BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Chartered Archaeologists are to be a reality
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Dinosaur Wrote:So what's the point of the Charter stuff if not to penalise non-Chartered individuals/organisations? 'We're better than you' seems to spring to mind as a loose translation?
I would never have the arrogance to shout 'I am better than you' at someone who doesn't join the IfA. There are good archaeologists who are not members of the IfA, just like there are poor archaeologists who are. I wouldn't tar all non-members with the same brush and I would expect the same of non-members when it comes to regarding the intentions and ambitions of those who do join. The problem as far as I can see is that many non-members are critical of the IfA for not weeding out the weakest links amongst their members but are unwilling to submit themselves to the same level of peer review and scrutiny. Chartered IfA does not penalise anyone. How can it do that. Non-members are free to operate in UK in archaeology a multitude of roles. That will continue after a formal Chartered IfA is inaugerated.
P Prentice Wrote:but this surely is a matter for the planning authorities and their agents the curators as they have the power of veto over any report and the fieldwork that produced it?

Doesn't change the fact that they're being submitted in the first place :0


-although I had thought better of the two HERs who accepted the two laugh-out-loud (and both fairly recent) examples currently figuring in the prime positions in my all-time worst etc. Am guessing many HERs have long since been shrunk to the point where they can't read everything shoved at them, so you're right in that respect :face-crying:
kevin wooldridge Wrote:I would never have the arrogance to shout 'I am better than you' at someone who doesn't join the IfA. There are good archaeologists who are not members of the IfA, just like there are poor archaeologists who are. I wouldn't tar all non-members with the same brush and I would expect the same of non-members when it comes to regarding the intentions and ambitions of those who do join. The problem as far as I can see is that many non-members are critical of the IfA for not weeding out the weakest links amongst their members but are unwilling to submit themselves to the same level of peer review and scrutiny. Chartered IfA does not penalise anyone. How can it do that. Non-members are free to operate in UK in archaeology a multitude of roles. That will continue after a formal Chartered IfA is inaugerated.

So what's with the 'Objective 4' from IFAs Strategic Plan quoted by Ken on the other thread then [blatantly ignoring your reply to him there, sorry!] - "IfA membership and registration essential demonstrations of fitness to practice" kinda sounds like those without are unfit? I'd suggest that appears to have a certain 'holier than thou' ring to it?
Dinosaur Wrote:So what's with the 'Objective 4' from IFAs Strategic Plan quoted by Ken on the other thread then [blatantly ignoring your reply to him there, sorry!] - "IfA membership and registration essential demonstrations of fitness to practice" kinda sounds like those without are unfit? I'd suggest that appears to have a certain 'holier than thou' ring to it?
I totally agree. But that quote wasn't of my making and as I suggest in my reply it is so 'pie in the sky', it is ridiculous. Archaeology has plenty of pomposity both inside and outside the IfA.....I for example in 33 years in archaeology have never described any site or find as 'the best' 'the greatest' 'the biggest' 'the longest' or as 'unique'. I guess that is pretty pompous....
I think Troll makes some very good points there.

There are some chips on shoulders that need to be brushed off methinks.
The whole IfA thing is a farce, many good archaeologists are denied entry at the grade they meet and many appalling or very inexperienced archaeologist are given top grade membership! How do they justify a fresh graduate with no commercial experience, just three years archaeological experience total and no responsibilities, except for supervising students being given AIFA and senior project managers etc being offered PIFA, they can't answer that question can they?
:o)
zephyr Wrote:The whole IfA thing is a farce, many good archaeologists are denied entry at the grade they meet and many appalling or very inexperienced archaeologist are given top grade membership! How do they justify a fresh graduate with no commercial experience, just three years archaeological experience total and no responsibilities, except for supervising students being given AIFA and senior project managers etc being offered PIFA, they can't answer that question can they?
:o)

given that the forum isnt privy to the findings and rationale of the validation commitee - you will have to provide your own details for the forum to pronounce uponSmile
zephyr Wrote:The whole IfA thing is a farce, many good archaeologists are denied entry at the grade they meet and many appalling or very inexperienced archaeologist are given top grade membership! How do they justify a fresh graduate with no commercial experience, just three years archaeological experience total and no responsibilities, except for supervising students being given AIFA and senior project managers etc being offered PIFA, they can't answer that question can they?
:o)
Well actually they do if you read the Applicants Handbook. There are a variety of evidences that are required to accompany membership application and applicants are given the opportunity through the accompanying personal statement to summarise their career achievements, level of responsibility etc. The Validation (Membership Applications) committee is made up of practising archaeologists. They can only judge based upon the evidence presented to them. There is also the Appeals committee for anyone who feels that their application has not been treated with due diligence


.
Dinosaur Wrote:Ah, but that would mean actually recognising them as a body legitimately representing the profession as a whole. If you want to see s***e work by ROs, just look on any planning website, which these days seem to conveniently publish a lot of grey lit reports (I'd guess more 'current' ones are available that way these days than on ADS)

Hi
Perhaps you would like to give us some examples of the s**t reports and where we can view them as they are public documents so you wouldn't be in breech of this forum's rules?
Haven't been saving the links but if I can find time at the weekend (don't hold your breath, drawback to working away Sad) and enough internet connection (dongles have their drawbacks!) I'm sure I can find you a few examples, no probs, have two in mind that I know are online if I can re-find them months later, sadly one corker I know unfortunately isn't on the interweb

- assuming BAJR allows?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10