New IFA guide to Discipline

[BAJR Host]

Considering the page 6 article in the Archaeologist (email me if you want to see it) this is the place for comments... constructive, destructive or instructive }

[troll]

Hang about-think I should have a fag first

[troll]

My first impressions...the document says nothing about maintaining standards. The document aims to "silence" the critics-not improve the standards in commercial archaeology. Whats an "honorary legal advisor"? Who were the "professional associations research network"? The IFA question their own credibility.They also admit to taking action only three times in twenty years.They relinquish responsibility for standards and expect archaeologists in the field to lose their jobs by instigating investigations. Have`nt we seen enough "non-binding recommendations"?:face-confused:There is also and, critically, no data at all linked to standards. For twenty years, IFA members, students and non-members have been telling the IFA that its not working.This strongly suggests that they have just consistantly dismissed allegations as "rants in the pub" without even looking.For twenty years.How much is that in subscriptions?}

[Oxbeast]

Is there a link to the article?

[BAJR Host]

send an email to info@bajr.org and i will send you the text
this evening
}
bajr

[Pedant]

On a related note, the grapevine suggested a look at the list of RAOs on the IFA website - there is now no unit between Archaeological Services and Consulting Ltd, and Archaeology South-East, where once there was the name of a well-known unit which changed its name not so long ago.
No other information - so have they removed themselves voluntarily, or been removed by the IFA?[:0]

[the invisible man]

What strikes me, from the "proposals for reform" article, is the preoccupation with contractual matters. There is talk of "winning" parties (and by implication therefore of "losing" parties), attempts to "resolve the issue", compensation "not exceeding ?2000".

The assumption seems to be that all complaints concern matters that can be redressed by negotiation and compensation, therefor, complaints are about loss of profit. There seems to be little or no attempt to address issues of [u]professional</u> malpractice, or damage to archaeology e.g. machining through unrecorded contexts. There would be no complaint as there is no monetary loss. Similarly, damage to diggers has no obvious recouse other than by conventional employment law!

Secondly, complaints or disputes deemed to be "petty and vindictive" are dismissed. So who decides? Remember the "Winslow Boy"? Obviously one has to be sensible here, but I detect a whiff of a patronising "we know best, run along" attitude.

[troll]

Invisible- As you have written extensively on the subject, how would you feel about writing something for the public? An open appraisal of the way things are is well overdue. Much of the diatribe here is inspired by a clearly bent, skewed, hypocritical, arrogant and profit-motivated system.The new IFA moves are openly designed to "silence the critics" and no more. Unfortunately, the "critics" in this case are those in the profession. The IFA have silenced us for 20 years and, largely due to a pandemic fear of legal implications, the system survives intact.Clever is`nt it? It`s bad enough that the results of commercial archaeology are lining the shelves of SMRs around the country written in archaeo-speak. Deny the public (and academic archaeologists) open and clear access to the results of commercial endeavour and, ignorance en masse, becomes the systems greatest asset.Those responsible for the crisis in British archaeology can rest assured that the mass of professionals will say nothing and that the public are blissfully ignorant.

[the invisible man]

Troll, I am the public!

Such a piece of work would have to be properly researched of course, with as many examples of bad and mediocre practice as possible, avoiding, as far as posibble, anecdotal stuff. It should also appraise the extent of good practice.

I would think that this would best be carried out by someone with more direct experience of the commercial sphere than me (although there could be an argument that an outsider's view would be more credible and objective). Hmm, maybe a PhD subject.......

I wondered if Rescue might be the boys and girls to do it, it strikes me as being right up their street? Maybe we should see how many hits there are on the BAJR hotline?

(Don't want to be personal but there seems to a whiff of Establishment creeping into Rescue in recent years....but I digress).

[BAJR Host]

As you see... people do look at it...

so far 7 actual complaints... all passed on to relevant person...
BAJR does not get involved in the investigation... only teh pasing of info - once the id of person has been verified. thats what lets people make the complaint in the first place.

Quite often the thing is dealt with quickly and the person who highlted teh prob is told what happened.

Date -- Hits

01 February 2005 7
02 February 2005 8
03 February 2005 2
04 February 2005 8
05 February 2005 4
06 February 2005 4
07 February 2005 5
08 February 2005 11
09 February 2005 4
10 February 2005 8
11 February 2005 7
12 February 2005 6
13 February 2005 7
14 February 2005 11
15 February 2005 6
16 February 2005 9
17 February 2005 7
18 February 2005 3
19 February 2005 2
20 February 2005 1
21 February 2005 4
22 February 2005 5
23 February 2005 5
24 February 2005 4
25 February 2005 5
26 February 2005 1
27 February 2005 0
28 February 2005 4
01 March 2005 1
02 March 2005 3
03 March 2005 6
04 March 2005 4
05 March 2005 7
06 March 2005 2
07 March 2005 4