27th February 2008, 05:23 PM
I live and work in Ireland so this is not an abstract debate for me. The market is regulated here as a closed shop in a way some are advocating for ROAs, but as well as there being benefits there are also significant problems not necessarily addressed by creating a barrier to market entry. It depends on whether this discussion is about quality assurance or about improving pay and conditions. Theres no question that the licence improves pay when compared with equivalent UK averages, and this bounty has a trickle down effect to all other grades. Being paid a commensurate salary does wonders for professional pride and ethic, but does the licence system really do anything for archaeological quality?
The licence system is effectively a chartered system, the difference being that the licence is granted directly by the state as a permit to a named individual with ultimate project responsibility. This is granted on trust that having gone through a peer review test they will ethically police themselves for compliance with the conditions of that licence. The problem comes when market forces enter into the equation. An internal market has developed where licence eligible directors are in constant demand as expanding archaeological companies seek a gateway to market. The result is that directors spend a disproportionate time engaged in new fieldwork without addressing their own professional liability in achieving a quality archaeological product. While this may work at excavation stage (archaeology-as-service), a lack of accountability ensues during post-excavation (archaeology-as-product). Some companies have washed their hands of the backlog (while continuing to create more), seeing responsibility for compliance as vested in the individual licence holder, many of which may have been redeployed or work for different employers.
In short, the licence system as it is operated provides no guarantees that licence eligible directors will produce a quality archaeological product, only that they will provide a state accredited service. This stems from a separation of commercial liabilities with professional liabilities, something that would also confront the new wave of chartered British archaeologists who would presumably be employed by companies. Having said all that, I would still favour chartered status for all individuals in a position of ultimate responsibility for a programme of archaeological work, and welcome any moves in that direction. If this is applied with an appropriate monitoring framework, then it holds more power of accountability than the licence system I now work with, whilst retaining the supply and demand benefits to pay and conditions. A chartered organisation can police their own membership. It is easier to enforce guidelines, standards and deal with individuals who fail in their professional obligations.
The licence system is effectively a chartered system, the difference being that the licence is granted directly by the state as a permit to a named individual with ultimate project responsibility. This is granted on trust that having gone through a peer review test they will ethically police themselves for compliance with the conditions of that licence. The problem comes when market forces enter into the equation. An internal market has developed where licence eligible directors are in constant demand as expanding archaeological companies seek a gateway to market. The result is that directors spend a disproportionate time engaged in new fieldwork without addressing their own professional liability in achieving a quality archaeological product. While this may work at excavation stage (archaeology-as-service), a lack of accountability ensues during post-excavation (archaeology-as-product). Some companies have washed their hands of the backlog (while continuing to create more), seeing responsibility for compliance as vested in the individual licence holder, many of which may have been redeployed or work for different employers.
In short, the licence system as it is operated provides no guarantees that licence eligible directors will produce a quality archaeological product, only that they will provide a state accredited service. This stems from a separation of commercial liabilities with professional liabilities, something that would also confront the new wave of chartered British archaeologists who would presumably be employed by companies. Having said all that, I would still favour chartered status for all individuals in a position of ultimate responsibility for a programme of archaeological work, and welcome any moves in that direction. If this is applied with an appropriate monitoring framework, then it holds more power of accountability than the licence system I now work with, whilst retaining the supply and demand benefits to pay and conditions. A chartered organisation can police their own membership. It is easier to enforce guidelines, standards and deal with individuals who fail in their professional obligations.