21st February 2011, 06:15 PM
Our currency is knowledge. It just so happens that knowledge of the kind that we trade in isn't highly valued at this moment in time, or maybe it's easy to dismiss. Perhaps we have to take the two threads of this discussion and find a way of bridging them (we might need some information engineers for that).
I don't agree with Martin Carver. Whilst I think that there has been a significant bowing to commercialism over the past decade or two (this is a profession of sorts, we operate in a commercial environment), there is research and disseminated work being chucked at bookshelves all over the country and eminating from commercial archaeologists and archaeology firms which in many cases surpasses the output of academic individuals and institutions in quality and relevance, if not quantity. The struggle to marry the two and still get paid for it is something worthy of debate but not that I can immediately think of any solutions to.
I suppose what I'm saying is, I think we know the value of our knowledge, we could do a much better job of disseminating it and communicating with those who are interested in it, but it isn't a particularly commercially valuable asset unless those who are interested transpose that into political support for the commercial aspects of our knowledge production and then we can be free to pursue it to our hearts content (well, as long as we can generate the support for it).
Those professions with knowledge which is considered to be commercially viable often don't engage the public in the way we do. That said, architects design buildings with visability and asthetic in mind and are paid to do so; there aren't that many astronomers and the work many of them do is considered valuable in certain areas of the sciences where their knowledge is considered to have a commercial value; painters get paid to produce specific art-work or produce it knowing it will have a commercial value or they do something else to earn money and paint on the side ......or they don't get to eat. I don't like capitalist commercialism [understatement!] and this is one of the reasons, but its definately here.
I don't agree with Martin Carver. Whilst I think that there has been a significant bowing to commercialism over the past decade or two (this is a profession of sorts, we operate in a commercial environment), there is research and disseminated work being chucked at bookshelves all over the country and eminating from commercial archaeologists and archaeology firms which in many cases surpasses the output of academic individuals and institutions in quality and relevance, if not quantity. The struggle to marry the two and still get paid for it is something worthy of debate but not that I can immediately think of any solutions to.
I suppose what I'm saying is, I think we know the value of our knowledge, we could do a much better job of disseminating it and communicating with those who are interested in it, but it isn't a particularly commercially valuable asset unless those who are interested transpose that into political support for the commercial aspects of our knowledge production and then we can be free to pursue it to our hearts content (well, as long as we can generate the support for it).
Those professions with knowledge which is considered to be commercially viable often don't engage the public in the way we do. That said, architects design buildings with visability and asthetic in mind and are paid to do so; there aren't that many astronomers and the work many of them do is considered valuable in certain areas of the sciences where their knowledge is considered to have a commercial value; painters get paid to produce specific art-work or produce it knowing it will have a commercial value or they do something else to earn money and paint on the side ......or they don't get to eat. I don't like capitalist commercialism [understatement!] and this is one of the reasons, but its definately here.