Monthly Archives: August 2017

Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement in the Aromatherapy Community

elephant-plagiarism (1)

Written by Lauren Bridges and Hana Bělíková

I’ve never really explained how I came up with the name Aromapologist.

While I do have a background in anthropology as has been pointed out before, Aromapologist is actually a play on apologetics and combining it with aromatherapy. The fact that it looks like it loops anthropology in with it is just a fun bonus for me and a coincidental shout out to good times past. But, before Indigo Aromatics Services, LLC was established, I created The Aromapologist as a platform to discuss matters within the aromatherapy community and our craft that may be considered a bit more controversial in many cases.

That all being said, in the spirit of this blog’s creation, I’m going to bring up a few subjects that are going to be polemic, not because I want to or like it, but because in this particular case it is very necessary. Those subjects are plagiarism and copyright infringement.

These are not enjoyable subjects to write about, so let’s establish that fact right now. I hate this. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are ugly, distressing words that immediately instill a sinking tension that no amount of lavender is going to resolve, especially if you are on the receiving side of things. We all remember the gut-wrenching feeling of someone parading our ideas as their own, from a classmate copying our science project, to our BFF wearing the same dress to the prom. Some are a bit more serious than others.

In professional terms, these subjects force us to address concerns that are of both an ethical and legal nature. As such, we are unceremoniously dumped into territory that requires an honest examination of the aspect of our psyche that puts us on edge as well as compels our conscience to moral reasoning. We are required to fight for ourselves. In other words, it is a raw, hackles-raised position in which to find oneself, and this is especially true when the subject matter involves friends and colleagues where there is more than just matters of professionalism at stake.

Such is the nature of community.

But in a community of healers and individuals dedicated to helping those who are already hurting, these matters cross over into a more sacred territory: the relationship between teachers and students and the trust between a practitioner and their client. These relationships require trust.

We are a voracious gathering of people craving information – information that establishes the foundation we have to best understand the art behind aromatherapy so we may care for our families and ourselves. This goes for both professionals and enthusiasts alike. But when that trust is violated through the false establishment of expertise at the moral and legal expense of work that belongs to our colleagues, the positive intention that is rooted in the effort of so many is tainted.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are both examples of intellectual property theft. Theft. Let that sink in for a minute. It is quite literally as serious as it sounds, and there can also be legal ramifications in certain instances just as there can be with other examples of theft. These two topics are similar yet different, but they both contribute to one very large elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.

Time we flat out name that elephant Not Okay.

Intellectual Property Theft

The National Crime Prevention Council defines intellectual property theft as follows:

“Intellectual property is any innovation, commercial or artistic; any new method or formula with economic value; or any unique name, symbol, or logo that is used commercially. Intellectual property is protected by patents on inventions; trademarks on branded devices; copyrights on music, videos, patterns, and other forms of expression; and state and federal laws” (Ncpc.org, 2017).

In regard to what we see in the aromatherapy community, this means that anything you write (of which any original content is automatically copyrighted), any memes or infographics you create, etc. is intellectual property. Piracy of intellectual property is a crime. Literally. It is not a harmless act and the cost to the original owners of the intellectual property can be great. It is the theft of hard work and time spent, and depending on how that theft is used, it can also rob the creators of income. This in particular can land the individual stealing material in legal hot water.

Copyright Infringement

Simply put, copyright infringement is a legal matter in which copyrighted work has been reproduced, publicly performed or displayed, distributed, or has had derivative work created from it without appropriate crediting or permission (Lib.purdue.edu, 2017).

I want to highlight derivative work for a minute. This is precisely why there is a huge risk in merely covering well-worn subjects in blogs and memes, especially when there is a lack of citation involved. The right to create derivative works belongs the copyright owner (Anon, 2017). Period. Without permission from the copyright owner to expound on their original idea, one setting forth to write their own work based on the portion of the work that is original copyright, add to that idea, etc. is guilty of copyright infringement. Now, with appropriate citation, Fair Use may protect someone from infringing on the copyright of published work (Jones, 2017), but this is not the case concerning unpublished work (Digital Information Law, 2017). This is also a spectacularly unethical thing to do. According to the Archive of American Archivists, unpublished work is defined as work “not intended for public distribution or if only a few copies were created and distribution was limited” (www2.archivists.org, 2017).

