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

[BAJR Host]

education and personal self-improvement are virtues ..... how true... they are indeed

but lets take it one step forward... Companies will happily take on staff with many of these skills, and when needs must, they will take on people with many less..... for example on pipelines or road schemes, when staff shortages were rife... do the ones with more skills but still employed as diggers or supervisors get paid more the more skills they have? OR the same as everyone else ??

Can we have a commitment (and perhaps VoR would like to start it) that field staff (and others) are on a scale of pay based on the number of skills they have .. their proven CPD skills will raise their prospects and their pay? perhaps I suffer from the old labour attitude of a fair days pay...

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

[Hal Dalwood]

BAJR Host commented:

quote:again... I ask a question... and you fell into the elephant trap.

Oops, that's always happening. Good trap, beautifully covered in branches and leaves. No real need for it though, I'm quite happy to answer the question. Here goes:

quote:If there is a real benefit at present.. other than the warm glow of knowing you are brushing up skills OR learning new ones, what is this benefit:
Does it mean a pay rise? Do people move up a career ladder? Are they given extra benefits and responsibilities?

The straightforward answer is 'yes': if archaeologists can articulate the skills that they have acquired, and the knowledge that they have gained that provides a context for those skills, then yes, they will stand out at interviews in front of other candidates with a similar length of experience. Undertaking formal CPD (for example, using the simple format put forward by the IfA) is one way (not the only way of course) in which an individual's developing skills and knowledge can be clearly identified, to themselves especially, and documented. Of course most archaeologists don't undertake CPD, and many have a rather restricted of what personal development encompasses - too focused on formal training. Consequently interviewers have to ask probing questions to find out about the skills and knowledge that applicants have actually acquired. Of couse, [u]archaeological</u> skills are not the only abilities that employers are looking for, but let's leave that topic for another time.

BAJR Host says:

quote:I see no sign of CPD having an affect on employment- whether I have several CPD skills or not.

At present few archaeologists undertake formal CPD. So I think that the actual effect of formal CPD on employment in archaeology cannot be determined at present.

In a subsequent post, BAJR Host asked:

quote:Can we have a commitment (and perhaps VoR would like to start it) that field staff (and others) are on a scale of pay based on the number of skills they have .. their proven CPD skills will raise their prospects and their pay? perhaps I suffer from the old labour attitude of a fair days pay...

Job Descriptions define roles and duties and Person Specifications define the qualifications, knowledge, skills, and experience that are the minimum requirements. The P.S. also provides the framework in which applicants do stand out, by demonstrating a range of acquired skills and a depth of knowledge relevant to that post.

I am responsible for appointing archaeologists to posts in the organisation I work for. I am happy to make the commitment (since you asked for it) that there is a relationship between pay scale and skills. Proven skills (whether or not backed up by formal CPD documentation) do raise the career prospects of archaeologists, and lead to them getting better paid jobs.



Hal Dalwood

[BAJR Host]

Good answer there Hal..

I think we are getting closer to the answer, as you rightly say..

quote:At present few archaeologists undertake formal CPD. So I think that the actual effect of formal CPD on employment in archaeology cannot be determined at present.

So we need a simple process of recording CPD and other non-formal training (that is a very interesting point) that is recognised and accepted across the board and seen as a mark of both commitment and measurable competence from the individual.

We also need a commitment from companies and employers that they can and will provide opportunities for training (I know of several that already do, who realise that training a person who may move on is not a loss, but a net gain, as they will a) feel valued and b)learn skills in other companies that they can bring back... )

Along side this, as you say, that there is a relationship between pay scale and skills... so can we expect to see in the adverts and hear on the forum about staff being paid their value depending on the additional relevant skills?? OR will we still have a one size fits all diggers pay - with no real incentive to work towards something.

Perhaps 2009 will see a change... I am piloting a scheme just now, which is free to companies.. but involves a commitment to the public, the client, the archaeology and the staff. I will be then be doing my best for those that sign up in advertising the skills they have to architects, developers, potential client bases.

I appreciate your commitment Hal, (though realise the constraints you are under) and will look forward to the next time. thank you

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

[Unitof1]

I have done Anglo-Saxon sand sites, med clay, Bronze Age silt, meso- fine wind blown. Should I take two weeks off and go and see what I can find amongst really big boulders or have I got the wrong end of what you are talking about

[Hal Dalwood]

This is turning into a conversation between two people, but here goes...

quote:So we need a simple process of recording CPD

Yes. Can I suggest that people reading this go and read about the IfA's CPD scheme on their site, download the forms, and try it out?

quote:We also need a commitment from companies and employers that they can and will provide opportunities for training

My employer is a local authority and it has a policy on training, and a 'Staff Review and Development Scheme'. That is not the same thing as 'Continuous Professional Development' (CPD) - the IfA guidance document makes this clear.

quote:Along side this, as you say, that there is a relationship between pay scale and skills... so can we expect to see in the adverts and hear on the forum about staff being paid their value depending on the additional relevant skills?? OR will we still have a one size fits all diggers pay - with no real incentive to work towards something.

There is not such a simple lonk between [u]archaeological </u> skills and pay scales.

Hal Dalwood

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by Hal Dalwood This is turning into a conversation between two people, but here goes...

There is not such a simple lonk between [u]archaeological </u> skills and pay scales.

Is it too weasel-ish to say that I agree with some of the things that both of you are saying....

The problem I fear is encapuslated in Hal's last sentence. Whilst we probably all want to see archaeologists paid a fair whack and for their skills and experienced to be recognised, the truth is that there is limited ddemand in the archaeological job market at its upper end and for specialists.

