21st April 2009, 03:16 PM
'Beamo read what peteraf posted, that is essentially it, plus some evidence that you have carried out similar work in the past. Unless it is a very small job and then maybe evidence that you have supervised similar work for another company.
What would you prefer, a line that says 'anyone at all can carry out the work'. Maybe even the builder and his ground workers, is that a better system for you? Or maybe someone in the local community who has seen time team?
It is easy to poke holes but much harder to suggest a better system. I await with eager interest your solution.'
Blimey Afarensis - no offence was intended by my comments. I was only trying to point out that specifying 'MIFA or equivalent' was never going to be particularly helpful when it came to actually establishing how the 'equivalent' status was going to be assessed.
As for your comment regarding my preferred alternatives, you are way off in suggesting that I would like to see the work carried out by a non-archaeologist who has seen TT.
I actually think that we do need some form of accreditation in archaeology, just as IfA have been pushing for.
Unfortunately the debate on accreditation always gets drawn into the issue of how we can 'license' professional archaeologists whilst still allowing the participation of non-professionals. In my opinion the issue is not one of whether we should or should not have accreditation, but on how to establish a system that is suitably both inclusive (for the non-professionals) and exclusive (to ensure quality etc). Perhaps IfA have pushed a bit too hard with the likes of EH and the subsequent lack of progress is due to this agressive selling of the need for accreditation. In the meantime EH are left with the inenviable task of having to support the government's line that our current system is Valetta-compliant when it clearly isn't.
Earlier on BAJR forum it was suggested that we should try to create a system that takes the best elements from those that already exist elsewhere eg. Ireland. This is probably the right way forward, but it will not be easy to establish a system that is both fair and ensures best practice at all times. If I had a water-tight solution I would be happy to share it here - perhaps this is something that the contributors to BAJR forum could turn thier collective minds towards.
Beamo
What would you prefer, a line that says 'anyone at all can carry out the work'. Maybe even the builder and his ground workers, is that a better system for you? Or maybe someone in the local community who has seen time team?
It is easy to poke holes but much harder to suggest a better system. I await with eager interest your solution.'
Blimey Afarensis - no offence was intended by my comments. I was only trying to point out that specifying 'MIFA or equivalent' was never going to be particularly helpful when it came to actually establishing how the 'equivalent' status was going to be assessed.
As for your comment regarding my preferred alternatives, you are way off in suggesting that I would like to see the work carried out by a non-archaeologist who has seen TT.
I actually think that we do need some form of accreditation in archaeology, just as IfA have been pushing for.
Unfortunately the debate on accreditation always gets drawn into the issue of how we can 'license' professional archaeologists whilst still allowing the participation of non-professionals. In my opinion the issue is not one of whether we should or should not have accreditation, but on how to establish a system that is suitably both inclusive (for the non-professionals) and exclusive (to ensure quality etc). Perhaps IfA have pushed a bit too hard with the likes of EH and the subsequent lack of progress is due to this agressive selling of the need for accreditation. In the meantime EH are left with the inenviable task of having to support the government's line that our current system is Valetta-compliant when it clearly isn't.
Earlier on BAJR forum it was suggested that we should try to create a system that takes the best elements from those that already exist elsewhere eg. Ireland. This is probably the right way forward, but it will not be easy to establish a system that is both fair and ensures best practice at all times. If I had a water-tight solution I would be happy to share it here - perhaps this is something that the contributors to BAJR forum could turn thier collective minds towards.
Beamo