9th July 2009, 05:43 PM
[/quote]
Firstly, why does the voluntary sector have to convince the commercial sector of anything? Does anybody ask the academic sector to benchmark their fieldwork against commercial standards? 'Amateur' as well as academic archaeologists are already allowed to join the IfA and therefore accept the standards required; some 'professional' archaeologists are IfA members but work for non-RO companies who may or may not adhere to IfA standards and guidance. If there is no requirement for academics to benchmark the quality of their work against IfA standards why should there be that expectation for the voluntary sector? How many academic departments are RO's?
As I've mentioned before on this forum many local groups are involved in community heritage projects where archaeology is only one part of what they do and quite often only a small part at that. There are already national organisations where community groups can go for help and advice, the CBA has dedicated webpages for community activities, http://www.britarch.ac.uk/caf/wikka.php?wakka=HomePage and EH has Our Place, http://www.ourplacenetwork.org.uk/ ; what purpose would be served for community groups by becoming an RO when there are already so many other options open to them?
As part of my work with community groups in Gloucester I work with many diverse groups and as a result must have a firm grasp of issues relating to diversity, inclusivity and equalities; which IfA document could you point me towards that contains its policy on these issues? Does it have one?
[/quote]
Why does anyone have to convince anyone of anything? Why can't we all just go out digging holes willy-nilly and not leaving any record? Why can't we just undercut each other by using volunteers/poor employment terms and conditions? Why do any of us bother?
Everyone involved in archaeology needs some means of demonstrating their competance to everyone else, otherwise there is little point. That competance might be as basic as personal knowledge or prior reputation. Commercial work has attempted to set up schemes to make it a bit more organised hence things like RAOs. It's a start, and it's probably not very appropriate to volunteers/academics. Perhaps they should have their own system.
As for equality etc, I'm assuming employment law would cover this for the commercial sector (and there must be similar for academia) so why would the IfA need anything additional? (although they probably do anyway)
Firstly, why does the voluntary sector have to convince the commercial sector of anything? Does anybody ask the academic sector to benchmark their fieldwork against commercial standards? 'Amateur' as well as academic archaeologists are already allowed to join the IfA and therefore accept the standards required; some 'professional' archaeologists are IfA members but work for non-RO companies who may or may not adhere to IfA standards and guidance. If there is no requirement for academics to benchmark the quality of their work against IfA standards why should there be that expectation for the voluntary sector? How many academic departments are RO's?
As I've mentioned before on this forum many local groups are involved in community heritage projects where archaeology is only one part of what they do and quite often only a small part at that. There are already national organisations where community groups can go for help and advice, the CBA has dedicated webpages for community activities, http://www.britarch.ac.uk/caf/wikka.php?wakka=HomePage and EH has Our Place, http://www.ourplacenetwork.org.uk/ ; what purpose would be served for community groups by becoming an RO when there are already so many other options open to them?
As part of my work with community groups in Gloucester I work with many diverse groups and as a result must have a firm grasp of issues relating to diversity, inclusivity and equalities; which IfA document could you point me towards that contains its policy on these issues? Does it have one?
[/quote]
Why does anyone have to convince anyone of anything? Why can't we all just go out digging holes willy-nilly and not leaving any record? Why can't we just undercut each other by using volunteers/poor employment terms and conditions? Why do any of us bother?
Everyone involved in archaeology needs some means of demonstrating their competance to everyone else, otherwise there is little point. That competance might be as basic as personal knowledge or prior reputation. Commercial work has attempted to set up schemes to make it a bit more organised hence things like RAOs. It's a start, and it's probably not very appropriate to volunteers/academics. Perhaps they should have their own system.
As for equality etc, I'm assuming employment law would cover this for the commercial sector (and there must be similar for academia) so why would the IfA need anything additional? (although they probably do anyway)