Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
21st April 2009, 11:07 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
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.
I agree that this would be a better wording if the MIfA bit was in order to demonstrate that the task would be undertaken effectively and appropriately.
Just to open another can of worms, however, it may be that corporate membership of the IfA was specified because the Code of Conduct specifically states that you should not undertake work for which you do not have the appropriate expertise. therefore if you're a corporate member and you do, a complaint can be made and a disciplinary charge brought. If you are a member you have voluntarily signed up to the codes of conduct and the standards and guidance. If you aren't you may well still abide by them (our genial host has always said that, for example) but you have to specifically state that in order for anyone else to know.
And finally (I promise) - if anyone taking on a contractor/sub-contractor of any sort is ISO 9000 registered, they have to demonstrate that they have made an effort to ensure that the organisation they are using is committed to an equally high level of quality assurance. Having officially signed up to something with codes and standards makes it easier to demonstrate that.
(BTW, please don't take this to mean that I am saying that the original brief is correctly worded, I'm not a lawyer. My understanding has always been that, mostly for the reasons given above, you could say that membership 'or similar experience' was required.)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
21st April 2009, 11:12 AM
Troll
'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.'
Not sure where you are heading with this. PPG16 actually states that all archaeological deposits are finite (Paragraph 6). It also states that where nationally important deposits exist, whether scheduled or not there should be a resumption for preservation in situ. Where deposits of less than national importance exist these can be preserved by record (excavation).
Archaeological recording itself destroys the finite archaeological record and therefore whenever I ask for a condition on a planning application rather than refusing it or going for a foundation change in order to preserve it in situ I am in fact signing its death warrant, or as I put it earlier 'allowing the destruction of the finite resource' When this happens we have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that it is recorded by suitably qualified people.
'It is in fact the Curators if anyone-who "allow" this. Not archaeologists.'
I am a curator? Do you imply by this that curators are not archaeologists!!! I have a degree in archaeology, over a decade of field experience running sites all on top of the years I have spent as a curator and YOU decide that I am not an archaeologist. Arrogant f@*k!!
'Vulpes (on another thread) was kind enough to point out that the PPGs may be in for an overhaul'.
Yes and from the heads up we have been given from sources I shall not mention the new PPS could well remove the concept of preservation in situ of nationally important archaeology.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
21st April 2009, 11:47 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by oldgirl
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.
sorry, I may have been being slightly flippant, but having actually read the criteria last year in great detail when I applied for MIFA, the skills matrix (heading levels Knowledge, Autonomy, Coping with complexity and Perception of context) whilst being an improvement on the previous process, clearly and rightly allows management skills to be considered as well as actual 'on-site' skills. I'm afraid I think my point does actually still stand, and I've talked to members of the Validation Committee about this.
I have friends who are openly apologetic of their lack of archaeological ability but got MIFA years ago as they were consultants or managers. That was a while ago, and things may have changed for the better, I think they have, which was one reason why I joined. But there are still those people out there with their letters!
BUT there is the real problem here which is that merely being MIFA does not automatically mean that the holder has relevant skills to the task. I could apply for a standing building job as MIFA, but my career might have been as a pottery specialist. This is why a NVQ scheme may be useful to indicate that the individual has skills at a suitable level and in the right area of expertise. I'm not knocking the need to set appropriate skills levels for jobs, just that we need to think about what they are, how they are judged, and how they are applied.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
21st April 2009, 11:48 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
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.
agreed, my point but better put!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
21st April 2009, 12:50 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by bob
BUT there is the real problem here which is that merely being MIFA does not automatically mean that the holder has relevant skills to the task. I could apply for a standing building job as MIFA, but my career might have been as a pottery specialist. This is why a NVQ scheme may be useful to indicate that the individual has skills at a suitable level and in the right area of expertise. I'm not knocking the need to set appropriate skills levels for jobs, just that we need to think about what they are, how they are judged, and how they are applied.
I agree, but as I said, at least if you're a member (not Member- any corporate grade) and you did the job when you shouldn't have done there is some come-back!
And yes, there is a problem with some people who got the letters some time ago - especially the self-validated ones! But short of going back and re-validating people there's not much any of us can do about that. Personally, in an ideal world I think we should re-validate every two years. But IfA doesn't have the resources to do that at the moment. (they probably would, however, if membership was compulsary..... can of worms again.... }  ) And of course, that would mean that someone such as me, who has worked in most aspects of archaeology over the last 25+ years and has a lot of field experience - but has just got a 2 year contract to do something that isn't archaeology (although I reckon I stretch it if I put my mind to it....)- probably wouldn't get re-validated.....
Just as an updated point, the new VC criteria were based on the skills infromation developed for the NVQ. I agree that we need to think about "what they are, how they are judged, and how they are applied". You are clearly thinking about this, so perhaps you should ask to join the Validation Committee? There's nothing like the experience..... (I'm not saying good or bad, mind....)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
21st April 2009, 01:12 PM
Oldgirl, I agree that one of the benefits of having IFA members doing a job is that they are bound by a set of rules and if they are breaking the rules, they should get taken up on that. I certainly would find it rather embarrassing and career affecting to be slung out of the IFA.
Re-validation or some kind of ongoing assessment is surely essential? and would come under CPD? I agree there are issues with people moving sideways or out of pure heritage jobs, but that could be addressed somehow? I'm sure you could work out a wording...
I never realised people used to be able to self-validate!!!!
Tying in to the NVQ is a good idea as it presumably makes things more measurable.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
21st April 2009, 01:32 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by bob
Oldgirl, I agree that one of the benefits of having IFA members doing a job is that they are bound by a set of rules and if they are breaking the rules, they should get taken up on that. I certainly would find it rather embarrassing and career affecting to be slung out of the IFA.
Re-validation or some kind of ongoing assessment is surely essential? and would come under CPD? I agree there are issues with people moving sideways or out of pure heritage jobs, but that could be addressed somehow? I'm sure you could work out a wording...
I never realised people used to be able to self-validate!!!!
Tying in to the NVQ is a good idea as it presumably makes things more measurable.
Self-validation - I know, it's scary isn't it! When 'Areas of competence' were 1st set up, that was self-validated too (Obviously, that no longer exists)! Both only happened for a few years though. Peer-reviewed validation was brought in fairly quickly and actually, quite a few of the originally self-valdated members have since been through the validation procedure.
One of the biggest problems for any peer-reviewed system is making sure that the systems and criteria are robust whilst at the same time not discriminating against people who have a slightly more unusual career. Particularly as, to be frank (sorry frank...), I think that the more people we get signed up to the code of conduct and the standards and guidance the better!
So, getting back to the overall topic (cos I get off the point sometimes... you all may have noticed....), I can understand why this curator would want to have this in the brief, but I'm not sure it's legal. I'm pretty sure it's OK to have it as a preferred option in a selection criteria though!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
21st April 2009, 02:45 PM
To be honest, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. As has been posted above, the wording includes the phrase 'or equivalent' which indicates that all they are doing is setting a broad benchmark. I am far from convinced that an offence has therefore been committed.
Clearly it is implicit that a MIFA level gained through pottery studies (and what is wrong with that?) is not what is intended in the case of an excavation contract. It would be in the case of a pottery report contract of course.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
21st April 2009, 03:16 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.'
Blimey Afarensis - no offence was intended by my comments. I was only trying to point out that specifying 'MIFA or equivalent' was never going to be particularly helpful when it came to actually establishing how the 'equivalent' status was going to be assessed.
As for your comment regarding my preferred alternatives, you are way off in suggesting that I would like to see the work carried out by a non-archaeologist who has seen TT.
I actually think that we do need some form of accreditation in archaeology, just as IfA have been pushing for.
Unfortunately the debate on accreditation always gets drawn into the issue of how we can 'license' professional archaeologists whilst still allowing the participation of non-professionals. In my opinion the issue is not one of whether we should or should not have accreditation, but on how to establish a system that is suitably both inclusive (for the non-professionals) and exclusive (to ensure quality etc). Perhaps IfA have pushed a bit too hard with the likes of EH and the subsequent lack of progress is due to this agressive selling of the need for accreditation. In the meantime EH are left with the inenviable task of having to support the government's line that our current system is Valetta-compliant when it clearly isn't.
Earlier on BAJR forum it was suggested that we should try to create a system that takes the best elements from those that already exist elsewhere eg. Ireland. This is probably the right way forward, but it will not be easy to establish a system that is both fair and ensures best practice at all times. If I had a water-tight solution I would be happy to share it here - perhaps this is something that the contributors to BAJR forum could turn thier collective minds towards.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
21st April 2009, 03:20 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by the invisible man
To be honest, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. As has been posted above, the wording includes the phrase 'or equivalent' which indicates that all they are doing is setting a broad benchmark. I am far from convinced that an offence has therefore been committed.
Clearly it is implicit that a MIFA level gained through pottery studies (and what is wrong with that?) is not what is intended in the case of an excavation contract. It would be in the case of a pottery report contract of course.
Sorry, I was still looking at the 1st post, which didn't have the 'or equivalent' bit mentioned.[:I]
|
