+- 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 to be abolished and replaced by...... (/showthread.php?tid=5226)
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - BAJR - 13th February 2014
Interesting comment by John Wood on Britarch
Quote:As I said many moons ago the archaeological profession is more than adept at undermining its own
credibility. It is as if it is subject to suicide watch. While the general public look up to archaeologists, archaeologists look down upon themselves.
Hence why archaeology always seems to be searching for the recognition it feels it ought to have even though it has already attained it within the public perception.
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - Dinosaur - 13th February 2014
I doubt the public perception has much overlap with the realities of commercial archaeology (as opposed to the fluffy TT approach they've mainly been exposed to) - certainly not much, judging by the step-change in approach anytime one gets involved in a 'public archaeology' project...discuss...:face-thinks:
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - Steve H - 13th February 2014
This is quite a conversation, I think us too are as guilty of being ruled by our egos as those who see the IFA as purely a source of extra letters after their names!
I'll agree with the first point.
Second point, acceptance to the various grades is a little random, perhaps due to the IFA adjudicators, and it is easily fixed. I've seen appaulling archaeologists accepted to be MIFAs, and good ones only accepted at AIFA grade (suprise suprise, I'm a AIFA!).
Fourth, what prolonged training and formal qualification is required? I have two degrees in history, the Senior Project Officer opposite me has no degree. I recall getting 1/2 an hours training on my first day in the job.
Fifth, you are quite right, but the names on the ballot meant nothing to me. Voting would have been hypocritical.
Lastly, yes, apart from us, archaeology does not mean a great deal to the population in general. I think in reality it will take a lot more than negotiation with unit managers to push up wages and conditions.
I don't whether it is a sandy silt or a silty sand, just as long as it is not described as a clayey silty sandy loam!
Very lastly, I became hostile to the IFA very early in my career, when I started to realise that the boses I had most respect for were generaly not members and the ones I did not respect generally were. I can see a very similar split along the same lines in our office when we discuss the chartered status.
I think the fear a lot of us have over the chartered status is because because we don't trust the ability of the IFA to potentially assess who is a good archaeologist and who isn't and therefore who will work and who will not.
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - Steve H - 13th February 2014
I've just been chatting to a land surveyor (someone who uses a GPS and TST properly) about their chartered institute (RICS).
£250 per year, need to be qualified to degree level, need to attend CPD regularly, to join you have to be continualy assessed for about 2 years and it is dominated by suits rather than real surveyors. He is not a member and has no problem getting work.
Compare and contrast...
Perhaps we have little to fear from the Royal Institute of Chartered Archaeologists!
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - P Prentice - 13th February 2014
Steve H Wrote:Perhaps we have little to fear from the Royal Institute of Chartered Archaeologists!commonly to be referred to as 'richer'?
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - Dinosaur - 13th February 2014
Who, the be-suited members or the non-members getting their hands dirty?
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - P Prentice - 13th February 2014
Dinosaur Wrote:Who, the be-suited members or the non-members getting their hands dirty?who cares about non-members?
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - Dinosaur - 13th February 2014
Precisely :face-approve:
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - GnomeKing - 13th February 2014
Bile hurts so bad -
In parallel worlds, being enfolded with KW++, would be lovely.
Still nerves here seem badly frayed;
Thus, in spirit of harmony,
[and not doing this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBdwAW05Oq0]
I revisit some previous thoughts;
Trade/Profession etc> high manual skills and techniques has a lot in common with many trades, as do many practical concerns in excavations – more nebulous 'heritage management' has much in common with many other office based professions (no disrespect intended)>>> it may not be possible to square the circle here,
but I suggest thinking about how different kinds of work can best be 'assessed' >
in relation to the 'trade' end of archaeology - especially (but not only) highly skilled and knowledgeable field workers – I invite general consideration of ICON >
where:
correct technical practice is of absolute concern, and consequently is very rigorously assessed.
I invite the CIFA to take up this challenge :
create a new kind of specific 'accredited field-archaeologist',
;specifically to cover the extremely essential, highly experienced individuals who actual make all this heritage out of what is otherwise a pile of wet mud; people whose expertise and data is foundational to the professions of others, and have been exceedingly undervalued for a very long time.
I want to see veteran archaeologists applying and passing on their skills and knowledge – I think the best are easily worth 'management-level' pay grades, regardless of there specific responsibilities.
I want the best of these people to seen, respected, and valued, as essential technical experts, excavation specialists, etc., > this would give a realistic career-end point in 'technical archaeology' for those not ambitious to fight over a small pool of 'office jobs'.
I propose that under such a system, ' accredited excavation specialists ' could form the basis of site-spot checking of commercial practice and skills-base, in the form of CIFA 'jury service' site visits.
I also challenge the CIFA to also apply rigours checks to those in the more 'managerial' roles in ROAs– ie specifically whether they meet criteria as competent 'professional managers' (yuk! What is that ?!), regardless of their technical competencies. > IE An effective manager need not be a technical expert, but are all of these managers actually effective – how can the good ones be highlighted?
Most Importantly for all sides, members or not : the process of complaints needs to be robust (and possibly redemptive:-
why dont staff complain more? > because in small teams, or as temporaries, it is not only painfully obvious who has likely complained, but since the change in employment laws the vast majority employed in commercial archaeology have very few usable rights...unfortunately many ROAs have a very strong vested interest in NOT employing too many potential 'trouble-makers', i.e. independently trained, high-skill 'trades-people' who 'knows-wots-wot'...the can not help but to prefer instead a strongly hierarchical structure, in which 'site-workers' have very few cards to play.....
>also, sometimes, one might just pity the sad old bastard, and feel uncomfortable about upsetting their mediocre careers/companies...or the poor staff still working for 'em....
IfA to be abolished and replaced by...... - BAJR - 13th February 2014
Lovely... Harmony and argued debate.
to GK's coherent ideas, I also agree... though this does tend towards the GErman syste, where a 3 year course in the technical aspects of excavation do not make you an archaeologist. but rather a technician - and that sticks in ma craw!
I would however be happy with An Archaeological Technician (thems that do things to the earth) Archaeological Specialists (thems that have machines that go beep or magnifying glasses) and Archaeological Managers. (thems that wear suits and gortex, but win contracts )
A scheme that rewards "good practice" rather than just punishes bad.
much to contemplate
Quote:I've just been chatting to a land surveyor (someone who uses a GPS and TST properly) about their chartered institute (RICS).
£250 per year, need to be qualified to degree level, need to attend CPD regularly, to join you have to be continualy assessed for about 2 years and it is dominated by suits rather than real surveyors. He is not a member and has no problem getting work.
Compare and contrast...
Perhaps we have little to fear from the Royal Institute of Chartered Archaeologists!
I absolutely agree