Professional standards - alternative version

[troll]

I think that the new poll by 1Man1desk has prompted/allowed for an extremely important exercise. As many have said, the interpretation of the resulting data could be percieved in a variety of ways. I also think that already, the "adequate or below" option results illustrate a rather disturbing state of play across the field. I have to agree that past dialogue centring upon the assertion that all is naff led to a circular and expansive "argument" that prompted division and the blame game of old. At least with this poll, we will be presented with a more quantitive data set. Personally, when dealing with a finite resource and embracing the term "professional archaeology", adequate or below is simply not good enough. If indeed the IFA are looking at the revision of their standards-this has to be applauded. I would add the caveat that there is little chance of substantial improvement in the adoption of professional standards and practice whilst the standards are optional and not "adequately" policed. I really do hope that as many people as possible vote on this poll-all flavours, from dirt to lab to desk.:face-approve:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[BAJR Host]

You said it troll... and who indeed polices? (that was rhetorical by the way) and so, should they not be fully part of any standards?

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[Sparky]

I would treat the IfA's standards as an optimistic effort to promote 'quality' in our practices. But the vagaries of the standards leave a lot to be desired and it is perhaps here that we have one of the identifiable contributing problems to archaeological standards. Simply, they are open to wide interpretations (and policing).

'Mum!!! Can you get me the toilet roll, please!'

Noam Chomsky

[BAJR Host]

So is this the main contributing factor?


"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[Sparky]

As a supposed bench-marking system, it probably occupies a major structural position in the poorly constructed building that is archaeology. I wouldn't like to single IfA standards out because we as individuals also have a responsibility to cultural heritage and are able to make choices in how we plan, excavate, interpret and manage our projects; from the digger to the heads of EH, HS, Cadw and EHS.

'Mum!!! Can you get me the toilet roll, please!'

Noam Chomsky

[troll]

I have to say that the contributing factors are fairly clear sir.Vague and hole-ridden standards would certainly count as one whilst a highly competitive tendering system exacerbate the problems of "interpretation" of said standards ( two) but, underlying the entire pantomime is frankly a shoddy document (ppg 16) with holes so wide one could drive the entire development sector through it (three). Of course, when the voluntary standards are not policed, all three above become a recipe for disaster. If pushed to identify a single contributory factor..... wait for it......
I would identify archaeologists as the obvious contributing factor.:face-approve:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Sparky]

Hi Troll,

Yep. Archaeologists are the contributing factor, and no one else. Stands to reason.

You and I both know that in the world of highly competative tendering some archaeology can be conducted to a high standard. I generally attribute this to the individuals (and sometimes the units) involved in those projects just as certain individuals (and sometimes the units) have the copro-touch.

I agree that due their vagueness and holes, the standards actually give so much flexibility that it allows and endorses poor work to take place thus fitting snuggly into the world of competative tendering.

'Mum!!! Can you get me the toilet roll, please!'

Noam Chomsky

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

quote "I would identify archaeologists as the obvious contributing factor"
Which is something a lot of archaeologists would have to agree with,having seen too many examples over the years- I stand by my earlier post. A few sites i've worked with Troll on still make me shudder today.

[troll]

Greetings all,
Hi Sparky-hope you are well! I do agree entirely, I have been lucky enough to have worked alongside some superb practitioners (and learnt loads from them!) who for me at least, personified the term "professional". I must admit however that those little cherished moments of mine (background violins please) were rare against a background of muppetry (theme tune please) on the rampage. Enter Dirty Dave (figuratively speaking[:I]) who I have worked with on a number of occasions... it is all too apparent that shoddy work is the norm rather than the exception when a huddle of circuit field workers get together. It is thoroughly depressing to hear an entire team swap horror stories that all have the same fundamental basis. Dirty Dave and I simply could not believe what we were seeing. Back to topic....of course we all have to take responsibility-no question. But that responsibility (as units/individuals/ a profession) has to be enshrined in one single unambiguous set of standards that all must adhere to as a prerequisite to practice. Quite simply, sign up, do what it says on the tin or expect to be struck from the register. Whilst 1Man1desk` poll will inevitably result in a timely assessment of broad opinion (bout time too!), its also prompting serious dialogue across the range of flavours. I really do hope that people (organisations/units etc) are listening.......:face-approve: and voting!:face-stir:


..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[voice of reason]

but Troll, the current poll statistics currently say 67 think it's ok or better, and only 26 don't. That doesn't seem like systemic failure to me? or do the nay votes count treble?