10th November 2005, 12:12 PM
1man1desk-many thanks.I readily concede that the IFA does indeed allow for robust debate.This tends to be of the in-house variety and seems to result in little tangible change.I agree, members/non members have hammered away at the percieved chinks in the function of the IFA. I think that for me, the overwelming silence and the seemingly inert nature of the Institute is the most difficult to deal with.Regardless of open debate, not enough has changed.In the realms of government policy (16)-
It is enough for me that in a document on government policy, the IFA is listed in an annex under "Key Bodies and Organisations" and said government policy document clearly describes the IFA as "concerned with defining and maintaining proper professional standards and ethics in field archaeology" -just does it for me. What more is a mandate in need of in order to be recognised as such? Yes, I also concede that the IFA have taken on that role themselves-that matters not-a government policy document describes the role of the IFA in a crystal clear way.Whether the descriptions are found in an annex or otherwise-I think the meaning is clear. "don`t blame the IFA, which has no role in PPG16" I like this.......discuss???
It is enough for me that in a document on government policy, the IFA is listed in an annex under "Key Bodies and Organisations" and said government policy document clearly describes the IFA as "concerned with defining and maintaining proper professional standards and ethics in field archaeology" -just does it for me. What more is a mandate in need of in order to be recognised as such? Yes, I also concede that the IFA have taken on that role themselves-that matters not-a government policy document describes the role of the IFA in a crystal clear way.Whether the descriptions are found in an annex or otherwise-I think the meaning is clear. "don`t blame the IFA, which has no role in PPG16" I like this.......discuss???