+- 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! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! (/showthread.php?tid=1395)
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - YellowPete - 15th March 2009
This approach mearly relates to the engagement with the notion of a pofessional situational standard necessary to do a job, given the current economic climate.
The reporting of RAO's has in the past been ineffective and would thus require some way that the standards can be attempted to keep up from the employee point of view rather than as the employer being soley responsible for the work undertaken.
The notion that those at the top are the only ones to blame for a slipping standard is a delusional farce, because as soon as one staff member cuts a corner the rest have to either play catch up or loose out.
this is an ever decreasing circle and as such is why employees must take on the burden of responsibility as much as employers.
Its the same with health and safety. if you see something wrong, you don't walk past saying that is not my responsibility. It is a legally bound joint partnership venture between the employer and employee.
otherwise we may as well just start teaching people to say 'not my problem', 'Sorry I had to do it, it's because I had to put food in front of my kids and as such I don't care!'
txt is
Mike
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - YellowPete - 15th March 2009
But I do understand that what I saying is a big ask and a big risk.
Its got to be backed by the IfA as membership enforcement, rather than as people reporting ROA's.
ROA's versus staff is a stupid tactic, bcause as you say balcklisting is easily done.
Therefore the onus must lie with the IfA!
txt is
Mike
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - oldgirl - 7th April 2009
Sorry, I sort of lost the will to live during the first bit and didn't finish it. In a short way, what was the point about IfA and ROs that you were trying to make?
Based on the later conversation, was it that IfA should be assessing ROs and individual members more often/carefully?
Cheers
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - YellowPete - 13th April 2009
Its a difficult issue to understand
RAO's cant be let to run free of contraints, but likewise all members should be held to the same remit.
The only problem for this is that when the use of the ifa comes into its own the likelihood of subversive tactics using the ifa for commercial gain will also come into the fore.
The ifa has its place where it is as a body whom advocate standards, but as yet it is still too early to access any further.
especially in relation to the future of the profession.
txt is
Mike
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - oldgirl - 14th April 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by YellowPete
Its a difficult issue to understand
RAO's cant be let to run free of contraints, but likewise all members should be held to the same remit.
The only problem for this is that when the use of the ifa comes into its own the likelihood of subversive tactics using the ifa for commercial gain will also come into the fore.
The ifa has its place where it is as a body whom advocate standards, but as yet it is still too early to access any further.
especially in relation to the future of the profession.
txt is
Mike
Still not sure I entirley understand the point(s) you're making, but I'll stick with it!
The main difference between the constraints on ROs and on an individual member is that ALL employees of an RO (whether individual members or not) are expected to abide by the Code of Conduct and the relevent Standards and Guidance. If they don't, the Responsible Post Holder will be held to account by the IfA.
If a RO doesn't abide by those rules, then they can be dropped from the scheme, just as an individual member can be removed from the IfA. Things such as the minimum pay issues are covered within the Code of Conduct under Principle 5 (and so are relevent to all members of IfA):
The member shall recognise the aspirations of employees,
colleagues and helpers with regard to all matters relating to
employment, including career development, health and safety,
terms and conditions of employment and equality of
opportunity. (NB, member in this case is not MIfA, it is all members of the IfA)
So, as far as I can see all members are held to the same remit - the Code of Conduct and Standards and Guidance.
There is then the discussion as to whether all 'archaeologists' ought to be a member of this or any other body in order to call themselves archaeologists. Personally, my present thoughts are that there should be a body which 'registers' archaeologists, and that could include archaeological organisations, and that the code and standards that IfA have developed are a good starting point.
I also think that if this happens, then not only must members apply and go through a validation process, but that they should be re-assessed on a regular basis (perhaps every 2 years) - this already happens with ROs. Having seen the problems associated with getting people to put in the relevant information for validation into IfA at first hand, however, I hesitate to be confident that this would be possible unless it was necessary in order to practice archaeology.
It also seems counter-intuitive to me to suggest that one body would develop the Code and Standards and Guidance (at present IfA) and another body decide whether individuals meet those standards. In the end, is this suggestion to do with individuals/organisations feeling disempowered and worrying that a large number of people (perhaps with a perceived vested interest?) will block attempts to change? That's democracy! (when I rule the worls however..... [:p])
Following on from that, I believe that as an Affiliate you still agree to abide by the Code of Conduct. Why not, therefore, be a corporate member (Member, Associate or Practitioner) and have the opportunity to be involved with the development of and vote on issues which affect the archaeological profession?
(As an ending note - I've been on Validation Committee and on the R(A)O Committee and so have seen some of the decisions for and against membership which have been taken by the people who are - in many cases- giving up their own time to sit on those committees. It's a pretty thankless task alot of the time but people do it because they feel it's important. In the case of the Validation Committee in particular, there is a good mix of PIfA, AIfA and MIfA members and everyone has an equal vote and an equal say. This committee now meets every 6 weeks for a whole day - that's quite a chunk of people's time!)
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - kevin wooldridge - 14th April 2009
Totally agree with OG...
To the question as to whether it is 'too early'... The IfA in its various guises has been around now for close on 30 years. The vast majority of archaeological professionals in the UK have for the whole of their working careers worked within a 'regulatory' climate created and policed by the IfA. In that time no body has emerged as a viable alternative to the IfA and I have never heard it suggested that the IFA standards are too rigourous (infact quite the opposite...).
So the IfA is the only show in town, has been for 30 years and it seems likely to remain that way for some time to come. OK it is still not compulsory to become a member if you want to work in UK archaeology, but....surely it can only be a matter of time.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - the invisible man - 14th April 2009
Agree totally with OG and KW.
I don't know if it's of any great significance, but I notice in the latest TA there seems to be a huge number of new (and transferred) Affiliates.
Is there anything behind this? I wondered if it's due to a lot of student members unable to find employment, but I believe you can keep student status for a year or something? Or is there a dastardly plot?
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - BAJR Host - 14th April 2009
I'll go for the plot theory, its much more exciting than the truth I expect :0)
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - drpeterwardle - 14th April 2009
Kevin said
"So the IfA is the only show in town, has been for 30 years and it seems likely to remain that way for some time to come"
Not quite Kevin there are numerous historic environment bodies not least the IHBC. IFA is currently broadening its remit to meet changes in the industry generally. Do you have to be an archaeologist to undertake a COBRA for example? Before we can licence archaeologists we have to define what archaeology is.
Peter
IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA! - kevin wooldridge - 14th April 2009
Peter suggests that 'before we can licence archaeologists we have to define what archaeology is'.
Fair point but not beyond the realms of fertile imagination. I suggest in the first instance that we could 'borrow' the definition already in place where archaeological practice or archaeologists are currently licenced (Ireland, Scandinavia, Greece, Turkey, France, Egypt, Libya, most of the former Eastern bloc nations, etc etc), cherry-pick the bits we like and spit out the pits we don't .....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...