"role is fulfilled by the IFA..."

[the invisible man]

Hey 1man, don't do that. Your reasoned, considered, factual, informative, and well-argued posts are invaluable in presenting the case for the IFA, so to speak, and are a major factor in preventing the forum being a bit of a one-sided rant shop. In other discussions, your contributions, with a couple of others, are the best module in CRM that a student can take - and I'm not entirely joking.

It is clear to me that much of the problem is unrealistic expectation, or unawareness of what professional institutions can do, should do and what they are for. Archaeology is a young profession - the discussions on basic contractual terminology on another thread demostrates this - and was perhaps from it's mother's womb untimely ripped, and it has a lot still to sort out. Considered, well-informed contributions are the only way to progress.

Hang on in here 1man!

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Cautionary Tale]

Seconded Roy. And applied to everyone else.

The IFA needs constructive criticism and dialogue.

Of the Clan Sutton

[troll]

Rightyho.We disagree in the strongest possible terms.Before we deteriorate further down the road of "lunacy" and "putting ones money where their mouth is", lets get something nice and clear here.I am more than willing to discuss the issue ad infinitum on here on condition that personal crud does`nt creep in.An opinion at variance to yours does`nt become "lunacy".As to "putting money where my mouth is"- we have already discussed on here the simple issue: field workers rely on short term contracts.1man1desk is asking that I inform the IFA of breaches. The day I do that (the postman will suffer a hernia) wiil mark my last day in the job.I will become unemployable.Whilst I agree that it must be nice to be in a permanent position and able to pass breaches onto the IFA-fieldworkers on short-term contracts don`t share the level of security of tenure that you do.Your responses illustrate two important points:
1.complete ignorance of the current state of play in modern commercial archaeology and,
2.the misguided view that my opinion is in any way in the minority.
Again- the IFA do not represent a strong authoritative body and do not ensure effective self-regulation.

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

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by troll


1.complete ignorance of the current state of play in modern commercial archaeology and,
2.the misguided view that my opinion is in any way in the minority.

Without wishing to put words into others mouths, I think the issue that I wanted to put across is that we all know the problems, and now need to debate the solutions. If the IFA needs to do more then lets bring ideas like the digger rep proposal which was discussed at length elsewhere. If nothing else, the IFA recognition of this would help with the RAOs and securing diggers employment stability should they flag something up, which I agree is an issue at present with short-term contracts.

For my part, the suggestion of 'lunacy' or that you were in a minority was not intended. I merely wanted to keep people in the debate rather than outside it, which in the end is good for the profession.

Of the Clan Sutton

[amber]

what if PPG16 were amended to require that all work carried out under it, were carried out by IFA member organisations?

Wouln't that give the IFA some teeth?

Just a thought.

[Cautionary Tale]

Amber - it is a fair point, but given that some organisations cannot currently join the IFA this might make it a sticky point. However, i think in berkshire MIFA or RAOs are required to work in the county (i may be wrong about the county so be prepared for an edit in the near future). An easier way would be to commit all archaeological companies to integrate the IFA standards into their standing company by-laws. This would make them legally enforcable by any tom, dick or indeed harry, not just the IFA/consultant/site workers involved.

Of the Clan Sutton

[troll]

Whilst I have no intention of continuing a circular argument and, I have no wish to provoke a further round of counter statement, I do feel that a central issue is at stake here.It has been said time and time again on other threads that it is not possible to monitor or police standards in the current environment.I feel that as the standards and guidelines are optional and that planning authorities can only insist upon the minimum, something needs to change and quickly.If I am ignorant of the prescribed functions of an institute then, at least, I have been describing the issues that I feel (and plenty of others) should be confronted by an institute. Quite how we get there is up to us all.Rather than a protracted re-run of old arguments between subscribers to a web-site, perhaps the institute would like to offer an opinion?

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

[amber]

Barnesy - I accept that if the IFA were given that kind of power - to determine almost the existance of a unit, it would need an overhaul and it's scope widened.

However, this could also be a way to maintain decent levels of pay, training and general treatment of staff. As well as rooting out those who don't do the job properly.

The threat of explusion from a professional organisation is certainly effective in law and medicine.

Having IFA standards enforcable by anyone, does carry advantages. In that you have one less layer of beauracy if you don't have to go through the IFA.

But then, you'd be going through the standard courts, which can be expensive and time consuming. The time element i'd think would be particularly relevent to archaeology, as a court case can take several years if it is particularly complex and big stakes are involved.

Some kind of specialised disciplinery tribunal would usually be cheaper and I'd imagine that most organisations would prefer this than the publicity that litigation attracts.

[1man1desk]

We're back here to the solution we discussed some months ago, and which I would see as a major contribution to solving our problem.

If the IFA became a Chartered institute and membership was compulsory to practice as an archaeologist, then the IFA Code and Standards would have real teeth, because expulsion would mean the end of your career.

However, the IFA can't just decide to be a Chartered institute. They have to get a Royal Charter, which is very hard to get. One of the obstacles in the way of the IFA is that they would have to show that the majority of the profession have joined. So, those of you staying out because the IFA is too weak - you help to keep it weak.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

Another thing - law and medicine are special cases. Other professions do not operate a closed shop. To use my usual example, an architect does not have to be a member of the RIBA, but the huge majority are. There is however a registration body, from which you can be removed, and the rIBA are represented on this. You can practise to all intents and purposes as an architect, you can design and detail buildings, submit planning and building regulations applications and so on, provided you do not call yourself an architect - hence adverts for "architectural designers" or "consultants".

The point is, the term "architect" is a protected title, unlike "archaeologist". In my view it should be.

I wonder if Valetta is the way forward (whatever happened to all that fuss about it?). If excavations are to be carried out by "competent persons" then PPG16 work should require demonstration that the applicant/tenderer etc has such competence. Membership of an appropriate body and commitment to its standards would be one way of satisfying that requirement.

This does not in itself solve the percieved question of "policing". Policing is a matter for all concerned. Curators are obliged to ensure that work is carried out in such a manner as to discharge the terms of a condition, which can refer to a set of standards as had been discussed. Probably, in terms of reasonable quality and standards, if not rigidly defgined I would imagine that a court would regard IFA as the reasonable benchmark anyway. Consultants have a duty to ensure that contract obligations are met. Contractors have contractual obligations (hence the name!).

All these parties have professional duties and obligations, to maintian standards and conduct themselves in a certain manner. It's what being a professional is all about. You should not need to be policed. But these professional responsibilities include taking appropraite action if any part including employer is acting in an inappropriate manner - even if it means losing your job or never working again. Abdication of that responsibilty simply perpetuates the problem.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.