18th February 2011, 02:01 PM
Is it not worth listening to their concerns (I'm not suggesting that we're not, of course). But there has been a trend amongst a number of archaeology firms over the last few years to significantly up their prices in certain fields/client industries to quite exhorbitant levels. We've seen this in gas pipelines over the last couple of years, apparently and ultimately to the detriment of a key operator who had begun charging absurd amounts for fairly simple procedures, with no return for the industry or the staff.
Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate both how we as archaeological contractors approach key client industries like these, and also to re-evaluate the validity of our methods and techniques. Perhaps making money for the sake of it doesn't do anyone any favours in the long run, we are an end-of-line contractor in many instances and need to recognise and maintain client relations on a rolling and favourable basis.
The curatorial aspect needs to be incorperated into this discussion. Having worked across the country in varying positions, I'm acutely aware of the stark contrast and inconsistencies evident amongst the practises and recommendations of curatorial staff. Sometimes, as with regional research frameworks, this is clearly and quite rightly going to be case. In other instances I can't see these being relevant factors in the inconsistencies.
(I should add that I am not slighting or intending to insult anyone by those comments, nor am I suggesting that many archaeological organisations are not partaking of a such ongoing evaluations - we clearly are).
Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate both how we as archaeological contractors approach key client industries like these, and also to re-evaluate the validity of our methods and techniques. Perhaps making money for the sake of it doesn't do anyone any favours in the long run, we are an end-of-line contractor in many instances and need to recognise and maintain client relations on a rolling and favourable basis.
The curatorial aspect needs to be incorperated into this discussion. Having worked across the country in varying positions, I'm acutely aware of the stark contrast and inconsistencies evident amongst the practises and recommendations of curatorial staff. Sometimes, as with regional research frameworks, this is clearly and quite rightly going to be case. In other instances I can't see these being relevant factors in the inconsistencies.
(I should add that I am not slighting or intending to insult anyone by those comments, nor am I suggesting that many archaeological organisations are not partaking of a such ongoing evaluations - we clearly are).