Professional Organisations in Archaeology

[1man1desk]

Posted by Drumcharry:

quote:As has already been posted the IFA is not the only producer of Archaeological standards

Actually, I think the IFA is the only British organisation producing Standards. English Heritage and others publish various guidance documents, some of which (MAP2, for instance) were actually written for their own internal purposes, but guidance and standards are two different things.

A Standard is something that you would always be expected to adhere to at all times as a matter of professional ethics, and which can be the subject of disciplinary action if you have signed up to it. In the IFA 'Standard and Guidance' documents, it is normally expressed in a short, pithy paragraph.

Guidance is advice, which you should take into account but can adapt to your own purposes. It can become a 'standard' for project-specific purposes, if a curator or a consultant makes adherence to it a requirement in their brief or specification, but this needs to be done anew each time.

quote:and why would it be better for every archaeologist to have a vested interest in overlooking the shortfallings of a proffessional organisation?

Actually, as an IFA member, I don't believe I have a vested interest in overlooking any shortfallings. Quite the reverse - my interest, and that of all other members that I have discussed this with, is in making the IFA stronger and more effective as a regulator. If you look back at the suggestions made in my previous posts, you will see they are all aimed at that objective.

If you want to go down that line, perhaps you should consider whether those with what appears to be an idealogical opposition to the IFA could be said to have a vested interest in perpetuating a false or exaggerated perception of the IFA's supposed shortomings.

quote:I'm afraid those who have tried to change things internally have, i understand, repeatedly come up against the 'IFA way or the highway' view that seems fairly prevalent in supporters of the organisation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but it could be taken as a very offensive remark. I would be grateful if you could clarify.

In your own suggestions, you seem to want a strong regulator to which all archaeologists are subject. The point of disagreement between us is whether that regulator should be the IFA or something else that sits above it.
My contention that it should be the IFA is based on purely pragmatic grounds - the IFA exists and is already trying to do the job, while the alternative does not exist and no-one is trying to set one up.
It is a logical consequence of that position that everyone should be obliged to be in the IFA, otherwise it can only regulate part of the profession, and it's effectiveness in doing that is undermined.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[oldgirl]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I note that the person in question in the above details posted by Noddy is still advertising himself as being an IFA member:
http://www.archaeologycymru.com/personnel/Personnel.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for this being slightly off topic!
This link now does not appear to work, so I think it probably has been dealt with at least for now!


On the main topic, I agree with 1mans summing up abut a regulator and whether it should be IFA or not. That also appears to me to be the main point.

[Drumcharry]

As a note to Noddys post above a comparison with the organisation of the Legal profession is actually quite apt. Both have a group of professionals or professional firms who are regulated to an extent by a professional body (IFA, Law Society) which is funded by the professionals themselves, but only the legal profession has a further independent level. Your reference to this only being applicable to Southern Britain is also not correct as there is, of course, the Scottish Law Society and Legal Ombudsman to deal with the legal profession north of the border. There are also provisions for cross border cases but that is far too off topic top go into here!!
As for 1man1desk seperating Standards from Guidance, this is a really complicated issue again legally any professional who did not work within Guidance as published by an institution such as English Heritage could come unstuck in the eyes of the law if a complaint was made and as such it applies to all members of the profession (do not forget also that Sheriffs and Judges are used to looking at 'Guidance' documents very seriously and only rarely stray from their recommendations). IFA standards are actually far less enforceable as they only cover IFA members and should a developer wish to take an archaeologist to court over the archaeologists inadequacies he could only bring the IFA Standards into play if the archaeologist had membership, whereas the English Heritage Guidance could be used certainly within England and Wales and possibly beyond as demonstarting the acceptable archaeological minimum 'standards' suggested by a reputable body of professionals.
Interestingly the 'IFA or the highway' is being repeatedly demonstrated here by (presumably) members insisting that all archaeologists should have to be members of the IFA so that the IFA may govern the whole profession!
People don't join the IFA because they do not wish to join it, perhaps part of this wish is a distrust of the organisation perhaps part is that they do not want the IFA 'governing' the profession because of how they perceive it operates. Why should everyone be forced to join the IFA just so that the IFA can force people to do it the IFA way?!! Why are IFA members so scared of a regulatory body as independent of the profession as possible overseeing what they do, some might regard this in itself as suspicious enough for them not to want to join?

