Help With Profilling the Profession

[Doug]

I will respond because I respect the opinion of David but David I respectively disagree.

First, lets go with Paul's definition of a troll,
"I think you'll find a troll is 'someone who post deliberately inflammatory remarks designed to get a reaction"

a quick highlight:

First page I am told to f-off (I am assuming I am being told to f off here- David did have to edit it)


"Landward Research can just *******, if they have not managed to sort this out by now !
What good is there 'Research' if they cant sort out BASIC METHODOLOGY !
What A Joke."

I ask if people want to help out and I get this-

"Yes, if you're willing to give me the same hourly rate to do it as that paid to the doubtless hugely expensive consultants who put this shambles together."


"re: LANDWARD RESEARCHh. = shambles."

"backward compatibility as the overriding design factor in a survey of changing real world is frankly retarded." (really, really hate this word for personal reasons)

Then there is the snarky attacks on kenny.



"oh dear DR A....not doing so well on any front then....wonder what he thinks of minimum wages......................(how DARE the IFA consider wage cuts before kicking the arses of companies who have breached the code of conduct...disgusting!)"

ALRIGHT, I GET IT. Everyone has some axes to grid. Most people are not happy with the state of archaeology. You all need to take those axes to me? Lets stop with the straw man arguments. Attacking kenny and the process regardless of your personal past feelings will get this nowhere, other than letting some people get in their kicks. YES- the project was tendered. YES, multiple organizations put in bids. NO, I do not know who they were. I asked and was told they weren't going to give out that info. LR did not start this or the IfA, some other organization (I don't know) talked to EH to get it started. We thought of putting in a formal request to find out who but then decided against it. WHY, because I am a freelancer, just like most everyone else who said something on this feed and NO I do not want to piss off the people who pay my meager salary (yes, I made my peace, just like every other person here who accepts money from commercial units, English Heritage, etc. to do work). Please stop with the straw men.

I am sorry but this survey can not be everything to everyone. There is only so much I can do OR YOU CAN DO.

"identify labour market trends and issues through producing and analysing time-series datasets by matching data generated to that produced in three predecessor projects"

"feed the data generated into a Europe-wide Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe macro-project, so contributing to a wider dataset about the archaeological profession across Europe."

These are only some of the objectives. It has to match 20 years of data and be comparable with 20 other countries data. PS- all this information is on the website. Yes, some of you did not like it. Yes, some of you felt it did not apply to you. OK, then you do not need to fill it out but you also don't need to tell me to F-off. Will it answer all of the questions you might have, of course not but you don't need to tell me to F-off. 20 years data and 20 countries will answer some important questions, but leave millions unanswered e.g. what is the meaning of life (42 is the answer by the way, I think I may have got that wrong) but you don't need to call the work I am doing the r-word.

Come on, are we not all archaeologists? Do we not know the value of diverse questions, they my not apply to our work but we respect it because it is important to other archaeologists. The archaeology of stone heads on Easter Island; does not apply to us but we are happy they are doing it. Heritage watch in Syria, does not put food on the table but we are still glad someone is trying to make a difference. Pottery analysis? Pollen? Buildings archaeology? You may not do them but on a project you are happy someone else does. Not because it interests you but because you are happy to see your fellow archaeologists succeed.

Grinding all you axes with IfA, Kenny, archaeology in general, etc. on me and this survey is not going to solve anything but make me hate other archaeologists. Come on archaeologists! With friends like you who needs enemies!

I am not getting paid for my time answering questions here. I probably won't make enough money to pay taxes this year, that includes other jobs, besides this one, I have too. There is hope if I pick up another job soon I can pay my taxes.

I am answering questions and trying to figure out ways to improve the process because just like every other archaeologists who does a good job for low pay, I am very passionate about archaeology. I want to try and include more people but to do that I need specifics. One or two people have put forward some good suggestions, with detail, THANK YOU. However, saying you suck, this survey sucks, all of this is rubbish, does not help me try to make this better, it actually just wears me down and drains my time (just looked at the clock and it has taken me an hour to put this together). Seriously, I have been working on another project, straight up on my own time, for months now trying to raise funds, create websites, filll out a million forms, so that when David launches the new BAJR website he can offer you some resources for free or as cheap as possible. BUT zusus' beard .... getting told to f-off, my friends getting racked over the coals (yes, I consider my boss, a friend. Yes, I don't expect everyone to get along with everyone but come on, we don't need to question people's intergratie, even if we disagree with them). It really just drains my will to do anything for archaeologists............................... out.

[troll]

Defamation of my good name sir!

[BAJR]

I am glad that Doug answered... and can answer. I count Doug as a friend.. like him, but feel I am able to disagree and still be civil as he can disagree and be civil.

Yes, some of you did not like it. Yes, some of you felt it did not apply to you. OK, then you do not need to fill it out but you also don't need to tell me to F-off.

