Challenges in conducting public engagement in commercial archaeology in the UK.

[Wax]

Unit as you are obviously interested in the past (you cannot possibly be doing it for the money as anything else would pay more than freelance digging!) why do you make the assumption that the majority of the general public don't at least have a curiosity about it? I like the football analogy, it's a game I don't understand don't particularly enjoy but can appreciate that for others it is a driving passion. There are even occasions when I can see the skill involved in the game. I would support everybody's right to be able to enjoy it and do understand its cultural imperative.

I have spent many years working on projects that have involved the public and volunteers and have only meet one person who was genuinely not interested at all in the past and they at least appreciated that others might have an interest.

What I have found is that the general public have no idea how the past is protected in this country. Most naively assume that it is protected without any knowledge of what that protection actually means. They are genuinely shocked when historic buildings, landscapes and sites disappear under development and they realise too little was done too late.That's where we need to educate and get the public involved (see the CBA job currently advertised on BAJR)

[Doug]

there you lot go again start off by saying that it is a vast number who are interested and then nicely round it up to the public. The thing about celebrity and football is that the government does not rip taxes off you to then spend on forcing you to watch celebrities or football (although they do like to be associated with no doubt). No one would claim that football was demanded by the public they would instead claim that some of the public like football and that was alright because they were willing to pay for the football. I kind of imagine that if anybody was to claim that a vast number of the public was interested in football they would only be doing it to claim some political advantage. I don't believe that there is a vast number of the public who are interested in the past or by what significance the interest of those that do is. Yes its not very interesting is it.

I appreciate the analogy Unit but in fact the government heavily subsidizes BOTH football and celebrities. A couple of examples off the top of my head-

• TV license (mandated by the government) pays for celebrities salaries every day (and makes some of them too)
  
• Special visas for celebrities to come to the UK
  
• Youth football leagues are supported with government funding (used from the same pot as EH too)
  
• The Olympic stadiums- built with tax payer money and given to football clubs on the cheap
  

The list goes on and on and on. To be fair, not all of those examples are bad. Having kids play football probably keeps them out of all sorts of trouble, etc. etc. The point is that most activities are supported by the government or the government rips taxes off you to then spend on X or Y or Z, depending on your outlook.

Government spending is probably a very poor proxy of what people do or do not like. Just look at bankers, the vast majority of people HATE them but the government sure does give them a lot of money. Just my 2 cents:face-stir:

[Martin Locock]

I will accept Unit's challenge and say that not everyone is interested in heritage. An active minority will feel passionately about the heritage and will take up opportunities to become engaged with it, and anotheor minority will consider it a complete irrelevance they would be happy to see obliterated, and in the middle a lot of people who quite like the idea that heritage exists and someone is looking after it or investigating it while feeling no impulse to get involved themselves. It is unrealistic to expect all members of a community to want to join a local dig (and Time Team, however popular, reached a niche audience). We should be more nuanced than treating everyone as 'pro' sheep or 'anti' goats - people choose when and how they wish to engage.

What we can do is a) provide opportunities for direct engagement for those that want it, and b) ensure that the remainder are not excluded from engagement when they want it.

[Jeff S]

Enjoying the debate so thought I'd throw a few points into the mix (mainly with a Scottish focus):

There is a good amount of data around about people's interest in the past - from membership of organisations (I think the National Trust for Scotland has about 300,000 members), footfall to museums/historic sites etc, volunteering (apparently 13,000 volunteers in the 'historic environment' in Scotland back in 2009) and more. A book just crossed my desk with the blurb on the back about how it provides "evidence of how deeply ordinary people are engaged with the past but at the same time are alienated from the history they have been taught in school and encounter in the media" - it's a study in the USA (title the Presence of the Past: Popular uses of history in American life).

There is also interesting data on the economic contribution of the 'historic environment' (For Scotland see the 2008 HEACS report: http://www.heacs.org.uk/documents.htm) - contributes 2.3 billion to GVA, directly supports 41,000 FTE jobs etc. That figure includes a lot of tourist spend, but doesn't include harder to measure aspects of community or social value.

I think the interest is there, how best to encourage it is more the issue?

[P Prentice]

Is anybody prepared to accept that there are some members of the public who are not interested in archaeology or the past?

just as there are some who would bring back the birch and hanging, just as there are some who cant see the point in space exploration, just as there are some who are not interested in the national health service, just as there are some who would be content for the bbc to produce nothing but soap opera and celebrity talent shows .................. then there is the rest of us with aspirations and interests, who can see the value of things for the betterment of our and other species, even if we dont see how we directly benefit from them. i would also contend that our species has always looked to its past, referencing what we were and what we believed about the universe we inhabited in everything we have done and every plan we have made. for want of a better way of expressing it - it is hard wired even if some are too stupid to know it

[BAJR]

What we can do is a) provide opportunities for direct engagement for those that want it, and b) ensure that the remainder are not excluded from engagement when they want it.

That to me is precisely what it is about., and the thrust of a little mission that Doug and I are spearheading.

I am also glad to see Jeff give some other hard spend figures.

You don't have to love it... but if you do, then you will be welcome

[Unitof1]

But Prentise at some point the birch was taken from the public by legislation. Those that might want it back will have to fight a democratic battle. Those not interested in the national heath take out private health insurance and its is very noticeable that the british medical practitioners have a very favourable contract to work in the nhs as well run self employed contracts. As for the bbc its as far as I know a licence to have equipment to view video signals when they are broadcast. I don’t have one and have not had one for a couple of years. I find it fascination how a licence to own equipment that might receive an emf signal translates in to payments for the bbc news. All I was doing was having a go at the use of the word public. One of the problems with Challenges in conducting public engagement in commercial archaeology in the UK. Is possibly the challenge that of engaging public who are not interested in commercial archaeology. After all if they were interested I would presume that it would not be a challenge. Hay has anybody thought about people who are positively anti anything to do with archaeology. They presumably sup of the same public tables of rights to be engaged. I personally don’t like industrial archaeology and almost all of so called buildings archaeology. Maybe we could organise a few demolition days. No recording necessary.

Alternatively we could challenge what is meant by commercial

Jeff S Not being a member of national trust or English heritage I always find it surprising that they have any members particularly when they exist by act of parliament. They do seem to have a surprisingly constant number of members. Theres people like this for instance http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/membersh...om-abroad/ I don’t know what the full numbers is but I cant help feeling that a lot of these membership numbers are filled by visitors to the properties who have worked out that it is cheaper to be a member than to pay the entrance fee. I imagine then it is an interesting equation for the landlords of these properties to set the relationship between entrance fees, membership fees and profit (blar blar blar pensions)

What we can do is a) provide opportunities for direct engagement for those that want it, and b) ensure that the remainder are not excluded from engagement when they want it.

And maybe we could ask where the money comes from -how much and how much I can expect to spend on my holiday.

I appreciate the analogy Unit but in fact the government heavily subsidizes BOTH football and celebrities

Well that’s not alright. How do they get away with it and is anybody getting Away with making lots of dosh out of it? like footballers and celebraties. What some are rolling in it...

[BAJR]

Alternatively we could challenge what is meant by commercial

that may be easier.,

though I count it at receiving a financial recompence for work done.

so tommorrow and the next day I am giving my time up for free for fun and public engagement... later in September I am doing the same, but being funded to do it. All that matters to me is I eat and people have the opportunity.

[Unitof1]

So are you being paid the same as a celbratry... And if not why not

Pis cause you is not making the public cough up the readies cause if you did you would just be some one who,was outmstandinding in a field?

[pdurdin]

All that matters to me is I eat and people have the opportunity.

I read that with the "people" and "and" swapped around. You're a big spender when it comes to Soylent Green, eh?