+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: IFA membership (/showthread.php?tid=35)
IFA membership - kevin wooldridge - 21st November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
This is a very useful resource - but it needs a health warning. Different organisations use titles differently. I know, for instance, that the advertised posts in the top 3 in the 'archaeologist' column were all for a higher level of responsibility than that shown
I take your point, but I have only put in the table what the advert says. You are almost certainly right when you say that some of the advertised posts of 'archaeologist' were for a higher level than shown, but if that is the case then it seems to me that this should be made clear in the advert. I would guess if the advertiser began to get lots of applications from archaeologists who clearly didn't fit the job profile, they might consider their wording the next time a similar post was advertised. We did have a lengthy discussion on BAJR earlier this year about how archaeologists would prefer to be titled in their job description and if I remember correctly 'archaeologist' was the clear favourite.
To balance it out, I suspect that the same disparity actually happens at the lower end of the salary range as well, where units may advertise for site assistants with minimal experience, but are quite happy to accept applications from and employ staff which much wider and longer archaeological experience.
Part of my survey is actually recording the various job titles used in adverts and you will see in the league table that I have 'footnoted' a number of posts which I think are comparable. A good example being Keeper and Assistant Keeper at Newcastle which I have translated as equivalant to Project Manager and Project Officer.
If you actually have verifiable evidence that the top 3 posts in my table were actually for posts above the level of 'experienced archaeologist', I will happily revise the list. At the end of the day though this collation was never intended to be rocket science, merely a helpful guide for BAJR-ites.
IFA membership - 1man1desk - 21st November 2005
Kevin,
The organisations ranked 2= in your list are both consultancies; 'Archaeologist' in those companies would normally mean someone with AIFA level responsibilities. I am very confident about one of those jobs because I know that firm well.
The organisation ranked 1 in your list is a regular client of mine, and I am pretty sure that their archaeologists are all at a MIFA level of responsibility.
I can't comment on the adverts as I didn't see them and I can't access ones that are no longer current. However, I know that at least one of those adverts would have described the work involved in some detail.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
IFA membership - troll - 21st November 2005
Barnsey-many thanx.Will be a good thread.I have to take issue with you on one count.If someone is working in a consultancy and responsible for previously agreed mitigative strategy, I would be appalled if said individual did not come from a field work background.Have plenty examples of where such consultants have been responsible for hack and slash archaeology.
IFA membership - the invisible man - 21st November 2005
How is the consultant responsible for hack and slash? Surely the strategy all had to be to the satisfaction of the curator?
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
IFA membership - troll - 21st November 2005
There are times when consultancies are so well known by curators that said consultancies work without checks and balances from curatorial staff.
IFA membership - 1man1desk - 22nd November 2005
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:Have plenty examples of where such consultants have been responsible for hack and slash archaeology
Quote:quote:There are times when consultancies are so well known by curators that said consultancies work without checks and balances from curatorial staff
Presumably, though, the consultancies would only be given free run like that if they were not only well-known to the curators but also trusted by them. Still sounds like a dereliction of duty by the curators if they allow anyone, no matter how well they know them, to work without the checks and balances that are a central part of the curator's role.
In any case, the 'hack and slash' is actually perpetrated by the field units, not the consultants (although the units could be encouraged by bad consultants). Surely those actually doing the damage on the ground are at least as responsible as those who asked them to do it?
Troll, we have had a lot of this discussion before, so I don't want to rehash too much old ground. However, my experience in 12 years of consultancy is that consultants spend a lot of time trying to get the units to do the work up to the proper standard, rather than forcing them to compromise their standards.
Most of this happens in meetings (on or off site) and/or correspondence between the consultant and the PM or PO in the unit, and they tend not to publicise the rockets they get, so if you haven't been directly on the receiving end you may not be aware of it. It also often occurs during (and in relation to) post-excavation and recording, so if you work mainly on site you may not be aware of it.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
IFA membership - Curator Kid - 23rd November 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
There are times when consultancies are so well known by curators that said consultancies work without checks and balances from curatorial staff.
Not where I work they don't. No Curators I know would operate like this either.