18th April 2011, 03:22 PM
?It [PPS5] is based on the recognition that heritage professionals do not conserve or investigate the historic environment for their own edification, or for the entertainment of a small elite.?
Having just read through the relevant section I cannot believe that anyone would argue against the basic principle stated above. For those who do not, you are being left behind by the flow of ideas that has been building for some time.
?... shortcomings (in public provision) are evidence of market failure in commercial investigation and interpretation of the historic environment... only radical restructuring of the market will provide solutions... the necessary improvements will be made if more mature reflection on the role of the historic environment professional in society leads to a change in culture and behaviour.?
There has been a failure in attitude toward public participation in the commercial sector, from management to the digger, but also great work has been, and will continue to be, undertaken by committed units and individuals in those units. The term ?radical restructuring of the market? is unnecessary scare mongering, but some ?restructuring? of attitudes is vital across all sectors of the job. This is not new. I worked on a site, nearly 20 years ago now, were professional diggers worked alongside volunteers for over 5 years! No one in the unit (a very small one in the East End of London) was concerned.
?Some of the most striking ? and popular ? cases are where the commercial sector has not led communities, offering them opportunities to join in the process, but has supported communities in projects they have designed and driven.?
This is the most important point in this section of the report. It is not all about volunteers taking jobs away from professionals; it?s also about professionals working with people who have already set up projects in parallel with the commercial sector. It?s happening so lets get more involved rather than trying to stem the tide.
?Just as local people have often been poorly served in the planning process in the past because they do not have the confident grasp of technical language and process, so the new complexities of interests and significance may act as a barrier to participation unless expert translators are on hand or training and guidance is made available.?
This point makes it clear that new jobs can be made not old ones undermined.
The report points out that (1) a small additional cost should be put into the brief (2) standards can be learnt and if units have someone ?ringfenced? to train people up paid for by (1) then who loses out? (3) adhering to IfA policy statementson the use of volunteers (4) undertake risk assessments as usual (5) have a greater focus on public benefits in reports.
Where volunteers want to be involved with commercial units, or in any other way (most will do their own thing, with some help provided), it is not beyond the wit of archaeology to work it out. This is an opportunity to make jobs and secure those already established since PPG16, in an increasingly bleak time for all of us.
Having just read through the relevant section I cannot believe that anyone would argue against the basic principle stated above. For those who do not, you are being left behind by the flow of ideas that has been building for some time.
?... shortcomings (in public provision) are evidence of market failure in commercial investigation and interpretation of the historic environment... only radical restructuring of the market will provide solutions... the necessary improvements will be made if more mature reflection on the role of the historic environment professional in society leads to a change in culture and behaviour.?
There has been a failure in attitude toward public participation in the commercial sector, from management to the digger, but also great work has been, and will continue to be, undertaken by committed units and individuals in those units. The term ?radical restructuring of the market? is unnecessary scare mongering, but some ?restructuring? of attitudes is vital across all sectors of the job. This is not new. I worked on a site, nearly 20 years ago now, were professional diggers worked alongside volunteers for over 5 years! No one in the unit (a very small one in the East End of London) was concerned.
?Some of the most striking ? and popular ? cases are where the commercial sector has not led communities, offering them opportunities to join in the process, but has supported communities in projects they have designed and driven.?
This is the most important point in this section of the report. It is not all about volunteers taking jobs away from professionals; it?s also about professionals working with people who have already set up projects in parallel with the commercial sector. It?s happening so lets get more involved rather than trying to stem the tide.
?Just as local people have often been poorly served in the planning process in the past because they do not have the confident grasp of technical language and process, so the new complexities of interests and significance may act as a barrier to participation unless expert translators are on hand or training and guidance is made available.?
This point makes it clear that new jobs can be made not old ones undermined.
The report points out that (1) a small additional cost should be put into the brief (2) standards can be learnt and if units have someone ?ringfenced? to train people up paid for by (1) then who loses out? (3) adhering to IfA policy statementson the use of volunteers (4) undertake risk assessments as usual (5) have a greater focus on public benefits in reports.
Where volunteers want to be involved with commercial units, or in any other way (most will do their own thing, with some help provided), it is not beyond the wit of archaeology to work it out. This is an opportunity to make jobs and secure those already established since PPG16, in an increasingly bleak time for all of us.