RAOs

[1man1desk]

Posted by Noddy:

quote: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.

I would love that - and I am sure the IFA would as well. However, it doesn't depend on them - it depends on the terms of their Charter, which comes from the Government. Some charetered bodies can restrict access to the relevant profession, and others can't.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

Quotation from Dr Peter Wardle, with my responses interpolated:

1. I doubt that legally an institute with chartered status could enforce pay rates on the private sector.
(well, that wouldn't be the point from my perspective)

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.
(not sure how the designation system is relevant, and I thought the IHBC were poo-pooing any merger talk?)

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 (probably not)
Carbon 14 dating (probably not)
archaeological geophysics (probably yes)

4. If we say destructive fieldwork can only be done by chartered archaeologists what will happen to all the Amateur groups?
(well, I don't think we would say that - what we would say is that professional destructive fieldwork, by which I mean that it is commissioned and paid for by a client, would be for Chartered archaeologists. Some other professional roles, such as curators, would also be restricted)

5. It is government policy to break professional monopolies where the public pay for their services (except medicine and teaching).
(most of the relevant work in archaeology is not paid for by the public but by commercial clients)

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?
(no reason why we couldn't work out a system of validation that works for them, just as we have done for MIFA)

7. Would making archaeology a graduate only profession be a good thing?
(see answer to 6. above)

8. Who would pay for the infrastructure for setting up the chartered system?
(the IFA, through its subscription income and the application fees it charges would-be Chartered Archaeologists)

What we need is a simple system for ensuring that bona fide qualified and experienced people undertake work destructive required by the planning system.
(I agree entirely - if we can come up with something simpler that would work, I'll be all for it. Any ideas?)


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[teamonster]

I would have seen any potential chartership being more encompassing of the whole historic environment sector - we are criticised by government for being too split up and therefore we don't get our voice heard. I don't think this is going to change much in the near future as the IHBC and IFA are not likely to merge - that is the reason why the IFA published a statement last year stating that it was going to undertake major reform.

As a Chartered HIstoric Environment Professional (don't shoot me!!) you could encompass everyone within the broader industry. It would work in a similar way to the Chartered Environmentalist who might be an ecologist, water quality specialist, EIA professional etc. and you can still call yourself an archaeologist/geophysicist etc. There several professional bodies 'club together' and you can be a member of the professional bodies at various grades working your way up to their top levels at which point you have the opportunity to gain additional Chartered status by submitting extra work and an interview (I think - know there is a bit of extra work).

When the Chartered Environmentalist title got set up there was a grandfather clause to allow those already working within the profession at the higher levels to gain membership - it wasn't just a blanket send everyone a certificate though - I remember people compiling statements etc.

I don't think that Chartered status is the magic bullet some people think it will be, but raising the professional bar another notch certainly wouldn't do any harm.

[BAJR Host]

Yip... you would have to have a Grandfather clause!

Institute For Archaeologists (IFA)

Chartered status... yes you can get others to do the job... but a chartered organisation.. now you have some clout..

It would need a root and branch reform,... from discipline to membership criteria... but fortune favous the brave... and the status quo is quite frankly... er.... not working

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

I take tea monsterpoint about an umbrella organisation and grand father rights but didnt the IFA have a similar thing in effect with the areas of competance?

What is needed is simplicity somebody is either qualified as an archaeologists or is not and as such they should have a basic knowledge in all aspects of the field. At present there is a confusing systen for the historic environment. At present about and below ground archaeological/historic remains are treated differently by the protection system with two sets of people involved.

What is needed is an integrated system of protection and an integrated professional body behind it.

To be worth while going through the charter process what it will achieve has be set out.

Peter Wardle

[Noddy]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk


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 (probably not)
Carbon 14 dating (probably not)
archaeological geophysics (probably yes)

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has 20 (with maybe more?) career pathways to becoming a 'Chartered Surveyor' including Environment, Valuation, Geomatics, Arts and Antiques, Minerals and Waste Management, Management Consultancy, Project Management etc, etc, etc, etc.

[Noddy]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle


What is needed is an integrated system of protection and an integrated professional body behind it.

To be worth while going through the charter process what it will achieve has be set out.

