New research highlights low levels of ethnic diversity in the historic environment s

[BAJR]

Those involved in the historic environment sector need to take more action to ensure success in developing the ethnic diversity of its work and volunteer force.

This is the conclusion of a ground-breaking research report, launched today, which examined ethnic diversity within the historic environment workforce. The report which was commissioned by the Council for British Archaeology Diversifying Participation Working Group and funded by English Heritage identified barriers to participation for minority ethnic groups in education, volunteer schemes and the workforce. The report also made a number of recommendations to overcome diversity issues through better data collection, greater profiling of ethnic minority involvement and improvement in recruitment processes and professional practices.


Report lead author from the London based UCL Centre for Applied Archaeology, James Doeser, said:
?This project began as a scoping study: the original brief was to bring together all relevant research and data on the barriers to diversifying the historic environment workforce. We found very quickly that there was a paucity of data in the public domain, but also that there were some enormous issues that were relevant and that needed to be addressed. In the end we covered a lot of ground but could only give cursory attention to some very tough questions. As a result, I hope that this report acts as a provocation, rather than the last word on the subject of workforce diversity.
From the start it was clear that ethnic diversity was a sensitive subject amongst the historic environment sector. I thank all who helped us with the research for reflecting candidly on the subject. We were dogged by problems of definition throughout: identities are complex and ever-changing. We found that people offered a lot of good intentions to address the issue of workforce diversity and I hope this report will act as a springboard for action.?


Baroness Andrews OBE, Chair of English Heritage which supported the report welcomed its findings:
?Careers advisors, universities, professional bodies and skills training providers, as well as employers like English Heritage, all have a part to play in opening up the heritage workforce to the full range of talent amongst young people. We welcome the report which lays out very clearly where there are particular barriers we can work together to overcome.


English Heritage wants to engage as wide a range of people as possible in understanding and caring for the historic environment. We were happy to provide funding support to Council for British Archaeology and Institute of Historic Building conservation to produce this report and we take its findings seriously. It is absolutely vital that all young people get the opportunity to enjoy and value heritage and think about the many careers in this field that may attract them - from stonemason to surveyor and from archaeologist to data manager. We need to ignite enthusiasm for history, heritage and archaeology in a wider range of children and encourage broader access to training and work experience for young people so that we develop a heritage workforce for the future that is both diverse and highly skilled.?



The report is available free to download.

[Unitof1]

this has been up for more than a day and does not seem to have set the bajr world a fire. is it cause we is racists

[Dinosaur]

Nothing to disagree with? Archaeologists of all people know racism's all b******s, everyone came from somewhere else if you back far enough (often not that far!), suspect a few of the far-right might be a bit upset if they got more into genealogy...

Why are there so few 'ethnic minority' diggers in Britain? In 30 odd years I can only ever recall working with 3 people who are presumably included in that category, and one of them had been sent by the job centre so I'm not sure he'd be counted in the study on grounds of compulsion

[kevin wooldridge]

It strikes me that there would be more diversity in the Historic Environment Sector employment if there were actually more real jobs. Its a crazy survey that identifies a deficiency in the system and then fails to understand that the system itself is fatally flawed. 10 out of 10 for stating the obvious and 0 out of 10 for at the same time missing the even more obvious!!

[Unitof1]

thing is who cares and why? This document is pretty bizzar. It appears to have been a long time coming. Its got brief at the back which says

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]It is envisaged that this project will commence in December 2008 following the submission [/SIZE][SIZE=3]of a project design in response to this tender. The draft report will be delivered by the end of February 2009 and will be discussed with members of the CBA’s DPWG at a meeting in London in early 2009. A final report, taking on board appropriate comments from the Working Group and from English Heritage, will be delivered by the end of March [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]2009.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

seems to suggest that the report should have taken two months to produce..........instead it took 3.5 or 4 years.

Then theres how many sticky fingers are there in this pie
Its a CBA Research bulliten. Yes not one of those. As a "CBA" bulletin it is number 2 in the series. The other document in this illustrius vanity publication is A survey of heritage television viewing figures 2007. which is presumably authority enough to edit the report on behalf of english heritage who we know are these people http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/who-we-are/corporate-information/how-we-are-funded/ who presumably are there to advise the government on racisum in archaeology as well presumably as being part of the problem.

Anyway the wonderful tender (how much? open or invited? where are english heritages accounts?) was won by http://www.ucl.ac.uk/caa/About%20Us/Back.../index.htm which is about three tiers of digger kickers too many and all things to all people and quite rightly experts on everything and more.

anyway the report says that the:

[SIZE=3]The recommended format for referencing this report is:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]

Doeser, J, Dhanjal, S, Hinton, A, & Orton, C, 2011 Diversifying Participation in the Historic Environment Workforce. A report commissioned by the Council for British Archaeology Diversifying Participation Working Group. London: UCL Centre for Applied Archaeology

(is the lack of italics of interest)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]but the report claims that the CBA also hold copyright and that there is a [SIZE=3][SIZE=3]Council for British Archaeology Diversifying Participation Working Group which has a steering group - and more to the point the brief says that [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]

Copyright on all reports submitted will reside with English Heritage, although a third-party inperpetuity licence will automatically be given for reproduction of the works by the originator, subject to agreement in writing from English Heritage.

which begs the question who/what an "originator" is but then who gives a can of beans.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]well thats sorted out the title and copyright although I have not got a clue who is included in historic environment sector. What this report does say is that

[SIZE=4][SIZE=4]The nature of the problem[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]The historic environment sector is not ethnically diverse. This is widely accepted and the sector is eager to address the challenge of increasing diversity within the workforce. However, increasing the ethnic diversity of the workforce has historically been a low priority for the sector, with no single organisation taking the lead for championing the issue.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]I presume that this was written by the so called CAA who claim to work in 87 different countries but really what has caught my eye at the moment is that London is mentioned 112 times in this document which possibly brings us back to the nature of the problem which is where is the nature pertaining to. So why has english heritage dragged the welsh and the scots into this report, seems to me that they are bigging the whitey figures up.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[CARTOON REALITY]

So why has english heritage dragged the welsh and the scots into this report, seems to me that they are bigging the whitey figures up.

If they wanted to do the job properly they should have included the Irish. We're the whitest people on earth. You should see my legs.

It strikes me that there would be more diversity in the Historic Environment Sector employment if there were actually more real jobs. Its a crazy survey that identifies a deficiency in the system and then fails to understand that the system itself is fatally flawed. 10 out of 10 for stating the obvious and 0 out of 10 for at the same time missing the even more obvious!!

Well said. This is a bullshit report.

[Unitof1]

sorry the northern ones were included. As to the survey being bullshit and at the same time missing the more obvious its a reports which is grounded in 2008 which as we all know was the hight of the Labours partys involvment with buying american morgages on termite infested wooden houses and things have changed now although they all look like public school twats.

Any way what I cant work out from the figures is what is the correct proportion of BMEs that should currently be unemployed in archaeology by english heritage which is what I think Kev is saying. And one other thing is why are archetechs included in this survey. oh yeher its historic environment services (isnt that curators)

[Bodger51]

The typo on page 18 is pretty critical

[Bodger51]

page 19-20 interface, goes to show how few seem to have unnoticed treasure trove departments as more than a career veneer

[Bodger51]

page 20
Russell group offers career diversity, whilst preferences can just be familiar standard products

question is over the clarity of unstable employment as more than a concept choice, but rather as skill awareness