3rd May 2007, 02:02 PM
We have discussed the issue of 'training' in universities at length on BAJR before.
The big issue here is to decide whether an archaeology degree is supposed to be 'vocational' (i.e. training for a professional job) or 'educational' (i.e. academic study about archaeology, rather than training to do archaeology).
Many other professions square this circle by restricting the use of their professional title (e.g. 'architect' or 'doctor') to people who have not only obtained a degree in the subject, but have also completed a year of on-the-job training and then another year or two of post-graduate study, usually equivalent to a taught Masters degree. Holders of a BA in Architecture with no further qualifications, for instance, can't call themselves 'architects', only 'architectural technicians'.
That approach, however, would strongly conflict with the general culture in archaeology. We have debated in the past whether or not it is necessary even to hold a first degree to be an archaeologist, and whether it is valid to apply hierarchical structures that distinguish those wielding trowels and mattocks from those making records and writing reports.
The lines are much more sharply drawn in other professions. You would never get an architect or a civil engineer laying bricks, no matter how skilled that job is, and there isn't much overlap between doctors and nurses.
In archaeology, the very blurred line between those who do physical work on site and those who make records/write reports/design and manage projects may be a good thing in itself, but it is also one of the barriers to recognition as a proper profession.
If we did choose to make that distinction much clearer, it would open the way to a much clearer (and more onerous) definition of the qualifications required to be an 'archaeologist', and to creating a proper structure not only for academic study of archaeology but also (separately) for professional training for archaeologists.
I don't really know whether I advocate that course, but it would address some of the problems raised in this debate.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
The big issue here is to decide whether an archaeology degree is supposed to be 'vocational' (i.e. training for a professional job) or 'educational' (i.e. academic study about archaeology, rather than training to do archaeology).
Many other professions square this circle by restricting the use of their professional title (e.g. 'architect' or 'doctor') to people who have not only obtained a degree in the subject, but have also completed a year of on-the-job training and then another year or two of post-graduate study, usually equivalent to a taught Masters degree. Holders of a BA in Architecture with no further qualifications, for instance, can't call themselves 'architects', only 'architectural technicians'.
That approach, however, would strongly conflict with the general culture in archaeology. We have debated in the past whether or not it is necessary even to hold a first degree to be an archaeologist, and whether it is valid to apply hierarchical structures that distinguish those wielding trowels and mattocks from those making records and writing reports.
The lines are much more sharply drawn in other professions. You would never get an architect or a civil engineer laying bricks, no matter how skilled that job is, and there isn't much overlap between doctors and nurses.
In archaeology, the very blurred line between those who do physical work on site and those who make records/write reports/design and manage projects may be a good thing in itself, but it is also one of the barriers to recognition as a proper profession.
If we did choose to make that distinction much clearer, it would open the way to a much clearer (and more onerous) definition of the qualifications required to be an 'archaeologist', and to creating a proper structure not only for academic study of archaeology but also (separately) for professional training for archaeologists.
I don't really know whether I advocate that course, but it would address some of the problems raised in this debate.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished