I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA.

[BAJR Host]

Was passed this nugget from Britarch.. have to agree with the sentiments. Lets hope for a new vigour with the new name. and communication with those not members (aka 'mushrooms') as much as the members.

quote:Could I ask whether, in its new incarnation, the former IFA will be somewhat more aggressive in its pursuit of a half-decent salary structure for contract diggers than it was in its old incarnation?

...

quote: Leaving aside this rather PC corporate speak, how about strengthening ties with its own membership

View the whole thing here:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadm...=D&P=10236

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

[Oxbeast]

Yet answer comes there none. Good job that they have a full time 'Publicity Administrator', though she hardly seems to be overworked.

I fear that the new strapline 'a professional institute for the study and care of the historic environment' takes it even further from adressing the problems of the profession, particularly at the grassroots level.

They seem to think that their main business is studying archaeology. They seem to have confused themselves with UCL's Archaeological Institute.

[BAJR Host]

Is there a case then for a group dealing specifically with field archaeologists? either a semi independant section of the new IFA or a fully independant group working with them?

I am know the 'Publicity Administrator' Kathryn is hard at work (she does lots of things), however I we will look forward to some sort of reply.
.

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

[Paul Belford]

I am a professional archaeologist and a member of the IfA and I certainly consider that the main business of my job (and that of my staff) is indeed the 'study and care of the historic environment'.

The people who you demean as 'diggers' are actually engaged in a part of that process. Field archaeology is one of several strands. I myself am a field archaeologist and am proud of that, but I also recognise that I do not undertake excavations in a vacuum without reference to the disciplines of history, conservation and environmental and materials sciences - nor do I [u]only</u> do excavation.

I know it is fashionable on this forum to slag off the IfA. However the IfA is not a union and never will be, it is a professional body which is attempting to increase the profile and status of the profession [u]as a whole</u>. This means recognising the equally valuable contribution made to archaeology by 'non-diggers', including for example: finds specialists, illustrators, surveyors, buildings archaeologists, historians, IT specialists, geophysicists, conservation specialists and yes, even managers.

Salaries are on the list of things to look at, but salaries are subject to market forces and it is illegal for the IfA or anyone else to set a wage/pricing structure.

A union can only negotiate wages and other small items at the level of an individual or company.

What we (as a collective body of archaeologists) really need for [u]all of us</u> is to try and ensure that the professional status of archaeologists as a whole is raised so that other professionals and society at large values us for our skills, knowledge and expertise... and pays us accordingly. Therefore would it not be a good idea to work together as a profession? Why not have a professional institute that advocates on behalf of all of us at a much wider level? This, it seems to me is precisely what the IfA is doing, steadily, and with increasing success.

One very useful thing that the IFA is doing [u]right now</u> is requiring that all members and all ROs have a programme of Continuing Professional Development. Every single IfA member will be required to have a record of CPD and the profession as a whole will be encouraged to invest in training and development for people. This is a step forward towards increased professional status.

[BAJR Host]

Good reply Paul,
and agree with the sentiments
I only take issue with three points:

The original post was from Britarch.. and to my knowledge there have been no replies to this.

There is also a feeling that BAJR is a place to 'slag off the IFA' - it is not, it is a place for people to say what they feel, everyone has a fair shot, if there are comments to be made, then do people just keep quiet? And if there are praises to be sung, then the IFA are indeed praised. Hard questions are there to be asked... and answered, whether by a "fair play.. thats right and an issue needing investigated" OR (and BAJR is full of this second form of reply) by saying, I see where you are coming from, but thats not true, and this is why its not true, and now we have laid that to rest (well sometimes!)

Final point.... well, its an interesting one... you have explained about the new requirements for ROs (or RAOs if you are old fashioned ) - you took the time to say the words, to pass the information on, The IFA could have done that too... and on Britarch and on their site.... information beats hearsay everytime. It could be claimed that there is better use of time than popping onto BAJR and letting a large portion of UK archaeologists who are not in the IFA, know whats happening... but then, you could argue, that it is just that sort of thing that should be a priority. The IFA section was closed down after it fell into disuse... but it only takes a second (or ten) to pop on and put up a post.. as Kate GEary did recently. We (as BAJR) took time to respond to the IFA consultation request, giving up time to give our views and thoughts, surely its not too much to ask for the same in return?

That said, I do agree that only requesting help for diggers is perhaps to specific. As an Illustrator and Surveyor myself my heart sags at the pay on offer to us, as a field archaeologist I am sad at the conditions of many... many who now face uncertainty with layoff happening across the UK. ASking for a half-decent salary structure for all archaeologists - --- now thats something I do agree with... and ask.... whats happening to make that happen... we did the benchmarking... we got the figures, the working pary came to conclusions... SO... what now?? I hope it is not silence.

ps

quote:and it is illegal for the IfA or anyone else to set a wage/pricing structure.

So the minimum rates for PIFA, AIFA and MIFA .. what are they then? and if they enforce these, why not a more refined version (BAJR grades-like) I agree that salaries are just one part... training, job security (ha!) self worth, .. there are many, big one for field archs? actually having a job at Xmas.. or having a house, or having a family, or anything that we with fulltime jobs can have.

(edited to add a ps)

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

[Unitof1]

quote:I do not undertake excavations in a vacuum

I think that if you take excavation away you will find that your archaeology will be totally vacuous. No doubt your skill will be in managing this vacuum. Call it heritage. Institute of heritage management. This is a straight forward fight of dog tail wagging and always has been since ppg16 came about.

[Paul Belford]

To deal with the 'ps' first:

Sorry that was my mistake in the heat of the moment! I meant that price-fixing is illegal. I don't think wage-fixing (or even 'recommending') is illegal. But my point still stands - yes we need people like BAJR and the IfA recommending minimum salaries but we also need a 'big picture' approach to raising the status of the profession as a whole.

RE slagging off: I think there are one or two on here who will not see any good in the IfA ever, and therefore make negative rather than constructive criticism. I don't think this helps anyone. However I acknowledge that this goes both ways.

And as for time spent on BAJR, I really should be working! And I am just an ordinary MIFA, not a Council member or anyone else with a particular brief to defend it. Not sure about the working party conclusions myself. Perhaps you should reinstate the IFA section and offer to feed news from their site?

[Unitof1]

I would see good in the ifa if it was for individuals who are archaeologists through excavation. I dont see how evaluation standards apply to 90% of its collective.

[Paul Belford]

In answer to Unit of 1.

I did not advocate - and never will - 'taking away' excavation. Excavation is essential. I simply meant that archaeology is not [u]just</u> about excavation and never has been. To make it purely about excavation is to deny the possibilities that the application of archaeological method has in other areas - such as historic building recording or landscape survey for example.

And archaeologists can and should and must make contributions to heritage management - which is the means by which the historic environment (above and below ground) informs our identity, actions and values [u]as a society</u> in the present and the future. If we did not contribute all of that sort of thing will done by architects, engineers and historians who understand 'heritage' and how to manage it in very different ways.

[Oxbeast]

I also agree with your points Paul Belford. My problem is with the strapline and the overall lack of communication from the IFA. As you say "Why not have a professional institute that advocates on behalf of all of us at a much wider level?" Why not have a strapline that reflects this, rather than a slogan that could equally apply to a number of other bodies? If their main business is advocacy, training, building partnerships and promoting the profession, perhaps that should have been reflected in their strapline.

I don't see any reason for a seperate institute for field archaeologists only, surely fragmenting can only lead to weaker advocacy. Besides, lots of people do more then one thing. RICS does not have a seperate body for field surveyors.

I am glad to hear that there is a requirement for CPD. Was this decided at the recent AGM?