27th November 2006, 05:00 PM
Recently and most unfortunately, I've been informed that at this time the IFA felt unable to award MIFA based on their evaluation of my experience. The IFA has offered AIFA instead, which I'm not too sure about accepting, as this really doesn't continue to promote my ability to engage in working independently i.e. directing or running projects, etc. or acting in a similar capacity as self-employed.
I admit having had a gut feeling that acceptance to join was "MIFA or naught". I have worked as a field archaeologist in a few countries for a considerable length of time, some in the commercial sector and some in the academic sector so I was quite surprised by the IFA offer. My continued growth in archaeology has led to becoming self-employed as a consultant within the last few years. My understanding is that many county museum services would prefer consultants hold membership with the IFA, which AIFA would serve the purpose. I don't believe one must hold MIFA to engage in consultancy. Iâm not quite sure if the requirement is the same as it is for those who are performing or managing field work. I am aware that at least one individual on a team engaged in directing, running projects, or excavating etc. must hold membership at the MIFA level. Please inform me if this is incorrect.
I understand, albeit confusingly and by no means conclusively, that at least one of IFA's roles is providing guidance and standards. I also understand many local planning authorities and county museum services have adopted the IFA as a sanctioning body and will not approve reports that haven't been signed off by a full IFA member. This approach may be viewed by many to be wholly appropriate or by many to be perhaps wholly inappropriate. This is really a moot point though, as after inquiring I was informed that the position held by many county museum services has never been legally challenged. Hence I was wondering why an organisation whose charter has been denied is so empowered to act in such an officious capacity.
This post was not written to be accusatory or in a negative spirit. Presently, I have a neutral opinion on the IFA and its membership. I do hold in high regard the spirit of the organisation and its effort to set standards and provide guidance for those of us whom consider ourselves professional archaeologists. Presently my only concern is that is this being done in a way that fully represents all of those whom practice archaeology?
I admit having had a gut feeling that acceptance to join was "MIFA or naught". I have worked as a field archaeologist in a few countries for a considerable length of time, some in the commercial sector and some in the academic sector so I was quite surprised by the IFA offer. My continued growth in archaeology has led to becoming self-employed as a consultant within the last few years. My understanding is that many county museum services would prefer consultants hold membership with the IFA, which AIFA would serve the purpose. I don't believe one must hold MIFA to engage in consultancy. Iâm not quite sure if the requirement is the same as it is for those who are performing or managing field work. I am aware that at least one individual on a team engaged in directing, running projects, or excavating etc. must hold membership at the MIFA level. Please inform me if this is incorrect.
I understand, albeit confusingly and by no means conclusively, that at least one of IFA's roles is providing guidance and standards. I also understand many local planning authorities and county museum services have adopted the IFA as a sanctioning body and will not approve reports that haven't been signed off by a full IFA member. This approach may be viewed by many to be wholly appropriate or by many to be perhaps wholly inappropriate. This is really a moot point though, as after inquiring I was informed that the position held by many county museum services has never been legally challenged. Hence I was wondering why an organisation whose charter has been denied is so empowered to act in such an officious capacity.
This post was not written to be accusatory or in a negative spirit. Presently, I have a neutral opinion on the IFA and its membership. I do hold in high regard the spirit of the organisation and its effort to set standards and provide guidance for those of us whom consider ourselves professional archaeologists. Presently my only concern is that is this being done in a way that fully represents all of those whom practice archaeology?