Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
7th November 2005, 11:48 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Venutius
If you became a member of IFA, would that not mean you could no longer speak out in public about anything other than general issues?
Venutius has a point. Rule 1.1 of the IFA Code of Conduct states
1.1 An archaeologist shall conduct himself or herself in a manner which will not bring archaeology or
the Institute into
disrepute.
which does sort of suggest a committment to protecting the name of the Institute above and beyond wider archaeological matters.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
7th November 2005, 12:43 PM
Of course a member of the IFA can speak publicly on the issues of the day, just like any other professional member of a professional body. In fact I would even suggest that it is a professional's duty so to do, when there are matters of concern. This is not bringing archaeology into disrepute, quite the opposite. You should see architects banging away at each other sometimes, in the architectural press!
Of course one is required to behave in a professional manner, for example not making unsubstantiated allegations - but that applies to non-members as well.
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
7th November 2005, 02:05 PM
Quote:quote:I must be reading the wrong ppg16 then.My copy clearly states that the IFA are responsible for maintaining standards
-posted by Troll
PPG16 describes the IFA in Annex 1, "Key Bodies and Organisations", where it says amongst other things that the IFA is "concerned with defining and maintaining proper professional standards and ethics in field archaeology". That is a role that the IFA has taken onto itself at its own initiative, whether or not it is doing it well. The text in PPG16 is purely
descriptive - it does not
mandate (your word) the IFA to do anything. PPG16 is government policy, and the government has no power to give the IFA a mandate.
If you think that PPG16 isn't working properly, then blame the people who operate it - i.e. Planning Authorities (County, Local and Unitary), operating with the advice of the curators. Don't blame the IFA, which has no role in PPG16.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
7th November 2005, 02:08 PM
Plenty of people who are members bad-mouth the IFA all the time, and there has never been a disciplinary case on those grounds. As far as I can tell, they welcome robust debate about their own role, policy and implementation.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
7th November 2005, 07:27 PM
In writing, on a website?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex -
http://www.timewatch.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
10th November 2005, 12:12 PM
1man1desk-many thanks.I readily concede that the IFA does indeed allow for robust debate.This tends to be of the in-house variety and seems to result in little tangible change.I agree, members/non members have hammered away at the percieved chinks in the function of the IFA. I think that for me, the overwelming silence and the seemingly inert nature of the Institute is the most difficult to deal with.Regardless of open debate, not enough has changed.In the realms of government policy (16)-
It is enough for me that in a document on government policy, the IFA is listed in an annex under "Key Bodies and Organisations" and said government policy document clearly describes the IFA as "concerned with defining and maintaining proper professional standards and ethics in field archaeology" -just does it for me. What more is a mandate in need of in order to be recognised as such? Yes, I also concede that the IFA have taken on that role themselves-that matters not-a government policy document describes the role of the IFA in a crystal clear way.Whether the descriptions are found in an annex or otherwise-I think the meaning is clear. "don`t blame the IFA, which has no role in PPG16" I like this.......discuss???
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
11th November 2005, 01:40 AM
Troll,
The difference between a description and a mandate is important.
If the IFA were 'mandated' by the government to uphold standards, then they would be able to do so for all archaeologists, not just their members, and they would have some legal powers to do so.
Because their only actual mandate comes from their members, not the government, their disciplinary powers necessarily only apply to their members. Anyone can work as an archaeologist to any standards they like (or none), if they are not a member - and the IFA can do nothing about it.
As for PPG16 - it is about Local Plans, written by local authorities, and planning applications. The applications are vetted by the curators who advise local authorities on whether they need to ask for more information or impose a planning condition. The IFA has no role - they are not part of the planning system, either as a consultee, an advisor or a decision-maker.
That is why they are weak, and why I want everyone that wants to call themselves an archaeologist to be a member.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
15th November 2005, 11:48 PM
Tiz an extremely strong argument 1man1desk. I concede that there is some validity in what you say however, I think it`s time the IFA sold their product to the profession at large.They have the monopoly on archaeological Institutes.We can either choose to join them, or, we can choose to join....them.Have read(with an equal measure of hilarity and nausia) the claims of a certain union outlining just why archies should join them. Am looking forward to seeing similar agendas posted here by the IFA.Similar in the sense that an agenda is set/targets etc.Not the insane claims of said union..
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
16th November 2005, 03:23 PM
Well, Troll, the information you seek has been posted by Mr Hosty on one of the other forums (fora?)
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
16th November 2005, 06:38 PM
1man1desk-yes, have had a look.I think in my tired state last night, I managed to get something out in the spirit of
"seen and heard all this before-where`s the change on the ground?" or something to that effect.Not very subtle I know. Seriously though, just posting all the IFA blurb is in no way dissimilar to the aforementioned union leaflet.Lots of exciting and promising stuff-but just words.