Example: Person X writes a unique article about why putting cinnamon bark oil in your baby’s ear is a bad idea. All of a sudden, Person Y decides to go also write an article about why putting cinnamon bark oil in baby’s ear is bad and mimics the originality of the first work but adds why clove oil and oregano oil are also bad to use this way. They never cite the author of the original article talking about why cinnamon bark oil in babies’ ears is bad even though they are taking the idea or argument presented in the original piece. This is an example of derivative work. The original idea and article has been used and expounded (hence the derivative), but without the permission of the owner of the copyright it is copyright infringement, and the lack of appropriate citation does not offer them any protection through Fair Use.

Could they get in legal trouble for this? Absolutely.

It does not help that copyright infringement is everywhere. If you are on the internet, you have come across it at some point. Most people are likely so accustomed to seeing it that the fact they are looking at it does not even consciously enter their mind.

Copyright infringement can also be done accidentally, believe it or not, and this is why educational institutions stress so firmly the need to be able to cite and establish the research used in writing. It must be differentiated from what constitutes original ideas, and the need for originality being within the research framework cannot be neglected.

Research is necessary to back up the reasons for ideas and hypotheses, and it should be used to help substantiate any ideas being put forth. But what is key here is supporting an original point. If all one does is set out to beat a horse that is dead and (has been) done, it becomes startlingly easy to cross into the territory of copyright violations.

Plagiarism

Quoting Robert Tisserand: “Plagiarism isn’t taking someone else’s idea and improving it, it’s taking someone else’s idea and pretending it’s yours” (obtained via personal communication, August 23, 2017).

Everyone take a minute and recognize the beauty of that citation; you can cite what people said to you without stealing their words when you write an article, create a meme, teach a class, etc.

Now, plagiarism is often thought of as word-for-word copying of a work. But plagiarism goes beyond exactly copying the words of another. Paraphrasing can also be plagiarism. You cannot merely artfully rearrange and substitute the words of an original author and call it your own work. That is actually referred to as “paraphrasing plagiarism.” This example from Indiana University Bloomington does a good job in explaining and providing an example of what paraphrasing plagiarism may look like. It explains clearly the need for both citation and referencing in order to avoid committing plagiarism (Indiana.edu, 2017).

What if I told you plagiarism is not illegal? Interestingly, it is not; however, while plagiarism itself does not violate any laws, it is a moral and ethical issue and is still wrong per accepted values within professional and academic paradigms (Hawkins, 2017).

Can it happen accidentally? Of course. And it can be easily remedied in most cases when it is done if it was truly not intentional. But plagiarism is also something that occurs frequently and with awareness, and that is half of the reason why we are having this conversation to begin with.

It seems that people have (perhaps willfully) misunderstood what actually can constitute plagiarism and intellectual property theft and think that just because an offender has not produced an exact copy of someone else’s work that there’s not enough to call foul.

Let me reiterate: word-for-word copying is just the tip of the iceberg. And like that tip, it is also most easily seen. But there is a whole mess of other issues that lurk beneath the surface that still lead to problems in professional writing and material development. Quick writing tip? Do not rely on online plagiarism detectors to determine if you’ve committed any offenses in this matter. They will not catch issues with paraphrasing plagiarism and then they are also notoriously neglectful in catching word-for-word plagiarism at times. It is always necessary to ask if an original point is being made and if the research backs that point up has been cited appropriately.

Ethical and legal implications in aromatherapy

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not new issues, but they are issues that are only just now starting to get the more acknowledged attention they need. But why is that? What are the reasons behind plagiarism? And more importantly, how to make sure you don’t plagiarize?

It is a very hard thing to see and even worse to make space for the acknowledgment that people we know and trust may be doing this. None of us want to sit back and dwell on this capability when it comes to friends and colleagues. But if we cast emotions aside and simply evaluate the facts, it is what it is, and we cannot change the fact that these are large issues at the moment and ones that touch several areas in the industry.

I think perhaps that a large portion of these offenses occur organically as a response to new information as it comes forth – new information that is so very necessary for the sake of safe practice. Within our circles essential oil safety is a daily topic of conversation. Social media provides an easy platform to cater to this subject of discussion with several groups and public blogs being dedicated to helping those seeking real and safe information on using essential oils. So, the information is passed along, redistributed, used in memes, etc. Some people properly cite the resources in all these; others do not and instead treat it as public domain (or outright thievery). Much of the safety information that is being spread nowadays was published in 2014 in the second edition of Tisserand and Young’s Essential Oil Safety. To be clear, this work does not fall under public domain.

Robert Tisserand’s book on essential oil safety calls for interpretation, due to it being a heavy text with practical info often clouded in a lot of research and chemistry information. However, there is no need to re-invent the wheel, or not state where the information comes from. Also in today’s fast pace of internet, the pressure to come up with new and intriguing content is high. It is therefore tempting to get “inspired” by a successful blog you saw a few weeks earlier.

Copying each other is neither empowering nor beneficial in the grand scheme of things, and it certainly does not help the chatter behind the scenes. As a matter of fact, these two issues can almost paralyze the will to act and address the elephant in the room simply because the heart gets caught in the crossfires of right and wrong. I’ve been there, and emotion is an unfortunate blinder when it comes to seeing the truth sometimes. But again, when we realize it, the emotion can be removed from the equation, and we can examine the facts that are left behind. These are ethical and legal violations, and they are very serious.

Some instances are simply more glaring than others.

So, what is my point? My point is that if you are seeing this too, you’re not alone. If your work has been stolen, you’re not alone. If you are currently facing recovering stolen work, it is within your right to contact a copyright lawyer or reach out to DMCA to have matters resolved. It is within your right to ask or demand for your intellectual property to be removed from any site to which your work was added without your permission, be it the original copyright, derivative work, or plagiarism. If someone has profited from the distribution of your copyright and copyright infringement is determined to exist, you have the right to take further action for compensation. And you should.

We cannot as a community be complacent in these matters as hard as it is to have to address them. The negative influence does not need to bear its mark on a community dedicated to helping others. Not to mention that regurgitating the same information is not moving the field any further.

Do you suspect that you may actually be guilty of borrowing ideas from others? Here is a good article on how to avoid doing so inadvertently. Trust me, there is definitely enough new material in aromatherapy that even if every one of us focused only on one aspect of it, there would still be a lot of uncharted territory left. I have it on a good source that the research in essential oils is booming, and so are potential uses of these precious substances in clinical settings. Plus, there is nothing wrong in admitting who inspired you to write what you did. Quite the contrary.

And remember, the only victims existing in matters of copyright infringement and plagiarism are the original copyright owners or the ones who have had work stolen and expressed as belonging to someone else. The one taking the work and treating it as their own – for whatever purpose – is never the victim in these matters.

A special thanks to Hana Bělíková for her input, editing, and feedback during the process of writing this article. Hana, your guidance and wisdom are greatly appreciated!

Edited 8/25/17: There was some confusion about the example of derivative work used. I’ve gone back and tried to provide a little more clarity on the matter. Matters of illegal derivative work are not simple with whole court cases on the offense speckling legal history, so there will be some limitation in what is able to be expressed in an article. But to reiterate, derivative works are works that are are developed from an original copyright. This is illegal without the permission of the copyright owner. Fair Use doctrine may offer some protection in specific circumstances, but you need to make sure you have verified said protection in regard to what you are writing.

 

References:

www2.archivists.org. (2017). Copyright and Unpublished Material | Society of American Archivists. [online] Available at: https://www2.archivists.org/publications/brochures/copyright-and-unpublished-material [Accessed 24 Aug. 2017].

