IFA RO only as approved contractors

[Dinosaur]

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

Can live with that, just don't do managing people :face-approve::face-kiss:

[trowelfodder]

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)

Is this research public as I think it would make very interesting reading

[Dinosaur]

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!

They'd get a nasty surprise with the house-sized job I and others have been doing on and off for the last year (and nearly continuously for the last 4-5 months, been going on so long I've forgotten when it started, June I think) - 3m of stratified deposits mostly only recordable in lethally deep footing and drainage trenches in the middle of a busy and very cramped building site where you stay alive by having an intimate understanding of the whole construction process (there's often one/none safe place to stand and it's a good idea to get there while you can) - luckily the builders are a really sound and helpful bunch of guys, it'd be a nightmare otherwise....not sure that's a good environment for amateurs?

Sorry, not checked out the spin-off thread yet, apologies if this belonged on there

[GnomeKing]

I would mainly trust a manager who did not want to be one over one that did any day (still 'wouldn't want to be member of any club that would have me' though } he he)
Ah the joy of digging out the bottom of building whilst 'real professionals' try building from the top:0(showered in sparks, saw dust and random lunch/structural components - maybe a new thread for amusing tales of near-death-ery, all Truer than an Immigrants Cat!) - sorry i forgot the topic

[BAJR]

I will see if the document is publicly available. it does make interesting reading. Statistics are most enlightening. Put it this way... Using RO as a mark of accreditation is not a universal belief.

[trowelfodder]

So may give some solid ground to fight against the exclusion of non ROs?

[P Prentice]

I will see if the document is publicly available. it does make interesting reading. Statistics are most enlightening. Put it this way... Using RO as a mark of accreditation is not a universal belief.

your bajrness - but if they change their policy to a more meaningful validation, would you see different?

[kevin wooldridge]

On a slightly different tack...how would people feel if a curator didn't insist upon IfA membership or registration, but instead insisted that that the organisation or individual held comprehensive professional indemnity insurance and/or had attained BS 10845 in its contracting procedures?

[BAJR]

your bajrness - but if they change their policy to a more meaningful validation, would you see different?

I may indeed. but I would not like to see exclusion based on non-membership.

[vulpes]

I will see if the document is publicly available. it does make interesting reading. Statistics are most enlightening. Put it this way... Using RO as a mark of accreditation is not a universal belief.

That'll be the ALGAO survey which showed that IFA standards were favoured by 84% of curators?