Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[Wax]

Surely the 'bigger picture' is that boith IfA and ALGAO want a standard in place for when HERs become a statutory necessity

I wish I really believed this was going to happen but I fear the worse as I know there are more cuts to HERs and local archaeology services on the way. I do feel that the IFA should be screaming and shouting about what is being done to local curatorial services rather than trying to slip in this guidance document.It might address the question of standards for those who are employed to give guidance but what we need to be doing is ensuring that the need for advisors is fully understood and an absolute requirement. HERS are not statutory nor is the need for archaeological guidance in planning decisions and until they are forget the whole issue of applying standards. Shuting stable doors after horses have bolted is pretty pointless

[Martin Locock]

I don't believe that the timing has any immediate trigger- the need for some form of professional guidance on curatorial activities has been recognised since the first IfA Standards were proposed, but it has taken a long time for ALGAO to accept that the IfA should be the lead body.

But I think it is timely in an era of cuts - it is currently quite hard to defend archaeological posts providing specialist advice when there is no particular qualification for the service provided, so that responsibilities can be handed on to somebody else or posts merged. The principle that planning services need archaeologists is strengthened by codification of their role (and the expertise they need to apply).

IfA should in any case not be leading the defence of curatorial services - that should be ALGAO and CBA.

[Wax]

FAir enough... and should this however contain elements where the people coming up with the standards happen to slip in the message that of course you not only have to adhere to this standard, (one that is happening already) but yu have to become an RO to actually be able to adhere to these standards, as if you are not, then we will exclude you from working in the first place...

This is hardly a document for the purpose of informing the local authority compliance officer about what a statutory HER is. ? IF that is the purpose... then should it not stick to that. rather than say, we will create the standard, and the standard involves using only us . hmmmmmmmm

I am fine... I would be ok, but I don't like being forced - I prefer to be convinced. Chicken Licken or the Big Bad Wolf?

A masterly summary of what I think is wrong with this consultation. I am well aware that the IFA is campaigning against LA cuts but feel that an organisation that is supposed to recognise the interests of field archaeologist should be well to the front and leading (manning the barricades and handing out the Molatove cocktails) the fight on an issue that could lead to the dimise of developer funded and LA archaeology as we know it.

[Martin Locock]

I am very wary of the argument that IfA as the lead body for professional standards should be protecting developer-funded archaeology as an industry. The IfA would still need to exist if the only archaeological work ever done was by amateurs. The strong arguments against cuts would have to come from them being bad for archaeology, not bad for archaeologists.

[P Prentice]

wax - i still cant see where your emnity for ifa is from - anybody can join now, you dont need any particular skill, talent or knowledge - its just a fee

[Wax]

wax - i still cant see where your emnity for ifa is from - anybody can join now, you dont need any particular skill, talent or knowledge - its just a fee

:face-huh:
May be that's the problem ?

[Dinosaur]

Yup, says it all really.....the only silver lining in this farce is that even if they do manage to force all organisations to become ROs it doesn't get them any closer to chartered status, since few of the current non-ROs will be forced to have someone apply for membership to be the designated MIFA (apparently we've got several lurking about anyway, just a case of 'volunteering' one) - and hence it won't do anything to increase their membership, they're still not getting anywhere near my bank account, phew - bad news for BAJR though

[Martin Locock]

I thought that in December the discussion on BAJR had circled round to the view that the only way that standards and conditions in archaeology in the UK could be raised would be by joint action to encourage best practice through increased uptake of schemes such as IfA membership / RO status, giving the potential to address low pay, poor contractual terms, lack of training, and poor standards of excavation and reporting.

If so (and maybe I was imaging it), the response to the curatorial standard is a bit baffling, since it seems to be a move in the right direction.

[Wax]

There is nothing wrong with setting standards the issue is the attempt to ensure that the only recognisable measure of those standards is RO status.

[Martin Locock]

... perhaps because the RO scheme is the only standard accreditation developed for British archaeology?

(It's worth pointing out that arcaheological appliactiosn of generic quality accreditation such as ISO9000 would almost certainly make prominent references to IfA membership, CPD, and the IfA standards and codes)