IfA - A Chartered Institute

[BAJR]

Good summary Now... I best get on with the minutes for the Working Party for Unionisation in Archaeology!

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]Unit - I don't find the field vs. other distinction particularly credible or relevant to the discussion………….. How's your pension pot coming on??

[/SIZE]

No its not credible at all. Golly it comes as a great surprise that you don’t find field vs other relevant. So long as you lot are mentioned along side field archaeologists and hang on to the bit of being called archaeologists, that’s all that matters isn’t it. Same for the rest of the 2829.

So we look forward to the chartered archaeologist whos acutely a council curator (obscure position possibly degree based) talking to the chartered archaeologist whos actually a consultant (who possibly couldn’t wait around for the unit director to die and their ex boss already got the curators job) working for a council/government/eu scheme run through a civil engineering company that makes them use their contracts and safty procedures, where the authorising authority is not the local district authority so they then have another chartered archaeologist who actually is a statutory advisor to the government (removed due to AUP) on where to have ancient monuments and whos main job is to measure the distance of ancient monuments to the proposed scheme.. Between them they will straddle the archaeological world in their mankinis and will pick up on the unit director who is also a chartered member (removed due to AUP ) and have a meeting about the resolution of the maps in a watching brief report. Its all about standards.

Unionisation in archaeology: that will be full of members will it or total surrender to the civil servants

[vulpes]

I quite like the idea of a mankini. Now you've got my full attention Unit

Bloody Civil Servants with their gold plated pensions blah blah blah etc.... Deep breath, count to 10.

Kevin, yeah. A good point well made, I think we're through... But I do have another point to make after I've had my tea.

[Dirty Boy]

I for one would be happy to be thoroughly tested for Chartered status (I might even get it!) But it has to be worth my while... and as has been said repeatedly, the same is true for MIFAness... currently its nice to have, but not essential, you could not stop me for example from carrying out archaeology work... nobody can... as long as my commercial work is to the standard required by the curator. so being a MiFA or not is not top of my agenda.

This is my stance too. I'm not against the IFA , I've just never had a compellig reason to join. Chartered status would be fine providing there's a benefit to me for it. If its a case of you can only practise archaeology if you're a signed up member, tested and no appreciable rise in wages as a result, I'd be annoyed as its less in my pocket.

If I join and am tested, and wages go up as a result of me being an "independantly verified professional", (the kind of wages the IFA were consulting about recently) I'd be more than happy to sign up. Above all, the testing would have to be documented beforehand so you know what standard you need to come up to and the whole process is democratic. I would hope it would work similar to companies being tested for ISO standards.

Obviously, I know little about being chartered, so matbe I should go and look it up!

[vulpes]

I've had me tea now so, the point I was going to make was this: In the Pharmaco-Medical world professional bodies which have been chartered since the 19th century are now being reconstituted into 2 separate bodies: One as a professional body and one as regulator. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Pharm...in#History

So... perhaps we could end up with a Royal Archaeological Society of Great Britain and a General Archaeological Council to deal with all you naughty monkeys :face-approve:

[trainedchimp]

I thought that this would produce lively debate, but I should have expected the stream of random abuse and cheap shots from both sides.

There seem to be so many false premises in all of the arguments - the two that strike me are these:

1) Of course university degrees aren't, by and large, good preparation for work as a digger. You really don't need a degree to be able to dig, and in terms of technical skills, an NVQ or an apprenticeship (assuming someone actually offered it) would be much more appropriate and would turn out a more technically capable, if less well-informed workforce. Similarly, a 'field archaeology' master's degree isn't really something that should be expected turn out a good digger - it should really be aimed at supervisor or PO level to allow them to get a decent theoretical underpinning to their work, investigate different methodologies apply that to professional work. Producing a site technician would simply not reach the academic level required, and (as often pointed out) is probably best done outside a university. As for PhDs, I think even academics tend to avoid reading these if at all possible - if they're any good, they'll be out as a book with the benefit of professional editing. You'll also find that the IfA won't dish out MIfA status on the basis of a PhD (or any other academic qualification)- you need to show the management experience and competence to back it up.

2) MIfAs needn't be experts at half-sectioning a post-hole or writing up a site, and as most of them haven't in a while, you shouldn't really be surprised that most are a little wibbly round the edges when they try. Most have done this, as they've come up through digging, but fundamentally, they're managers, who have a track record in setting up, running and completing projects - they're paid to employ people who can do the practical stuff better than they can. Assuming they know better than their staff isn't a trait unique to MIfAs, nor a particularly helpful one in anyone.

The whole profession - in my opinion - seems to be heading inexorably towards a split between 'professionals' (Curators, SPOs, PMs, unit managers, consultants), 'technicians' (diggers and supervisors) and 'academics' (academics and specialists). This is probably anathema to most people who post here (and I think it's been discussed before), because of the way that pretty much everyone one starts(ed) as a digger. However, it seems to be the only way in which chartering individuals has a place - the 'academics' already have a career structure and qualification hierarchy, and the technicians would be better served by unionisation and NVQs or other competence-based vocational qualifications or than by academic qualifications of dubious practical application. Chartering the institute is different, and I must admit I've not though about that.

[Unitof1]

Somewhere in all of this there is a product that is only produced in the field by those willing to go there. The standard of that product is the sole responsibility of those in the field. Principles and codes are required for those in the field to produce that product. How can Curators, SPOs, PMs, unit managers, consultants who are not in the field be held accountable for events that happen in the field. When a cowboy totally messes up in the field is the curator disciplined by the codes and standards, can the consultant be held responsible. No -theres no part in the standards and codes for them. <AUP edit>. Further more the units go out of their way to also take the responsibility away from those producing the product in the field because they don’t want the ownership of the product to go with the creators.

[vulpes]

Whatever happened to Unit of 1's special padded thread? Can you bring it back Hosty?

[BAJR]

It may just have to return!

[Unitof1]

So is the aim of chartered status for the ifa to restrict the use of the term Archaeologist to members of the ifa?