"role is fulfilled by the IFA..."

[1man1desk]

quote:we need an institute that will represent the needs of the profession and more importantly, the finite resource in a public way...the statement by the IFA is simply "what it says on the tin" and I would argue that the IFA simply does not do "what it says on the tin"
posted by Troll

Troll,
You want the IFA to do a big job, and ou want them to do it successfully before you will join.

However, it is only a small organisation (9 staff last time I looked, some part-time), and as far as I am aware it is entirely funded by membership subscriptions. It has identified a big job that needs doing, and it is doing as much of that job as it can with the resources and (very limited) powers available to it. It can't do more until it has more members, and therefore more resources.

So, if you want a big, strong, pro-active IFA - join it and make all your friends join, pay your subs, and don't complain about how expensive they are. You yourself have defined the problem (IFA too weak/doesn't do enough), but if that really is the problem and you don't join then you are helping to perpetuate the problem rather solve it, by starving them of the resources that you believe they need.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

I'm not sure I entirely follow the reasoning that a small staff means limited power. They already seem to have done the hard work in being recognized by most bodies including the government as the closest the profession has to a professional institute. What exactly will increased membership/increased subs achieve? A few more staff?

Would doubling the number of members, allowing the hiring of presumably 9 more staff, to a total of 18, make a difference to what it achieves? I'm asking in all honesty here.

The other argument for increasing member numbers, that only members can be disciplined when failing to meet IFA guidelines, is a bit of a red herring. I am not a member but I can be compelled to meet IFA guidelines if consultants and/or curators put it in their paperwork. Easily achieved I would have thought, and a solution I am quite happy with. They don't need my membership to make me meet their standards.

I can't help but think that the IFA might have fallen into the trap that also afflicts most charities eventually. Growth and solvency become more important than the original goal of the organization.

[1man1desk]

Mercenary,

The point of my argument is that Troll wants the IFA to be more pro-active in the way they police and enforce archaeological standards. However, being pro-active involves resources.

At present, they are reactive (i.e., they wait for a complaint to come in, and then investigate it). Their existing resources are barely enough to do that. If they are to be pro-active, they will need to go out to units and audit them, make surprise visits on site, etc. etc. To do that successfully, they would need staff and resources bigger than English Heritage.

When you say "the IFA might have fallen into the trap that also afflicts most charities eventually. Growth and solvency become more important than the original goal of the organization", you are interpreting my comments as representing the view of the IFA. They don't - I am a member, but not an official, of the IFA, and they are my comments, not theirs. They don't necessarily even represent my own views, just my interpretation of the logical consequences of what Troll wants them to do.

On IFA powers of discipline, I am afraid you are wrong. The IFA can only discipline its members and RAOs. If a non-member, non-RAO does work to an IFA standard and fails, it is the curator or the client/consultant that have made the standard a requirement, and only they can take action against them for being in breach of the terms of the WSI or of the contract. The IFA would have no power - after all, the only sanctions it has available are reprimand or expulsion - not much use against someone who is not a member!

Remember that the IFA is not a government or other official body, or even a Chartered Institute. There is no legal requirement for an archaeologist to be in it to practice. If there were, then expulsion would be a much stronger sanction than it is now.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

One could argue that some consultancies and even units comprise of less than nine members and achieve huge amounts every day.The IFA should`nt make grand claims if they are incapable of meeting them.Particularly when relating to a finite resource owned by the public.I refuse to accept that nine people with access to electronic media are incapable of creating even one minor ripple in the pond of archaeology in all the years of their existence.If I want my car fixed, I pay for it when the jobs done.With the IFA-even the intention is not apparent.I`m sorry, I wish it were otherwise but-when the IFA finally pull their finger out and come round from a seemingly endless coma, yes, I will think about joining at affiliate level.After that, we`ll see.BAJR has achieved far more than the IFA and without funding.It is vibrant, forward looking and progressive.Once again-I feel compelled to reiterate.In the 21st Century, Britains archaeology has no real legal standing, is snuck away in the planning system on the ugly end of planning authority politics, curated by under-resourced officers,shafted by powerful developers, creamed off by consultancies, lied about and butchered by some pathetic commercial units and after all of this, is totally ignored by an institute that has made no real dent in the armour in its entire existence that incidentally, claims to be an efficient agent in the self regulation of optional standards.When the IFA finally sees the reality it hides from and does even the slightest thing about any of this-this member of the public will gladly shut his face and join them.Till then.....its up to them.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[1man1desk]

Troll,
I don't think that you could reasonably say that the IFA have never made 'one ripple in the pond of archaeology in all the years of their existence' - if that was so, we wouldn't be discussing them!

Just defining the standards is a significant achievement in itself, and gives everyone they can measure quality of performance against, irrespective of whether they have sufficient power to enforce them.

As outlined in the exchange between myself and Mercenary in this thread yesterday, enforcement is not solely an IFA responsibility, and where the standards are adopted by other institutions there are actually stronger powers than the IFA have.

I am a big supporter of BAJR, but I can't agree that it has achieved more than the IFA. It has a much narrower remit, and within that remit it has achieved a lot, but the IFA has done lots of stuff that lies completely outside BAJR's remit.

You have pointed out a lot of problems with archaeology - but you can't blame the IFA for them, they are the fault of government, local authorities, developers and general public attitudes. The IFA have no powers over any of the above.

As I said before, the IFA have 9 staff (admin included) - and they are all doing things. If you want them to take an active policing role, then they would have to stop doing what they are doing now, and shortly after the IFA would cease to exist. And anyway, 9 staff is way too small to achieve anything in the way of effective active policing - they would need dozens.

However, we all as archaeologists have a responsibility to support them, so we can all act as the 'active policing' side by identifying and reporting to the IFA. You say you have seen lots of breaches, and I previously asked you if you have ever reported one to the IFA - still no answer on that. If your can't be bothered to report to them (i.e. write one letter), how can you blame them for not taking action about the breaches you have seen?

Here's a test for you. ID the single worst clear breach of the IFA Code or Standards that you have seen in the past year and report it to the IFA. If there is no action from them after 6 months, you may have a valid complaint against them. But if you don't report anything to them, then stop blaming them for everything that is wrong in British archaeology.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

1man1desk,

I take your point about proactive enforcement needing greater resources. That has to be a priority for the IFA in achieving more respect from the rank and file (and more members). It would seem to be a cyclical system rather than a direct cause and effect. Surely better enforcement will lead to more respect and more members thus creating a virtuous cycle or whatever they are called. It needs to be kick started somehow, and I'm not sure that your (among others) valiant calls for people to join the IFA are enough.

I have been far more impressed with recent high profile RAO discipline cases. Not impressed to join the IFA yet mind, because it seems the IFA was pressured into it, but it's a start. I'm sure I'm not alone.

My comments on charities were not based on your comments, but musings on the nature of organizations.

Lastly,

I understand that the IFA cannot directly discipline me if I'm not a member, my comments were perhaps imprecise. Curator's and/or consultants can, as you say, if they have written them in to a WSI or contract. What difference does it make who does the disciplining as long as the standards are upheld? It may be an indirect power that the IFA has over me, but it is power nonetheless.

[1man1desk]

quote:What difference does it make who does the disciplining as long as the standards are upheld?
posted by Mercenary

My point exactly.

Defining professional standards is a key achievement of the IFA, and it needed a professional institution to do that. Enforcing them is the responsibility of the whole profession, not just the IFA. If we rely on the IFA to do it all by themselves, then we are setting them up to fail and avoiding our own responsibilities.

If you take the view that we need a professional institution to lead the enforcement effort, but you are not willing to join in and help, then I don't think you can blame the institution if enforcement is not effective.

Bear in mind that they are a small organisation solely funded by their members. In defining the standards, they have given a valuable resource to the whole profession that is used much more widely than just within their membership. For curators in particular, they have something to measure performance against.

The IFA continue to update the standards and develop new ones. Isn't that a big enough achievement and ongoing job in itself to justify joining to support it?

In respect of the recent RAO cases, you say 'apparently they were pressured into it' - I would be interested to know the basis of that statement. Bear in mind that at the time the system was entirely reactive - under their own rules they needed someone to lodge a formal complaint before they could take action. Since then they have changed the rules to make it easier to take action - would they do that if they didn't really want to enforce the standards?





1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

quote:One could argue that some consultancies and even units comprise of less than nine members and achieve huge amounts every day.The IFA should`nt make grand claims if they are incapable of meeting them.
posted by Troll

Well, I don't think they make any grand claims that they don't try to meet - but I do think that you seem to expect more from them than they actually claim.

I work for a consultancy with 10 archaeologists, and we achieve a lot. However, what we achieve relates only to the projects that we are involved in (i.e. a lot less than 1% of what goes on in British archaeology), and is entirely funded by clients, as is all work done by units.

You want the IFA to police the whole of British archaeology - i.e. everything done every day by every unit, consultancy and curator in the UK, and you want them to do it funded only by the subscriptions of its members (although you are not willing to pay a sub yourself), and you want them to do it with fewer staff than my company.

I don't think there is valid comparison between what a company can achieve and what you want the IFA to do.

We have publicly-funded regulators in place whose job it is to make sure that the work done on their patch is done up to scratch - they are called curators. The IFA has given them a tool to help them do the job - the standards. Why duplicate functions?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

My comment about a recent discipline case is based entirely on the usual mix of hearsay and rumour from this messageboard and the Digger. Nothing more.

It did appear however, that the case was played out quite publicly over a period of time, during which many archaeologists were baying for blood. That is why it appeared that outside pressure was involved.

[1man1desk]

Well, a proper and fair investigation and disciplinary case will take time. After all, not every complaint will be justified, and some could be malicious - the accused has to be innocent until proven guilty.

Outsiders baying for blood after the process has started may give the impression of applying pressure, but may in fact just represent 'noises off'.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished