20th November 2005, 11:33 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Are we to take from this the view that field archaeologists do not accept responsibility?
From the current IFA point of view, if a site assistant performs the same functions as a site assistant with 9 years experience, then both are entitled to be PIFA because of the level of duties they perform. The responsibiliy level has not changed even if the level of competence has increased through experience. I'm not sure that corporate levels in the IFA could ever be the right place for this to be reflected.
On a certain level, what is wrong with someone 'outside of a fieldwork environment' going into consultancy? Consultancy is about advice to clients as to archaeological liability and mitigation for which having field experience isn't really necessary, knowledge of the areas archaeology and familiarity with techniques and legistlation yes. Bluntly, if you give crap advice, the curator will laugh in your face and steam-roller over you MIFA or no MIFA.
The IFA has introduced written standards and a code of conduct. That is their main impact. If you've very done a watching brief or building recording, chances are the minimum standards were set by the IFA (if in part).
I have a question: what does a site assistant with 9 months experience not do that a site assistant with 9 years experience does which would not constitute election to AIFA? - I may edit this question later for clarity....
(I really have worked in the field)