11th April 2006, 06:19 PM
The IFA conference isnt just like any other professional institute's conference: The IFAs stated aim is to represent all the profession and unlike many other professions, archaeology is made up of several disparate groups with different interests.
Field archaeologists are the worst off group within archaeolgy as well as being the group most likely to be unable to afford (in money and ability/support to get time off to attend) the IFA conference. The conference will be dominated by consultants, academics and people from the 'business' side of field archaeology and we can hardly expect them to have the best interests of field staff at heart.
The IFA needs to make itself truly representative of the profession. Which means (in addition to its current work):
-Higher pay minimums
-Lower joining fees for field staff
-Lower conference fee for field staff
-And, if its serious about becoming more representative, some sort of outreach scheme enabling non-memebers to come to the conference cheaply..
Of course it doesnt need to consider such things, but then it will remain utterly irrelevant to most field staff (except that it once published some guidelines and standards that became accepted as the industry rules).
Field archaeologists are the worst off group within archaeolgy as well as being the group most likely to be unable to afford (in money and ability/support to get time off to attend) the IFA conference. The conference will be dominated by consultants, academics and people from the 'business' side of field archaeology and we can hardly expect them to have the best interests of field staff at heart.
The IFA needs to make itself truly representative of the profession. Which means (in addition to its current work):
-Higher pay minimums
-Lower joining fees for field staff
-Lower conference fee for field staff
-And, if its serious about becoming more representative, some sort of outreach scheme enabling non-memebers to come to the conference cheaply..
Of course it doesnt need to consider such things, but then it will remain utterly irrelevant to most field staff (except that it once published some guidelines and standards that became accepted as the industry rules).