Here I think lies the problem that finds us in a place where people can be angry on both 'sides'

This is a massive work... but what does it do? What has it ever done to advance the profession. I recently heard the Polish quoting the Euro version and I was al but in tears with frustration as it quoted facts and figures that were not caveated with the absolutely vital information that the survey is based on those that replied. I cannot reply as it stands. and so my voice once more goes unheard, but worse... I become included in a statistic... p[lacing me into the data set... without my data. I know this is how stats works. BUT as we have seen and commented on in all the previous versions... the world changes. The survey needs to address the specialist, the unit of one. or our voice is lost... that is frustrating... given that it has been said before.

I have known Kenny for many years... he should be tough enough to take criticism, just as I have had to in the other direction. I am sure he is. The question is - why has the PtP not allowed for a dual survey. IF you are a one man band... click here... If you are a company click here....

Like Doug... I often feel there is a negative attitude in archaeology as well. where it is easier to point out failure and disagreement... BUT not so easy to praise and support.

But... even now... with BAJR soon to stand alone, unless people act. I am creating BAJR 13 to help specialists, companies from across Europe, students and public to get information and jobs... and offer a treat via Doug et al.. a real treat... One that will have many people going... damn... how good is that.

The thing is... we are angry... we are damned angry... but we can still be civil... and I have to say... I like robust debate that gets somewhere.

[Doug]

I recently heard the Polish quoting the Euro version and I was al but in tears with frustration as it quoted facts and figures that were not caveated with the absolutely vital information that the survey is based on those that replied.

I would say not including caveats is an issue with any work any where. Though, I feel David we are good enough friends that you will not mind me using you as an example here.

"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 "
Well you mixed apples and oranges there or because it's us, peaches and pineapples which require two different types of greenhouses. Yes, average for all archaeologists are those numbers but if you look at the 2002-2003 report the pay for Archaeological Assistant is 13,390 avg. (p65) Excavator or Site Assistant- 12,140 (p79) Junior Posts-12,928 (p 99). Combine them all together an excavator type posts is pretty much on par with your numbers, give or take 1 or 2%. I am writing a whole section looking at this data to show that the annual Jobs in British Archaeology (job data from job posts) series is a fairly accurate representation of pay conditions.

You did not caveat that one was for all archaeologists and one was a particular position. Data is data and can be interpreted in any number of ways. I would say I can't control how others use the data or interpret it, as archaeologists we should be well aware of this problem -druids at stonehedge anyone. The best we can do is to point out those caveats

I think I might be digressing away from the main grip (correct me if I am wrong) the survey does not represent YOU (whoever you are). However, all I am really hearing is:

(in my head I see someone yelling at a crowed these questions and they responding

"Are we MAD? YES! Does this survey represent us? NO! What do we want? ........................ (awkward silence).

Now before anyone answers that question I think we need to really think about this very complex issue. One it is a survey not a census. So we are only aiming to capture a sample of the population. A sample that is then averaged. We do not need to reach ever single person and even if we did, it would not matter (averages skew the data). If you truly want to reflect the working conditions of one-man shops you need an ethnographic based project like the Invisible Diggers (great book, read it). That is the methodology you need to capture the conditions for a sub-group.

To put in another way, if the goal was to profile every single person who ever got an archaeology degree or work as an archaeologists we would problem just send one survey to one company, TESCOS. Method and resources play a big part in what we do. You need to know that kenny and I both have other jobs and neither one of us are employed by this project full time. We don't have the resources to sit down and conduct ethnographic interviews with pottery specialists, museum curators, diggers, etc. A survey is a method to get a large range of data with limited resources.

NOW- ask the question, "What do I want to know", "Can a survey answer those questions""Can this survey answer those questions".

Now, if the answer is "I am actually fine with what they ask I just want my voice heard. I feel like because I did not fill it out that others like me wont and then our whole sub-group will be ignored". All I can say is that we have a pretty good idea of everyone working in archaeology, we have looked at dozens of lists, we have looked at who has posted job adverts, we have looked at who has turned in reports recent. There have also been posts, like the one that started this thread to capture those we missed. We are now striving to get representation response from all sectors. We will get a fairly accurate sampling, even if you did not participate. Again, can't stress enough this collects samples that are then turned into averages. Yes, we will miss the one lithics expert on north uist with one leg but that is what happens with surveys, methodology and resources to carry them out matter. We can only get so specific with the sum-groups before the data loses all meaning.

Now if after asking those questions you have some issues relating to the survey let me know, with detail please. I can see what I can do about it.

