6th February 2013, 08:59 PM
in fact i do not really care about who has this or that responsibility > in the end i am only interested in the standards and outcomes, and perhaps also the future for younger archaeologists.
this i why i think that in regard of the commercial sector, the IFA should focus SOLELY on technical archaeological standards (+policy lobbying), and leave most, if not all, employment/contract/etc law to other bodies.
Put ALL effort into that goal >> it will certainly underpin and lead to others.
[Fundamentally necessary would be a wholly new & more intense approach to monitoring ongoing commercial projects. Perhaps even contributing IFA expertise and guidance to them...]
EG: Rather than try to implement an over-ambitious scheme to certify every archaeologist, 'training' could be a specific response to a review that identifies training needs/wants. (this could obviate the need for a 'hard' certification scheme, in favor of a 'soft' CPD log type approach).
this i why i think that in regard of the commercial sector, the IFA should focus SOLELY on technical archaeological standards (+policy lobbying), and leave most, if not all, employment/contract/etc law to other bodies.
Put ALL effort into that goal >> it will certainly underpin and lead to others.
[Fundamentally necessary would be a wholly new & more intense approach to monitoring ongoing commercial projects. Perhaps even contributing IFA expertise and guidance to them...]
EG: Rather than try to implement an over-ambitious scheme to certify every archaeologist, 'training' could be a specific response to a review that identifies training needs/wants. (this could obviate the need for a 'hard' certification scheme, in favor of a 'soft' CPD log type approach).