The next question: recording

[Tool]

Go on, I'll go for it.....how about 'higher professional standards, better qualified and more highly incentivised staff cannot be considered a backward step'.....whether that needs Chartered status to achieve is maybe questionable, BUT with no other alternative on the table (or even in the pipeline) it has to be the only path worth following. I'd be happy to consider an alternative if one presents itself, but I don't think the profession can wait another 30 years (The length of time it has taken IfA to reach this point).....failure to follow this lead is by default an acceptance that there is nothing wrong with the current state of the industry....that is just not defensible!!

OK, I can agree with the first part, obviously. But I'm afraid I can't be doing with the premise that just because option 1 isn't ideal, option 2 has therefor got to be a better alternative, for all the reasons I've given. Saying that 'failing to follow this lead is by default...' is just plain wrong. Not choosing a bad option in place of a bad situation is not indefensible, it is entirely sensible. And I have to say the slightly patronising attitude of some proponents of this idea (not from you Kevin, I hasten to add) really doesn't improve the image or help quell the feeling that this is about imposing will rather than doing what is right.

Now, before I get really bored with people failing to realise that there are a lot of genuine concerns here (as an aside, I have yet to meet an archaeologist, who doesn't hold some kind of very senior position, that supports the IfA, so for anyone to say they are representative of the profession is frankly laughable) I'll ask one more time: can anyone show me the evidence that this will work both for the benefit of archaeology and of archaeologists? None has been forthcoming yet. All that seems to be given so far is patronising comments or illogical statements that it has to be better because it's not the status quo.

My arm is starting to ache... :face-stir: