Liking the bit about voluntary experience. Of course, commercial archaeology doesn't need to provide this, as there's already an over-supply of experienced archaeologists to fill the available posts. And it remains to be seen when/whether commercial archaeology would recognise volunteer experience as being valid on a CV, as most job adverts specify commerical experience.
So from the point of view of the new starter, commercial archaeology needs to change. From the point of view of commercial archaeology, it doesn't. So the bigger question is - how can we give commercial archaeology the incentive to change? It is, by definition, a commercial enterprise. Ultimately, any new approach will have to feed its financial bottom line. How do we make training beginners and using volunteers, a commercially-attractive proposition? There is a general "commercial" theme here, I think. No profit-making company will do anything unless it brings them direct financial benefit.
If (big 'if' in some circles I'm guessing) you can get anyone to agree with Martin's contention that volunteers don't hurt the industry, a good start would be to outlaw the type of contract which specifies that only paid professional archaeologists must work on a client's site. I've not seen that many contracts, but this seems to be standard.
And I'd take issue with the contention that a PhD is intended as an apprenticeship for fieldwork; for some people with the funding or opportunity, it's the only means of staying involved in archaeology. Without the commercial experience specified in most job ads (and being in this position myself), it's more academia or the tills at Tesco (usually the latter). I've no illusion that studying past undergrad level is making me a more attractive employment proposition.
So from the point of view of the new starter, commercial archaeology needs to change. From the point of view of commercial archaeology, it doesn't. So the bigger question is - how can we give commercial archaeology the incentive to change? It is, by definition, a commercial enterprise. Ultimately, any new approach will have to feed its financial bottom line. How do we make training beginners and using volunteers, a commercially-attractive proposition? There is a general "commercial" theme here, I think. No profit-making company will do anything unless it brings them direct financial benefit.
If (big 'if' in some circles I'm guessing) you can get anyone to agree with Martin's contention that volunteers don't hurt the industry, a good start would be to outlaw the type of contract which specifies that only paid professional archaeologists must work on a client's site. I've not seen that many contracts, but this seems to be standard.
And I'd take issue with the contention that a PhD is intended as an apprenticeship for fieldwork; for some people with the funding or opportunity, it's the only means of staying involved in archaeology. Without the commercial experience specified in most job ads (and being in this position myself), it's more academia or the tills at Tesco (usually the latter). I've no illusion that studying past undergrad level is making me a more attractive employment proposition.