IfA - A Chartered Institute

[kevin wooldridge]

I disagree in principle with Doug's synopsis. The Charter prospect in itself will make little difference to archaeologists. Even within the IfA there will be Chartered and non-chartered archaeologists (if Chartered status is to be seen as a level of attainment vis a vis the institutions aims and professed qualifications). Sure it might well piss some people off, but so what!! Many people have been pissed off for the past 30 years that the IfA has the temerity to exist let alone regulate archaeology, so no change expected there. If 'Charter' happens (and it is still speculation) there will still be no compulsion or coercion to join the IfA and it is unimaginable that the organisation will have the power to enforce membership.

Where it will make a difference could be, as David suggests, if the sponsors and regulators of archaeology ask for Chartered status as a pre-qualification for tenders and/or contracts. How that might affect individuals is hard to assess, but it would certainly have an effect on contracting organisations. The IfA says it has received advice that limiting tenderers by dint of professional accreditation is legal and as we said earlier in this thread, opponents can only test that through legal challenge....will that happen? Doubt it!!

[ecmgardner]

Fascinating debate as I know it's been mentioned a few times but I didn't realise there was a consultation. I'll declare my interests here as I'm a MIfA and do sincerely hope that I could show my two kids how to half section a posthole with my eyes closed ;o) I have encountered some muppets in my career but their IfA status or lack thereof made no difference to the shade of muppetly-ness, it was inherent in the individual. I don't think it's isolated to the archaeological world either. I have encountered OFSTED registed childcare providers for my children who terrified me and made me wonder how on earth they passed muster - but that doesn't mean all OFSTED registered childcarers are useless at their jobs.

I haven't read all 10 pages of the thread here properly but have skimmed them.

I'm not sure how I feel about chartering and at the moment am keeping an open mind.

I don't know the ins and outs of how the Irish system works as I've always worked in the UK, but as far as I understand it there is much more of a 'closed shop'. As this seems to be a big and valid fear of the IfA gaining chartered status I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on the differences and similarities between the two setups?

[Doug]

I disagree in principle with Doug's synopsis.

Kevin can you be a little more specific what part you disagree with? I laid out three possibilities, one of which is nothing happens, which is what you suggest. Another is that they enforce who can practice archaeology, though I did not mention how. The enforcement through councils could be one way. Not sure where it is we disagree?

[kevin wooldridge]

Where do I disagree.....

1. absolutely nothing changes. Disagree. The IfA will become a Charted organisation and will be able to offer Chartered accrediatation. Whether you think that is a good or bad thing is open for debate, but it will hardly be stasis.

2. the IfA somehow takes control of who can call themselves an archaeologists. Disagree. The IfA maybe able to control who calls themselves a chartered archaeologist, nothing more.

3. The IfA gets to determine who can practice archaeology. Disagree. Where does Chartered status confer any form of monopolistic control over a profession?

4 The reason the charter status fails is because the concept is based on forcing people to do something. Disagree. The IfA would not be forcing anyone to do anything. It will only have 'control' over archaeologists who aspire to or achieve Chartered accreditation

[Unitof1]

What would interest me most is how are going to try and define what they mean by an archaeologist or archaeology. Seems to me that they wont be willing to do that especially with field archaeology terms like watching brief, evaluation and excavation and will probably fudge it with other terms like heritage worker, historic environment.

This is the central problem with the ifa in that the ifa has standards which appear to be directly concerned with field methodologies and craft but which are probably not the day to day concern of the majority of the ifas members. Even the bizzar RAO excuse of haveing a mifa director I dont see how that ever made it their responsibility for a messed up evaluation. Bit like a solidger saying that they tortured the prisioner be cause they were ordered too. That the ifa have sort to ever increase their membership base with illustrators, geophysicists and all manner of proffessions who could probably more ligitimatley define their own chartered status around standards applicable to their professions shows the ifa up for what it does not represent which is field archaeologists.

I wonder how much overlap they can have with other chartered organisations or even none chartered like museums?

It could be that in chartering the use of the word archaeologist that they dont get field archaeologist. It could be pointed out to the charterists that yes they can have "archaeologist" but they dont get "field archaeologist" and that they should remove all their standards on field archaeology which are not applicable to the ifa members. We could point out that they very publically droppped "field" from their name which would suggest that they have no use for it.

Be interesting to know if there is any mention of copyrights as well

I am still at a bit of a dissadvantage in knowing whats in this consultation. cant someone make it more public?

[Doug]

Where do I disagree.....

1. absolutely nothing changes. Disagree. The IfA will become a Charted organisation and will be able to offer Chartered accrediatation. Whether you think that is a good or bad thing is open for debate, but it will hardly be stasis.

2. the IfA somehow takes control of who can call themselves an archaeologists. Disagree. The IfA maybe able to control who calls themselves a chartered archaeologist, nothing more.

3. The IfA gets to determine who can practice archaeology. Disagree. Where does Chartered status confer any form of monopolistic control over a profession?

4 The reason the charter status fails is because the concept is based on forcing people to do something. Disagree. The IfA would not be forcing anyone to do anything. It will only have 'control' over archaeologists who aspire to or achieve Chartered accreditation

I guess I should elaborate then as I think we are on the same page for most of it.

1. nothing happens- I don't mean that nothing happens yes chartered status is confirmed which is something. I mean nothing happens in that nothing changes other than some headings on some stationary. I mean nothing really tangible happens. In other words, names change but it is business as usual. That's what I mean by nothing really happens which I believe is what you said might happen. Am I wrong on that?

2. Well to start with yes (and I would place being able to call one's self chartered archaeologists as the same category as 1- nothing happens) but lawyers are an excellent case of a closed shop were they can control who calls themselves a lawyer. I think that would be very far down the road for the IfA on chartered status but chartering is one of the steps for that.

3. Chartered status is used to control who can practice by making it a requirement from councils, heritage bodies, etc. the chartering does not do this but it can be used as a step in the process to do it.

On the face of it chartered status means nothing, absolutely nothing. However it can be used as a building block and is especially powerful for people who do not know that it means nothing. That is were I see chartered status going but I really think option 1 is the most likely -lots of money for a fancy title. So I see it as at best a waste at worse a step in a process to beef up the sticks that the IfA has or any organization for that matter.

I don't mean to pick on the IfA, other organizations do the same thing, they just happen to be the subject.

[kevin wooldridge]

As I said in my earlier post, I suspect that OTHER organisations may use 'Chartered' status as a means of pre-qualifying for tenders/contracts etc. The IfA may also encourage other bodies to go down that line, but they will have no powers to CONTROL this

Lawyers may be a closed shop when it comes to representation in certain situations in certain courts and through certain forms of contract, BUT my understanding is that anyone can stand in court and represent themself or others, can offer advice on legal matters (Citizens Advice Bureaus etc) and even undertake some legal processes (conveyancing for example), providing they do not misrepresent themself as a qualified lawyer or solicitor. Archaeologists would be in precisely the same position.

Chartered status will involve more than 'headings on notepaper'. The professional standards that the IfA represent and the training and career development of archaeologists will receive formal recognition. The ultimate aim of many Chartered Institutes is to formalise professional training through tailored qualification. So a Chartered Archaeologist should be such through dint of formal examination and/or assessment of professional aptitude and acheivement. This is the route that I believe the IfA should follow. I understand that some critics of the IfA might like its Chartered form to be inactive, but I doubt it. There is also no instance that I can find where a Chartered body having achieved such status does 'nothing'....

I don't believe that the IfA will attain some kind of 'super-powers' through Chartered status, but I do think their work is important and Chartered status will recognize this. And as I said earlier no-one is forced to join, but negative criticism from the outside, lacking the power or incentive to change the system, is pissing in the wind....

[P Prentice]

As I said in my earlier post, I suspect that OTHER organisations may use 'Chartered' status as a means of pre-qualifying for tenders/contracts etc. The IfA may also encourage other bodies to go down that line, but they will have no powers to CONTROL this

Lawyers may be a closed shop when it comes to representation in certain situations in certain courts and through certain forms of contract, BUT my understanding is that anyone can stand in court and represent themself or others, can offer advice on legal matters (Citizens Advice Bureaus etc) and even undertake some legal processes (conveyancing for example), providing they do not misrepresent themself as a qualified lawyer or solicitor. Archaeologists would be in precisely the same position.

Chartered status will involve more than 'headings on notepaper'. The professional standards that the IfA represent and the training and career development of archaeologists will receive formal recognition. The ultimate aim of many Chartered Institutes is to formalise professional training through tailored qualification. So a Chartered Archaeologist should be such through dint of formal examination and/or assessment of professional aptitude and acheivement. This is the route that I believe the IfA should follow. I understand that some critics of the IfA might like its Chartered form to be inactive, but I doubt it. There is also no instance that I can find where a Chartered body having achieved such status does 'nothing'....

I don't believe that the IfA will attain some kind of 'super-powers' through Chartered status, but I do think their work is important and Chartered status will recognize this. And as I said earlier no-one is forced to join, but negative criticism from the outside, lacking the power or incentive to change the system, is pissing in the wind....

i agree with kevin's analysis and i also think that it will be taken on board by the majority of planning authorities as a way of easily distinguishing bonafide commercial operators. it wont make the tendering any more equitable or life any better for the average digger - unless they happen to work for a chartered organisation. if they do work for a chartered organisation they will have certain training, cpd and employment benefits and a right to complain process backed by the chartering body. eventually levels of pay will rise, but so will expectations and performance. it must surely be a good thing

[Dinosaur]

Will IFA start enforcing its rules on its own members? One reason pay's only average around here is because we keep getting undercut by RAOs....

[BAJR]

f they do work for a chartered organisation they will have certain training, cpd and employment benefits and a right to complain process backed by the chartering body. eventually levels of pay will rise

Is that not already there with ROs? and the current situation.?

Would it mean that Chartered status would be seen as a pre qualification to be able to tender for a commercial job... thus I would have to be Chartered to be able to continue a job that I was doing fine before? Hmmmm pondering.

So... let me see... I could still be an archaeologist... but not actually get any work?

There has to be control... there... said it... but where I strongly agree with Doug is this simple maxim.

Make me want to be part of this, not force me to. Give me the list of carrots... not the sticks. Carrot by the way is not equal to... join or not be able to tender for commercial work.

Chartered Status has benefits. and they are........................