After a lot of recent discussion about consultants on other threads, I thought we should revive this one rather than continue to side-track other discussions.
Themes that have come up include (with my answer):
What do consultants do?
I've set that out elsewhere in response to a direct question, and this is what I said:
Quote:quote:Like consultants in most other fields, our main role is to give informed/educated advice to our clients. Often that will be aimed at reducing their exposure to risk as a result of archaeological discoveries - along the lines of 'if you put your new road there, it will cost you lots of time and money. Move it to the left a bit, and you'll miss all the archaeology.' The benefits to archaeology of developers receiving this sort of advice are obvious.
We also do a lot of desk-based assessments and similar, often as part of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). On EIA projects, we are often working as part of a multi-disciplinary team, usually with other environmental disciplines and with the designers of the development - which again enables us to influence scheme design, and client's decision-making, in a way that benefits the archaeology. People in archaeological units find this much harder, because they are not integrated into the multi-disciplinary team.
We also do a lot of consultation/liaison for the client - most obviously with curators, but also more widely. Curators often don't like us in this role, because we argue with them on behalf of the client. What they don't see is that behind the scenes we are also telling the client hard home truths about their obligations in respect of archaeology. Both sides can be unreasonable - our role is to find the middle way that meets the needs of both.
In addition to that, we design/procure/monitor field projects, but contrary to common opinion that is a small part of our role (say, 20%).
Consultants are evil because they represent/help developers
Well, that presupposes that all developers are evil themselves, but it doesn't only apply to consultants. Everyone in every contracting unit represents/helps developers, and the only archaeologists in the country whose jobs are not dependent on developers are in the main national bodies (EH etc) or universities. Even curators only exist because of them.
Take note that most work for consultants is on very large schemes, and consequently the biggest clients are not commercial developers but public infrastructure bodies (Environment and Highways Agencies etc).
Consultants are evil because they push down the quantity/quality of archaeological work done
Quantity - Well, we do try to make sure that the client is only asked to pay for work that is 'reasonable' in the technical planning law sense. Some (not all) curators have a track record of trying to get their pet research projects funded piecemeal on the back of development projects, and however laudable the aim it is very unfair on the developer to ask them to pay for work not occasioned by their development.
Quality - We produce more detailed, individually-tailored specs than most curators - all of which are agreed with the curators - and we are better placed to police them effectively. Because they are more detailed, it is much harder for a cowboy unit to cut corners, and easier to enforce the full requirements. That includes making it easier for the curator, if they are able to do some monitoring.
Consultants are evil because they poach on the curator's role
Units often misbehave in various ways, all damaging to the archaeological record, and it is the curator's role to monitor them. However, they usually can't do so effectively because they don't have the resources. Consultants can, and do, monitor much more closely, and contrary to comments from other contributors we have every incentive to make the contractors stick to the spec (which we usually wrote anyway).
Consultants cream off money that would otherwise go to field archaeologists
The units tender for a given scope of work that has been set by agreement with the curators, so it is difficult to see how not having a consultant would increase the money available to the unit. There is no fixed pot of money for archaeology, and clients see the consultant and the contracting unit as two separate items.
Consultants are un-necessary middlemen ripping off the client
Charming to see such concern for the developer, who is in all other comments seen as the devil incarnate. However, we can't force ourselves onto any client - we exist because there is a demand. Most work is repeat business, so the clients clearly don't feel ripped off.
I have commented on some of these themes individually on other threads, so you can look there for more detail.
I'd welcome any comment on the above - as long as it is based on thought rather than prejudice, knowledge rather than ignorance, and tries to address the points made rather than simply repeating abuse already posted elsewhere.
1man1desk
