13th June 2008, 03:12 PM
Many thanks for the reasoned responses to my original post, I do feel that there are some issues arising form the replies and I will attempt to address them here. Please excuse my lack of ability with sorting out the quotes and such like....short of quoting 1man1desks whole reply I have resoted to writing the quotes out again! 1man1desks comments are in green.
No-one else has defined any standards, so what other standards could they uphold than the ones the define themselves?When archaeologists are trained they are given, or should be given, certain acceptable standards of work. Most archaeologists also take pride in their abilities and integrity within their chosen profession. Archaeologists are therefore responsible for upholding their own standards.
Not true - the RAO itself is obliged to ensure that all its employees adhere to the standards, whether or not they are IFA members.
As it would be illegal to insist on IFA membership for an individual within an organisation and a non-IFA member has no obligation to work under someone elses contract with the IFA the individuals are not of course answerable to the IFA. One would hope that archaeologists would adhere to there own standards which should pretty much match those of the IFA but an RAO cannot legally enforce IFA standards on employees, but can enforce it?s own standards, via a contract, on employees these standards would have to be rigidly defined though within the contract as 'acceptable' or 'suitable' standard could equally apply to methods outside of IFA guidelines but still ethical and accurate. A non IFA member cannot therefore be brought to task for not following IFA standards and therefore developers, for example cannot have the perceived security of IFA standards when not everyone is answerable to them within an organisation.
True, but you omit those whose opinion is much more positive.
Surely those who are positive would join the IFA, by definition being an archaeologist and not joining them must demonstrate at least a degree of apathy towards them?
That is just what makes it independent - if it was appointed by someone else, it would be in someone else's control.
How can it be independent if it relies on the support and funds of those it attempts to ?police??
It can't favour members over non-members, because it has no power over non-members. It can't favour RAOs over individuals, because its by-laws prevent it from doing so, and because it is controlled by its individual members (who have a vote at the AGM and in Council elections) and not by RAOs (which can't vote).
It can favour members over non members as when a complaint is made to the IFA it can come from a non- member even a non-archaeologist therefore it may be that members are favoured in these instances, without an independent adjudication it is impossible to argue with any certainty either way. There are individuals including former members of the IFA who would argue that members are favoured and those (mostly within the organisation) who would say otherwise.
The IFA relies for its authority on its willingness to take action when there is a complaint. Number of members is irrelevant, because its authority only covers members anyway.
I stand by my previous comments on this issue, the IFA is dependent for its survival on keeping/gaining members!
So, who would appoint this panel? and who would monitor their independence and fairness?
This is a difficult one and perhaps as I have said could be voluntary and not include professional archaeologists exclusively. Perhaps, like the IFA, it should be self appointed!
This really was not intended as an IFA 'bash' I simply feel that there is a lot of misconceptions about what the IFA can, does and should do. I still feel the simplest solution is to have them be 'accountable' themselves to people and organisations other than their members.
No-one else has defined any standards, so what other standards could they uphold than the ones the define themselves?When archaeologists are trained they are given, or should be given, certain acceptable standards of work. Most archaeologists also take pride in their abilities and integrity within their chosen profession. Archaeologists are therefore responsible for upholding their own standards.
Not true - the RAO itself is obliged to ensure that all its employees adhere to the standards, whether or not they are IFA members.
As it would be illegal to insist on IFA membership for an individual within an organisation and a non-IFA member has no obligation to work under someone elses contract with the IFA the individuals are not of course answerable to the IFA. One would hope that archaeologists would adhere to there own standards which should pretty much match those of the IFA but an RAO cannot legally enforce IFA standards on employees, but can enforce it?s own standards, via a contract, on employees these standards would have to be rigidly defined though within the contract as 'acceptable' or 'suitable' standard could equally apply to methods outside of IFA guidelines but still ethical and accurate. A non IFA member cannot therefore be brought to task for not following IFA standards and therefore developers, for example cannot have the perceived security of IFA standards when not everyone is answerable to them within an organisation.
True, but you omit those whose opinion is much more positive.
Surely those who are positive would join the IFA, by definition being an archaeologist and not joining them must demonstrate at least a degree of apathy towards them?
That is just what makes it independent - if it was appointed by someone else, it would be in someone else's control.
How can it be independent if it relies on the support and funds of those it attempts to ?police??
It can't favour members over non-members, because it has no power over non-members. It can't favour RAOs over individuals, because its by-laws prevent it from doing so, and because it is controlled by its individual members (who have a vote at the AGM and in Council elections) and not by RAOs (which can't vote).
It can favour members over non members as when a complaint is made to the IFA it can come from a non- member even a non-archaeologist therefore it may be that members are favoured in these instances, without an independent adjudication it is impossible to argue with any certainty either way. There are individuals including former members of the IFA who would argue that members are favoured and those (mostly within the organisation) who would say otherwise.
The IFA relies for its authority on its willingness to take action when there is a complaint. Number of members is irrelevant, because its authority only covers members anyway.
I stand by my previous comments on this issue, the IFA is dependent for its survival on keeping/gaining members!
So, who would appoint this panel? and who would monitor their independence and fairness?
This is a difficult one and perhaps as I have said could be voluntary and not include professional archaeologists exclusively. Perhaps, like the IFA, it should be self appointed!
This really was not intended as an IFA 'bash' I simply feel that there is a lot of misconceptions about what the IFA can, does and should do. I still feel the simplest solution is to have them be 'accountable' themselves to people and organisations other than their members.