IFA membership

[1man1desk]

On an aside, my own organisation (an RAO) has 100% membership of the IFA, including over 50% at MIFA level.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk

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

I think that it is fantastic your organisation has 100% IFA membership. I know of a number of RAOs that will pay the annual subscriptions for IFA members. Again a good thing and I am guessing an incentive to non-IFA members to join.

However, (and this is probably a matter of semantics), the RAO scheme in itself does not uphold archaeological standards. The IFA says 'The RAO scheme is a by-law of the Institute. It does not itself define detailed standards for best practice; instead it provides a general control against which the adherence to
professional standards can be judged'

As for whether the RAO scheme could be construed as an incentive to recruit new IFA members... Section 2 of the Application form for RAO status asks what the applicant organisation does to 'actively encourage individual IFA membership'.

[sniper]

well in my work I always state that I am working to standards and guidelines of BABAO, EH and the IFA, but I don't believe that I should have to pay subscription charges to uphold standards. Until the IFA takes a stand on other issues in the profession, I will not even consider joining, but I will personally continue to uphold any guidelines and standards that relate to human remains, for my professional, moral and ethical benefit.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

I think one of the main downfalls of the IFA is simply that they don`t represent the profession. "Represent" is the key word here. I for one am not willing to join them until they do. To represent a profession, one would have to start by communicating with them and, raise the profile of the profession in the eyes of the public. No-one will take them seriously until the validation issues are resolved and, standards are policed effectively.

[sniper]

and we will say it again, how can they represent the profession if field archaeologists can't hope to become members of the Institute of Field Archaeologists...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by sniper

and we will say it again, how can they represent the profession if field archaeologists can't hope to become members of the Institute of Field Archaeologists...

The Diggers' Forum is there to represent the field archaeologists. If that's the kind of issue you want to raise, then you should get involved. These things don't work if nobody signs up.

[BAJR Host]

And on that subject.... does anyone have a paper that they want BAJR to present on thier behalf at the Edinburgh IFA conference... this would be via the Digger's Forum. a sign that the IFA realise that they need to be seen to represent the professional archaeologist from whatever background

B)

deadline 8th November

contact me mailto:info@bajr.org

Another day another WSI?

[the invisible man]

As far as I can make out from the BAJR forum and personal contacts, the IFA stand for pretty much everything you guys do. There is simply an unrealistic expectation of what a professional institute should, can and does do (err, excuse the grammar but you know what I mean...)

We're going back over well trod ground here, but I can't think of any other prof institute that polices its profession. They all react to complaints from the public, client bodies or other professionals, but none of them actively police.

The more people that join, the louder their voice will be.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[BAJR Host]

I think the main problem is the saying and doing...

take this quote from 1996 Assemblage
http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/1/aitch.html

"..It is archaeologists who decide how much archaeologists get paid. The only body which has any possibility of insisting upon minimum conditions of service and wages is the IFA.

The IFA wishes to establish standards of practice and professionalism. These standards should include pay and conditions, which would in turn help to create a firmer career structure within archaeology. Jobs are already informally graded within archaeological organisations (Aitchison and Anderson 1995::face-thinks:, and the IFA should take the bold step of clearly defining jobs by responsibility and reward, and crystallising the fine words of the Code of Conduct.

Such action would help the IFA gain esteem in the eyes of its members, and in the eyes of the many archaeologists who do not wish to join the Institute because of their negative perceptions of it.

If the need for increased wages leads to archaeology becoming more 'expensive', then so be it. If a site is under threat from development, then the requirements of PPG 16 and the equivalent guidelines in Scotland and Wales mean that the developers will have to pay for that archaeology to be preserved or recorded. If that is going to be more expensive than at present, then, to paraphrase the sentiment of PPG 16, the polluters will just have to pay more. 'The main reason why non-archaeologists have an unrealistic impression of the cost of archaeology is because the profession has consistently underbid' (Fahy 1987:9).

Similarly, if invasive work is planned for a site that is not under threat, then adequate funds will have to be raised to pay adequate rates for the professionals involved in the excavation. If that is not possible, then excavation should not take place.


The IFA does not have to act as a trades union in order to protect its members; it can do that by acting as the professional association that it is. The constitutional framework and declared intentions are already in place. What is needed now is the will to act, and that can only come from the membership of the Institute. Those who work in field archaeology and who feel that their skills and abilities are not being rewarded should join the IFA to demonstrate their professional credentials, and then press for the Institute to adopt standards for pay and conditions that will reward field workers and give them the respect that they are due."

What it shows is a recognition of the problems and pitfalls, and an acceptance that the role it should play? but where are we?

?and the IFA should take the bold step of clearly defining jobs by responsibility and reward?. Still waiting?

? The IFA does not have to act as a trades union in order to protect its members; it can do that by acting as the professional association that it is?. But could be chartered ?. Still waiting


The fabled circular argument?..

?Those who work in field archaeology and who feel that their skills and abilities are not being rewarded should join the IFA to demonstrate their professional credentials, and then press for the Institute to adopt standards for pay and conditions that will reward field workers and give them the respect that they are due?..

SO there we have it?. IFA can?t do it without help but people won?t join until it shows it will actually do something rather than talk about it.

For example? the IFA still ?recommend? pay levels? BAJR has (for the last 3 years) enforced 7 levels of pay. IFA does not disseminate what it is up to to non members? BAJR is open to all. Etc etc?.

Now if BAJR can do it??? surely the IFA can?.. perhaps they are? But nobody is saying.

For example? it would be useful if representatives of the Diggers Forum post on here to keep people up to date about what is going on? after all it is a good way to spread the news to those that are most disenfranchised?

Action is a two way street? and standing for something is very different from acting


Another day another WSI?

[Curator Kid]

quote:
SO there we have it?. IFA can?t do it without help but people won?t join until it shows it will actually do something rather than talk about it.

With reference to the IFA, my manager says that "...it's better to be inside the tent p*ssing out, than outside the tent p*ssing in." The logic behind this rather bizarre metaphor is pretty solid if you think about it.