PIFA or AIFA or MIFA

[Cautionary Tale]

Groovy, agreement all round? I think Mr Hosty should float this one with Tim Howard in the near future.

Haec olim meminisse iuvabit

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

Groovy, agreement all round? I think Mr Hosty should float this one with Tim Howard in the near future.

Haec olim meminisse iuvabit

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by BarnesyHaec olim meminisse iuvabit

I am not so sure I would look back on the suggestion with unretained joy!!

Sorry about the previous shortened mail. I seem to have come-up against the instant censor for using an inappropriate metaphor about small boys competing with each other over who has the....enough of that.

What I was going to suggest was that rather than further highlight the distinctions between IFA member grades, the IFA go to the other end of the scale and abolish all but one corporate grade.

Under my proposal, as and when you join the IFA you get 'MIFA' and a year after your name, so I would become 'MIFA (1986)' a member joining next week would become 'MIFA 2005'. The important information about my ability to subscribe to and hold to the Codes and Rules of the Institute would be seen in the length of time I had been a continuous member. Members would be expected to maintain a log of CPD and submit this for assessment on perhaps a bi- or tri-annual basis. (a bit like an MOT) to check that you are still up to date with both the job and the aims of the Institute. It would become a responsibility of RAOs to ensure that all of its archaeological employees had a CPD plan.

We could then move this rather nit-picky contemplation of angels and pin-heads onto other areas of IFA conduct.

[Cautionary Tale]

Corporate grades clearly cause aggravation to a lot of people and therefore warrant attention. Grading serves a purpose particularly to those outside the profession as a signal to what that individual can do, and as such a split system would commend achivement of both office and field based skills. If the IFA is to get more members, offering excavators the chance for recognition is an obvious measure. I would tend to prefer this method, because under a MIFA(date) method we wouldn't eliminate the obstacle of distinguishing site activity from office activity and the percieved or actual problem of site directors/managers with minimal experience would persist. Playing devils advocate, the obvious problem of periods unemployed/long term illness/career breaks etc would make the system unwieldy.
The original point of the question was to demonstrate that it is quite difficult to split site assistants based on their duties alone, and I think the ideas which have resulted were worth the thread and resulting debate, which I hope will continue.

Haec olim meminisse iuvabit

[kevin wooldridge]

Perhaps some of the criticism aimed at MIFA attainees who appear to lack experience at the 'coalface' could be avoided if the IFA were to eschew the direct entry route to MIFA and make it conditional on 3 years membership of the Institute at either PIFA or AIFA level.

It does sometimes seem opportunistic that archaeologists who have managed to avoid lower grade IFA membership for the whole of their careers suddenly have a 'Road to Damascus' moment regarding the IFA, but decide they only want to come into the Institute at the highest level. I can understand why direct entry was appropriate back in the early 80s when the IFA was starting out, but surely nowadays there can be no excuse not to have joined the IFA at an approporiate level earlier in ones career.

If we are to have status grades in the IFA, 3 years IFA/PIFA 'apprenticeship' accompanied by a log of CPD during that period should be the criteria for MIFA membership.

[the invisible man]

I abslolutely agree that the grades should be dispensed with altogether (I said so ages ago, so there!). Most, if not all, other professions junked the system 30 years ago - architects used to be ARIBA, FRIBA or MRIBA, surveyors were ASRICS, FRICS and so on. Now you're just RIBA or RICS, whether you've just qualified or if you're a hoary old lag of 40 years experience.

So if you're a member of the IFA you just put MIFA after your name - simple.

Of course the Affiliate and Student classes shoudl stay.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[1man1desk]

A lot of the argument about abolishing or retaining the grading system depends on whether you think that the IFA should go for Chartered status, which I think is vital.

If it does, and we start to have Chartered Archaeologists, then they will have to be equivalent to other Chartered professionals (such as engineers) in terms of the level of training, experience and achievement required to reach Chartered status.

Therefore, if MIFA is held to be the equivalent of Chartered status, it could not be an entry grade to the Institute.

You could reduce the grades to two: one (whatever you call it) for those who have not yet achieved Chartered status, and one (Chartered Archaeologist?) for those who have. But then you would still be distinguishing grades, so where's the benefit?

Self-interest (enlightened?) suggests that if we do become Chartered, then all existing MIFAs should become CAs. However, there would be a good argument as well for undergoing a new validation procedure.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

Yes, I agree that chartered status is important, but as I say, other professions no longer maintain any distinction. You can be a student or affiliate member (terminology varies) until you do whatever it is you have to do to be deemed a worthy member of that profession. That of course is what we have to decide in the case of archaeology - we seem to be agreed that a degree alone is not enough (as it isn't anyway for PIFA grade).

I guess it's no different to letting anyone join as an Assiaite member and becoming a full member on "qualification" - it's just the terminology that's different. The important thing is that there are no internal grades once you're there.


We owe the dead nothing but the truth.