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

[Steve H]

Well said.
I think I might join BAJR if it was a Chartered Institute!

[Wax]

I suspect you would want to see - and this is the nub of most hesitation to join - the bad boys punished.

Top of my list

[Dinosaur]

I'll third (or is it fourth) that :face-approve:

[Sikelgaita]

Where do I start.

I want to see a profession where the people in that profession, who are by and large passionate about archaeology, are not exploited by their employers because they are doing a job they love. I want to see a different career structure where the technical skills of experienced diggers are valued as highly as report writing skills. I want to see proper apprenticeship schemes put in place for diggers. I want to see better pay and conditions for everyone in archaeology. I want to see archaeological consultants who actually represent the interests of the archaeology not their clients. I want to see curators given the time and resources to actually do their jobs properly......

I cannot see how the CIfA will make a jot of difference to any of these.

[Tool]

It is a little sad that too many people appear to share that attitude.....but a degree of honesty is to be applauded. If more people were as honest it would save making excuses to deflect from the real reason they won't support the IfA...

I think you're being a little disingenuous there Kevin, implying that just because one person has a particular reason for not supporting the IfA, all others are being dishonest by not also giving that reason. There have been many valid reasons given here why people don't support it over the last few months, none of which appear to have been addressed or even acknowledged. It's disappointing that the most vociferous defenders of the IfA seem incapable of understanding that there may be other points of view about the profession, its practice and it's governance, and that people understand and experience archaeology in different ways. The IfA will always have a significant number of ardent detractors whilst this attitude continues, and rightly so. The sad thing is that I don't think many would disagree with the stated aims of the IfA, but there are obviously many of us who disagree with their outlook, understanding and methods.

[kevin wooldridge]

I think you're being a little disingenuous there Kevin, implying that just because one person has a particular reason for not supporting the IfA, all others are being dishonest by not also giving that reason. There have been many valid reasons given here why people don't support it over the last few months, none of which appear to have been addressed or even acknowledged.

OK. Here is a challenge. Give me 10 reasons (5 if you are pressed) why yourself as a fairly new entrant to the profession are unable to support the aims of the IfA, If you feel the problems are not being addressed, list the problems and I will happily give you my view (Other views are of course available!!)

[Mike.T.]

Where do I start.

I want to see a profession where the people in that profession, who are by and large passionate about archaeology, are not exploited by their employers because they are doing a job they love. I want to see a different career structure where the technical skills of experienced diggers are valued as highly as report writing skills. I want to see proper apprenticeship schemes put in place for diggers. I want to see better pay and conditions for everyone in archaeology. I want to see archaeological consultants who actually represent the interests of the archaeology not their clients. I want to see curators given the time and resources to actually do their jobs properly......

I cannot see how the CIfA will make a jot of difference to any of these.

Well said.

I'm sure any new comer into Archaeology would support the actual aims of the IfA but that isn't the point. Most would see the low pay minima ( set by the IfA ), standards varying from unit to unit ( even if they are all IfA members ), no actual career benefit, that basic membership isn't based on any particular skill or ability and that most employers, inexplicably, prefer IfA membership.

[Tool]

OK. Here is a challenge. Give me 10 reasons (5 if you are pressed) why yourself as a fairly new entrant to the profession are unable to support the aims of the IfA, If you feel the problems are not being addressed, list the problems and I will happily give you my view (Other views are of course available!!)

Ah, see, there you go again. I just said that most probably do support the aims of the IfA... Now the reasons I don't support the IfA (as opposed to their aims) are many and varied, but I'll start with:

• There is a distinct impression from the people I speak to, some on this forum, and it's certainly the impression I get, that the IfA seems happy not to actively consult with those of us out in the field. These are the people who tend to experience the worst conditions, the worst of the hire-and-fire temporarily contracts, the lowest pay but without whom no-one else in the industry would have much data to work with. These are also the people who have the direct experience of many of the techniques and practices that become enshrined in the codes of practice (or whatever you want to call them), so are best placed to say whether they are actually practical, efficient and suit the archaeology being worked on. I'd like to see the IfA bend over backwards to reach out to those in the field (and please don't trot out the 'we have x,000 members, therefor you must be in a misguided minority': enough people in here have demonstrated a) that this segment of the industry is under-represented and b) how the figures can be highly misleading. To be representative of the industry, the IfA needs to embrace the entirety of the industry.
  
• The policies of the IfA appear to be biased towards outdated notions of how archaeology is practiced in the UK, and has not caught up with the fact that commercial archaeology is now the mainstay of active archaeology. As I've said before, a visible campaign to engage with the construction industry to find ways in which this little bit of planning law could be used to their advantage rather than being an expensive inconvenience would be a good move.
  
• I haven't seen nearly enough from the IfA to be convinced that they truly believe in public engagement. I've said more than enough on why I think that this is an imperative.
  
• Although I haven't seen it myself in my short career so this is anecdotal, it seems that the IfA don't uphold the standards they espouse nearly strongly enough both with regards ROs and individuals. This in itself casts doubt on the IfA's competence.
  
• To someone like me, where money is so tight, and also unlikely to be in a position to be publishing anything, there is a lack of a 'I support the aims of the IfA but am skint and not at a level that the P/MIfA grades cover' grade.
  
• Yes, there is an element of 'so what can they do for me?', given that they are not in a position to guarantee wages or any concrete method for increasing them, cannot address the temporary contract issue, don't/can't uphold best practice in archaeology because they don't apparently understand it themselves and can't/don't punish those who do it badly.
  

That's the first six for you. This is not an exhaustive list, more a starting point off the top of my head.

[Sikelgaita]

...cannot address the temporary contract issue.

I do not think that RIBA, RICS or any other chartered organisiation would expect that it's members would work on short term contracts of a few months here, a month over there, living out of B & B's or cheap hotels. I think they would be horrified if one of their registered member organisations was actually asking its staff to pay a contribution towards that accommodation, but this seems to be something that is OK in archaeology and not a murmur from the IfA about this exploitative practice.

[Tool]

Just thought of another one:
There is a slightly patronising stance from the IfA that seems to say that those in the field, because they get their hands dirty, don't understand archaeology in the round as well as those who work in the more academic areas. This is despite the the fact that many out in the field are themselves well educated and read, and have the additional advantage of seeing how the theory and the reality tie together (or not as is often the case). The professional progression is geared towards 'advancing' away from this area, which to my mind is a mistake. The value of having good, knowledgeable and experienced people proving/disproving the theory is invaluable.