Anon, (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf [Accessed 24 Aug. 2017].

Digital Information Law. (2017). The Bare Bones of Fair Use | Digital Information Law. [online] Available at: http://digitalinfolaw.com/the-bare-bones-of-fair-use/ [Accessed 23 Aug. 2017].

Hawkins, S. (2017). Copyright Infringement vs. Plagiarism – What You Need To Know. [online] Sara Hawkins. Available at: http://sarafhawkins.com/difference-copyright-and-plagiarism/ [Accessed 23 Aug. 2017].

Indiana.edu. (2017). Examples: Paraphrasing Plagiarism: How to Recognize Plagiarism, School of Education, Indiana University at Bloomington. [online] Available at: https://www.indiana.edu/~istd/example1paraphrasing.html [Accessed 23 Aug. 2017].

Jones, A. (2017). Copyright Citing. [online] Provolibrary.com. Available at: http://www.provolibrary.com/copyright-citing [Accessed 23 Aug. 2017].

Lib.purdue.edu. (2017). Copyright Basics. [online] Available at: https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/basics.html#7 [Accessed 23 Aug. 2017].

Ncpc.org. (2017). Intellectual Property Theft: Get Real — National Crime Prevention Council. [online] Available at: http://www.ncpc.org/topics/intellectual-property-theft [Accessed 24 Aug. 2017].

 

Advertisements

A Path to Aromatherapy Credentialing: General Evaluation of the Aromatherapy Registration Council (ARC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Judy Klispie, MS, EdS

Introduction  

The use of essential oils by the general public has substantially increased in the past few years. With the plethora of Facebook (FB) pages, websites and blogs devoted to essential oil use, safety, and chemistry, the public is becoming inundated with a mixed bag of information that can be confusing, possibly dangerous, and inaccurate.  Those that are trained in Aromatherapy have become concerned with several issues surrounding the information that is being disseminated throughout the internet, school course work, and within the essential oil Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) companies. In the many social medium forums where Aromatherapists discuss and share their concerns, one issue is common: many essential oil users believe that if they read a bit about essential oils or they belong to a MLM company, they are then qualified to tell others how to use them. This situation has become somewhat of a threat to the overall aromatherapy practice because it puts the public at risk with unsafe usage recommendations and devalues the qualifications and years of experience of trained Aromatherapists. With this alarming situation, Aromatherapists have begun to question what can be done regarding this situation.

One of the potential solutions is the standardized certification or credentialing of aromatherapy students who have achieved a minimum amount of training hours from specific types of trainings, workshops, and schools. According to Professional Testing Corporation (PTC) and Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE, NCCA), standardized certification is a part of a process called credentialing. It focuses on the individual’s knowledge, skills and attributes (KSA’s) in a specialized field of practice (see also). Becoming credentialed is usually met by taking a formalized valid and reliable assessment. In general terms, for an assessment to be reliable, it must be a tool that produces stable and constant results while the validity of an assessment refers to how well the test measures what it is supposed to measure (Creswell, 2014; Gall, Gall, Borg, 2007). There are many ways to assess one’s knowledge and can include one or more delivery methods, such as, a valid and reliable multiple choice test, oral testing, case studies, and portfolios.

Aromatherapy Registration Council (ARC) Beginnings

Although standardized credentialing for Aromatherapists is not available at a state or national level, there is currently a professional Registration Exam available to Aromatherapists, through the Aromatherapy Registration Council (ARC). The aromatherapy community felt there needed to be an entity that gave credence to the schooling that Aromatherapists completed so in 1998, the ARC was created. The pioneers that started the ARC felt that:

Neither schools nor membership organizations can issue professional certification or registration examinations with credibility. Independence from membership organizations ensures an impartial and unbiased body distinct from a body where members pay to belong, which is essential for objectivity and credibility from both within and without the industry” (www.aromatherapycouncil.org).

