Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
25th January 2013, 12:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 25th January 2013, 12:55 PM by Unitof1.)
Thanks Doug for the consideration. Although the trolls might havehad a pop at the kennys of this world what they are saying is that they understand the politics of that contract, mostly because they can imagine thats how its done in the self employed world, its all part of the bustle of self employment. This profiling the profession should be about how transparent contracts and tendering really is and issues like that. Just look at how many so called archaeological thingys, can think how else to describe them have put their logos prosumably throu "funding" this survey. Just who are ALgao and why do they give a monkeyies?
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
25th January 2013, 01:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 25th January 2013, 01:39 PM by redexile.)
Doug Wrote:Cool, now that the trolls have shown their true purpose, personal vendetta against Kenny, I think I will bid adieu from this hijacked thread.
As always, those who has serious concerns about PP please PM me. Doug
I think you'll find a troll is 'someone who post deliberately inflammatory remarks designed to get a reaction', as opposed to 'someone who doesn't agree with me and asks difficult questions' which is known as 'debating'.
Personal vendetta? Your survey isn't fit for purpose as it doesn't apply to a significant proportion of the profession which it purports to profile, and he's the person responsible for it. How does that make it a personal vendetta?
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
25th January 2013, 02:05 PM
A survey of a profession that excludes (for whatever reason ie badly designed) a significant proportion of that profession is not fit for purpose. I have followed this thread closely and have not attempted the survey as it is clear it does not address my way of working. I did have quick look at it but went no further. May be it is time to start again and ask new questions more geared to the reality of the individual archaeologist as they are forced to work today. Part time, freelance, short contracts and even through employment agencies. Anything that keeps the employer from maintaining and training permanent staff. Lets not be led by the agenda of the commercial sector.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
25th January 2013, 02:19 PM
Wax Wrote:A survey of a profession that excludes (for whatever reason ie badly designed) a significant proportion of that profession is not fit for purpose. I have followed this thread closely and have not attempted the survey as it is clear it does not address my way of working. I did have quick look at it but went no further. May be it is time to start again and ask new questions more geared to the reality of the individual archaeologist as they are forced to work today. Part time, freelance, short contracts and even through employment agencies. Anything that keeps the employer from maintaining and training permanent staff. Lets not be led by the agenda of the commercial sector.
:face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
25th January 2013, 02:41 PM
peoples - why the angst?
ask yourselves who it is for and for why?
if you want to know the view from the spoilheap then design a survey which will capture the archaeologsists view.
but dont be surprised if only the very same people respond that responded to pp
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
25th January 2013, 02:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 25th January 2013, 02:51 PM by GnomeKing.)
Well...there seems to be agreement that 'Profiling the Proffesion' is not up to the job.
that is why i would like a sensible discussion about how to get better data in future, rather than a 'its-just-the-way-its-shoulder-shuggery' abstention...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2010
26th January 2013, 09:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 26th January 2013, 05:26 PM by BAJR.)
To join in the general trend, I had a look at the survey and was disappointed at the skewing to units and lack of any real opportunity to reflect the current situation.
however, I was struck by Landward's creation of a monopoly. kenny was employed by the IFA to do this research, which was paid by the national curatorial bodies. who held the copyright for this? Why was Kenny able to use it as the source for a phd and a book? And why is this currently being used as an excuse not to alter the questions? Perhaps we do need to start again?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
26th January 2013, 11:36 AM
So have there been any results yet? How is it looking?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
26th January 2013, 01:23 PM
archaeologyexile Wrote:however, I was struck by Landward's creation of a monopoly. kenny was employed by the IFA to do this research, which was paid by the national curatorial bodies. who held the copyright for this? Why was Lenny able to use it as the source for a phd and a book? And why is this currently being used as an excuse not to alter the questions?
You and me both. Unfortunately, raising points like this appears to be defined as 'trolling' or 'having a personal vendetta' by the people who can provide answers. Can't say I'm surprised, experience over the years has suggested to me that the IfA's standard response to any difficult question is to walk off with their hands over their ears going 'la-la-la-can't-hear-you-everything's-great'.
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
26th January 2013, 05:25 PM
I am afraid this is the case... those termed trolls are nothing of the sort.
indeed there is a legitimate comment that in 2008 when the survey was presented, the comments from the previous one were not utilised. now (it seems) we find that the comments from the 2008 one were not listened to either. Although using similar questions is useful, this is a changing world. and the survey should keep up.
If this is the case, then (it seems ) that the comments of this one will also be ignored and on it goes.
Did this contract go to tender - one has to ask... as it seems the PtP has been devilled by comments of skewed means and incomplete data. I refer to - for example the first PtP, when £17,079 was seen as the average and £15,905 the median for an archaeologist. The reality - well according to my records that go back to 1999 an excavator was making just over 11,500k and in 2003 £12,966
I think it is a valuable exercise, but I can't think why yet.
Don't be put off by justifiable criticisms - and I don't honestly think that Kenny will mind - aftere all the easy answer is to shrug and say... ah, tis only those trouble makers at BAJR... they were never going to support this anyway. BAJR Fed is however a broad church and is what it is.
The question that stands is if the survey is suitable for freelancers, Specialists and Units of 1 - as it stands... this seems to be not the case. It seems that for this PtP these people will not be able to complete the survey OR have to complete it in a way that renders the answers invalid.
I tried as well... and gave up. another statistic that won't be counted, even if I wanted to.,
