2nd November 2006, 11:53 AM
Greetings to all. I think that our industry has ran with the economy since ppg 16. It has become in some cases a vibrant economy in its own right. Its not the only industry to fall victim to a "reduce standards to be competative" mindset.But it is the only industry that actually accepts responsibility for the nations heritage.A pretty big responsibility if you ask me.Especially when the majority of the public would have no idea that around 14,000 (estimated here on forum some time ago) archaeological investigations take place each year in a competative environment.Blair recently said that "we can no longer treat the public as mere spectators" when he found himself drowning in his own doing yet again. For once, he had a moment of clarity or, alternatively-one of those great dawning moments of terror as the enormity of his error sunk in
I do think that simply because we have moved into a competative environment, we have not somehow left our obligations to the public at the door of County Hall on the way out.Most members of the public have never heard of the SMR and most SMR reports are not written with the public in mind. This mindset, running heritage (at least in archaeology) as a business to the corporate exclusion of the public is something I feel very uncomfortable with. Particularly when standards are not actively policed in a largely un-regulated competative industry.Media campaigns can and always will be a double-edged sword unless approached with due care.I think that asking the opinion of an informed public is no bad thing.Polite really
I hoped this thread would be a space where peeps from all parts of the industry could chime in-any campaign should have voices from everywhere, not just archaeology.At least lets discuss......what would a heritage agenda look like....what would such an agenda hope to achieve....is it time to look again at our code of ethics and change the way we view our roles.....
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
I do think that simply because we have moved into a competative environment, we have not somehow left our obligations to the public at the door of County Hall on the way out.Most members of the public have never heard of the SMR and most SMR reports are not written with the public in mind. This mindset, running heritage (at least in archaeology) as a business to the corporate exclusion of the public is something I feel very uncomfortable with. Particularly when standards are not actively policed in a largely un-regulated competative industry.Media campaigns can and always will be a double-edged sword unless approached with due care.I think that asking the opinion of an informed public is no bad thing.Polite really I hoped this thread would be a space where peeps from all parts of the industry could chime in-any campaign should have voices from everywhere, not just archaeology.At least lets discuss......what would a heritage agenda look like....what would such an agenda hope to achieve....is it time to look again at our code of ethics and change the way we view our roles.......knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)