Personally, I would like to see more clarity and less spin written into the proposal. I appreciate that at this stage generalisation is needed to account for further input from those concerned. Admittedly I am cautiously concerned that this is an attempt to win over or as some may read "force" those whom have chosen not to partake of IFA membership to join in order to be seen by the industry as a professional archaeologist. At the moment this just doesn't sit well, with all due respect to the Digger Forum (and their efforts to address the shortcoming of the IFA with regard to "heritage practicioners" or diggers). I would be hard pressed to be persuaded that the IFA represents those who choose to dig for a liviing. To my mind, what I find a bit off putting is the phrasology
"Meanwhile commercial and voluntary practitioners should increasingly recognise and comply with professional standards so that all are encouraged to acquire new skills and accreditation"[FONT="]
[/FONT]Perhaps I am niave, but don't many of us do so already? Through my own experience as a student volunteer, to paid heritage practioner (digger), to supervisor, to project officer, project manager, director, and consultant (and now working in the role of digger) since becoming aquainted with IFA standards, these have always been catered for. With that knowledge regardless of what role one is performing, it would be irresponsible to disgard working towards these set standards just because one chooses to dig and not act in a management capacity. Why the need to force people to join? What is wrong with choice? As for new skills and accreditation, as it is I do this off my own back. I value independence rather than having to participate in a micro managed machine. Simply my opinion.
"Development-led research into the historic environment should be a collaborative venture involving commercially-funded, local authority, higher education and the voluntary sector. It should be focused on interpretation, understanding and significance, not record. In all cases decisions should be founded on sound knowledge derived from HERs mediated by expert professionals, and from proportionate and appropriate professional research, commissioned by the applicant, into the interests of a place and its significance."
Now this I can sink my teeth into
As it is moving back into a dig role, the view from here up the ladder is that "we" have become nothing more than data collectors rather than archaeologists.
So for the moment, there are some aspects of the proposal that would I like to hear more detail about. As Kevin and Wax (and BAJR) have pointed out, clarity is key. Please please please include a caveate calling for clear and concise phraseology. Enjoy the bank holidays, I'm off to London for the weekend:face-approve:
"Meanwhile commercial and voluntary practitioners should increasingly recognise and comply with professional standards so that all are encouraged to acquire new skills and accreditation"[FONT="]
[/FONT]Perhaps I am niave, but don't many of us do so already? Through my own experience as a student volunteer, to paid heritage practioner (digger), to supervisor, to project officer, project manager, director, and consultant (and now working in the role of digger) since becoming aquainted with IFA standards, these have always been catered for. With that knowledge regardless of what role one is performing, it would be irresponsible to disgard working towards these set standards just because one chooses to dig and not act in a management capacity. Why the need to force people to join? What is wrong with choice? As for new skills and accreditation, as it is I do this off my own back. I value independence rather than having to participate in a micro managed machine. Simply my opinion.
"Development-led research into the historic environment should be a collaborative venture involving commercially-funded, local authority, higher education and the voluntary sector. It should be focused on interpretation, understanding and significance, not record. In all cases decisions should be founded on sound knowledge derived from HERs mediated by expert professionals, and from proportionate and appropriate professional research, commissioned by the applicant, into the interests of a place and its significance."
Now this I can sink my teeth into
As it is moving back into a dig role, the view from here up the ladder is that "we" have become nothing more than data collectors rather than archaeologists. So for the moment, there are some aspects of the proposal that would I like to hear more detail about. As Kevin and Wax (and BAJR) have pointed out, clarity is key. Please please please include a caveate calling for clear and concise phraseology. Enjoy the bank holidays, I'm off to London for the weekend:face-approve:
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.