9th July 2009, 10:04 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Agreed Mr Wooldridge sire.....its the monitoring and peer assessment phases that require an overhaul in order to bring the RAO scheme to the forefront. The RAO scheme in itself is a good step in the right direction but (as in all things IFA), high professional standards require a more vociferous monitoring regime-particularly in a competitive environment.
Would it be enough for Trainees and volunteers to simply agree to follow IFA guidelines? There are many non-IFA commercial units and individuals who simply state their acceptance of these guidelines in their documentation and this seems to be acceptable to many Curators.
Of course, a universal acceptance of professional standards across the board is the ideal. I will stick my neck out on this and say that I believe that acceptance of professional standards should be a requirement for all archaeologists working in the UK. It should in fact, be a legally binding requirement. This would only really bear fruit if said standards were monitored efficiently though.:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
This is probably straying from the topic a little (and I've seen what happens if you do that!) but it is possible for an organisation to not be an RAO but for most of its members to be in the IfA. In fact, for a small organisation, it would make more sense economically to pay for all your staff to join individually. However, you can't then stick the nice RAO logo on your website/letters. If an organisation is an RAO what proportion of its staff actually have to be in the IfA - from previous experience it appears to be virtually none, and yet they get the shiny logo. Hmmm.
Could the IfA perhaps have an offical logo for smaller organisations that says 'not an RAO, but all of our staff are members'. Might encourage more to join. Sorry, as you were...