Professional Organisations in Archaeology

[BAJR Host]

To quote Peter Hinton at the 2004 AGM

quote:
#8226; we need agreed and enforceable high standards
#8226; we need to have those standards insisted upon by curators and national bodies if organisations are to continue to win contracts (#8216;quality-based barriers to entry#8217

This could of course mean that the IFA are only able to enforce standards on members.. which would mean that...er... as you can (like me) step away from the IFA, then I am no longer open to any form of enforcement other than from the Curator....which I was anyway.

and to quote a post last year from one man
http://www.bajr.org/BAJRforum/topic.asp?...hichpage=2

quote:I can't see how the IFA would ever have the resources to conduct this sort of review role - there are hundreds (thoussands?) of such reports produced every year, and they only have a few staff, all busy doing other things. Also, why would a unit that isn't an RAO, or an archaeologist who isn't a member, pay any attention?

As I see it, the role of the IFA is to establish national standards (and, secondarily, to act as a 'court' for dealing with complaints about members/RAOs).

Irrespective of what the IFA does, it is already the responsibility of curators to police the standard of archaeological work done under PPG16 (ie most work in England), and in part they are supposed to do that by checking the quality of reports. The standards set by the IFA give the curators a tool to make that task easier, in that they have a consistent standard to measure quality against, and that they can quote as a requirement in WSIs. Because their remit covers all PPG16 work, their reach for policing purposes is wider than that of the IFA (which, even if it could do active policing, could only police its own members)

Policing only works if you police everyone... and the only people able to do that (at the moment) are Curators.

:face-huh:

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

[Sparky]

Could we then look to ALGAO to oversee everyone, including the IFA? Funding permitted.

[oldgirl]

I thought the whole point of what was just said (leaving apart my unusual example) was that they already did.....

But then who watches them? And what standards are they applying??

[Sparky]

Oldgirl,
Going back to the OffArch notion, we might already have a body who are in a position to do this or who actually do some of what Drumcharry is suggesting.

As pointed out by Hosty, Curators apply the IFA's standards.

Who watches the IFA?

[BAJR Host]

:face-huh:

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

[oldgirl]

It's certainly true that many curators are NOT members of IFA. If the original proposal had been for a true 'Offarch', to watch all archaeologists, fair enough. But it wasn't, it was for a body to watch IFA.

[BAJR Host]

I think then that we are kind of getting somewhere.. well spotted OldGirl... SCAUM represents Employers PROSPECT represents Employees IFA represents professional values ALGAO represents curators EH, HS CADW et al represents Govt. bodies So a single group to watch all would have to do just that... be able to watch all representative groups.

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

[kevin wooldridge]

Just about the only bodies you haven't mentioned David are the CBA and the Big Brother house. Are those the only viable options open to us?

[BAJR Host]

:face-thinks: ..... what would your ideal setup be? We seem to agree that too much regulation is as bad as too little (or even variable postcode lottery archaeology - and standards)

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

[Sparky]

OldGirl,
I think you are splitting hairs. An overseeing body would oversee everyone, not only the IFA. We would all be committed to their requirements, IFA members or not. Much like we are to curators...