1st September 2006, 02:04 PM
I do support the principle of grass-roots action to prevent the breach of standards, backed-up by IFA membership (at whatever level). However, I don't think we should place too much faith in the effectiveness of this type of action.
Published standards have to cover all situations, so they can never try to cover the details of what happens on-site. Instead, they deal mainly with aspects of project design and management, with post-fieldwork analysis/archiving and reporting, and the relationships between different parties.
The power to do something about standards within an individual project as it is in progress therefore lies mainly with those involved in these processes - consultants, curators, project managers and field officers. Site workers may be able to pick up gross breaches on site, or during post-ex, but I believe that such gross breaches are rare. More subtle breaches may be very hard for fieldworkers to detect, at least in a way that enables them to put their finger on a clause and say 'you have broken that rule'.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Published standards have to cover all situations, so they can never try to cover the details of what happens on-site. Instead, they deal mainly with aspects of project design and management, with post-fieldwork analysis/archiving and reporting, and the relationships between different parties.
The power to do something about standards within an individual project as it is in progress therefore lies mainly with those involved in these processes - consultants, curators, project managers and field officers. Site workers may be able to pick up gross breaches on site, or during post-ex, but I believe that such gross breaches are rare. More subtle breaches may be very hard for fieldworkers to detect, at least in a way that enables them to put their finger on a clause and say 'you have broken that rule'.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished