New name for the IFA...

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

A full register that subscribes to a set of criteria.. that is self regulating... and has teeth .. now that might just work.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

Aha!
A set of criteria - what, you mean like a validation procedure?
Self regulating - what, you mean has its own disciplinary codes?
Has teeth - You pretty much have to have a closed profession in order to have teeth! Right now, chuck an individual or an organisation out of IFA and they still have the right to call themselves an archaeologist and get on with charging money.

Sounds like what the IFA have been proposing for quite a while. Obviously, the organisation has a strong argument to be the organisation that administers/organises/runs the system, but no-one I've ever spoken to has ever denied that if archaeology went down this route, the IFA would have to change fundamentally. Doesn't make it a bad thing!

[oldgirl]

PS back on topic, :face-topic: someone did mention yesterday that 'Institute for Archaeologists' sounds like an asylum for people from our profession!

[historic building]

You could imagine that the gardens would be quite well dug.

The RIBA, under the guise of the Architects Benevolent Fund, use to have a home for retired architects in the village where I grew up. Intriguingly designed place and lots of pensioners in black polo necks wearing rectangular glasses.

[BAJR Host]

quote:'Institute for Archaeologists' sounds like an asylum for people from our profession!

[:p] thats a classic!!!

quote:! Right now, chuck an individual or an organisation out of IFA and they still have the right to call themselves an archaeologist and get on with charging money.

I ain't saying nuffink

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[andy.bicket]

I gather from speaking to a few people, that the IfA desire to attract more academics to its ranks, presumably the levels of membership will have to get some rewriting as I imagine academics might not have have directly comparable experience to the current terms. Presumably individuals research will be used as a guide to what level they can join at, but for example if they are an environmentalist, do they get less 'points' for working with sediment cores that don't require big excavations or complex project management (clearly some projects do but not always) but still allow them to undertake high quality research, relating to high levels of personal responsibilty.

:face-huh:

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by andy.bicket

I gather from speaking to a few people, that the IfA desire to attract more academics to its ranks, presumably the levels of membership will have to get some rewriting as I imagine academics might not have have directly comparable experience to the current terms. Presumably individuals research will be used as a guide to what level they can join at, but for example if they are an environmentalist, do they get less 'points' for working with sediment cores that don't require big excavations or complex project management (clearly some projects do but not always) but still allow them to undertake high quality research, relating to high levels of personal responsibilty.

:face-huh:

The validation criteria have already been changed (see the latest 'the Archaeologist' and also the IFA website.) It's not so much getting more academics in, as far as I understand the discussions (I'm not on council), as persuading other archaeologists who are not in the field that they count.

[BAJR Host]

There was also a desire (when I was in council) to gather ALL and EVERYONE who may be connected with 'heritage' under their wing... from Conservation professional to College Lecturer in Roman History --- perhaps I misunderstood.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[andy.bicket]

Cheers, Oldgirl.

Hmmmm, having a look at the updated handbook, shockingly I could apply for a higher membership level than I thought, guess all that stress had to pay off somewhere, nice. Although the £100+ a year price tag a year isn't too appealing. I can see the benefit in commercial archaeology, as the corporate levels reward the hard work and dedication taken to achieve these postnomials, and the increasing requirement for having this recognition in career progression. What if you're an archaeologist but not in the commercial sector? Is IfA membership a universal archaeological kudos? Especially if the Institute for Field Archaeologists wants to become the Institute for Archaeologists...marketing battle on the horizon.

In other areas of heritage and archaeology, are these postnomials as highly regarded/direct benefit to career progression?

Might be an issue for making things more inclusive for all archaeologists in their disparate fields, as you pointed out Hosty. Illustrators have their own association, environmental archaeologists, etc do too, and it's only £40 a year, guess the rest of it is the peer-review costs.

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by andy.bicket

Hmmmm, having a look at the updated handbook, shockingly I could apply for a higher membership level than I thought

That happens quite a lot.

Just a plea as well (even though I almost never make validation committee anymore ) if you're asked to be a referee, please also read the new criteria.

(I'd say 'and send stuff in on time, but that would be so pot and kettle that my conscience won't allow it!)

Back to the topic, I think I prefer Institute of archaeologists (and I don't mind MIA), but can understand that IFA (IfA) is a recognised abbreviation.

[Unitof1]

I agree with oldgirl that any reference to field archaeology should be taken out of the name. I also think that any reference in the ifa codes and standards to field archaeology should be taken out as most if not all of the heritage workers that are members of the ifa have nothing to do with field work. That the ifa wants to get more museum, academic and architects in its membership- I think can be accomplished if the codes and standards say nothing about the trivia of fieldwork such as discard policies or recording practice.