29th November 2006, 01:41 PM
Hurting Back, your summary was spot on about not having to have MIFA (or any other corporate grade) in order to be working at that level. It's really important that we all understand that! Also, it is sometimes hard for the IFA validation committee to assess the levels of experience that people have, which is why the staement of archaeological experience is so important in the application.
General, just a quick couple of points. You say 'Generally it is expected that the expertise of a project team should consist of a named member of the IFA validated in Archaeological Field Practices' : just to clarify that there are no longer 'Areas of competence' within the IFA validation system, as there was no way of ensuring their continuing validity.
Also, you're absolutely correct that MIFA status does not always ensure quality of work in a specific area. The IFA code of conduct states:
1.4 An archaeologist shall not undertake archaeological work for which he or she is not adequately qualified. He or she should ensure that adequate support, whether of advice, personnel or
facilities, has been arranged.
Note:
It is the archaeologistâs duty to have regard to his/her skills,
proficiencies and capabilities and to the maintenance and
enhancement of these through appropriate training and
learning experiences.
It is the archaeologistâs responsibility to inform current or
prospective employers or clients of inadequacies in his/her
qualifications for any work which may be proposed; he/she
may of course seek to minimise such inadequacies by
acquiring additional expertise, by seeking the advice or
involvement of associates or consultants, or by arranging for
modifications of the work involved; similar considerations
apply where an archaeologist, during the course of a project,
encounters problems which lie beyond his/her competence at
that time.
It is also the archaeologistâs responsibility to seek adequate
support services for any project in which he/she may become
involved, either directly or by way of recommendation.
The main advantage to DC archaeologists of specifying a (corporate) member of the IFA is that such an individual has agreed to the code of conduct and therefore there is *some* sanction against them if they fail to meet that code. (As above, I don't want to get into the arguement of whether that sanction is effective or not....) The same applies for an RAO. All members of an RAO, whether individual members or not, are bound by the code of conduct.
Trowelfodder : If you do an AIFA equivalent job, why do you think you can only apply at PIFA level? There is a general (incorrect) belief that you have to have reports etc in order to apply at that and MIFA level. You have to demonstrate appropriate levels of responsibility for the required period. There are a number of ways that can be done!
General, just a quick couple of points. You say 'Generally it is expected that the expertise of a project team should consist of a named member of the IFA validated in Archaeological Field Practices' : just to clarify that there are no longer 'Areas of competence' within the IFA validation system, as there was no way of ensuring their continuing validity.
Also, you're absolutely correct that MIFA status does not always ensure quality of work in a specific area. The IFA code of conduct states:
1.4 An archaeologist shall not undertake archaeological work for which he or she is not adequately qualified. He or she should ensure that adequate support, whether of advice, personnel or
facilities, has been arranged.
Note:
It is the archaeologistâs duty to have regard to his/her skills,
proficiencies and capabilities and to the maintenance and
enhancement of these through appropriate training and
learning experiences.
It is the archaeologistâs responsibility to inform current or
prospective employers or clients of inadequacies in his/her
qualifications for any work which may be proposed; he/she
may of course seek to minimise such inadequacies by
acquiring additional expertise, by seeking the advice or
involvement of associates or consultants, or by arranging for
modifications of the work involved; similar considerations
apply where an archaeologist, during the course of a project,
encounters problems which lie beyond his/her competence at
that time.
It is also the archaeologistâs responsibility to seek adequate
support services for any project in which he/she may become
involved, either directly or by way of recommendation.
The main advantage to DC archaeologists of specifying a (corporate) member of the IFA is that such an individual has agreed to the code of conduct and therefore there is *some* sanction against them if they fail to meet that code. (As above, I don't want to get into the arguement of whether that sanction is effective or not....) The same applies for an RAO. All members of an RAO, whether individual members or not, are bound by the code of conduct.
Trowelfodder : If you do an AIFA equivalent job, why do you think you can only apply at PIFA level? There is a general (incorrect) belief that you have to have reports etc in order to apply at that and MIFA level. You have to demonstrate appropriate levels of responsibility for the required period. There are a number of ways that can be done!