All of us who submit ourselves or are forced into relying on the vissitudes of market forces to making our living in archaeology apply for and often accept jobs that could (and perhaps should) be done by less experienced staff or put our specialisms or personal work interests on the backburner sometimes for weeks but more often for years. Why? Becuase as I see it we have no option. Employment at any level of disadvantage is normally better than unemployment, but with your ivory tower soul intact.

My problem with the IFA and CPD is not that it is particualrly arduous or even time consuming, (surely their suggested form of recording is no more than a well documented CV should contain). My problem is no form of CPD is ever going to create jobs for archaeologists whilst the archaeological employment market in the UK is in its current form. And that at the end of the day is what will deter archaeologists from bothering with documenting CPD, there being no real benefit at the end of the day.

[Hal Dalwood]

quote:Kevin Wooldridge posted: Is it too weasel-ish to say that I agree with some of the things that both of you are saying....

No, not at all weasel-ish. This is what I meant by 'weasel words':

quote:Wikipedia says: Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication. Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:

vague generalizations
use of the passive voice
non sequitur statements
use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive mood
use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce")

So here (again) is BAJR Host on the subject of CPD...

quote:That said, does it make any difference to our employment prospect? So why do something that is of no seeming benefit?

If, as I suggest, hardly any archaeologists utilise a formal CPD system at present, then any relationship between formal CPD and employment prospects in archaeology is only a matter of opinion. Therefore the question 'why do something of no seeming benefit?' is, I would suggest, a non sequitur - perhaps misleading forum readers into thinking that it has already been demonstrated that CPD is a waste of time. That sounded to me a bit like 'weasel words' in the Wikipedia sense, hence my original comment.



Hal Dalwood

[BAJR Host]

ouch.... a bit harsh Hal...

I look at facts... if you read my posts.. I have often said that the principal is good.. and still do... but stand by the current situation where doing CPD is not linked to career prospects in most cases..

You look at my quote and it is ending with a question mark... a question, not an assertion.. you are right in saying that hardly any archaeologists utilise formal CPD systems at present.. why is that? how can it be strange or an opinion to suggest that there is no correlaltion... it would be difficult to see one if so few do it would it not?

I take it you feel it should be formalised... as do I.
I suspect you feel that it should form part of the employees credentials and when employing a person with 'more' verified skills will be placed on a higher grade in your organisation... or is it just at the employment stage the cpd matters.

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise then you are entitled to you opinion too, and welcome to opine here, this is what BAJR is about.. opinions and discussion... weasel words - hardly... a statement of fact? not really... a question... yes.. one you answered from your own opinion as well.

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

[Hal Dalwood]

&lt;unit of One quote removed&gt;

quote:BAJR Host posted: ouch.... a bit harsh Hal...

Apologies for my post on weasel words. I'll shut up about my interpretation of what the low take-up CPD in archaeology means. Anyway, to respond to the questions posted here:

quote:BAJR: I take it you feel it should be formalised... as do I.

Yes I think CPD should be formalised in archaeology. I believe it is essential that it becomes compulsory for IfA members - but we'll see how the vote goes next year. There is nothing to stop archaeologists who are not IfA members undertaking their own CPD, but obviously it is up people to do as they see fit.

quote:BAJR: I suspect you feel that it should form part of the employees credentials and when employing a person with 'more' verified skills will be placed on a higher grade in your organisation... or is it just at the employment stage the cpd matters.

If IfA makes CPD compulsory, then employees of my organisation who are IfA members will be undertaking CPD, and my employer will be supporting that as it is a Registered Organisation. And it will encourage its employees who are not IfA members to undertake CPD also.

During the recruitment process, whether or not a person has been undertaking formal CPD would make no difference to their pay grade. However it is the case that the archaeological skills acquired and the work experience gained can lead to the offer of a higher salary than the starting salary for that post. The essential thing about CPD, as I see it, is that it is relevant to the whole career of an archaeologist, right up to 65 or whenever - that's the 'continuous' bit in CPD.




Hal Dalwood

[BAJR Host]

I think now we are getting to the point. And the reality I would like to see. Let me start by giving an example of a company (who will remain nameless to save blushes) I know the structure quite well, after several discussions over the past few years.

They are a large company (and also an RO) , and provide various formal training as a requirement of being in that company, no waiting to be told, they just do it. It ranges from Survey, Illustration to report writing and use of software packages etc. They see the benefit of a skilled and motivated workforce, and give them this opportunity to build on their skills and thus add to the skills the company has to offer. There is another benefit too, as the more they learn, the more they progress up a career ladder, which is created in such a way that rewards ability and commitment. Thus it is quite possible for a top of the range supervisor to be paid more than a bottom of the rung Project Officer. They have a staff that is loyal, committed and also has a very low turn-over.

That is the benefit of a real CPD...

and so don't wait to do it... just do it... don't hope that people will. If your company is an RO.. do it now.. and perhaps then the NVQ will really take off then.

BAJR is working on a skills passport, a CPD scheme record system, that shows what you can do.. it is basically a CPD record .. but it should then be reciprocated in terms of providing people with reward as well... past the basic reward of actually getting a job.

The company mentioned above sees the benefit in giving a more skilled staff member a higher grade than a less skilled one... how it depressses people to see a 6 month new digger getting paid the same as a 10 year vetern, who can photograph, survey, carry out site drawings etc it provides no aspiration.... it does give pride in work. Too often I hear from people who wonder why they should bother .. why they should gain the extra skills, when all it means is the same rate of pay..many do it anyway..but it is up to the companies to take the lead. AND for individuals to realise their potential. YOu end up with a skilled, loyal, motivated and commited workforce.



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