RAOs

[oldgirl]

I'll let the unit working in your area know.......

[Steven]

Hi
Does Chartered status automatically mean that an organisation can enforce salaries? I'm not too sure that?s the case. I'm certain that the status is a fantastic bargaining tool in pay discussions and it can assist with salary benchmarking but I don't think it implies automatic pay scales/starting salaries. I'm really not sure if local governments will start paying their archaeologists more because they are chartered.

If the IFA goes down the same route, as Chartered Architect then all that?s required to be chartered is that you pay an annual fee to the professional body. It does not mean that your are better qualified than a non-chartered person as the only other requirement in law is for an architect to be registered with the ARB. To be a registered architect (with the ARB) you have to finish your qualifications.

In that case anybody who gets a degree in archaeology can then be a "registered archaeologist", if they then pay an annual fee they can be a Chartered Archaeologist. How does this solve any problems?

If a more professionally rigours (i.e. IFA membership) route is decided on then will chartering just be a bit more of an "old boy network"? Will all Members (MIFA) automatically be chartered, or will each have to reapply? As many MIFAs were originally self-certified will they be given chartered status just because they say they are skilled enough? Will it actually create a sharper division between non-chartered and chartered salaries with people who may be PIFA now not being considered proper "archaeologists"?

I'm not sure that it is possible to stop non-chartered people carrying out work, so it can't remove the problem of undercutting leading to lower quality work. Its possible that curators could state that only chartered archaeologists can carry out work but I'm not even certain that's legal.

Also what happens if the unit tendering manager isn't chartered but the "responsible" person (i.e. the on-site PO) is? This will places all responsibility for standards etc squarely on the individual chartered archaeologist, meaning that their managers could under budget a project leaving the Chartered PO as the fall guy for any comeback.

Please tell me if I'm wrong on any, or all of my points because I'm quite happy to be in error, and I think I would welcome Chartered Status but I don't think it will solve most of the issues faced by low paid, temporary contracted commercial archaeologists.


Steven

[ecmgardner]

quote "Its possible that curators could state that only chartered archaeologists can carry out work but I'm not even certain that's legal. "

If the law society say you have to be registered with them as an individual to practice law, then how is it different stating you have to be a chartered archaeologist to dig?

I think I've got a bit lost in the legalities of the argument....!

[Noddy]

Steven

As far as I'm aware there is far more to being a Chartered Architect than just the annual fee!! Using an example of pharmacy (which I know is a very different discipline) all pharmacists are required to take a professional exam, after undertaking a 4 year Master of Pharmacy degree and at a least a year in supervised training in the workplace. They are then required to undertaken a certain amount of training every year for the rest of their career for CPD purposes. If this does not happen the are not able to re-register and so cannot continue to practice as a pharmacist. Similar systems are common in many other professions eg chartered surveyors (although its 2 years training for them). It would and should be possible to stop non-chartered archaeologists working just as you can't work as a doctor, pharamcist, architect etc if you are not registered with the professional body.

My view is that when the IFA goes down the chartered route, as it undoubtedly will, it could do a lot worse than looking at these institutes. All corporate memberships (PIFA, AIFA and MIFA) would be chartered and in order to practice in commercial archaeology you would have to be chartered. The only exception would be if you are a trainee out of university but there would have to be some sort of limit (as in other professions) on the type of work they can undertake. There would also have to be a pathway for trainees, similar to say the RICS Assessment of Professional Competence, which would be fully administered by the IFA, and companies/units would have to be prepared to pay for.

[1man1desk]

I would see Chartered Institute status for the IFA working more like the Civil Engineers, accountants, IEMA, etc.

1. at an early stage in your career, you obtain appropriate qualifications/references/experience and join the institute;

2. you work through certain career-path requirements, including CPD requirements, to progressively upgrade your membership;

3. at a certain point, you can apply for Chartered status.

Many of the institutes have very strict rules on the quantity, nature and content of the CPD you do and how it is verified, and on the nature and quantity of the experience you gain before applying for Chartered status. Many of them require you to sit professional exams or undergo oral examinations at intervals, usually as part of the application for Chartered status. Some of them also require continuing CPD logs etc. for re-validation at intervals even after Chartered status is achieved.

For institutions that take this approach to Chartered status, it is generally something that is attained after quite a few years of continuous professional experience - rarely before your late 20s, generally some time in your 30s. In some professions, it is usual for clients to specify that certain roles may only be performed by Chartered individuals, while in others it may be a legal requirement (not 100% sure about that).

In archaeology, the type of roles that I could see being restricted to Chartered individuals might be the person in overall charge on site (i.e. Project Officers or equivalent) and Project Managers. I could see curators making enforceable requirements in this respect.

Although I am myself a MIFA, I would prefer to see the requirments for Chartered status being more stringent (or at least requiring a more stringent validation procedure, with periodic re-validation). However, it would be unreasonably time-consuming and costly to go through that process for all existing MIFAs, so I would see all MIFAs that were not self-validated being given Chartered status immediately, perhaps with a requirement to re-validate within a specified timescale.

Incidentally, although Chartered status for the IFA and restrictions on the employment of non-members might help boost salaries overall, that is not what it is principally for. It is much more about restricting access to the work to people that have been validated and that are subject to the disciplinary code. However, there is usually a salary premium for Chartered individuals.


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[m300572]

You would want your curators to be Chartered in addition to the contractors.

[Noddy]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk

I would see Chartered Institute status for the IFA working more like the Civil Engineers, accountants, IEMA, etc.

1. at an early stage in your career, you obtain appropriate qualifications/references/experience and join the institute;

2. you work through certain career-path requirements, including CPD requirements, to progressively upgrade your membership;

3. at a certain point, you can apply for Chartered status.

Many of the institutes have very strict rules on the quantity, nature and content of the CPD you do and how it is verified, and on the nature and quantity of the experience you gain before applying for Chartered status. Many of them require you to sit professional exams or undergo oral examinations at intervals, usually as part of the application for Chartered status. Some of them also require continuing CPD logs etc. for re-validation at intervals even after Chartered status is achieved.

For institutions that take this approach to Chartered status, it is generally something that is attained after quite a few years of continuous professional experience - rarely before your late 20s, generally some time in your 30s. In some professions, it is usual for clients to specify that certain roles may only be performed by Chartered individuals, while in others it may be a legal requirement (not 100% sure about that).

In archaeology, the type of roles that I could see being restricted to Chartered individuals might be the person in overall charge on site (i.e. Project Officers or equivalent) and Project Managers. I could see curators making enforceable requirements in this respect.

While it is true that many professional organisations require years of professional service to achieve chartered status others do not - to be a chartered surveyor for example requires 2 years of training after graduation so many people achieve this in their early to mid 20s. Personally I'd prefer a more senior individual to be called a Fellow.

However I think the issue probably isn't so much what the title 'chartered archaeologist' means as to what a chartered institute can achieve. If a 'chartered' IFA requires ALL archaeologists (curators as well!) to be registered with it, to adhere to its professional standards, to undertake CPD, and re-register on a regular basis then it will raise standards across the board. Because everyone would be a member it would be in a better financial state and would be able to exert much greater influence on government policy and other professional bodies in the construction industry, and act as a regulator on its members. If work was not up to standard it would have a greater disciplinary influence which may, very occasionally, lead to the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the industry.

[drpeterwardle]

I take everybody points about chartered status but.....

1. I doubt that legally an institute with chartered status could enforce pay rates on the private sector.

2. All of this is too late with the changes in the designation system coming and the whole concept of the historic environment and the IFA talking about merger with IHBC.

3. OK lets say we have chartered archaeologists so lets try and define what only chartered archaeologists can do would the following be included:

Building recording
Carbon 14 dating
archaeological geophysics

4. If we say destructive fieldwork can only be done by chartered archaeologists what will happen to all the Amateur groups?

5. It is government policy to break professional monopolies where the public pay for their services (except medicine and teaching).

6. Just how would obtaining chartered status be managed for the many people who have been in archaeology for years and have no actual qualifications?

7. Would making archaeology a graduate only profession be a good thing?

8. Who would pay for the infrastructure for setting up the chartered system?

What we need is a simple system for ensuring that bona fide qualified and experienced people undertake work destructive required by the planning system.

The notion of archaeology being chartered has been talked about since 1980 and the formation of the IFA. The point is us archaeologists may want to protect our jobs by chartered status but the real question is does government and the rest of society share our view?

Dr Peter Wardle

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

What we need is a simple system for ensuring that bona fide qualified and experienced people undertake work destructive required by the planning system.

Isn't this exactly what article 3 of the Valletta Convention suggested? }

[the invisible man]

To go back to the comparison bit: law and medicine (including dentistry) are slightly different. Anyone however can design a building, and be paid so to do, but they cannot call themselves an architect unless they are ARB registered. This requires a degree, a yearout, two more years at uni, then another year out before your final Part 3 exam.