HOME NEWS & VIEWS MEETINGS COMMITTEE LAW REPORTS CONTACT LONDON INSTITUTE
Articles
The development of learned and professional Societies and their regulatory functions and Codes of Practice.
Professional institutions have a long and distinguished history. Their roots lie in those activities for which a measure of intelligence and training was required - usually in the service of people. Their activities were often extensions of the work of those in holy orders and were thus of a quasi religious nature (e.g. the contributions of the monasteries to medicine and education) so that the clerical practitioners would profess or vow as clerics and such vows came to relate also to their skills in medicine or teaching as much as to their religious beliefs. Ordination was, of course, the original form of higher education and the granting of holy orders was a matter for the bishops who then exercised a measure of professional (and personal) control over those they ordained and who continued to live within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, many of these religious practitioners lived in communities where they ate and talked together so that there was a measure of continuous learning from each other.
The medieval universities were also religious communities of scholars who lived collegially so that they too learned together and from each other and exercised a voluntary code of conduct within the societies where they lived. It was those who became the Masters of Art who were entitled to teach the undergraduates and to exercise any necessary academic (and domestic) discipline.
The monastic tradition that gave birth to the University of Oxford seemed also to provide the model for the Inns of Court and of Chancery where young men, who were not necessarily clerical, were selected to live and study when the Kings' court was sitting in London. They developed the similar tradition of senior members becoming Readers to tutor and supervise the students before they were admitted to the ranks of the barristers. These senior members also exercised a disciplinary function over their students from early times.
Additionally, there were the guilds or livery companies that regulated the entry to, and training for, the trades, which were the basis of the wealth of the nation in medieval times. Tradesmen (and they were usually men although there were some women - particularly widows who continued their late husbands' businesses) would band together in fraternities to set the standards of acceptable workmanship for their trades. Those who reached such standards became Masters of that trade (e.g. Master Baker), were identified by distinctive robes (the livery), and could train their own apprentices. If complaints were made and justified about poor workmanship, the tradesman concerned would lose his membership of the guild and so could practise that trade no longer - a disastrous loss of livelihood. Furthermore, the Guild would undertake to compensate the complainant for the bad workmanship he had suffered.
Over the centuries, these institutions developed. The Church ceded power to secular institutions, the universities multiplied, the Inns consolidated, the livery companies changed direction and, with the expansion of trade and business in the Eighteenth Century, a new breed of training and regulating institution began to appear - the learned and professional society. It was very much a successor to the guilds with its emphasis on providing qualifications to test competence to begin and to continue to practise professional duties such as accountancy, architecture, engineering and so forth. Such tests often followed a period under articles of clerkship or apprenticeship and the newly qualified became members of the institution - paying a considerable annual subscription for the privilege! Essentially, these societies provided a vocational qualification as an alternative to the more theoretical studies at the universities.
However, they did more than that. Many of them gradually developed the disciplinary codes and procedures which enabled them to remove from their registers those who proved to be incompetent - a necessity if the institution itself was not to be brought into disrepute. They also became involved in discussions about, and even the funding of research for, the development of their subject area. They organised conferences and seminars and they published papers in their transactions and journals (the transactions being the technical section and the journal being the 'house' section) to help to keep their members abreast of the subject developments.
There was, of course, no compulsion on members to attend meetings or to read their journals although, in retrospect, the Twentieth Century was a time of much greater voluntary attendance at meetings than now seems possible in a more demanding employment environment. There has also developed a greater concern for regulation and assessment in society which demands codification and certification thus relying much less on voluntary activity and self-certification.
It was the expansion of the universities and the development of vocational university degrees (post the Robbins Report) that resulted in many professional institutions ceasing to examine at the undergraduate level and concentrating their resources on the continuing professional development of their members. Such CPD became a requirement of a comprehensive code of professional conduct (with a disciplinary procedure in the bottom drawer to be pulled out when a complaint were lodged!) and it is now becoming generally more demanding with members being encouraged, if not required, to maintain a running record of what developmental activities they undertake in various pre-ordained categories.. Indeed, in many cases, this record must be submitted, or at least be available, for inspection if called in. The use of Charter Practitioner status has given some impetus to this trend (of the Science Council requiring its licensed bodies to undertake some form of monitoring of the CPD of their members).
It can be seen, therefore, how the voluntary self-regulation of those engaged in professional activity has been a part of the history of the UK for centuries, a tradition that has been exported to its Commonwealth partners. However, it appears that the European countries have a greater reliance on the imposition of regulation by the state.
Keith Lawrey LLB, MA, MSc
(Econ)
Barrister, FCIS
Learned Societies' Liaison Officer
The
Foundation for Science and Technology
www.foundation.org.uk
Editor's note: I am grateful to Ian Patterson Wilson MCIArb, who obtained Keith Lawrey's permission to reproduce this article in News & Views. Keith has also provided the following information on the Foundation for Science and Technology that many of you may find useful.
The Foundation for Science and Technology was established almost thirty years ago based on the part-time advisory service given by the Royal Society and the British Academy to the smaller learned and professional societies. Its existence was threatened by a subscription income that could not match its costs - but the size(s) of the societies it served meant that they could not afford to pay more for the help and advice they sought.
The problem was resolved by the Foundation undertaking the organisation of dinner/discussion meetings about matters of current interest in the science and technology fields. Such dinners are sponsored by industry related to the subjects under discussion and the audience is specifically invited because of the interest that its members would have in the particular subject under discussion. The Foundation can therefore subsidise its learned and professional society members by the income from the sponsored dinners.
The Society Newsletter is issued bi-monthly and each contains a digest of current information of interest to those who run societies. It also contains those questions posed to, and the answers given by, the Foundation during the previous two months which the Learned Societies' Liaison Officer thinks will be of interest to all societies.
Much of the support requested comes from societies who have organisational problems, or who need guidance in corresponding with the Charity Commission, the Registrar of Companies, or the Privy Council. Additionally, the Foundation will submit its views, from time to time, on consultations issued by government departments and other organisations. Although the Foundation was intended to support the smaller societies, many of the larger ones are in membership because they wish to support the work that it does and to contribute to its consultations.