'What has IFA ever done for us...?'

[kevin wooldridge]

I think those who've contributed (including myself) to the yellow bar which is currently in the lead don't actually disagree with that! Just the 'could do better' that needs addressing....

Addressing 'could do better'....

At the end of the day IfA is only as good or as active as it's constituent parts, which as IfA does not exist independently of the UK archaeological community, means that it will be as good or as active as UK archaeologists want it to be.....Similarly a trade union representing UK archaeologists can only function if its members i.e UK archaeologists are willing to put some time and effort in to making it work.

If every UK archaeologist interested in improving standards, pay and conditions, career struture were to donate one free hour a week to the activities of their trade union and/or professional body imagine how much better things could be. And when you think about it a hour a week could be the hour that another thread described as spent 'sitting around your dig accommodation in the evening getting bored....' or a hour less smoking the old waccy baccy .... or a hours less underpaid overtime ......or a hour less spent on the Play Station....a hour less reading the Daily Mail cover to bleeding cover....or a hour on BAJR forums...and the hours would add up. (1000 archaeologists freely giving up one hour a week is equal to 30 full-time posts...)

My attitude, albeit from a dyed in the wool, olden days socialist, who wasn't fooled by Thatcher's 'brave new world' or Blair's tuppeny happeny ragbag of political opportunists and is having nothing to do with this Nick Clegg 'look pretty and the jobs almost done' school of political thought, is 'if you are unwilling to put in the effort, you really don't have the right to complain'.

[Jack]

Groovy,
this seems to be getting down to the nitty gritty now. I'd love to hear more about how the IFA works in practice........its a real eye opener as all my knowledge so far is from the 'coal-face' as it were.

I'm cautious about Unionisation...........but I don't know why...will have to delve into that more

[RedEarth]

Addressing 'could do better'....

If every UK archaeologist interested in improving standards, pay and conditions, career struture were to donate one free hour a week to the activities of their trade union and/or professional body imagine how much better things could be. And when you think about it a hour a week could be the hour that another thread described as spent 'sitting around your dig accommodation in the evening getting bored....' or a hour less smoking the old waccy baccy .... or a hours less underpaid overtime ......or a hour less spent on the Play Station....a hour less reading the Daily Mail cover to bleeding cover....or a hour on BAJR forums...and the hours would add up. (1000 archaeologists freely giving up one hour a week is equal to 30 full-time posts...)

My attitude, albeit from a dyed in the wool, olden days socialist, who wasn't fooled by Thatcher's 'brave new world' or Blair's tuppeny happeny ragbag of political opportunists and is having nothing to do with this Nick Clegg 'look pretty and the jobs almost done' school of political thought, is 'if you are unwilling to put in the effort, you really don't have the right to complain'.

Alternatively, one less pint a week, one less spliff, and the money spent on membership that would enable someone else to look into these things on your behalf if you don't have the time (which frankly most of us don't).

[Dinosaur]

Am I not right in thinking that for MIFA status there is a requirement for one to have managed large projects? (I'd quote the bit but I've left the blurb in the office so running on memory from several days ago, feel free to quote bits back at me) - per se it's therefore a club for managers, but they need something to 'manage'? (that'll be the rest of us) :face-huh:

[BAJR]

This is our highest level of corporate grade membership, open to those of the greatest
level of responsibility and competence within the historic environment sector with sole
responsibility to initiate, negotiate, carry out and/or delegate, and bring pieces of work
to a conclusion. Members are in charge of organising and running large, complex
projects from beginning to end, or in highly skilled, specialist work.
Members (MIfAs) also
• have authoritative knowledge and depth of understanding of the sector and their area
of historic environment practice
• take full responsibility for their own work and that of others where applicable
• deal with complex situations holistically and demonstrate confident decisionmaking
• have a high level of understanding of the overall ‘picture’ and see alternative
approaches and how they might be tackled

* We recognise that evaluations, desk-based assessments, watching briefs, conservation plans, environmental
assessments, etc, can be complex pieces of work.

Nothing wrong with being an AIFA

[BoneGirl]

Am I not right in thinking that for MIFA status there is a requirement for one to have managed large projects? (I'd quote the bit but I've left the blurb in the office so running on memory from several days ago, feel free to quote bits back at me) - per se it's therefore a club for managers, but they need something to 'manage'? (that'll be the rest of us) :face-huh:

Not necessarily. I know a number of MIfA's who are not managers, myself included. I don't know if the criteria has changed, but the MIfA position indicates a certain level of experience and responsibility.

[troll]

Tiz a complex and often circular argument. There has been reams of dialogue (and monologue) posted on BAJR and other websites relating to the IFA over too many years to remember. For me, I would love to see an IFA that made a difference. I am now of the opinion that if we are to be taken seriously as a profession then...we do need a professional institute. I am also of the opinion that pay and conditions should not be a part of an institutions remit but should fall squarely within the realms of unions and legal representation. Archaeology (and in particular-commercial archaeology) should be subject to professional standards and the IFA have written and published them. That in itself should be applauded so in the "what have the IFA ever done for us" vein.....thats exactly what they have done for us.

In many other disscussions of the role of the IFA on here and elsewhere, it has been established that the "enforcement" of standards falls squarely and exclusively within the remit of Curatorial archaeologists at County and City level. The IFA merely write, publish and promote standards. They have no real standing in law per se. In practise, the pressures of commerce in archaeology can and do have a negative effect upon the standard of work carried out by some but not all archaeological organisations. That, as I see it, is the real challange that we as a profession face in the 21st Century. The IFA produce the standards and Curators are responsible for "policing" standards. Thats about it. In an ideal world, all professional archaeologists would work to IFA standards and promote them. In an ideal world, Curators would pro-actively police professional standards. We don`t work in an ideal world.

For me, I`m one of those people who actively promote professional standards and feel ethically, morally and professionally obliged to do so. To that end, I support the IFA without reservation. I try (when possible) to work only for IFA RAO`s who do what it says on the tin. Quite frankly, the rest is up to the Curators. As an individual working in field archaeology, I can and do promote professional standards by doing the best I can with the resources I am given. I have stopped short of joining the IFA as an individual for two reasons. It is a personal preference that I will only work for an RAO that is passionate about getting the job done properly and in that way-as a worker I am voting with my feet (or trowel!) and am therefore working to IFA standards by default. Secondly, there are thousands of professional field archaeologists out here (including me) who find it offensive to be graded as "those in the early stages of their career" after donkeys years of professional full time practise. Should the IFA re-assess their membership criteria and recognise the professionalism of the majority of the workforce....their membership levels would rise exponentially.

In conclusion.....standards are essential in a professional world and should continue to be written and promoted by the IFA. Standards should be policed and pro-actively enforced by Curatorial archaeologists. Unions and legal representatives should exclusively be the ones to advance and protect pay and conditions. As individuals, we can all contribute by entering into constructive dialogue and actively promoting standards by doing the best we can with what we are given.

[kevin wooldridge]

I for one would be all for the IFA scrapping its current grading system and resorting to two grades only - Associate and Member. I would not allow direct entry into Member grade and would make all applicants serve a probationary period as Associate (for the sake of arguement lets say 3 years). After 3 years Associates could submit evidence and references to show their aptitude for consideration for Member grade. Otherwise they stay (happily) as AIFA. This would avoid one of the things that annoys me greatly about the IFA which is people deciding to join when a job that recommends MIFA membership comes up and go straight in at the top.

A time spent at AIFA would allow them to explain at interviews that they had had a late llife conversion to the IFA and hadn't just joined cos they saw the colour of the money!!

[BAJR]

A very good idea... I had actualy thought why not just one grade...either a member or not a member... however, your suggestion makes eminent sense.. two excellent posts that perhaps
a) the IfA should consider and
b) people should think about and understand the whole process. read about the IfA first.

[Dinosaur]

A very good idea... I had actualy thought why not just one grade...either a member or not a member... however, your suggestion makes eminent sense.. two excellent posts that perhaps
a) the IfA should consider and
b) people should think about and understand the whole process. read about the IfA first.

Interesting set of posts since I was last logged on, good that the poll has produced some discussion following the results.

BAJR - cheers for the IFA quote a couple of your posts ago, would have been better if I hadn't left all the blurb I'd printed off stuffed down the back of my office PC....that's ok then, I can still qualify at MIFA despite avoiding management jobs like the plague (always nice to have the option in case I need it for a job.....)

I largely agree with most of Troll and Kevin's last posts, much of the paperwork produced by IFA over the years has been useful/very constructive (although some perhaps rather less so), the membership issue is perhaps the one that's always let the side down. There are lots of people in archaeology who quite happily bob along at their own level, are b***** good archaeologists, but never produce anything that would ever qualify them for membership of anything much - didn't IFA originally back in the '80s allow long-service as a replacement for some of the membership requirements, or is my memory letting me down again? As an example, I've mainly worked as a site supervisor since 1983, people seem to think I'm b***** good at it (they keep asking me back and chucking work at me, and not just my current employers, I've been made aware of several other units who would find a job for me), and I've no intention of moving any further up the 'career' tree (as long as my value continues to be reflected in an apparently limitless supply of opportunities to earn as much as I can be bothered to - there are limits, starts to cut into the partying time eventually) - am quite happy where I am and proably contribute far more to the profession as a good supervisor than a c**p manager. IFA doesn't seem to respect that approach, it has a fixation with 'self improvement' and 'career development', but frankly a lot of people I know couldn't give a t***, they're quite happy where they are but would like some respect for what they do, which is just as important as that of the 'career' enthusiasts, the guys holding the shovels keep almost all of the rest of us employed?

Sorry, bit of a rant there, just been mowing a mate's lawns in blazing sunshine and not chilled out yet