IFA membership

[troll]

I`m being naive here....
How would a chartered IFA improve our lot?

[the invisible man]

For starters, the term "archaeologist" would become a protected title, like architect, doctor etc. If you're naughty they can do something about it, up to strike you off, in which case you can't practise. Standards would therefore become mandatory and enforcable. The institute could then bring presuure to bear on training standards, both by unis and employers, by for example acrediting courses. A degree with certain content, for example, could give exemption from IFA entrance examinations.....which you would need to be able to call yourself archaeologist...and you thus have to adhere to those standards and so on. It's what all the other professions do.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

Many thanx Invisible.If that`s the case-I`m sold.Chartered it is then.An end to muppetry.

[Cautionary Tale]

I am very much in favour of chartered status. Not easy I gather from a brief search, the Public Relations people have finally made it. Apparently the 'Chartered' status has to be issued by the Privy Council itself (ie cabinet i fink - please help anyone who knows more). More than that my search turned up:
[url][/url]www.shef.ac.uk/assem/3/3hinton.htm
which I read with due care having searched for the word 'chartered', and there it was - the IFA is pursuing Chartered status. Hurrah
Then I looked at the date: 1997. }
I hope this is just a reflection of the length of time these things take to process. Any thoughts from the great and good out there?[?]

(I really have worked in the field)

[1man1desk]

I am a big supporter of chartered status, which would give the IFA more teeth and all chartered archaeologists more clout in dealing with developers etc.

However, I think one of the obstacles to the IFA achieving chartered status is that they have to show that they represent the majority of the profession. So, anyone staying out of the IFA because it is weak helps to perpetuate that weakness. If we all join - the IFA is strengthened straightaway, and has more chance of achieving chartered status, strengthening it further.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Cautionary Tale]

Well, at the moment the IFA says it has 2000 members of a probable 7000 strong workforce (assuming charitably that all members of the IFA are in the workforce) - something like 29% , very much the minority. I had an exchange with Troll on another thread where I suggested as 1man1desk does that the IFA needs more members to give it the clought to make meaningful change, but the reasonable response was that the IFA has lost some members because of its passive nature in certain debates. The unit where I used to work now only has one IFA member out of eight - whats the balance like elsewhere?

(I really have worked in the field)

[mercenary]

I only know of one member in my company (the boss), out of perhaps 18 archs.

If there are any others they are keeping it very quiet.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

I only know of one member in my company (the boss), out of perhaps 18 archs.

Ummm....there are approximately 50 IFA Registered Archaeological Organisations. The IFA web site suggests that those 50 organisations employ some 1600 archaeologists. Does anyone have idea what percentage of those staff are IFA members? My guestimate would be less than 400 (25%).

Before the IFA can get chartered status it has to put its own house in order and insist that a majority of employees of RAOs are IFA members. Is that going to happen? Not in our life times!!

I believe if the IFA introduced a majority membership scheme tomorrow, the 4 largest of the RAOs (based on size of workforce) would not qualify for membership.

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge

Before the IFA can get chartered status it has to put its own house in order and insist that a majority of employees of RAOs are IFA members. Is that going to happen? Not in our life times!!

I'm not sure that the IFA can insist on anything like that in its current form (restrictive employment practices etc), after all even arch. briefs cannot normally insist on MIFA management of the project - normally there has to be a or of comparable experience type text with it (I can only think of one county that requires it offhand).

(I really have worked in the field)

[1man1desk]

The purpose of the RAO scheme is to uphold archaeological standards, not to recruit individual members.

The credibility of the scheme would be undermined if there was a majority-membership rule, because it would be seen as a recruitment device rather than a device to uphold standards.

The rules do state that the archaeological work of the organisation must be managed by a MIFA, and the organisation is required to demonstrate a commitment to encouraging (not enforcing) individual membership.

The key thing is that the RAO has to ensure that all its work is done in accordance with the Code of Conduct and by-laws of the IFA. In addition to potential de-registration of the RAO, the Responsible Postholder (always a MIFA) is open to disciplinary action if they have breached the code/by-laws or failed to deal adequately with a breach by a member of staff, irrespective of the IFA membership of that member.

The intended effect is that even non-IFA members in the organisation have to work to IFA standards.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished