23rd June 2008, 01:56 PM
Posted by Drumcharry:
A Standard is something that you would always be expected to adhere to at all times as a matter of professional ethics, and which can be the subject of disciplinary action if you have signed up to it. In the IFA 'Standard and Guidance' documents, it is normally expressed in a short, pithy paragraph.
Guidance is advice, which you should take into account but can adapt to your own purposes. It can become a 'standard' for project-specific purposes, if a curator or a consultant makes adherence to it a requirement in their brief or specification, but this needs to be done anew each time.
If you want to go down that line, perhaps you should consider whether those with what appears to be an idealogical opposition to the IFA could be said to have a vested interest in perpetuating a false or exaggerated perception of the IFA's supposed shortomings.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but it could be taken as a very offensive remark. I would be grateful if you could clarify.
In your own suggestions, you seem to want a strong regulator to which all archaeologists are subject. The point of disagreement between us is whether that regulator should be the IFA or something else that sits above it.
My contention that it should be the IFA is based on purely pragmatic grounds - the IFA exists and is already trying to do the job, while the alternative does not exist and no-one is trying to set one up.
It is a logical consequence of that position that everyone should be obliged to be in the IFA, otherwise it can only regulate part of the profession, and it's effectiveness in doing that is undermined.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:As has already been posted the IFA is not the only producer of Archaeological standardsActually, I think the IFA is the only British organisation producing Standards. English Heritage and others publish various guidance documents, some of which (MAP2, for instance) were actually written for their own internal purposes, but guidance and standards are two different things.
A Standard is something that you would always be expected to adhere to at all times as a matter of professional ethics, and which can be the subject of disciplinary action if you have signed up to it. In the IFA 'Standard and Guidance' documents, it is normally expressed in a short, pithy paragraph.
Guidance is advice, which you should take into account but can adapt to your own purposes. It can become a 'standard' for project-specific purposes, if a curator or a consultant makes adherence to it a requirement in their brief or specification, but this needs to be done anew each time.
Quote:quote:and why would it be better for every archaeologist to have a vested interest in overlooking the shortfallings of a proffessional organisation?Actually, as an IFA member, I don't believe I have a vested interest in overlooking any shortfallings. Quite the reverse - my interest, and that of all other members that I have discussed this with, is in making the IFA stronger and more effective as a regulator. If you look back at the suggestions made in my previous posts, you will see they are all aimed at that objective.
If you want to go down that line, perhaps you should consider whether those with what appears to be an idealogical opposition to the IFA could be said to have a vested interest in perpetuating a false or exaggerated perception of the IFA's supposed shortomings.
Quote:quote:I'm afraid those who have tried to change things internally have, i understand, repeatedly come up against the 'IFA way or the highway' view that seems fairly prevalent in supporters of the organisation.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but it could be taken as a very offensive remark. I would be grateful if you could clarify.
In your own suggestions, you seem to want a strong regulator to which all archaeologists are subject. The point of disagreement between us is whether that regulator should be the IFA or something else that sits above it.
My contention that it should be the IFA is based on purely pragmatic grounds - the IFA exists and is already trying to do the job, while the alternative does not exist and no-one is trying to set one up.
It is a logical consequence of that position that everyone should be obliged to be in the IFA, otherwise it can only regulate part of the profession, and it's effectiveness in doing that is undermined.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished