"role is fulfilled by the IFA..."

[1man1desk]

Troll,

I've got to say I was a little disappointed with the IFA response as well - I don't think they quite got the point of some of the questions. However, I do think you are being a bit harsh.

You want the IFA to represent archaeologists and are disappointed that it doesn't. Well, like any subscription-based organisation, it represents its members - join, and it will represent you (but as a professional institute, not a union, which is a very different beast).

You want it to police standards - well, it can't do that; but it can (and does) punish transgressions by members or RAOs if such transgressions are reported to them.

If you read their response (and other stuff they have put on BAJR) with an unbiased mind, you will find plenty of pro-active stances and actions. That does not mean that they can, or will, solve all the problems in archaeology; they don't have that kind of power. But they can set a direction and try to unify the profession behind a common agenda.

You don't have to be "on your own - again", but you can be if you want. Its your choice...

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Greetings 1man1desk-Have been a member of the IFA before and frankly, there`s no noticable difference-member or not.My bias is based on experience and not blind assumption.Unfortunately, the majority out here have absolutely no intention of joining the IFA until they (at the very least) are seen to be doing what they say on their own tin.I think we will be waiting another decade for that at least.For clarity and, to avoid more circular dialogue, I propose to present a paper at the conference (no names/no places) to outline the failure of optional and un-policed standards.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[BAJR Host]

Yikes...... but will you also look at positive aspects of where this can be worked on to suceed..

Another day another WSI?

[troll]

Absolutely sir. I have no desire to enter into a witch-hunt.I would love the IFA to work but sadly, it does`nt.I suppose the major bug in my nethers stems from one simple issue.The IFA have consistantly ignored pleas for action from heritage workers who have shouted about pi** poor standards for more years than most can remember.In all honesty, if the IFA re-words it`s statement from their web-page so that we all know where we are, we can all move on in the endeavour to assure policed standards. Until then, the heritage profession at large and, viewing members of the public that log on to the IFA website will continue to be convinced that standards in British professional archaeology are in safe hands.If all the IFA will do on the issue of standards is continue to churn them out and then promote them, then so be it. We need a professional body mandated by the industry to maintain and police standards.We need that body to pro-actively work for the interests of British archaeology and archaeologists. I wish the IFA well-they have done their bit. I hope, if agreeable to bajerites here, to present a paper at the conference outlining just how pi** poor standards can be in 21st Century UK archaeology.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[the invisible man]

Troll old bean, so you agree that the IFA produce standards and promote them.

Forgive me, but what exactly is it that you wish them to do about enforcing and/or policing them? Not in general terms, but precisely what and how should they do it?

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[1man1desk]

I think I have set out fairly clearly on this and other threads why the IFA can define and promote standars, and can enforce them within limits (members only), but can't police them. So far as I know, no professional institute for any profession in the UK does active policing - they are all reactive, for the same reasons as the IFA. Happy to be corrected if someone can mention a specific institution and its mechanism of active policing.

As long as we ask the IFA to do it all by itself, we are all avoiding our responsibility. Policing standards should be a requirement for the whole profession. If it isn't happening, its not because the IFA has failed - its because we have all failed collectively to use the procedure available to us.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

Here's a few practicalities involved in Troll's proposal for active policing of standards by the IFA (or any other single organisation).

The BAJR Whos Who section lists about 117 local/county/regional territories covered by curators. They vary in size and the amount of archaeological activity, but lets assume (very conservatively) that the average territory has, say 20 PPG16-related interventions a year (including desk-tops, all types of survey, intrusive evaluations and excavations, all of which are covered by IFA standards).

That would make 2340 interventions a year. Lets say the 'police' check-up on 50% of them - thats 1170 interventions - and each one takes an average of 1 man-day of 'police' time (also a conservative estimate). An average person works 226 days (roughly) each year, so 1170 days is equivalent to 5 (and a bit) people full-time.

That assumes that my figure for the number of interventions is right - I think it would really be higher - and that each intervention only takes one day to check - also unlikely (how effective would be monitoring at the rate of one day per project?). And it does not allow for any follow-up, enforcement action etc. So, we are probably really talking about more than 10 people full-time, just to do monitoring that locally-based curators are already better placed to do. And I doubt if Troll would accept only half of all projects being monitored.

The IFA has a total staff of 9, not all full-time. So, you are talking about more than doubling the size of the staff, not to mention other resources and the cost of inevitable legal challenges. Who would pay for this? We already have complaints about the level of subscriptions - they would be at least doubled to fund this system. The IFA, to the best of my knowledge, has no other source of funds, and it is unlikely that EH would fund this system.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[historic building]

I work for a relatively large county and your estimate of 20 per year is way under. So far this month, I have issued 6 briefs. I think I issue about 8-10 a month. I would suggest that at least half of these will result in fieldwork. I am also not the only development control officer working in the county.

I have just nipped away to check the records and the smallest borough I cover, which must be one of the smallest in the country, has had, on average, about 25 PPG 16 interventions per year since 2000. Despite my name, this does not include any works on historic buildings.

[1man1desk]

Thanks for that info, HB.

If HB's experience is typical over the 117 terrirories, then the annual number of interventions nationally would be 14070. On the same calculation as in my last post, 'policing' at the rate of 1 day/year for 50% of all projects would therefore require 31 full-time staff, without taking account of any follow-up, enforcement action or admin.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

On what authority would an inspector enter a site? Perhaps the Contractor is not an RAO.

If an operative was carrying out work not in accordance with the standards and guidelines, who is disciplined, if both contractor and operative are members? Or if only one is? Or neither? "Only following orders" is unlikely to be a defence.

The Inspector could only have jurisdiction over matter of general defined standards. Contractual matters, which are different, are a matter for the consultant (if there is one). Thus, put crudely, the inspector has no interest is what is done, only how it is done.

Similarly, only the Curator can determine whether the terms of a condition have been satisfactorily discharged. Again this is no concern of the Inspector.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.