15th April 2011, 09:05 AM
I wholeheartedly accept those comments on my post. I have to say though, that comparing the archaeology industry with the architecture or engineering world is a bit spurious. In our little empire, permanent staff are comparitavely few. Those units that do hold permanent staff should clearly be motivated to provide assets with continuing professional development as it would be in their interests to do so. Not all commercial enterprises can afford to allocate the time and the costs involved in such endeavours. In terms of numbers, I would argue that the majority of workers in archaeology are those taken on with short-term and temporary contracts. In the 13 years that I have been working in archaeology, I have been sent on one (half day) course. Whilst I admit that the course provided a form of accreditation (of more gravitas than conference attendence) I feel that asking me to produce a CPD log would be akin to my writing a wish list.
I understand that the IfA has the goal of `professionalising` the industry and applaud that sentiment but......we need to learn how to walk before we run. CPD`s are a fine concept for permanent staff in an environment where employers are motivated to invest in their assets but are a tad pointless for someone like myself who (up until the latest disasters) has worked full-time uninterrupted for 13 years on temporary contracts for over 55 different employers.
I understand that the IfA has the goal of `professionalising` the industry and applaud that sentiment but......we need to learn how to walk before we run. CPD`s are a fine concept for permanent staff in an environment where employers are motivated to invest in their assets but are a tad pointless for someone like myself who (up until the latest disasters) has worked full-time uninterrupted for 13 years on temporary contracts for over 55 different employers.