+- 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: Professional Organisations in Archaeology (/showthread.php?tid=985)
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - Unitof1 - 17th June 2008
Theres no such thing as an independant overseer. I put a complaint in to the ifa and it was not delt with fairly or impartially and every day I stuff it up their atrium and will do to the day they die
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - 1man1desk - 17th June 2008
Posted by Drumcharry:
Quote:quote:Therefore the idea that the IFA has no authority over non members is entirely false if they work within an RAO. There is a very interesting legal point here that you cannot be bound by the rules of an organisation that you chose not to sign up to but, in order to gain employment, you are forced to comply with that organisation which does not necessarily have authority or consensusI think you are missing the point a bit.
The IFA can take disciplinary action against its own members, or against RAOs. It is up to RAOs themselves to ensure that their staff adhere to IFA standards (whether or not the staff are IFA members), through the instructions they issue to their staff, or through contracts of employment.
In the event of a breach of IFA standards by a non-member employed by an RAO, it would be up to the RAO (the individual's employer) to put things right, potentially through disciplinary action against their employee, either for wilfully disobeying instructions or for breach of contract.
The IFA might take disciplinary action against the RAO (not the non-member individual), if a complaint was made (and upheld after investigation) to the effect that the employee committing the breach had done so because they were told to by their employer, or that the employer was complicit in the breach because they had done nothing to prevent it or put it right.
If the breach had been committed by an IFA member, then (after a complaint and an investigation) the IFA could take action against either the individual, the RAO or both.
Of course, if the unit involved is not an RAO and the individual is not a member, then neither is subject to the IFA disciplinary code, and no-one can do anything. That is the main point, and the reason why the IFA is not a 'vanity' organisation - its members, and its RAOs, voluntarily submit themselves to the IFA standards and disciplinary code. People who choose to stay outside the IFA are free to practice to a lower standard if they want to, and accountable to no-one for doing so.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - Sith - 17th June 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Drumcharry
'Offarch?'
How many of us really think that things would be any better if there was in 'independant' regulator staffed by Lord Renfrew, David Miles, Tony Robinson and Lloyd Grossman et al? Oh and add a few managers from the Bigger contractors to the list (Oxford and Wessex), for their commercial input.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Don't make me destroy you, Curator
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - 1man1desk - 17th June 2008
Posted by Oxbeast:
Quote:quote:Someone has mentioned on another thread that there are a couple of pipelines going ahead without watching briefs, on the basis that all the archaeology has been positively identified from the geophysics. I have no idea about this case, but was that decision made by a member, or a member of staff of an RAO? I agree that very serious breaches are not common, but they do happen.It has not been established that there was any breach at all, never mind a serious one. You would have to have a lot of knowledge about the basis of the decision, not just a knee-jerk reaction based on little knowledge.
The decision on whether or not a watching brief was required would normally be made by a planning authority on the advice of a curator, not by an archaeological unit. However, even the curator can normally only advise on the decision - it is actually made by a planning officer, not an archaeologist at all, in deciding whether to impose a planning condition.
Even where decisions can be made by an archaeologist, the IFA Standards and Guidance largely regulate how archaeological work is done, not the decisions as to whether it should be done. I am not sure if the new interim standard and guidance on stewardship of historic places would cover this, but it might.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - kevin wooldridge - 17th June 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Sith How many of us really think that things would be any better if there was in 'independant' regulator staffed by Lord Renfrew, David Miles, Tony Robinson and Lloyd Grossman et al? Oh and add a few managers from the Bigger contractors to the list (Oxford and Wessex), for their commercial input. [/i]
Don't really have a view on this subject one way or another, but have followed the discussion and feel my fourpence-worth worth adding.....an 'independant' regulator does not have to be an archaeologist or even a standing committee. If there is a clear set of rules to which archaeologists are subject, any form of arbitration tribunal could decide whether the rules have been breached.
Works for plenty of other professions.
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - Drumcharry - 17th June 2008
It would be nice to think that half a dozen or so ex archaeologists, developers or experienced arbitrators would give their time either on a voluntary basis or for minimal fees. Where would the inevitable costs be raised from? Perhaps the board could be set up as a charity or gain funds from central government, i'm really not sure!
To put it simply I would just like to ensure fairness and transparency in contentious issues such as complaints and don't believe that there is any solid evidence to prove that organisations such as the IFA can supply this in fact there is a clear opinion that they can't and don't amongst a great many people.
What I am seeing in this thread is very much an obstructive approach from those who support the IFA, presumably financially as well as vocally, whereas amongst others there seems to be a general perception that a more independent regulatory body is desirable. What it needs is for a committed individual or individuals to investigate how to set up and fund such a body, I believe it would be possible to achieve such an end and cannot see how it could be anything other than welcomed by those archaeologists who genuinely want to see their profession be fair and respected.
By being the only apparent 'port of call' for non members wishing to complain about members and not being answerable to independent monitoring cannot fail but to make the IFA look 'unfair' whether or not it's judgements are so I think it is in their best interests too, to support any new body.
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - Paul Belford - 17th June 2008
Hmmm. I am sympathetic to many of these concerns - especially where a situation might involve a complaint against alleged misbehaviour by organisation whose senior staff are also senior members of IFA Council (for example). However where does it stop? Who overlooks the overseeing body? Who appoints its members? Surely the same situation would apply there?
I am concede the point that the IFA is not the sole creator of standards. However (as 1man has pointed out) there is a difference between IFA Standards and Guidance and (for example) EH Standards and Guidance. The IFA S&G specify how certain types of project should be undertaken in terms of the relationships between professionals, the expected outcomes, the extent (and limits) of expert judgement and so-on. The EH S&G (although very varied) specify the detail of recording methods, drawing conventions, presentation styles, content and so-on. Whilst there is some overlap, I think these two types of 'standard and guidance' have very different roles - one is strategic and the other is tactical, if you like.
In my personal view the best solution really is to try and work with the mechanism we already have rather than to recreate it all from scratch. The IFA, whatever its flaws, is the profession's best response to these issues. It is worth noting that the IFA does have a "Committee on Working Practices in Archaeology" which "monitors the standard and nature of the provision of archaeological services in the UK, including continued monitoring of the implementation of the IFA's Code of Approved Practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology".
The only way that this will actually work is for EVERYONE to join the IFA and exert influence on it through voting at the AGM and attending conference. Then it would be a much more representative organisation and a more effective one.
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - Sparky - 18th June 2008
No one is advocating starting from scratch predominately because some of the advantages the IFA offers to our industry are attractive and beneficial but there are unresolveable issues that previous experience apparently indicates that the Institute cannot peform fairly or adequately. As Kevin has put brilliantly and simply, an overseeing body works well for other professions.
I can only see this as being benficial to the IFA by offering a higher level of confidence to those who have difficulty in giving it their faith through accountability to another place.
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - oldgirl - 18th June 2008
I can see your point Sparky, but I think it could follow on from Paul Belford's point. If we were all members and people like you were involved in the deecision making processes, wouldn't that mean we were putting our trust in you and others like you, rather than another group of (potentially non-archaeological) individuals who may not have a full understanding of the profession and its vagaries?
And on the decision making process, I still think there is a fundamental incompatibility between transparency and protecting individuals on either side of a complaint.
Professional Organisations in Archaeology - Sith - 18th June 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge
Don't really have a view on this subject one way or another, but have followed the discussion and feel my fourpence-worth worth adding.....an 'independant' regulator does not have to be an archaeologist or even a standing committee. If there is a clear set of rules to which archaeologists are subject, any form of arbitration tribunal could decide whether the rules have been breached.
Works for plenty of other professions.
I was really only being fatuous, however, given the slanging matches that ensue between achaeologists on this subject, can you imagine how they/we'll feel when called to account by (gasp) non-archaeologists?
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Don't make me destroy you, Curator