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

[kevin wooldridge]

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.

In the past 2 years the IfA have initiated consultations on the following (those marked DF are specifically Diggers Forum initiatives

'Working away' survey (DF)
Profiling the Profession'
International Cultural Heritage Survey
IfA Standard and guidance for archaeological advice and procurement of archaeological services.
Consultation on Chartered status
Archaeology pay and training day conference (DF)
Community archaeology in Wales day school
Selection strategies for archive deposition day school
Consultation on HER services
Valuing the profession open forum (April 2013)
Guide to the use of Social Media in archaeology
Consultation survey on CPD and Training (DF)
Salary minima consultation
IFA survey and measured recording survey
Diggers Forum session at TAG conference 2012
IFA conference 2012
IFA conference 2013
Training and professional develoment in the workplace conference

All of the above invite participation from all grades of archaeologist of any skill level and in any of the multi-disciplines that make up our profession.

It has also advertised and responded to 52 heritage related consultations in 2013 http://www.archaeologists.net/advocacy/responses/2013 and a similar number in 2012


Amongst other currently in progress are

The Future of English Heritage consultation
Archaeology in Local government consultation
Review of Research Frameworks consultation

Plus 4 issues of the Archaeologist magazine per year, the IfA website, e-mail and postal notifications to members

I would be happy to admit that there are problems communicating with staff in the field. I work in the field myself. But there are ways that the problem can be eased. One way of course is for more active engagement by field staff whether this is through the IfA or a trade union. The Diggers Forum is always on the lookout for site-based contacts to disseminate news and information.

I think it is a mistake to assume that members of the IfA are unaware of the techniques and practices used by archaeologists currently at the section-face. You may be surprised to know that many of these techniques and practices and techniques were devised and honed by members of the IfA.....eg single context recording system, stratigraphic excavation, finds and environmental techniques etc etc.

The Codes of Practice of the IfA were also designed by working field archaeologists and passed by putting these to a vote of members of the profession. I Know this to be a fact as I was on the working party for one of these. Not as a manager or consultant or devils advocate, but as a field-based member of the pofession. They were not dictated from above or outside the profession. Any code can be amended or even removed by a resolution put to popular vote.

I would actually disagree that the section-face is under represented amongst IfA members, but would agree that there is a lack of enthusiasm and involvement. The Diggers Forum has in excess of 400 members making it one of the largest IfA interest groups. But it can only work where folk are willing to put in time and effort.

[kevin wooldridge]

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.

These are the 'policies' of the IfA. It is these which are normally encapsulated in WSI as following best practice or IfA guidelines. Such advice covers all practitioners of commercial archaeology, irrespective of whether they are members of the IfA. It seems to me that all have relevance to commercial archaeology, but I'd be interested to hear which you consider outdated or irrelevant.

As for campaigns to engage with developers, there has been an Archaeology and British Property Federation developer liaison group policy document in place since 1986 to which the IfA subscribes. (I attach a link to the Newham Borough online version of this policy http://apps.newham.gov.uk/environment/ud...ogical.pdf.

IfA 'policies'[URL="http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/Code-of-conduct-revOct2013.pdf"]

Codeof conduct[/URL]
Codeof approved practice for the regulation of contractual arrangementsin archaeology
Disciplinaryregulations
Regulationsfor the registration of organisations
Groups by-law


Introductionto standards and guidance
Standardand guidance for archaeological advice by historic environmentservices
Standardand guidance for the creation, compilation, transfer and depositionof archaeological archives
Standardand guidance for the archaeological investigation and recording ofstanding buildings or structures
Standardand guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation andresearch of archaeological materials
Standardand guidance for commissioning work on, or providing consultancyadvice on, archaeology and the historic environment
Standardand guidance for desk-based assessment
Standardand guidance for excavation
Standardand guidance for field evaluation
Standardand guidance for forensic archaeologists
Standardand guidance for geophysical survey
Standardand guidance for nautical archaeological recording and reconstruction
Standardand guidance for stewardship of the historic environment
Standardand guidance for an archaeological watching brief


Thereis also a Policy Statements Document that contains policies on thefollowing:[URL="http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/IfA-Policy-Statements-rev-Aug-13.pdf"]
[/URL]

[URL="http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/IfA-Policy-Statements-rev-Aug-13.pdf"]Equalopportunities
Health and safety
Volunteers and students onarchaeological projects
Environmental protection
Self-employmentand the use of self-employed contractors
The use of training postson archaeological projects[/URL]


Riskassessment template - guidance notes
Riskassessment: minor works
Riskassessment: larger projects

[kevin wooldridge]

... 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 R Os and individuals. This in itself casts doubt on the IfA's competence.

I think my first answer demonstrates that the IfA are engaged with the public through its responses to consultations and its efforts to promote archaeological standards. That is its prime remit.

The IfA follow up every complaint made through its disciplinary process. Their disciplinary system is also externally reviewed by independent auditors. I wouldn't comment upon the severity of the punishments handed out, but those which I have personal knowledge of seem appropriate to the situation. Anecdote and archaeology go hand in hand. The IfA can only discipline within the rules it sets and with a view to compliance within the bounds of UK law. As I am sure you are aware there is nothing to stop any individual or organisation setting up as an archaeologist in the UK. The IfA can only discipline folk who agree to be disciplined.

I'd be happy to join with you in advocating that every archaeologist active in the UK should be licensed with a view to losing that licence if they fail to meet standards, but....it would probably piss a lot of people off if we did and unlikely to make it past wishful thinking

[kevin wooldridge]

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.

PIFA membership requires the following... 'open to those who have undertaken skilled tasks within the historic environment sector under the guidance of others, and have carried out responsible work under a level of supervision' I think that covers your current level of responsibility and competence.

If you are getting the IfA minima wage the subscription at this level will be £69 per year (payable in instalments) so less than a packet of fags per month, plus as Sadie pointed out before, you can get tax relief on your subscription which could reduce it to less than £1 a week. Many employers pay all or part of IfA subscriptions. So it could be free....I don't really see what the publishing connection is.

I think it is important to realise that there is nothing for free in the profession of archaeology. That applies as much as to membership of the IfA as it does for any expectation of an increase in benefits or remuneration. My observation based on 30+ years experience is that fulfillment of expectations is normally directly related to the level of input that people are willing to make....

[kevin wooldridge]

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 advexists antage 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.

I don't think that exists in the constitution of the IfA, although I will accept that there are patronising asses in archaeology just like in any other job. I don't know how it is possible to legislate against it. The IfA have for many years accepted field skills as well as academic qualification counting towards its grading. All corporate grades are based on levels of responsibility which can be personal as well as corporate. If you are paraphrasing the Groucho Marx idiom 'I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member' that is fair enough, but by implication you are suggesting that all 3000 archaeologists who are members of the IfA are arrogant and patronising. That is untrue and if you were to meet many of the pro-IfA folk who post to this forum, I think you would accept that.

[Tool]

Kevin, I thank you. I'm not going to comment now, as there is a lot there to read, digest, look into and cogitate on. But there is just one thing I'll say now - maybe you've inadvertently identified the main failing of the IfA, and that's not communicating what they do well enough.

Anyways, it's Saturday, there's rugby on the TV, so I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks again for your reply and have a good weekend.

[Dinosaur]

So nothing new then? And after all that, has anything actually changed due to IfA? Lots of words but staggeringly little action (apart from enhancing their own perceived position), not even any demonstrations of enforcement amongst their own members

[Tool]

So nothing new then? And after all that, has anything actually changed due to IfA? Lots of words but staggeringly little action (apart from enhancing their own perceived position), not even any demonstrations of enforcement amongst their own members

I confess I did think a little of the People's Front of Judea, but then a couple of beers have been consumed during the rugby (and my, what a game!). So, I'll be good and withhold judgement for a while.

[P Prentice]

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......

so do i but i also want to see a clear distinction between hobbyist dabblers/amateurs/charlatans/inexperienced/ill-trained professionals and proper professionals which is why i joined ifa and look forward to being a cifa.

[Dinosaur]

My word, trying to distance yourself from lowly MIFAs already? }