Southport - support or betrayal?

[BAJR]

And if everyone would breathe..

AS it happens in teh whole history of BAJR - coming up for 12 years now... There are a few that talk, a few that act and many who lurk. That is just the way. Many people are intimidated by the bear pit attitude.

:face-topic:

Anyway I had this reply from Kate Geary in response to my questions

Here are my questions

Recently on BAJR both on the public forum and by private email I was told of what to some is a worrying rumour. I stress the word rumour, as I am at pains to point out that until the truth of something is known, then no amount of panic and guesswork will achieve anything constructive.

The main point raised, and it is for this I am contacting you, is a worry over the following;

"[SIZE=3]The vision is that commercial investigation and explanation of the historic environment should be commissioned and conducted in a way that makes public participation the norm not the exception. Meanwhile commercial and voluntary practitioners should increasingly recognise and comply with professional standards so that all are encouraged to acquire new skills and accreditation."[/SIZE]

Does this mean that commercial investigations will as a matter of course use more volunteers rather than field archaeologists? And does it suggest that currently commercial practitioners do not comply with professional standards - with I expect IfA membership being seen as a requirement for both commercial and voluntary archaeologists?

The other concerns raised are the suggestion that less field archaeologists would be required on a project and more volunteers could take their places, when we are all aware that there is often the need for more professionals on such projects and the issues of CSCS cards, appropriate training etc would tip a volunteer over into basically being an unpaid professional?

I am sure you could easily answer these questions, but feel it is important to do so, before the current rumours continue.

I myself have spoken out for more opportunity for inclusion as and when appropriate, so per-ce, I am in no way hostile to local involvement. What I do hope you can provide is any information that can explain the position being discussed.

I would also want to publish any reply on the BAJR Federation website.

and the reply.

Your query regarding the Southport report has come through to me as I am managing the responses to the consultation. I am not a member of the Southport Group but manage the Southport project for IfA.

The Southport vision is about increased public participation in planning led investigation and understanding of the historic environment. This might include more opportunities for members of the public to participate in that investigation on site, where appropriate, alongside a whole range of other potential opportunities for involvement. The key point is that identifying the potential for public involvement should become the norm. There is no intention that this should replace or reduce the numbers of paid historic environment practitioners and the report goes on to make reference to the IfA policy statement on the use of volunteers which has not changed, http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/defa...ements.pdf.

The report also makes reference to various perceived weaknesses in the current application of self regulation and envisages a future where professional self regulation involves a better balance of quality management by person (through membership of an appropriate professional body), process and product.

I hope that answers your questions. I would encourage all BAJR subscribers to respond to the consultation (which closes on the 3 June) and make their contribution to the final report.

Kind regards

Kate

Kate Geary BA MIfA
Standards Development Manager, Institute for Archaeologists

First off.. I would hope we as a collective can produce a single response.. rather than a handful.

Second, I am again reading the following into the reply.

This might include more opportunities for members of the public to participate in that investigation on site, where appropriate, alongside a whole range of other potential opportunities for involvement. The key point is that identifying the potential for public involvement should become the norm.

Thats good, but what does it mean in reality? Examples?

There is no intention that this should replace or reduce the numbers of paid historic environment practitioners and the report goes on to make reference to the IfA policy statement on the use of volunteers which has not changed, http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/defa...ements.pdf.

So there can be no inclusion of volunteers at the expense of professionals. So a site should be costed on teh basis of no volunteer inclusion? An any volunteer inclusion will of course cost extra. ?? ( though I see there is no intention, which does not mean a definitive NO WE WON'T )

The report also makes reference to various perceived weaknesses in the current application of self regulation and envisages a future where professional self regulation involves a better balance of quality management by person (through membership of an appropriate professional body), process and product.

Um... let me think now... professional bodies in Archaeology... hold on... ah... IfA So membership of teh IfA become compulsory to act as an archaeologist... Not that I would mind, but teh comment of self regulation, I was under the impression that the IfA were regulating their members and ROs. so does this mean that all is fine with IfA members and the rest of us are rogues who don't do 'quality management' ? :face-huh: I agree that there is a problem with regulation, but surely that would be best resolved by a universal standard of curatorial services.

Anyway... good to get a reply.

Though from what I read... they are not yet going to replace you on site, but it may happen and if you don't join the IfA you won't have a job anyway

Nothing to fear then!