In response to Geoff Carver (below)
It is not an easy matter for state agencies to set up a registry that
evaluates professionals in terms of their qualifications or past
performance. Obviously, being included on or excluded from such a list has
the potential to affect income and livelihood for the professionals in
question, be they archaeologists, lawyers, barbers, pharmacists, etc.
Affecting someone's livelihood is heavy business and makes a lot of work
for lawyers and the courts. If states are going to get into this kind of
thing in a serious way, it ordinarily requires the state legislature to
establish by statute an appointed board or committee that then does the
work of setting up and running a formal licensing or certification system.
Systems of this sort ordinarily involve prescribed academic and
professional training, tests of competency, required continuing education,
and some kind of process to adjudicate citizen complaints of malpractice,
malfeasance, etc. Not a simple thing, but many states do this for many
kinds of profession. To my knowledge, no states have a fully-developed
certification system like this for archaeology, however, and I am not sure
that it would be a good thing if states developed such systems.
Some professions also establish their own certification systems independent
of state control, and most states are willing to let those who inquire know
who has and has not been certified by the independent professional
organization, or at least to refer the inquirer to such an organization.
Some states may be able to legally use certification by an outside
professional organization as evidence of professional qualification.
However, states ordinarily are not legally able to require someone to join
or be evaluated by a non-state organization in order to demonstrate their
qualifications, i.e., the option of demonstrating qualifications in some
other way would need to be left open.
In archaeology, ROPA will be an attempt to establish a non-state,
professionally run system for identifying professional archaeologists, and
for addressing complaints about violations of professional ethics and
standards. It is hoped that SHPOs--whatever they do with their own lists
of professionals archaeologists-- will also be willing to refer inquiries
about professionals and professional behavior to the ROPA central office.
The essence of the ROPA approach (which of course is based on the practice
of SOPA) was described very well recently on this list by Vergil Noble. I
hope Vergil will not mind my providing a copy of those comments below.
I would also urge that you take a look at recent articles in the SAA
Bulletin (and at one in the forthcoming March Bulletin) for further
information on what ROPA is and how it will work.
Bill Lipe
============
(from Vergil Noble)
Mike Rodeffer's initial question, which he was merely passing along in
behalf of a friend, asked only if any states maintain registers of
archeologists. The simple answer appears to be that many states
(usually through the State Historic Preservation Office) maintain
lists of archeologists qualified to bid on contract projects, which
can be passed along upon request to those who require contract
archeological services. I know that was the case a decade ago when I
ran a contract program in Illinois (the list was kept by the Illinois
Archaeological Survey in that state), and several others indicate that
that their states have the same sort of arrangement today. I would
imagine, however, that any such compilations indicate only that those
listed meet the Secretary of Interior's standards in archeology,
making them eligible to offer on most federally mandated requests for
proposal.
That is a far cry from an equivalency with either the Society of
Professional Archeologists (SOPA) or its successor, ROPA, that some
have suggested. Those organizations not only have and will set basic
standards for the admission of professionals to their ranks, but also
address broader ethical and performance issues that go far beyond a
mere statement of qualifications in terms of education and experience.
More important, they include disciplinary procedures to investigate
and sanction or absolve, as appropriate, those accused of being in
violation of ethical norms. To my knowledge, there are not many
states in which such a formal mechanism exists to deal with such
allegations.
Indeed, the SOPA Directory, and any future Registry of Professional
Archeologists, may serve as a quick reference to find people who are
qualified to do contract archeology (since they will all at least meet
the Secretary's standards), but appearance on those lists means a
great deal more. It means that those registered have voluntarily
subscribed to a Code of Ethics and, further, that they are subject to
established disciplinary procedures and their consequences. That does
not guarantee quality research from them, of course, but at least
there is a means to sanction those who do not perform in keeping with
accepted standards.
It is also worthy noting that neither SOPA nor ROPA were set up
exclusively for contract archeologists. To the contrary, a
substantial percentage of SOPA's membership was in the academy or only
marginally involved with contract archeology, and organizers expect
that to be true of ROPA, as well.
========
More from Bill Lipe--
I would be interested in knowing whether SHPOs have mechanisms in place
to verify that the archaeologists they list in fact meet the Secretary of
Interior's or other standards, and whether any SHPOs have been sued for
refusing to put an archaeologist on such a list.
=======
From Geoff Carver--
>interesting discussion there about the state registries; now: HOW EFFECTIVE ARE
>THEY? do they do their job or does a lot of shit still get swept up under the
>carpets (aka a glossy excavation report)? do the powers that be consider
>them/the system effective? do the excavators themselves? would anyone recommend
>such a system/such systems be set up elsewhere, or have ideas about how they
>might be improved upon?
>
>comments, pro and contra, off-list if you want:
>[log in to unmask]
> or
>[log in to unmask]
|
