2nd March 2006, 01:34 PM
I don't agree at all.
As will be apparent to any regular visitors to this site, I am an enthusiastic supporter of both BAJR and the IFA. I think that they both do very useful and complementary jobs.
However, I don't think the evidence is there to call BAJR 'a representative voice of the profession', and I don't think it needs to be one. I don't know how many actual hits BAJR gets, but in terms of regular contributors, such as myself, we are a small number of self-selected individuals and a vanishingly small proportion of the profession. None of us represent anything other than our own personal views, and where BAJR has what could be called a 'corporate' opinion it is effectively that of David Connolly, not of the overall body of BAJR contributors (whether or not we agree with it). To be 'representative', it would need a large body of members and a democratic mandate for its policy-making and decision-making processes.
I'm not entirely sure of these figures, so don't hit me if I'm wrong; but I believe that the IFA has over 2000 members and that is somewhere between 40% and 50% of all active professional archaeologists in the UK. That still leaves them exposed to frequent criticism (on BAJR) that they are not representative. If BAJR were to try to become a credible alternative to the IFA, it would be competing with the IFA for members. The effect would probably be that neither one could reach or sustain membership levels close to the present number of IFA members. Therefore, instead of one body representing at least a significant minority of the profession, we would have two competing bodies both representing small minorities. Overall, the voice of archaeology would be weakened.
BAJR is an open forum for comment and discussion, mainly coming from the grassroots of the profession. If it were to try to be a representative body, that would involve creating a constitution, officers, committees, etc, and the grassroots influence would probably be reduced.
As things stand, BAJR and the IFA are two different and complementary types of organisation. They may disagree on some things, but they can also find significant areas of agreement and can co-operate with each other. At the same time, BAJR can form a strong focus for lobbying the IFA where they do disagree. All this would be lost if they became competitors.
So - lets have one (fairly) united representative body for archaeologists (the IFA) and one strong forum for grassroots comment and lobbying (BAJR), linked by David Connolly's leadership of BAJR and new status as a MIFA.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
As will be apparent to any regular visitors to this site, I am an enthusiastic supporter of both BAJR and the IFA. I think that they both do very useful and complementary jobs.
However, I don't think the evidence is there to call BAJR 'a representative voice of the profession', and I don't think it needs to be one. I don't know how many actual hits BAJR gets, but in terms of regular contributors, such as myself, we are a small number of self-selected individuals and a vanishingly small proportion of the profession. None of us represent anything other than our own personal views, and where BAJR has what could be called a 'corporate' opinion it is effectively that of David Connolly, not of the overall body of BAJR contributors (whether or not we agree with it). To be 'representative', it would need a large body of members and a democratic mandate for its policy-making and decision-making processes.
I'm not entirely sure of these figures, so don't hit me if I'm wrong; but I believe that the IFA has over 2000 members and that is somewhere between 40% and 50% of all active professional archaeologists in the UK. That still leaves them exposed to frequent criticism (on BAJR) that they are not representative. If BAJR were to try to become a credible alternative to the IFA, it would be competing with the IFA for members. The effect would probably be that neither one could reach or sustain membership levels close to the present number of IFA members. Therefore, instead of one body representing at least a significant minority of the profession, we would have two competing bodies both representing small minorities. Overall, the voice of archaeology would be weakened.
BAJR is an open forum for comment and discussion, mainly coming from the grassroots of the profession. If it were to try to be a representative body, that would involve creating a constitution, officers, committees, etc, and the grassroots influence would probably be reduced.
As things stand, BAJR and the IFA are two different and complementary types of organisation. They may disagree on some things, but they can also find significant areas of agreement and can co-operate with each other. At the same time, BAJR can form a strong focus for lobbying the IFA where they do disagree. All this would be lost if they became competitors.
So - lets have one (fairly) united representative body for archaeologists (the IFA) and one strong forum for grassroots comment and lobbying (BAJR), linked by David Connolly's leadership of BAJR and new status as a MIFA.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished