17th June 2008, 05:02 PM
Hmmm. I am sympathetic to many of these concerns - especially where a situation might involve a complaint against alleged misbehaviour by organisation whose senior staff are also senior members of IFA Council (for example). However where does it stop? Who overlooks the overseeing body? Who appoints its members? Surely the same situation would apply there?
I am concede the point that the IFA is not the sole creator of standards. However (as 1man has pointed out) there is a difference between IFA Standards and Guidance and (for example) EH Standards and Guidance. The IFA S&G specify how certain types of project should be undertaken in terms of the relationships between professionals, the expected outcomes, the extent (and limits) of expert judgement and so-on. The EH S&G (although very varied) specify the detail of recording methods, drawing conventions, presentation styles, content and so-on. Whilst there is some overlap, I think these two types of 'standard and guidance' have very different roles - one is strategic and the other is tactical, if you like.
In my personal view the best solution really is to try and work with the mechanism we already have rather than to recreate it all from scratch. The IFA, whatever its flaws, is the profession's best response to these issues. It is worth noting that the IFA does have a "Committee on Working Practices in Archaeology" which "monitors the standard and nature of the provision of archaeological services in the UK, including continued monitoring of the implementation of the IFA's Code of Approved Practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology".
The only way that this will actually work is for EVERYONE to join the IFA and exert influence on it through voting at the AGM and attending conference. Then it would be a much more representative organisation and a more effective one.
I am concede the point that the IFA is not the sole creator of standards. However (as 1man has pointed out) there is a difference between IFA Standards and Guidance and (for example) EH Standards and Guidance. The IFA S&G specify how certain types of project should be undertaken in terms of the relationships between professionals, the expected outcomes, the extent (and limits) of expert judgement and so-on. The EH S&G (although very varied) specify the detail of recording methods, drawing conventions, presentation styles, content and so-on. Whilst there is some overlap, I think these two types of 'standard and guidance' have very different roles - one is strategic and the other is tactical, if you like.
In my personal view the best solution really is to try and work with the mechanism we already have rather than to recreate it all from scratch. The IFA, whatever its flaws, is the profession's best response to these issues. It is worth noting that the IFA does have a "Committee on Working Practices in Archaeology" which "monitors the standard and nature of the provision of archaeological services in the UK, including continued monitoring of the implementation of the IFA's Code of Approved Practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology".
The only way that this will actually work is for EVERYONE to join the IFA and exert influence on it through voting at the AGM and attending conference. Then it would be a much more representative organisation and a more effective one.