6th October 2008, 04:56 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
It is true what Old Girls says... - However (you knew it was coming)
Standards and Guidance ....
These are not definitive... they are ... Guidance. ei up for interpretation and argument (and I have had such things, where the Guidance is interpreted in different ways) --- unlike this document which is : Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard (https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/.../1887/9858)
RAOs (as you say... not perfect... and to some RAOs it is just because, rather than a belief...
Groups... yup, we have groups... but we could have groups without the IFA... same goes for publications... etc etc...
CWPA - great... but again, this is not just the IFA... and what has actually been achieved... there are words about
monitoring health and safety issues
OR
long running issue of pay and conditions
But what has actually, physically been achieved... (the long running pay and conditions thing - we are all involved in that)
What I was looking for was hard solid achievements... ie
19xx... created a universally accepted pay structure
199x ... ensured that a clear career progression was in place (with defined roles, duties etc)
200x ... etc etc
This is the sort of meat people want to know... seeing that joining is worth it... for them, the profession and the general heritage industry..
No offense to working parties (hey I was on them too) but soon after a working party finishes... there should be a result.
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
S&G - There are two parts, standard and guidance. There is a standard and then guidance on how that applies. Plus (and you knew I would say it back }
) they only apply to members. (Which is why the code of conduct is proposed to be changed from 'the archaeologist' to 'the member' in the latest AGM papers) And yes, they are open to interpretation. But that should be the interpretation of the whole membership. If there are problems with some of them, perhaps there should be a carefully worded amendment prepared? And if someone who isn't a member wants to suggest something, I'm sure those that are would consider putting it forward!RAO - was set up originally to be a peer reviewed/peer pressure system with support and assitance to help organisations improve. It may have been naive to assume the best of motives rather than the worst, but some organisations (particularly then) are run by people who are archaeologsts first and managers/accountants/HR people second. When the system was first set up, the biggest hurdle that had to be got over was the complete paranoia on the part of most archaeologists about anyone else 'stealing' their designs/recording systems etc! the RAOs have actually worked hard to improve the overall standard of archaeological work and pay and conditions etc, even though this has sailed a bit close to the wind with the overall remit of the group! Remeber, no organisation HAS to be an RAO.
True on groups etc, but the whole membership of IFA funds these groups, not just the group itself. And I didn't see many of them before hand......
CWPA - true, many things have been done in co-operation..... er, just how is that not a good thing?
On the specific things you mention, like I've said before, IFA is not a trade union. I can remember them talking about facilitating contact between SCAUM and Prospect quite a few years ago. IFA got it started, handed it over..... dead. At least they tried and keep trying!
It sounds like, on the whole, its the fact that it takes too long for working parties etc to report and then the organisation to act that many people find frustrating, so maybe that's why those of us that are a bit older (!) are slightly more positive? I have seen major improvements in the last 20 years. e.g. APPAG (all party parliamentary action group) - no-one would ever have thought 20 years ago that archaeology would warrant a parliamentary group.
Another example - National Occupational Standards. I'll be honest, I was involved in one of the pilot studies. I thought this one had died and I also struggled to see how (other than in a very limited sense) these were going to be of use to archaeologists. But now they are informing peoples career development, assisting in moving IFAs Validation Committee towards a more competence based system and allowing access to training and funding that wasn't there before.
Now, to be fair, these are just off the top of my head and I'm sure there are many better examples of this. The biggest problem is trying to get across that if this is a 'what's in it for me presonally right now' question, then you're going to get a better answer from a trade union. But a professional body is something different.