19th April 2011, 09:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 19th April 2011, 09:10 AM by Madweasels.)
I think that RedEarth's 'appeasement' suggestion might be valid here. I am still taking this stuff in - and find it hard too to really understand which decade I am living in. It is almost like a manifesto, in parts, for a late 1960s Rescue era tacked on to an early PPG16 policy.
Just one of the many things spinning through my mind - what became of the senior management in the units complaints about the lack of skills coming out of the universities? Will they now accept volunteers on the job who may not have much experience other than enthusiasm - because where did they get their experience? Will they exclude volunteers with no experience? If they do not, what does this mean about their approach to standards of excavation and recording? If they do, then they are surely eroding the profession - but then a free, slave workforce would be so much cheaper to run than a paid workforce.
But Volunteer management is not the same as employment management. There will still have to be some sort of contractual arrangement in order that both sides understand what is expected of them.
As someone said above, this is Big Society creeping into the Private sector - which is really not what is expected. Why on earth is it being considered? The voluntary sector in archaeology do want to be more involved - and it has always been my belief that we should be making more opportunities for them by supporting the local societies and YACs. We should be engaging them in the archives (where they exist - London's and York's archives are very good examples - no doubt others exist), in the post-ex of backlog sites. And if field work is what some (because not all of them want or are able to dig) then those of us pros who work with the voluntary sector should be given more support from the units (cheap or free access to some of the professional skills in the units - surveying is one that always comes to mind). That should be the arrangement - the units give greater support to the voluntary sector, not the volunteers go on site to support the units.
Just one of the many things spinning through my mind - what became of the senior management in the units complaints about the lack of skills coming out of the universities? Will they now accept volunteers on the job who may not have much experience other than enthusiasm - because where did they get their experience? Will they exclude volunteers with no experience? If they do not, what does this mean about their approach to standards of excavation and recording? If they do, then they are surely eroding the profession - but then a free, slave workforce would be so much cheaper to run than a paid workforce.
But Volunteer management is not the same as employment management. There will still have to be some sort of contractual arrangement in order that both sides understand what is expected of them.
As someone said above, this is Big Society creeping into the Private sector - which is really not what is expected. Why on earth is it being considered? The voluntary sector in archaeology do want to be more involved - and it has always been my belief that we should be making more opportunities for them by supporting the local societies and YACs. We should be engaging them in the archives (where they exist - London's and York's archives are very good examples - no doubt others exist), in the post-ex of backlog sites. And if field work is what some (because not all of them want or are able to dig) then those of us pros who work with the voluntary sector should be given more support from the units (cheap or free access to some of the professional skills in the units - surveying is one that always comes to mind). That should be the arrangement - the units give greater support to the voluntary sector, not the volunteers go on site to support the units.