5th December 2005, 07:18 PM
In response to Real Job I agree that my characterisation was broad-brush... also I am not sure that the archaeological market is as well-developed as that for, say, motor car servicing. Basically I was saying that the free market is responsible BOTH for increased professionalism and wages AND for decreased quality and wages. Different archaeological organisations compete in different niches and at different ends of the market.
I also agree that some markets are more free than others (not sure that Private Nurseries are 'heavily regulated by the state' though, really, unless it is to make sure that they don't sell Japanese Knotweed?!
)
However, as you yourself point out, regulation to ensure quality is not related to wages. This ties in with what others have subsequently said on the subject of curators. Curators are responsible for policing the quality of archaeological work (and so will comment for example on staffing levels and time allocation) but not on costs (which include wages and are in confidence between client and contractor).
However I go back to my original point that a unit which pays low wages and doesn't invest in its staff will ultimately do worse archaeology than one which does. This is because demoralised staff and under-resourced projects cannot possibly compete with highly motivated staff and well-funded projects. OK in the short term they will pull through with enthusiasm and 'dedication' but you can't ask anyone to perform over and above the call of duty as a matter of course. They will go elsewhere as I have in my time and I am sure many on this board have also.
As 1man points out, poor project planning is ultimately responsible for many of the problems. The money is not really an issue for most developers.
I also agree that some markets are more free than others (not sure that Private Nurseries are 'heavily regulated by the state' though, really, unless it is to make sure that they don't sell Japanese Knotweed?!
)However, as you yourself point out, regulation to ensure quality is not related to wages. This ties in with what others have subsequently said on the subject of curators. Curators are responsible for policing the quality of archaeological work (and so will comment for example on staffing levels and time allocation) but not on costs (which include wages and are in confidence between client and contractor).
However I go back to my original point that a unit which pays low wages and doesn't invest in its staff will ultimately do worse archaeology than one which does. This is because demoralised staff and under-resourced projects cannot possibly compete with highly motivated staff and well-funded projects. OK in the short term they will pull through with enthusiasm and 'dedication' but you can't ask anyone to perform over and above the call of duty as a matter of course. They will go elsewhere as I have in my time and I am sure many on this board have also.
As 1man points out, poor project planning is ultimately responsible for many of the problems. The money is not really an issue for most developers.