However, I will not respond to people's whim of I have an axe to grind let me use it here e.g. kenny use to be ifa, tainted by the devil, I don't like the ifa, so I don't like this survey. PS it is funded by the heritage bodies (my bosses) ifa, fame, etc. only have advisory roles and have practically nothing to do with this. So whatever problems you have with them, it has nothing to do with me (unless it is with me, I doubt this as I am pretty sure I have only met david, none of you actually know me). I will not respond to those questions and please stop telling to me f-off because I don't. Please stop telling me to shove it and pay you money when I am trying to get more detail of what issue you have so I can try to fix it.

Thank you.

PS on a totally unrelated note David- do you have any dates yet to take the little ones out digging?

[chiz]

Doug, just a quick note to say that I sympathise with your frustration. As someone who has helped designed a survey from scratch (DF Away work and travel survey), I know that it is a damn hard job to do on many levels, not least to not let your preconceptions write the questions, and steer the survey how you want it. It is hard to get it right for one type of worker/employer, and it is even harder to cater for the huge diversity of archaeologists and how they work and live. For the DF survey we ended up with about 70 question, and still there was some things we wanted to ask but didn't, and questions we wished we'd rephrased or added. We felt its better to get more in-depth results that can be really studied, rather than a 10 question approach, but we did put off many with the length and detail.

To have to take on a survey that has 20 years of data must be daunting -you have a responsibility to the past data, but also need to move with the times as the situation in the profession changes. A hard balance. PtP has some flaws, but it is consistent and that does really help, but new questions or sub-surveys may need adding. Getting the balance right is really difficult. To those who object to a 20+ years of survey results, the comparable %s of PtP, Invisible DiggersII and DF AWay Survey answers are all very similar, so maybe its not doing such a poor job.

I answered the PtP survey -it was sent to me as my details are on various databases- and felt that as a freelance illustrator, trainer, Digger, subbie, confined space specialist, database designer, PO etc etc that it didn't really fit me, but I answered as best I could, and used the Free Text Box to add some comments. Job done, less than 30 minutes. So I, who have about as complex an employment situation as any, managed it perfectly easily knowing that it wasn't designed for me specifically.

If anyone wants to try their hand building their own survey I -and I'm sure Doug- would be happy to help with advice, it can be very interesting thing to do and get some really good data with which to make a positive difference.

By the way, DF are about to launch a new survey -on CPD and training in UK commercial archaeology, its another long one, but will give detailed answers to what is going on. No it won't be perfectly applicable to everyone, that would need 400 questions, but there will be free text to explain your situation. We hope we will get the balance right and will be beta-testing the survey as we did last time.

[BAJR]

Yeaaay!

I think we have it cracked. and there we can leave it.


the question is to fill it in or not to fill it in.

The data is there to use or not to use.

Though I still don't know what the data tells us... though that said, it does what archaeologists do best ( or used to before cutbacks) collect data that we don't know is useful yet.

You see how Doug can reply if asked questions in a less confrontational manner. just saying.

In reality I do believe that a specific for the lone worker is required. and I also think we need to get the kids out last weekend of March... when teh snow is a whipping round the knees... 30th/31st .... there is also potential for some CSI stuff on a 16th century seige the weekend before. but I digress.

If anyone wants to try their hand building their own survey I -and I'm sure Doug- would be happy to help with advice, it can be very interesting thing to do and get some really good data with which to make a positive difference.

THat would be an interesting and positive exercise... for those that would like to see a profiling the specialist

[Doug]

Yeaaay!

Though I still don't know what the data tells us... though that said, it does what archaeologists do best ( or used to before cutbacks) collect data that we don't know is useful yet.

You see how Doug can reply if asked questions in a less confrontational manner. just saying.

Last weekend it March sounds grand, I will put it in my calender and let the peeps know.

Data usefulness - sorry, meant to answer that one but too much to cover and my posts were already long. So the reason EH is funding this (mind you this was an off the cuff conversation so please do not quote me as saying this is exactly why, this is from memory) was to help determine where they are going to put their training resources (not a lot of money but some).

Another issue, gender equality- gathers lots of data on gender issues in archaeology.

For me personally- pay with this data and the past 20 (18) years of pay data from job postings I can line up the datasets. Great for every one who wonders how accurate the Jobs in British Archaeology is every year.

edit- forgot to add- lots of other reasons but these were just the three first that popped into my head. I did not want to keep going on, and on, and on.

Now, I will fully admit EH training, gender issues and accuracy of pay may not be everyone's cup of tea. Though I think for lots of people looking to negotiate pay it does help to say look this is what everyone else is paying- pay me that. I think for 50%, well less but that is the problem, of archaeologists gender issues are important. Again, this is not meant for everyone and is not viable (I think Chiz really nailed down the reason why with his survey and questions to number of respondents). Though I hope some of these examples explain why such information needs to be gathered.

I would also like to say that all this does is create tools for people to use, acting on it is a whole other matter. It highlights gender inequality but we have to do something about it.

Yes, Chiz and David are both correct, I am more than willing to help anyone create a survey. I am also more than willing to share contact lists too. Just let me know what you need.

Now, back to coding.

[Unitof1]

The data is there to use or not to use.

This survey seems to have become some kind of cyclical event that somebody has decided that field archaeologists need? But the demand is not coming from field archaeologists or rather field archaeologists dont seem to be funding it. It appears that EH are behind it although there are a myriad of logos on the sponsors and partners http://www.profilingtheprofession.co.uk/...tners.html
I have tried tracking down just how the funding is marshalled but have failed so far. Could anybody point out any sources.

Seems to me that if anybody wanted to profile the professional that somebody like bajr running virtualy the only worthwhile jobs bullitien in britain would be the most obvious cost effective body to profile the profession and I would imagine that everybody could then easily see that it would be politically biased (honourously so of course). I see bajr logo on the sponser page, I hope that they are not there as a charity. Sorry doug but I dont trust or except the premises -are there any, or results of these surveys because I dont understand why your sponser/s are funding it. Why do you want to know what we did last year so that you can compare it with something that happened the year before? because there might not be an equal number of girls and boys doing archaeology out of the 1 or 2 thousand people (out of a population of 70 million) who might get lucky enough to sit in a site hut this year.

These public servants appear to want to talk about salaries when our world is dominated by contracts, even in the units. A bit like bajr, ifa and everbody are trying to propegate the myth that we work permanant salaried jobs in council units and the state of the nation can be calibrated by the inadequacy of our pensions. I would like it to be said that definition of an archaeologist is that they work contracts and I dont mean employment rights. Bit like you do doug, bajr, .....

wasnt someone not so long ago on bajr trying to tell us that we had to watch some construction analysis data, forget who

[Doug]

This survey seems to have become some kind of cyclical event that somebody has decided that field archaeologists need? But the demand is not coming from field archaeologists or rather field archaeologists dont seem to be funding it.

Sorry doug but I dont trust or except the premises -are there any, or results of these surveys because I dont understand why your sponser/s are funding it.

So funded by EH, HS, Cadw, DOE, and EU LLP. Other logos- are there because they either advised or gave support to the project (non-money-wise). I really can not speak to why each organization funded it. I don't actually know and anything on my part would be pure speculation. So you might not ever be able to trust the results. Fair enough, thank you for spending the time to articulate why you might not. I apologize I could not be of more help. I could speak to my motivation but I am not sure if that makes a difference or if you would care as I am not funding it.

I would just add that we are not just targeting field archaeologists- its people who work for EH, HS, etc. archaeologists who work for councils, work in museums, work at universities, etc. etc. etc. etc. I think that is some of the reasons people are having problems with it, its not tailored specifically to them. Archaeology is diverse. It is not just field archaeologists.

As to need and why you, or anyone, should care, I can only point back to my earlier responses- "Come on, are we not all archaeologists? Do we not know the value of diverse questions, they my not apply to our work but we respect it because it is important to other archaeologists. The archaeology of stone heads on Easter Island; does not apply to us but we are happy they are doing it. Heritage watch in Syria, does not put food on the table but we are still glad someone is trying to make a difference. Pottery analysis? Pollen? Buildings archaeology? You may not do them but on a project you are happy someone else does. Not because it interests you but because you are happy to see your fellow archaeologists succeed."

[Unitof1]

Thank you for taking the time to reply doug. In no way do I intend to “have a go at you”. I see you as someone working in archaeology. You have picked up a contract and that’s absolutely the way it is. The thing is that we know that there is no one who would answer for these bizarre self-appointed don’t exist in the financial world bodies EH, HS, Cadw, DOE, and EU LLP ALGAO who like to ponce about positing the word “archaeology” whilst they build up property portfolios or jobsworths like HERs on which to hang their unfunded pensions. (At least the ifa is a limited company and we can watch as it finances burn).

What does seem necessary for them to get away with pretending that they are the core of the archaeological world is that they need to go around getting their salaries mixed up with the pay of field workers so that they can mince around politicians and call themselves archaeologists. Thing is that the fieldworkers get swamped by this attitude that the profession is so all encompassing of these so called historic environment workers that we think that we will get long term workers rights like pensions, holidays when the reality is that we work on contracts no matter what unit and that if there are no contracts there can be no jobs. This is one reason why the ifa salary minimum are rediculus, one contract does not gaurentee another, pay me £22000 pro rata for a week and dole for the next five does not a salary make.

What I would like to see is a survey that assessed the numbers of contracts per area, length of contract, source of contract, type of contract, how many people worked on the contract. Seems to me that in your position you could contribute to that survey in a meaningful way rather than I wonder how you would fill the current one in and best of all we might find out what most of the curators of this world are taking from the council tax(or probably find that suddenly they are nothing to do with the historic environmenty thingy but are in highways and planning)

Alternatively maybe you could produce a set of results that does not include any fieldworkers.