standard of new graduates

[troll]

One could argue that certain television entertainment programs have been catalysts for an increasing number of new archaeology undergraduates. The ubiquitous "bums on seats" policies of universities cashing in on this phenomenon and the "dumbing down" of science degrees to accommodate numbers is worrying. Training can range from excellent to absurd. How do we change this?

[the invisible man]

As you know I don't like to quibble, but most archaeology degrees are of course BA's... but I do suspect that univeristies ain't what they used to be, to accommodate the lunatic and arbitrary decree that 50% of school leavers should go to uni. Why? Shouldn't it be that EVERYONE for whom a university course is appropriate should be able to go to uni, be it 1% or 90%? Should we not respect non-academic occupations for themselves just as much?

Training for what, Troll? Do you mean for commercial archaeology? As I have suggested elsewhere, should the industry not play some part in the training of its staff?

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

Agreed-the industry should take responsibility for some of the training but, that does`nt excuse universities. One only has to make comparisons between the grand claims in prospectus material and the finished product. Internships with appropriate companies would be a way forward perhaps? To answer your question- as unit-based field archaeology seems to be the main employment for the mass of grads, is`nt this where training is most needed? A recent post tells us that this can, involve handfulls of students crowded around sections drawn on pieces of cardboard. Not ideal by any means and not-in my opinion-"in pursuit of excellence" either.....

[leg11aug]

Ah yes..That was one of mine wasn't it.( the cardboard thing that is)
Troll is right about the woefully inadequate preparation uni's provide for the "Real World" of Archaeology. Personally I think an idea posted on one of the other threads of a "Sandwich Year" with a professional unit would, in theory, be a good way of tackling this, I'm just not sure there'd be enough work to go round, and the cynic in me wonders whether the units would regard them as a cheap alternative to pro's...How many people enrolled on archaeology-based degree courses this year? anyone know? An alternative might be for universities to run massive year-round research digs...Yeah, and back on this planet,point is -as someone already said I think- You can't teach field archaeology in a lecture hall, it's like learning to drive from a car handbook..
That said, I'd be interested to know how many graduates actually go on to work in the profession..maybe that's another thread actually. Troll. re your earlier threat to ...invade leg11aug territory.." By all means! a grubby student sofa always available!My PO in Norfolk was a big scarily dreadlocked dude who knows you..said you was alright.. :D

When the going gets weird...

[troll]

Thanx for the offer sir! Will certainly take you up on the offer sooner rather than later mate. Seems to me that training in field archaeology should run in tandem with academic input. Theory driven archaeology has to be the way to go.Plenty of farmers out there who had their livelihoods decimated by BSE and government strangleholds-I`m not convinced that it should be too difficult for unis to find decent field schools and morally/ethically/professionally, I believe they have a responsibility to do so.I wish you well-please put the word out, we need plenty more voices on here!:D

[leg11aug]

Will do sir. But student apathy's a tough one to crack, most people here more concerned about actually getting work than in the associated conditions, can't really blame them I guess. No-one wants to here the job they're working towards/becoming indebted for, is less than perfect!
I didn't mean to suggest that theory shouldn't be the driving force in archaeology, just picking up on the point you made earlier; that the majority of graduates are going to be looking-at least initially-for work in field units, where practical skills are essential elements of the job.if I was anti-academic I wouldn't be at uni! :) Good luck with the conference, if you need some-one to fly poster this(unnamed!)uni, do let me know.

When the going gets weird...

[srd123]

(first post so please go easy:D)

Having just done an archaeology degree the two things that astounded me were:-

1. Virually none of the students had any idea of what the job market was like or what the working conditions/payment would be should they get a job.

2. On the first training dig, good summer weather digging in gravelly sand, how many of them took one look into the trench and refused to go in because it was full of "mud".

Which, to my mind sort of suggests that many students choose archaeology because they think it'll be an easy/dossing degree rather than because they have any real desire to be archaeologists...

Thus, even if training is excellent (which I feel it mostly was on my degree) many people simply don't learn anything of practical use - they just want some letter after their names so that they can become trainee manages in a financial services company.

I should of course say that this is not my opinion of _all_ the students on my degree - some worked damn hard and and really applied them selves to getting the maximum out of it. However, I fear that these were the minority[:0].

[sniper]

first off, hello and welcome, and we will try to be nice, I promise!:D
sadly, I think you are right, and the same thing was very evident when I was doing my degree, with a lot of people openly admitting that they had no intention of staying in the profession once they had got their degrees. Frustratingly, I was out of a job for rather a long time shortly after my degree because my local unit decided to keep one of these people on instead of me, knowing full well that they didn't want to do archaeology as their job (being blonde and flirting can get you a long way, I will say no more).
However, I don't know whether this situation is any more common for archaeology than for a lot of other degree subjects that are somehow seen as being a doss, and possibly, if the general standard of training did improve, maybe some of these "dossers" might be inspired. Doubtful, but anything is possible ;)

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

Greetings SRD! Welcome to the tube of truth!Know exactly what you mean.Congrats on graduating mate and I hope that subscribers here will be of assistance to you in ant way we can-just ask-no question is stupid either! One phrase I came up with years ago (during an increasingly rare flash of clarity) was this....
Are universities teaching archaeology students or, student archaeologists?
We had some similar types at my uni-they were convinced that a degree means an instant supervisory/managerial post and that dirt was optional.There is a whole skipload of info on here for prospective/newly liberated archies and, plenty of nice peeps who are only too willing to impart gems of wisdom so, please-just ask and-pass our web address around.More the merrier.Look forward to hearing how you get on mate.Good luck.:D

[Cautionary Tale]

Ah yes Troll, I remember a few choice expressions on the faces of fellow undergrads faced with the prospect of working outside [:0] possibly in the rain [:0][:0]. Of our year I can count the number of currently working field archaeologists on one hand, and what-ever its faults the course did have some admirable elements.:( I'm not completely certain, as others have said, that the 'dumbing down' issue is something that is either unique to archaeology, nor can it entirely be solved internally in the profession. For actual field archaeology courses, there needs to be a willingness to have units with either IFA (or whatever) proscribed content or unit involvement to at least expose the undergrads to the profession.

(I really have worked in the field)

[Tim]

According to the old "Spoerry Reports" from 2003 ther were approx 1100 students leaving uni with some form of qualification in Archaeology or associated discipline. Approx 10% of students ever work in the profession after graduation and very few of these stay in the profession for more than 2 years. We ould replace the entire profession "approx 6800) every 6 years.

Little Tim

[leg11aug]

Thanks Tim, exactly the sort of figures I was wondering about.

When the going gets weird...

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by srd123
[brmany students choose archaeology because they think it'll be an easy/dossing degree rather than because they have any real desire to be archaeologists...

True in my day too, however, one or two of the "no way am I being an archaeologist types", later went on to be very successful....archaeologists. I mean, what were they thinking of ? [:p]

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for

[rachstebbs]

I didn't choose to do archaeology because i thought it was a 'doss'or easy course, but I didn't want to be a field archaeologist when I first started. I wanted to study ancient history and classics, and got into archaeolgy that way. Now I cannot imagine wanting to do anything else. And slowly but surely I'm getting there!

[1man1desk]

A degree in most subjects can have two purposes -

1. The "educational" purpose, in which the course of study is intended to further the intellectual development of the student without necessarily training them for a specific career;

2. The "vocational" purpose, in other words training an individual for a specific career.

Both are perfectly valid, and there is no reason to disrespect students studying archaeology for purpose 1. However, most university courses tend to emphasise that approach rather than the vocational training one. Where they do think in vocational terms, the vocation they have in mind is an academic career in archaeology - an option available to very few.

I wouldn't complain about the quality of graduates coming out - I'd complain about the quality/appropriateness of the training they have received.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

Spot on, 1man (shouldn't your name be 1person1desk these days?:D). More or less what I have alluded to/droned on about.

It seems to me that we're all pretty much agreed on this theme, on different threads on various forums. Everyone seeems to agree that more and better fieldwork training is required, plus what I shall call CRM issues for what of a better word, but we have had a number of good suggestions how this should be done. My personal fave at present is for degrees to be more or less as they are, ok some more practical aspects, but with more hardcore practical stuff for those that wish/require it afterwards, maybe (ideally) in partnership with the industry. That way people can specialise - be academics, specialist fieldworkers, science types, boney types, pot persons or whatever, after a common grounding. But I'm open to better ideas...

Maybe a point for the BAJR conference???

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[1man1desk]

My approach would be to make a year out on placements a requirement as part of any archaeology degree, with at least half of that year to be devoted to fieldwork. Many other more vocational degrees (eg. architecture) do something similar.

A couple of practical problems though - where would all the placement opportunities come from? and what would be the effect on the job market for those already out of university?

I would love to see some comment from a university lecturer on this theme, but I've never seen any postings from an academic on BAJR.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

quote:I would love to see some comment from a university lecturer on this theme, but I've never seen any postings from an academic on BAJR.


This very much highlights something that was noticeable at TAG last year. In a very interesting session called "Creating tomorrow's archaeologists: Who sets the agenda?" opinion was canvassed from various groups including professionals, academics and students. On almost all issues the professionals and students had similar opinions. What was striking however was how at odds this was with the academics view.

Ivory towers anyone?

[Cautionary Tale]

I'm not sure whether that makes me happy that students are being independant minded or sad that lecturers haven't been able to convince their students of the validity of their arguement.[?]

(I really have worked in the field)

[srd123]

quote:I would love to see some comment from a university lecturer on this theme

One of the lecturers on my degree course made the point that having a degree is no longer enough - to be employed in fieldwork you now need a Masters too.

Having spoken to a few guys who were on my degree course and are now doing a Masters in Practical Archi, their description of the course and what they do on it sounds remarkably like what I expected to be on my degree course to prepare me for doing field work.

On a related noted, I agree that a year in industry would be a great thing for archi degree courses. However, when I went off to do a Computer Science degree, many years ago, that had an industrial year, and finding a placement wasn't that easy. This was back when IT was on the up and when few unis did sandwich courses. Thus, I too, would question to practicalities of trying to get this amount of training for this number of students...?

[mercenary]

quote:I'm not sure whether that makes me happy that students are being independant minded or sad that lecturers haven't been able to convince their students of the validity of their arguement.



From my perspective (as a professional) the students seemed to be pretty realistic, as I think the professionals were. The academics however came across as hopelessly outdated (clueless even)in their opinions about the future of archaeology and who was going to provide the training.

It made me think immediately of many of my disillusioned colleagues who have done recent masters courses, who complain that the courses taught them almost nothing of practical use.

Were there any other BAJR members at this session, and if so did you draw the same conclusions about academia[?]

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:[i]to be employed in fieldwork you now need a Masters too.
[:0]

I find that frankly ridiculous. If by fieldwork, the lecturer in question meant being a field archaeologists, then the labour market will soon be enormously distorted and arguably vastly over qualified. I have always thought you did a MA/MSc to specialise, how naive.[:I]

(I really have worked in the field)

[mercenary]

quote:One of the lecturers on my degree course made the point that having a degree is no longer enough - to be employed in fieldwork you now need a Masters too.



This too looks like an example of a clueless academic. Unless he/she is only too aware of the shortcomings of their own undergraduate degrees.[xx(]

[mercenary]

quote:the labour market will soon be enormously distorted and arguably vastly over qualified

This is already the case. Most of my excavating colleagues have second or third degrees. I suspect they are a bit annoyed at the waste of time and money as well.

[Cautionary Tale]

Indeed - this will only compound the wages issues once the incoming workforce goes from having a large amount of debt to a huge amount of debt.

How will archaeology retain a decent workforce on this basis? I find it hard to believe someone with a Masters would settle for £15k.

(I really have worked in the field)

[mercenary]

I think the only thing that keeps some in the profession is the difficulty of changing career without starting completely afresh, and doing a new degree. Whatever the academics say about archaeology grads being very employable, that message hasn't got through to the hirers yet.

The only field open to ex-archaeologists (without retraining completely) seems to be teaching. I even know ex-archaeologists who tried teaching and came back!

[Cautionary Tale]

If I ever turned to teaching, I think i'd have to take my trusty mattock with me ;) (talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire)

I've always been slightly dubious about the employment figures for new graduates - for one thing, an awful lot of graduates only ever find short term contracts which tends to give an overly optimistic view of the prospects. I'd like to know the figures for longer term (18 months).

(I really have worked in the field)

[troll]

Academics seem to be desperate to sell Masters. Surely, they are for specialising.If anyone`s first degree fell short, how about taking action against the awarding university? Plenty of students are shafted by glossy claims by universities only to find dusty, emotionally impeded has-beens churning out faded and irrelevent crud. Bums on seats yet again! I have known plenty of peeps who stayed on and completed a Masters in the misguided view that it would provide them with an extra edge in the market. Those of us who went straight into the field are still there and, employable.The Masters types answer phones for Liverpool Victoria.;)

[sniper]

do we now?? i seem to be employable, at least for now, and I wouldn't have said that it was a misguided view that my Masters does give me an edge in the market, purely because it actually taught me the things I need to do my job. I guess I'm lucky...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[Tim]

What about us sad losers with 3 degrees plus other professional training plus several years trench time and still no job.

Little Tim

[troll]

Ah yes Snipey-but with respect-you went and worked in the field first.Tiz my point entirely.Would`nt run a firm of electricians unless you were a sparky first now would you? One can hold as many degrees as they like-unless they understand the job....what`s the point?:D

[sniper]

i certainly agree with the point that certain people who go on to Masters level should probably not bother, at least for a couple of years until they've got a handle on the job, but that's not to say that they are a waste of time for everyone, you've just not got to expect that it will suddenly mean that you can get a job easier than anyone else

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[Louloubelle]

Thanks for that Troll - just the vote of confidence I really. So should I just pack it all in now and apply to Liverpool Victoria?

The idea of doing this is to update my small and very ancient knowledge of archaeology and learn about field archaeology instead of all the anglo-saxon brooch typologies I hoovered up donkeys years ago. I don't expect to get a better job at the end of it..I just expect to be able to get a job, and to be able to do it well, instead of being a clueless imbecile with a useless degree.

So ner.:)

[the invisible man]

quote:Originally posted by troll

Would`nt run a firm of electricians unless you were a sparky first now would you?

Yes. This is very often the case. In fact it applies to most trades and industries. Being a sparky doesn't mean you can run a firm.


Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

Troll`s in trouble again.....
ok, I`m moaning about the standard of new graduates.I think archaeology undergrads in general get a p*ss-poor deal.Plenty of debt and complacent teaching to say the least.Plenty of grads walk onto site and feel as though they are drowning because the skills required are simply not taught-in some cases, not even alluded to.I`m on the side of new grads and point the finger unreservedly at the academic institutions.I feel that units could allocate training mentors for newbies rather than sit back and watch them flounder.That`s just rude.
I`m struggling with this Masters/no Masters thing at the minute-see thread "pastures new". In the context of prospective field archs-I think what I`m trying to say is simply this-get your degree and go out and do the job.A masters is a debt burden that has it`s place much later-either when a specialism fancies your tickle or, the bodies too knackered to dig anymore! On the Electrician analogy-I`m simply saying that I would hope that ex/practising field archs are the ones running field units. If one can`t even see the archaeology-one should`nt be making decisions on it.......:)

[srd123]

Of course, one reason why the unis are not turning out graduates with better practical skills could be the standard of students they recieve after 6th form....another quote from one of my old lecturers was something along the lines of "I was hoping to teach them archaeology but it looks like I've got to teach them to write first".

But on the other hand, while practical skills may be not quite up to the standards of the old days (?), research skills may be improving. And for a uni, turning out graduates with good research skills is a good thing: rather than going off to get a proper job doing fieldwork, all the graduates come back to uni and pay lots of money to be post-grads... (erm, that'll be me).



Likewise, my previous post about the suggestion that a masters is needed to learn fieldwork also benefits the unis somewhat.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by srd123But on the other hand, while practical skills may be not quite up to the standards of the old days (?), research skills may be improving.

Apologies for sounding so out of date, but what does that actually mean?

Are you saying that research 'access' is easier with the aid of internet search engines that it used to be when one had to trawl through typed or hand written catalogues. In which case, your summary of new graduate skills really reads 'practical skills may be not quite up to the standards of the old days, but capable of pressing a button'. Oh such pessimism carried on the shoulders of youth!!

I profess to having had the opportunity of observing occassional batches of new graduates over a period of some 20 years. My experience of recent graduates is that they are much the same as new graduates have ever been. I don't ever recall a 'golden' age of graduates in that time, although I have to admit that many of today's archaeological output are more openly Thatcherite than their predecessors, (even those who graduated at the height of the Iron Lady's power)!!

I think there is a problem and it is more to do with the availability of on-job training than with the standard of graduates. That itself may have something to do with trimming budgets for reasons of so-called competitiveness. On the other hand I know of a number of firms who believe that taking on and training graduates is a better medium-term investment than relying on the short-term uncertainties of recruiting from the digging circuit. More power to them...

[srd123]

Nope, I wasn't alluding to research being 'easier' due to the interweb, but to the possibility that the way that teaching (in general) has changed over the years has changed the skill set of the students. Two reasons:

In the past students tended to have many more hours of lectures. These days there are many fewer hours of contact time (and it appears to be decreasing every year) and so students are encouraged more to read around the subject. They have to go out and hunt down the information rather than being given it in lectures and thus their research skills should be better. But, there being less contact time means that hands-on practical training decreases.

Secondly, for the arts, especially, the whole educational system has changed. Perfect spelling and grammar are not the targets, nor is learning by heart the highlights of the great British Empire. Instead, students are encouraged to be more creative and imaginative and to see things from both sides. Whether these new post-modernist approaches to education are a good thing or not is an entirely different bag of cats, but they do tend to put one in the right mind-set for post-processual theoretical archaeology. And one might further argue that the loss or dumbing down of subjects such as metal work, wood work, PE, sport, horticulture, etc, tends to diminish the expectation of doing a job that requires physical activity when leaving school.

[sniper]

I would still expect people to be able to spell, know proper use of grammar and be able to write an essay. When research skills for PhD students include sessions on how to write an essay and how to reference properly, you have to worry and wonder how they managed to get to that level if they can't do those sort of things already...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[the invisible man]

Certainly my uni requires correct spelling, punctuation and grammar. Quite rightly in mu op but then I am rather old...

From various threads on two forums (fora?) I see two strands. First, I think we all agree that more practical training is required; perhaps we vary on how much should be provided by the unis and how much by employers, and if its best as a placement year or post-degree - or some balance of the two.

Secondly, it seems that is insufficient classroom CRM stuff, if people are getting degrees wqithout having heard of an SMR. I like the idea of getting working pros (!) in to give lectures on CRM, contract law, hertige law, how to do a DBA, intro to project management, basics of tendering, employment law and so on. Bit like other professions really....:D

As I said before somewhere, some of this stuff could perhaps be done post degree at evening slasses, to gain a professiosnal qualification rather like the architect's Part 3. But certainly (and I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "but") the basics should be covered within a degree course.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[srd123]

quote:I would still expect people to be able to spell, know proper use of grammar and be able to write an essay.

Well, yes, you would hope so, but in these days of WPs and speel/gramer checkers it seems a lot less important to be perfect in these areas. Likewise, the number of youngsters these days that don't know how to do long division (or have even heard of a log table) is surprisingly high. As an example of what goes on in some schools: my S.O. is a teacher and was told not to correct spelling mistakes in the children's work because it would undermine their confidence:(

But, my intension was not to say that spelling, punctuation and so on are not taught still, but that the emphersis is now elsewhere - given the choice between something with perfect spelling and grammar but very run of the mill argument, or something with enlightened and fresh argument and slightly imperfect (but still understandable) spelling, etc, then the latter is the one most likely to advance the subject.

[sniper]

agreed, and I am not saying that someone's spelling has to be perfect for them to be a good researcher, but spell checkers and people willing to read through work do exist and should be used. Otherwise it just looks lazy...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[eggbasket]

<Rant Mode/On>
I agree with Sniper on this one. It appears lazy if the effort is not made to ensure that spelling, grammar and typos are eradicated from reports. It seems to me that the purpose of a report is to communicate the information contained therein to a wider audience. If the text is ambiguous or difficult to read then the report fails in that purpose. Poor spelling and grammar can contribute to this and I would suggest that with the advent of spelling and grammar checkers there is even less excuse for such mistakes.

I review reports regularly and have found a distressing tendency for them to be poorly written and to require significant amendments to make them "fit for purpose". This is partially due to poor spelling and grammar, and appears to be partially due to a poor editing process at source. Personally, I would be ashamed to send such reports out, even as drafts, because they reflect particularly poorly on the author(s) and their editors, and hence on the unit for which they work.

Going further afield, it seems to me that archaeologists are not being taught to write well these days, and that the report production process is extremely mechanistic, with the result that reports are often rather “samey” and boring. There is little attempt to produce an interesting, synthetic report that communicates the results of the work appropriately. I know some project managers who do encourage this sort of writing but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule and many of those who write the reports seem unwilling to tread this path. Of course, this is not to say that all archaeologists fail in this regard but there appear to be a significant number who do. This really goes beyond spelling and grammar, and reflects on how archaeologists think about and analyse their sites.
<Rant Mode/Off>


Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[1man1desk]

quote:If the text is ambiguous or difficult to read then the report fails in that purpose.from eggbasket

This, coming from a self-confessed periphrastic sesquipedalian?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

I thought they were extinct?

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[sniper]

in response to eggy, I do find that the results sections of my assessment reports do tend to be rather samey because I am essentially communicating the same data, just with different numbers, and it seems pointless to try and alter the way it is written. Interpretations are interpretations, and therefore have to be different for every site and should not follow a strict formula. I suppose part of the problem with archaeological reports is that they are part scientific and part artsy and it is sometimes tricky to try and accommodate both in one report.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[eggbasket]

If you are communicating the same information then the results section of your report will be similar to all previous ones. I am thinking, for example, more about the site reports where you get endless descriptions of contexts and strat in the main body of the text, much of which does not actually add to the value of the report and could therefore be restricted to the context list in the appendix, thus ensuring that only the salient points are mentioned in the main text. This approach would emphasise the important aspects of the site rather than leaving them to be lost amidst the dross. It would also make for a more readable report that actually communicated the important information. Another bugbear of mine is lack of interpretation. All too often I read that a particular fill contained pottery from a particular period, but there is no mention of whether it is residual, intrusive or can actually be used to date the fill, unless I trawl through the finds reports and interpret the site myself on the basis of the information given therein. Essentially, if the text leaves me asking questions about the site and its interpretation, then it has failed in its objective. And I believe that I see more reports that fail in this regard than succeed. More thought needs to go into the structure of the report and its content. Essentially, I believe that reports should be more synthetic. The basic evidence is contained in the catalogues and context lists, so I do not need to read it all in the main body of the text. Instead, the main body of the text should synthesise that information and emphasise the important aspects of the site, drawing out the site "story". If there is little evidence, then this "story" should be short and not padded out with descriptive material that is in the appendices. Is this asking too much?

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[troll]

Agree completely on all counts.Not only are a large proportion of excavation reports inadequate and "conveyor-belt" bread and butter,some are simply contrived nonsense. The reports that find their way onto your desk eggie are a snippet of what we`ve all been banging on about for years-it`s just not working at a systemic level. I really do feel the way forward is to embedd practitioners of the industry in the teaching frameworks of the degrees. Simple writing skills can be taught alongside the mechanics of report writing. The disturbing part of this is.....if we`re not all using the same language, how do we understand eachother? If graduates have`nt grasped the concepts involved in report writing-they`ve been very badly let down by their universities.:D

[Cautionary Tale]

One thing to bear in mind is the standard report 'template' that the IFA have produced, which presumably all the RAOs are following. If we have a converyor belt of turgid reports, and I'm not arguing that we don't, then lets have a look at the best practice example set by the IFA. If we don't like it, lets lobby to change that one. If that can't be done, lets have a BAJR report template (though the thread discussing thermal bras and 'bun' warmers makes me worry about what the cover logo would be :D:D)

(I really have worked in the field)

[mercenary]

quote:I am thinking, for example, more about the site reports where you get endless descriptions of contexts and strat in the main body of the text, much of which does not actually add to the value of the report and could therefore be restricted to the context list in the appendix, thus ensuring that only the salient points are mentioned in the main text.

For once eggbasket I think I disagree. I hate writing and reading the boring description of strat in reports and would much rather concentrate on the fun discussion and conclusions sections. But I have discovered that the process of actually writing the sequence to be a massive aid to filtering out erroneous interpretations. Many of the interpretations that I initially formulated during excavation and survived to the report writing stage are seen to be rubbish when the strat description is worked out.

I don't know why this is the case, but it is how my brain works. Perhaps I am doing my post-ex strangely because I've never been taught a standard method. (But then who has?) Putting the context description tables and matrices in the apendices and ignoring the strat descriptions in the text just allows the lazy report writer to do the interpretive stuff too early in the post-ex process in my view.

Perhaps the reader of my reports finds the strat description segment tedious in the extreme (my boss calls my reports "workmanlike")B), but it should be an essential part of the report. I've seen far too many reports where this groundwork has not been done, and the resulting interpretations and phasing are riddled with flaws.

[sniper]

like I always include a catalogue of skeletons in the main body of my analysis reports. It annoys me intensely when I see reports on the human remains from a cemetery excavation tucked away at the back as an appendix (usually after pottery and animal bone), with a brief discussion and virtually no data about the individual skeletons. Non-osteos may find it very long and tedious, but a good descriptive and fact filled burial catalogue is incredibly useful to other osteos.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[1man1desk]

I think I agree with both Eggy and Mercenary.

The detailed stratigraphic description is important, and should be written before doing any of the discussion and interpretation bits. So far, so good Mercenary.

However, for the practical user of (for instance) a trial trenching report, it is better for that detailed description to be separated from the discussion and interpretation - whether that means putting it in a separate chapter or in an appendix. I'm probably closer to Eggy on this aspect.

Two key reasons:

1. It is good practice to separate factual information from discussion and interpretation - too many archaeological reports make no distinction, so that interpretations become 'facts' that inform other interpretations.

2. Something like an evaluation report is not an academic report, it is a tool to aid the planning process. It should therefore be structured in a way that makes its main information content and conclusions easily usable and accessible for all its users, who will include people who do not need or want to wade through the stratigraphic detail.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by sniper

like I always include a catalogue of skeletons in the main body of my analysis reports. {snip} Non-osteos may find it very long and tedious, but a good descriptive and fact filled burial catalogue is incredibly useful to other osteos.


I have seen this argument from a variety of finds and enviro specialists. The question is, are you writing your report for the client or for others in your specialist discipline (clue: who is paying for it)? And following on from that, what is the actual intended function of the report? Answering these questions should show where the emphasis of the report ought to lie and how its content ought to be structured.

My main argument really was that many authors use the strat description to pad out the report instead of writing a report that is appropriate to the quantity and quality of the remains discovered. I do not dispute that the strat should be examined properly and if writing descriptions of it helps you do that, then go for it. On the other hand, it should be remembered for whom the report is being written and what the report's function is. Ultimately, the style and content of the report must reflect and help it achieve its function, be that academic publication or evaluation report. If the strat text obscures the main information that you are trying to convey than you have failed.

As far as templates for reports are concerned, it seems to me that there is room for manoeuvre within the template to tailor its content to suit. I do not really have any problems with such templates and find that they can actually help sometimes, although they can have a tendency to hinder the thought process.

Interestingly enough, I have had these discussions with a variety of staff over the years and it has become quite clear that many authors have their own agenda when writing their section of a report that has little to do with the client's needs. It has also become clear that many authors of reports receive little or no instruction in actually structuring and writing their reports.

I understand that not everyone agrees with my applied approach, but I still think that the basic principle is sound. Essentially, this is a plea to authors of reports to actually think about what they are writing, and how it will be used. This will make for more user-friendly reports that should achieve their goals. Actually, this would probably be fertile ground for a conference or workshop in its own right since most people will have their own opinions on the subject.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[Curator Kid]

I'm not sure I agree with where you're heading with this argument eggy. Whilst it's true that the reports are paid for by the clients, and designed to answer planning questions, the actual primary users of the reports are people like me, who are required to check all the details of the project's work and assess whether its been conducted properly. The function of the report is to present the results of the on-site work, and to fulfill this objective the stratigraphic information, finds catalogues and all the rest of the "boring" details are essential. How else can I know if the work's being done competently - from a half hour site visit? You'd be surprised how much of this information is just plain wrong when I get the chance to see it presented unexpurgated. Besides, if you ask a client why he's paid for a site to be dug and report to be done, he'd usually answer that it's to clear a planning condition and satisfy the County Archaeologist's requirements. The vast majority of them couldn't care less about the archaeology unless it looks pretty or they can flog it to someone. I agree that the synthesis part of reports could be written better however - if this section's as tedious as the CBM catalogue (and some are) then the report's failed dismally.

[Post-Med Potterer]

I think you are both making the same point, which is, to quote Eggy


quote:it should be remembered for whom the report is being written and what the report's function is. Ultimately, the style and content of the report must reflect and help it achieve its function, be that academic publication or evaluation report

However the person paying for it is not always the person for whom it is intended.

In the case of a PPG16 report, the funder is the client but the audience is the LPA. As Curator Kid points out


quote:if you ask a client why he's paid for a site to be dug and report to be done, he'd usually answer that it's to clear a planning condition and satisfy the County Archaeologist's requirements

If we were just writing reports for the client's own entertainment then 9 times out of 10 we would simply provide a one-page 'Non-technical summary' and a whole raft of appendices.

Equally for published monograph, the funder might be EH but the report is written for a public audience who will include both specialists and non-specialists. And often it is assumed (perhaps bizarrely) that specialists all possess microfiche readers!

[eggbasket]

CK, I don't think I expressed myself very well then. Basically, the report is paid for by the client and has a function to fulfil for that client, which is usually to clear a planning condition, as you state. To this end it should be focussed on providing you with the information that you need to state that the investigation's objectives have been achieved. I have never said that the "boring" detail should be omitted. My contention is, however, that it has little place in the main body of the text unless it highlights an important point to be made and contributes to the interpretation of the site. As a user of reports, I want to read the main body of the text and come away with an understanding of the site, which is why I would like to see a synthetic text that takes into account the results of all aspects of the work. Detailed context descriptions of unremarkable fills make for stultifying reading and can hinder this understanding if placed in the main part of the report. As such, I am advocating their placement in the appendices together with the site matrices and all the other supporting information that needs to be recorded. One way of dealing with this issue might be to consider the different sections of the report as follows:

The main body of the text deals with the site on a micro / area level.
The conclusions deal with the site on a macro scale, providing broader interpretations of the whole site.
Appendices provide the basic building blocks; the catalogues and lists, etc.

As an aside, I know of one publication report that is being produced as a monograph where all of the supporting information, including the context lists and finds catalogues is being placed on a CD to be included with monograph when it is finally published. This has led to some rather strained discussions between the project manager and several of the finds specialists, although it seems to me that the CD will have greater utility since it will be more readily searchable than hardcopy.

I am not at all surprised at how much of the basic information can be wrong. After all, part of my job involves reviewing reports in detail too, which occasionally leaves me wondering if the report was even edited before it was sent to me.

Right now to start on the structure of context lists ... }:)

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by Post-Med Potterer

I think you are both making the same point,

{snip}

Equally for published monograph, the funder might be EH but the report is written for a public audience who will include both specialists and non-specialists. And often it is assumed (perhaps bizarrely) that specialists all possess microfiche readers!


Thanks, PMP. I did not see much difference in my view to that of CK. I am just more verbose and really should remember that "brevity is the soul of wit".

Would it be easier for specialists if the information was provided on CD/DVD instead? In these days of home computers that would seem to be a logical solution.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[mercenary]

quote:However, for the practical user of (for instance) a trial trenching report, it is better for that detailed description to be separated from the discussion and interpretation - whether that means putting it in a separate chapter or in an appendix. I'm probably closer to Eggy on this aspect

Separation of the descriptive and interpretive parts is done as a matter of course. (It is specified in the brief for one region in which I work)

In answer to the question of who the report is intended for I consider it to be the curator. I have had curators request that info is not hidden away in the appendices, but is integrated in the text, as it is then easier to judge whether the archaeology was dealt with properly. Of secondary importance is the readability and interest to the developer and other parties. I try to satisfy both, but the curator gets precedence. If the descriptive parts are boring to the layperson they can ignore them and skip to the discussion and conclusions.

[sniper]

quote:Originally posted by eggbasket Would it be easier for specialists if the information was provided on CD/DVD instead? In these days of home computers that would seem to be a logical solution.

I personally will always prefer hardcopy to a CD, easier to look through and less chance of eyestrain whilst trying to hunt through pages and pages of info. I would also agree that the client may be paying for the report, but they are not really interested in what it contains, and the reading audience is going to be other archs. The site report is often the only way that other specialists find out about a site and its associated finds. As the EH/CoE guidelines say, the initial report is not the end of work on sites, but very often the impetus for other researchers to do work on the material. In order for this to happen, the report certainly needs to to contain all the necessary info, however dull it may be to non-specialists.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[1man1desk]

I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of the curator as the main user and audience for an archaeological report. You have to think first about what sort of report it is.

If it is an evaluation report, then it is principally aimed at the curator, to help them advise the planning authority on how to treat a planning application. However, clients or their consultants and scheme designers will also have a genuine interest in the content, particularly if it is part of an Environmental Impact Assessment project, as they may need to take it into account in some of their decision-making. In addition, it will eventually appear as a public document in the SMR.

If is is the report on a piece of mitigation work (i.e. following a planning condition or equivalent), but is not to be published, then the curator will indeed use it to check that the work has been done properly. However, that is not its primary purpose - what it is meant for is to put the information into the public domain through availability in the SMR.

If it is a publication report, then its principal audience is all the subscribers to the journal or library users. The journal editor will presumably have their own ideas about what should be in appendices etc.

You need to think about all of the above before working out how to structure your report.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

quote:However, for the practical user of (for instance) a trial trenching report, it is better for that detailed description to be separated from the discussion and interpretation - whether that means putting it in a separate chapter or in an appendix. - originally posted by 1man1desk


quote:Separation of the descriptive and interpretive parts is done as a matter of course. - originally posted by Mercenary

Well, it should be done as a matter of course, and it would be nice if it was. However, I receive and review lots of reports from different contractors, and it is amazing how many authors do not appear to know the difference.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

quote:Separation of the descriptive and interpretive parts is done as a matter of course. (It is specified in the brief for one region in which I work)



Shouldn't all curator's insist on this? If it is important (which I agree it is).


quote:If it is an evaluation report, then it is principally aimed at the curator, to help them advise the planning authority on how to treat a planning application. However, clients or their consultants and scheme designers will also have a genuine interest in the content, particularly if it is part of an Environmental Impact Assessment project, as they may need to take it into account in some of their decision-making. In addition, it will eventually appear as a public document in the SMR.

If is is the report on a piece of mitigation work (i.e. following a planning condition or equivalent), but is not to be published, then the curator will indeed use it to check that the work has been done properly. However, that is not its primary purpose - what it is meant for is to put the information into the public domain through availability in the SMR.

If it is a publication report, then its principal audience is all the subscribers to the journal or library users. The journal editor will presumably have their own ideas about what should be in appendices etc.



I agree with all of this, however almost all of my work these days is evaluation work, usually followed by a watching brief mitigation. Usually with negligible results, so hardly worth putting into the public domain.

The last evaluation I did that led to an excavation was in London, where the mitigation strategies seemed very different. The evil concept of preservation in-situ is rampant where I now ply my trade.

(Sadly publications to my name remain nil):(

PS. Sorry for dragging this off topic.

[Post-Med Potterer]

Not a criticism just a comment...


quote:almost all of my work these days is evaluation work, usually followed by a watching brief mitigation. Usually with negligible results, so hardly worth putting into the public domain

Negative results are still results. It is just as important to know where things aren't as where they are. So, still worth putting in the public domain (although I agree that a report saying 'nothing was found' does not make exciting reading).

[mercenary]

quote:Negative results are still results. It is just as important to know where things aren't as where they are. So, still worth putting in the public domain (although I agree that a report saying 'nothing was found' does not make exciting reading).

Sure, if they are really negative.

On these sites though a more accurate description would be 'lots of archaeology there (see evaluation report) but nothing more learnt from watching brief because the brief specified that formation levels would be above the good stuff. The developers have been ever so good and promised that they'll follow it to the letter without supervision, or maybe phone us if they have to dig massive trenches because the piles are hitting obstructions, or at least let us look at the upcast from the piles to see what kind of preserved wooden structures are getting destroyed':(

[mercenary]

Sorry, as this is a forum for solutions, my solution to the problem outlined in the previous post would be: No more preservation in-situ cop-outs from curators. Simple really.:D

[Alfie]

I dont quite follow that preservation in situ is a cop out; it should be the ideal. You are saying is that the evaluation results showed that although significant archaeological deposits were present on the site they occured below the projected impact of the development. Therefore a watching brief was put on as a condition;seems reasonable. The conditions were based on the results of your evaluation report.If its the piling which is destroying a site thats a different issue.
The impact of piling is always a tricky one; personally I would say that, apart from the impact of the pile itself, if the site contains waterlogged organic material piling may well change the chemical makeup of the environment which has sustained those deposits by impacting the layers below and also wicking water down from the surface and therefore what you will get is a slow deteriation rather than preservation in situ, but this is incredibly difficult to prove because it all depends on the geomorphology of the the particular site and the type of pile proposed.You would also have to monitor the deteriation rate but by doing so increase the impact on the archaeology. I understand that York are doing interesting work in this field but as it stands its damn difficult to come up with a reasonable argument.
If the main problem you have with this site is that the deveoper will wait until the archaeologists are off site and then trench, the watching brief condition should probably go along the lines of "all intrusive groundworks" in which case if the developer trenches without you in attendance he will be in breach of his permission, if you are in attendance then you would presumably stop the machine when you reached significant archaeology (waterlogged wood)and call out the curator.
I dont mean to suggest that you are wrong, I just wanted to explore the context in which a site could get trashed and the mechansims which exist to prevent it. The sad truth is that sites do get trashed under our current system.

[mercenary]

All that you say is the way it is supposed to work. Leaving aside the piling question for the moment, which I see as incredibly destructive; at issue is the in-situ preservation of archaeology after I leave the site.

Building designs seem to change frequently and with little respect for the impact on the archaeology. If it changes while the WB is going on there is a chance that something can be done. (the curator can be notified) More often it happens once the WB has been ostensibly completed, once the planning permission has gone through.

I recently went by a site where I'd done an eval followed by preservation in-situ mitigation and a WB. The building was about three times the original design and extended into an area where the archaeological deposits were much closer to the surface. Was I notified that the new build threatened in-situ preservation? No. Was the curator? I don't know. Was the planning condition broken?

As for piling, it is seldom limited to the destruction of deposits in the pile positions. (Usually specified as no more than 5% where I work) As you say water tables are affected, but also a wide area around screw piles is churned up, thus affecting possibly (at a guess) 10 times the area depending on geology. I also know that if the pile hits masonry or even preserved timbers, that the obstruction needs to be removed by machine. This too creates a much wider zone of destruction around the pile. Sometimes this can be recorded if the WB is still on. Where I now work piling is not usually covered by the WB so the true extent of the damage is not known.

That's why I think it's a con.

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary
Building designs seem to change frequently and with little respect for the impact on the archaeology. If it changes while the WB is going on there is a chance that something can be done. (the curator can be notified) More often it happens once the WB has been ostensibly completed, once the planning permission has gone through.


I think personally this sort of situation highlights a flaw in the system, not neccessariliy the practice of in situ. Naughty developers need checking up on, whether it be archaeology or any other condition they have to deal with. In instances where planning permission has gone through and the WB completed, perhaps the flaw was allowing the WB to cease (I'm not passing judgement on any particular case/person here, just the principle off early bath WBs) without any further checks. After all, building inspectors show up to confirm they're happy with trenching for footings, why shouldn't archaeologists turn up to OK trenches like that even after the formal 'recording and observation'WB is over. It would be a relatively small expense (considering that it wouldn't be a formal WB, just a confirmation visit) and we could all sleep easy.

(I really have worked in the field)

[1man1desk]

We do seem to have strayed a long way from the original topic, but an interesting discussion just the same.

Personally, I would see monitoring the building contractor to ensure compliance after the end of the WB as part of a curator's role in principle, but as they are usually too under-resourced to monitor ongoing archaeological fieldwork properly I know they couldn't do it.

An alternative would be to cover it in WB specs, by including an ongoing liaison role after the end of the WB itself, involving (say) a weekly site meeting/inspection until after all ground-disturbing works are complete. That way, any design changes or unauthorised work could be identified and the developer/construction firm would know they were under continuing oversight.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

quote:An alternative would be to cover it in WB specs, by including an ongoing liaison role after the end of the WB itself, involving (say) a weekly site meeting/inspection until after all ground-disturbing works are complete. That way, any design changes or unauthorised work could be identified and the developer/construction firm would know they were under continuing oversight.

1man1desk



Something like that would make sense. Just the suggestion that the archaeological monitoring didn't end when the watching brief was over.:)

[Alfie]

ok I see where you are comming from, I guess things are different in different counties; as far as my patch is concerned I always put a WB condition on that covers all intrusive groundworks; it may be that this is overkill on some sites but its in place if I need it. When I monitor I speak to the developers agents and construction teams and make sure I understand the scope of works, added to that I have my fellow council officials reporting back to me, building control, highways and enforcement who will all contact me if they see a breach of condition. Building designs should not alter after detailed planning consent is given, certainly not extending into new areas.

[the invisible man]

The case you mention is most certainly a breach of the planning consent. You can make little changes but three times the size and ina different place is pushing it a tad! Unfortunately most LPA's can't or won't afford enforcement officers.

The other problem is that the undergound stuff, be it foundations, drains or services, do not generally the concern the planners, so if there is a change that doesn't affect the sticky-up bits then no-one bothers to tell them, and they wouldn't be interested if you did. The only undergound thing that is usually concerend with planning is the archaeology of course, and of course everyone (else) will forget about it once the thing is under way.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[troll]

Tasty deep-strat archaeology is encountered.Two weeks left to run on a ridiculously timetabled field project.Preservation in situ decided upon.Reassured that piles would "miss" said archaeology,we go home.A revisit of the site (unofficial).Deep-strat archaeology trashed and now resembles a metal hair-brush.New grads who worked on site given first real taste of how our wonderful little system "works".New grads are becomming aware very quickly.........:D

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by troll New grads who worked on site given first real taste of how our wonderful little system "works".New grads are becomming aware very quickly.........:D

I have been weighing up some of the advantages and disadvantages of archaeology and degrees. (and please, please, please treat this is a matter of muse rather than a statement of intent....)

We are in a profession where most people accept the wages are poor and career prospects limited. The modern collegiate system leaves graduates thousands of pounds in debt before they even begin to work. University takes up three years. At the lowest level of minimal archaeological pay that equals a loss of circa £40,000 in wages and maybe £10-15,000 of student debt. This discussion has to date suggested that most graduates come into the 'profession' ill- equipped for the needs of the job.

We could start again. Drop the need for an archaeological degree and introduce an archaeological apprenticeship for school leavers aged 18. One day a week, day release paid for by the firm leading towards a Certificate of Competence/NVQ after three years. End result, trained workers, debt free at the age of 21 and with a qualification based upon practical competence. Can anyone tell me why that wouldn't work? Can anyone say why it would be less advanatageous that a degree?

I am not suggesting that there shouldn't be archaeology degrees for people who want to get into merchant banking, marry into the royal family or appear on Sunday afternoon TV, just that there ought to be a practical low cost alternative more suited to the needs of the profession. And in line with modern apprenticeships, in the building trade for example, one paid for by the employers rather than the employees.

[troll]

Does`nt that suggest that one does`nt actually need a higher education to become a professional archaeologist? What does that say to the world at large about the industry? Is`nt it bad enough as it is trying to persuade the world that we actually are qualified professionals in an equal vein to architects et al? Are you happy to see such an entry route as a valid prerequisite for working within all arms of the industry(not aimed at fieldies alone I hope!:D). You may have hit the nail on the head (not keen meself) but, if this ever becomes the state of play, I want my debt back.Before I leave the country!;):DNot only that, had said new grads not undertaken years of study, they would`nt have been horrified by the failures of the current system described in my last.An educated and well informed workforce should lead to an evolving profession where ignorance of issues bigger than the day`s work is no longer excusable.:D

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by troll

An educated and well informed workforce should lead to an evolving profession where ignorance of issues bigger than the day`s work is no longer excusable.:D

That ought to be the case, Troll. And I am guessing that now we no longer have the MSC/Job creation scheme that the archaeological workforce is (at least on paper) better educated and perhaps also better informed now than it has ever been.

That said though, I don't really see much evidence of the Great Leap Forward having even taken the first step on the road to storming the doors of Current Archaeology let alone the ivory towers of the IFA/EH/CBA.

I am not sure that 'professionalism' is all about degree qualifications. I think that archaeology might be on a surer track if at first it tried to achieve the level of professional respect (and salaries) accorded to managers in the building industry, stonemasons, master carpenters, plumbers and electricians rather than architects, estate agents and accountants. For that we may have to take one step backwards, before confidently striding two steps in the right direction.

(Any direct or indirect reference to discredited 60's politic in this mail just shows my age!!)

[the invisible man]

I'm not sure that it's such a bad idea. There is no reason why it should not lead to a degree, although it would take 5 years to get to an Honours degree. You would need to be committed (:D) as I guess that you would need one day, one evening and some weekends contact time, plus of course all the coursework. This could tie in with what has been discussed on other threads, about eiter having a placement year or a post-degree professional qualification year - really you're just doing it in a different order.

There used to be parallels - I myself left school at 16, wandered into the ONC/HNC day-release route then slithered on to a part time degree course (day release and an evening) at a poly (I'm not sure if anyone does that any more). It takes a long long time though... But I reckon it was about the best way of doing it. But then I would, wouldn't I?:D

Quite a few distance learning courses are springing up. I@m not too sure about these as a rule though.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[1man1desk]

Kevin Wooldridge's suggestion is interesting, but it might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps we could consider a middle way approach. Most other professions divide into two categories:

'Professional staff' - i.e. those who want to go on to more senior management/academic roles 'Technical staff' - i.e. those who don't want to go on to those roles because they are further away from the actual job (e.g. CAD technicians, surveyors, etc. etc.)

The first group need a degree, and usually also need further professional qualifications obtained through CPD schemes, often leading to Chartered status.

The second group usually do have qualifications, but often not at degree level.

We could, if we wanted to (and I am not actually advocating it), take the view that anyone who wants to become a Project Officer or above falls into the first group and needs those qualifications. Those who don't want to do that might fall into the second group. A degree might benefit such people, but possibly not sufficiently to justify the cost/debt incurred.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
Kevin Wooldridge's suggestion is interesting, but it might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps we could consider a middle way approach. Most other professions divide into two categories:

'Professional staff' - i.e. those who want to go on to more senior management/academic roles 'Technical staff' - i.e. those who don't want to go on to those roles because they are further away from the actual job (e.g. CAD technicians, surveyors, etc. etc.)
The first group need a degree, and usually also need further professional qualifications obtained through CPD schemes, often leading to Chartered status. The second group usually do have qualifications, but often not at degree level.


I don't want to appear to undermine confidence in our education system, but what possible qualification does a degree in archaeology confer on anyone to manage an archaeological project/unit? Plenty of archaeology managers out there, even in this day and age, without degrees in archaeology....

It seems to me that, even allowing for most positive view of be this discussion to date, most archaeology graduates come into the profession with at most a tabula rasa. There is even the hint of a suggestion that some archaeology courses provide graduates with a 'negative' employment potential, ill-equiping them for the reality of the job.

Surely archaeology is a profession where everyone should stand an equal chance of progression dependent upon opportunity and proven ability. Yes, a degree is one ingredient of that, but as no archaeology degree in the UK provides a totally vocational course, it is not and should not be the final arbiter. By the time that most people start getting into management positions in this job anyway they are as far removed in years from their degree course as undergraduates are from an 11+ exam.

1man 1desk appears to advocate the 'deckchair syndrome' of early 20th century archaeology where having a degree meant you got to sit down and order the oiks around and no degree meant you pushed a wheelbarrow, rather in the manner that the BM shabbily treated Basil Brown at Sutton Hoo in the late 30's. Surely no-one wants to see those days bought back.

I do worry sometimes that the modern child of archaeology seems a tad more elitist than they used to be.

[27trowels]

Whilst im very new to this beautiful game we call archaeology i would say im quite well positioned to comment on the state of archaeology degrees in this country, being in the process of getting mine.

With the set up at bradford I am currently taking part in a placement year where i am learning all the realities of comercial archaeology in Britain. This experience, of actually working in archaeology, is proving by far the most usefull part of the degree so far. However without the past two years lectures and three months digging experience with Bradfords project in Italy then i would have felt overwhelmed by the number of techniques and ammount of knowledge required to work on site.

I believe that if you tailor the Bradford degree properly, as there are many choices regarding modules, and take advantage of all the other opertunities they offer then you will be well prepared for working in the real world of comercial archaeology.

Having a degree, masters or PHD, doesn't however make you a good archaeologist. Field archaeology is a skill that has to be developed over a long period of time and it cant be taught in a lecture theatre.I dont think anyone should be working on a site without having spent at least a month on a training dig where there are supervisors and other site staff whose job is to teach the basics of excavation and recording and can do that without having to worry about budgets, deadlines and developers etc.

[troll]

Lots to take on board here-seeing as I`ve just brewed a coffee and hav`nt taken site gear off-here`s a precis...
It`s taken us over 200 years to finally achieve a qualified workforce.In my opinion, there is nothing more dangerous to the finite resource than a field workforce consisting of labourers orchestrated by one degree-riddled idiot.Today, professional field archaeologists come with a huge package (now now) of skills and varying levels of experience.As I have said elsewhere, field archaeology is a specialism.One does`nt suddenly become a professional because he/she gives up sh*t shoveling.:D I agree-Kevin makes some really good points.I for one wish that I had gone down the HND/BSc route as those guys really did hit the ground running. If anything, an HND in practical archaeology is good enough.:D

[sniper]

I guess in 1man's list, I would qualify as "technical" staff because I certainly don't want to be a manager or a strict academic, and I do a specific area of work. However, in his categories, I would not need to be educated to degree level. Would love to know how I could have acquired the knowledge to do my job without doing at least a first degree (don't actually know any osteologists who don't also have a higher degree). They don't do apprenticeships in musculo-skeletal anatomy, palaeopathology and biometrics...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by sniper

I could have acquired the knowledge to do my job without doing at least a first degree (don't actually know any osteologists who don't also have a higher degree). They don't do apprenticeships in musculo-skeletal anatomy, palaeopathology and biometrics...

Sniper is absolutely right Sniper. The archaeological profession doesn't at present provide such apprenticeships, but who knows....

My point was why should anyone lose 3 years salary to obtain an undergraduate degree, further years to gain post-graduate qualifications, run up a huge student debt to live and pay course fees just for the priviledge of studying. And then subsidise the profit margins of an archaeological unit that can't even be bothered to pay you a decent wage

I was trying to suggest that any other profession that required such specialism would 1) Probably sponsor the required study, or 2) Pay a salary that enabled individuals to recoup the cost of their study.

Archaeology seems at present to do neither.

[sniper]

agree kevin, just think it is dangerous to try and lump everyone, with all our specialisms, qualifications and experience, into a few categories of who should do degrees and who shouldn't. I was very lucky in getting a studentship to do my masters, and I wouldn't have been able to do it without that on the wages I was earning digging. I agree that the debts archs rack up are ridiculous compared to what we earn and apprenticeships would be a fantastic idea, but not necessarily for everything. Degrees are still going to be necessary for certain specialisms, but to say, as 1man did, that you should only be educated to degree level if you are going to be a manager can only demean those in the profession who don't see this as a career promotion

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

Hi guys-Kevin first.Absolutely right. Professional qualified archs in the commercial world are shafted at every opportunity for profit. I do think however that now that the mass of us are such, the industry grown ups have a problem. You can poke someone with a stick for so long before they will turn and bite your arm off. An educated and well informed workforce will ultimately bite back so hard that those who sit on their hands and do nothing will find that both arms become removed.The industry captains are making the mistake that we are all stupid and, that we have somehow ceased to be members of the public.....watch this particular space;)
Snipey-conditions will only change when we expose them.[8D]

[Post-Med Potterer]

If someone is sitting on their hands, surely it is rather difficult to bite their arms off?!

More seriously I think there is a lot of tilting at windmills going on here. I admire 1man1desk's bravery in making his point, it is a valid one and worth serious thought. Having said that I for one would definitely NOT advocate what I call the 'German' approach (having worked there in the past) where one guy aged 25 with a PhD and no experience is in charge of everyone else (including 50 year olds with 30 years experience but no PhD). And indeed on that particular project a former professor of archaeology was reduced to being the storekeeper mending wheelbarrows - but that was due to political changes in that particular country at that particular time and is another subject entirely.

27trowels is lucky to be at Bradford which is, as far as I am aware, the only UK university to offer a placement as part of its degree course. There should be a few more like that.

[1man1desk]

quote:1man 1desk appears to advocate the 'deckchair syndrome' of early 20th century archaeology where having a degree meant you got to sit down and order the oiks around and no degree meant you pushed a wheelbarrow - from Kevin Wooldridge

Well, I did say in my post that I specifically was not advocating the potential system that I described.

What I was doing was trying to outline a potential middle way, between your proposal (that degrees are un-necessary) and the current system (in which an un-necessarily high proportion of the workforce are expected to have a degree, when it is not apparently necessary for their job).


quote: I guess in 1man's list, I would qualify as "technical" staff because I certainly don't want to be a manager or a strict academic, and I do a specific area of work. However, in his categories, I would not need to be educated to degree level. - from Sniper

Well, the list was only an off the cuff idea, not a fully-worked-out system. Personally, I would view any finds/environmental/etc. specialist in the 'academic/professional' category, even if not university-based.

When I write specifications I usually require minimum qualifications for specialists, including a first degree in archaeology (or other relevant discipline; a second degree in the relevant specialism; and a proven record of publication in the specialism.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

quote:to say, as 1man did, that you should only be educated to degree level if you are going to be a manager can only demean those in the profession who don't see this as a career promotion - from Sniper

I didn't actually say that - I said that most other professions do that. In any case, 'manager/academic' roles can be a very wide category.

What I was responding to was Kevin Wooldridge's suggestion that degrees are an un-necessary burden, given the need to sacrifice 3 years and take on huge debts. I agree that some people in archaeology don't need that burden, but I do think that we need academically qualified people in the profession. What I was doing was starting a debate on what criteria you might use to define who needs a degree.

I agree (see previous posts) that a degree doesn't necessarily qualify anyone to do anything. Personally, I learnt how to do my job on the job and through in-service training, leading to non-degree vocational qualifications. Nevertheless, I think that my degree does provide an essential academic/intellectual background that would be much harder to obtain without going to Uni (although it can be done, and has been in quite a few cases).

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

I also happen to think that 1man1desk makes some extremely good points too!Not only that, I happen to admire his/her assertive and fair approach-even if I don`t agree on some issues.That surely is what BAJR is about.Open discussion.This is, as far as I`m aware, the only opportunity available for us all to sit around and conjur/unload/analyse on the same table (albeit without beer/nuts and bloody Rod Stewart blaring in the background).
For those of us who choose to contribute here, don`t forget that a wider unseen audience tunes in. New grads/universities etc tune in.Can only be a good thing!:D