7th October 2008, 03:07 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And talking to a friend who is in RIBA.. the personal benefit outways the costâ¦
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And am I also right in saying that RIBA is a chartered institute?
[:I] If I'm not right!
Don't worry Hosty, I have to admit that your questions made me think a bit about the IFA and why I am supportive of it (certainly more supportive than I was before I joined....). I genuinely believe that archaeology would have been in a far worse position by now without the IFA. Bear in mind, also, that it has to aspire to represent all archaeologists (I will NOT use the phrase 'heritage environmentists'), not just those whose voices we hear on these pages. We have discussed before the differences between people who often post here and (for example) Britarch, try getting those to agree on anything!
It is also important to point out that many people posting here are professional archaeologists (from the point of view that we are paid for doing it), but it has only been in the latter part of its life that IFA has had a majority of members who would consider themselves in that category. The Standards and Guidance and Code of Conduct have been set up to cover 'amateur' individuals and groups as well, many of whom are not operating within the 'quality control system' of the planning process. Their needs, aspirations and opinions also have to be taken into account.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And talking to a friend who is in RIBA.. the personal benefit outways the costâ¦
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And am I also right in saying that RIBA is a chartered institute?
[:I] If I'm not right!
Don't worry Hosty, I have to admit that your questions made me think a bit about the IFA and why I am supportive of it (certainly more supportive than I was before I joined....). I genuinely believe that archaeology would have been in a far worse position by now without the IFA. Bear in mind, also, that it has to aspire to represent all archaeologists (I will NOT use the phrase 'heritage environmentists'), not just those whose voices we hear on these pages. We have discussed before the differences between people who often post here and (for example) Britarch, try getting those to agree on anything!
It is also important to point out that many people posting here are professional archaeologists (from the point of view that we are paid for doing it), but it has only been in the latter part of its life that IFA has had a majority of members who would consider themselves in that category. The Standards and Guidance and Code of Conduct have been set up to cover 'amateur' individuals and groups as well, many of whom are not operating within the 'quality control system' of the planning process. Their needs, aspirations and opinions also have to be taken into account.