Research in commercial archaeology

[oldgirl]

quote:[i]
Indeed, although I suspect that the problem is deeper rooted than that. How many archaeology students, undergraduate or post-graduate, have any concept of what the SMR/HER even is? Never mind their tutors. I think a compulsory period of work placement or at least a decent visit should be required for all, or how about modules where a project is based around information held with the SMR. There is so much information in some of them (including unpublished stuff) that a more pro-active approach would be very helpful. Perhaps the councils could team up with the local unis (where there is one). Any examples where this is already taking place? Someone is missing a trick here...

And also up to date and useful information on the National Monuments Records (NMRs) in Wales, England and Scotland. I have often come across students in the English NMR who have been told to go there, but have arrived with no idea what they should be looking at. The staff at all the NMRs are very helpful and knowledgeable, but I have witnessed a lot of hand holding which would have been unneccesary if the students involved had been given some guidance by their tutors/lecturers in advance.

It's very difficult, whether at an SMR/HER or an NMR if you are shown the enormous amount of information available, but don't know where to find the end of that first piece of string!

On Regional Research Frameworks - Sometimes I've found them useful and sometimes I haven't. They are certainly useful for stressing the importance of periods which many archaeologists don't find 'sexy' or haven't been interested in within that region in the past. e.g. it's easy to find more Iron Age sites and look at parallels in your region when there has been lots done in that region, but sometimes people will overlook just how important that one example ever of a late 19th century gasworks is.

I think also it's very important that the research frameworks aren't static and develop as work which feeds into them is done.

[shovelnomore]

Regional frameworks are generally pretty good and make life easier when you're on unfamiliar ground. However, they can't be relied completely.

The one big reservation I have follows oldgirl's point about the need to keep them up to date. What they are is a statement of what the archaeological community considers interesting at the time of writing. As such, they principally represent the views of an invited panel of specialists, each with their own research interests. The danger is that rather than promoting research, they actually make it much harder to argue that something not previously considered interesting is actually very important. Most of the agendas I've seen are valiant attempts by specialists to look beyond their personal interests, but as ever, things that might be considered 'fringe' can be ignored.

Consultation and review are the key, but how often are these things going to be reviewed? Theoretically continuously, but it's hard to see how that will be disseminated. It took at least 25 years (sorry I can't remember the dates) to update the first research agenda published in the north east, and the consensus was that that was pretty quick, if well overdue...

[chiz]

posted by shovelnomore:

quote:Consultation and review are the key, but how often are these things going to be reviewed? Theoretically continuously, but it's hard to see how that will be disseminated. It took at least 25 years (sorry I can't remember the dates) to update the first research agenda published in the north east, and the consensus was that that was pretty quick, if well overdue...

Quite, its a problem I'm grappling with with a GIS research project on past investigations we're trying to get going. I know we can get it to work technically, I know all kinds of varied people will find it very useful, but I don't know precisely how to structure it to have a legacy that can reintegrate all the new data that will flow into it.
This is all part of what I said about not just dumping paper and permatrace records in an archive, they have to be structured so they are easily integrated into future research. Your archive may be 'grey', but it is part of a wider context. The use of new technology and systems could open everything up and make all the previous work accessible so we can see new themes and patterns, as well as areas requiring research, more quickly. But first we have to clear the backlog and get the archives in order!

[RedEarth]

quote:

'it's easy to find more Iron Age sites and look at parallels in your region...'

That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages... Oh, you're serious, sorry. In that case I wish!

Good point about the NMR and SMR/HER - perhaps the tutors should be introduced to them first!

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by RedEarth

quote:

'it's easy to find more Iron Age sites and look at parallels in your region...'

That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages... Oh, you're serious, sorry. In that case I wish!

Good point about the NMR and SMR/HER - perhaps the tutors should be introduced to them first!

It was an example rather than a specific..... (Although I have been working in areas where the Iron Age is MUCH better represented in the archaeological record, and much more studied, than the more obscure Industrial Revolution stuff!)

Yes, I think they probably should. In many cases, however, I think it's as much about helping people recognise what questions they need to (or can!) answer and then knowing where to point them! And in my darker moments I wonder how many people actually have any idea how to actually do research.....

[andy.bicket]

quote:Originally posted by gorilla

If academics (mainly) are writing this stuff and identifying the gaps, why aren't they pushing for the work to get done? Is it a lack of interest, lack of funding or, dare I say it, it's just that academics have become parochial. Sometimes, it appears (to me) that research is geared towards what each individual academic wants, rather than to general questions that should be answered. Does the majority of research funding go to an academics 'pet' project (more-often-than-not a sciency one), or to ones that are deemed 'sexy archaeology'? Some of the best PhD topics (and students) don't get any funding at all, whilst some of the worst do.

I think the key issue here is how postgraduate research and research in general is funded. Our research council, the AHRC, is one of the least funded research councils, compared to Industry, chemistry, physics and global environmental research we are but tiny. Not helped that £5million of ring-fenced funding was taken off the AHRC last year to bail out the Rover collapse (the figure in ESRC, and NERC were much higher, reflecting their bigge budgets, which in turn reflects the massive costs in undertaking scientific research at a global standard)...anyway...axe-ground to a Neolithic standard.

The funders of research will in general have their own agendas/quotas to fill. For example last year you could get many thousands of pounds to examine contemporary dance, but you would get hee-haw if you wanted to examine an archaeological site utilising environmental methods. This focus changes every year or so, but I fear not if you want to involve archaeological science anywhere in a proposal except in the vaguest terms...personal experience here, still bitter

Therefore for academics to get grants, the EU, research coucils and other smaller bodies have agendas/hoops academics need to jump through, which does ultimately affect the research questions that are formulated. Plus, funding bodies love "inter-disciplinary" research, which can often mean compromising with other non-archaeological depts on research topics, and or working internationally therefore not contributing to the British record.
Another issue is that archaeological science is not in the remit of any Research council. AHRC don't like it, and NERC don't accept applications, they deal out the cash on a completely different basis.

In order to remain well- (or ok-)funded, a top-level research dept must maintain a 5-rating in the RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) that happens every few years. A university will slash a depts funding if it falls below 5, this is what happened at a certain Scottish dept in the last few years, and its resources have declined significantly, merging, loss of buildings all sorts of problems - they do recover though . This is another pressure that drives research...to continue being funded, research of an international level must be maintained across the board...stress, stress, stress. This obviously doesn't mean that local/regional British archaeology isn't worth looking at, it just means that research is becoming increasingly controlled by these issues, rather than what people actually want to study or would be useful. Unless it can be published in peer-reviewed, significant journals for example, the time and effort needed to fund a project makes anything less than that unlikely. This is partly down to the unique way in which universities are funded, and mostly because like hospitals there is an army of bureaucrats managing the hell out of everything (2 for every academic in my uni,just in case we do something worth any money it seems )...there is an agenda everywhere.

Obviously there are depts that don't go for research in such a big way as others and are centres of teaching excellence, but then they won't have budgets for research on the scale as others etc etc so personal interests may dominate here.

I fear that as always, funding is the driving factor.

Phew...B)

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by andy.bicket
The funders of research will in general have their own agendas/quotas to fill. For example last year you could get many thousands of pounds to examine contemporary dance, but you would get hee-haw if you wanted to examine an archaeological site utilising environmental methods. This focus changes every year or so, but I fear not if you want to involve archaeological science anywhere in a proposal except in the vaguest terms...personal experience here, still bitter...

Hmmn. Tough call Andy, but if you can't beat em join em! Have you tried: 'Multi-proxy paleoenvironmental site investigations, expressed through the medium of contemporary dance'?
A sort of high-art meets high-viz leotard. Its a sure-fire hit with developers too, although chaffing may be a problem.