6th November 2005, 03:37 PM
Quote:quote:In what respects? Can you tell me what, specifically, should be in the standards that are not but which you do as standard?
After re-reading the guidelines I find it very difficult to identify any specifics in relation to field techniques. There's plenty of vagueness about techniques being appropriate to the type of site, but few specifics.
So, in answer to your question, I'd like to see some appropriate field techniques listed for types of site. What is acceptable and what is not.
Far too often I've seen inappropriate techniques employed to save time and money, and this is where I feel I do far more than the minimum. Likewise, I frequently do more than the minimum required by briefs set by curators and/or consultants, all of which are informed by the IFA guidelines.
As David says, it's largely the lack of enforcement that frustrates. This though is not a problem of the IFA alone.
As for ranting on websites, I do think this helps. I've seen more developments come from BAJR discussion than anywhere else. Hell, there's excavator wages advertised over ?16000 pa on the site as we speak! I hope some of my postings help inform curators, consultants, specialists, or new fieldworkers in the same way I am learning from them.
The ranting is entirely due to the passion I still feel for my job. If I believe something, I'm going to say it as strongly as I can. I'm not in the diplomacy business, although I respect that others have to be. As far as negativity is concerned; if I wasn't optimistic about the future of the profession, and what BAJR is achieving, I wouldn't bother ranting. I'd just like a few things to change, that's all.