Volunteers

[Paul Belford]

Peter has made some points about volunteers in the rather heated thread about metal detecting. I think these have a wider relevance than to the debate on detecting (which I do not intend to involve myself in), and would be interested in peoples' views. Apologies for the lengthy post.

Peter wrote:

quote:OK here is why I will not use "volunteers" even if they are free.

1. H&S issues but mainly in terms of training, accountability and control.
2. PPE
3. Quality control - it is easy to maintain quality control with somebody who is hired.
4. Confidentiallity
5. Data consistency
6. Hours of work
7. Understanding of ecological requirements
8. Supervision
9. Administration.
10. Control.
11. Management and supervision time.

This is just the reality of archaeology in the C21 where the bulk of the work is done as part of multi-million pound projects.

I have used volunteers (including detectorists) on a number of projects. Not all projects are suitable, but many of the issues that Peter raises can easily be overcome. One recent project was for a conservation trust, and involved an overall budget of millions of pounds. Here is how we dealt with the following issues:

1. H&S issues but mainly in terms of training, accountability and control. The site in question was heavily contaminated. Prior to starting work all staff (both paid and volunteer) had the same H&S induction and were given copies of risk assessments. Accountability and control was through the normal line management structures.

2. PPE Part of the mitigation of the contamination risk was PPE, including all-over suits and breathing masks. This was provided by us to all staff and was costed in from the outset.

3. Quality control - it is easy to maintain quality control with somebody who is hired. It is also easy to maintain quality control with volunteers. The key is in training, and involving them closely in the aims, objectives and hoped-for outcomes of the project. Quality in this project was achieved through close supervision - time for this was built into the project costings.

4. Confidentiallity. (sic) No problem here (see point 8 below).

5. Data consistency. This comes under 'quality control', see point 3 above.

6. Hours of work. Individual volunteers obviously work different hours, but core hours were required. Each volunteer's days and hours were mutually agreed beforehand - and because they felt involved and engaged and part of the project there was no major problem (see also point 8 below).

7. Understanding of ecological requirements. This issue didn't arise in our specific project, but again would be dealt with as part of the initial induction training (see point 8 below).

8. Supervision. All volunteers had to be committed to the project; they were chosen and selected by the conservation trust rather than ourselves. We had a pre-project meeting where we outlined the aims and objectives and intended outcomes of the project. We showed them the risk assessments and explained the H&S issues, then gave them a full induction. They had copies of the project design and risk assessment. The volunteers were integrated into the management structure of the paid project team. Finally, they all recieved, and signed, volunteer agreements which specified the hours they worked, the duties they would undertake, their rights and responsibilities, and our rights and responsibilities.

9. Administration. Built in as part of the project costs (see also point 11 below).

10. Control. See point 8 above.

11. Management and supervision time. This was built into the project costs.

Now I will be the first to admit that this was an exceptional project, undertaken for a conservation trust who actually wanted volunteers involved. I would also point out that there were one or two minor teething troubles as we went on. However I see no reason why volunteers cannot be brought on board to many projects, both public- and private-sector.

The value that volunteers bring is well worth the additional costs that they incur - and no, volunteers are not free, they do cost money in terms of all of the things that Peter has mentioned (H&S, PPE, training, supervision, administration etc.). In this case (recording a factory) we gained the experience of a number of people who had worked on similar sites (ie. as factory workers).

Provided a rigorous framework is established and adhered to, and appropriate provision made in the project costs, then the reality of archaeology in the twenty-first century can (and should) embrace volunteers wherever possible. Only by engaging with non-archaeologists and working with them will we be able to overcome some of the issues we have seen in (yet another) metal detecting thread.

I would be very interested to hear from others about their experiences.

[drpeterwardle]

That about the long and short of it. Volunteers are far from free and yet it can be done. But surely the more we encourage volunteers the more we are returning to the notion of archaeologists not being paid.

Equally I dont buy it to everybody has to start somewhere crap. If you want to work in the construction industry you get a job, an apprenticeship or go to university. When I got my first job in construction I earn a basic of UKP25 which could buy me 200 pints per week compared to the 96 pints that a diggers wage will buy.

Why is archaeology different?

Peter

[Sith]

I agree with your points Paul. What I have never really got to grips with is how archaeology progressed from the point long ago and far, far away, where I began my career - as a volunteer on a professional excavation contributing to the work and receiving training - to today, where volunteers are almost totally excluded except in special circumstances. It's not impossible to integrate volunteers into a professional framework (look at schools, hospitals or even the army). It just needs a bit of forethought from the employers to enable them to best make use of the skills and dedication of the volunteers.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Don't make me destroy you, Curator

[Oxbeast]

Busy today, isn't it?

I take your point about volunteers Sith, but these days there are lots of projects set up with volunteers in mind. These are often good projects financed through charging people for training and experience - experience that would have been gained in times past on what are now commercial sites. Its probably also better for the volunteer- no one is going to volunteer to join me on a solo watching brief in winter.

Integrating volunteers now would surely also take an understanding client and consultant, as well as an understanding unit. They might legitimately "say why should we meet the higher costs associated with volunteers with little tangible benefit to ourselves?" There are of course PR benefits to clients.

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

That about the long and short of it. Volunteers are far from free and yet it can be done. But surely the more we encourage volunteers the more we are returning to the notion of archaeologists not being paid.

I think this it the crunch of the matter isn't it.
Are volunteers threatening qualified archaeologists jobs.



Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[oldgirl]

I also started as a volunteer on an excavation where others were paid, but that was because there was no other choice. I also got started properly on an MSC scheme (Manpower Services Commission, not Master of Science - for the younger members) after being unemployed for 6 months - also pretty much the only way to get work at the time. I welcome the fact that new entrants to the profession of archaeology are actually paid to do the work and would not want that to change back to the older ways of doing things.

With regard to volunteers, the point made many years ago was always that it was not reasonable to use a volunteer (unpaid, albeit not free) in place of a paid member of staff (also not free, and not just because of the pay aspect - there are other things, such as paid leave, that are part of a paid job) on commercial projects. I've never heard it said that you can't use volunteers at all, they may have skills/information in addition to the core professional skills of the staff, but should not act as a cheaper replacement for them.

So, all in all, there are definately projects where involvement of volunteers is entirely appropriate and a positive thing. They should not, however, be replacing individuals who are more able to deal effectively with a finite resource simply because they are cheaper.

[gumbo]

Yeh i agree 100% with Oldgirl, who said it a lot better than I was thinking of trying to say it!

[Paul Belford]

Thanks old girl, I couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't actually think volunteers are significantly cheaper. Supervising volunteers often occupies a large amount of time that would otherwise be spent working. I would certainly agree that volunteer involvement on the normal run of developer-funded projects is usually not possible. We have discussed this before. However on larger projects, and on projects which seek to have a specific community benefit (whether through genuine altruism or the need for developer PR), it is not only possible but actually desirable to engage volunteers.

Remember also that volunteering is not just about digging - there a wide range of other on-site and off-site activities that non-professionals can get involved with and in so doing make a significant contribution.




Edited due to silly typo!

[Oxbeast]

Absolutely, oldgirl.

The problem as I see it, is if the volunteer is not doing the work that a paid member of staff would otherwise be doing, what exactly are they doing?

Do you get them to do things like take out the other half of a pit that has been sectioned? Or re-trowel areas? Or just shadow people and learn?

I don't suppose anyone on here was/is involved in YAT's big pro/am dig in York?

[drpeterwardle]

I talked extensively about what was wrong about the volunter system in my BAJR 2006 paper and how it evolved. Volunters are no threat to qualified archaeologists jobs.

Gary can you imagine how annoying it is when people say do you get paid or have had to go university. I got asked this by an architect at a clients lunch party last year very funny. I told him the level of my fees .....

OK lets look at one point confidentiality. Big nasty developers want to demolish factory which is still in use but the workers havent been told this yet or what it will mean. This factory has to be recorded as part of the conservation statement who would you choose?

a. highly respected consultant with confidentiality systems in place from the other end of the country.
b. the local history society and volunteers
c. the local archaeological unit with volunteers
d the local archaeology unit without volunteers.

And here is H&S question.

How long does a gas free certificate last?
A One week
B One month
C One day
D One hour

Is it realistic to expect volunteers to know the answer to things like this.

I am not saying volunteers cannot make a contribution - look at the Defence of Britain Project but their involvement in main stream archaeological projects is the exception rather than the rule.

Peter