+- 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 - Marcus Brody - 28th October 2011
P Prentice Wrote:....but ..who and why would anybody challange
To be honest, I don't understand why you don't think anybody would challenge such an opinion. Surely one of the first things we were all taught in archaeology school was to always question sources, and ask who's telling you something and what they've got to gain by telling you it. In this case, it's absolutely clear-cut what the IfA has to gain by presenting opinion as fact, and yet you assume that everyone else will blithely accept it as true without engaging their critical faculties. I think the legal opinion bought by the IfA is far less clear-cut than they would have us believe, and that it wouldn't be difficult to make a coherent and convincing counter-case.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Dinosaur - 29th October 2011
Sparky Wrote:Recent estimate put the work-force of archaeologists at 5862, down from 6200 in 2010, and much less than 6900 in 2009
Those estimates are probably well low, I can think of any number of people who dip in and out of archaeology and would regard themselves as part of the archaeological profession, but are unlikely to reliably turn up in surveys
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 31st October 2011
blah blah - and yet the ifa represent more professional archaeologists than anybody or any other body
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 31st October 2011
yes, it would appear that the IFA represent the majority of archaeologists (and archaeological illustrators and surveyors) who wish to be represented. Want to participate in shaping the future of the profession? Join the IFA. Or sit on the sidelines carping.... :face-approve:
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Sparky - 31st October 2011
P Prentice Wrote:blah blah - and yet the ifa represent more professional archaeologists than anybody or any other body
The point you are missing is that they don't represent the majority of archaeologists...yet. Instead of herding the sheep into their pen, the IfA might be better off making it attractive and without 'apparent threat' to the remaining flock by dealing with the obvious strutural problems which, according to opinions on this forum, is putting people off. I will stress, however, that I agree with a previous post on a previous thread by Chiz that the only way to change the IfA is by getting involved. I would add that the clear indifference of the IfA hegenomy inability to deal with their structural problems is indeed very worrying. Maybe more reason for dissenters to join. Blimey, I've changed my tune over the years......
Foxy. The majority of archaeologists who don't want to be represented by the IfA are not represented by them. Not to mention that they are also the majority of archaeologists.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 31st October 2011
sparky - so it was rhetorical then?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 31st October 2011
Quote:The majority of archaeologists who don't want to be represented by the IfA are not represented by them
Now that would be a good example of opinion presented as fact. :face-approve:
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 31st October 2011
Quote:the IfA might be better off making it attractive and without 'apparent threat' to the remaining flock
So, if the IFA sit on their hands and do nothing all the dissenters will suddenly join and make them more representative? I'd rather the IFA just got on with things as they are doing, their main responsibilitty is to their members. Why alienate those who have joined by abandoning the plan?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Sparky - 31st October 2011
vulpes Wrote:Now that would be a good example of opinion presented as fact. :face-approve:
Any suggestions as to why the majority of archaeologists aren't members of the IfA?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 31st October 2011
Marcus Brody Wrote:To be honest, I don't understand why you don't think anybody would challenge such an opinion. Surely one of the first things we were all taught in archaeology school was to always question sources, and ask who's telling you something and what they've got to gain by telling you it. In this case, it's absolutely clear-cut what the IfA has to gain by presenting opinion as fact, and yet you assume that everyone else will blithely accept it as true without engaging their critical faculties. I think the legal opinion bought by the IfA is far less clear-cut than they would have us believe, and that it wouldn't be difficult to make a coherent and convincing counter-case.
marcus - at the risk of summoning a geofrey howe
the writing is on the wall for you unbelievers and heretics. there will be no place for you in the dark summerless future. you will be swallowed up, spat out and expunged from the not-so-free market you so perilously cling to.
you need to start making preparations to be incorporated into something with a responsible post-holder (and i dont mean a post hole)