Professional standards - alternative version

[AchingTrenchHeadAtADesk]

No, but someone clearly has.

[1man1desk]

Interesting results so far. The voting is actually more optimistic than I expected - more votes than expected for option 2, and fewer for option 4. I didn't expect any at all for option 1.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Sparky]

Optimistic eh? I would call that 'the jar's half empty' rather than full.

'Mum!!! Can you get me the toilet roll, please!'

Noam Chomsky

[BAJR Host]

agreed about the voting... a nice bell curve.. where one could say that more than 70% think it is adequate or above and only 25% think it is rubbish...

one also could read it to say that 75% think we either get by with the minimum required or less...

Either way... it is something to discuss...




"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[Sparky]

I would interpret it as 75% of the voters believe that archaeology is treated as acceptable and below. I would suggest this is an indictment against adherance to IfA standards which often stress assurance of quality!

'Mum!!! Can you get me the toilet roll, please!'

Noam Chomsky

[1man1desk]

Posted by Sparky:

quote:Optimistic eh? I would call that 'the jar's half empty' rather than full.

Well, I was commenting on the voting, not on the standard of archaeological work.

Given the normal pattern of comment on BAJR threads, I had expected more people to vote for options 4 or 5 and fewer for option 2. I didn't expect any votes for option 1.

That doesn't mean I would agree with those results. My own vote was for option 3 - ie I believe that most work is done to an adequate standard, but no better than that. Some work is very good, but about the same amount is really shoddy.

I agree with you about the glass - half empty rather than half full.

It should not be possible to get away with shoddy work at all. At the same time, 'just adequate' is pretty disappointing - we should all be aiming for 'best practice' all the time. I wouldn't be happy with these voting results unless we were getting more than 50% on options 1 and 2, and none on option 5.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Sparky]

Couldn't agree with you more, old man, 1man.

'Mum!!! Can you get me the toilet roll, please!'

Noam Chomsky

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

1man, this is very good poll-two worrying thoughts spring to mind on the results
1-With any site crew the person in charge is supposed to be checking the work done by the crew,and if they are allowing a lot of shoddy work to be done then that is an indictment on the quality of some site directors.
2-All sites are then supposed to be monitored by the local curator/community archaeologist,and if they are allowing shoddy work to get by them then this is an indictment against some of them as well:face-huh:
I voted for number 4.

[Sparky]

Dave,

I was reluctant to post any reasoning behind people voting patterns because the causes are plural and complex. This could include site staff being inexperienced or poorly trained. Same for supervisors. Same for Management. Management could be putting pressure on senior site staff to complete projects within time and budget. Timescales and budget might be disproportionate. Curators have their own pressures too. I wouldn't like to aportion blame singularly.

Anyway, it all depends which way the results are veiwed.

I'm still surprised at the 1 and 2 voters. Defensive management, perhaps?

S

'Mum!!! Can you get me the toilet roll, please!'

Noam Chomsky

[BAJR Host]

agreed with...

it should be high on option 2... a few on option 1 a few on option 3 and next to none on 4 and 5...

I to notice that the voting seems to be fair.. and representative... rather than what 1man suggests might have been a BAJR of the past attitude of.. its all cr@p ... which is good

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton