Susan Lawrence asks why members of SHA who do not work in the United
States should help support ROPA, which she believes is designed primarily
to promote professionalism in U.S. context. This is a good question, and as
a co-chair of the ROPA task force, I'd like to respond.
 
First, the SOPA/ROPA code of ethics, and standards of research performance
are not intended to apply just to the U.S. They are intended to be
applicable to archaeologists working anywhere. This has been been
recognized, for example, by the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA),
which has had representation in SOPA from its very beginning, and which was
also represented on the task force which came up with the current proposal
for ROPA. Most of AIA's professional members, of course, do their fieldwork
outside of North America. If SAA and SHA both approve the sponsorship of
ROPA, the AIA will vote on the proposal later in the year.  I would also
like to note that quite a few academically-employed archaeologists are
members of SOPA and would support ROPA, despite the general impression that
SOPA is primarily "for" CRM archaeologists.  On the contrary, I think that
there are just as many problems of professional standards and ethics that
stem from academic practice as from the CRM portion of the field.
 
Second, although the SOPA/ROPA grievance procedure as it currently stands
is probably best designed for a U.S. or at least North American context, it
could in principle apply to non-North American situations as well. It must
be kept in mind that ROPA would start on the basis of the existing SOPA
structure, but that it can change and evolve to meet the needs and concerns
of the profession. Should the RPAs and the sponsoring societies (acting
through their representation on the ROPA board) desire to develop modified
or alternative procedures to meet the needs of archaeologists working
outside North America, the ROPA board would presumably attempt to address
the issues.  The task force recognized that it could not itself develop
ways of addressing these concerns as part of the proposal for forming ROPA.
This would currently be the responsibility of the SOPA board, and if ROPA
is formed, it will be a task for the ROPA board. With a broader base of
membership and of society support, however, the ROPA board is likely to
take up a broader range of issues, in response to the concerns of the RPAs
and the sponsoring societies.
 
Third, in carrying out their missions, societies such as the SAA and SHA
often undertake activities that benefit their members in various ways. For
example, even if conference registration fees pay the direct expenses of
putting on an annual meeting, additional time and money is often spent on
activities indirectly related to the meeting. Hence, it might be argued
that the members who do not attend the meeting are unfairly being asked to
subsidize those who do. The argument for holding annual meetings with
modest registration fees is that the exchange of information that such
meetings promote is of benefit to the membership of the society at large,
whether all attend a particular meeting or not, and that this exchange and
dissemination of information is also part of the overall mission of the
society. In the case we are discussing here, I would make the argument that
supporting and promoting professionalism in archaeology is of general
benefit to the membership of SHA.
 
If that argument is accepted, then the questions become whether ROPA will
in fact be effective in promoting professionalism, and whether sponsoring
ROPA would in fact be the most cost-effective way for SHA to promote
professionalism.  On the cost-benefit question, it certainly seems likely
that it would be less costly for SHA to sponsor ROPA than it would be for
SHA to set up its own credentialing and grievance procedure.  (Keep in mind
that the great majority of the costs of operating ROPA will be borne by the
RPAs themselves, not by the sponsoring organizations).  But perhaps there
are other realistic, proactive ways for SHA, SAA, etc. to accomplish the
goal that are even less expensive.  If this is the case, are proposals for
these also on the table so their relative merits can be discussed?  On the
main question--will the formation of ROPA in fact promote wider acceptance
and adherance to professional standards--I think the answer is yes, if a
positive vote by both SAA and SHA allows ROPA to be formed, and if a
significantly large number of professional archaeologists then decide to
become RPAs.
 
I know that many reasonable questions can be raised about the ROPA
proposal, and that even if   ROPA comes about, it will not solve all our
problems that are related to standards and ethics.  The ROPA task force
believed, however, that the main archaeological societies should take a
more proactive stance on professionalism, and that it would be better for
these societies to build on the strengths and experience of an existing
20-year-old organization--SOPA--than to start over from scratch, or to
continue to do nothing.
 
Bill Lipe
 
====================
 
 
>>For those of us who belong to the Society of Historical Archaeology,
>>there is currently a heated discussion about joining with SOPA (Society
>>of Professional Archaeologists) and SAA (Society for American
>>Archaeology) to establish ROPA (Registry of Professional Archaeologists).
>>The proposal is contained in the March SHA NEWSLETTER, and the vote will
>>be in December.
 
 
>Hi Anita
 
>I'll take you up on this one! As an historical archaeologist teaching at
>university level in Australia, I am very concerned about professional
>standards and fully support initiatives like ROPA. I am an associate
>member of an equivalent organisation here, the Australian Association of
>Consulting Archaeologists, and am also involved in moves to organise a
>more broadly-based professional body here in the state of Victoria, the
>Australian Institute of Professional Archaeologists. However, as a life
>member of SHA, I have reservations about the current proposal. At a time
>when SHA and the journal, HA, are making a number of moves aimed at
>increasing international membership and dialogue, I find it peculiar that
>we are also considering a proposal that will see all members having to
>support an external organisation that is only of benefit and relevance to
>those working in the United States. I know that the SHA is largely an
>American organisation which undertakes many initiatives on behalf of its
>American membership, eg political lobbying, educational programs etc.,
>which is fair enough. The ROPA proposal however will see us making a
>long-term financial commitment to an organisation which does not represent
>the interests of myself or the many other members of the SHA who do not
>work in the United States. Bob Schuyler presented a statistical breakdown
>of SOPA membership of other organisations - what is the statistical
>breakdown of the membership of SHA which is not American, let alone the
>avocational component who could not join ROPA anyway?
 
>In my opinion, support for ROPA should be voluntary for those to whom it
>is relevant, rather than compulsorary for all of us.
 
>Dr Susan Lawrence
>Department of Archaeology
>La Trobe University
>Bundoora, Victoria
>Australia 3083
 
>ph 03 9479 1790
>fax 03 9479 1881