On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:53:44, Linda Derry wrote (in part) :
 
>Bill Lipe,
>I've been listening in on the SOPA/ROPA discussion and have been very
>impressed by your well stated position.  You've just about won me over, but
>first I'd like to hear you address the issue Mary Ellin D'Agostino brought
>up in her August 13 entry about the narrow scope of the definition of
>archaeologists as a 'dirt' archaeologist. She referred to the:
>>>the long standing bias in archaeology that the dirt archaeologists are
>the only 'real' archaeologists while collections and document oriented work
>is devalued.  This is a particular problem for historical archaeologists
>who, presumably, focus a significant portion of their work on non-excavated
>materials.  Nor does it sit well with the recent discussion of the ethics
>of digging and destroying the non-renewable resource of the archaeological
>record as opposed to working on all those (already excavated) collections
>moldering in museum basements.<<
>Linda Derry
>[log in to unmask]
 
Response:
 
Mary Ellin D'Agostino and I corresponded on her questions about ROPA, and
we ended up doing a point-counterpoint discussion that will be published in
the September issue of the SAA Bulletin.  As I recall, her part of it
followed fairly closely  what she had earlier posted on the SHA and Arch-L
lists (unless you are referring to a more recent posting that I have
missed). Here is what I came up with:
 
=========
 
D'Agostino expresses two concerns with the ROPA proposal: 1) that the
criteria for qualifying as an RPA do not provide for archaeologists whose
principal experience has been in the laboratory, rather than in the field,
and there is no assurance that ROPA will provide access to such
professionals in the future; and 2) that the published commentary on ROPA
in the SAA Bulletin (see Lipe and Kintigh 1997 and additional references
cited therein) has not sufficiently aired the possible negative aspects of
the proposal.   The issues she raises are important, and I will attempt to
address each in turn.
 
In the meetings of the ROPA task force, there was considerable discussion
of the importance of making RPA status available to a broader range of
professionals than are currently covered by the SOPA entry requirements.
This issue was initially raised by the representatives of the
Archaeological Institute of America, but there was general agreement that
it was an important concern.  However, the task force also felt that the
only practical way to accomplish a transition from SOPA into ROPA was to
use the existing structure of the former as the basis for the establishment
of the latter , and to leave the future evolution of eligibility
requirements, code of ethics and research standards, etc. to the ROPA
board, which is charged with the responsibility for such matters.   Hence,
the proposed ROPA eligibility requirements have been modified in only a few
details from those currently maintained by SOPA.   The task force did not
feel that it would be appropriate to recommend substantial changes in the
existing SOPA requirements, which have been established by the SOPA board,
nor did it feel that it should tie the hands of the future ROPA board.
Furthermore, it seemed likely that many members of SOPA would have opposed
the transition to ROPA if this required substantial departures from the
existing structure of SOPA.
 
It must be kept in mind that neither SOPA nor ROPA is a component of SAA,
SHA, or AIA--the proposed sponsors.  SOPA and its potential successor,
ROPA, are separate entities, with their own governing boards.  The
appointed ROPA task force is not an appropriate body for developing policy
for either SOPA or ROPA; its job has been to propose a way of establishing
the latter on the basis of the former.  If ROPA is established, each
sponsoring organization will have influence on its board through their
appointment of a board member, but that member will also have to be an RPA.
Given the the importance of the issue of how non-field-oriented
professional archaeologists might become qualified RPAs, and the discussion
that this point has received, it seems virtually certain that the new ROPA
board would make consideration of this matter an early item of business.
 
With regard to the discussions of the ROPA proposal that have appeared in
the SAA Bulletin, the SAA representatives on the task force saw their
responsibility primarily as keeping the membership fully informed about
what was happening and about the nature of the  ROPA proposal. Five
articles were published in the Bulletin over a period of more than two
years  and an open forum on the proposal was held at the annual meeting in
New Orleans in 1996.  The question and answer segments in Lipe and Kintigh
(1997) and McGimsey et al. (1995) were derived from discussions that took
place when SOPA was first formed in the mid-1970s, from the 1996 New
Orleans forum, and from suggestions by task force members.   It was
anticipated that if SAA members wished to further analyze or criticize the
ROPA proposal, or if they wished to raise further questions or concerns,
they would submit their comments to the SAA Bulletin.   D'Agostino has done
just that.   I believe that exchanges of this sort are useful in helping
the membership understand the proposal and decide how they wish to vote on
it in the very near future.
 
Given the abundant and vocal controversy that the proposal for professional
certification under SAA and the eventual formation of SOPA inspired in the
mid-1970s, I personally have been surprised that so few comments on the
ROPA proposal have been sent to the Bulletin in response to the articles by
myself and other task force representatives.  SAA officers have also
received few letters about it.  I hope this means that the information
presented has been adequate to allow members to make up their minds about
how to vote on the proposal.
 
==========
 
Bill Lipe