+- 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: Southport consultation (/showthread.php?tid=3909)
Southport consultation - the invisible man - 27th April 2011
Spot on, Jack.
Southport consultation - troll - 27th April 2011
Indeedy Jack. Very well said sire!
Sinister cost-cutting attempts perhaps.....the de-professionalising of the industry maybe......clear breach of IfA regs-certainly.....clear material breach of the Valetta Convention...definately. Also-to play devils` advocate here-having read the IfA summary for this consultation I`m not convinced that many of the fine wish-lists of the above subscribers will get a look in?
Southport consultation - Boxoffrogs - 27th April 2011
Hey Jack I agree 100% with you...the IfA etal really need to get their heads around the fact that by insisting that vols and other unpaids are on site it will kill off our 'profession'...welcome to the 1920's....
Southport consultation - Unitof1 - 27th April 2011
Quote:
vols
I have been looking for a way to spell it for years
Southport consultation - Martin Locock - 27th April 2011
The Southport proposals are more coherent than at first appears:
at present, pretty much anybody can call themselves archaeologists and do planning work; this means that curators have to specify, monitor, approve each project to ensure standards are maintained
the proposal is that archaeology becomes chartered (either growing of IfA or not), and because the chartered bodies will have to maintain standards to maintain their chartered status, curators can be much more light touch
(to reply to Kevin Woolridge's point about archaeologists that choose not be come chartered - they would be choosing not be practicing archaeologists in any field over which chartering had control)
the public participation element is needed to ensure that under this new chartered model the principle that archaeology is done for the public, and as far as possible with their involvement, is preserved in a context where otherwise they would be routinely excluded. Kate Geary has clarified that the prohibition of volunteers being used to substitute for paid workers will remain in place.
Southport consultation - Unitof1 - 27th April 2011
Quote:
at present, pretty much anybody can call themselves archaeologists and do planning work;
I dont think thats true. I have yet to come across a single landowner who decided to undertake the archaeology themselves but I have come across many landowners who have decided to build their own house and very successfully as well. Sorry what was that about chartered?
Southport consultation - Martin Locock - 27th April 2011
From the report:
23. Recognition of
accredited historic
environment
professionals
IHBC and IfA identify the accreditation standards that professionals
should meet to be deemed suitably competent to lead historic
environment projects of various types and complexities. Appropriate
steps should be taken to counteract any market dynamics that
commercially advantage organisations or individuals that do not
meet or do not provide services meeting accepted quality standards,
including the use of planning conditions and supporting documents
and processes
24. Managing quality by
person
IfA increases its encouragement for and celebration of innovation
and leadership
IfA seeks a Royal Charter of Incorporation with a view to offering
relevant chartered status to historic environment practitioners
IfA and IHBC foster, and EH indicate approval for, a culture of
confident professionalism by a variety of means, including a move
away from excessive emphasis on process and product over skills
and judgemen
Southport consultation - Boxoffrogs - 27th April 2011
But is that not what Valletta sort of implies? Why are the IfA et al trying to shoehorn in Volunteers to a soon to be 'chartered' profession. Is it me or am I just missing something here?
Southport consultation - Unitof1 - 27th April 2011
quite boxoffrog ifa are ...
Sorry where does the statements made in the report make it true
Quote:that pretty much anybody can call themselves archaeologists and do planning worklets have some references to examples -thats a well known academic way
Quote:
Appropriate steps should be taken to counteract any market dynamics that commercially advantage organisations or individuals that do not meet or do not provide services meeting accepted quality standards, including the use of planning conditions and supporting documents and processes
appropriate what is appropriate, is there some law against doing archaeology like they have in Scotland. This is archaeology something that you take up because you are interested in it. The people who wrote this report are pension grabbers, they want a forty+ year retirement with whistles and bells.
Quote:commercially advantage organisations or individuals that do not meetwhat is a “commercially advantage organisation that does not meet” it doesn’t make sense.
Martin the people are not archaeologists who write this rubbish, please don’t make me say what I think they are hosty will ban me because he thinks he gets on with them
Southport consultation - moreno - 27th April 2011
"at present, pretty much anybody can call themselves archaeologists and do planning work"
Not in my experience.
"this means that curators have to specify, monitor, approve each project to ensure standards are maintained"
Lets spin this in a different manner. Not all LPA's require IFA membership to engage in commercial archaeology. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the many who frequent BAJR, individuals (non IFA members) and those working for archaeological companies (non RAO) have worked hard to built up a working relationship with the LPA (s) in a relevant area (s). This would imply that an LPA (curator or whatever label you choose) has used their judgement to allow these people to undertake "planning" work.
If an LPA is not comfortable with an individual or company undertaking such work, they can "strongly" recommend IFA membership (or by working with someone whom is MIFA). If the individual or company can't or doesn't comply, "they" are highly unlikely to obtain the work.
So what is the real reason for hegemony?
"the proposal is that archaeology becomes chartered (either growing of IfA or not), and because the chartered bodies will have to maintain standards to maintain their chartered status, curators can be much more light touch"
I sincerely have a hard time believing this is a universal opinion, one shared by all "curators". To be cynical just for a moment, perhaps the motivation is an IFA membership drive to achieve chartered status. This push by the IFA for chartered status is begining to sound like a Byzantine court. What's next? IFA pro forma that all individuals and companies must adopt and purchase? Standardised permatrace sheets? IFA issued soil descriptions? Why not employ monkeys and be done with it. Better yet robots, they don't require feeding.