Training and Volunteers

[Unitof1]

What gets me is that you lot think that volunntreers or commercial archaeology is doing untold damage to the archaeological resource when its all a gnats fart compared to agriculture

[YellowPete]

if we wish to establish a volunteer sector with clearly defined responsibilites and roles, ensuring that no volunteer by accident or design takes on the work of a paid post.

as such if we wish to work along the lines of a representation of professional standards, then the proportion of paid posts would be preferable to be able to meet an internationally recognisable heritage standard of work.

however, we may have conventions and statutory legislation, but how can we implement these said legal instruments, based upon a differential human experience and an industry, or even sector comprised of jack of all trades.

there have been recent calls to address issues resulting from an over development of the fieldwork area as an internal sector to the industry, but if this is the case then we have to have bench marks and a system of systematic career progression as part of professional development.

this means that there is a point at which we can keep specialising in field work, but this neglects a wholistic professional destination, or move into other areas.

this then means that we have an experience bench mark, at which career development and progression requires a new direction. BUT that is not discussed as an issue.

AT WHAT POINT ARE YOU TREADING CAREER DEVELOPMENT WATER, OR BECOMING OVERLY SPECIALISED INTO PROFESSIONAL INTEREST GROUPS?

this line is the discussion that we must address in order to tackle the issue of acceptable standards.

moving on from this we now must look at what kind of people skills, being integrated into the volunteer and training sector are relevant to broader career development issues.

this does not necessarily cover issues akin to kindred dialogues, but rather meeting the challenge of developing a broader and integrated skill basis with these external interest groups.

so teaching and learning becomes a formal area within the volunteering and training area.

not just trowels, brushes and buckets.

but plans, sections, surveying, deposit origins, cut behaviour and relationships, appropriate wholistic records and ethical descion making on practical finacial / preservational intent basis.


so rather than patronising or legally binding to a bar, we must bind to mutual co-opperation and inter-dependence issues.

we must recognise a skill and experience based proportionalism to any work in any given sector.

this removes a necessity for ROA of inappropriate organisations or individuals, but these non-RAO's must present appropriate experience and a clear indication to the given career development orientation of the said individuals within the non-RAO organisation or project.

we need to focus on the issues of developing effective dialogues rather than raising issues of standards on inappropriate contexts.


we need to remeber that people learn at their own rates and in their own ways, and as such we should address this diversity as the issue for developing standards.

we should also conversely build a peer panel, by which we must maintain clear and effective direction to the heritage work underway as a conserted and effective direction and movement.

these peer panels should monitor a standard, but also wish to progress people in equal measure.

unfortunately given the current economic climate this will be difficult to implement, but effective to develop for the future of the industry and heritage as a whole for a consciencious approach to the due dilligence for heritage as a responsibility to the nation.



txt is
Mike