27th November 2006, 06:21 PM
Greeting General
Just a couple of points:
I'm not sure that IFA has ever been refused Chartered status - my understanding is that the decision as to whether or not to apply for chartered status is still under review, as there is by no means any level of agreement within IFA and/or the profession in general that it would be 1) possible, and 2) a good thing.
County museum services - I think that you are confusing these here with county planning services and county archaeologists - there may be some overlaps, but generally speaking it is county archaeologists (or local government archaeologists) that will sign off reports.
Some specifications issued by county archaeologists request that work is carried out under the supervision of MIFA 'or equivalent'. I have previously posted on this issue - I am not sure how this 'or equivalent' would work in practice, given that MIFA is a peer-reviewed membership grade and most county archaeologists will simply not have time to check the backgroound and experience of any individual to see if they are 'equivalent' to MIFA. Requesting that the work be undertaken by an MIFA or an RAO is merely seen as a way of ensuring a quality piece of work (note I say 'seen as' - not wishing to open up correspondence on this).
In practice, as long as the work is done in accordance with the agreed project design, the IFA status of the author is unlikely to be considered further.
There is no absolute legal requirement for fieldwork directors to be MIFA but it is reasonable for county archaeologists to have some reassurance that the work is being undertaken by someone capable.
However I must admit that I am not really convinced by your argument that AIFA will do for consultants but MIFA is essential for those running fieldwork projects. This adds to the perception that consultants are somehow inexperienced in fieldwork techniques and therefore open to criticism of their role in projects. As a consultant I would advise against taking that stance as it will undermine your consultancy work.
I cannot see how IFA can be accused of acting in an 'officious capacity'. It is not IFA that asks for work to be done by MIFA (or AIFA) - it is local planning authorities or consultants such as myself.
Beamo
Just a couple of points:
I'm not sure that IFA has ever been refused Chartered status - my understanding is that the decision as to whether or not to apply for chartered status is still under review, as there is by no means any level of agreement within IFA and/or the profession in general that it would be 1) possible, and 2) a good thing.
County museum services - I think that you are confusing these here with county planning services and county archaeologists - there may be some overlaps, but generally speaking it is county archaeologists (or local government archaeologists) that will sign off reports.
Some specifications issued by county archaeologists request that work is carried out under the supervision of MIFA 'or equivalent'. I have previously posted on this issue - I am not sure how this 'or equivalent' would work in practice, given that MIFA is a peer-reviewed membership grade and most county archaeologists will simply not have time to check the backgroound and experience of any individual to see if they are 'equivalent' to MIFA. Requesting that the work be undertaken by an MIFA or an RAO is merely seen as a way of ensuring a quality piece of work (note I say 'seen as' - not wishing to open up correspondence on this).
In practice, as long as the work is done in accordance with the agreed project design, the IFA status of the author is unlikely to be considered further.
There is no absolute legal requirement for fieldwork directors to be MIFA but it is reasonable for county archaeologists to have some reassurance that the work is being undertaken by someone capable.
However I must admit that I am not really convinced by your argument that AIFA will do for consultants but MIFA is essential for those running fieldwork projects. This adds to the perception that consultants are somehow inexperienced in fieldwork techniques and therefore open to criticism of their role in projects. As a consultant I would advise against taking that stance as it will undermine your consultancy work.
I cannot see how IFA can be accused of acting in an 'officious capacity'. It is not IFA that asks for work to be done by MIFA (or AIFA) - it is local planning authorities or consultants such as myself.
Beamo