What qualifications do I need?

[eggbasket]

So, following on from a comment on another thread, where it was proposed that no one should be allowed to dig without a degree, I have to ask this question. Really, it raises a number of issues related to archaeology as a vocational degree. It seems to me that engineering is a vocational degree but that archaeology is not, or at least those who teach it generally do not see it as such. Their goal is to turn out a bunch of mini-academics, not to turn out people qualified to dig sites. For this reason, I must dispute the idea that people should not be allowed to dig without a degree in archaeology. If anything, people should not be allowed to do a degree in archaeology without at least a couple of years' experience in the field. By approaching the discipline in this way, people would be able to relate what they are taught to the real world and ought to be more useful staff as a result.

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[1man1desk]

I didn't get where I am today without a degree in archaeology!

Great,CJ - Super!

1man1desk

[1man1desk]

To be serious now, it depends what degree you mean. Some archaeology degrees are very 'educational' - in that they teach you a lot about archaeology, as a means for creating a well-educated person, but don't train you to be an archaeologist. Others are more 'vocational' - in that they provide more practical training, work experience/placements etc. Mine was educational, and I learnt how to dig, survey and record on the job.

I've worked with lots of different types on site and in the office - people with archaeology degrees, other relevant degrees, irrelevant degrees and no degree at all. The qualifications did not seem to make any difference to how good they were as diggers. I agree with eggbasket that site experience is very useful before you do your degree.

It does start to make a difference once you get to a position where you are interpreting the evidence. That isn't to say that people without formal qualifications can't do it - just that fewer of them can do it, and they need to provide some alternative form of evidence. At the same time, I have met people with degrees who were hopeless.

So, what I would say is - no specific academic qualifications for working as a digger (if I was recruiting for an excavation, I would choose an experienced but unqualified digger over one with no experience but a degree). But, if we are talking about a job in which reports are to be written, someone without a relevant degree should have to show very convincing evidence that they can understand and interpret the evidence, use academic literature and write the report appropriately and coherently.



1man1desk

[drpeterwardle]

I get very bored with this. Archaeology is a research based academic discipline. Therefore its practioners who do research should be suitablely qualified which usually means a degree or two.

It is however possible to be a brilliant archaeologist without a degree in it - for example Richard Bradley or Phil Barker. If we are to taken seriously as a profession a degree must soon become the entry route. A lawyer is not expected to have two years practical experience before they train.

Peter

[eggbasket]

Agreed that archaeology is a "research based academic discipline" so those that have to interpret the sites should have analytical skills and hopefully a decent command of the English language so that they can communicate that interpretation to others. However, that does not mean that a digger with a degree is more effective than one without. A degree is just a certificate of a certain level of education and is not a guarantee that the owner thereof is actually capable of undertaking analysis and publication of a site or even of stringing a coherent sentence together, if my experience of editing and reviewing reports is anything to go by.

Given that you cite two examples of respected archaeologists without degrees, I don't see how you can follow that up with the statement that a degree should be seen as the entry point if we are to be respected by others. I would suggest that we should stop dressing and acting like hippy droputs if we are to be respected by others. The construction industry is only likely to respect the archaeologists if they act in a business-like manner. Even then, I doubt that they will respect us, because, like the great-crested newt, we are constantly getting in their way and therefore are considered to be a nuisance that they would rather not have to deal with.

Cheers,
Eggbasket



Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[disheartened]

I have to say (again) that I am of the opinion that we need a formal entrance route to this profession. And that I think that a degree should be the way.

How and ever this is not to say that most degrees today are the degrees we need. I went to Bradford, which is considered one of the better practical degrees. And spending a year working on placement was extremely beneficial. However, it was because I spent a year on placement working outside the university atmosphere that I can say I know how to set up a level or plan or dig or anything. You have to do these things repeatedly, over and over and over, before you really know what you're doing. And this is what you should be doing in your degree, ASWELL AS learning the background, what is stratigraphy, what does a context sheet looks like, what happens to a soil sample after it is taken off site, how does c14 work, what is an SMR. PLUS you should also be learning about different periods, theoretical archaeology, environmental archaeology, surveying, scientific applications in archeology, how to research properly, how to write correctly and so on. We need to have courses which will reflect both the commercial need for diggers, and the need for people to be able to do more than just dig. We can't just churn out diggers who don't know anything other than how to dig and who will never be able to rise above assistant level.

You have to have the knowledge aswell as the know-how.

[BAJR Host]

Speaking as a person without a degree - I found there was a real difference between research led, academic archaeology and teh field based practical archaeology. However... if I regret anything, (aprt from the length of time it took to get where I am..) it is the foolishness I had not to finish my degree... After a while, a practical hands dirty archaeologist must use academic skills, such as research and report writing to advance beyond digger.

Not to have that skill is to limit your advance.. if you only intend to be a digger or supervisor, then no degree can teach the skill of excavation.

Another day another WSI…

[deepdigger]

Didn't Tony Benn say that " A plumber who speaks latin is a better plumber".

deep

[disheartened]

In my experience even a supervisor would need the background a degree should provide. The director virtually never writes up the strat for the site, too busy being sent on to the next site, besides a supervisor is cheaper.

