IFA RO only as approved contractors

[RedEarth]

BAJR is back and a few yellow cards all round. and a drink.

Don't get into a personal argument.

Stay on Topic and lets keep this as a useful discussion.

I agree it has got a bit off topic and some of the more recent posts were very childish and pointless, but I feel that some of the dicussions, while not obviously relevent, still highlighted some issues. Namely the mentality that the IfA is only a managers club and only represents managers and that some people working in archaeology feel that they can not be and never will be managers (be it genetics, stubborness, lack of willingness or whatever) and so the IfA cannot ever represent them and therefore ROs only being allowed to do work is a bad thing. PDQ (is that the right expression? - no it's not it's QED, which probably still isn't right!)

[BAJR]

Still wrestling with quotes

Anyway, you are right.. and it does highlight worries.

I happen to have a report on a survey by the IfA from Curators and their view on RO lists and regulation. shall we say... it does not show confidence in the system... and therefore the question to be asked is WHY? and then HOW can it be made to work better (or convince people it is already working) Then I would ask... if there are curatorial services utilizing an RO only system - are they sure a legal challenge of non competitiveness would not be successful ?

Just saying it is ok, is not the same as testing it. I would for one challenge any attempt to exclude me from work in my area - as it currently stands. :face-kiss:

[kevin wooldridge]

... I feel that some of the discussions, while not obviously relevent, still highlighted some issues. Namely the mentality that the IfA is only a managers club and only represents managers and that some people working in archaeology feel that they can not be and never will be managers (be it genetics, stubborness, lack of willingness or whatever) and so the IfA cannot ever represent them and therefore ROs only being allowed to do work is a bad thing. PDQ (is that the right expression? - no it's not it's QED, which probably still isn't right!)

I agree and I wonder if this sholuldn't become a separate thread. I think the 'management' issue (if there is actually an issue) is a 'lifestyle' issue rather than an archaeological one. It strikes me that Dinosaur for all of his or her bluff, is actually probably a pretty good archaeologist whom I would be happy to class as a 'manager' of the archaeological resource. He or she might balk at that phrase, but I think its one that could be fairly applied. Whether within his or her employing organisation there are managers managing managers is another matter and one that is slightly removed from the point. Which is...

...the point of the IfA striving for Chartered status or being seen as the 'licensor' of regulated organisations is because it takes a role of responsibility for management of the archaeological resource (along of course with the curators and the national bodies etc etc). In that sense I would accept that everyone who is a member of the IfA is also a manager, but in a pure conservation rather than in a business hierarchy sense. A more appropriate term might be to call us all 'conservators' or 'curators' or 'custodians', but that would be equally as confusing as all those terms already describe sectors of our profession and to hi-jack any of the terms would be as loaded with double-meaning and full of the difficulties that we seem to have with the term 'manager'.

So my question is, what would be an appropriate term to describe an archaeologist who manages the archaeological resource at any level of responsibility, but who doesn't want to be called a manager (and this is irrespective of any hierarchical distinction or title conferred by their employing organisation)...?

[P Prentice]

now that's cleared up i might as well add the recent Current Archaeology editorial to the debate. the editor in chief, a long time champion of the amateur and reactionary new archaeology philistine, sports his assertion that 'house sized' developments with an archaeological condition should be the preserve of amatuer groups and not professionals!

before you are tempted to dismiss this as the ravings of demented has-been, i will caution that this man has the ear of, and possibly reflects the views of, a great number of archaeologiphites. and yes the article shows that he has an entirely inadequate understanding of the development control system and poor grasp of invesigatory journalism

he may well be intentionally stirring the debate, and he seems to have a lot in common with the councillor (bunny hugger) melton, but this is a serious attack which might just galvanise our sorry profession into considering the benefits of chartered status and the RO only system

[Jack]

Having thought about this I'm gonna fall on the negative side (for a change )

The fact that some RO's do good work and some do bad and some non-RO's do bad work whilst others do good..........it seems a pointless exercise to try and push for a RO only industry.
All that will change is that companies/individuals will have to pay for the privilege of being allowed to work.

And anyone who upsets the ruling IFA council members runs the risk of losing their livelyhood.

Doesn't sound like an open market to me.

Why not judge people by the work they produce and not what club they join/ are allowed to join.

[Sith]

now that's cleared up i might as well add the recent Current Archaeology editorial to the debate.

Is it similar to this article on the CA website?

[kevin wooldridge]

Is it similar to this article on the CA website?

I cant really believe that Mick Aston supports that load of old tosh!! The cure for all of the ills of British archaeology has been staring us in the face and I for one have missed it. Maybe its my inherent working class left leaning bias, blurring Selkirk's projection of a Brave New World. Its just a matter of scrapping political correctness, Health and Safety, government funding and the child protection register. Hurrah for the common man!!. Hurrah for the Daily Mail. ..Now where was that child I was about to send up that chimney.....?

[BAJR]

I would suggest that it would be right to create a new thread to discuss the CA editorial.

Save muddying waters

[P Prentice]

Is it similar to this article on the CA website?

even worse -

[BAJR]

Constructive critique on teh article might be useful. after all... this is the only other place that we 'professionals' can talk.

New thread created