[oldgirl]

I find it a bit annoying to be told I'm 'scared' of an independent regulatory body. I'm not scared of either it or the idea, I've just been making the point that I don't think it's neccesary. The point about everyone joining the IFA came out of the discussion over the fact that the proposed overseeing body was only put forward as overseeing IFA members and RAOs. If the proposed body would oversee ALL archaeologists, whether IFA members or not, I'm all for it. Although (there's always a 'but' isn't there, sorry!) I would then be on the side of arguing that IFA should be considered for that role.

Just out of interest, what is it about the 'IFA way' that you don't like? (NB I'm using your term not mine, I don't agree there is an 'IFA way') I thought, based on your original post, that the 'IFA way' was OK with you, but that you felt that it needed more independent enforcement? But I was probably mis-interpreting (maybe been hit in the head once to often recently!).

[1man1desk]

I'm entirely with Oldgirl on this and I'm looking forward to Drumcharry's response to Oldgirl's post.

On the issue of being 'scared' of an independent regulatory body - that is exactly what I have been arguing for. Personally, I do see the IFA as independent, but Drumcharry clearly doesn't.

If another independent organisation comes along that can regulate the profession and can achieve universal acceptance by all archaeologists, I will happily support it. Under those circumstances, I would probably argue for the abolition of the IFA as an un-necessary organisation, because it apparently can't achieve universal acceptance.

As it is, however, no such organisation exists, and no-one is taking any steps to create it, and even if they did the prospects of any regulatory body achieving the voluntary acceptance of all archaeologists are nil.

I am not deeply enamoured of the IFA, and I freely accept that it has faults - mainly that it is too weak. However, I think it is necessary for any profession that aspires to ethical and professional standards to have a professional organisation that can establish those standards and regulate professional behaviour. As things stand, the IFA is the only game in town that even tries to do that, so it has my support.

So, at present, the available choices are two: join the IFA and accept regulation by it, or don't join it and operate unregulated by anyone.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

don't join it and operate unregulated by anyone.

except of course by curatorial bodies, who after all are the ones that ensure standards (in commercial world) are met. The IFA are fairly clear they are not there to enforce the standards (by policing them) but to produce the standards - that apply to their members only. However... as BAJR has done.. to be a fully recognised archaeology company on BAJR, you must agree to IFA standards and the Code of Conduct... so in some ways, you don't have to be IFA RAO to be subject to the Standards.. etc...

The bottom line for acceptable work lies with the Curator. In some cases, a curator may (for whatever reason) pass work that does not quite might these requriements.. and conversely decline work that meets these standards.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Sparky]

This still brings us to 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who guards the guards?

So, the IFA are not enforcing the standards but only producing them and the curators are enforcing them (at whatever standard). But if a complaint is brought against an individual or unit who is an RAO but the standards were accepted by the curator, where do we go? It seems the complainant will be silenced by the authority of both the IFA and curator.

[oldgirl]

Many curators state in briefs that the work must be done to the IFA standards (I'm using that as a shorthand term, by the way), whether the organisation/individual is a member or not.

However, not all archaeological work is subject to curatorial (as in a planning context)control/regulation.

For example, I cam across a case a few years ago where a landowner, who wanted to prevent a large linear scheme from crossing their land, had asked a local unit to undertake evaluation work. This was undertaken without discussion/agreement with the local curator and the report was not submitted to the SMR. (as the linear scheme didn't go that way anyway, the question of whether this would have been acceptable as evidence didn't come up). The IFA standards state (if I remember rightly) that you should inform the local curator and agree a WSI even if the work is outside the planning framework. But if the organisation or individuals involved are not members of IFA, there is no way to insist that they agree their work or are monitored (as far as I can see).

[1man1desk]

Posted by BAJR Host:

quote:don't join it and operate unregulated by anyone ... except of course by curatorial bodies

There is some truth in that, in that the reach of the curatorial bodies covers all archaeological work carried out under the planning system, irrespective of IFA status, and because there are lots of them and they are locally-based, they can actually monitor projects as they happen rather than wait for a complaint to come in.

However, there is another side to that. The curators police standards in relation to individual projects, not organisations, and the sanctions they can apply are not against the archaeological organisation but against the developer. In addition, they can usually only apply those sanctions if the planning officer concerned (a non-archaeologist) chooses to back them up.

Also, as hinted at in your post, the standards against which they monitor may vary from curator to curator and from project to project. Most, but not all, curators will probably specify IFA standards, but they may substitute or add their own in-house requirements, and may not be consistent between projects. That makes things a bit difficult for contractors.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[oldgirl]

So, the IFA are not enforcing the standards but only producing them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree. I don't believe the IFA say that. I think they say that they cannot enforce the standards outside their membership, because it isn't possible.