[Mole]

I must admit to agreeing with eggbasket that a degree does not equate to respect from the construction industry, and that however it may go against the grain acting and dressing in a more buisness like manner may go part way to archaeologists being taken more seriousley.

As for using a degree as standard for archaeologists I am not so sure about this by itself. Fine a degree does supposedly equate to a certain level of education but this in itself means nothing if the degree holder cannot apply this knowledge. On a purely site (entry) basis a degree is fairly irrelevent, in a muddy field in Britain digging a large sterile ditch section does it matter that you can cite all the major pre-dynastic Egyption site in the upper Nile? Some of the best field archaeologists I have worked with have no formal qualification but have a fantastic depth of knowledge and a full understanding of the types of features/ finds that they encounter on a day to day basis.

As for positions further up the food chain then surely, akin to professions such as engineers, accountants etc there needs to be some form of profesional qualification to be taken while doing the job. Yes this would create a two teir system but it would also take in experience as well as qualifications. It seems to me that this would do more to increase respect raise standards than simply saying '..but I've got a degree'.

[eggbasket]

Upon reflection, I think a degree might be considered a suitable entry point, if said degree included a year in the industry, like the Bradford degree can or like an engineering degree. This would weed out those that don't really like field archaeology and would ensure that people leaving university had a reasonable level of field experience, thus making them more employable. Alternatively, a system similar to obtaining chartered status in other professions might be required for supervisorial and above levels, as Mole proposes. This could take into account experience and ability but is also likely to require taking an exam, which would allow you to demonstrate this experience.

deepdigger - If Tony Benn said it then it must be true! :D

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[1man1desk]

I think we've got to distinguish between 'professional' archaeologist with a small 'p' - i.e. someone who earns a living by working in archaeology - and 'Professional' with a big 'P' - i.e. someone who earns their living (or aspires to) by making archaeological judgements, interpretations, project designs and doing research. The level of qualification required may vary according to the size of the P.

Engineering, like many other professional disciplines, uses quantities of staff whose qualifications are below degree standard, usually called something like 'technician', 'technical clerk', 'technologist' etc. They are viewed as Technical rather than Professional staff. Usually, they cannot rise high in their field but they provide invaluable footsoldiers without whom the Professionals could not do their job.

You don't actually need a degree to work successfully as a digger, so I would view diggers on site (and people assisting with finds/sample processing etc. back at base) in a similar light.

All aspiring Professionals should have to gain experience at this level (as do graduate engineers etc), but can only aspire to progress into the full Professional ranks if they have appropriate (i.e. degree-level) academic qualifications. There should then be a series of different levels of professional accreditation, again as exists in other professions, leading to Chartered or equivalent status. Professionals should be expected to go through these levels in the appropriate sequence as they gain experience and knowledge, and failure to do so should be a bar to promotion.

We do actually have such a system in place, provided by the IFA with its Affiliate/Practitioner/Associate/Member sequence. Unfortunately, a high proportion of our profession are not in the IFA and many archaeologists, including eminent ones, are hostile to the institution. As long as our profession remains polarised between pro- and anti- IFA factions, the IFA will be weak and toothless and we will never have a strong, universal and respected system of professional accreditation.

1man1desk

[eggbasket]

Sounds to me like you are taking the "P"!!!!! :D

Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[1man1desk]

I was hoping someone would say that ...

1man1desk

[the invisible man]

Most if not all professions require a combination of academic study and practical experience. Usually this is formalised - I have dscribed one such example before and won't bore you with it again. Archaeology differs a little in that it is more possible to follow a purely academic path, or a purley practical, muddy path (a la Troll?:D) or in most cases somewhere along a line between the two, probably moving about on that line as well. (there are for example though purely academic architects who have never built anythiung in their lives. Some sneer at them but theyprovide a driving force behind the art). It is surely as foolish to pooh-pooh the academic as it is to belittle the ccommercial digger. As someone recently said (reported in TA I think) is it really the duty of universities to train commercial diggers for an industry that neither pays for it, contributes to it or rewards it?

I think Doc Pete has put his finger on it. Archaeology is the STUDY of the human past from its material remains. Gathering that data is but one part of that study. If there was nothing but commercial archaeology we'd have warehouse-fulls of unread reports (eventually!) and nothing else!

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

I agree that there are fantastic archies out there without degrees. There are also gut-wrenchingly awful ones with lots of degrees. As an aside, Bradley was a lawyer and as such I assume he has a degree. I think that field archaeology is as much an academic endeavour as any other and,with respect, reject the two "pees" offered by 1man1desk. Archaeology by default is theory driven, I for one would be much the poorer archaeologist had I not gained a degree.:D

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by the invisible man

As someone recently said (reported in TA I think) is it really the duty of universities to train commercial diggers for an industry that neither pays for it, contributes to it or rewards it?

YES!

For what it's worth, I believe that the universities have a duty to provide their [u]customers </u>(students) with the product that they need and are [u]paying </u>for, not what they feel like teaching. Remember, the students are paying for this service (or will be if they ever earn enough to pay back their loans). As such, the universities do their students a disservice by not teaching them about the real world as well as the academic world. Ways forward include internships, which would embrace the commercial world and draw it into a closer relationship with the academic world; bringing commercial archaeologists into the universities to teach the students about the different roles and responsibilities; making modules on archaeology and the law, the planning process, etc compulsory and leaving the Early Roman Coiffures courses as optional; and also by providing sound career advice, which I understand is fairly non-existent at the moment. It is all about balance, and I believe that the balance is wrong at the moment. It is too easy to come away from university knowing everything about Outer Mongolian Yurt Art and thinking that you are therefore perfectly suited to running excavations in Scotland.

I am not certain how other vocational degrees work, but I do not believe that engineering companies contribute massively to the relevant degree courses, yet the universities actually train their students to work in engineering. What is so different about archaeology?

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Purveyor of Agitfop to the Masses

You are never too old to storm a bouncy castle

[troll]

Arrogance I think. Not only that, the mad rush for bums on seats arguably- the result of silliness like slime team, has had a hideous affect on university standards. Dumbing down the academic side of archaeology to ensure a constant fee income does`nt leave much room for departments to indulge in the teaching of "real-world" archaeology. I agree with you, internships/4year degrees and a greater communication between universities and those who do this for a living would be a good start.:D

[Cautionary Tale]

More to the point, isn't the chair at Bournemouth British Property Federation funded? (although I can't think of any others - any takers?[?]) Is this the way ahead - the introduction of developers funding the archaeologists at source?.

[eggbasket]

If there is an advantage in it for the developers then I do not see why it should not happen. On the other hand, I cannot see the advantage yet, although that may be more a function of my tea-starved brain than any real lack of advantage.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antiquarian

Manners maketh the man

[Cautionary Tale]

Surely the advantage to the developer is having a workforce who are aware of the legistlation, the planning framework and the ability to identify the most effecient way forward - after all, if developers can see that a well planned and executed archaeological investigation is not only an asset to the nation but can also be logically planned into the project timetable cost effectively (synergies with other investigations etc)we all win. The possibility of saving them money (while at the same time doing the archaeological work properly) will probably be enough for a good chunk of the developer community. But then again, my caffine fueled mind may be playing tricks on me.

[eggbasket]

Barnesy, I am not convinced that the developers would see it that way. Still, some of the larger companies might be tempted.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antiquarian

Manners maketh the man

[Cautionary Tale]

In truth neither am I Mr Basket. However, if one developer bites it would've been worth it. We just need to brainstorm the most likely candidates and the best organisation to approach them.

(I really have worked in the field)

[the invisible man]

I think that the key word up above somewhere is "balance". I would certainly want to see universities remain fully independent of both business and government, and I would also suggest that commercial archaeology is not the only sort, the be-all and end-all. I assume however that it is the largest single employer in archaeology and of coursethis should be acknowledged. All I am objecting to is the demand for ready-made fully trianed and experienced staff on a plate with no effort made to help the process.

Many professions and industries such as engineering, architecture, medicene, construction etc do contribute to their own future employee's education, usually in the form of year-out placements, sandwich courses, paid trainee positions and so on. I am certainly in favour of this sort of thing. (Unusually, I studied architecture part-time, day-release - brilliant way to do it!) Yes, visiting lecturers from commercial units, curatorial bodies and consultancies would be an excellent idea (again, other professions do it - but you have to pay them of course!) I think my favourite option would be to keep the 3 year degree, with summer fieldwork modules of course, then have another spell (1/2/3 years???) as a paid trainee, maybe with some evening classes on professional practice etc, at the end of which you get a professional institute grade thingy. This is not revolutionary - it's what many other "vocational" professions do!

BTW, as has been often said, Bradford offer a placement year out (optional) and has a compulsory 3rd year CRM module. But then of couirse you do get a better class of student at Bradford.......:D

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[Cautionary Tale]

To join up a few ideas, it wouldn't be so unusual (as in other professions) for the chartered organisation for the industry to require professionals to pass exams/test in order to be acredited. Admittedly for archaeologists, the concept of a test may be a highly contentious point in itself - after all what aspect to test: the physical digging/context recognition/site recording element or the more office based tasks. I fear I may have talked myself out of the idea [:I], but the point remains that given there does seem to be some agreement that while university degrees in some cases do produce good field archaeologists, some are not specifically geared up for that purpose. If we accept that, perhaps the spotlight should be on those entering the profession to either follow up their degree with evening courses while doing (I would like to think, but am sadly sure it wouldn't be, paid) training as Mr Invisible says. I have some preference for this given that it would not interfere directly with earning potential and, if it resulted in a well qualified field archaeologist, the student would see the benefits in employment potential, though I could see that would take a great deal of persuation. I have deliberately avoided mention of those with field experience, because I agree with the consensus that (to end on a sureal moment) if you try to lead a horse to water when it's already built itself an irrigation plant, thats not where the focus should be.[:o)]

(I really have worked in the field)

[vulpes]

Short answer: None.

Right wing, metal detectorist antiquarian (retired).

[vulpes]

Short answer: None.

Right wing, metal detectorist antiquarian (retired).