IfA to be abolished and replaced by......

[kevin wooldridge]

Mr Wells.. a lot of Chartered Professional bodies normally require graduate qualifications for the mainstay of its membership qualification, the ifa don't seem to. Should a graduate archaeologist take them seriously?

Really don't understand what you are referring to here. Membership criteria for the IfA covers both applicants with formal academic qualifications as well as applicants with experiential qualifications. The majority of applicants (as with the majority of archaeologists) have formal qualifications supplemented with experience and continuing professional development. You seem to be fixated at the moment with degree qualification. I guess it makes a change from taxation and pensions.....but please get to the point and tell us what the real issue is. I'm sure its nothing to do with the IfA....

[Marc Berger]

not sure what you mean by the real issue. I think on another thread http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...ity/page10 you did not want to discuss the ifas lack of authority over academic credentials. Yes the ifa caters for qualifications but hardly formally and it caters for everything else as well:

1.2 Who can join?
We welcome applications from all involved with the study and care of the historic environment, including heritage management, further and higher education and the voluntary sector, regardless of academic background.

It seems to me that the ifa is in danger or is it to be congratulated of establishing that the qualifications to be a Chartered Archaeologist are as above- "regardless of academic background".

........now the real issue is that the ifa has buried "FIELD" archaeology in a rank any worthy amateur voluntary heritage management is an archaeologist ethos. Doesn't archaeology have the cba for that and doesn't the ifa if it wants field archaeology to be professional need to set approved accredited graduate courses leading to appropriate cpd.

[kevin wooldridge]

.... doesn't the ifa if it wants field archaeology to be professional need to set approved accredited graduate courses leading to appropriate cpd.

Err... if we accept that archaeology is a broad church, then the answer is NO. Professional practice covers a wide ranging agenda above and beyond academic qualification alone

[Marc Berger]

do you have any children who go to school and if you do, do you tell them why? seems to me that your broad church is full of people looking for sanctuary. Professional practice is about living off knowledge. What have you got against university education?

[kevin wooldridge]

I have no issue with uiniversity education at all. I am a student at the University of Birmingham right now. My point (and I think one echoed by David over the years) is that archaeology as a profession has people who come from a wide range of backgrounds. To restrict it to those with academic qualifications, which many folk accept are not entirely related to the professional practice of archaeology anyway, creates an exclusivity which is not particularly helpful....My view is that a professional archaeologist should be judged through their efforts and professional achievements irrespective of what school they attended....but you would know that both in your current and previous incarnations...!!

[Marc Berger]

so can we agree that the effect of the ifa becoming chartered is that an archaeologist is someone regardless of academic background and that university courses with the words archaeology in them are not relevant to the practise of being a field archaeologist. Can we take it a bit further and suggest that being a field archaeologist does not have to involve science.

[kevin wooldridge]

No....no....and er....no!!

[Marc Berger]

then what does qualify somebody to excavate? It seems to me that the governments position is that archaeology is run for amateurs, making the ifa patron of non academic qualifications chartered is just another way to reinforce this legacy of British Archaeology. Some people like to call it independent archaeology http://www.independents.org.uk/the-valletta-report

[P Prentice]

university courses with the words archaeology in them are not relevant to the practise of being a field archaeologist. Can we take it a bit further and suggest that being a field archaeologist does not have to involve science.

yes indeed yes but i hope chartership changes that

[kevin wooldridge]

There is nothing to stop anyone having aspirations to work with archaeological material/data. Whether they do that as a paid job is another matter, but in a sense it is irrelevant. Access is everything. Its also very useful that those who aspire to paid work but are unable to do so, can still maintain a hands-on interest in the subject. 'Independent Archaeology' seems to me to be a political organisation rather than a subject interest group, but they don't bother me too much and I don't bother them. I don't think the government have an opinion one way or another on archaeology as a subject, although of course they will express concern with regard to any group seeking to 'impede' development, be that archaeologists, environmentalists etc etc .....Chartered status confers official recognition on the IfA as the arbiter of archaeological standards in the UK. Some people like that idea, some don't.