With this belief in mind, the ARC creators felt that the aromatherapy community needed to be self-regulated and an advocate for safe use of essential oils. They also contended that there needed to be one body of knowledge for the assessment to demonstrate the general knowledge, skills, and attributes (KSA’s) required for an Aromatherapist. This body of knowledge was developed by the pioneers in the aromatherapy community at the time of the creation of the ARC with test items created and are currently reviewed annually. The Registered Aromatherapist (RA™) exam uses the most important information needed to assess an Aromatherapist’s KSA’s. Aromatherapists who have completed 200 hours or more of training can take this test to demonstrate their understanding of a common body of knowledge. Upon successful passing of the exam Aromatherapists are entered into a National Registry. Although the RA™ is a registry and not a credential, it is currently the closest offering to a credential or certification the aromatherapy community has.

Although the aromatherapy community has the RA™ exam available, they seem to have great concern that the ARC is not meeting the needs of Aromatherapists because, (1). The aromatherapy community generally believes that the test items do not reflect the current trends in Aromatherapy; (2). The test does not assess accurate chemistry knowledge; (3). ARC does not have a large and diverse governing council; (4). ARC does not have open communication with the aromatherapy community; (5). ARC is perceived to be aligned with a specific college that offers aromatherapy programs amongst other certificate, diplomas and degrees.

The ARC and Registered Aromatherapists (RA™) Exam

This author’s general evaluation of the ARC began with the above concerns in mind. The goal was to explore what the ARC offers and the specifics of the RA™ exam.  According to the ARC:

the goal of ARC has been constant since the nonprofit was established: to provide an unbiased, voluntary, standardized, independent test which is maintained and administered by the PTC to test aromatherapy concepts and knowledge with a focus on safety standards required for the professional practice of aromatherapy, in order to ensure public safety (www.aromatherapycouncil.org).

The ARC exam creation, item review, and process of administering is clearly discussed on the ARC website. The test is composed of multiple choice questions that have been submitted directly to PTC by aromatherapy educators, schools, colleges, RA’s, and industry members. In addition, as a school’s curriculum changes and new knowledge is added to the aromatherapy practice, test questions can be sent to PTC to be added to the test bank.  ARC follows the PTC’s rigorous procedures and processes in order to “ensure fair, valid, and reliable examinations that reflect current best practice of the aromatherapy profession…” The test items go through many series of review by subject experts and PTC test development specialists at least annually. The areas tested are listed in the ARC’s content outline. Further, “exam items reflect current best practices, and item writers are asked to provide at least two professional references for all multiple-choice questions. Once submitted, all new items… go through editing and psychometric review by PTC.”

The testing protocol that ARC has created gives the aromatherapy community a reliable, valid, and fair assessment tool that can assess Aromatherapists knowledge base of best practices. Based on their test review practices, discussed both on their website and on PTC’s website, it is erroneous to believe that the test items are outdated, inaccurate, and have never been updated. The PTC and ARC requires a minimum of annual review of the current test items in the bank and of newly submitted items.  A review of test items is an arduous and lengthy process and must be done sequestered and confidentially, to ensure test security. ARC accepts test items from RA’s and the practicing aromatherapy community. There is a protocol to submit to PTC and it can be reviewed on their website. However, if test items are sent directly to any ARC board member in any other method, they become invalid and cannot be used.

Discussion                                                                     There has been discussion in the aromatherapy community about the ARC and its current relevancy to the profession. The perceptions of ARC’s connections to a specific school college, conflict of interests, and the test being outdated due to new trends in the profession are perceptions that are not true, and are being perpetuated among the aromatherapy community with or without any valid basis. Indeed, one of the purposes of this paper was to discuss the ARC as a council and their procedures regarding the testing as being outdated. Some of the information gathered for this paper brought to light not only the testing information, but also gave insight to the allegations of conflict of interest and connections to a specific school.

This author emailed the ARC to ensure that the general information gained from their website was accurate. The response from the directors was timely, courteous, and informative, and pointed out a few small inaccuracies and then were corrected by the author. Although the IRS annual files for not-for-profit organizations are public record and detailed files can be requested through IRS channels. this author specifically requested documentation from ARC that would show the financial and contractual obligations of the Council. The purpose was to attempt to ascertain the social media discussions of ARC’s connection with any school, or other organization.  After consulting with ARC legal staff, four (4) documents were sent to the author for viewing: 1. PTC contract; 2. Admin Contract; 3. Annual ARC Balance Sheet; and 4. Annual Profit and Loss sheet. Also included in this email was a statement (see appendix, pg. 1) for this paper that was approved by their legal counsel (aromatherapy council, personal communication, July, 13, 2017).

Based on the documents provided to this author and the information on ARC website, there is no evidence found that: 1. the test is outdated, invalid, unreliable and unfair; and 2. The organization is connected financially to any other organization other than PTC. This does not mean that there are not potential issues that could and should be addressed, but the scope of this paper was limited to only what was visible to this author through their website, general social media, and the communications from the ARC. One of the comments from ARC legal counsel in email communication was pertinent to the current discussions that are ongoing on social media:

it is almost impossible to wage a campaign on social media and “win.”  From the safety of their computer screen, people are always more willing to be inappropriate, assert claims, and “fight.”  And it seems that there is always a new social media site to have to consider, whether it is facebook, Instagram, twitter, or what have you.  Further, it is easier to say the wrong thing on social media, because generally people are responding off the cuff, not in a professional setting or with appropriate consideration of legal implications. Accordingly, I recommend that the organization’s board members simply refer to its published, official responses when responding to assertions on social media, or do not respond at all (aromatherapycouncil, personal communication, July 13, 2017)

It seems as if the perceptions of the aromatherapy community is that it does not support the RA™ exam as a valid, reliable, and fair assessment of an Aromatherapist’s KSA’s. According to the ARC website, there are over 400 RA’s throughout the world, with 130 from the USA. With only a little over 100 RA’s in the USA and the level of discussion observed on FB and other social media, the aromatherapy community does not support the ARC and its mission, or there would be more RA’s. It is necessary to examine why that may be, especially if the aromatherapy community would like a standardized credential for the profession. There may be other barriers not included in the scope of this paper that should be explored, such as cost of the exam, continuing education costs for renewal, the requirements of the various schools 200 hour curriculum, and others. The aromatherapy community’s “buy-in” is critical. With “buy-in”, the RA™ becomes an important aspect of professional aromatherapy and if the ARC can move to accreditation, it will then become a valuable credential in the eyes of the public.  It is paramount that the aromatherapy community would need to embrace the ARC and assist in promoting the RA™ exam, its goal to become an accredited credential, and its mission of professional self-regulation.

The RA™ exam is a valid, reliable, and fair assessment of the KSA’s and general body of knowledge of an Aromatherapist who has had training in a 200-hour program or training that meet the content outline of ARC. ARC has a goal of having their test become accredited through an accreditation agency. If ARC were to attain accreditation, their RA™ exam would become an accredited credential. Currently, the exam meets the criteria required to apply for accreditation, according the ICE/NCCA check list of standards (www.credentialingexcellence.org). One major challenge to becoming accredited is that the self-assessment process is in-depth, detailed, and costly. This process would require many hours of volunteer teamwork. The ARC may not have the volunteer person-power and or the funds to begin this process, at this time.

Regarding the discussions surrounding the aromatherapy community wanting to have some type of regulation, the ARC began with becoming self-regulating in mind. They state on their website:

The ARC voluntary exam emphasizes an Aromatherapist’s knowledge of public safety issues and promotes the interests of the entire professional aromatherapy community by illustrating to regulatory bodies that the aromatherapy industry is sufficiently mature to self-regulate, and does not need to be regulated from outside or above.

With a history of the aromatherapy community desiring self-regulation, working with the ARC may be the path to follow because (1). It has already been created and has policies and procedures in place; (2). The RA™ exam is valid, reliable, and fair; and (3). Meets the checklist of standards for the NCCA self-study to become an accredited credential. With the support of the community, this will lead to a stronger public stakeholder acceptance of professional skills and knowledge.

