Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
18th March 2010, 06:19 PM
OK yeah you have me there.... but frankly 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of watching briefs are the result of some consultant arguing that a excavation is unnecessary.
(ok I'm exaggerating a little)
the thing is why is there a watching brief.... on some huge gas pipeline project tearing across the landscape it makes some sense but in a urban context why isn't the project designed to strip out and demo then excavate.. if there is nothing there so what? the watching brief become an area excavation with nothing in it.
I don't have a problem with that
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
18th March 2010, 10:43 PM
midi you sound like an independant....are you
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
18th March 2010, 11:32 PM
independant?
more like a burnt out wreck
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
18th March 2010, 11:41 PM
do you think that before there is a watching brief there should be an evaluation
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
19th March 2010, 12:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 19th March 2010, 12:28 AM by mididoctors.)
PANDORAS BOX
do you really want to go there?
the current procedures in place in commercial archaeology (whatever the original intent was) are now a function of middle management decision making too such an extent that commercial archaeology is now optimized around the day to day problems faced by middle management! All the decision making concerning how the record is extracted is function of these middle management issues rather than recovering relevent data that can help get "the right answer" this extends into every area EG site specific reserch agendas which have become an exercise in absurd confirmation bias rather than probing the limits of Knowledge and understanding... which in turn should be instructing us as field archaeologists to modify our techniques to collect data in meaningful ways thus revealing "the truth" or "a truth"
evaluations appear at first glance to be a very sensible idea but have in practice become a way to preempt inquiry so that they are subservient to middle management problems IE archaeological practice has evolved to solve middle management issues rather than solve the riddles of the past.
evaluations are probably unavoidable for practical reasons that are too obvious and boring to mention
The current problems with commercial archaeology can be best described as a profession that has become optimized around middle management cack
interestingly this is occurring in other professions and disciplines. Some will argue our role is not to solve specific research goals but just collect data but this assumes we are collecting data in a manner our descendants (or academic contemporaries) will find useful ... ie we have reached the ultimate methodology. That assumption is so stupid I can't be bothered to labour the point. What you need is a system that feed-backs modifications from the analysis interpretation end to the field end in the most productive and expedient way possible. What we have now falls short of that by a few parsecs. We are currently moving in the opposite direction and the misuse of evaluations is part of that.
if you want to keep archaeology in the commercial sector you need to engineer evaluations so they are able to function in the role of middle management quantification assessment but not form part of a mitigation strategy to ease middle management functioning.. a default human behaviour that is not always the primary goal.
I don't know ..something like
evaluations should be paid for by a consortium of potential tendering archaeological units for cost estimation... all sites are dug 100%
THE END
identifying where the problems are and why isn't difficult... trying to undermine the entrenched thinking is a ffffing nightmare
not least because the IFA itself operates as a middle management facilitator and has one of its major clauses acting as a block on any change whatsoever
its position of authority on the need to avoid bringing the profession of archaeology into disrepute is a tremendous own goal
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
19th March 2010, 11:13 AM
mididoctors Wrote:evaluations are probably unavoidable for practical reasons that are too obvious and boring to mention
Plant food?
Charities?
Pensions?
possibly....?
[INDENT]Shiny assed county mounty, office lurker, coffee junkie and facebook scanner[/INDENT]
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
19th March 2010, 11:49 AM
"commercial archaeology is now optimized around the day to day problems faced by middle management ....decision making concerning how the record is extracted is function of these middle management issues rather than recovering relevent data that can help get "the right answer" this extends into every area EG site specific reserch agendas which have become an exercise in absurd confirmation bias rather than probing the limits of Knowledge and understanding..." -mididoctors (modified a bit)
Well said midi :face-approve:- I think you have seriously pertinent point there pal - i think we should extract this disscusion from the Drugs&Alcohol thread, as i think needs more specific disscusion...
On many occasions i have been brought into direct conflict with middle managment by finding more archaeology than was thought to be present, arguing that minimal standards should be exceeded in certain cases, and frequently having to activley argue for 'scientifically' valid conclusions based on 'proper' evidence.....
I have been labbled as a trouble maker, an "academic" and a "dreamer", niaive, and a lunatic because of this...despite (IMO) stiking closley to 'facts' and 'logic'...i have been made very angry by this (which has never helped!).
This should not be happening...i have met too many Wantwits and Lackbrains who seriuosly need 're-orientating' for proggressive aspirations in commercial archaeology to be fullfilled...
Really good managers, interested in real research beyond the limits of there own knowledge, are notable and praiseworthy...they are hampered by the 'commercial culture' as midi has pointed out....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
19th March 2010, 12:03 PM
vulpes Wrote:Plant food?
Charities?
Pensions?
possibly....?
you have a point
actually on reflection the borehole geotech survey covers most of it.. thou an onsite inspection of the columns by a arch would help
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
19th March 2010, 12:11 PM
Anyway - to complete the canabis issue;
It is commonly recomended that it may take 6-12 weeks for detectable cannabidinol traces of a regular user to work thier way out of the body...this gives a 'clean up' period of probaly 2 months (to be safe) for a user to pass a test......as already said other drugs and alcohol are more fully metabolised and removed in hours/days...
It appears that some companies may have been following an 'unoffocial policy' by diverting staff who approach them with concerns about testing, to sites where there is no testing until some 'clean up' period has been reached....this may be a pragmatic solution for larger companies, but can hardly been seen as resolution to the issue...also it exposes the concerned individual in an unpleasant manner, with possible future implications....
is there any more information/experenices out there about how these tests are effecting work and the workplace, or of actual actions carried out (good or bad)?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
19th March 2010, 01:01 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:Really good managers, interested in real research beyond the limits of there own knowledge, are notable and praiseworthy...they are hampered by the 'commercial culture' as midi has pointed out....
Bad faith as a motivation is not required for this optimization to occur. Many middle managers operate in an ignorant space.. the most common active bad faith crime is one of denial tempered by an internal argument that see's one's role as making the best out of a bad situation.. Even PM who operate with a degree of integrity are incapable of stemming this all pervading mindset and are in efffect operating under the mantle of bad faith whether they intend to or not.. the problem is larger than their job description which is a fact they in the main refuse to address... ie if the system is bruuuk up change the system
the world is corrupt this we know.... however when this corruption entrenches itself in a functional and institutional way nothing works.. it is a matter of degree.. we have passed the point were the
good offsets the
bad
I would add I am not harking back to some golden age when archaeology was good...because it wasn't.. some aspects were better and some aspects have improved (gosh) but on balance the end goal of actual converting the money poured into archaeology into meaningful analysis has been an almost total failure .
that is quite a claim but i stand by it... the money and opportunities of teh last 2 decades will probably not come round again so easily. They were largely wasted.
