IFA! What is it good for? Say it again. IFA!

[YellowPete]

What is the IFA good for?

What can the IFA do for you?

I must admit I myself am a mere Affiliate, as I see no reason to represent myself, professionally, may I add, beyond an affiliation to an organization that has a long way to go.

The IFA is in a position where it could do so much good, but there are a few underlying principles, which will continue to hold back any attempt to move forward, with what will be necessary, if the industry is to evolve and survive coherently for future generations of archaeologists to utilize beyond rubber stamping.

I do not mean to undermine or dissolve a long established institution, which has a membership and presence of body, which continues to actively engage within the different levels of the wider industry.

It may not be visible, effective or proactive to the issues which we feel are important to us individually, but that I feel is not the role of the IFA.

The IFA is an organisation, which would prefer to operate on a policy of industry regulation, but as we continually and perpetually see, or believe, the regulation is ineffective, or ill conceived in its actions.

Where can we begin with an effective regulation of an endemic cowboy industry?

This is not necessarily cowboy by desire, but rather by situational circumstance and subsequent exploitation.

Where could we begin, where the industry finds itself being undermined by reports of self-employed individuals tendering vastly under par?

Should this form of self-employment be reserved for the experienced, where the IFA could actually check its individual professional member?s standards and not just the classic check list of the old Registered Archaeological Organisations (R.A.O.?s)?

If the archaeological record is to be a situational standard, to be strived for, to be attempted with a genuine intent, without compromising our own lives to enable a consistency of effort and interest, then are we not going to have to ask ourselves ?Did we do our best?? ?What could we do better?? ?What did I learn??

If institutions are to remain as effective organisations within the general makeup of archaeology then they are going to have to challenge:

What they do? What they provide? How they provide, with what they do? And who, or when do they operate for?

If the future, then the future is borne of the past, in the present.

If the past, then the past is borne with a future, determined by our present.

This is no simple word play.

This is a matter of ?This is the time?, now how do we enact ?What we going to do??


Well if this is the time then what must we do?

Does the IFA need to change from a policy of membership seeking, to a policy of fundraising from outside its membership?

Even if the IFA was to gain full industrial membership, the funding would still fall short of the requirements of being able to impose an effective industry regulation.

Potential members will refrain from joining until they see some progress.

But alternatively, from the position of not being able to regulate without membership then we must ask, ?What does membership mean and bring??

As members we are neither bothered about our membership status, beyond extending and improving our Direct Debits.

Do employers encourage us, to join, as they themselves are already R.A.O.?s?

So from this point of view membership is aligned and based upon the foundation of finance. Is the foundation of this institution of a professional standard, itself based within the same constrains of an economic situational standard.

For an organisation based upon voluntary time, work and effort within councils of attendance, then are we meating out the back, of a foundation of inconsistency, determined by differential abilities and time to lend to building a professional standard.

This seems like a paradox, to build professionalism upon an institutionalised voluntary participation in the very foundation of leadership and organisational structure set against the situational economic standard.

This is not to suggest the work is itself not professionally conducted, or admissible, but rather that it is the founding principle which lends a basis for undermining its own goal.

How could such an organisation, attempt to build a professional ethos, where the members feel, superior organisational ability and adaptability, lies within the very organisations (R.A.O.?s) they would hope to guide and lead towards an attainable standard.

This is the impenetrable chicken and egg, but for this occasion the gap between the equal arguments, to be seriously outclassed on the one hand.

I think that if there is a sincere chance that opportunities are to arise, beyond those institutionalised, for the development, evolution and the re-establishment of participation, then we must seriously look at the long overlooked aspect of the institution.

The fact remains that once you have attained a level, or standard of work, then that is itself institutionalised and galvanised into the foundation for the future.

That is not to say that the standard was reached once and achieved, but rather that the standard should be kept up.

Once you have reached a standard you could leave the industry but still be qualified after 15yrs of absence, but is that a fair summary?

The problem, lies within the liability of the cemented membership, never to be questioned, yet we would perpetually expect employers to take sole responsibility for its employees, when it comes to a matter professional standards.

Can we expect our employers to act as our professional guardians, while we never question, or challenge the standards ?we? work to ?for? our employers?

Are we imagining we are slaves to our employer?s requirements, when we are so vocal of our desires and independence of considered judgement, when it comes to our own output?

Do we imagine that we can hide behind organisations and deny the work as our own, yet trumpet our abilities, as the result of opportunities from organisational making?

Is this an industry of the employers? take the flack and the employees don?t give a jack? We take the highs, but flame without blame.

But before you jump???. Who are our employers?

Are they the companies we work for, the general public, or the cultural archive of archaeological assemblages we build together, from day to day?

Meet the bar and forever gold.
R.A.O.?s, its all your fault!


Have we, the individual members, earned immunity from questionable standards?

Are we beyond reproach? Is archaeology so consistent throughout the years and experience that we are beyond regulation ourselves?

If we must really ask this, then where is the place to start considering the tip of our self-employed iceberg standard for an Emeritus Archaeological Professing?



Anyways, just another long thought






txt
Mike

[RedEarth]

I think I had one of those impenetrable eggs for breakfast the other day - they don't half repeat on you.

Sorry, I almost got to the end of your post before I realised it was only half way and gave up. You might want to invest in a new question mark button for your keyboard...

[Austin Ainsworth]

quote:Originally posted by YellowPete


who sat on yours


txt
Mike

I also found your post difficult to read.

Btw, before replying remember the AUP and be polite.

[Austin Ainsworth]

It's on the main forum page.

http://www.bajr.org/BAJRforum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=5

[YellowPete]

No defamation of organisations intended, but density of text and questions do make legibility difficult, ensuring the grasp of the argument is lost

Sorry



txt
Mike

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by YellowPete


It was a reference to the palm of his hand and the egg like shape thing that says boo.



txt
Mike

I think it might be a bar of soap or a large pill, besides, it's not my hand it's just a fairly random choice of image from the available Avatars (or whatever they are called).

I was simply pointing out that if you original post was a little more concise it might start a more useful debate, I wasn't denegrating you. Your replies were pretty concise, if a little touchy...

[BAJR Host]

Now we have that out of the way.. and reading Yellow Pete's post, it does bring up some points which were discussed at the Current Archaeology Conference .. Whose responsibility is it.. and who do we do it for as well as who should be doing what?

I would contend that the time for expansion is over.. the time for dealing with the problems is now past the working group/consultation phase.. a neo-blairite concept of talking about what to do and then by the time you work out taht you have to do something, its time for another, to clarify the changing positions.. etc.. no criticism of the IfA or any number of groups.. (including me -- though I ain't a representative group! - Yet) A simple case of dealing with the now.. right now. With thought, I admit, but with decisive action. The crux, to me anyway, is we (as individuals, have to start taking individual responsibility, rather than the easy pass the buck , it is not my fault attitude that can prevail. Taking responsibility is what it is about. Or is it?

?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[YellowPete]

Within structures and organisations, there is a slopey shoulders attitude that does generally prevail, in that its aways the person above, or below in a heirarchial system, whom will have to deal with something, if the one inbetween has a measure of control and applies that control.

The thing is whether those below understand why they get the reason why it comes from above, and also, whether those above will accept a certain amount of spine in their sub-ordinates, when put into the bosses bigger picture?

The only thing is if the IFA were to start asking us to individually justify our standards of work we could then actually again start thinking about what is important to the ongoing process of data accumulation.

In the grand scheme, few things matter, but should we allow ourselves to be in the dark as to why some things matter and others don't?

On the other hand I've never known a boss who would spend their valuable time justifying to a minion on something that in the day to day running is not their concern.

If this is the case, then it comes down to peers asking each other, whether they think a practice is acceptable and necessary, let alone why.

Mike



txt
Mike

[YellowPete]

There is however, as usual, a problem with the notion of peer based acceptable standards.

This is especially the case during down turns, where peer amnesties can turn easily into gestapo tactics, as in to inform against ones own competitiors.

This is a system as with many others open to abuse and injustice, but the issue remains founded upon our profesional conduct.

We are by nature in love with our jobs and careers but the issue remains, where the delineation between profession and obsession.

Easily tared but near impossible to revoke.



txt is
Mike

[Plautus]

High professional standards among indivuals are very important, but also high standards among R.A.Os. I have known units to treat their registered stautus as simply a status symbol, and to engage in practice that fell well short of acceptable standards. This obviously puts employees in a very difficult position as they have a loyalty to the unit, a worry about their jobs but also what many of us see as a duty to archaeology as a whole.

If it had been a similar case regarding a company and a union, there would have been some protection for employees. However many people felt that if we reported our companys behaviour to the IFA we would both be fired and very probably blacklisted by other companies.

ps. the particular bad company i am thinking of were my first employers and most units are far more scupulous. I am not suggesting for a second that all units treat their IFA status lightly.