20th June 2008, 02:37 PM
Posted by RedEarth:
However, there are also a lot of archaeologists and some archaeological organisations that choose not to be in the IFA. While most of those people are just as ethically sound as any IFA member, when you come across an exception there is no-one you can complain to.
Sanctions by the IFA are also weakened by the fact that, if you are expelled from the IFA, there is nothing to stop you from calling yourself an archaeologist or practicing as one.
What would be 'useful' would be if all archaeologists were subject to the same potential sanctions if they transgress. At the moment, the only available route for that to happen is through the IFA, but only if IFA membership became a requirement if you want to practice as an archaeologist.
The IFA is a long way from perfect, but what we need to do is take our eye off the detail and keep it on the big picture. As far as regulating the profession and enforcing good archaeological practice goes, the IFA is the only game in town. It may not do the job very well, but no-one else does it at all, and it could do the job much better if everyone was inside, instead of standing outside and complaining.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:If the IFA can't deal with complaints about/by non-members in some way it is never going to serve any useful purpose in terms of disciplinary actionThere are something in the region of 5000 members in the IFA, plus over 50 RAOs, which include most of the major archaeological units and consultancies. If you believe there has been misconduct by any of those individuals or organisations, then you can complain to the IFA about them, and you know that your complaint will be judged against a published set of standards and in accordance with a published code of conduct. Last year, at least one member was expelled from the IFA following such a complaint, and other cases have been subject to lesser disciplinary actions. That's useful isn't it?
However, there are also a lot of archaeologists and some archaeological organisations that choose not to be in the IFA. While most of those people are just as ethically sound as any IFA member, when you come across an exception there is no-one you can complain to.
Sanctions by the IFA are also weakened by the fact that, if you are expelled from the IFA, there is nothing to stop you from calling yourself an archaeologist or practicing as one.
What would be 'useful' would be if all archaeologists were subject to the same potential sanctions if they transgress. At the moment, the only available route for that to happen is through the IFA, but only if IFA membership became a requirement if you want to practice as an archaeologist.
The IFA is a long way from perfect, but what we need to do is take our eye off the detail and keep it on the big picture. As far as regulating the profession and enforcing good archaeological practice goes, the IFA is the only game in town. It may not do the job very well, but no-one else does it at all, and it could do the job much better if everyone was inside, instead of standing outside and complaining.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished