7th November 2006, 02:00 PM
You could look at accountability at several levels.
Generally speaking, archaeologists are directly accountable for individual pieces of work to whoever is paying - usually a developer client.
The developer client is accountable to a public body - usually the planning authority, who are advised by the curatorial archaeologists.
If the work is not done to spec, or in some other way does not meet professional standards, and if the planning authority is willing to back-up the curator, then they may take action against the developer. If the developer suffers as a result, they can seek redress from the archaeological contractor under the terms of the contract, as long as the fault is a breach of the terms of the contract. If the fault was a result of bad advice from a consultant, then the consultant could face a Professional Indemnity claim.
The only way the curator or planning authority can take action directly against the archaeological contractor is to try to prevent them from working within their jurisdiction again - but their powers to do so are very limited.
The whole thing is backed up by an accepted code of ethical behaviour amongst archaeologists. However, there is no system to enforce this, unless the archaeologists are members of the IFA or the organisation is an RAO, in which case the IFA have some disciplinary powers.
Not a strong system of accountability at all, and many of us do want it to be strengthened. My own preferred model for this is for the IFA to become a Chartered institute, and for the title 'archaeologist' to become a controlled title that can only be used by individuals endorsed by the IFA.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Generally speaking, archaeologists are directly accountable for individual pieces of work to whoever is paying - usually a developer client.
The developer client is accountable to a public body - usually the planning authority, who are advised by the curatorial archaeologists.
If the work is not done to spec, or in some other way does not meet professional standards, and if the planning authority is willing to back-up the curator, then they may take action against the developer. If the developer suffers as a result, they can seek redress from the archaeological contractor under the terms of the contract, as long as the fault is a breach of the terms of the contract. If the fault was a result of bad advice from a consultant, then the consultant could face a Professional Indemnity claim.
The only way the curator or planning authority can take action directly against the archaeological contractor is to try to prevent them from working within their jurisdiction again - but their powers to do so are very limited.
The whole thing is backed up by an accepted code of ethical behaviour amongst archaeologists. However, there is no system to enforce this, unless the archaeologists are members of the IFA or the organisation is an RAO, in which case the IFA have some disciplinary powers.
Not a strong system of accountability at all, and many of us do want it to be strengthened. My own preferred model for this is for the IFA to become a Chartered institute, and for the title 'archaeologist' to become a controlled title that can only be used by individuals endorsed by the IFA.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished