standards anyone?

[Martin Locock]

The issue of enforcement is a red herring. How are British Standards enforced?

Anyone claiming to be interested in professional standards in archaeology should, as a start, demonstrate their commitment to a degree of professional behaviour by joining the IfA and signing up to its code of conduct. After that maybe they can start questioning the behaviour of others.

It is odd that so many 'blatant breaches of IFA codes and standards' can be spotted by third parties but somehow overlooked by those with direct contact as curators or others (who would also be in a position to note any departure from any standard, wherever derived, to which the work had been intended to conform).

[Wax]

I have given Martins comments a lot of thought . Am I not giving the IFA a chance, why am I so biased against them ? There is no easy answer, I work at the coal face in archaeology, I see and hear a lot of things I don't like but nothing that would be acceptable evidence in a court of law or that management could not talk their way around. I try and work for companies whose Management have high personal ethical standards that I have seen at first hand or had confirmed on the grape vine. IFA registered organisation status has no bearing on who I choose to work for at all.
Why not? because on the grape vine it is irrelevant, whether or not a company is a good employer or not seems to have little to do with IFA registration
The third party who is low down in the system may well see the breaches that are masked or not on show when those tasked with monitoring the system are around. Unannounced spot checks with absolutely no pre warning might throw up some interesting results.

[Martin Locock]

Perhaps this week is a good time to re-focus the debate on standards in terms of personal responsibility. For Health and Safety there is an obligation on all employees to be aware of potential risks and to take action if necessary. I would say the same is true of archaeological practice. Professional standards of behaviour apply at all levels of the profession (and so does IFA membership), not just at the top. If you know, or have strong grounds to believe, that a Registered Organisation is failing to follow the policies and procedures it professes, then you should raise with the IFA: even if this does not trigger a disciplinary action, it will be considered the next time the IFA monitor them. If you are aware and do nothing then you are at fault as much as they are.

But underlying my point was that these breaches which seem so obvious from a distance genuinely tend to become less clear from close up: often they are the result of people trying to their best in difficult circumstances, in which no single person was culpable, and more often still they turn out to be a carefully considered and justifiable excavation strategy that looks unconventional. I have 'excavated' a section across a medieval town ditch by Hymac - this was not because I couldn't be bothered to excavate by hand, but because it was the only practicable approach within the constraints of the site (as the curator agreed).

[Wax]

It takes a high level of self confidence, personal courage and indeed knowledge to stand up as a whistle blower and face the consequences. Without concrete evidence and personal conviction people will be very reluctant to face the fall out.

I avoid working for companies where I have any doubts and it has nothing to do with whether they are IFA registered or not. I look at staff turn over, the clients they are working for and their reputation on the grape vine within their local county. Along with their publication record etc. Yes I know, things the IFA does or should do. Reputation at grass roots level may be very different from the picture portrayed by management.

Health and safety is one of those areas where I feel confident having worked for non archaeological organisations and received a very good level of training. Having a written health and safety policy and applying it on the ground in all situations are two different things, a few conversations down the pub after work soon gives you a clear idea of which companies are good and which are not. I do compare my personal list with the IFA list and it makes me think and question the IFA. No concrete evidence you may say, it's all hear say and unsubstantiated rumours but it works for me. I have on occasion brought up health and safety issues with organisations I have worked for and on whole their response has been good, but I have done it knowing that they will listen as that is one of the reasons I chose to work for them. Again registration or not with the IFA has no bearing on this.

At the moment I can to a certain extent pick and choose who I work for. This may not last much longer and I can foresee that somewhere further down the line I may face a situation where I feel strongly that things are very wrong. I am prepared to fight for my and the rights of others but when I do it will be with the knowledge that I might not ever be able to work within the field I love again. With that in mind I will try and pick my final battle and make it something worth fighting for. When I do my first port of call will be BAJR an organisation/individual who has a well established reputation for fair and impartial advice and for getting things sorted.

I agree that the IFA should be the organisation used as this first port of call for archaeologists with problems but it isn't . Why not? Perhaps it comes with too much baggage from the past?

I do know the difference between pragmatic solutions to archaeological problems and incompetent management or inexperience

[BAJR]

With that in mind I will try and pick my final battle and make it something worth fighting for. When I do my first port of call will be BAJR an organisation/individual who has a well established reputation for fair and impartial advice and for getting things sorted.

I do tip my hat to you, and thank you for that. I do try, as a single voice with what I hope is a general backing. As you say I got there by trying to be fair, trying to listen, trying to find solutions and also because I have nothing to fear. I do get paid for adverts, but rather than just take the money I feel some sort of responsibility - hence I am so sorry when I do get it wrong - and so will never put money over what I feel to be 'right' ( which is in part influenced both by my own background and by the feelings of BAJRites.)

I would hope for a stronger IfA and we end up in that chicken and egg arguemnt all over again... if you don't join it, you can't influence it... however, as is being discussed, standards are only as good as the checks. I talked to Mark Spanjer Dutch archaeologist about the Standards document, and he quite rightly pointed out that the standards work in as much as process of archaeology but not as quality.

This is where we all have to look at our-selves... how important are we? why do we do it? Do we enjoy it? Why do we produce endless grey lit reports that we know {hand on heart} nobody will ever read.

Where is our passion? Where is the fun? Where is the communication? The sharing? Mark and I are both great advocates of archaeology is fun... or bloody well should be! ... and we do it for everyone to enjoy. If this is not the case in commercial archaeology then either a) become temporal contamination engineers or b) start thinking about how you can change. The BI lie is preservation in situ............ what a laugh... a box ticking fobbed off presentation of all that is NOT archaeology. what the blinkin flip is that about? I am an archaeologist I dig archaeology... I don't find it, and find ways not to dig it... knowing that rather than being saved for the future it will be ploughed out/the soil composition will change and it will fall apart/the vibrocompaction will screw it up/ the concrete raft will go a bit too deep... etc.... We rarely get to actually dig archaeology and if we do, it is under pressure and under budget.

Why? because we have no compelling argument for our purpose..

Give me money to date this pit..!
Why?
Er... because it is important...
Why?
er..
Feck off then!

Lets see a new archaeology which puts quality above cost, that puts sharing above all else, that includes people rather than excludes, that sees box ticking as only suittable for record sheets and not for quality assurance. THis is archaeology, it is not a high flying profession with billions riding on every decision taken by suited managers - blimey, some can't even get a kettle on site! We are entertainment, interest, diversion from the norm, the adventure, the quest, the social glue.

So I agree, lets see the IfA as the port of call... it should be... after quarter of a century it really should be. Lets see the IfA and RESCUE and CBA and Archaeology Scotland and ALAO and FAME, istoric SCotland, CADW, English Heritage, RCAMS and even little ol' BAJR and the myriad of others have a single goal, a single voice and for once... just once say... I think we all agree.. rather than panic that another is stepping on toes... or that there is a cross over that will erode their own self importance or that this is their area and how dare others suggest sharing... Imagine if BAJR adverts appeared on IfA website... it could and that CBA news was streamed onto here and every other website... that we all shared what we have and merged it to ensure that everyone - no matter how they came to us, would see the same... Archaeology as a united group... saying... we are important, because we feel that it is damn good fun to carry out archaeology and for the developer, a happy smiling public will be happy and smile upon you as well. Sometimes I want to return to the heady days of just after PP16. A brave new world that saw us think... right, lets get too it... before it felt better to slash budgets and cut corners, to meet deadlines and mitigate to the line.

So IfA - what about it? Time for a real change? a real shake up? Get the staff out into the field... do some digging? DO you? I don't know.... if you do... tell us... how does it feel? where were you... Become the new archaeology/

Rant mode over! Ah... better

Pulpit now removed.!

[Martin Locock]

We don't have to all be whislteblowers- we can all be responsible professionals and question whether the work we do is advancing the state of archaeology. If not, we should be prepared to say so.

(Incidentally the preservation in situ mantra probably originated with PPG16 and was intended to prevent developers from arguing that paying for / allowing archaeology on a development site to be excavated was a benefit from the proposal).

The failure of the IFA has been that it has been, and largely still is, seen as an organisation for senior staff, not for everybody. There are some good and bad reasons for this, but as a way forward, everyone should join. It is noticeable how much difference it makes to corporate actions when there are IFA members throughout an organisation, not just at the top.

[BAJR]

Does the IfA need to be seen to be willing to change? That is a question, rather than just admitting bravely that it is percieved to be a corporate organisation, --- let us not forget the work of teh Diggers Forum of course !! --- is it capable of change now. Would it need a clean sweep? What would it take to get people joining?

AS an add on... and thanks for the reminder Martin.... preservation is situ has become something different than what it was meant to. SO redefinition would be useful. pps Did you know the preesrvation is situ has a time limit?

[Dinosaur]

As someone working for a company with a load of ISOs, its amazing how much they improve the standard (or at least quantity) of recording etc that goes on both on site and back at the office and anywhere else - even though none of the ISOs have anything whatsoever to do with archaeology per se, the threat of in-depth auditing, eg the tracing of the document-trail of a randomly selected soil sample from in-the-ground through recovery, transport, initial processing (and disposal of waste), through the various stages of specialist analysis, reporting, publication and archive, which has happened on at least one audit I'm aware of, doesn't half sharpen up the thought processes of the POs, and hopefully filters down to the workforce. It's a pain in the a*** doing all the beaurocracy but definitely sharpens up the whole process in all aspects of work (documenting all aspects of H&S, for instance, effectively ensures a safer working environment). Surely something equivalent could be devised with a focused archaeological slant? Would cost money though (the ISO certifications ain't cheap!) :face-thinks:

[dmama]

i've said it once and i'll say it again "having been a field archaeologist, planning supervisor and illustrator( both by hand and digitally), i have always called myself an archaeologist. as far as my experience has informed me the institute for (sweet)fa has never really been much cop for those who are not published or just generally love the sound of their own voices. i think some are just jealous of skilled/talented people who give a damn. sad really don't you think. thanks bajr it's good to know that some people still admire skill over bulls***t"

[Steven]

Hi
Here's some more:

http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes...ok0311.pdf