17th September 2008, 05:06 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
I think this discussion is still getting a bit confused by different understandings of the word 'research'.
Sorry, you're absolutely right. Although I would say that it is the use of the term 'research' that causes the problem. I agree that for a small site or a post-ex assessment report 'research' in terms of the local context is necessary. But when it comes to post-ex analysis and publication, the scope for 'research' is a bit more endless. How far can you justify taking your investigations to find comparitive material/types of site? The other end of the country? If looking at industrial sites one could justify looking at examples from all over the world in the right circumstances. The point remains that the developer is paying for something extremely intangible and difficult to quantify (assume that is not just two ways of saying the same thing!)
As for Bob's points - it's great when everyone can work together, and in many cases it does happen to everyone's benefit as you point out, so it's not all bad. But, as you also state, there are guidelines and means of doing things in commercial archaeology that no academic would put up with, and some do have some explaining to do with regard to certain sites. As for the article in BA. Some commercial archaeologists do read it - I went out and bought a copy because I thought that particular article might be relevent to what I do.
This thread has frayed a little, anyone care to sort it out!