8th November 2013, 09:18 PM
Kajemby Wrote:I'm no advocate of the IFA, but surely an organisation is only as strong as its membership - If 99% of archaeologists are registered with the IFA, logically the IFA would be endorsed by 99% of archaeologists?
Therefore surely then, the IFA would not be self appointed? They (the leadership) would be appointed by people that share the values of the IFA, pay the money and join the organisation. Whether that is 99%, or 1% of archaeologists, they would still not be self appointed.
It might be different if the IFA claim to represent all archaeologists, but they don't - they say, clearly, that they represent their membership.
I think the more important question is why is the IfA so unappealing to so many practitioners of archaeology? One view is it's the fault of the practitioners for not getting involved, the other view is that the Institute itself has failed to make itself relevant to those it seeks to represent. People being people will embrace that which furthers their own ends. Most (OK, all from what I can think of) of those involved in this industry that I've spoken to do it not for the money, the fame, the conditions, but because they love doing it and care about it enough to endure the lack of money, the anonymity and the often pretty dire conditions. So, who has the wrong approach?
There is another issue here though, and that is the assumption that all in the world of archaeology is bad and needs this rather dubious fix. Is it that bad?