>I have been following the SOPA-ROPA "debate" for a while and I have a few
>comments that really have not been expressed to date.  Why do we need SOPA
>anyway?  I agree with its goals and generally think that it has good
>intentions.
>
> But I have seen the negative effects of an organization like SOPA.  I think
>that SOPA gets abused by those who feel insecure with their abilities or who
>feel the need to put initials next to their name as some kind of verification.
>SOPA is being used as a shield for poor archaeology in some cases.
>Anybody with
>
>a masters or above can be SOPA certified regardless of the quality of their
>work.  Anybody can be certified in Historical Archaeology, as long as they have
>some connection to a historical archaeology project, it is irrelevant whether
>that person knows anything about it.  The way that SOPA, soon to be ROPA, is
>set-up discourages grievances or periodic quality control.  Apparently,
>"professional" means give us money and you get our stamp of approval.  This
>follows the trend of organizations in many fields and occupations that have no
>quality control, but use their organization for verification of
>professionalism.
>
> I know that there are standards that must be met to be a member of SOPA, but I
>have seen some who have slipped between the cracks.  The standards are not
>stringent enough to ensure quality.  There should be periodic reviews of
>members
>
>to ensure that people are up to date on current methods, theory, and
>specialties.  There should be specific certifications for specialties,
>that have
>
>rigorous standards.  The organization should not be a once your in, your in for
>life kind of deal.  When someone puts those initials next to their name, it
>should really mean something.  If we are to have a professional
>organization, it
>
>should have teeth.  People should know that it means the highest quality of
>professional archaeologist.  Anything less is damaging to that organization and
>the field of archaeology.  It provides a place for those who are not up to
>snuff, to hide and gain credibility.  We would be better off with no
>professional organization, the way things are now.
>
>As things stand now, SOPA nor ROPA does not ensure the quality of its members
>and I want no part of it.  While most members of the organization are
>professional archaeologists in the true sense of the word, there are some,
>perhaps many, who prefer to take the easy way to verification by putting those
>initials next to their name.  Those who do that only damage the names of those
>who deservingly put those initials next to their name.  Archaeologists
>should be
>
>judged on the quality of their work on an individual basis, not on whether they
>have SOPA or ROPA next to their name.
>
>
>M. Jay Stottman
 
===================
 
In response to Jay Stottman:
 
As co-chair of the SAA-SHA-AIA Task Force on ROPA, I'd like to comment on
the philosophy that underlies SOPA (and that would form the basis for
ROPA).  Most professions have some type of certification system that
provides a way of sanctioning individuals who display grossly
unprofessional conduct.   Many of these systems are also heavily loaded
toward regulating entry into the profession.   This is usually accomplished
by rigorous testing, and those who are certified are often then required to
take additional prescribed coursework or training from time to time in
order to maintain certification.  The founders of SOPA thought that the
field of archaeology was too diverse--both intellectually and
methodologically--for a testing-based approach to be appropriate for entry
requirements.    Instead, they focused on  demonstrating basic educational
achievement and appropriate experience as the entry-level requirement.
The main emphasis of SOPA-ROPA is therefore not on entry requirements, but
on  professional performance itself.  Hence, a code of ethics and standards
for research performance  were established, plus a peer-based mechanism to
provide sanctions in cases where professional performance could be
determined to have fallen short of the standards.
 
The central goal of SOPA/ROPA is public accountability.  By becoming RPAs,
professionals agree to be held accountable for upholding an ethical code
and research standards.  The accountability is ensured by their agreement
to participate in a grievance process if there is a credible challenge to
their ethical or research performance, and to accept sanctions if the
peer-based grievance panel determines they acted in an unprofessional
manner.
 
What is important about this is that it provides a mechanism through which
a member of the public, or a client, or another archaeologist, can ask that
the actions of an RPA be reviewed by a panel composed of other professional
archaeologists.  There are checks and balances to weed out petty,
unfounded, or "political" complaints.   But what this does is provide
professional archaeologists with a way to do more than just talk about
standards and ethics--it provides an actual mechanism by which
professionals can police their own community.  If an RPA has in fact
misrepresented his or her qualifications, or has made a major ethical
transgression, etc., those who are concerned about it can file a complaint
through ROPA.
 
ROPA is designed to "build a floor" under professionalism in archaeology
and to ensure that legitimate complaints are heard.  It is not designed to
ensure that everybody learned what they should have learned in school or
that they will always keep up with the literature.  It will not
automatically and painlessly identify and root out all substandard work.
It will not accomplish its goal if those who are concerned about violations
of ethics and standards only complain to each other and never use ROPA's
mechanisms for having peers investigate such violations.   But it does
provide an established, concrete structure and mechanism for promoting
professional standards and public accountability among archaeologists.  As
I see it, the alternatives are for archaeologists to do nothing while
continuing to complain about the problems (or hear the public complain
about them), or to start from scratch to build some different kind of
certification and grievance system.  I do not see any evidence of the
latter within SAA or SHA, although there is discussion in some states about
developing state-based licensing or certification procedures.   I think
that ROPA is based on sound principles appropriate to the archaeological
profession, and that we should give it a try.    If a majority of
practicing professionals are willing to become RPAs, it will make possible
further improvements in ROPA's effectiveness.
 
Bill Lipe
 
 
================