22nd November 2005, 02:50 PM
Posted by Troll:
Presumably, though, the consultancies would only be given free run like that if they were not only well-known to the curators but also trusted by them. Still sounds like a dereliction of duty by the curators if they allow anyone, no matter how well they know them, to work without the checks and balances that are a central part of the curator's role.
In any case, the 'hack and slash' is actually perpetrated by the field units, not the consultants (although the units could be encouraged by bad consultants). Surely those actually doing the damage on the ground are at least as responsible as those who asked them to do it?
Troll, we have had a lot of this discussion before, so I don't want to rehash too much old ground. However, my experience in 12 years of consultancy is that consultants spend a lot of time trying to get the units to do the work up to the proper standard, rather than forcing them to compromise their standards.
Most of this happens in meetings (on or off site) and/or correspondence between the consultant and the PM or PO in the unit, and they tend not to publicise the rockets they get, so if you haven't been directly on the receiving end you may not be aware of it. It also often occurs during (and in relation to) post-excavation and recording, so if you work mainly on site you may not be aware of it.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:Have plenty examples of where such consultants have been responsible for hack and slash archaeology
Quote:quote:There are times when consultancies are so well known by curators that said consultancies work without checks and balances from curatorial staff
Presumably, though, the consultancies would only be given free run like that if they were not only well-known to the curators but also trusted by them. Still sounds like a dereliction of duty by the curators if they allow anyone, no matter how well they know them, to work without the checks and balances that are a central part of the curator's role.
In any case, the 'hack and slash' is actually perpetrated by the field units, not the consultants (although the units could be encouraged by bad consultants). Surely those actually doing the damage on the ground are at least as responsible as those who asked them to do it?
Troll, we have had a lot of this discussion before, so I don't want to rehash too much old ground. However, my experience in 12 years of consultancy is that consultants spend a lot of time trying to get the units to do the work up to the proper standard, rather than forcing them to compromise their standards.
Most of this happens in meetings (on or off site) and/or correspondence between the consultant and the PM or PO in the unit, and they tend not to publicise the rockets they get, so if you haven't been directly on the receiving end you may not be aware of it. It also often occurs during (and in relation to) post-excavation and recording, so if you work mainly on site you may not be aware of it.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished