I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA.

[gonetopot]

The trialling of the CPD system developed by the IFA was announced at the AGM. Many will already be familiar with parts of it from what is available on their website. It is an important addition and is expected to be made mandatory for RAOs (or ROs) at the 2009 AGM (the IFA currently asks for a voluntary commitment to CPD). However for those with a developed programme of CPD already such at through the CIB or Investors in People this is really just an exercise in catch up and isnt quite as revolutionary as the IFA sometimes makes out.

[BAJR Host]

Thanks Paul... and I do agree with the main main thrust.. I also think that the IFA has a bit more need to communicate outside the box... I would be happy to offer the IFA section again, invitations welcome... I would even be happy to go to their site on a semi regular basis and take the news.... thus saving them the time and trouble (though it would be good if they saw - and where possible responded to comment)

Oxbeast, a further fragmentation is indeed counter productive,

----- advocacy, training, building partnerships and promoting the profession --- perhaps the IFA would stand with me and implement the recommendations of the benchmarking... we do have to back words with action.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Hal Dalwood]

The adoption of the new trading name 'Institute for Archaeologists' (IfA) was voted on by all the members present at the AGM last Wednesday (supported by a lot of proxy votes), together with the strapline 'A professional institute for the study and care of the historic environment'. The reasons for a name change have been debated by members for some time, and go to the heart of the type of professional institute that the IfA wants to become - that it should become. This idea was embraced by the members who voted for the change. Other resolutions were then passed which made changes to IfA documentation (such as the Code of Conduct) to reflect the same idea: that the IfA is not just for Field Archaeologists.

I identify myself as 'a field archaeologist' and I support the changes that have been implemented.


Hal Dalwood

[Unitof1]

I bet you do

[BAJR Host]

I still class myself as a Field Archaeologist - as I still work in the field and use tools

I am interested in where the definition ends... I was talking with a friend the other month, who still classes himself as a field archaeologist, but only gets to hold a trowel 2 weeks a year (on a community project) the rest of the time he Project Manages.. so his field is mainly a desk with paper piled high. Their is indeed a case for changing the name, one I support as well.. I remember the debate in COuncil.. The name change is more inclusive... and allows for expansion... what must be seen now is not just a name change, but a gear change.. Go get em!

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Paul Belford]

I am in the same category as your friend. I suspect Hal is as well, although I cannot speak for him. But I am still happy to be a 'field archaeologist'; happier still to be part of the broader church of 'archaeologists'.

However Unitof1 is being too narrow in his definitions. There are many 'field' archaeologists who do not use a trowel - people out in all weathers doing geophysics, environmental sampling, landscape survey and so-on. There are also many archaeologists who make equally valuable contributions to the study of past societies without using a trowel.

As Hosty says - the point is to inclusive, not exclusive.

[Unitof1]

quote:I am interested in where the definition ends

15/10/2008 The field archaeologist is dead.
Long live the archaeologist.
No trowel required.

[gorilla]

From previous messages of mine (BAJR Forum) it would appear that I am anti-IFA. I'm not. I think a recognised, accountable and supportive organisation is necessary (nay essential) for professional archaeology is to advance.

I just wish it had the nouce to actually act on the things that are wrong with archaeology at the moment (and have been for some time). See the threads on self-employment, taxable accomodation and, yes that old chesnut, poor wages and conditions.

Yet, we have a loose agglomeration of like minded individuals who have spent months (years?) navel-gazing over just what to call itself...

'Field Archaeologist?' Nope, too restrictive, because not everyone is out in the field.

'Heritage professional?' Nope, can't have that because it's too broad-brush." (anyway, if people wanted to be a 'Heritage Professional', they might go and join the Museums Association which has much more going for it than we do (and a fair bit cheaper)).

Anyway, now the name has finally been decided... perhaps should now spend a few months debating what new, juicy corporate design logo we should use. And, of course, re-configuring all the new letter-heads that will entail (you see, yer fees and dues are actually well spent).

The actual essence of what we are (errr... archaeologists) and how we conduct ourselves are the overriding, most important things. The IFA, IfA, real IFA, sweet FA or whatever we finally decide, is [u]not</u> English (Scottish, Welsh... whatever) Heritage... leave all the corporate functions, Stonehenge Visitor Attractor, dressing up as Henry VIII (hey nonny) and Best Value Performance whatnots to them. We are British Archaeologists... we should be proud and loud about it. We should also state the fact that we are just 'archaeologist'.

I count myself as an archaeologist (I have done for the past 28 years, in whatever guise... from digger to curator). I [u]want</u> to be part of an organisation that is representative of all sectors of archaeology (note the non-use of the word 'heritage') from the bottom up. Sort out the base line first... the p*ss-poor conditions and wage structure for diggers and supervisors, then administer to (your?) the higher echelons. Actually admonish wrong-doers, miscreants and shysters... actually start policing yourself. If someone wants to whistle blow, let them be able to do it without them having the fear of reprisal and/or a tarnished name. Stop organisations using cheap, inexperienced or underqualified labour to do work (in the case of some university students... slave labour). Give adequate (financial) provision to courses and work-placements (I'm sorry, but the current IFA work-placement pay seems a pittance). Ensure that equal pay, promotion and advancement conditions are available to all (particularly, male and female).

In short... stop being a navel-gazing, gentlemans club and start being truly representative.

[Paul Belford]

Gorilla, no-one here could possibly argue with the idea of encouraging fair wages, career structures, adherence to standards, and training.

However this is exactly what the IfA is trying to achieve now, as best it can, given that archaeology is an unregulated unchartered profession and that membership (as individuals and organisations) is entirely voluntary. It has moved a long way from being a 'gentlemens club' which it may well have been in the 1980s. The only way that these processes will accelerate (and have accelerated so far) is by more people joining the IfA and working within the organisation to ensure that these aspects are actually delivered on the ground.

I presume therefore, that you are about to join the IfA (if you have not already done so) and get yourself onto Council to try and steer the organisation more swiftly in the directions you have outlined?

[Unitof1]

quote:British…… from digger to curator.

ah the bastion of the scoundrel
Interesting evolutionary progression.

quote:I presume therefore, that you are about to join the IfA (if you have not already done so) and get yourself onto Council to try and steer the organisation more swiftly in the directions you have outlined?

I hear the dambusters tune-fees paid for by the tax payer obviously