+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Professional standards - alternative version (/showthread.php?tid=1285)
Professional standards - alternative version - BAJR Host - 22nd December 2008
I think, in my reading of the posts (and I can but agree)
a vote for... OK.. for average for adequate is a bit disappointing... would you be happy with a project that was just adequate enough to pass by the Development Control requirements - that and no more... that added nothing 'extra' beyond that which was required...
:face-thinks: are we archaeologists working with a fragile and no renewable resource OR people that think that OK deserves a pat on the head?
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Professional standards - alternative version - Oxbeast - 22nd December 2008
David, do you mean that you expect contractors to do more work than the WSI specifies? How does this normally go down with clients and their consultants? Surely 'adequate' is by definition, well, adequate. I do agree with the comments above that it is really all down to archaeologists in their various guises, and in some cases, the brief needs to be more comprehensive. However, I've aslo been on sites where the unit has systematically cocked it up, and then the staff gets all indignant when the consultant and curator comes down hard on them.
Professional standards - alternative version - Dirty Dave Lincoln - 22nd December 2008
quote "would you be happy with a project that was just adequate enough to pass by the Development Control requirements-that and no more...that added nothing 'extra' beyond that which was required"
Too many sites are done by the 'letter' of the brief without taking into account the potential sheer complexity that is often the reality of what is there in the ground. This means a lot of sites are NOT recorded to their fullest extent-and usually means anything before the bronze age is totally ignored.
I can never understand why so many archaeologists seem to not want to take the opportunity to do so; once the ground is opened up,if it's within the boundaries of the four sections then dig and record it-failure to do so means we don't tell the whole picture!!
quote "are we archaeologists working with a fragile and no renewable resource OR people think that OK deserves a pat on the head?"
This point seems to escape a lot of folks-that once you've left the site that unique opportunity is gone,either it's buried under fresh housing (so what we've left untouched is damaged by said building work) or it's literally gone for good through being quarried out.
As for patting ourselves on the head at the end of a site,I wonder how many people walk away knowing that there was so much more that we could HAVE done-but the chance was wasted
Professional standards - alternative version - 1man1desk - 23rd December 2008
Posted by BAJR Host:
Quote:quote:a vote for... OK.. for average for adequate is a bit disappointing... would you be happy with a project that was just adequate enough to pass by the Development Control requirements - that and no more... that added nothing 'extra' beyond that which was required...
Posted by Oxbeast:
Quote:quoteavid, do you mean that you expect contractors to do more work than the WSI specifies?
In a way you are both right. In a field such as archaeology, 'just adequate' is not good enough. But, you can't expect a unit to do more than is in the Brief or Specification (and if you expected it, you couldn't enforce it). The scope of work in the Spec should itself represent best practice, and the Spec should set the standard to which the work should be done.
However, a lot of Specs (all of ours, for instance) require the work to be done in line with 'best practice'. That means that 'just adequate' is not in accordance with the Spec - to comply, you have to achieve best practice.
Unfortunately, it rarely happens, no matter how hard we push. Some units are very good in the field (although not enough), and some are good on post-ex, but we have yet to find a unit that consistently provides good reports. Only if you get all three things right can you say you are really achieving 'best practice'.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Professional standards - alternative version - BAJR Host - 23rd December 2008
once again! you hit the nail on the head
Quote:quote:However, a lot of Specs (all of ours, for instance) require the work to be done in line with 'best practice'. That means that 'just adequate' is not in accordance with the Spec - to comply, you have to achieve best practice.
Unfortunately, it rarely happens, no matter how hard we push. Some units are very good in the field (although not enough), and some are good on post-ex, but we have yet to find a unit that consistently provides good reports. Only if you get all three things right can you say you are really achieving 'best practice'.
trying to stop it being rare.. but normal.. then perhaps we might have what we dream of??
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Professional standards - alternative version - YellowPete - 27th December 2008
Hi,
I don't really know about what kind of stuff people get a chance to do in reality.
Written Scheme of Investigations states whats what and this that and the other, but has anyone ever tried to keep the clients, themselves and the bosses happy and acheived it without ever having to make a compromise in an industry of loved up and exploited individuals just trying to scratch out a living by comparsion to the rest of society.
I've never been in the situation myself but I always thought that the deal was jiggery pokery for the fact that the wall (internal /external) is right behind our big toe (putting it mildly).
people see moments for their chance to get on and get up and go with the flow, but then the step up is not a friendly or civil affair.
I think it comes down to having people who dont move on up or out, stickin to the guns and keeping a sembance of stability and managerial yoke to crews and the pit bosses not going all out for the gold in the vallies.
truely if if we want standards we must realise that we are really only awaiting for the other people to slip up on the slicked floor after a greasey pole affair.
however if this is the case then that means were looking out for ourselves and not the archaeology.
so when it comes to the green on this are we to be professional about being a profession or have a professional standard, that as we are beginning to learn is in fact just a naive concept beyond the grasp of a fleeting moment.
this is a cryptic affair, but to be honest though, if this is as for the public, i wouldn't like it in the clear
txt
Mike
Professional standards - alternative version - YellowPete - 28th December 2008
What, where and when is a professional standard?
Under the current conditions. what would we accept as a considered and justifiable outcome, where do we draw the line:
We must think of the professional structure, the consistency of the body of work that we produce and for the long term, the continued justifiable existence of an often, seen as, unnecessary expenditure of, ultimately, TAX payers money given a new global focus on a sustainable future, where archaeology will bring ................as our part which would bring our industry into the thought process as being necessary industrial expenditure as part of the sustainable package deal of a global future. This has the price tag of £,$...........................Euros
So what are we actually asking?
Why are we here?
Where are we going?
What are we doing to help get us there?
When are we going to deliver?
Who knows what we are planning to bring to any given table? (for there are more than on 'any given sunday')
Otherwise we may as well just sit back and react to the news as it rolls in off the forum walls, the fun walls, the superfun walls, or are we all just another brick in the wall.
It would be nice to think that we were in control of our destinies, but unfortunately..........
Time has a habbit of rolling out before your feet as you walk and talk.!
Lets just face it as long as we try our best and don't get to like and enjoy pushing each other into the grave, or to the next wall then it'll be fine.
The price is maybe more, or less, than beyond what we would consider on any normal sunday afternoon.
I'm of the mind that one should know when to call time at the bar, for the morning after may be alittle worse for wear, than the Principles would take.
The principle not being skinner, but rather the next generation of interested stake holders for an archaeological derivatives market.
Anyways
think about it.
txt
Mike
Professional standards - alternative version - 1man1desk - 5th January 2009
Posted by YellowPete:
Quote:quote:Written Scheme of Investigations states whats what and this that and the other, but has anyone ever tried to keep the clients, themselves and the bosses happy and acheived it without ever having to make a compromise in an industry of loved up and exploited individuals just trying to scratch out a living by comparsion to the rest of society.Simple answer - yes.
Quote:quote:What, where and when is a professional standard?Nice clear question at the start, but I am afraid I struggled with the rest of the post.
A professional standard is any fixed definition of 'quality' in relation to professional work. To use some horrible manager-speak, a standard should be 'SMART' (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely).
Simple answer, but a very hard thing to achieve, especially in archaeology.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Professional standards - alternative version - Paul Belford - 5th January 2009
A pedant writes:
Arguably an [u]outcome</u> should be SMART, the standard is the means by which the outcome's SMART-ness is measured.
Not sure about the 'loved-up' and 'exploited'. But my more nuanced answer to the question: "has anyone ever tried to keep the clients, themselves and the bosses happy and acheived it without ever having to make a compromise?" would be to suggest that compromise of some sort is always inevitable because of the conflicting requirements of all those people. Personally I want to spend proper time researching site X and putting it into all sorts of contexts, have a full budget for post-ex and so-on. The client wants his planning consent and nothing else. Somewhere in between is a SMART outcome that satisfies most of the people most of the time.
Professional standards - alternative version - YellowPete - 19th January 2009
hi
I would suppose you are both right as a standard is the both a bar and the result.
I do appologise for any deciphering problems.
The only thing i would say to 1man 1desk, is that the answer would be yes, but the real leading question would be.....
For how long could you keep it up, to the bar, without conmpromising to a situational standard, brought about by the (differntial) SMART?
I have to admit i didn't vote but i was more interested in a comprehensive understanding of the dualism required and met.
Let alone forgetting disillusionment as an issue beyond an absolute or relative measurement, which as i remeber is the fundamental building block of archaeology as a body of evidence and modus operandi.
Anyways I'm sure to be getting alittle circular.
so i will return to the concept of a professional standard of an industry together as a body of skilled, intelligent and interested indiviuals (remembering that this in itself is another stroke of dualism in itself), where everyone is at different points within their own intended, obliged, loved and fallen into careers (i fear all to be of equal measure without detriment to quality other than that imbued by the reader).
Sorry it still makes no sense
txt
Mike