6th September 2008, 03:24 PM
Primarily for 1Man1Desk. I'm intrigued by this concept of 'moral imperative' but still feel uneasy. I can see what you mean - not just playing by the rules but also being a good sportsman. You are making a business case for Corporate Social Responsibility. Investing in both people and infrastructure will lead to a better service to our clients. This will increase sales and profit resulting in a greater yield that can then be reinvested in the business.
My problem with the morality/immorality argument is that this masquerades the fundamental reality that business exists to maximise a return on shareholder investment. The imperative is commercial not moral, and this is particularly problematic in archaeology where the market is an artificial creation, with buyers purchasing a service that enables them to discharge a planning condition. It is true to say that any organisation must obtain at least as much as it spends, but lets be honest here. To obtain more in archaeology is most easily achieved by doing less archaeology. And in addition to methodological issues, the resulting product (archive, reports and final publication) is something buyers must share with the State. They do not have exclusive control of this, and there is no market logic to drive the quality of the product. This is the point I'm making about the difference between a wealth generating and a knowledge generating structure.
In answer to drpeterwardle's initial question, it is possible to make a profit in archaeology and not compromise standards, as long as the sector is explicit about it's own shortcomings and takes collective measures to address them. To all the moralists: I'm working in a country where the words 'archaeology' and 'millionaire' can be logically used in the same sentence, and, well, I'd quite like to be one. Does that make me a bad person?
My problem with the morality/immorality argument is that this masquerades the fundamental reality that business exists to maximise a return on shareholder investment. The imperative is commercial not moral, and this is particularly problematic in archaeology where the market is an artificial creation, with buyers purchasing a service that enables them to discharge a planning condition. It is true to say that any organisation must obtain at least as much as it spends, but lets be honest here. To obtain more in archaeology is most easily achieved by doing less archaeology. And in addition to methodological issues, the resulting product (archive, reports and final publication) is something buyers must share with the State. They do not have exclusive control of this, and there is no market logic to drive the quality of the product. This is the point I'm making about the difference between a wealth generating and a knowledge generating structure.
In answer to drpeterwardle's initial question, it is possible to make a profit in archaeology and not compromise standards, as long as the sector is explicit about it's own shortcomings and takes collective measures to address them. To all the moralists: I'm working in a country where the words 'archaeology' and 'millionaire' can be logically used in the same sentence, and, well, I'd quite like to be one. Does that make me a bad person?