Professional Organisations in Archaeology

[1man1desk]

Posted by Drumcharry:

quote:What I am seeing in this thread is very much an obstructive approach from those who support the IFA, presumably financially as well as vocally

You make 'supporting the IFA financially as well as vocally' sound as if it is a bad thing. All it means is that they put their money where their mouth is, by paying subscriptions.

Disagreement with your point of view is not the same thing as "an obstructive approach", and if you re-read the comments to which you refer I think you will find that they are a positive response to the specific points raised by the other side of the debate. I don't think there is much point in a debate that descends into name-calling and casting doubts on the motives of the other side.

To move on to one of the specific points raised:

quote:whereas amongst others there seems to be a general perception that a more independent regulatory body is desirable

From my perspective, the IFA is supposed to be the 'independent regulatory body', and if I didn't believe that it was then I wouldn't be a member. What I would concede is that it isn't always as effective as it might be. That is largely because it is weak, and one of the main causes of its weakness is that so many archaeologists stay outside, saying "its weak and ineffective, and I won't join until it is strong and effective", which just perpetuates the situation.

Independent regulators set up by government generally are there to regulate the behaviour of commercial organisations that are in partial-monopoly positions (e.g. Ofwat regulates water companies). I'm not aware of any situation in any profession where there is a professional organisation (like the IFA, RIBA, ICE, etc) that regulates its own members, but has a separate over-arching regulator set up to regulate its own behaviour.

However, if there is a real perception that the IFA disciplinary process is insufficiently impartial (amongst non-members - I don't think there is one amongst members, who are probably in a better position to know), then there is a potentially workable solution. Rather than setting up a separate organisation, create an 'oversight committee' within IFA that is separate from and independent of IFA Council and has no Council members on it. The role of the committee would be to review actions and decisions of the IFA, where there is a complaint that the action or decision was not properly taken in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Bye-Laws. Part of that role would be to take on appeals against disciplinary rulings.

Of course, whether you have a separate organisation or an internal oversight committee, you come back to the same question - how do you recruit its members and ensure their impartiality, and who regulates them? Do you have a third level of regulation, and a fifth, and so on ad infinitum?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Oxbeast]

I haven't found you obstructive.

At least with the IFA there is only one of it, unlike say, psychotherapy, which has two or three competing prefessional associations which hate each other's guts. I like the idea of an internal oversight committee, I think that when David was on the council, he mentioned an 'ethics committee'. Not sure how far down the line that proposal got.

I'm unsure whether members are any more convinced of the effectiveness of the disciplinary process than non-members. I'm sure most members have naver had contact with the process either as a participant or as a witness. As no information about cases seems to be released, how do members have any more information on which to make up their minds?

re: the pipeline thingy. Yes, I agree; up to planning officer, standards and guidance does not cover this.

[oldgirl]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure any disciplinary committees are not drawn from present Council members. Certainly Membership Appeals does not consist of anyone who is presently on Validation Committee.

Don't know if that helps and don't want to be accused of being obstructive so apologies if it doesn't......

[Noddy]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
I'm sure most members have naver had contact with the process either as a participant or as a witness. As no information about cases seems to be released, how do members have any more information on which to make up their minds?

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ne...toryid=130

Very occasionally details are released. Not often enough, but sometimes...

[Drumcharry]

My apologies if the use of the term 'obstructive' was deemed a little inflamatory. What I meant was simply that IFA 'supporters' see the organisation as a 'one stop shop' which can administer all archaeological standards and deal with complaints and so on and do not see a problem with that organisation essentially being controlled by paying members. Non-members do seem to be more open generally to differing views that do not toe the IFA line. Obviously IFA members must fundamentally believe in the organisation which is where the slightly strange but idealistic view that every archaeologist should join the IFA falls down, why should anyone be forced either directly or by threat of unemployment to join an organisation they have no faith or belief in. That is hardly democracy! Where the organistion is there solely for the good of the profession with no profit making and where the organisation is formed as a truly independent regulatory body then compulsory membership might just about be ethical and of course a truly independent body shouldn't need a further hierarchy watching them. However 'compulsory' membership of the IFA would produce the effective 'monopoly' under which 1man1desk thinks an independent regulator would be appropriate!
Furthermore even where there is not a monopoly such as with say firms of Solicitors there are several tiers of regulation. Legal firms contribute financially to the running of 'The Law Society' which performs a function very similar to that of the IFA, however several hundred years of experience has shown that in certain areas it is necessary to have an independent regulator hence the Legal Ombudsman. There are far more law firms than Archaeological companies so no effective monopoly below the level of The Law Society or, in the case of archaeology, the IFA but the need for the Ombudsman is still recognised, so why the resistance to the consideration of such for archaeology?

[Sparky]

OldishGirl wrote:

quote:If we were all members and people like you were involved in the deecision making processes, wouldn't that mean we were putting our trust in you and others like you, rather than another group of (potentially non-archaeological) individuals who may not have a full understanding of the profession and its vagaries?

The problem is that trust has been broken and individuals naturally have difficulty in reconciling this. Once bitten, twice shy, if you like.

OldishGirl wrote:

quote:And on the decision making process, I still think there is a fundamental incompatibility between transparency and protecting individuals on either side of a complaint.

But the IFA states in the Code of Conduct: ?The Institute?s policy is to preserve confidentiality, and it requests all those involved in any proceedings to do likewise. The Institute cannot be held responsible for breaches of confidentiality by individuals involved in proceedings.? Nice caveat!

[tmsarch]

quote:Originally posted by Noddy

[quote]Originally posted by Oxbeast


http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ne...toryid=130

Very occasionally details are released. Not often enough, but sometimes...

I note that the person in question in the above details posted by Noddy is still advertising himself as being an IFA member:
http://www.archaeologycymru.com/personnel/Personnel.htm

[historic building]

The legal ombudsman is to manage disputes between solicitors and their clients not within the law society itself.

[oldgirl]

Hi Sparky,

I think that's what I said..... The IFA says it will preserve confidentiality, so releasing details can be problematic if you stick to that.

I can understand on the once bitten, twice shy point. And in a way it points up the problem I mention above. It's very difficult for the IFA to preserve confidentiality and at the same time release details of a decision.
Also, and hopefuly this comes back to Drumcharry's point too, if you don't like the way that IFA deals with complaints, you can join and get them to change. You can volunteer (which is what all committee members do) to sit on these boards to make sure that the changes are followed through and that the groups you feel are under-represented (or ignored) get their voice heard.

Or, you can put your faith in the suggested 'Offarch', where you have no say and no chance of being part of the decision making process.

BTW, just in case anyone doesn't know this, any corporate member (PIFA, AIFA or MIFA) can stand for council and any committee. It's not just for 'bosses'.


BTW, thanks Drumcharry, I haven't been called idealistic (although strange is not unusual!) for years! I thought I was an old cynic!

[1man1desk]

Posted by Drumcharry:

quote:What I meant was simply that IFA 'supporters' see the organisation as a 'one stop shop' which can administer all archaeological standards and deal with complaints and so on and do not see a problem with that organisation essentially being controlled by paying members.

But the main point of membership is that by being a member you subject yourself to the IFA disciplinary code.

If you come across a piece of bad practice by an IFA member, you know who to complain to. If the archaeologist concerned is not an IFA member, and doesn't work for an RAO, to whom would you complain? And if you found someone to complain to, against what standards would your complaint be judged?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished