Archaeology... it's the future!

[Oxbeast]

Dirty Dave; "what's the point of a degree in the job if the people then turn up on site wanting a job and not knowing how to do it?"

I think that you're mixing up the purposes of academic and vocational qualifications. A degree in archaeology is not a qualification to do archaeological fieldwork in the UK, nor is it intended to be; most graduates do not become archaeologists.

Bricklayers do specific vocational qualifications which train them to do a very limited job. Academic degrees should teach people how to think and train them in a range of techniques and ideas, rather than give industry-specific training.

There did used to be vocational archaeology qualifications, and the IfA is bringing in an NVQ.

[BAJR Host]

and the IfA is bringing in an NVQ...... brought it in April 2007

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[trowelmonkey]

**rant alert**

We seem to be straying into the territory of "What ONE thing would change archaeology," where the mood seems to be focused on a clearer career structure.

I started digging before going to uni and went on to do a degree because I foolishly thought that I would learn the science (for want of a better word)of what I was doing, (taphonomy, soils, surveying, better artefact skills, development of SMRs, using APs etc). I am glad that I started at the digging end because my degree was very heavily theoretical and philosophical and at the time seemed very divorced from archaeology as I knew it and the university was outright hostile toward the commercial sector. Had I not dug, the experience would've completely put me off an archaeological career.

In retrospect, however, I am glad I did the degree because it gave me the skills to research and report write, although these benefits did not show themselves for some years. I am not sure that university is the best place to learn how to dig beyond the basics. Time is short and there is so much to teach, and I honestly think that the commercial sector as a whole excavates to a higher standard than the academic, granted we can't always structure our research aims as we would like. I would like to see a final year placement scheme like teachers do and that is an area where the IfA could help. (Personally, I think their current bursary scheme is excellent and a real measurable improvement.)

There is a bigger problem though. I have noticed in the past few years that universities are starting to crank out belligerent archaeology graduates (see IfA paper on scribd) who do not listen, look and learn but only challenge every single sentence like a bunch of three year olds. I mean the very little things like, "clean your tools, please share the wheelbarrow because there isn't enough space in that corner, don't walk on that area, it hasn't been photoed...." I really think work experience on a real site would demonstrate why a site is a team effort before they reach the "I have a degree, my tutor says I should be a supervisor in three months," stage.

An industry wide promotion structure would be nice too. I entirely agree on the point about supervisors who can't dig etc. When somebody with the same job title as me in the same company (so theoretical equality of role) cannot do their job it reflects poorly on me, on the company and the profession as a whole. (Anybody who knows me knows that I am egalitarian and believe in people helping each other out, but site assistants writing uncredited reports for PO's is taking the p*** and has been known to happen.)

I think that all units should have a clearly stated probation period after which there should be a formal assessment and training provided for skills gaps and a second probationary period if required. I also think that for BAJR grades 4/5 and above there should be an external member of the profession at the assessment (ie a member of another independent archaeological organisation, trust, curator, rival unit, or similar). Units could reciprocate between themselves, say to a maximum of 3 cases in a row with the same partner or a year). After all, universities have external examiners. I think this would be preferable to assessment centres.

I know the government is all obsessed with getting as many people as possible to have first degrees, but if the IfA does one good thing it would be pushing for the case of making continuing education easier (funding, time....) because this is an industry that benefits from a learn more as you go structure. As you might have guessed I am a strong supporter of CPD and have kept a log for the past five years. It has proven far more useful than I ever thought it would when I grudgingly started. Seeing my development put down has given me greater confidence to plan my personal career strategy even during stints when jobs have been shorter than what I would've liked.

I think we really owe it to ourselves to behave like professionals, even if we are a profession like no other.[8D]

as ever cannae spell

[i_love_rocks]

trowelmonkey wrote:
"There is a bigger problem though. I have noticed in the past few years that universities are starting to crank out belligerant archaeology graduates (see IfA paper on scribd) who do not listen, look and learn but only challenge every single sentence like a bunch of three year olds. I mean the very little things like, "clean your tools, please share the wheelbarrow because there isn't enough space in that corner, don't walk on that area, it hasn't been photoed...." I really think work experience on a real site would demonstrate why a site is a team effort."

Although this is slightly going off topic I wanted to weigh in on this one in particular, because I am not sure that this is the fault of universities especially.
Right now I do not work in the commercial sector, but for the last couple of years I have taken university students as part of their fieldwork experience to work on one of my sites abroad. Unfortunately, I have often had a very similar experience to what trowelmonkey describes. At first I thought this was subjective, but I have since gotten the same feedback from others.
Now, it seems that some people working in commercial archaeology think that archaeologists working in academia can't dig/ dig too slow/ never publish/ etc. (see others on this forum) and that this kind of behaviour is therefore a result of bad teaching in the field and all the universities fault.

If I can just say that I and the people I work with demand very high standards from all our staff (because we feel that its our responsibility as archaeologists and because we're being scrutinized by peer-review) and that we also work under time pressure, with limited financial resources, and often in very difficult circumstances (45 degrees in the shade on a 12 hour work day isn't exactly taking it easy).
[as a side note: while I am sure there was a lack of publication by some academics in the past, times have changed. If you don't publish your work now, you are highly unlikely to receive another grant for fieldwork until you've fully published the results of your last excavation! Plus, with the RAE this kind of stuff is also important to be put out if you want to progress career wise].

So, I don't think one can accuse universities (some perhaps, but not all) of not showing students what its like to work in the field - whether that's commercial excavation or straightforward research.
On my project I take great care in teaching students all aspects of field archaeology from excavation, recording, drawing, photography, surveying with and without total station, finds drawing to finds ID, because I know those are the skills they will need to make them valuable to employers and useful people in the field.

Despite all that, however, I've found that there are increasingly people who simply do not take pride in the simple mantra of 'a job well done' and see this as a source of motivation and inspiration. And there are increasingly people who simply think they know it all, and won't bloody listen to well-meant advice. And there is an increase in selfishness and a lack of teamwork, for sure. I have seen this a lot on my projects, but sometimes it is simply something that you can't teach!
My experience is the same as trowelmonkey describes, and I cannot help but feel that this might simply be a generational change - even if saying that makes me sound like an old crank.

One other thing while I am ranting: teaching people in the field isn't a straightforward practice either. It takes skill and I am not convinced that newbies on a site are always treated with the same respect or courtesy as old-timers. How often does it happen that a fresh graduate from a university gets the s*** jobs on site, because - well - she/he is new and first has to earn their stripes? How often are they made to feel that they might have a degree, but that that doesn't count anything and they know nothing until they have pushed X wheelbarrows, troweled X surfaces and had X pints in the pub.
Teaching skills takes patience and it takes skill - simply teaming a newbie up with an old-timer isn't always going to work!
What I am trying to say is that the impression one might get from some fresh graduates might be a reaction to the reception they encounter.

If archaeology is really what we care about we've got to stop the blame game of "it's X fault". We either work together or we're going to make the situation worse. I've never understood the hostility between academic archaeologists and commercial archaeologists in the UK.

[BAJR Host]

Two very good posts there.. I would just like to pop in one point.. re:

quote:So, I don't think one can accuse universities (some perhaps, but not all) of not showing students what its like to work in the field - whether that's commercial excavation or straightforward research.

I think you may be an exception rather than a rule, as from what I have seen.. and I haev seen a bit [8D] When I went to Uni (briefly!) I already had over 12 weeks exp, and was expected to do 4 weeks every year as a minimum ... this has dropped considerably.. there is no getting away from it. And As one who has seen both the baking sands of Araby and the wet hills of Home, I noticed that when I started as a commercial archaeologist - it was a bit of a shock... I was not ready for commercial archaeology in certain respects when I had spent time troweling sand and looking for Roman mosaics.. in some cases with a team of workers!

It is however again... and good point well made... a bit of pride in profession... I felt I could dig anything in the UK, once I had coped with mudbrick arcaheology in Turkey... I was an arcaheologist, and as such, you could point me at anything and I would use my archaeologist mind to adapt to the situation... archaeology is after all archaeology (which came first, what is the extent of the feature, what process do I need to record it. etc)

The suggestion would be to have an element of apprenticeship .. a 4 week training period in 3rd year? and an attempt to produce commited individuals who pop out of the uni system with both eyes open to what lies ahead AND with a confidence in being able... not newbies (as they are often seen as, who you have to coax through taking levels) but as New Archaeologists. Acceptance by old timers.. but also equality and recognition of time served... it often wrankled that a fresh graduate would be paid the same as a 10 year pro... a bit of progression.

We come back again to Training... Progression, Telescoping the pay scales, Commitment, Reward, Confidence, Achievement. In other words.. a Profession.. with a Professional attitude. a start point and various directions that lead to a stable life.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[i_love_rocks]

Points taken, Mr Hosty,

I like being the exception to the rule! Having worked in commercial archaeology before, I guess I had a different attitude when I finally did go on digs overseas.
I agree that how archaeology is done and what you find can be very different, but the skills shouldn't - as you say.

And yes, there are very few universities that can now offer a comprehensive field program as part of an undergraduate degree. This is a massive problem (that also extends to other areas - such as the basics of artefact handling and analysis).
Partly this has to do with funding, but it's also a problem of government rules. Everything now has to be assessed somehow and how do you assess a fieldwork component? Its being done, but it is far from straightforward.

Another problem is: not everyone that does a degree in archaeology wants to work on excavation or do fieldwork. Either they don't want to do archaeology full stop, or they are more interested in lab work. That's always been the case. You can't exclude this sizeable proportion of people (simple because if you would half the uni departments would shut down).

Has anyone set out in a guideline the basic fieldwork skills a graduate should have by the time they're finished at university? And by that I mean a list that could be put forward as a nation wide curriculum standard: leveling, surveying, recording, excavating, photography etc.? If there was such a field skills curriculum guideline, can that be pushed to be adopted as a binding standard? Then one could ask via Quality Control why graduates from X university do not fill that standard...

[Windbag]

quote:Originally posted by trowelmonkey


There is a bigger problem though. I have noticed in the past few years that universities are starting to crank out belligerent archaeology graduates (see IfA paper on scribd) who do not listen, look and learn but only challenge every single sentence like a bunch of three year olds.

I think what trowelmonkey might be touching on here is a change in academic and educational structure. These days, archaeology undergraduates are far more likely to be taught skills and theories than facts. The facts are there to be challenged with one's newly honed critical skills. It's all part of the post-processual, baby-boomer theoretical consensus prevalent in British academic archaeology.
Things are very different elsewhere. I remember giving a journal review presentation to some Mexican undergraduates. At the end of the presentation, when I'd pointed out weaknesses and alternative solutions to those put forward in the paper, I was asked by one undergraduate how dare I, as a foreign student, think to criticise this great Mexican archaeologist's work?
A very different attitude, and not one that I'd particularly like to see return in force to UK academia.

[BAJR Host]

set out in a guideline the basic fieldwork skills ... bet they have not.... fancy giving it a go ) I feel a BAJR guide coming on! ps... a student who wrote an article for Past Horizons (issue forthcoming) has a grip on field survey techniques that many could learn from.. so its not all bad! I am hoping they will collaborate to provide another BAJR guide

so much to do... so little time! You may be exceptional.. though I am sure there are others... and you raise that ever present spectre of Uni funding.. and accountability.. not easy.. but then... life is never easy!

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[RedEarth]

As one who had added to the debate on academic v commercial archaeology I was not intending to attack all academics, rather respond to what appeared to amount to a general attack on the standards of commercial archaeologists (the BA article, Richard Bradley's article and probably others). Things may well be different in academic circles now, but it's a bit difficult to criticise someone for taking 20 years to publish if they've only just finished on site. When they have taken that long how many people will even remember that the work was even done? The same situation faces commercial archaeologists - they might once have been able to take as long as they liked to publish, but it's unlikely they'd get away with it now, although there are cases where circumstances might take it out of their control (developer going bust, local authority not enforcing publication requirement etc). As was said, it is a case of having some sense of doing a decent job, which includes everyone. And as Mr Host says, universities, like commercial units, have very varying ideas of what is considered suitable practical experience and that can vary massively in type. Commercial units might be being prudently cautious in not accepting university experience very seriously some times.

Anyway, what was this topic about?

Also - how does one find the Scribd article mentioned by Trowelmonkey?

[i_love_rocks]

@ RedEarth

Fair enough. It goes both ways.
As I said, I think the back stabbing from either side against the other isn't helping and I think you'd agree.
There are black sheep in both sectors of the discipline.
We've got to pull on the same strin