PPS Consultation

[RedEarth]

Red earth - the word is bored.

and I find your attitude peculiar. Surely the reason we are doing archaeology is because of it's public interest - as distinct to road building which is done because we need roads - not to increase our knowledge or understanding of how roads are built.

I thought for a moment you were saying my post was boring!

I agree wholeheartedly that we are doing the work because of the public interest and would, if it were possible, have people coming to look at every site I ever have any involvement in. I spend a pretty massive amount of my time giving talks on projects too, which is a particularly good and cost-effective means of presenting the results to people (and I hasten to add) I am often doing this outside of any requirement in the project brief - because there normally isn't one, so if there will be with the proposed PPS then great. And before anyone says anything, I'm know that there are lots of people of give their time for free giving talks, presentations etc etc, which is also to be commended.

The point remains however that there are different levels of public interest - for example, I am quite glad to know that any number of museums/galleries exist in this country and am interested in their survival because I consider them to be a good thing. But I am certainly not going to be able to visit them all. I am glad that there are bodies that preserve our National Parks/AONBs etc because that is also a good thing, but I am again not going to visit them all. Similarly, there will be plenty of members of the public who have a general interest in archaeology and consider it worth saving/examining/recording in advance of development, but they do not anticipate visiting the actual sites while work is ongoing because they realise the impracticalities of doing so.

Similarly, I am quite interested to know that new things are being built because I consider this is (in some cases at least) a good thing, but I certainly wouldn't want to to visit the building site and see how things are going. I would also assume that engineers learn from what they are building and therefore increase their knowledge of how, for example, roads are built.

On the other hand there will be strange sad people who would really like to see roads being built and boreholes bored because they find such things interesting. Why don't planning applications include contingency costs from the developer for this?

While this is a fairly spurious point the important thing is how to determine what level of public involvement is appropriate, who pays for it, and, as I mentioned, the potential risk for funding to be cut back in other areas as a result where it is badly needed i.e. the archaeological work itself.

The other aspect of this is are we really doing it for the public interest? We are constantly being required to consider academic research aims (and being lambasted by our academic colleagues for not doing enough of it - does academic funding require a public involvement?), which I think would interest a fairly small proportion of the general public! I would suggest that the level of interest that most members of the public have is along the lines I outlined above - they like to know it happens, but they aren't necessarily interested enough to come and visit a site.

[vulpes]

Red Earth - I agree with you, your point is pretty spurious as you seem to be hung up on site tours and visits which are only one facet of public engagement / involvement.

Academic interest filters down to public interest - the two aren't mutually exclusive by any means - and academics have a duty to popularise and dissemminate just as we 'professionals' do. Despite some views espoused on this site we are not just 'binmen' dealing with particularly old rubbish.

I would also disagree with your estimation of the level of interest that most members of the public have - it doesn't reflect my experience. Perhaps you work in a particularly apathetic region?! :face-huh:

[RedEarth]

Vulpes - how many times does someone have to say that they agree (broadly) with what you are saying before you realise and stop resorting to what amount insults?

I'm not hung up on site tours, that's just the first thing that popped into my head and it's a bit difficult to list all the possible permutations of public involvement - I haven't got all day. Although, that does highlight the difficulty - there are so many ways in which you could engage with the public where do you start? How would a brief cover this? It would be like issuing a brief for piece of work without specifying what it even was. Try costing that up!

I would debate the point that academic interest filters down into public interest - how many people people visiting a site would be interested in the minutiae of academic debate, I'm not particularly interested in a lot of it and I'm an archaeologist! It would really depend on who was being told about a site - the information would inevitably have to be pitched somewhere in the middle, and so I doubt you would be able to get much of academic interest into it. In a general way, of course it does, but not necessarily in the sort of detail that, say, a publication might include.

I don't live in a 'particularly apathethic region' (whatever that means) and I am well used to discussing the results of the work that I do with the public at all sorts of levels and in various ways. My initial query was the manner in which public involvement might be catered for, costed, and specified and the difficulties it might cause.

'My old man's a binman,
But he wears an academic's hat,
He wears knackered old combat trousers,
And he lives off less than ?15,000 per annum'

[BAJR Host]

Vulpes - how many times does someone have to say that they agree (broadly) with what you are saying before you realise and stop resorting to what amount insults?

632 at last count

[vulpes]

I thought this thread was about the PPS, not levels of pay in archaeology. But don't give up the day job - you're clearly not the next Lonnie Donegan

I wasn't trying to say that the public would necessarily be interested in 'the minutiae of academic debate'. But I would agree with Oxbeast in that 'Probably any archaeology which has gone through pre-application determination, evaluation and onto excavation is going to be interesting to the public.'

The parallels with road-building and geotechnical work were frankly really strained and you seemed to be stretching the point somewhat.

In terms of your question: 'How do you decide what might be of interest to the public, what form does it take etc?'

Why is this a minefield? and why should it be so difficult for the archaeological community to address? It's not as if there are no examples of publicly engaged archaeology to draw on in the development or voluntary sectors. The PPS etc merely seeks to build upon the good work that has already been done elsewhere and under the existing PPG. The difference now being that public engagement is actually in there. Some bad thing? :face-confused:

[vulpes]

David - I'm not sure that Red Earth was agreeing with me, even in broad terms- Just saying you do isn't enough! Glad you're keeping count though.

My point would be that this particular element of the (nearly) new regime should be viewed as an opportunity not an obstacle.

[BAJR Host]

Agreed that it is not a bad thing. It is however easy to circumvent --

I started another thread to discuss this - with examples.

In York for example (pre PPG) sites were regularly provided with open days, viewing platforms, information panels and regular press releases. SO it is not so much PPG that brought it in (I know you did not suggest that) However, it is perhaps useful to detail examples, to provide a framework for contractors.. and of course it is up to Curators to stipulate what 'should' be done.

On another PPS topic... try this one.

HE1.1 Regional and local planning authorities should ensure that they have evidence
about the historic environment, and heritage assets in particular, in their area and
that this is publicly documented. The evidence should be proportionate and
sufficient to inform adequately the relevant planning process. Local planning
authorities should ensure that they either maintain or have access to a historic
environment record.

And just how many of these can we afford to be part staffed or out-sourced or as a means where the information is available but used by planners not able to use the information in away that allows for an archaeological interpretation of results?

HE 1.1We support the principle of ensuring a suitable evidence-base for decision-making within the planning process, and agree that this evidence should be sufficient to inform the process adequately. The word ?should? is not strong enough to secure these provisions within the policy however. It should be a statutory
requirement that local planning authorities maintain or have access to a Historic Environment Record ? as should the requirement to ensure that they are suitably resourced and supported by qualified staff. Without such provision, there can be no confidence on the part of the Government that this policy, or any of the subsequent policies, will be implemented on a local level.

[vulpes]

Very good point David, and Rescue too.

However, bemoaning the loss of the Heritage Bill is not the same as commenting on the PPS.

[RedEarth]

I thought this thread was about the PPS, not levels of pay in archaeology. But don't give up the day job - you're clearly not the next Lonnie Donegan

I wasn't trying to say that the public would necessarily be interested in 'the minutiae of academic debate'. But I would agree with Oxbeast in that 'Probably any archaeology which has gone through pre-application determination, evaluation and onto excavation is going to be interesting to the public.'

The parallels with road-building and geotechnical work were frankly really strained and you seemed to be stretching the point somewhat.

In terms of your question: 'How do you decide what might be of interest to the public, what form does it take etc?'

Why is this a minefield? and why should it be so difficult for the archaeological community to address? It's not as if there are no examples of publicly engaged archaeology to draw on in the development or voluntary sectors. The PPS etc merely seeks to build upon the good work that has already been done elsewhere and under the existing PPG. The difference now being that public engagement is actually in there. Some bad thing?

David - I'm not sure that Red Earth was agreeing with me, even in broad terms- Just saying you do isn't enough! Glad you're keeping count though.

My point would be that this particular element of the (nearly) new regime should be viewed as an opportunity not an obstacle.

I don't know who Lonnie Donegan is.

I would like to think that all of these things connected to levels of pay at, some level but I'm not obsessed by it. At the end of the day though, the quality of work (and therefore the ability of people to translate it into something worth telling the public about) is arguably connected pay and conditions. The only reason I mentioned it really was because of a concern that the need to include outreach in the budget, another unwated cost to some developers, might impact in other areas.

The academic aspect of this whole discussion really has little bearing on it. Most people would come to hear about/visit/read about a site because it had nice exiting looking things on it - not because it furthered the understanding of middle saxon pottery production in the area around...

I'm also not saying it is impossible to work out what form of public involvement will be appropriate for each case, only that it will be difficult to determine until potentially very late in the day and the practicalities will be tricky, at least intially.

I do agree that it is an opportunity, but that there are obstacles that might need to be overcome to achieve the best results.

I do agree with you. Unfortunately the nature of a online forum is that it's content is typed, on a keyboard. Now, a keyboard is a wonderful invention, but it is incapable of transferring the additional meaning that, say, a face to face conversation can. Even if I type really hard. Which means that just saying that I agree with you is all I can do - I am attempting to transmit the notion that this is genuinely what I think, but I'm not sure it is working.

[vulpes]

Fair point Red Earth about the possible impact of the associated costs, but improving working practice in one area needn't drag another down. This is akin to the classic CBI opposition to Health and Safety and other forms of regulation as being bad for business.

Lonnie Donegan is the poor bloke whose song you sampled

I'm still not happy with your take on Joe Public's interest in archaeology stopping at shiny things. Aren't most people interested in other people - past and present? If we can't make archaeology interesting and relevant to the wider public why should anyone - let alone developers spend any money on it? However much we agree, you do have me confused here. :face-confused:

Won't anyone take up the Climate Change baton??? :0