22nd February 2014, 03:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 22nd February 2014, 04:00 PM by kevin wooldridge.)
Tool Wrote:... I haven't seen nearly enough from the IfA to be convinced that they truly believe in public engagement. I've said more than enough on why I think that this is an imperative.
Although I haven't seen it myself in my short career so this is anecdotal, it seems that the IfA don't uphold the standards they espouse nearly strongly enough both with regards R Os and individuals. This in itself casts doubt on the IfA's competence.
I think my first answer demonstrates that the IfA are engaged with the public through its responses to consultations and its efforts to promote archaeological standards. That is its prime remit.
The IfA follow up every complaint made through its disciplinary process. Their disciplinary system is also externally reviewed by independent auditors. I wouldn't comment upon the severity of the punishments handed out, but those which I have personal knowledge of seem appropriate to the situation. Anecdote and archaeology go hand in hand. The IfA can only discipline within the rules it sets and with a view to compliance within the bounds of UK law. As I am sure you are aware there is nothing to stop any individual or organisation setting up as an archaeologist in the UK. The IfA can only discipline folk who agree to be disciplined.
I'd be happy to join with you in advocating that every archaeologist active in the UK should be licensed with a view to losing that licence if they fail to meet standards, but....it would probably piss a lot of people off if we did and unlikely to make it past wishful thinking
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...