That is what the reformed IFA is aiming to achieve whether the merger with the IHBC happens or not according to their latest release. (From the AGM October 2007)

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...script.pdf

From Summing up by Peter Hinton:

'We have had a helpful response from IHBC, but there is one part of it that I am uncomfortable about; there is a perception that the IFA should only represent those who are involved in the investigation and interpretation of the Historic Environment, which is not the case. Our Mission Statement says clearly 'The IFA exists to advance the practice of archaeology and allied disciplines by promoting professional standards and ethics for conserving, managing, understanding and promoting enjoyment of heritage.' and has used similar words since 1982.The APIFA (Association for the Promotion of an IFA) statement from the late 1970s also indicated that we were also looking to represent those engaged in conservation, as does the Memorandum of Association. We therefore represent individuals who work with all aspects of the historic environment both above and below ground, and in these proposals we are actually catching up with the vision of our founders. The public sector has combined archaeologists and conservation officers and so has the private sector and the voluntary sector: it is the professional institutes who haven't got it yet.

We were asked what would happen if the membership voted for a merger? Well if the other body does not want a merger then we cannot do it; and Council has decided that if we have to expand on our own, then we will. We will achieve it with IHBC, or we will achieve it alone. The archaeology word has given us problems. People have expressed opinions that they don't want us to homogenize into a bland Historic Environment institute. My response is why does it have to be bland? The higher education sector does need some investigating however. We must change but we may have to leave our comfort zone to do so. But we also must not lose sight of the popularity of the archaeologist name, for all that the general public mostly do not understand its range.'

[diggingthedirt]

I live and work in Ireland so this is not an abstract debate for me. The market is regulated here as a closed shop in a way some are advocating for ROAs, but as well as there being benefits there are also significant problems not necessarily addressed by creating a barrier to market entry. It depends on whether this discussion is about quality assurance or about improving pay and conditions. Theres no question that the licence improves pay when compared with equivalent UK averages, and this bounty has a trickle down effect to all other grades. Being paid a commensurate salary does wonders for professional pride and ethic, but does the licence system really do anything for archaeological quality?

The licence system is effectively a chartered system, the difference being that the licence is granted directly by the state as a permit to a named individual with ultimate project responsibility. This is granted on trust that having gone through a peer review test they will ethically police themselves for compliance with the conditions of that licence. The problem comes when market forces enter into the equation. An internal market has developed where licence eligible directors are in constant demand as expanding archaeological companies seek a gateway to market. The result is that directors spend a disproportionate time engaged in new fieldwork without addressing their own professional liability in achieving a quality archaeological product. While this may work at excavation stage (archaeology-as-service), a lack of accountability ensues during post-excavation (archaeology-as-product). Some companies have washed their hands of the backlog (while continuing to create more), seeing responsibility for compliance as vested in the individual licence holder, many of which may have been redeployed or work for different employers.

In short, the licence system as it is operated provides no guarantees that licence eligible directors will produce a quality archaeological product, only that they will provide a state accredited service. This stems from a separation of commercial liabilities with professional liabilities, something that would also confront the new wave of chartered British archaeologists who would presumably be employed by companies. Having said all that, I would still favour chartered status for all individuals in a position of ultimate responsibility for a programme of archaeological work, and welcome any moves in that direction. If this is applied with an appropriate monitoring framework, then it holds more power of accountability than the licence system I now work with, whilst retaining the supply and demand benefits to pay and conditions. A chartered organisation can police their own membership. It is easier to enforce guidelines, standards and deal with individuals who fail in their professional obligations.

[drpeterwardle]

Have to say that I find the notion that the IFA should take over the role of IHBC if the IHBC donot want to merge to be a bit devisive.

What is required is more unity of purpose not less.

The question is why the IHBC does not want to merge with the IFA. On the face of merging is the logical and long over due thing to do.

The long and short of is what ever was in the original mission statement of IFA or APIFA what was being discussed at AIFA meetings was field, not even academic, archaeology and it was a body for anybody who did field archaeology paid or unpaid.

It should also be remembered that a rival body called Archaeologists Communicate and Transform was set up to being about change in pay and conditions.

Peter

[m300572]

I don't think many on the IHBC see themselves as having anything to do with archaeology - I have had several arguments overthe years with LPA conservation officers about the fact that THEY should be requiring building recording in advance and during works to listed buildings - they see it as down to the archaeologists to ask for this to be done and to provide the briefs and specifications. I have also been undermined on a couple of occasions on site when, after discussing the requirements of drawn and written records, the conservation officer pipes up to the effect that "a few photos" would be enough of a record. Part of the problem is that conservation officers are often untrines in the role but are planners who have either been lumbered with the job or have an interest in buildings so got the job to do, and often on a part time basis. This is improving slowly, I think (a Buildings and Heritage Conservation course I teach on has had a conservation officer or two on it most years for the last five or six years) but even with that the teaching on buildings survey (which I don't teach) is very much on the technical "how to do it" anbd not on how to write specs and monitor the results.