+- 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 RO only as approved contractors (/showthread.php?tid=4146)
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Wax - 26th October 2011
If the IFA are not a chartered organisation and do not have properly accredited "qualifications" and are relying on peer review why should they be the organisation that sets the standard for the whole profession? Bearing in-mind that less than half of UK archaeologists are members. I am sure most curators are well aware who the cowboys are on their patch and do not need the registration to tell them who is bad and who is good.
To me it smacks of an over worked and undermanned curatorial service looking for an easy option and passing the buck on their own monitoring responsibilities rather than non registered cowboys causing problems.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 26th October 2011
Wax Wrote:If the IFA are not a chartered organisation and do not have properly accredited "qualifications" and are relying on peer review why should they be the organisation that sets the standard for the whole profession? Bearing in-mind that less than half of UK archaeologists are members. I am sure most curators are well aware who the cowboys are on their patch and do not need the registration to tell them who is bad and who is good.
To me it smacks of an over worked and undermanned curatorial service looking for an easy option and passing the buck on their own monitoring responsibilities rather than non registered cowboys causing problems.
so show us the organisation that represents unregistered archaeologists - or start one and see how far you get
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Wax - 26th October 2011
If BAJR and many of the individuals who contribute to this forum seriously considered starting an organisation separate froM the IFA I would whole heartedly back them. having lurked since day one of BAJR it does seem to me that it has done far more for archaeologists than the official organisations.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - trowelfodder - 26th October 2011
It is an interesting idea but I fear that more factionalism within the profession is not the answer. But I don't know what is the answer is!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 26th October 2011
Quote:why should they be the organisation that sets the standard for the whole profession?
Errm, because no one else has?
Quote:I am sure most curators are well aware who the cowboys are on their patch and do not need the registration to tell them who is bad and who is good.
Maybe not, but it could (and possibly does) help.
Quote:But I don't know what is the answer is!Join the IFA?
Quote:If BAJR and many of the individuals who contribute to this forum seriously considered starting an organisation separate froM the IFA I would whole heartedly back them.Yeah, it could be called the BAJR Federation perhaps? :face-approve:
And finally...
Quote:less than half of UK archaeologists are membersOh, I see what you did there. Clever. After all anyone can call themselves an archaeologist. Eh, Unitof1?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 26th October 2011
I don't think the question is what the standard is. and yes.. in the old days I did seriously consider BAJR as a separate organisation for the then IFA - hence much battling - but I preferred an open conciousness, and yes they do listen/read/watch. This is a good touchstone of what is being thought. No really! I often get emails from vvery senior people who admit to reading BAJR to see what the current feeling is. (Part of why I want to see more positive posts as well! )
As to setting standards. Done...
As to adhering to them. ? In the days when I was not in the IfA I adhered to them... I said so in my WSI and in my agreements. I would abide by these - still do. When I joined, I found out how much of a thorn I was. and had to leave. Now I am am MIfA again (thanks AAI&S) and still abide. Always have, always will. The curator can throw back a crap report, or monitor my work - and even quote IfA guidance and standards at me.
THe question here is not IfA good/bad it is - why ? WHY? If I have been a good contractor, have never done a bad bit of work, have always handed in my reports and made corrections when demanded should I know Have to (" HAVE TO " mind you) to continue to do a good job. THe only change is not whether I am doing good work... it is whether I have paid my RO fee .
Currently - and again - for reasons of AUP - I know of certain breaches, which the IfA can't deal with, because nobody is willing to go the long haul and make a complaint. I can only say that I often talk directly to a company... let them know I know about a certain issue and look for a way of resolving it.
I am in the IfA but not an RO... are you seriously telling me, that RO status will make me better?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - GnomeKing - 26th October 2011
Good discussion - 2cents - exposing shoddy practice by RO (and others) is critical to forcing the IFA to demonstrate that it can effectively be a touchstone. ... if the IFA can not do this (and soon) then it is quite clear that certain large commercial units are determined to force everybody else out!
no more guidlines and statements and 'visions' - something concrete is needed...effectively something with big financial consequences for the offending employer (sorry
)... enough fiddling around the edges!we need demonstrable commitments to the future of the profession - not a slow corporate death...
IFA RO only as approved contractors - trowelfodder - 26th October 2011
Im in agreement with you on this one Rat, I have no problem adhering to the standards of the IFA but I do not see that a few letters after my name are any better a recommendation than doing good work. ROs can do good or bad work as can non RO.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Dinosaur - 26th October 2011
Speaking as a SPO employed for the last 21 years (on and off) by a non-RAO, we regularly win work on grounds of quality over both ROs and non-ROs (including for EH, Environment Agency and similar 'non-commercial' organisations), so its not obvious where the 'quality' bit of the RO status comes in.....oh, and yes, we do follow IFA standards but mainly coincidentally since all that IFA has done really is bother to write down what was pretty much consensually common best practice anyway, and provides a handy short-hand for contractors and curators
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 26th October 2011
This thread was originally about whether it was legally enforceable for a local planning authority to require archaeological works to be carried out by an IFA registered organisation? Not whether some ROs are naughty and some non-ROs are naughty, there'll always be naughty contractors... that much is sure.
But if loss of RO status means no work... oh look the IFA just got teeth! :face-approve: