My experience is quite similar. We must recognize that the field of tree
care is quite diverse. There is consumer need and demand for the
tradesperson-craftsperson-mechanic-technician. And within that slice of the
field there is need to distinguish the more responsible and better trained
hand from the hack, and the supervisor-specifier-leader from the laborer...
both for the consumer and for the practitioner (self esteem, aspiration,
paygrade, etc.).
But there is also a need for the professional tree careperson who must
interact with planners, architects, engineers, lawyers, judges, risk
managers, politicians, bureaucrats, ad nauseam. It is both a question of
technical training, shophistication, confidence, ability to communicate and
of perception by other professions.
All those professional degree types (lawyers, architects, engineers, etc.)
have quite an opinion of themselves. They are trained in their professional
schools to have quite an opinion of themselves and the world for them is
framed only in terms of their expertise (unfair to the enlightened ones to
be sure). There is a tendancy for them to look down their noses at the
trades... or if more tolerant then to just consider them trades, need we
think more?
[As an aside I've noticed the same attidude among some prodessionally
trained (industrial) foresters who find themselves with a job on urban
forestry, towards "those tree care types." "I"M a professionally trained
forester and YOU'RE not." And they may have zero practical experience in
individual tree care.]
This stratification should not be a foreign concept. The building industry
is clearly stratifies among laborers, skilled trades and design
professionals. I've used this example with legal types who can't or won't
grasp the difference between a field person and an expert consultant: "Well
sir, you have a legal secretary and a para-legal in your office. You are an
associate attorney. Your colleague there is a senior partner. His Honor
{m'lud in the UK) there is a judge in this court. The justices of the high
court sit on the most impotant cases. Would your para-legal be hung if she
professed to be a lawyer? Would you be happy to be called a par-legal?
Whould you presume to call yourself a judge? You all practice at the law,
but are there real differences among your qualifications and abilities [you
dunder-head, don't you get it]?
So any idea that there must be som settlement or agreement on THE right
designation or nomenclature misses the mark.
SC
----- Original Message -----
From: "SEAN DAVIES" <SEAN.DAVIES@xxxxxxxxxxx.GOV.UK>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: long words
Its not inside the proffession thats the problem, its the public image
and teh extrernal professional image. For instance I work with a local
authority planning department, thier all degree qalified and belong to
the RPI. My bose the one who does the interviewing has a certain image
of me and my industryies apearance. The prof dip arb just does'nt cut
it, like most councils thiers strong pull to fix qualifications with
grades so for mine its a degree and charted statutues along with all the
planner, archtects etc. Nothing to do with the proffession, if we don't
move our selfs others will through the market place. Any one else got
this kind of thing going on?
treecision@xxxxx.co.uk 02/12/03 08:26am >>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Dicker" <jerry.dicker@xxxxxxxxxxx.com>
Where is the line between recognition and academic snobbery? I know
of
a highly qualified arboricultural person who says he gets really
cross
when
somebody says "Are you the tree man?" I respect him highly myself
but
me,
I
would be delighted to be known as the tree man. Could it be
possible to
get
a bit too enthusiastic about letters after your name, status,
regulation
and
exclusivity?
I share your concerns and have always slightly worried about the term
'arboriculturist' as being too much for most members of the public.
Personally, I have no difficulty with tree consultant or tree
specialist,
either of which seem to me to convey the necessary information in a
simple
and understandable fashion. They also sit well with Tree Officer, a
term
quite familiar to the public at large.
But then, perhaps Architects had this debate when trying to agree
their
professional handle - maybe they began with building designer?
Nowadays when people ask me what I do I usually say consultant, but
that's
just because I'm generally unhelpful and like to make them ask on what
{:o)
Nevertheless, it is true that our profession is that of arboriculture
so
the -ist does follow quite naturally from that.
JFL.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
