27th November 2008, 11:58 AM
I'm not so sure about restriction/reform meaning that individual membership of the IfA is required.
I think standards in commercial archaeology can be maintained or raised through a number of different channels:
IfA- RAOs and individual membership
Curators- monitoring the standard of archaeological work.
I know that curators have a lot on their plate, but ALGAO could have a strong role in ensuring that curators in different areas of the country do not come under increasing pressure to reduce archaeological conditions on planning applications due to pressure from non-archaeologists (the "if you put conditions on this application it'll cost jobs" argument).
Like it or loathe it, I'd expect the IfA over any other organisation to provide leadership on the issue of raising/maintaining standards. The more means it has to enforce standards the more likely it is that standards will be maintained. Unofficial or official government recognition of the IfA as the professional body for archaeologists, mandatory RO status and possibly individual membership would all be ways in which the IfA's authority could be beefed up.
Individual companies need to stay competitive. Government agencies cannot fill the gap. Groups of companies cannot collude. Curators are concerned with the standard of archaeological work undertaken, but have other pressures and local areas of responsibility.
I think standards in commercial archaeology can be maintained or raised through a number of different channels:
IfA- RAOs and individual membership
Curators- monitoring the standard of archaeological work.
I know that curators have a lot on their plate, but ALGAO could have a strong role in ensuring that curators in different areas of the country do not come under increasing pressure to reduce archaeological conditions on planning applications due to pressure from non-archaeologists (the "if you put conditions on this application it'll cost jobs" argument).
Like it or loathe it, I'd expect the IfA over any other organisation to provide leadership on the issue of raising/maintaining standards. The more means it has to enforce standards the more likely it is that standards will be maintained. Unofficial or official government recognition of the IfA as the professional body for archaeologists, mandatory RO status and possibly individual membership would all be ways in which the IfA's authority could be beefed up.
Individual companies need to stay competitive. Government agencies cannot fill the gap. Groups of companies cannot collude. Curators are concerned with the standard of archaeological work undertaken, but have other pressures and local areas of responsibility.