21st November 2005, 02:51 PM
I think the key issue that is arising here is the extent to which progression through the IFA grades should depend on each of the following:
- your level of archaeological skill and knowledge;
- the level of responsibility you have held within archaeological projects;
- your level of archaeological achievement, measured by reports etc.
The current system seems to be based principally on the last two, the implied principle being that you are not likely to reach higher levels of responsibility or achievement unless you have first reached a higher level of skill.
The existing approach tends to reflect that taken by other professional institutions. Many (such as the ICE) do require CPD records etc to show continuing improvement in skills and knowledge, but this is as well rather than instead of the responsibility/achievement strands.
To determine what is the best approach, you have to decide what the different grades of membership are actually for. I believe that their key purpose is to enable curators and clients to identify those who have demonstrated the ability to run a project (or a significant component of a project, such as a specialist study) and bring it to a successful conclusion in the form of a report and archive (whether it does this well is a different question). This argues for a responsibility/achievement-based approach, rather than a skills-based approach. (note - I have deliberately based this on what I think the grades are for, without looking at what the IFA says they are for; it is a personal view).
One possible solution would be to introduce two separate strands of membership, using different titles. Both would start at PIFA. Someone who wanted to progress by a skills-based route could follow a route through (say) 'Professional Field Archaeologist' (=equivalent to AIFA) and 'Expert Field Archaeologist' (=equivalent to MIFA. The other strand would be responsibility-based, using the existing titles.
Just an idea, and it could perhaps use some work, but it would meet both sets of needs. It would not be elitist, because it would explicitly recognise the equivalence between grades on the two strands, and there would be nothing to stop people from pursuing both.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
- your level of archaeological skill and knowledge;
- the level of responsibility you have held within archaeological projects;
- your level of archaeological achievement, measured by reports etc.
The current system seems to be based principally on the last two, the implied principle being that you are not likely to reach higher levels of responsibility or achievement unless you have first reached a higher level of skill.
The existing approach tends to reflect that taken by other professional institutions. Many (such as the ICE) do require CPD records etc to show continuing improvement in skills and knowledge, but this is as well rather than instead of the responsibility/achievement strands.
To determine what is the best approach, you have to decide what the different grades of membership are actually for. I believe that their key purpose is to enable curators and clients to identify those who have demonstrated the ability to run a project (or a significant component of a project, such as a specialist study) and bring it to a successful conclusion in the form of a report and archive (whether it does this well is a different question). This argues for a responsibility/achievement-based approach, rather than a skills-based approach. (note - I have deliberately based this on what I think the grades are for, without looking at what the IFA says they are for; it is a personal view).
One possible solution would be to introduce two separate strands of membership, using different titles. Both would start at PIFA. Someone who wanted to progress by a skills-based route could follow a route through (say) 'Professional Field Archaeologist' (=equivalent to AIFA) and 'Expert Field Archaeologist' (=equivalent to MIFA. The other strand would be responsibility-based, using the existing titles.
Just an idea, and it could perhaps use some work, but it would meet both sets of needs. It would not be elitist, because it would explicitly recognise the equivalence between grades on the two strands, and there would be nothing to stop people from pursuing both.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished