the UK in 1958. Unlike in landscape architecture, several competing associations quickly followed so that by the 1980s there were twelve membership bodies operating wholly or partly in the UK that were concerned with, or had a major interest in, conservation. Most of these were closer in style to learned societies or trade associations than professional bodies.

Major events in the crystallisation of conservation as a profession took place in 1964, when an international conference of practitioners drew up a basic code of practice, and 1984, with the agreement by the museums community of an influential definition of conservation. The same era saw rapid growth in university courses and research, grounding conservation as much in materials science and art history as in the craft of the artist-restorer. While the UK associations developed codes of practice and rough notions of what it was to be a professional conservator, formal self-regulation was slow to emerge. This was partly because an authoritative body had failed to emerge that could take forward the necessary developments, and partly because of the lack of stable employment for novice conservators, making it difficult to set up post-university professional training (Jagger & Aston, 1999). The organisational problem was partly resolved in 1993 with the voluntary coming together of twelve associations under an umbrella organisation, the National Council for Conservation-Restoration (NCCR), which among other things set itself the task of developing a means of distinguishing bona-fide conservators. Pressure for this had come from practitioners to help remedy what was seen as a lack of status, voice and remuneration for conservators, as well as from some client bodies who wanted a register of qualified practitioners, something that became more urgent as many moved away from employing conservators directly to engaging them as consultants and contractors.

The first registration schemes were set up outside the NCCR initiative in two specialist areas of conservation, but a more concerted joint effort was made to establish a qualified status towards the end of the 1990s. This aimed to bridge between the different traditions present in conservation, accommodate graduate and non-graduate entry, be workable in the absence of structured early-career training, and provide access for existing practitioners some of whom were highly proficient but had no relevant formal qualifications. A professional practice assessment was introduced in 1999 leading to a qualified status (Accredited Conservator-Restorer, ACR) roughly at master’s level, though not depending on academic qualifications. This approach was influenced by three main sources: the final post-degree, post-experience practising assessment common in the built environment professions (including landscape architecture); the UK’s then system of competence-based vocational qualifications; and a European project which aimed to agree common standards of practice for conservators (Foley & Scholten, 1998). Initially, the governance of this system was shared between NCCR and the three (later four) member bodies that subscribed to it, and delegated to an accreditation panel overseen by a more strategic professional standards board. This arrangement continued until 2004 when, reflecting the desire of many conservators to build on the momentum gained to date and increase the influence of their profession further, several of the conservation associations merged with NCCR to form a pre-eminent professional body, the Institute of Conservation (Icon), which was able to resource a complement of permanent staff.

The introduction of ACR status and the formation of Icon as the profession’s leading institute have proved significant in enabling conservation to establish itself as a credible profession. Icon has also been able to address other matters including promoting practice-based training opportunities and developing a technician-level qualification; it is currently (2015) investigating the possibility of applying for a Royal Charter. Conservation, like landscape architecture, operates in an otherwise unregulated environment and there is no real pressure for early-career conservators to become professionally qualified. Given that the assessment assumes around five years of practical experience, ACR status is understandably seen as a necessity only for independent practice and senior roles, where it tends to be required or favoured by large clients and employers. A 2013 independent review of the ACR framework has indicated that it is both well-recognised and highly robust, though with scope for better promotion among the conservation community.

Family mediation

Family mediation, the facilitated and non-adversarial resolution of disputes relating to separation, divorce, childcare arrangements and other family matters, is currently the primary or substantial occupation of around 1500 practitioners in England and Wales (due to differences in legal systems, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different arrangements for mediators which will not be covered here). Of these 1500 around 900 can be regarded as fully qualified. While as an activity it goes back far longer, family mediation emerged as a recognisable occupation only in the 1970s; its history in the UK is largely bound up with the liberalisation of divorce laws from 1969 onwards.

The first family mediation services were voluntary initiatives associated with the divorce courts and funded on an experimental basis in the late 1970s, employing often volunteer mediators drawn from the social work and marriage guidance professions (Cretney, 2004). A national association (of services, though keeping a register of practitioners), now National Family Mediation (NFM), was formed in 1981. Mediation provoked a mixed reaction among the legal profession, with some lawyers seeing it as encroaching on their sphere of interest and others as complementary; a few started to become involved themselves, and some of these formed an embryonic practitioner association, the Family Mediators’ Association (FMA), in 1988. Although the distinction between legally-trained mediators (initially the main constituency of the FMA) and those from a social work, guidance or counselling background (typically registered with the NFM) persisted for some time, the training and activities of both groups gradually converged.

The question of regulation came to the fore in the early 1990s, when public funding in the form of legal aid was made available directly for mediation. The agency responsible for administering the funding wanted a means of identifying mediators with whom it would be confident to work, and it set up an assessment of mediator competence that could be taken after gaining basic experience. The Law Society, the then qualifying body for solicitors, was also recognised as able to run an equivalent assessment. This established a pattern of initial training (which could be no more than the equivalent of a week), support by a mentor, and finally the competence assessment. In an attempt to institute a regime of self-regulation, NFM, FMA and the NFM’s Scottish counterpart collaborated with government support to set up a body (the UK College of Family Mediators) that was intended to operate as a fully-functioning professional institute, and which took over the competence assessment from the legal aid agency. This body never attracted more than a small majority of practising mediators, and it was effectively disbanded in 2007.

Following the demise of the College, the (now six) associations that could count family mediators as members set up an umbrella body, the Family Mediation Council (FMC), to provide a standing conference and nominally common voice for the profession. While this enabled a modicum of common action, it was as often riven by debate and disagreement between associations of radically different size (from the Law Society with over 100,000 members and the mediator bodies with numbers in the low hundreds) and perspective (e.g., the voluntary-sector NFM and lawyer-based Resolution) (cf. Adams, 2007). The FMC inherited a situation where there were effectively four accreditation schemes for family mediators, only nominal standardisation of training, and confusion about who could be regarded as a “qualified family mediator” and on what basis. In addition a very specific reserved function had been created by family justice legislation, relating to providing initial assessments of clients’ suitability for mediation; a separate status, with less stringent requirements than full accreditation, was initiated to authorise mediators for this purpose. The FMC was initially ineffective at resolving this situation beyond agreeing a common code of practice and a(n outdated) approach to continuing development. This chaos was criticised in a review of the family justice system commissioned by the government (Norgrove, 2011), which hinted at the possibility of introducing a statutory regulator. In response the FMC commissioned its own reviews, which with government backing produced agreement in 2014 on a common standard of accreditation and self-regulation. The result was that the majority of regulatory functions were taken into the FMC and overseen by a new arm’s-length standards board with lay as well as practitioner membership.

While the FMC’s actions have gained governmental approval and support, a number of questions remain as at the end of 2015. These relate to things such as the adequacy of initial training; the retention of routes to accreditation via two different bodies; the difficulty of providing adequate supervision between initial training and accreditation; and the continuing presence of six associations, some of which are more supportive than others of the recent reforms. More generally there is also an ongoing debate on the extent to which mediators who are not required to register by law or contract should be pressured to do so, for instance by the associations not admitting them as practising members. While on the surface therefore the family mediation community appears to have introduced systems and processes much more rapidly and universally than has been the case in for instance conservation, these are still relatively immature and a number of tensions are yet to be resolved.

Vocational rehabilitation

Vocational (or occupational) rehabilitation (VR) is concerned with enabling people who have long-term health problems, are disabled, or are recovering from major injuries, to remain in or return to economic activity. Like family mediation it is normally entered from an adjacent profession, typically a health profession or sometimes careers guidance, vocational training or personnel management, and for most practitioners it takes place alongside their main occupation. It is difficult to estimate the numbers of people who identify primarily as VR practitioners, but a current estimate based on membership of specialist associations suggests this is just over a thousand. In the UK, VR can be traced back to the Poor Laws and workhouses of the nineteenth century, and it developed through multiple influences including charitable support for people with disabilities, specific measures for the rehabilitation of injured combatants, and general health provision. The National Health Service (NHS), formed in 1948, had medical and functional rehabilitation as one of its remits, extending to some aspects of return-to-work. Similarly, the social welfare system became involved in aspects of VR both to aid benefit claimants to return to work and to provide supported employment for those deemed unable to secure or retain jobs in the general labour market.

The rise of VR as a more clearly-identifiable occupational activity can be dated, like family mediation, from the late 1970s. A financial crisis and period of rising unemployment limited the ability of the NHS to provide more than functional rehabilitation services, while a political imperative to minimise the number of people claiming unemployment benefits placed more emphasis on the return-to-work role of the benefits agencies. From this time onwards, but particularly from the early 1990s, the private sector also began to play a stronger role in VR through the active involvement of employers, insurers and training providers. The notion of a professional VR practitioner began to take hold with the adoption of a case management approach, driven particularly by insurers and employers. Case management focuses on the individual and their situation, needs and aspirations, and takes a transprofessional perspective geared to co-ordinating the various interventions and forms of support that are appropriate at different stages. There is substantial evidence for the effectiveness and benefits of case management (e.g., Waddell, Burton & Kendall, 2013), with the UK learning from more advanced practice in the Nordic countries, Australia and Canada.

Associations and qualifications specifically concerned with VR were slow to become established in the UK, principally because the majority of practitioners continued to identify with their primary profession and in many cases regarded their VR work as an extension of their main area of practice. The first university course in VR, a master’s degree at City University in London, opened in 1992 and led indirectly to the formation of what is now the Vocational Rehabilitation Association (VRA) a year later. Two further specialist associations followed over the next decade; each of these currently has a membership in the low hundreds. A non-university qualification (essentially a knowledge test) is offered internationally by the National Institute of Disability Management and Research in Canada, and an attempt was made in 2010-12 to set up a skills-based, sub-degree European qualification for front-line VR practitioners (Lester, 2013). Neither have been accepted in the UK as suitable to contribute to professional status.

To date, each of the three VR-related associations has published professional standards and a code of practice, and they also collaborated in 2013-14 to produce a competence framework for VR case management. A joint professional, provider and client forum has also produced a set of standards for service providers, and good practice for VR provision is enshrined in a closely-related British Standard. While in principle the associations can eject members for failing to follow their standards, no further aspects of professional regulation such as a formally qualified status or audits of continuing development have been instituted. The VRA has developed guidance for members to use its standards for self-assessment and continuing development, and an internal consultation in 2014 garnered a high level of interest in developing a qualified status in VR.