IFA RO only as approved contractors

[Marcus Brody]

I know that field skills aren't essential to all roles in archaeology, but the argument has been made that only IfA members or RAOs should be allowed to undertake fieldwork because that's the only way to ensure that the archaeological resource will be treated properly, and I'm simply saying that this isn't the case. As has been pointed out, it's not unheard-of to meet individual IfA members that may not be particularly good in the field, and similarly, poor work isn't the sole preserve of non-RAOs, but the fact is that if membership is to be used as a means of access to work, it does bring a certain expectation of competency. And it's all very well saying 'complain', but as has been pointed out, there's very little confidence in the IfA disciplinary process, not only because there's a lack of visible sanction, but also because there's a perception that it's complicated and time-consuming.

I suspect I'm not going to change anyone's mind on this subject - people who agree with me probably still will, people who don't probably won't be convinced - so I think I'm going to withdraw from this topic now. It doesn't really seem likely that it's going to be resolve anything, and it seems to be going round in circles