IfA/AAIS merger

[BAJR]

having been a field archaeologist, planning supervisor and illustrator( both by hand and digitally)

You and me both.!

Theargument is not so much who is better, but will people stop downgrading the skills of others. WE all have skills and should appreciate them.

Proud to be a draughtsman and illustrator!

Skills! Skills Skills!

[Dinosaur]

Hear! Hear! :face-approve:

I'd like think I have a reasonable mastery by now of most site/pre-ex/PX skills by now (have left CAD etc to the CAD people who seem to have a better idea of such things - whatever happened to ink and Letraset?), and can even turn out a half-decent sheet of finds drawings - BUT, I've never had anything to do with management (much to the despair of my current management) for the simple reason that I know I'd be c**p at it and I'm far more usefully employed doing something I'm actually good at....why should IFA therefore regard me as some form of lesser being? (particularly since some MIFA managers of my acquaintance couldn't manage their way......) !

[ecmgardner]

it's a shame that those of us who actually appreciate the work of the illustrator who, after all provides part of the archive, sorts out many a problem and generally keep the managers on their toes. grrr. i think that people like unit are just jealous of talented people. sad really don't you think. oh and thanks bajr it's good to know that some people still admire skill over bulls***t

Well said!!!

Although I understand the general negativity towards the IfA I don't personally have any issues with them (which I guess makes me out of place here much of the time). I think they've had a bad rep in the past but do seem to have nothing but the good of the profession at heart - perhaps they go about it in a rather bureaucratic way sometimes but at least they're trying to DO something. I'll be getting as involved as I possibly can with the ISSIG.

With regards to facts and figures... as far as I understand it the merger process takes some time and is not due to be completed until October/November time. The small number of individuals being offered MIfA are those who have already passed the AAI&S's face to face interview panel and assessment and are full members of the association. They should therefore have proven their skills and must sign up to the IfA's code of conduct - which is much the same as the AAI&S's was!! The rest of the corporate membership (i.e Licentiate members) are being offered membership at PIfA with an option to apply for AIfA if they can prove key skills and competencies lie anyone else. I don't know the exact membership grade numbers but there were around about 80 full members, patrons and fellows a couple of years ago. That will have changed now as there was a push to update the membership database before voting took place but I don't know the exact numbers.

Stef.s - may I suggest you e-mail admin@aais.org.uk and ask. Accounts are being wound up at the moment and I'm sure the treasurer will want to make sure you get your money back if your application hasn't been processed.

[BAJR]

Although I understand the general negativity towards the IfA I don't personally have any issues with them (which I guess makes me out of place here much of the time). I think they've had a bad rep in the past but do seem to have nothing but the good of the profession at heart - perhaps they go about it in a rather bureaucratic way sometimes but at least they're trying to DO something. I'll be getting as involved as I possibly can with the ISSIG.

I think you may not be as out of place as you think.

there are some that just plain don't like the IfA - others who love it with an strange passion, many people appreciate the need for it, and what it has tried to do, it is often the glacial pace of change and the perception ( right or wrong ) that it is a management club out only to increase membership and increasingly out of touch with the majority of field archaeologists.

We are where we are, and as many people say or hint at, we are all equally responsible for where that it is.

Imagine what would be possible if IfA and BAJR worked together where there was overlap? oooh there is a thought. :face-approve:

[Boxoffrogs]

if it got our 'fellows' of their backsides and motivated a UK wide organisation to power forward for heritage issues and archaeology, now if CBA EH BAJR AND IFA all started to shout as one voice at the ConDems....

[dmama]

Skills! Skills Skills!

i agree. and i also agree about diminishing EVERYONE's skills. it is good to have a working knowledge of how everything works but as dinosaur says if you're good at something why not do it and if you're not as good as someone else give it to them. why try to do everything it just turns out a mess... we all have our place and when we're allowed to hone our abilities and have a pride in the out put of our work, be it a beautifully cleaned section, pit well dug or a well drawn pot, be praised rather than the way it sometime is. oh dear i can feel a rant coming on sorry must go and shout at the printer...

[Oxbeast]

@ecmgardner

I think they've had a bad rep in the past but do seem to have nothing but the good of the profession at heart

My problem with the IfA is that they seem to undermine their credibility somewhat. Letting a largish group of peop

[ecmgardner]

@ecmgardner


My problem with the IfA is that they seem to undermine their credibility somewhat. Letting a largish group of people bypass the validation committee risks undermining the whole princilpe of validation. Setting a standard for salaries for different levels of responsibility and then going out of your way to advertise jobs that pay pocket money undermines the principle of standard setting. Having a disciplinary process and then keeping the whole thing secret undermines the deterrent aspect of the process.

I can't really respond to the salaries issue as I'm approaching it from an AAI&S perspective but the validation I can.

Every full member of the AAI&S has already undertaken validation, not just by committee but by panel interview and peer assessment and presentation in person to a panel of their work. The process of the AAI&S's assessment was more rigourous than the IfA's because it was able to deal with the volume in far more detail than the IfA has the capacity too - panel interviews for every application aren't really practicable for the IfA. The IfA examined the process in detail as part of the merger negotiations and their due dilligence. All new MIfA are still required to sign up to the IfA's code of conduct, but I think it's a mark of respect for the Association and it's own code of conduct to trust that those who have passed assesment, are indeed of the required calibre. I am aware that the panel would often not pass those for assessment because standards were not up to scratch... which is what you want to maintain the value of the membership for those who have achieved it. Is that part of your concern about the undermining of credibility? I think you have to accept the AAI&S as a credible organisation which was dedicated to high standards in it's professional areas of competence...

[ecmgardner]

P.S. The merger isn't complete yet so I don't know whether validation will be aided by the SIG to keep a similar process to the AAI&S's panel assessment or not.

[P Prentice]

reading between the lines i would venture that some postees are anti ifa because they will not gain member status and they see this as an insult. others see that, for instance, a mifa gained from drawing a pot isnt the same as a mifa leading a project etc

you dont have to be a good archaeologist or a good digger, or a good illustrator to manage projects you only have to be a good manager and likewise you dont have to be a good digger to write a dba. it is also a nonsence that to conform to some Briefs the project must be under the overall supervision of a mifa if that mifa was gained from drawing pots!

the only inclusive way forward is surely the return to areas of competence where mifa is a recognised standard of competence in selected fields of endevour