BAJR Wrote:I recently heard the Polish quoting the Euro version and I was al but in tears with frustration as it quoted facts and figures that were not caveated with the absolutely vital information that the survey is based on those that replied.
I would say not including caveats is an issue with any work any where. Though, I feel David we are good enough friends that you will not mind me using you as an example here.
"Did this contract go to tender - one has to ask... as it seems the PtP has been devilled by comments of skewed means and incomplete data. I refer to - for example the first PtP, when £17,079 was seen as the average and £15,905 the median for an archaeologist. The reality - well according to my records that go back to 1999 an excavator was making just over 11,500k and in 2003 £12,966 "
Well you mixed apples and oranges there or because it's us, peaches and pineapples
which require two different types of greenhouses. Yes, average for all archaeologists are those numbers but if you look at the 2002-2003 report the pay for Archaeological Assistant is 13,390 avg. (p65) Excavator or Site Assistant- 12,140 (p79) Junior Posts-12,928 (p 99). Combine them all together an excavator type posts is pretty much on par with your numbers, give or take 1 or 2%. I am writing a whole section looking at this data to show that the annual Jobs in British Archaeology (job data from job posts) series is a fairly accurate representation of pay conditions. You did not caveat that one was for all archaeologists and one was a particular position. Data is data and can be interpreted in any number of ways. I would say I can't control how others use the data or interpret it, as archaeologists we should be well aware of this problem -druids at stonehedge anyone. The best we can do is to point out those caveats
I think I might be digressing away from the main grip (correct me if I am wrong) the survey does not represent YOU (whoever you are). However, all I am really hearing is:
(in my head I see someone yelling at a crowed these questions and they responding
"Are we MAD? YES! Does this survey represent us? NO! What do we want? ........................ (awkward silence).
Now before anyone answers that question I think we need to really think about this very complex issue. One it is a survey not a census. So we are only aiming to capture a sample of the population. A sample that is then averaged. We do not need to reach ever single person and even if we did, it would not matter (averages skew the data). If you truly want to reflect the working conditions of one-man shops you need an ethnographic based project like the Invisible Diggers (great book, read it). That is the methodology you need to capture the conditions for a sub-group.
To put in another way, if the goal was to profile every single person who ever got an archaeology degree or work as an archaeologists we would problem just send one survey to one company, TESCOS. Method and resources play a big part in what we do. You need to know that kenny and I both have other jobs and neither one of us are employed by this project full time. We don't have the resources to sit down and conduct ethnographic interviews with pottery specialists, museum curators, diggers, etc. A survey is a method to get a large range of data with limited resources.
NOW- ask the question, "What do I want to know", "Can a survey answer those questions""Can this survey answer those questions".
Now, if the answer is "I am actually fine with what they ask I just want my voice heard. I feel like because I did not fill it out that others like me wont and then our whole sub-group will be ignored". All I can say is that we have a pretty good idea of everyone working in archaeology, we have looked at dozens of lists, we have looked at who has posted job adverts, we have looked at who has turned in reports recent. There have also been posts, like the one that started this thread to capture those we missed. We are now striving to get representation response from all sectors. We will get a fairly accurate sampling, even if you did not participate. Again, can't stress enough this collects samples that are then turned into averages. Yes, we will miss the one lithics expert on north uist with one leg but that is what happens with surveys, methodology and resources to carry them out matter. We can only get so specific with the sum-groups before the data loses all meaning.
Now if after asking those questions you have some issues relating to the survey let me know, with detail please. I can see what I can do about it.
However, I will not respond to people's whim of I have an axe to grind let me use it here e.g. kenny use to be ifa, tainted by the devil, I don't like the ifa, so I don't like this survey. PS it is funded by the heritage bodies (my bosses) ifa, fame, etc. only have advisory roles and have practically nothing to do with this. So whatever problems you have with them, it has nothing to do with me (unless it is with me, I doubt this as I am pretty sure I have only met david, none of you actually know me). I will not respond to those questions and please stop telling to me f-off because I don't. Please stop telling me to shove it and pay you money when I am trying to get more detail of what issue you have so I can try to fix it.
Thank you.
PS on a totally unrelated note David- do you have any dates yet to take the little ones out digging?