24th June 2008, 12:42 PM
As a note to Noddys post above a comparison with the organisation of the Legal profession is actually quite apt. Both have a group of professionals or professional firms who are regulated to an extent by a professional body (IFA, Law Society) which is funded by the professionals themselves, but only the legal profession has a further independent level. Your reference to this only being applicable to Southern Britain is also not correct as there is, of course, the Scottish Law Society and Legal Ombudsman to deal with the legal profession north of the border. There are also provisions for cross border cases but that is far too off topic top go into here!!
As for 1man1desk seperating Standards from Guidance, this is a really complicated issue again legally any professional who did not work within Guidance as published by an institution such as English Heritage could come unstuck in the eyes of the law if a complaint was made and as such it applies to all members of the profession (do not forget also that Sheriffs and Judges are used to looking at 'Guidance' documents very seriously and only rarely stray from their recommendations). IFA standards are actually far less enforceable as they only cover IFA members and should a developer wish to take an archaeologist to court over the archaeologists inadequacies he could only bring the IFA Standards into play if the archaeologist had membership, whereas the English Heritage Guidance could be used certainly within England and Wales and possibly beyond as demonstarting the acceptable archaeological minimum 'standards' suggested by a reputable body of professionals.
Interestingly the 'IFA or the highway' is being repeatedly demonstrated here by (presumably) members insisting that all archaeologists should have to be members of the IFA so that the IFA may govern the whole profession!
People don't join the IFA because they do not wish to join it, perhaps part of this wish is a distrust of the organisation perhaps part is that they do not want the IFA 'governing' the profession because of how they perceive it operates. Why should everyone be forced to join the IFA just so that the IFA can force people to do it the IFA way?!! Why are IFA members so scared of a regulatory body as independent of the profession as possible overseeing what they do, some might regard this in itself as suspicious enough for them not to want to join?
As for 1man1desk seperating Standards from Guidance, this is a really complicated issue again legally any professional who did not work within Guidance as published by an institution such as English Heritage could come unstuck in the eyes of the law if a complaint was made and as such it applies to all members of the profession (do not forget also that Sheriffs and Judges are used to looking at 'Guidance' documents very seriously and only rarely stray from their recommendations). IFA standards are actually far less enforceable as they only cover IFA members and should a developer wish to take an archaeologist to court over the archaeologists inadequacies he could only bring the IFA Standards into play if the archaeologist had membership, whereas the English Heritage Guidance could be used certainly within England and Wales and possibly beyond as demonstarting the acceptable archaeological minimum 'standards' suggested by a reputable body of professionals.
Interestingly the 'IFA or the highway' is being repeatedly demonstrated here by (presumably) members insisting that all archaeologists should have to be members of the IFA so that the IFA may govern the whole profession!
People don't join the IFA because they do not wish to join it, perhaps part of this wish is a distrust of the organisation perhaps part is that they do not want the IFA 'governing' the profession because of how they perceive it operates. Why should everyone be forced to join the IFA just so that the IFA can force people to do it the IFA way?!! Why are IFA members so scared of a regulatory body as independent of the profession as possible overseeing what they do, some might regard this in itself as suspicious enough for them not to want to join?