Professional Organisations in Archaeology

[Unitof1]

How about the Ifa drops the so called Standards, which as if you need reminding are actually called standards and Guidance?s, and then it wouldn?t have to deal with as many complaints and just accepts new members based on their obvious good credentials and proven adherence to the Code. The concept of standards can only corral people down the Standards haven?t been met, your not very professional I am going to tell on you rather than lookey me I have exceeded the standards. It seems to me as madness that it accepts complaints from non-members and that?s from somebody who as a non-member complained but then that?s just me. I also think that all complaints should be public

The ifas Introduction to Standards and Guidences

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...intro2.pdf

also points out the discombobulation between standards and Codes in the on going but really very short, maybe it should be put out of its history of the ifa

quote: Since its inception, the IFA has been concerned with setting standards in archaeology. Initially it defined standards for membership, which were later developed into the present system of rigorous peer validation, and adopted a Code of conduct. As the Institute developed, steps were taken to increase the level and effectiveness of professional self-regulation. More detailed by-laws were introduced to underpin and expand the key principles of the Code of conduct, and in 1990 the Institute resolved to define and impose on its members written standards to maintain and improve the quality of archaeological fieldwork.

This state of New Labour of change for changes sake has always the affect of making its original members likely to be unqualified in its present standards. Anyway the introduction then goes on to talk about hierarchies and quality but I think the best part is the juxtaposition of

quote:
This Standard, like the others, deliberately lacks detail.

with

quote:
Thus failure to meet the standards is liable be in conflict with the Codes. Members who conduct ?sub-standard? projects may find themselves subject to the Institute?s disciplinary procedure. The ultimate sanction in such a case would be expulsion from the Institute. In the commercial world local planning authorities, advised by ?curatorial? archaeologists, will consider projects not meeting IFA Standards to be inadequate for their purposes: a decision which may rapidly result in contractual disputes between applicants and their archaeological teams. Defaulting archaeological contractors could find this very expensive, and would not see much repeat business. They might also, depending on the legal advice received by the planning archaeologist, be removed from the planning authority?s list of contractors.

so you failed the standards so you have failed the code why do you need both, The ifa seem to be threatening/encouraging expensive disputes between archaeological teams and applicants what ever they are, yes the mighty list of contractors.

and then theres those principle authors why were those principle authors worried about Applicants I cant put my finger on it who did they imagine the Applicants would be..the so called archaeological team will get them

you are tired very tired but looking at that list of principle authors sorry you are getting very tired