+- 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: Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger (/showthread.php?tid=3122)
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - Dinosaur - 24th September 2010
So IFE members would be more use at a barbie than IFA members? Excellent, I'm in! Chuck another prawn on for me :face-approve:
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - ecmgardner - 24th September 2010
Sorry to be dull and go back on :face-topic:... if not merger / amalgamation then what? There obviously needs to be more to drive the AAI&S forward and an alternative proposal, and the willing volunteers to match.
Personally I feel Colin is right about the website (and *ahem* I'm the webmaster so it's really my responsibility... and change has been on the cards for quite some time. I think it has been sensible to put that on hold, along with the monies that were to be spent on it, until the future of the Association is decided).
IMHO the Association needs to get more business savvy - formulate a mission statement and create some clear guidance to its remit, however the most logical change is one to its corporate membership structure. I would propose it needs to mirror the IfA or BAJR payscales so when you become a member the rest of the archaeological profession can equate you to a level they understand (... ah so you're Practitioner / Assocaite / Member / Affiliate AAI&S). Then the subscriptions can reflect the expected pay of those levels with exemptions for those unemployed or self-employed etc. This would hopefully pay for some of the website and administrative upgrades that are needed to push the whole things forward, and you're only paying subscription rates according to your means. Nevertheless this is a members organisation and a new proposal needs the input and clearly expressed desires of the membership.
Having said all that it comes back to the root of the problem - time and expertise. I wasn't able to attend the AGM and the recent conference so this may all seem a little hypocritial. On the other hand I'm happy to put my head above the parapet and say I'd willingly take on an even more active role but I've got 2 children (16 months and a 5 week old baby who I'm rocking in her bouncy chair as I type) and couldn't commit for another 2 years as my hubbie has a 'proper' non-archaeological job and brings home the bacon. So who's going to come forward, or is it a case of deathly silence as the call of "volunteers anyone" goes up?
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - BAJR - 25th September 2010
I do think that the subscriptions need to rise. That we need to be more active... and this is only possible when goodwill is put to one side, and expenses & costs are met properly.
Aas to grading... the BAJR system should work for it... wage wise.. if it can be agreed - by the AAI&S - what a junior illustrator, illustrator and senior illustrator should get paid. (for example) The Practitioner, Associate, Member ... salary related subs should work as well.
The idea of MAAI&S becoming MIFA just does not work... as poor old Vulpes would not be able to tell whether the person could manage a site... but would be reassured by teh MIFA letters...
People do need to start stepping up... but to what?
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - ArcServ - 2nd October 2010
In response to comments: The original concept of MIFA as defined was "a person judged to have expertise and years of experience, capable of managing all aspects of complex projects". In recent times this has been extended to cover those excelling in a speciality, not necessarily archaeological management. Many briefs and specifications state "project to be managed by an MIFA" in the expectation that this will ensure that the manager is capable of managing the project. IFA rules state that an MIFA must not undertake projects that they are not equipped to handle but the accreditation was originally intended to ensure competence. Clients, Authorities have no way of assessing if an MIFA is capable, relying only on the accreditation. The merger proposes all MAAIS are given MIFA, this means that somebody say very expert in reconstruction, could be considered by others to be capable of "managing all aspects of complex projects". Whilst I have no objection to a expert specialist being acknowledged as such, this is producing confusion, which does the profession no good
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - ArcServ - 2nd October 2010
What's up with you dozy lot. How is a solution to be found if people cant be bothered to comment or make productive suggestions. If you cant be bothered to contribute, you get what you get which may not be ideal, so don't then moan about it.
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - Dinosaur - 2nd October 2010
Since when did someone being a MIFA make them competent to run a site/project? I've worked for/carried MIFAs in the past who weren't competent to get out of bed of a morning....conversely there are plenty of excellent managers/directors who aren't IFA members of any grade
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - ArcServ - 3rd October 2010
Dinosaur Wrote:Since when did someone being a MIFA make them competent to run a site/project? I've worked for/carried MIFAs in the past who weren't competent to get out of bed of a morning....conversely there are plenty of excellent managers/directors who aren't IFA members of any grade
Whilst I agree that some who are MIFA couldn't run a booze up in a brewery, that is hardly the point. The system is supposed to work by accrediting only those who are competent. Its a problem for the IFA, which will have to be resolved but this is a different subject. My point was that the problem isn't helped by giving out MIFA willy-nilly.
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - BAJR - 3rd October 2010
So what is more likely is that MAAI&S will find them selves offered the useful AIfA grade... or worse the PIfA grade. and we are still in the same position of not knowing who is good at what?
Has the debate come out yet from the AAI&S cos as a member I have seen nothing yet... :0 to be honest, along with several members, we knew nothing about this until I was informed about it.
What exacatly is the benefit.. to anyone?
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - Grumblestiltskin - 3rd October 2010
To me it seems clear that MIFA is very hard to get and takes many years of fieldwork and management. In places I have worked there are people who have been working in archaeology for a decade or more managing large sites and completing huge reports who still don't have it. In contrast I have seen others with no fieldwork experience and one year of graphics work (plus degrees in archaeology or illustration usually) who have Master Illustrator grade based on a good portfolio. Obviously both would be competent at their job but one is far more senior and paid accordingly (not talking about myself here!). If such an illustrator were to be recognised as a MIFA then it makes a nonsense of the IFA pay grade systems and diminishes the value of getting MIFA status for a fieldworker. Since the grades offered by the illustrators organisation are not equivalent to IFA grades then the only other alternative would be to give a PIFA grade which is also not appropriate. Reassessing the work of all the illustrators is obviously out of the question too.
Perhaps a new approach is needed. Illustrators are not the only ones who would be non-fieldworkers with IFA grades. The three grades might be introduced on a speciality basis, with archaeologists able to hold more than one at a time at different grades. OK this makes more work but at least it would mean something. It would also recognise the talents of people with multiple skills. Briefs could specify that an IFA member with MIFA status in fieldwork could be required to run a site etc... Exactly where to draw the line would be a bit of a nightmare though. Finds, Osteology, environmental - easy enough but management, GIS technicians, desk based specialists and so on might fall between stools. Still better than falling in one I suppose...
Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger - ArcServ - 4th October 2010
Grumblestiltskin Wrote:To me it seems clear that MIFA is very hard to get and takes many years of fieldwork and management. In places I have worked there are people who have been working in archaeology for a decade or more managing large sites and completing huge reports who still don't have it. In contrast I have seen others with no fieldwork experience and one year of graphics work (plus degrees in archaeology or illustration usually) who have Master Illustrator grade based on a good portfolio. Obviously both would be competent at their job but one is far more senior and paid accordingly (not talking about myself here!). If such an illustrator were to be recognised as a MIFA then it makes a nonsense of the IFA pay grade systems and diminishes the value of getting MIFA status for a fieldworker. Since the grades offered by the illustrators organisation are not equivalent to IFA grades then the only other alternative would be to give a PIFA grade which is also not appropriate. Reassessing the work of all the illustrators is obviously out of the question too.
Perhaps a new approach is needed. Illustrators are not the only ones who would be non-fieldworkers with IFA grades. The three grades might be introduced on a speciality basis, with archaeologists able to hold more than one at a time at different grades. OK this makes more work but at least it would mean something. It would also recognise the talents of people with multiple skills. Briefs could specify that an IFA member with MIFA status in fieldwork could be required to run a site etc... Exactly where to draw the line would be a bit of a nightmare though. Finds, Osteology, environmental - easy enough but management, GIS technicians, desk based specialists and so on might fall between stools. Still better than falling in one I suppose...
I completly agree, its a muddle. Perhaps the solution is as you say to have grades of MIFA but don't see how it would work. This MIFA stuff is all very relevant but is distracting.
The critical issue is, the merits or otherwise of AAI&S merging with IFA. I have not yet seen a proposal, structure or argument, that is convincing.