According to this author’s general evaluation of the ARC’s procedures, practices, and protocols, the RA™ exam is a valid, reliable, and fair assessment of an Aromatherapist’s knowledge and best practices based on a 200-hour training course. In addition, according to the ICE/NCCA preliminary checklist, this exam could very well meet the credential accreditation standards after undergoing a rigorous self-study which would cement the exam as a credential.

essential oils on the scientific sheet with medicinal herbs

The aromatherapy community desires to have a credential that validates an Aromatherapist’s KSA’s and general body of knowledge that will set them apart from those with little to no education. This author suggests that it is already here, although not a credential, the RA™ exam is currently the national test that can show stakeholders and clients an Aromatherapist’s competence of 200 hours of education. It is far from perfect and there are many more questions that will arise with further discussion, but it is what is available now and the groundwork has been laid for it to become better. Resources and manpower would need to come from the aromatherapy community, funding would come from fund raising, grants, or other funding streams. With more help for the ARC, it follows that there could be great strides in moving forward to the goal of a professional credential, which is what the aromatherapy community desires.

Going forward, there are many questions that need to asked. To begin the discussion, these are some of the questions that could be explored as a start:

  1. How can the Council expand to become more diverse in scope?
  2. What level of transparency and efforts of communication does the ARC need to provide the aromatherapy community in order to gain support?
  3. What is needed from the ARC for the aromatherapy community to begin to advance the importance of becoming an RA? And how can the need for marketing the importance and value of the exam in the U.S. be addressed?
  4. Does the level of testing needed to assess the KSA’s and body of knowledge meet the new trends and best practices of aromatherapy? And, how can the aromatherapy community be ensured that is the case without jeopardizing test integrity/security?
  5. Is there is a need for more than one test for the future, for instance, a level 1 test for 200 hours of education, a level 2 test for more advanced hours of education, other types of assessments, such as portfolio, case studies?
  6. How can the aromatherapy community assist with a future accreditation process?
  7. What are other barriers that would prevent Aromatherapists testing and what is needed to overcome them?                                                                                                                        

References

Aromatherapy Registration Council (n.d.). Available: http://www.aromatherapycouncil.org. Last accessed 13 August 2017.

Creswell J W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Gall M, Gall G, Borg W. (2007). Educational Research, 8th ed. Boston, MA.: Pearson

Institute for Credentialing Excellence (nd). Available:  www.credentialingexcellence.org/p/cm/ld/fid=1. Last accessed 13 August 2017.

Professional Testing Corporation (nd). Available: www.ptcny.com. Last accessed 13 August 2017.

Appendix                                                                                                                         The Aromatherapy Registration Council (ARC) was established in 1999, by vote of the Steering Committee for Education Standards in Aromatherapy in the United States.  It is an Oregon public benefit nonprofit corporation, which has been recognized by the IRS to be exempt from tax as a 501(c)(6) organization.   ARC is in compliance with all requirements for this exempt status, which ensure that it is not being administered for the benefit of private individuals.  ARC’s financials are reflected on its annual information return filings on Form 990-N, which may be viewed here:

ARC is not affiliated with any specific school, though individual volunteer board members do have regular employment, which may include (but is not limited to) working for schools, hospitals, aromatherapy organizations, or other organizations in some way related to aromatherapy.  The goal of ARC has been constant since the nonprofit was established: to provide an unbiased, voluntary, standardized, independent test, which is maintained and operated by the Professional Testing Company (PTC), to test aromatherapy concepts and knowledge with a focus on safety standards required for the professional practice of aromatherapy, in order to ensure public safety.  Neither schools nor membership organizations can issue professional certification or registration examinations with credibility. ARC’s independence from membership organizations and any particular school ensures an impartial and unbiased body distinct from a body where members pay to belong, which is essential for objectivity and credibility from both within and without the industry. (aromatherapycouncil, email communication, July 13, 2017).

Judy Klispie–Aromatic Harmony, LLC

jklispie@gmail.com