Do you think archaeology should be licenced?

[tom wilson]

Hello Oxbeast,
I agree with much of your ranting, but not your second point.

If chartered status devolves responsibility for publication from the organisation to the individual, then what happens if the budget disappears. Things sometimes go spectacularly wrong, as most of us will have seen. I have heard tales of poor sods in Ireland reduced to writing sites up on the dole, just so they can get their chartered status back and dig more sites. I haven't worked in Ireland, so pewrhaps this is just chinese whispers or a teething problem of the system (anyone have first hand experience?). Nonetheless, if I was taking responsibility for the publication of a site, I would want a damn site more influence over the business side of a project than your average project officer gets. I can be responsible for my part of a project, but I don't have the money to pay for specialists. What kind of risk management strategy is that?

We could develop an industry incorporating multitudes of one-man bands, running jobs in the field as well as managing the tenders, budgets etc. It would involve a lot of the kind of work many people started in archaeology to avoid, but would be more 'professional'. It would also drive out some excellent archaeologists who do not have the skills to run a small business, and direct CPD towards management skills rather than research skills.
Just a thought.

Backlog projects would only be affected if they were taken into consideration during the application for chartered status. Once again, it seems a bit unfair on the individual if no post-ex budget was agreed for something they excavated in the bad old days. It might be similarly difficult to hold units to account, since who is to say whether lack of publication was due to underfunding or to malpractice? Like it or not, we'd probably end up with an amnesty, which amounts to a tacit acceptance that some sites shall fall by the wayside. I don't like the sound of that myself.

I also have reservations about who would do the actual chartering. Other than that chartered status is a good ideal to work for, IMHO.

T

[Magpie]

I think you are all getting this Chartered status out of proportion and are begining to think that being a Chartered Archaeologist will be the end of all the industry problems , low pay and poor conditions. Take a look at other industries and see what being a Chartered member of a profession has done for its employees. Anyone who can do the work can work as a profesional engineer in this country. Being a Chartered Engineer is a status to stive for and many graduates complete their training, CPD and experience and become Chartered. Chartered status looks good on their CVs and may give them the edge in getting an interview but that is about it ! Many employers recognise Chartered status but generally it does not lead to improved pay. What is more important is the individuals ability to do the job and their core competancies.


Magpie......Archaeologist...Chartered Engineer and Member of the Institute of Engineering and Technology

[1man1desk]

From Tom Wilson:

quote:If chartered status devolves responsibility for publication from the organisation to the individual, then what happens if the budget disappears. Things sometimes go spectacularly wrong, as most of us will have seen. I have heard tales of poor sods in Ireland reduced to writing sites up on the dole, just so they can get their chartered status back and dig more sites.

This is why I don't favour the Irish licencing system.

Under the UK system at present, a company (i.e. the archaeological unit) is contracted to do the work, and are responsible for providing a report. If Chartered status and/or Licencing were introduced, they could be required by law to employ Licenced or Chartered staff in certain defined roles - but overall responsibility would still lie with the company.

That would leave the Chartered or Licenced person liable only for things that are actually within their control.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Paul Belford]

A colleague from Ontario has reminded me of the situation there. The licencing system names a 'responsible individual'. When that person dies, then there is confusion and potential for archives, finds and so-on to be lost forever.

This has happened more than once.

[Paul Barford]

I've been watching this poll with some interest, for the first half (up to 110 votes or thereabouts) the proportion of votes cast was fairly stable, 50% or thereabouts in favour, and the "nays" in the decided minority. Suddenly though a few weeks into the voting the results swung the other way. To what is this attributable? Are the naysayers members of any particular group that has suddenly woken up and cast their votes en masse? Curious.

It is sad that there have been so few comments about why people cast their vote in the way they did. To my mind (and in my experience) the permit system adds some clout to the curatorial monitoring of what contactors are getting up to. If certain conditions (which could be meritorial/technical, matters of deadlines and form of depositing archives, or H&S issues etc) are laid down in the permit and that is given the form of a binding document. If the contractor does not comply, future permits may (surely should) be difficult to get. Surely that is an additional way therefore of improving standards and conditions, and it seems to me that this has been a leading subect on this Forum, so I am interested in why BAJR members are now so against even the idea, even though those who voted first apparently saw the sense in it.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Thought that myself..... what are you lot plotting!!

Seriously though... it was an interesting turn about... any clues... or do I have to dig !


"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Paul Barford]

,,,, .

[Curator Kid]

Aren't you allowed to see who voted for what Mr. Hosty, and work out what's going on? :face-huh:

Do we need to confess? As far as I remember, I was one of the first to vote, and I voted for "Yes Absolutely". I haven't got a problem with being licenced - I don't think that any archaeologist worth his (or her) salt and worthy of the title would.

[BAJR Host]

To ensure that I can't be accused of being an uber dictator (WEll yes... er.... quite) I can only see who has voted rather than who voted for what ... I would prefer not to be a Big Brother. I voted Yes too.

I suspect that there has been a bit of chicanary going on as Only 39 members voted... however it can't be proved.. and perhaps that is the hard truth - Though for a couple of months the figures stood at c. 70% in favour of soome form of licence... and only a small % absolutely against. - The sudden switch is odd... I will see if I can find any more. like voteing happening within a short period of time..

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Cautionary Tale]

Just voted myself under the ‘maybe’ category. Much as CK says, I don’t think a professional, standard abiding archaeologist has anything to fear from licensing as such, but I agree with the points initially raised by 1m1desk and others as to the nuts and bolts of the system (who issues/checks up on the licensee etc).

As an aside, one could view the approval of a project design from the contractor as a license from the curator to conduct a clearly defined piece of work. Why not build on this in the interim before any hypothetical licensing system :face-huh:


Desiderate le fritture con quello?