12th February 2007, 07:39 PM
Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should just abolish university departments, or have embedded academics in commercial field teams - war-journalist style! Ahah!
Agreed about paradigms. My criticism is not of the concept but the way it is applied. If not applied critically enough (i.e. as a recognised, constructed set of parameters) then it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. We are not physicists, we don't need a singular box to all jump into! There would be no space for integration then.
And again, I agree about the use of the term 'commercial paradigm', as I feel that in fact it isn't a a paradigm at all but reflective of a commercial situation. However, I think we are no-where near an 'integrative archaeology'. Perhaps closer than the Hodderites, but not there yet. A big obstruction may be overt commercialism, and perhaps the rift will only grow as a result. I think the funding situation in universities certainly contributes to this, then again it was British Academy grants which underpinned the post-processualist expansion.
Agreed about paradigms. My criticism is not of the concept but the way it is applied. If not applied critically enough (i.e. as a recognised, constructed set of parameters) then it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. We are not physicists, we don't need a singular box to all jump into! There would be no space for integration then.
And again, I agree about the use of the term 'commercial paradigm', as I feel that in fact it isn't a a paradigm at all but reflective of a commercial situation. However, I think we are no-where near an 'integrative archaeology'. Perhaps closer than the Hodderites, but not there yet. A big obstruction may be overt commercialism, and perhaps the rift will only grow as a result. I think the funding situation in universities certainly contributes to this, then again it was British Academy grants which underpinned the post-processualist expansion.