IfA to be abolished and replaced by......

[Tool]

Sorry, I can feel a rant coming on. Tried to resist, but...

This whole IfA debate seems to revolve around whether they are actually representative of archaeology in this country. It is demonstrable that they are not, both from numerous comments in here and the fact that I haven't met a single field archaeologist that would willingly be a member. Many in fact either see them as irrelevant or hold them in contempt. The answer that comes from the IfA supporters is that we should be in it to change it. That is as daft as saying I should join the BNP because I disagree with their policies. And here lies the problem. This attitude - join us or you're not an archaeologist - is so unbelievably patronising! No, it should be the other way round. If the IfA seriously want to be the bastions of good archaeology they should be coming to us, finding out the truth of the situation, tailoring themselves to the reality experienced by the largest proportion of archaeologists. Their holier than thou attitude will, if it continues, do no more than drive the wedge further between the few at the 'top' (who seem to have extremely short memories concerning fieldwork, if they've ever done any...) and those out there in all conditions actually producing the data. Until they can demonstrate that they are willing to learn rather than dictate, then they will fail to achieve anything beneficial to either archaeology or archaeologists.

That feels better, glad I got that off my chest! Have a good Sunday!

[Dinosaur]

Have a good Sunday!

I am already - thanks! :face-approve:

[kevin wooldridge]

Sorry, I can feel a rant coming on. Tried to resist, but... This whole IfA debate seems to revolve around whether they are actually representative of archaeology in this country. It is demonstrable that they are not, both from numerous comments in here and the fact that I haven't met a single field archaeologist that would willingly be a member.

Apologies in advance. There are several mistakes in your post that I will try and correct. Just for a matter of accuracy. Otherwise Tool I am perfectly happy that you have an opinion.

There has been some previous discussion as to what percentage of UK archaeology is represented by the IfA. There are slightly over 3000 members. At the height of the last boom the number of archaeologists in the UK did not exceed 6000 persons. So whatever way you like it the IFA is/was representative of at least 50% of archaeologists, in reality (as I suspect the number of UK archaeologists is much less than 6000) it probably represents a majority of archaeologists. Secondly irrespective of individual membership, an even larger majority of archaeologists are subscribed to the aims of the IfA through their employer being an RAO. Staying on the outside of that is a possible option, but it is rather like Norway and the EU...having to obey the rules without having any part of the decision making process that sets the boundaries. Thirdly the drop-off in membership of the IfA after the last downturn was much less than the drop-off in the overall number of archaeologists employed. That suggests to me that whilst archaeologists may have reservations about the effectiveness of the IfA, that doesn't extend to giving up on its aims completely.

As to the BNP analogy. That is not correct and you choose extremism to perhaps be provocative. My argument with engaging with the IfA has nothing to do with the colour of your politics, but is concerned with being involved in the democratic process. I have never seen a serious proposal that strengthens the case for disengagement from the democratic process being a better option than allowing all who wish to have a voice being allowed to express that voice. So being involved with the IfA demonstrates a conviction to widening the voice of the whole profession and giving its exponents opportunity to set and decide policy. Not being involved is a choice but its not a choice that allows participation in the process. You might have an opinion as to how effective the generally conservative opinion of the majority of UK archaeologists is, but you can't argue that they should be refused a voice. As a fairly committed lefty I too would prefer the IfA to follow a much more radical line, but in the 28 years I have been a member of the IfA, I have never seen a point where the MAJORITY of the profession wish to follow that agenda. So I respect their decision and don't condemn them just for being involved in the process. If more of the 'critics' joined the reform agenda might take on a new impettus.

I will say again. There is no possibility that UK archaeology will become a closed shop as a result of the IfA becoming Chartered. Speculation to that end has no basis in fact. Whether sponsors or curators of archaeology decide (for quality control and insurance purposes) that they only want to use Chartered members is another matter.....

[kevin wooldridge]

One issue with the 'IfA way' which promotes, for instance, single context recording, is that it is not the only way - ......discuss :face-stir:

I would be happy to start a new thread to discuss that issue.....

[Tool]

Thank you Kevin for your reply. It raises some serious worries. It appears that the 'diggers' really are not represented by the IfA then because I do know archaeologists who are members of the IfA, but are so not because they particularly want to or subscribe to the values of the IfA, but because whereas us 'diggers' don't have to be members, their position dictates that they are members. Not very democratic... Now I have no idea how many of your majority of the profession who are members actually want to be, or have to join to be able to hold the job they have. Much in the same way as I have to have a CSCS card even though I and many many others can see them as totally pointless. The point being is that by dint of the IfA becoming the self-appointed guardians of professional archaeology, many in the business have to be members regardless of their personal opinion of the IfA. So I see the figures as being somewhat misleading.

My reference to the BNP was not a comparison between that bunch of idiots and the IfA - I'm not that crass. It was an example of the daftness of expecting someone to join something with which they have no common ground. To myself, and as I've stated before, every 'digger' I've met, that is the case. Further, I feel that the IfA should be aware of this and acting to make themselves less alien to us, rather than us having to firstly pay money we can ill afford, jump through some hoops, all in the hope that we can then influence them enough to change. And change into what? In what way could they be relevant to us? There is also the issue of the degree with which ROs actually follow the diktat of the IfA. I suspect it's rather less than the IfA would like to think... Again, they become ROs more because it's expected than because they agree wholeheartedly with what the IfA do. Please Kevin don't be naive enough to think that just because someone pays their subs they actually agree with the IfA and don't consider them a joke/inconvenience/nothing more than some letters after their name to help get work . That is not always the case, as other factors have to be taken into account.

As you've probably seen, I do agree with your last paragraph.

[Tool]

I'm going to add some more, mainly because I don't want to go shopping...

Much of my cynicism comes from many years in an industry rife with institutes, accredited this, that and the other, and more schemes 'guaranteeing' quality than you can shake your trowel at. And in return we have a building industry that largely produces buildings of zero architectural merit (and fail to meet their CDM regulation obligations to boot) - good job there's a Royal Institute overseeing that then, isn't it! - and built to a standard that is frankly disgusting. So forgive me if I struggle to agree that having an institute, chartered or otherwise, is the panacea to the ills in archaeology. They have to prove themselves to me, rather than me feeling obliged to prove myself to them. Maybe that's the problem with allowing us outsiders into this tiny world of archaeology - we've seen it all before.

[Mike.T.]

In 12+ years digging i've only met about 2 field staff who are IfA members so I don't know where the 50% figure has come from. I've no doubt that IfA membership is more prevalent at Supervisor / Management level but at Site Assistant / Field Archaeologist level it seems to be rare to virtually non existent.

[pdurdin]

The IfA website claims they have 5000 members. http://www.archaeologists.net/membershipservs

Their website actually is one of the big reasons I have little faith in them -- having an excellent web presence is extremely important and is not going to get less so in the future. As it is now, it's poorly constructed, full of broken links and contains lots of out of date information.

[kevin wooldridge]

The IfA website claims they have 5000 members. http://www.archaeologists.net/membershipservs

It doesn't say that. It says 'the yearbook introduces them to an audience of 5000 other members and specifiers of archaeological work' As an earlier page (Membership) clearly states there are 3000 members of the IfA I am guessing that the remainder of the 5000 is made up by 'specifiers of work'. Whatever they are. I cant find any broken pages on the website. There are pages
restricted to members, for which you may get an error message if not logged in, but that's about it.

As for Mike Ts comment. He may have only have ever met 2 members of the IfA, (one of whom is clearly me) but equally clearly he can't argue with the fact that over 50% of the profession are members of the IfA. Perhaps other trenches in other sites they are brimming full of diggers who are members of the IfA but go out of their way to avoid Mike!! Or perhaps its a mistake to assume that the 'digger' end of our professional spectrum is actually a particularly large number of people.

[Tool]

So you admit at least the possibility then Kevin that the membership of the IfA may well be weighted towards those who are not out in the field having direct contact with archaeology? Leading to a situation where the IfA's view is distorted by a membership who's dealings with archaeology are more theoretical than practical?