Considering IFA membership

[General Error]

I have been considering membership with the IFA for some time now, purely from an economic point of view. I've started up independently and have been successfully employed as a consultant. Accordingly, there are plans to provide field work as a service.

Apart from already practising the standards and guidance set out by the IFA and adopted by local planning services, I've been thinking about the economic reasons why I should consider membership: 1)membership is preferred by some employers and 2)is a requirement for some local planning services i.e. the project manager should be a full member (MIFA). Some local planning services also prefer that the organisations undertaking the work should be an IFA registered archaeological organisation (RAO).

I've sought additional information on the IFA but I'm still wondering if anyone knows why the organisation was refused a charter?

[General Error]

Recently and most unfortunately, I've been informed that at this time the IFA felt unable to award MIFA based on their evaluation of my experience. The IFA has offered AIFA instead, which I'm not too sure about accepting, as this really doesn't continue to promote my ability to engage in working independently i.e. directing or running projects, etc. or acting in a similar capacity as self-employed.

I admit having had a gut feeling that acceptance to join was "MIFA or naught". I have worked as a field archaeologist in a few countries for a considerable length of time, some in the commercial sector and some in the academic sector so I was quite surprised by the IFA offer. My continued growth in archaeology has led to becoming self-employed as a consultant within the last few years. My understanding is that many county museum services would prefer consultants hold membership with the IFA, which AIFA would serve the purpose. I don't believe one must hold MIFA to engage in consultancy. I’m not quite sure if the requirement is the same as it is for those who are performing or managing field work. I am aware that at least one individual on a team engaged in directing, running projects, or excavating etc. must hold membership at the MIFA level. Please inform me if this is incorrect.

I understand, albeit confusingly and by no means conclusively, that at least one of IFA's roles is providing guidance and standards. I also understand many local planning authorities and county museum services have adopted the IFA as a sanctioning body and will not approve reports that haven't been signed off by a full IFA member. This approach may be viewed by many to be wholly appropriate or by many to be perhaps wholly inappropriate. This is really a moot point though, as after inquiring I was informed that the position held by many county museum services has never been legally challenged. Hence I was wondering why an organisation whose charter has been denied is so empowered to act in such an officious capacity.

This post was not written to be accusatory or in a negative spirit. Presently, I have a neutral opinion on the IFA and its membership. I do hold in high regard the spirit of the organisation and its effort to set standards and provide guidance for those of us whom consider ourselves professional archaeologists. Presently my only concern is that is this being done in a way that fully represents all of those whom practice archaeology?

[beamo]

Greeting General

Just a couple of points:

I'm not sure that IFA has ever been refused Chartered status - my understanding is that the decision as to whether or not to apply for chartered status is still under review, as there is by no means any level of agreement within IFA and/or the profession in general that it would be 1) possible, and 2) a good thing.

County museum services - I think that you are confusing these here with county planning services and county archaeologists - there may be some overlaps, but generally speaking it is county archaeologists (or local government archaeologists) that will sign off reports.

Some specifications issued by county archaeologists request that work is carried out under the supervision of MIFA 'or equivalent'. I have previously posted on this issue - I am not sure how this 'or equivalent' would work in practice, given that MIFA is a peer-reviewed membership grade and most county archaeologists will simply not have time to check the backgroound and experience of any individual to see if they are 'equivalent' to MIFA. Requesting that the work be undertaken by an MIFA or an RAO is merely seen as a way of ensuring a quality piece of work (note I say 'seen as' - not wishing to open up correspondence on this).

In practice, as long as the work is done in accordance with the agreed project design, the IFA status of the author is unlikely to be considered further.

There is no absolute legal requirement for fieldwork directors to be MIFA but it is reasonable for county archaeologists to have some reassurance that the work is being undertaken by someone capable.

However I must admit that I am not really convinced by your argument that AIFA will do for consultants but MIFA is essential for those running fieldwork projects. This adds to the perception that consultants are somehow inexperienced in fieldwork techniques and therefore open to criticism of their role in projects. As a consultant I would advise against taking that stance as it will undermine your consultancy work.

I cannot see how IFA can be accused of acting in an 'officious capacity'. It is not IFA that asks for work to be done by MIFA (or AIFA) - it is local planning authorities or consultants such as myself.


Beamo

[BAJR Host]

quote:There is no absolute legal requirement for fieldwork directors to be MIFA but it is reasonable for county archaeologists to have some reassurance that the work is being undertaken by someone capable.

Not to get involved too much in this.. It could be deemed reasonable.. but it could also be deemed 'unreasonable'... as (according to the percentages).. this is preventing people who are not in the IFA from getting work. I am all for standards.. but when it comes to Curatorial work - the final sanction is not being able to work in the county again... if you put in a substandard piece of work, then it will cost the client.. who is not likely to re-employ. Also the DC archaeologist can lawfully require work to be redone until it meets the specifications.. I ask for IFA standards to be adhered to.. but never for MIFA or RAO only..... not yet anyway... )

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[historic building]

Local planning authorities cannot ask for anyone to have an IFA status at a certain level as it is not a chartered organisation. You can request that someone demonstrates a level of experience; the generally recognised level of experience for managing a project is MIFA hence MIFA or equivalent.

I cannot see how a planning authority could state that an RAO should be used. It is probably possible if an organisation has lost its RAO to make this information public on documents such as contractor lists.

[General Error]

Thanks for the reply Beano

Again, I only wish to know more about the status of the IFA. Your first point has at least enlightened the situation.

As for writing up specifications to a brief or report writing, I should have been more explicit. Generally it is expected that the expertise of a project team should consist of a named member of the IFA validated in Archaeological Field Practices. Writing specifications to briefs or report writing doesn’t necessarily entail the named member having to perform the task. Since a named member is involved in the project, the report will generally be accepted (based on the quality). Based on experiences with some local planning authorities, if a named member is not involved in the project, a county archaeological service can refuse to agree to any designs (brief specs). Hopefully this clears up that matter.

There is somewhat of a grey area here:

“I am not sure how this 'or equivalent' would work in practice, given that MIFA is a peer-reviewed membership grade and most county archaeologists will simply not have time to check the backgroound and experience of any individual to see if they are 'equivalent' to MIFA. Requesting that the work be undertaken by an MIFA or an RAO is merely seen as a way of ensuring a quality piece of work (note I say 'seen as' - not wishing to open up correspondence on this."

and no, I have no desire to participate in pointed correspondences on the issue. I do agree with the premise of having an ability to ensure that documentation produced to a brief is ‘seen as’ quality work. Surely this is something the county archaeologist would recognise after reading the documentation to satisfy a brief? I’m curious as to why it would matter whether we were members or non members if we are already working to the guidance and standards provided by the IFA? The ability to agree to a written piece of work based on the ability to satisfy the brief would still lie in the hands of the county archaeologists. If a design to satisfy a brief is not up to snuff, then by all means it should be referred back to be corrected.

It sounds more like comment sense that county archaeologists have a level of assurance that work is being undertaken by an archaeological organisation or an individual who is capable. Since not everyone (some companies as well) is imbued with such desirable characteristics, I can appreciate the need to “supervise” our profession. I consider the ability to do so a desirable characteristic of professional accountability. I certainly wish it was the case “in practice” that as long as the work is done in accordance with the agreed project design, the IFA status of the author is unlikely to be considered. On occasion, this has not been my experience.

When I mentioned that my understanding was that many county museum services would prefer consultants hold membership with the IFA, I meant that by having AIFA affiliation was satisfying holding a membership, albeit holding MIFA is preferable. My personal opinion is that I don’t believe holding MIFA is essential for running projects. One may qualify for MIFA on paper, but in practise this wouldn't necessarily be the case. I’ve worked with many talented individuals who for whatever reason, were not members of the IFA and understood more about what they were doing on a site than their project officer (MIFA)did. My personal feeling is approach is micromanagement of our profession and having been in management in archaeology and outside of archaeology this has never been a managerial practise I’ve been fond of. I did mention I have been successful in the role as a consultant, and at this stage I am only considering accepting membership with the IFA.

Okay perhaps officious was an inappropriate choice of wording, as it is the local planning authorities and others whom ask that work be done by named members of the IFA. The archaeological contractors whom I’ve had the pleasure of working alongside with, did have someone employed holding this level of membership so in this sense it was never an issue.

Thanks again for your reply

[General Error]

Apologies! I meant Beamo!

[hurting-back]

Dear General,

Hmmmm, I think it is inherent in the IFA's system that you do not have to be a MIFA to perform 'MIFA level' roles; after all to become a MIFA in the first place you must prove that you have worked at a 'MIFA level' for at least three years.

So even if everyone joined the IFA, it is inevitable that you will see non-MIFAs out there checking reports and running/managing projects and doing other MIFA type things. And rightly so, as holding a corporate grade in the IFA is meant to demonstrate a proven track record at a certain level of responsibility and not future potential or simple length of service...or for that matter be an absolute measure of someone's worth as an archaeologist. Therefore being an AIFA should not hold you back as it should not be read as denoting a limitation of ability on the holder's part (at least I hope not being an AIFA myself!!); but it does demonstrate that your writing and track record has been peer reviewed and that you have committed yourself to upholding the standards put forth by the IFA. Also, I would be surprised if any curators would hold being an AIFA as opposed to a MIFA against you as long as your work is up to scratch.

And in any case you may be very close to the level of relevant experience required and may be able to successfully re-apply for MIFA quite soon. And remember that if you disagree with the validation committee's decision you can always appeal.....

don't panic!

[trowelfodder]

I found it very interesting to read how things changed between your first and second posts, and although you say you have neutral feelings towards the ifa the status of MIFA is clearly worth a lot more than AIFA to you and your company.

The idea of either marketing yourself as AIFA or as MIFA equivalent poses interesting questions relating to the huge breth of categories. I do an AIFA equivalent job and despite being vastly more experienced than a number of others i know who hold the title if i applied to the ifa i would have to apply at PIFA level which i have no intention of doing as i feel it misrepresents my abilities.

I feel that in finantial terms there is little point joining at any level below mifa

[oldgirl]

Hurting Back, your summary was spot on about not having to have MIFA (or any other corporate grade) in order to be working at that level. It's really important that we all understand that! Also, it is sometimes hard for the IFA validation committee to assess the levels of experience that people have, which is why the staement of archaeological experience is so important in the application.

General, just a quick couple of points. You say 'Generally it is expected that the expertise of a project team should consist of a named member of the IFA validated in Archaeological Field Practices' : just to clarify that there are no longer 'Areas of competence' within the IFA validation system, as there was no way of ensuring their continuing validity.

Also, you're absolutely correct that MIFA status does not always ensure quality of work in a specific area. The IFA code of conduct states:

1.4 An archaeologist shall not undertake archaeological work for which he or she is not adequately qualified. He or she should ensure that adequate support, whether of advice, personnel or
facilities, has been arranged.
Note:
It is the archaeologist’s duty to have regard to his/her skills,
proficiencies and capabilities and to the maintenance and
enhancement of these through appropriate training and
learning experiences.
It is the archaeologist’s responsibility to inform current or
prospective employers or clients of inadequacies in his/her
qualifications for any work which may be proposed; he/she
may of course seek to minimise such inadequacies by
acquiring additional expertise, by seeking the advice or
involvement of associates or consultants, or by arranging for
modifications of the work involved; similar considerations
apply where an archaeologist, during the course of a project,
encounters problems which lie beyond his/her competence at
that time.
It is also the archaeologist’s responsibility to seek adequate
support services for any project in which he/she may become
involved, either directly or by way of recommendation.

The main advantage to DC archaeologists of specifying a (corporate) member of the IFA is that such an individual has agreed to the code of conduct and therefore there is *some* sanction against them if they fail to meet that code. (As above, I don't want to get into the arguement of whether that sanction is effective or not....) The same applies for an RAO. All members of an RAO, whether individual members or not, are bound by the code of conduct.

Trowelfodder : If you do an AIFA equivalent job, why do you think you can only apply at PIFA level? There is a general (incorrect) belief that you have to have reports etc in order to apply at that and MIFA level. You have to demonstrate appropriate levels of responsibility for the required period. There are a number of ways that can be done!