12th September 2008, 12:24 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford
Quote:quote: I seen my job largely as producing a record of what is there, as objectively as possible (which isn't very in archaeology) and putting into its local, regional and national context. Is that research? I'm not sure.
That is actually what I meant by research.
The key thing is putting it into its context, whether it is the whole of Hungate or Mr McNulty's pig shed. What worries me is that regional, period and specialist research frameworks do not often find their way to the people actually doing such research, and that many organisations find it difficult to give people the time to keep up to date with the latest syntheses in the field to which their current project portfolio might relate.
For instance, placing Mr McNulty's pig shed in the appropriate local, regional and national context might require the person writing the report to be aware of the recent Research Framework on Pig Habitations produced by the Society for Porcine Studies.
A small watching brief should be as well informed by prevailing research as a large scale excavation. After all, you might find something!
Phew, that's a relief, I was getting a bit worried there - thought I was doing it all wrong!
The problem is the term 'research' in that it potentially has very broad connotations, and must sound quite distressing to a developer who's having to pay for what he might see as somewhat over indulgent. After all, the developer doesn't have to pay for geological 'research' after having boreholes sunk (and I'm sure there are research aims that could be achived by such work).
Anyway, this is straying from the point somewhat