28th October 2008, 11:45 AM
Thanks Kathyrn for entering the debate. Firstly, I am not an IfA basher... I'm going through the process of joining. Secondly, it is, I hope, evident from previous posts of mine here that I am actually pro-IfA.
But I'd like to see it in a form in which it is transparent, structured and, above-all, assertive (ie. chartered). Yet, being my old contradictory self, I'd also like to see it in a form where every archaeologists wants to join it, rather than feel they have to.
I'd like it to be representative of all archaeologists... 100% (not the just the 34% that are in it at the moment). I'd like it to be an organisation where everyone has an equal voice and vote... from digger to director, PIfA to MIfA (or whatever the new membership moniker will be).
Lastly, I want it to be an organisation that everyone can afford to join and actually feel (see?) some benefit in being a member.
...and yes, there is a specific question. Although I know the IfA talks to non-members (and members alike), I'd like to know in what form, where exactly and what about?
But I'd like to see it in a form in which it is transparent, structured and, above-all, assertive (ie. chartered). Yet, being my old contradictory self, I'd also like to see it in a form where every archaeologists wants to join it, rather than feel they have to.
I'd like it to be representative of all archaeologists... 100% (not the just the 34% that are in it at the moment). I'd like it to be an organisation where everyone has an equal voice and vote... from digger to director, PIfA to MIfA (or whatever the new membership moniker will be).
Lastly, I want it to be an organisation that everyone can afford to join and actually feel (see?) some benefit in being a member.
...and yes, there is a specific question. Although I know the IfA talks to non-members (and members alike), I'd like to know in what form, where exactly and what about?