25th February 2014, 02:45 PM
Kev
You may need to revisit Tim Howard's original briefing note.
1. It is the Institute that is Chartered, enhancing the profile, prestige and authority of the officials perhaps, but not members:
"A distinction has to be drawn here between the chartering of a body (such as the IfA) and the ability of a chartered body to confer chartered status on its members. In the first instance, we are considering whether to prepare an application to the Privy Council to seek chartered status for the Institute. This would not, without more, confer the ability to grant chartered status (as a Chartered Archaeologist) to members, but this is something which could subsequently be pursued, for instance, by an application to amend the Charter to grant such powers. Although some may see chartering the Institute primarily as a stepping stone to the introduction of Chartered Archaeologist status for practitioners, there are clear benefits in chartering the Institute in terms of increased profile, prestige and authority."
2. In another post you question how a Chartered IFA could impede any archaeologist from practicing. Actually it is set out in the Strategic Plan:
Objective 4 By 2020 we aim to make IfA membership and registration essential demonstrations of fitness to practise.
Also, since the IfA has been 'accrediting professional competence' since its foundation, I can only assume Tim's further reference in his briefing note to a "longstanding campaign" is actually the IfA's executive's ambition with regards barriers to entry (a phrase, but not an intent, that appears to have been dropped recently):
"public endorsement of this nature is likely to strengthen the Institute’s hand in its longstanding campaign for the accreditation of professional competence in archaeology."
3. I don't know about you but I'm also far from comfortable that my professional competence gained through personal educational achievement, experience and commitment should be rendered second to a corporate branding exercise. As Tim suscintly puts it, the:
“‘public ranks Chartered number one in terms of confidence in professionalism, over other designations like Fellowship and degree.”
It’s not that I fail to appreciate the benefits of a collective voice representing the profession. My concern is that IfA has sought to advance it authority on commercial practice whilst ignoring the reforms needed within the commercial sector. In promoting the RO scheme, as a mechanism for imposing barriers,it has institutionalised business practices that contribute to the professional malaise, allows corporate interests to prevail over those of the membership, and now creates an institution that lacks transparency and has none of the quality systems necessary to expose poor professional practice.
You may need to revisit Tim Howard's original briefing note.
1. It is the Institute that is Chartered, enhancing the profile, prestige and authority of the officials perhaps, but not members:
"A distinction has to be drawn here between the chartering of a body (such as the IfA) and the ability of a chartered body to confer chartered status on its members. In the first instance, we are considering whether to prepare an application to the Privy Council to seek chartered status for the Institute. This would not, without more, confer the ability to grant chartered status (as a Chartered Archaeologist) to members, but this is something which could subsequently be pursued, for instance, by an application to amend the Charter to grant such powers. Although some may see chartering the Institute primarily as a stepping stone to the introduction of Chartered Archaeologist status for practitioners, there are clear benefits in chartering the Institute in terms of increased profile, prestige and authority."
2. In another post you question how a Chartered IFA could impede any archaeologist from practicing. Actually it is set out in the Strategic Plan:
Objective 4 By 2020 we aim to make IfA membership and registration essential demonstrations of fitness to practise.
Also, since the IfA has been 'accrediting professional competence' since its foundation, I can only assume Tim's further reference in his briefing note to a "longstanding campaign" is actually the IfA's executive's ambition with regards barriers to entry (a phrase, but not an intent, that appears to have been dropped recently):
"public endorsement of this nature is likely to strengthen the Institute’s hand in its longstanding campaign for the accreditation of professional competence in archaeology."
3. I don't know about you but I'm also far from comfortable that my professional competence gained through personal educational achievement, experience and commitment should be rendered second to a corporate branding exercise. As Tim suscintly puts it, the:
“‘public ranks Chartered number one in terms of confidence in professionalism, over other designations like Fellowship and degree.”
It’s not that I fail to appreciate the benefits of a collective voice representing the profession. My concern is that IfA has sought to advance it authority on commercial practice whilst ignoring the reforms needed within the commercial sector. In promoting the RO scheme, as a mechanism for imposing barriers,it has institutionalised business practices that contribute to the professional malaise, allows corporate interests to prevail over those of the membership, and now creates an institution that lacks transparency and has none of the quality systems necessary to expose poor professional practice.