27th October 2008, 04:43 PM
The IfA's suggested time commitment is 50 hours over two years, so that's rather less than RIBA's 35 hours per year. I'm going to have to say this again, but CPD is not just a jargon word for 'all the training you get in a year', it's a bit more focused than that. So your employer may require you to attend some training course, but if the topic is not part of your Personal Development Plan, then it's not part of your CPD.
gorilla wrote:
Oxbeast wrote:
Hal Dalwood
Bad archaeologist, worse husband
gorilla wrote:
Quote:quote:One question I've asked myself is... just how many units / organisations actually want an fully-empowered, fully-trained, fully-geared up workforce? If you give someone too much information (education), they'll start to ask questions.That's a good question. But for what it's worth, I believe that a fully-empowered (etc.) workforce is highly desirable for a field archaeology unit/organisation, because of the essentially unpredicatable and ultimately unique nature of all archaeological sites. More broadly, I would say it is in the DNA of archaeology to be asking questions all the time. Archaeologists need the tools to frame better questions, and that's why everyone should continue to develop their own knowledge and understanding throughout their careers.
Oxbeast wrote:
Quote:quote: I am sceptical about Local authority CPD schemes in general I'm afraid Hal.Fair enough. Employers are bound to be interested in employees undertaking training that they will put into practice in that organisation in the futre. So a local authority in the midlands without a coastline would probably not be supportive about funding a training course in maritime archaeology. But a local authority employer would not just be focused on their employees getting trained in skills that relate to their present posts: they should support training for an excavator (for example) whose goal is to work as an HER officer.
Hal Dalwood
Bad archaeologist, worse husband