27th November 2006, 08:42 PM
Thanks for the reply Beano
Again, I only wish to know more about the status of the IFA. Your first point has at least enlightened the situation.
As for writing up specifications to a brief or report writing, I should have been more explicit. Generally it is expected that the expertise of a project team should consist of a named member of the IFA validated in Archaeological Field Practices. Writing specifications to briefs or report writing doesnât necessarily entail the named member having to perform the task. Since a named member is involved in the project, the report will generally be accepted (based on the quality). Based on experiences with some local planning authorities, if a named member is not involved in the project, a county archaeological service can refuse to agree to any designs (brief specs). Hopefully this clears up that matter.
There is somewhat of a grey area here:
âI 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."
and no, I have no desire to participate in pointed correspondences on the issue. I do agree with the premise of having an ability to ensure that documentation produced to a brief is âseen asâ quality work. Surely this is something the county archaeologist would recognise after reading the documentation to satisfy a brief? Iâm curious as to why it would matter whether we were members or non members if we are already working to the guidance and standards provided by the IFA? The ability to agree to a written piece of work based on the ability to satisfy the brief would still lie in the hands of the county archaeologists. If a design to satisfy a brief is not up to snuff, then by all means it should be referred back to be corrected.
It sounds more like comment sense that county archaeologists have a level of assurance that work is being undertaken by an archaeological organisation or an individual who is capable. Since not everyone (some companies as well) is imbued with such desirable characteristics, I can appreciate the need to âsuperviseâ our profession. I consider the ability to do so a desirable characteristic of professional accountability. I certainly wish it was the case âin practiceâ that 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. On occasion, this has not been my experience.
When I mentioned that my understanding was that many county museum services would prefer consultants hold membership with the IFA, I meant that by having AIFA affiliation was satisfying holding a membership, albeit holding MIFA is preferable. My personal opinion is that I donât believe holding MIFA is essential for running projects. One may qualify for MIFA on paper, but in practise this wouldn't necessarily be the case. Iâve worked with many talented individuals who for whatever reason, were not members of the IFA and understood more about what they were doing on a site than their project officer (MIFA)did. My personal feeling is approach is micromanagement of our profession and having been in management in archaeology and outside of archaeology this has never been a managerial practise Iâve been fond of. I did mention I have been successful in the role as a consultant, and at this stage I am only considering accepting membership with the IFA.
Okay perhaps officious was an inappropriate choice of wording, as it is the local planning authorities and others whom ask that work be done by named members of the IFA. The archaeological contractors whom Iâve had the pleasure of working alongside with, did have someone employed holding this level of membership so in this sense it was never an issue.
Thanks again for your reply
Again, I only wish to know more about the status of the IFA. Your first point has at least enlightened the situation.
As for writing up specifications to a brief or report writing, I should have been more explicit. Generally it is expected that the expertise of a project team should consist of a named member of the IFA validated in Archaeological Field Practices. Writing specifications to briefs or report writing doesnât necessarily entail the named member having to perform the task. Since a named member is involved in the project, the report will generally be accepted (based on the quality). Based on experiences with some local planning authorities, if a named member is not involved in the project, a county archaeological service can refuse to agree to any designs (brief specs). Hopefully this clears up that matter.
There is somewhat of a grey area here:
âI 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."
and no, I have no desire to participate in pointed correspondences on the issue. I do agree with the premise of having an ability to ensure that documentation produced to a brief is âseen asâ quality work. Surely this is something the county archaeologist would recognise after reading the documentation to satisfy a brief? Iâm curious as to why it would matter whether we were members or non members if we are already working to the guidance and standards provided by the IFA? The ability to agree to a written piece of work based on the ability to satisfy the brief would still lie in the hands of the county archaeologists. If a design to satisfy a brief is not up to snuff, then by all means it should be referred back to be corrected.
It sounds more like comment sense that county archaeologists have a level of assurance that work is being undertaken by an archaeological organisation or an individual who is capable. Since not everyone (some companies as well) is imbued with such desirable characteristics, I can appreciate the need to âsuperviseâ our profession. I consider the ability to do so a desirable characteristic of professional accountability. I certainly wish it was the case âin practiceâ that 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. On occasion, this has not been my experience.
When I mentioned that my understanding was that many county museum services would prefer consultants hold membership with the IFA, I meant that by having AIFA affiliation was satisfying holding a membership, albeit holding MIFA is preferable. My personal opinion is that I donât believe holding MIFA is essential for running projects. One may qualify for MIFA on paper, but in practise this wouldn't necessarily be the case. Iâve worked with many talented individuals who for whatever reason, were not members of the IFA and understood more about what they were doing on a site than their project officer (MIFA)did. My personal feeling is approach is micromanagement of our profession and having been in management in archaeology and outside of archaeology this has never been a managerial practise Iâve been fond of. I did mention I have been successful in the role as a consultant, and at this stage I am only considering accepting membership with the IFA.
Okay perhaps officious was an inappropriate choice of wording, as it is the local planning authorities and others whom ask that work be done by named members of the IFA. The archaeological contractors whom Iâve had the pleasure of working alongside with, did have someone employed holding this level of membership so in this sense it was never an issue.
Thanks again for your reply