3rd January 2013, 02:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 3rd January 2013, 04:05 AM by John Wells.)
'who is going to make the decision?'
Those who are awarding the contract/job and have to be able to justify their choice even though in some cases, their own expertise to make the choice may be limited or non-existent. So choosing an 'equivalent' may eventually be deemed too risky by those awarding the contract/job.
'what is the mechanism for appeal?'
Conversely, if there was the possibility for appeal, the MIFA could be in the strongest position if a non-MIFA is appointed.
Cost is probably more of a winner on appeal, if the standards are met, but legislation may (should?) eventually require MIFA status.
Currently, in law, those working in some trades have a higher status than archaeologists.
The fall-back position is likely to be to the default MIFA, unless a candidate/group is of 'special merit'.
Credibility, defensibility and liability (watching ones back) will be the the order of the day.
I have found professional bodies to be fascinating and watched with interest as old established learned/professional bodies with 'Victorian/Edwardian' demarcations have merged areas of expertise and professional membership. Decades ago, working in radiation protection research, officials of the Institute of Physics once described me as a biologist, whereas the Institute of Biology saw me as a physicist...but all was eventually resolved ;o)
If top experts cannot tell the difference between biology and physics, it would not be surprising to find that non-archaeologists awarding contracts cannot tell the difference between an MIFA and someone of equivalent status, especially when degrees in archaeology and practical experience in the field are so diverse.
Those who are awarding the contract/job and have to be able to justify their choice even though in some cases, their own expertise to make the choice may be limited or non-existent. So choosing an 'equivalent' may eventually be deemed too risky by those awarding the contract/job.
'what is the mechanism for appeal?'
Conversely, if there was the possibility for appeal, the MIFA could be in the strongest position if a non-MIFA is appointed.
Cost is probably more of a winner on appeal, if the standards are met, but legislation may (should?) eventually require MIFA status.
Currently, in law, those working in some trades have a higher status than archaeologists.
The fall-back position is likely to be to the default MIFA, unless a candidate/group is of 'special merit'.
Credibility, defensibility and liability (watching ones back) will be the the order of the day.
I have found professional bodies to be fascinating and watched with interest as old established learned/professional bodies with 'Victorian/Edwardian' demarcations have merged areas of expertise and professional membership. Decades ago, working in radiation protection research, officials of the Institute of Physics once described me as a biologist, whereas the Institute of Biology saw me as a physicist...but all was eventually resolved ;o)
If top experts cannot tell the difference between biology and physics, it would not be surprising to find that non-archaeologists awarding contracts cannot tell the difference between an MIFA and someone of equivalent status, especially when degrees in archaeology and practical experience in the field are so diverse.