New research highlights low levels of ethnic diversity in the historic environment s

[Unitof1]

thing is who cares and why? This document is pretty bizzar. It appears to have been a long time coming. Its got brief at the back which says

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]It is envisaged that this project will commence in December 2008 following the submission [/SIZE][SIZE=3]of a project design in response to this tender. The draft report will be delivered by the end of February 2009 and will be discussed with members of the CBA’s DPWG at a meeting in London in early 2009. A final report, taking on board appropriate comments from the Working Group and from English Heritage, will be delivered by the end of March [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]2009.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

seems to suggest that the report should have taken two months to produce..........instead it took 3.5 or 4 years.

Then theres how many sticky fingers are there in this pie
Its a CBA Research bulliten. Yes not one of those. As a "CBA" bulletin it is number 2 in the series. The other document in this illustrius vanity publication is A survey of heritage television viewing figures 2007. which is presumably authority enough to edit the report on behalf of english heritage who we know are these people http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/who-we-are/corporate-information/how-we-are-funded/ who presumably are there to advise the government on racisum in archaeology as well presumably as being part of the problem.

Anyway the wonderful tender (how much? open or invited? where are english heritages accounts?) was won by http://www.ucl.ac.uk/caa/About%20Us/Back.../index.htm which is about three tiers of digger kickers too many and all things to all people and quite rightly experts on everything and more.

anyway the report says that the:

[SIZE=3]The recommended format for referencing this report is:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]

Doeser, J, Dhanjal, S, Hinton, A, & Orton, C, 2011 Diversifying Participation in the Historic Environment Workforce. A report commissioned by the Council for British Archaeology Diversifying Participation Working Group. London: UCL Centre for Applied Archaeology

(is the lack of italics of interest)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]but the report claims that the CBA also hold copyright and that there is a [SIZE=3][SIZE=3]Council for British Archaeology Diversifying Participation Working Group which has a steering group - and more to the point the brief says that [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]

Copyright on all reports submitted will reside with English Heritage, although a third-party inperpetuity licence will automatically be given for reproduction of the works by the originator, subject to agreement in writing from English Heritage.

which begs the question who/what an "originator" is but then who gives a can of beans.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]well thats sorted out the title and copyright although I have not got a clue who is included in historic environment sector. What this report does say is that

[SIZE=4][SIZE=4]The nature of the problem[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]The historic environment sector is not ethnically diverse. This is widely accepted and the sector is eager to address the challenge of increasing diversity within the workforce. However, increasing the ethnic diversity of the workforce has historically been a low priority for the sector, with no single organisation taking the lead for championing the issue.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]I presume that this was written by the so called CAA who claim to work in 87 different countries but really what has caught my eye at the moment is that London is mentioned 112 times in this document which possibly brings us back to the nature of the problem which is where is the nature pertaining to. So why has english heritage dragged the welsh and the scots into this report, seems to me that they are bigging the whitey figures up.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]