20th April 2010, 10:47 PM
I definately support the IFA in principle, think they have done good in archaeology and think that anyone who tries to improve standards of excavation should be supported.
However, I don't think they sell themselves as well as they could. While the RO scheme is good in principle, I've worked for plenty of units over the years and have yet to see that RO = Responsible Outfit.
I also think while CPD is a good idea, I wonder how may members will see it as a form to fill in rather than a useful tool (pleanty of experience of the former from a unit with good CPD). I'm wondering how the IFA will go about checking this.
I've also been thinking about how the IFA seem to be moving away from "Field Archaeologists" as such. The drop in the name was the first time I kind of sat up. I can't remember a topic at conferences in the last 2 years or so that seem to deal with "problems on the ground" such as pay, condtions, etc, and seem to deal with "bigger archaeological issues" - (please correct me if I'm wrong here).
I think the IFA is moving towards what I feel is its "natural" place in archaeology - trying to bring up standards of investigation as a whole. Perhaps a union would be better placed, operating outside of the RO system to act on issues such as pay and conditions, and could work in tandem with the IFA on this (teamwork!)
I would suggest, however, that the IFA cuts its fees. Over 100 quid a year is a lot, and something I feel paid towards a union may be money better spent on the major isues facing field archaeologists (look! - I'm moving towards joining a union) :face-angel:
However, I don't think they sell themselves as well as they could. While the RO scheme is good in principle, I've worked for plenty of units over the years and have yet to see that RO = Responsible Outfit.
I also think while CPD is a good idea, I wonder how may members will see it as a form to fill in rather than a useful tool (pleanty of experience of the former from a unit with good CPD). I'm wondering how the IFA will go about checking this.
I've also been thinking about how the IFA seem to be moving away from "Field Archaeologists" as such. The drop in the name was the first time I kind of sat up. I can't remember a topic at conferences in the last 2 years or so that seem to deal with "problems on the ground" such as pay, condtions, etc, and seem to deal with "bigger archaeological issues" - (please correct me if I'm wrong here).
I think the IFA is moving towards what I feel is its "natural" place in archaeology - trying to bring up standards of investigation as a whole. Perhaps a union would be better placed, operating outside of the RO system to act on issues such as pay and conditions, and could work in tandem with the IFA on this (teamwork!)
I would suggest, however, that the IFA cuts its fees. Over 100 quid a year is a lot, and something I feel paid towards a union may be money better spent on the major isues facing field archaeologists (look! - I'm moving towards joining a union) :face-angel: