Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th April 2009, 04:21 PM
damn... so simple... but yet so... simple.! You show the curator you have the relevant expeience and thats it!
nice one peter
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
20th April 2009, 04:34 PM
Please don't say its simple you will get me thrown out of my club. But it would not take much to come up with a general guide line as a bench mark of suitability for this sort of thing. Then you don't even have to specify equivalence. And you are most probably going to ask sight of work done/reference or whatever
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
20th April 2009, 04:40 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by peteraf
Could you not just take the the general requirements for a MIFA as the base? Something like must have degree plus 3 years relevant experience at the right level or 5 years without degree?
but that underlines the inaccuracy of the IfA levels. To get MIFA you can either work your butt of on sites and writing reports for years and years, doing 'the job'. Or you get a masters, get a management job delegating the actual job to people who know what they are doing, and cruise into a MIFA because of your level of responsibility!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
20th April 2009, 04:49 PM
Yes I know people who have done it and I wouldn't trust them to open a crisp packet let alone a site. But how do you get round that? Treat Archaeology like law or medicine? Not a bad idea if you get the same pay.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
20th April 2009, 04:54 PM
Beamo read what peteraf posted, that is essentially it, plus some evidence that you have carried out similar work in the past. Unless it is a very small job and then maybe evidence that you have supervised similar work for another company.
What would you prefer, a line that says 'anyone at all can carry out the work'. Maybe even the builder and his ground workers, is that a better system for you? Or maybe someone in the local community who has seen time team?
It is easy to poke holes but much harder to suggest a better system. I await with eager interest your solution.
There are too many problems with the IFA to insist that people pay good money to join but that doesn?t mean we should allow just anyone to carry out the work. There is more to successfully recording and archiving a site than just writing a few essays you know. We have a responsibility, as we are requiring the developer to pay for the work and allowing the destruction of finite archaeological deposits, to see that it is carried out to an acceptable standard.
ten years on and still no bottom
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
20th April 2009, 11:00 PM
"...allowing the destruction of the finite resource.."
The vast majority of archaeological assets that fall within the planning regime are destroyed. This is in clear contravention of the tenets of PPG 16.It is in fact the Curators if anyone-who "allow" this.Not archaeologists.
Vulpes (on another thread) was kind enough to point out that the PPGs may be in for an overhaul and in my opinion-this is way overdue and most welcome. In the context of contractors and the IFA, a new direction of emphases could reshape the working relationship between these two major players. I would like to see the IFA professional standards given a clear legislative mandate and that in itself would shake contractors lists to the core. Curators, if provided with an unambiguous legal frame of reference and the logistics to function, could make a world of difference.
Contractors have to have Professional indemnity in place before offering services to clients. I would argue that the almost total lack of claims against the indemnity of poor quality contractors is entirely due to the painful lack of clear legislation in commercial archaeology. With my cynical hat on, I would wager that we would see a more pro-active approach to professional standards if poor quality contractors lost a few million quid now and then. A cosy chat over tea and biccies with a voluntary body bereft of legislative standing has clearly had a minimal effect so far.
To stick to the frames of reference of this thread- I do believe that an overhaul of the legal standing of archaeology would provide much impetus in the evolution of the contractor/curator/IFA relationship. Bring it on!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2006
20th April 2009, 11:22 PM
My wife has senior job in a county council and she would get a bollocking off human resources for specifying any such thing in a job advert. When she employs archaeologists she has to make a written case to even include a degree in archaeology or related discipline would be preferred. I would make a formal complaint to the council- they will probably write you a fobbing off letter while the lawyers roast the curator involved over a slow fire They are acting illegally and you have grounds to sue - but i wouldn't unless you very rich. As has been pointed out legislation of the last 20 years has been to open up the job market with the exceptions of the professions proper- medicine and law etc and anyone who thinks archaeology will ever be included in that cartel is simply ignorant of the real world.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
21st April 2009, 09:55 AM
There is a very clear legal framework within which archaeology works. The real problem, I feel, is that so many people working in and with Archaeology don't know or understand it. And I include in this list every one from the county head of legal services to the single finds specialist. This brings me to the point of application of the law If we consider that there are three main players, the Developer, the council and the Archaeologist you don't have to be that bright to see who has the most power to enforce the law to advantage.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
21st April 2009, 10:00 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by bob
Quote:quote:Originally posted by peteraf
Could you not just take the the general requirements for a MIFA as the base? Something like must have degree plus 3 years relevant experience at the right level or 5 years without degree?
but that underlines the inaccuracy of the IfA levels. To get MIFA you can either work your butt of on sites and writing reports for years and years, doing 'the job'. Or you get a masters, get a management job delegating the actual job to people who know what they are doing, and cruise into a MIFA because of your level of responsibility!
If you actually read the new Validation Criteria you will see that 'Levels of responsibility' are no longer the criteria used for any fo the IfA corporate levels of membership, nor is time served at a specific level. This has been the case for some time. This was done to deal with the bumpy playing field which had developed as the profession became more diverse and roles more and more difficult to define en masse.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
21st April 2009, 10:36 AM
RICS have a number of defined 'pathways' to chartered status, and something like 40 different specialisms which chartered status can be awarded to, similar to the more diverse roles that oldgirl mentions above. Requiring someone to be MIfA is not really valid, because if that is all you ask, you still don't know if the person has the skills and experience to do the job. You might be specifying building recording or complex excavation and the person got their MIfA for illustration or publication management or something. Perhaps the advert should have been worded somethign like 'the contractor should have a demonstrable record of suitable skills and experience, of which membership of the IfA can form a part', or something a bit better worded than that.
