IfA - A Chartered Institute

[BAJR]

Apology accepted and explanation understood. :face-kiss:

The circular arguement is indeed the one thing that is perhaps most important out of all of this. I have to say I am slightly raised eyebrow at the results, however it shows (albeit small at the moment) a desire for accountability and full accreditation. Now to my mind the circular arguement keeps coming back to the need for strong curatorial powers AND accountability. As well as a general consistency in approach nationwide... There are general codes and guidance for contractors in the RAO scheme, why not for curatoial services dealing in development control. So a site in Kent or a site in Highland would both be dealt with in the same general way. The IfA are perhaps trying to run before they can walk in this respect to - I perhaps perceive a feeling that if there is such a thing as chartered archaeologist (and again, this is very vague... who to include? as archaeology unlike accounting and architects, surveyors and the like) everything will sort itself out (though Tim does admit it is not a panacea)

Currently there is a seizure rippling through archaeology - a crisis of who we are, what we do, what we should charge, who polices standards, accommodation, travel, etc etc.... lets put some effort into these, so that if and when chartered archaeology happens then we are big boys who have a grip on the profession rather than infants dressed in dads suit. I also feel there should be a distinction between commercial archaeology in a development context (temporal contamination removal) and for want of a better word, rescue archaeology... and pure research archaeology (of which community/public archaeology is a subset) Lets get the house in some semblance of order, then go to the table. I for one would be happy to be thoroughly tested for Chartered status (I might even get it!) But it has to be worth my while... and as has been said repeatedly, the same is true for MIFAness... currently its nice to have, but not essential, you could not stop me for example from carrying out archaeology work... nobody can... as long as my commercial work is to the standard required by the curator. so being a MiFA or not is not top of my agenda. I tried it, but found that it was difficult to be me at the same time.

The circular argument is perhaps the key... time to break the cycle.

[Sparky]

The point is, Vulpes, that the IfA are making MIFAs out of monkeys. This gives the IfA the bad image that many people rant about, despite the positive aspects you listed earlier.

How many MIFA status holders have you brought to account lately?

[vulpes]

Ooh I dunno... thousands?

Think we'll just have to agree to have differing perceptions of this, the majority of MIFAs I'm aware of are quite competent enough for the letters. Surely chartered status will only serve to reduce the numbers of monkeys as you call them. Having written several references for MIFA transfers or applications I'm quite happy to vouch for the rigorousness of the process. What's your suggested alternative ??

[Unitof1]

sparky I think that you are making the same mistake that the ifa is making- pretending that its members are field archaeologists. They don’t work in the field, almost not a one. Possibly you are refereeing to the directors of some unit and the management of the units contracts. If that’s so then they should belong to a institute of archaeological unit directors. Vulpes do you work in the field? who were you recommending for membership?

The cba tried to contain a profession around the concept of field archaeology. It was the word professional archaeologist that they wanted to give authority to a myriad of civil service positions most notably county archaeologists, eh and museum services. The problem though is that these are not day in day out digging positions. And that’s the problem with the ifa it wants to be the association for all field work but theres no money for an association from the diggers, well not one that wants to base itself in a university. These also very little reason for a digger to be a member as there is no career for brandishing a trowel in hand.

And theres more,

Its always made me laugh that English heritage had to have science officers. That tells you everything that you need to know about eh and this relates to the production of thousands of archaeology graduates a year with degrees that have nothing to do with field archaeology and where the vast majority have no intention of ever undertaking fieldwork. All those universities are a joke and the use of a BA qualification is at the heart of the matter. Over the last decade or so the BA graduate has replaced the previous manpower service rejects. Theres very little difference. The charter system seems to need degree fodder and there are whole arts faculties waiting to justify their existence. So are the universities clamouring for chartered status for the ifa. Or rather is the ifa going to start accrediting the courses that are appropriate for membership of the ifa. I suspect that any arts faclty subject will be appropriate.

[Sparky]

Yes Vulpes. Start by stop giving out MIFAs like a zookeeper gives out peanuts.

[Sparky]

Sorry Unit. My mistake.

[Dinosaur]

People with MIFAs are in my experience no better archaeologists than non-MIFAs (same as some RAOs are no better than many non-RAOs), perhaps just have more need of a feeling of superiority? :face-stir:

[vulpes]

Well of course you would say that Dino!! :face-approve:

Unit - I don't find the field vs. other distinction particularly credible or relevant to the discussion. The IfA is now styled an Institute for Archaeologists (and don't get started on them retaining the old IFA name elsewhere, similarly not relevant), they don't exclude field archaeologists or any other group / specialism - They even have a specific Diggers Group. Whether I'm stood in a field or not is not the issue. How's your pension pot coming on??

Sparky - if you really think that is the case you really are clueless (no apologies for that statement will be proffered) about the process.

I'm not going to bother any more with this unless it gets back on track as a discussion of chartered status. Think I've made my views clear enough, and have no desire to waste any more type on defending the IfA against a minority of knockers, axe grinders and virtual pub bores. xx(

[Sparky]

Vulpes,
I know how the system works and how it fails. If you want to support that, then I can only blame you for offering up monkeys.
See you in the safari park! (Just leave my windscreen wipers alone would you, please)

[kevin wooldridge]

The IfA can of course become a body incorporated by Royal Charter without offering individual or corporate members Chartered status. It could become the Royal Institute for Archaeologists (or some similar title) and carry on with its current membership arrangements.....I think the question that Tim is asking IfA members in the first instance is whether they see value in the IfA proceeding down that route.....


Individuals who believe there is no value in individual IfA membership and /or that the IfA does not make a positive contribution to UK archaeology are hardly likely to show a positive interest in the IfA seeking chartered status. That much is clear from the BAJR thread.

I think I can predict with some confidence that following a period of consultation the membership of the IfA wil vote to proceed with seeking chartered status

I think I can predict with some confidence that those who currently dislike the IfA wil continue to dislike the Royal Institute for Archaeologists (or some similar title).....

Have we finished with this thread now....?