IfA - A Chartered Institute

[Dinosaur]

How, as a non-member, does one go about objecting to IFA getting a charter, any handy Ombudsmen does anyone know?

[kevin wooldridge]

A petition (the official application) for a Chartered body is published in the London Gazette and a time period given within which formal objections can be made to the granting of a Charter....that I guess is the way to do it!!

[Dinosaur]

Not one of the local rags we get around here

[BAJR]

TO be fair... You would not expect anyone but members to have a voice in whther the IfA become chartered :face-stir:

I guess that would mean an interesting turn of events. though of course chartered archaeologists and non chartered could exist... just as chartered and non chartered other groups

[kevin wooldridge]

TO be fair... You would not expect anyone but members to have a voice in whther the IfA become chartered

In general there are lots of bodies and organisations that become Chartered - this weeks list has the MCC and some public school on it. I can imagine that there might well be non-members who have a right to contest an application by a variety of organisations for all kinds of reason. In the case of archaeologists who object to the IFA becoming chartered, they have a choice to either 'put-up or shut-up' and I think that's right. I suspect however, that other than moans to BAJR forum, no-one will protest or contest the IfA's progress to Chartered status in any way at all. That's sadly how archaeology in the UK works....Imagine how powerful as a lobby archaeologists might be if only a fraction of the cant that has been spat at the IfA over the years could be harnessed as a power for good and the general improvement of the profession.

[monty]

IfA slagging has and still is a major topic amongst the fraternity................... well said Kevin !

[Doug]

So I think I will be one of the few to go against the idea of a chartered organization because it lacks a wife's touch. (yes, that makes very little sense but I will explain)

So the IfA gets chartered status and 1 of 3 things will happen, none of which are good

1. absolutely nothing changes other than the IfA has chartered status- crap result, lots members money is spent, more paper work, etc. for nothing.

2. the IfA somehow takes control of who can call themselves an archaeologists NOT WHO CAN PRACTICE BUT WHO CAN CALL themselves an archaeologists. This just makes people angry that and just leads to the argument about how heritage workers know more cross sectioning a post whole than an archaeologists.

3. The IfA gets to determine who can practice archaeology. Worst case scenario! Yes, there are bad archaeologists and poor work conditions but forcing people to jump through hoops will not weed out the bad archaeologists or improve work condition, just force the really good ones to leave and guarantee conditions stay the same, just profit margins go up.

The reason the charter status fails is because the concept is based on forcing people to do something. It is all stick and no carrot. If the IfA wants to weed out bad archaeologists (however you define this) or improve working conditions then it should act like a wife/girlfriend/boyfriend(no discrimination here) . That is to convince archaeologists to be good archaeologists (again however one defines that) because they think they want to be good archaeologists not because they are afraid of being kicked out. The IfA should let us think we made the decision to be good even though we all know who really had the idea e.g. the wife effect.

Right now the IfA works as a stick, not a very big one or intimidating one, when it should try to be a carrot. Chartered status is just another way to try and make that stick bigger.

In my personal opinion, joining an organization should benefit a person so much that they would be stupid not to join. But not because those benefits are artificial barriers imposed by the organization, real benefits that help people.

just my two cents

[BAJR]

A very very very useful 2 cents.

Had me read it twice. I agree with Kevin that moaning about IfA is a pointless pursuit, as nobody does anything other than moan ( when presented with an alternative )

Dougs post however is a serious review, a statement of how it is ( as he sees it ) and not an attack on the IfA but a pause for thought...

I have had time to read the documents now and am concerned (seriously concerned ) about the idea that they could force council/govermental contracts to only accept Chartered Archaeologists. That is the stick again... As Doug says... Stick only is not a real incentive. and if the carrot is a small one it is not an incentive.

Benefits - and a club you want to join - not have to.

:face-approve:

[pdurdin]

So what we really need is an IfAS: Institute for Archaeologist's Spouses? :face-huh:

Correct me if I've got this wrong, but it seems to me that the chartering is going to make it even more difficult for new graduates to break into the job market (and probably costing them more money when they can least afford it).

[Oxbeast]

@pdurdin, realisticaly only a tiny number of people are going to be fully chartered, the manager/senior types that are MIFA today.

The problem is that the IfA is trying to force LPAs to specify that all archaeology done as part of the planning system i