1st May 2012, 10:26 PM
Consistent sound comment from Martin in this thread, well put all round :face-approve:
I think trowelfodder’s point about access might refer to ad hoc access to the HER resources, even if a charge is levied for formal enquiries. Wouldn’t allowing contract staff to fulfil that role add to the perceived dodginess of having both commercial and curatorial under one roof?
It’s a moot point as to whether graduates can enter the profession with their level of skills and experience.
And thus getting a teeny bit of experience and contacts to help in the job scramble?
As I think was mentioned earlier in the thread, it’s only 10 days; there’s not funding for a paid post and that’s short term even by contract standards! I am sure the HERs would love extra funding to have additional staff but it ain’t gonna happen. Meanwhile, there a lot of people who would like to get involved in archaeology somehow, but volunteer fieldwork is in short supply, perhaps too expensive, or perhaps isn’t possible for whatever reason. Should they be turned away while useful-but-dull work lies waiting, or encouraged and trained, enhancing the record and spreading a positive image of archaeology as inclusive and worthwhile? And possibly adding more prospective professionals - would TF see this as a good or bad thing I wonder? Involving volunteers surely falls within the obligation of a trust for outreach and education.
Why indeed? It seems an entirely possible direction that contractors may only need to consult Archwilio / HER+OASIS plus local archives to get the baseline, and where will the HERs be then? What would fill the income gap? And isn’t the cost passed on to the client anyway?
I think trowelfodder’s point about access might refer to ad hoc access to the HER resources, even if a charge is levied for formal enquiries. Wouldn’t allowing contract staff to fulfil that role add to the perceived dodginess of having both commercial and curatorial under one roof?
Quote:Our graduates can not enter the profession with their level of debt...
It’s a moot point as to whether graduates can enter the profession with their level of skills and experience.
Quote:...and find themselves volunteering as there are no paid jobs
And thus getting a teeny bit of experience and contacts to help in the job scramble?
As I think was mentioned earlier in the thread, it’s only 10 days; there’s not funding for a paid post and that’s short term even by contract standards! I am sure the HERs would love extra funding to have additional staff but it ain’t gonna happen. Meanwhile, there a lot of people who would like to get involved in archaeology somehow, but volunteer fieldwork is in short supply, perhaps too expensive, or perhaps isn’t possible for whatever reason. Should they be turned away while useful-but-dull work lies waiting, or encouraged and trained, enhancing the record and spreading a positive image of archaeology as inclusive and worthwhile? And possibly adding more prospective professionals - would TF see this as a good or bad thing I wonder? Involving volunteers surely falls within the obligation of a trust for outreach and education.
Quote:But if the work to compile Archwilio is being done by volunteers then why should commercial companies not have free access?
Why indeed? It seems an entirely possible direction that contractors may only need to consult Archwilio / HER+OASIS plus local archives to get the baseline, and where will the HERs be then? What would fill the income gap? And isn’t the cost passed on to the client anyway?