19th June 2008, 12:21 AM
My apologies if the use of the term 'obstructive' was deemed a little inflamatory. What I meant was simply that IFA 'supporters' see the organisation as a 'one stop shop' which can administer all archaeological standards and deal with complaints and so on and do not see a problem with that organisation essentially being controlled by paying members. Non-members do seem to be more open generally to differing views that do not toe the IFA line. Obviously IFA members must fundamentally believe in the organisation which is where the slightly strange but idealistic view that every archaeologist should join the IFA falls down, why should anyone be forced either directly or by threat of unemployment to join an organisation they have no faith or belief in. That is hardly democracy! Where the organistion is there solely for the good of the profession with no profit making and where the organisation is formed as a truly independent regulatory body then compulsory membership might just about be ethical and of course a truly independent body shouldn't need a further hierarchy watching them. However 'compulsory' membership of the IFA would produce the effective 'monopoly' under which 1man1desk thinks an independent regulator would be appropriate!
Furthermore even where there is not a monopoly such as with say firms of Solicitors there are several tiers of regulation. Legal firms contribute financially to the running of 'The Law Society' which performs a function very similar to that of the IFA, however several hundred years of experience has shown that in certain areas it is necessary to have an independent regulator hence the Legal Ombudsman. There are far more law firms than Archaeological companies so no effective monopoly below the level of The Law Society or, in the case of archaeology, the IFA but the need for the Ombudsman is still recognised, so why the resistance to the consideration of such for archaeology?
Furthermore even where there is not a monopoly such as with say firms of Solicitors there are several tiers of regulation. Legal firms contribute financially to the running of 'The Law Society' which performs a function very similar to that of the IFA, however several hundred years of experience has shown that in certain areas it is necessary to have an independent regulator hence the Legal Ombudsman. There are far more law firms than Archaeological companies so no effective monopoly below the level of The Law Society or, in the case of archaeology, the IFA but the need for the Ombudsman is still recognised, so why the resistance to the consideration of such for archaeology?