+- 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 - BAJR - 30th November 2011
Quote:but why?, they will ask, why did it take this man of vision so long to see that the profession lacked professional status, lacked professional credibility, and professional remuneration? why did he stand so long with his back to the future? (couldn?t resist the bad film reference for marcus) and why would he not see that the great unwashed could not afford to study archaeology if they saddled themselves with an unrepayable loan? archaeology for all - indeed
Good question... very good question. And one does have to ask it. Why also did I join the IfA and end up on Council? Why did I resign from that position? Why did I strive to create the better vision along with the IfA and then decide I could not ? Why am I in the IfA again ( thanks AAI&S) and why am I proud of what BAJR is? Do the IfA see BAJR as a pain in the ass or a potential partner? Why should the IfA see BAJR ( basicly one person with loads of fabulous people here to provide argument and advice from all sides) as a threat or even as worthy of consorting with? What would happen if BAJR bent over again and knelt to the IfA ? Questions I have to ask myself. I can say that I have no problem with the ideals of teh IfA I even like many people in it, some don't like me and have tried many interesting ways of 'clipping my wings' or hope I will 'go away' or even - one fave, try to create a BAJR of their own - that failed due to the real effort that goes into it. The question is valid... I can only say... If BAJR is not part of helping push for professionalism and respect, then everything I have done with the aid of others has been for naught. the guides, the talks, the contractor lists, the university courses, the databases and even the wage system.. one which - lets be honest here is now seen as the minima that people have to deal with.
Today I have once again pushed a curatorial group - to stand up and come out about RO only lists (the only verified list for archaeology they say) and at the same time here about employment practice from an RO that shames any talk of professionalism... legal yes, but indefensible on a moral level. Perhaps I should write it all down, because if people knew half of what happens at BAJR HQ, these discussions would not even be happening.
Make me proud to be an RO... thats all I ask. and I really want somebody to say why.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - RedEarth - 1st December 2011
BAJR Wrote:Perhaps I should write it all down, because if people knew half of what happens at BAJR HQ, these discussions would not even be happening.
Is it time for BAJRleaks?
Seriously though, although I have long supported the IfA and am a member, I don't think they represent commercial archaeologists very well. They have recently tried to become all things to all men, by including every heritage professional they possibly can (including the recent AAIS merger farce - I call it that because of the ludicrous way in which IfA members weren't consulted on it) but as a result have become a bit generic.
I hate to say it, but it could really do with another organisation that represents commercial archaeologists properly in ways that - as BAJR puts it - covers the moral running of projects/companies in general rather than in a specifically archaeological sense and increased meaningful professional accreditation and training. Can't see how it's going to happen though.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 1st December 2011
your bajrship
in my humble, and as a mifa, you are needed at ifa. your energy, your drive and your fairness are necessary for this profession and you cant do it alone but you could bring with you a constituency of good sense
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 1st December 2011
Quote:Is it time for BAJRleaks?
You're too late, it's already happened! See above. }
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 1st December 2011
Ignoring the comment above, which just confuses me, though I am sure is quite funny.
I need to hear the argument (and most kind PP ) for RO.
Perhaps it needs a new thread.
Here are the benefits
IfA’s Registered Organisation scheme is a unique quality assurance scheme; there is no equivalent in the historic environment. It is a ‘kite mark’ of commitment to professional standards and competence. Registering your organisation
- allows you to be explicit about the quality of your work
- provides users of your services with a benchmark against which the quality of your organisation may be judged
- highlights your contribution to the protection of the historic environment
- involves monitoring your organisation’s compliance with IfA regulations every two years
- builds on the success of your individual IfA membership
- is open to you regardless of the type of historic environment work you do or the size of your organisation
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 1st December 2011
New thread started. Reasons for RO
I will keep a close eye on it, AS I want to revolve around why it is good, and why people should. With any critique kept to specifics of the RO Scheme - Not anti IfA nor Anti <insert name of RO who you dislike >
IFA RO only as approved contractors - ken_whittaker - 1st December 2011
David
You may be right in describing the RO scheme as 'unique' , but it ain't no quality assurance scheme and is certainly no 'kite mark', whatever the marketing/propaganda claims.
Its the irony I enjoy most ....a quality assurance scheme to promote standards, which itself does not remotely adhere to the standards governing such quality assurance schemes (ie. ISO 9000 family of standards). No doubt those enrolled in the scheme follow the Institute's example and apply a similar commitment to the standards governing the RO scheme. Let be honest nobody could tell one way or the other. Just publish a glowing annual report congratulating the company on another year of quality improvements, ready evidence for the next compliance visit in 18 months.....job done!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 1st December 2011
I remember being at the meeting when teh ISO standards were mooted for archaeology and the costs involved... that made willies shrink and crests fall. Quality matters, but at a cost
IFA RO only as approved contractors - ken_whittaker - 1st December 2011
Costs are a consideration, but such systems provide and demonstrate value, which in turn influences fee levels. So its not simply a question of quality standards, there's a question of investment to consider. Ultimately are we (sh)amatuers or commercial professionals ? If the latter we need to play by their rules not the ones we create for our own convenience.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Wax - 1st December 2011
ken is right there are independent quality assurance schemes out there which are applied across a broad range of industries. These are what organisations should be aspiring too and any internal satndards and quality control mechanisms set up by the IFA or any other archaeological body should refer to them. I have no problems with a scheme of registration for archaeologists but I want that scheme to be robust, to have authority and to stand up to scrunity from outside bodies. This will cost money and will almost certainly upset a lot of current IFa ROs .