14th December 2005, 02:54 PM
Quote:quote:Reports this morning said Brian Duffy, who advised the Government on matters such as the controversial Tara motorway scheme, got the job in July 2003 ahead of candidates with superior qualifications and experience.
Possibly true - but define 'superior qualifications and experience'. I don't know a lot about Mr Duffy, but I understand he has had a long and distinguished career as an archaeologist in the civil service. That kind of job can give opportunities to develop and apply high-level skills and knowledge, without providing opportunities to excavate or publish.
At the same time, many very experienced, highly-skilled and distinguished excavators may lack skills and knowledge common amongst non-field based archaeologists (consultants, curators etc), and in fact are often unaware that these skills and knowledge even exist.
The essential difference is that office-based types tend to be aware of the skills, knowledge etc. of the field archaeologists and respect them for it. Field archaeologists, on the other hand, tend to scorn the non-field types, essentially out of ignorance about their role and their skills.
The upshot is that Mr Duffy may actually have been the best person for the job, through posession of skills and knowledge required for the job, whereas substantial excavation/publication experience may actually be of lesser importance in doing his job.
I speak from the perspective of someone who spent a long time in the field, and who does have a track record of publication, before going into consultancy, so I can see the question from both sides.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished