Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
Not to rain on your parade BAJR, but some others of us have also been involved in developing the skills stuff for a number of years. I was involved with some of the original National Occupation Standards (NOS) and skills appraisal work at leat 8 years ago! I'm assuming some of that work will be the basis for the skills/verified competence? Or will it be a list and associated explanations from scratch?
Out of interest, who's going to do the peer review? (A question that I regularly ask IFA too!)Loads of people complain vehemently about being peer reviewed (or as some people put it 'judged') by a panel of other people when it's the IFA Validation Committee (which, incidentally, had a number of members from the Diggers Forum on it when I was attending regularly).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by Gazz1982: Quote:quote:how about setting up a BAJR membership where the member agrees to the IFA standards but without having to pay?
That misses the point somewhat. Anyone can agree to the standards, but they are only bound to them if they are IFA members and therefore subject to the disciplinary procedure.
Posted by BAJR Host: Quote:quote:BAJR is looking at creating a system of membership for archaeolgoists
I agree with Mr Hosty on most things, but I wouldn't agree with this. For all its faults, the IFA sets out to be an institution for all archaeologists, and it is the only one. If we start to set up an alternative, all that would happen is that we would promote fragmentation of the profession, and each institution would be weaker both individually and collectively than the IFA is now. The IFA itself would probably be forced to become a big-boys club for management types (I know it is often accused of that now, but I don't believe it is true). The BAJR-based alternative would probably become a more grass-roots organisation, and the two would constantly find themselves in opposition.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
1man wrote: Quote:quote:The IFA itself would probably be forced to become a big-boys club for management types (I know it is often accused of that now, but I don't believe it is true)
Sorry 1man, but I disagree and thats part of which it serves, if not to back up management against agrieved staff (i.e. the naming of complainants in such cases which merely threatens individuals enough not to pursue complaints) or giving companies credentials which, in my opinion, some do not deserve.
S
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
But Sparky, the IFA has set up a procedure specifically to prevent complainants from having to be named, for exactly the reason you give. That procedure has now been in place for quite a while, and has been used.
In relation to giving credentials to companies, the IFA exists to serve its individual members. The only reason it runs the RAO scheme is because the individual members voted for it at an AGM; the companies in the scheme have no vote. If the individual members voted to abolish RAOs or to reform the system, the companies couldn't do prevent it.
The reason the RAO system exists is to provide a route whereby archaeological organisations as well as individual members can be subject to disciplinary action. Surely that is a good thing - it gives them an incentive to comply with IFA standards.
For both individuals and companies, there has to be an advantage to being in the IFA - better job prospects being the main one for individuals and marketing being key for companies. Otherwise, they wouldn't join in the first place, and if they did they wouldn't care about disciplinary action.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Your right there OldGirl... in truth the NOS would be the basis of anything like that... where existing (or soon to be existing) qualifications, whether in the "classroom" or in the field, can be used to advance a career. Every additional skill provides a benefit to somebody... as it stands just now, your additioanl skills are not taken into consideration for a field job... you may get the job over others, but you end up paid the same. So fear not... I would be absolutely daft to try and do ti from scratch, with so much prior work already in place... (stand on the shoulders of giants I say )
the specialist validation is basically, if you want to be added to the specialist search, then you have to provide evidence that you are capable, the best people to know that are others in that field... I would be unhappy as an illustrator (for example) to be 'judged' by a ceramic specialist... like for like. Provision of examples of successful work, confirmation from a Curator, etc... ( can you tell I am still spinning ideas around! )
1man... you are quite right to question what I mean.. and disagree... I was not saying that a rival organisation should be created, as that would be divisive and counter productive.
There is one thing I would take issue with... "the IFA has set up a procedure specifically to prevent complainants from having to be named, for exactly the reason you give. That procedure has now been in place for quite a while, and has been used."
knowing from expereince that this may be the case, but is pretty rare.... for whatever reason. Having a procedure is good though. You will know my own point of view on this.
perhaps too much is placed on the punishment though, and people expect the IFA to hang people, rather than find solutions.. a much better way. An organisation should be about benefits first and foremost. And benefits should be on an individual level.. as well as company level- though the two are in some respects interchangable.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
1man,
The system set up by the IFA to prevent complainants being names isn't worth the paper it is written on. I know of a couple of recent complaints that were not taken further because the individuals were too scared to have themselves named. It is merely a tool to protect the companies with a protecting caveat that has no teeth.
S
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
I've certainly been involved (at the periphery) with complaints where the individuals have not been named.
As I'm in far more of a rant mode than normal..... I have an objection to archaeologists who are NOT part of IFA, and therefore have not signed up to the codes of conduct, bringing complaints against those who have.
I'll go and soak my head now, must be the heat! I'm not normally this argumentative!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
1man,you say an alternative would promote fragmentation in archaeology;from what i've seen and heard over the last several years this is the reality anyway- with some people in the IFA and others who don't want to know,coupled with competitive tendering i can't see how we can ever have a united front to do what is best for archaeology.:face-confused:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Oldgirl (you're not that old),
I'm sure you have but it happens; people are fearful of not being re-hired. My hard-hat goes off to people who stand up and be counted (e.g. Troll). However, not everyone is willing to take that chance particularly at early stages in their careers or at all.
So, can you tell me how many complaints there have been where complainants have not been names? Can you tell me the cases where they have been named? Can you tell me the circumstances where complainants have to be named? I think these questions could provide more illuminating and possibly a reasoned view on the IFA's practices.
S
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
I feel ancient....... 
I'm not on council any more and the proceedings are kept on a need to know exactly to protect the reputation of both those bringing the complaints and those accused (innocent until proven guilty!), so I don't have any idea of total numbers.
The way that the system (as I understand it) has been set up is that if a matter which would be of a disciplinary nature is raised with IFA and the person alleging the infraction does not want to be named/involved, then the IFA will take up the matter (usually through a nominated member of council). This has not always been the case, however.
It is also important to point out that this and very many other vital changes had to be approved by the membership and the turnout of votes on these matters is often, to say the least, appalling. This makes it very difficult for the IFA to move forward in the way many of us wish it to. I'm still in it for the same reason I joined, it's far from perfect but it's never going to change if no-one joins/jumps up and down/ gets involved. Which is why I said that I also thought it was a shame that BAJR felt he had to resign from the organisation. I get very frustrated sometimes too!
Out of interest, bearing in mind the way that IFA have tried to get round an individual bringing a case, if this isn't working, what's an alternative? Any ideas?
|
