Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
2nd November 2005, 02:33 PM
IFA representativeness:
Troll and Mr Hosty want the IFA to represent and communicate with the whole profession, and Troll won't join until they do (see their previous posts).
However, the IFA is a professional institution. It is funded by the subscriptions of its members, and its duty is to represent and communicate with them. If the whole profession joins, the whole profession will be represented and communicated with. Anything that is on their website is available to you just as it is to me, so presumably what you want is IFA mailings. However, if all archaeologists were to receive IFA mailings without joining, then I personally will be subsidising them through my subscription - why should I do that?
If you want the IFA to reform, or to be more pro-active, then join it and take an active part. Staying outside and carping from the sidelines only weakens it further, perpetuating the situation to which you object, without actually promoting the cause of reform at all.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2005, 02:49 PM
True in one way...
but should the IFA not be more pro active in trying to get people to join.. ( I know it is trying now... hence the Diggers Group)
but surely if the IFA is a professional organisation.. (define professional organisation?) (though a Chartered Organisation would be better) that purports to represent Archaeology.. it should be out there preaching rather than muttering and carping about... 'if you don't join us we won't change'
back to the circular arguement.... if the IFA realise that it needs to change... perhaps
a) it should actually change.
b) it should actively seek members and give proper benefits for the privilage.
c) I have often offered my cooperation and services for free to teh IFA to help in recruitment, arbitration, dissemination of news and progress... after all. BAJR gets to lots of people every day...
still waiting... so as I say.... 2 way street. IFA want to be taken seriously by everyone...great....I seriously hope to see that rather than the helpless sounding "we can't change until you join"...
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2005, 06:55 PM
I have a strange feeling of deja vu that has been going on for nearly 25 years. Chartered Status - been tried several times - there were discussion about this before the IFA was even started.
Join and change - if you dont like the IFA.
The simple fact of the matter is that the IFA was set up not to be a trade union or to represent diggers (or whatever I am expected to call them) it was set up to be a body to represent none academic archaeologists who had a degree, sole responcibilty for a project and a degree. As the years have gone by it has become harder to be a full member and even an associate.
To my mind the IFA is an organisation for archaeological managers not archaeologists and until that changes there will be no real change.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2005, 08:39 PM
I have talked with Peter Hinton today, and most useful it was to.. I have offered to have a new section on the BAJR board for the IFA to disseminate info, to answer valid questions and to show what they are up to. I hope they will take up the offer.
All positive news.... I feel the communication has started.. and that is good for all of us.
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
2nd November 2005, 10:05 PM
blimey, you are getting things done at the moment, let's hope that the IFA do take up the offer and that communication keeps going.
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
3rd November 2005, 01:26 PM
Quote:quote: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.
Well said Sniper. You don't have to be a member to follow the rules.
Little Tim
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
3rd November 2005, 01:42 PM
Tim/Sniper,
I agree with your sentiments entirely - you don't need to be a member to uphold the rules.
By doing so, however, you acknowledge that it is the IFA that has defined the rules in its 'Standards and Guidance' documents. However, the rules can only be enforced against members - those who stay out of the IFA, work in archaeology, and do not follow the standards are subject to no form of discipline.
Those who choose to follow the rules but stay out, are accepting the IFA as the arbiter of good practice, but expect it to perform that role without support (financial or other) from the profession. They also make it easy for cowboys who do not want to follow the rules to hide amongst the crowd of non-members who do uphold standards.
If everyone joined who does uphold standards, the cowboys would be much easier to spot and/or discipline.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
3rd November 2005, 01:51 PM
Quote:quote:To my mind the IFA is an organisation for archaeological managers not archaeologists
- originally posted by DrPeterWardle
I couldn't disagree more. It is an organisation for archaeologists at any stage of their career, which is why it has the Affiliate, Student and Practitioner grades, as well as Associates and Members.
I note that the 2004-5 Council includes 4 Associates and 3 Practitioners.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
3rd November 2005, 09:25 PM
Good points all round. "the will to act" is the key for me. I simply have`nt seen any evidence of this. Is there some sort of membership threshold where the IFA will suddenly act once a golden number is reached? I don`t think so. Whilst I could happily bullet point ad infinitum on this, I will simply offer this....again.....
ppg 16 mandates the IFA with maintaining standards.It`s not happening. I`m not remotely impressed with the current validation system that rewards those who move away from field archaeology and equally, validates some who should`nt be trusted with a trowel-let alone sites. Field specialists-regardless of a plethora of skills and experience/years of service are seen as the bottom of the pile.Qualified labourers if you will. From experience, when issues of change are raised, ten year studies on the question are suggested.It`s simply not good enough guys. The "join them and change things" camp are expressing admirable sentiments...before I have to pay someone for the right to p*ss in my own tent, I want some evidence that I get firm guy-ropes for my money first.Until then,I`ll p*ss in any direction I please with the aim of prompting a coherent response.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
3rd November 2005, 10:27 PM
Why o why will more members make the IFA more powerful? Where is the evidence? Do they do more now than when they started, and had few members?
My personal standards are far and away higher than IFA guidlines (although I sometimes have to battle to employ them), so I have no interest in joining any organization that has standards so low.
The most important reason that I won't join though is that, at last count, some of my worst ever employers, with the worst archaeological records, are prominent in the IFA. I want no part in an organization that will happily have these individuals as members let alone influential senior members.
