16th August 2013, 02:18 PM
Jack, you are wonderful! Thank you for that feedback! I really glad that you pointed those issues out to me, or i might not have seen them!
Firstly, in question one, i used the term research design, but you are right, for commercial archaeology it would be the WSI, for community projects it would most likely be with the method statement, and for the academics it would most likely be with the research proposal/design. I wanted to ask it in a way that everyone would understand meant is it included at the start.
The volume of material removed from my experience has always been suggested as 30 L or "as close as damn it". I think the volume issue is the main issue we have for some sampling methods, as unfortunately samples can and often are left in a cold dark room for months or years before being processed. I totally agree however that the question could have been asked in a better way.
As for the reporting aspect, surely if the work is carried out (i could be naive here but) then we as archaeologist have an ethical responsibility to include any and all information of the completed works, both to the client and in publication irregardless of outcome?
But the point about the blanket methodology for sampling is something that i haven't fully figured out as of yet, ideally id like to produce a methodology for the reduction of the volume, kind of like an initial process which can be done immediately on site, which would reduce the overly large volume of samples, into something more manageable and transportable, while maintaining the integrity of those samples until a time they can be sent to a specialist, and with the reduction in volume, should (in theory) mean that the specialists time is used more efficiently. So it would be more of a method concerning sampling processing than a method of sample extraction.
The random sampling thing - i completely agree with you, but having said that there's still 5% who have responded that they use a random sampling methodology. Which is interesting.
But overall, you have highlighted several things, that i hadn't fully considered before, and i agree that any new methodology needs to be flexible and interchangeable.
Again, your amazing! Thank you for the feedback!!
Lets hope this along with my dissertation will help to bring sampling in line with the rest of the field methods! :face-approve:
Firstly, in question one, i used the term research design, but you are right, for commercial archaeology it would be the WSI, for community projects it would most likely be with the method statement, and for the academics it would most likely be with the research proposal/design. I wanted to ask it in a way that everyone would understand meant is it included at the start.
The volume of material removed from my experience has always been suggested as 30 L or "as close as damn it". I think the volume issue is the main issue we have for some sampling methods, as unfortunately samples can and often are left in a cold dark room for months or years before being processed. I totally agree however that the question could have been asked in a better way.
As for the reporting aspect, surely if the work is carried out (i could be naive here but) then we as archaeologist have an ethical responsibility to include any and all information of the completed works, both to the client and in publication irregardless of outcome?
But the point about the blanket methodology for sampling is something that i haven't fully figured out as of yet, ideally id like to produce a methodology for the reduction of the volume, kind of like an initial process which can be done immediately on site, which would reduce the overly large volume of samples, into something more manageable and transportable, while maintaining the integrity of those samples until a time they can be sent to a specialist, and with the reduction in volume, should (in theory) mean that the specialists time is used more efficiently. So it would be more of a method concerning sampling processing than a method of sample extraction.
The random sampling thing - i completely agree with you, but having said that there's still 5% who have responded that they use a random sampling methodology. Which is interesting.
But overall, you have highlighted several things, that i hadn't fully considered before, and i agree that any new methodology needs to be flexible and interchangeable.
Again, your amazing! Thank you for the feedback!!
Lets hope this along with my dissertation will help to bring sampling in line with the rest of the field methods! :face-approve: