ࡱ> \^[#` j=bjbj .hj5````<^$hb!!!GGG! G!GGG :)I`+.G 0<GdYdGGd[DvTGD"= <!!!!\ \  W(h)ither the profession Michael Heaton Fifteen years after PPG16 created a market for professional archaeologists and ten years after the IFAs business plan set out the institutes road map to full professional status, most practicing archaeologists still feel underpaid, under-trained and under-valued. Is that assessment accurate and realistic and, if so, is there an alternative route to our desired goal? The authors recent experience as a student member of the RICS suggests there is: one based on an understanding of the economic and legal contexts in which we work and the legal distinction between a contractor and a professional. Underpaid?. Certainly, senior members of our profession earn less than the c.50k average reported recently by the RICS for Chartered Surveyors. But salaries for graduate archaeologists are equivalent to those of graduate surveyors (c.12-14k), which do not rise until the individual has acquired, on their own initiative, Chartered status. Building contractors, on the other hand, pay their labourers and technicians equivalent rates to those of archaeology: Only the company directors and self-employed specialists earn more than the archaeological average. Compared to the rest of the jobs advertised in the Guardian, archaeology is not low-paid. Nonetheless, why do we pay our Directors less than the construction professions? The pay scales of many archaeological contractors are tied to, or track, those of the National Joint Council Agreement. This is a pay restraint mechanism for local government. Furthermore, the IFA publishes recommended pay rates lower than those enjoyed by the construction professions and has sought (Aitchison, 2000; Mills, 2007) to publish recommended charge-out rates for specialists lower than those enjoyed by specialist construction professionals. Notwithstanding the illegality of such recommendations under the Competition Act 1984, none of the construction professions operate in this manner. None of the established professions concern themselves with pay rates. Builders and the associated professions are profit-driven, they charge as much as they can and their clients our clients as well expect them to do so. The price system (Heaton, 2006b) and their familiarity with contract law minimise the risks of financial loss. Nonetheless, the 1% average profit margin quoted by Latham (1994) for the construction industry is a third of the 3% evident in the publicly deposited accounts of archaeological contractors. We are relatively profitable, the problem is the small financial value of our projects, which stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of PPG16. The Thatcher government treated the archaeological implications of construction as an economic externality (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002), i.e. an undesirable consequence. Monetarist theory dictated that the market would determine the value of archaeology to its stakeholders through the law of Supply and Demand: Freed from local government pay restraint and without establishment grants, ex-local government units would raise their prices in response to demand until a clearing price for archaeology was identified, whilst new operators would establish themselves to cater for the increased demand. The sharp increase in cost would make archaeology prohibitively expensive, thus preventing development of all but a few sites. Unfortunately, no one told us this. Weve kept our prices as low as we can live on, to keep the work flooding in. And it has flooded in. Under-trained ? Certainly, most graduate archaeologists are ill-equipped technically and intellectually for the demands of professional archaeological practice, but it was always so: Most of us working before PPG16 had left university with an academic qualification but little practical experience. We augmented our qualification with practical experience on the circuit with a lot less archaeological fieldwork than now, worked our way slowly up the hierarchies of the established organisations through on the job training and peer review, with the primary objective of getting something published. A bibliography of peer-reviewed publications was, and still is, the only proof of practical and intellectual competence and it takes several years to get it started. That reservoir of experience and knowledge still resides in the profession. Anyone with a bibliography and c. 10-15 years experience in excavation, the specialisms, publication and management knows exactly what a graduate archaeologist needs to learn in order to progress and be useful, and how long it will take. The ATF has gone to great lengths to codify that body of knowledge and has promulgated vocational courses to teach it, whilst bursaries have been funded to ensure that some aspirant archaeologists wont have to pay for their own training. This is undoubtedly welcome, but is it the IFAs responsibility to provide training and will there ever be enough bursaries.? An alternative strategy is employed by the construction professions. Students are taught the technical and professional skills needed by the industry, including the skills necessary to run their own practices, but they are not considered competent and eligible for chartered status i.e. to call themselves professional- until they have completed a programme of peer-reviewed in-service training with their employers. In the case of the RICS, a graduate surveyor must spend a minimum of two years in an established practice completing an Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) before being eligible to apply to the RICS. The APC is a detailed schedule of technical, intellectual and professional tasks that must be completed to the satisfaction of two chartered surveyors, both of whom sign their names to that effect. Responsibility for progressing through the APC rests wholly with the individual, the employer as a Chartered Practice is obliged only to provide the opportunity, whilst the RICS sets the parameters. Anecdotal evidence suggests a 40% fail rate at the RICS interview. This strategy could be applied easily to archaeology, at minimal cost to the IFA and the rest of the profession. Under-valued? Undoubtedly, but primarily by ourselves. The continuing success of Time Team and its many imitators, demonstrates an enormous public interest in what we do, but we have failed to translate that stakeholder interest into influence and hard cash. We are not recognised as a profession by the other construction professions and we are not generating the profits necessary for the intellectual research we crave. Asked by the author for a list of recognised professions and institutions engaged in the Heritage sector, neither the RICS, the RIBA or the RTPI mentioned the IFA or professional archaeologists, despite all being engaged in ad hoc forums on conservation and heritage management. Our engagement with the established professions is negligible. Being recognised by other professions is one of the legal definitions of a profession (Murdoch and Hughes, 1996). Why?. Well first and foremost, we have made no effort to do so. No archaeologists, government or professional, spoke at or as far as I know attended last years ICE-sponsored conference on re-use of foundations in urban construction projects, despite its obvious relevance to preservation of archaeological remains; we have no standing committees on archaeological issues with the RIBA, RICS or RTPI, despite the problems archaeology causes their members; and we ignored overtures from the Construction Confederation and the National Building Specification. The standard text book on the planning system (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002), read by all architects, surveyors and town planners, is explicit that PPG16 does not require developers to pay for analysis or publications costs. Written 10 years after PPG16, how did we allow that interpretation to go un-challenged. Most of our outreach is directed at school children. Secondly, our general ignorance and misunderstanding of property development economics leads us to literally under-value ourselves and our skills. Whilst desk-study and evaluation costs are broadly equivalent to basic geotechnical site investigation costs, the archaeological costs arising from development of a typical urban office or retail site are insignificant compared to total development costs. The archaeological costs of the Bristol Broadmead development (c. 2million) are less than 0.5% of the total development costs anticipated, whilst the c.2.5 million contract for the archaeology of the Birmingham relief road pails completely when compared to the 17 million set aside just security staff alone (Midlands Expressway v Carillion Construction Ltd and Ors, 2005). They are large archaeological projects. This does not mean we should be profligate, but it does mean we can afford to charge more. Thirdly, our inherited protocols make professional influence difficult to exercise. Whilst it is absolutely right that the LPAs curatorial archaeologist should identify development sites with potential archaeological issues and the academic context within which those issues should be resolved, is it right that the same person should dictate how those issues are resolved? The norm is a prescriptive specification which deters, or precludes, development of alternative techniques or value-based analyses. Unable to demonstrate professional influence, we are treated and paid as Contractors or, worse, proxies of local government, a role difficult to charge well for. Partly for that reason, we have no canon of methodological analysis. Every other field of professional endeavour, especially those in the construction industry, supports a growing library of peer-reviewed methodological analyses through which new techniques and opinions are developed and tested. These cover not just the nuts and bolts, but also the costing and management of projects and the legal implications of mistakes and disputes. We have Barker and three small clusters of methodological review from Southampton University, Kent County Council and English Heritage, to which we could add Woods review of buildings archaeology. These are one-offs: there is no journal of archaeological practice. But our greatest failing is our lack of client focus. The word client appears once in the IFAs Code of Conduct: in an amendment to notification procedures at Rule 1.4. The possibility that the client might have a stake in the project and our execution of it, does not feature in any guidance from the IFA. (This is not a criticism of the IFA: the author has been on Council and Committees in the past, without understanding the significance of this omission). The RICS, RIBA and ICE, however, put the client at the centre of their codes of conduct and practice notes, making it explicit that the professional is obliged to further the interests of the client. We view the client as the unwilling sponsor of our research projects: they exalt the client as the person who provides the forum in which professional and technical prowess is demonstrated. Could this apply to archaeological practice? Surely were just being paid to get the stuff out of the ground and published as quickly and cheaply as possible, arent we?. Contractors are, yes, but professionals are being paid to further the interests of the client through the exercise of their intellectual skills. There are a lot of commercial organisations prepared to pay a lot more for archaeological skills exercised in pursuance of their development interests. Hypothetically, this might mean that, if we believed excavation of a particular site would serve no academic purpose, we should be prepared to argue against the need for mitigatory excavation works. Obligation to a client is the other key component of most legal definitions of a profession; it is termed the fiduciary relationship. It is what generates the profits necessary for material comfort and professional status. Until we can demonstrate that we understand that and are prepared to enter into, we will continue to be treated as Contractors rather than Professionals, under-paid, under-trained and under-valued. Change could be effected easily. All vocationally oriented archaeological degrees should include three modules that could be taught by staff of the departments next door - Property Development Economics, Contract Law and Administration, and Professional Law and we should develop an APC programme. Whither the profession or wither the profession, it is in our hands alone. References Aitchison, K., 2000, Survey of Archaeological Specialists, Landward Archaeology Research Reports 00/08 January 2000 (cited in Mills, 2007) Cullingworth, B., and Nadin, V., 2002, Town and Country Planning in the UK. 13th Edition (Routledge) Heaton, M.J., 2006a, Costing the earth.Alternatives to the Fixed Price, The Archaeologist, 59. Heaton, M.J., 2006b, Show me yours: Cost comparison in Archaeology, The Archaeologist, 60 Latham, M. (1994) Constructing The Team, Final Report of the Government / Industry Review of Procurement and Contractual Arrangements In The UK Construction Industry HMSO, London, 1994, p. 7. Midlands Expressway v Carillion Construction Ltd and Ors, 2005. EWHC 2810 (TCC) Mills, P., 2007, A guide to charge-out rates for archaeological specialists, The Archaeologist, 63, pp4-5 Murdoch, J., and Hughes, W., 1996, Construction Contracts: Law and Management. (Spon) )*  E N ܹ~l[J[[<[hEvCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh=CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhP"gCJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yhA5CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhaCJOJQJ^JaJh`-CJOJQJ^JaJhaCJOJQJ^JaJhOZCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh`-CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yhs%6CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhs%CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yhs%5CJOJQJ^JaJ*+   j k l z { ##''j=    $ % 1 M m w a e    , 9 G m o p t } ~ ũ򩍩n]nn]n h;yh2FCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh)CJOJQJ^JaJh#0CJOJQJ^JaJhEvCJOJQJ^JaJhﭛﭛqcqcRRR h;yh gCJOJQJ^JaJh6xXCJOJQJ^JaJhEvCJOJQJ^JaJh#0CJOJQJ^JaJh;yCJOJQJ^JaJ#hw h>*CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhCJOJQJ^JaJhOZCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh)CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yh2F>*CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh2FCJOJQJ^JaJ 68GUu #JOXjkl޿ޱޱбРޠРseWsh*CJOJQJ^JaJhMMCJOJQJ^JaJh#0CJOJQJ^JaJhm{[CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh S-CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhXCJOJQJ^JaJhO h;yh=CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh}YCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhACJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yh=5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yhA5CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhOZCJOJQJ^JaJhOZCJOJQJ^JaJhACJOJQJ^JaJh#0CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhDXCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh S-CJOJQJ^JaJh*CJOJQJ^JaJ(*- %);>AEk"=.Bͼޮޝޝތތ~m~m h;yh=CJOJQJ^JaJhMMCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh]mCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh2(CJOJQJ^JaJhOZCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhx6CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh}YCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhqCJOJQJ^JaJ(BDOPqxKNj.7g i j k l ᰟӎo򟀟^Poh}YCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhbcCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh)gCJOJQJ^JaJh)CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhrCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhWCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh}YCJOJQJ^JaJ#h>h>>*CJOJQJ^JaJhMMCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh=CJOJQJ^JaJh>CJOJQJ^JaJl y { !!o!p!q!r!""0#ʼʫzl[J[8[#h;yhw(R6CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh~eCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhw(RCJOJQJ^JaJh)CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh`CJOJQJ^JaJh8CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yh 6CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh CJOJQJ^JaJhMMCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh)gCJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yh)g5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yhA5CJOJQJ^JaJ0#1###$%&&''/'N'O''''(()Z)9*>*M*򿱟o^P^?o? h;yhCJOJQJ^JaJh)CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhg&pCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhBCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhbeCJOJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJ#h@h8>*CJOJQJ^JaJh8CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhANCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh`-CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh~eCJOJQJ^JaJh@CJOJQJ^JaJM*R*T********* +++++++#+ιvvaLa; h;yhg&pCJOJQJ^JaJ(h;yh;yCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h;yhBCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h=CJOJQJ^JaJ444445-55575555667x7778>8?8A8H8Q8Y8`88888B9k9m9n9o9p999rdh1 CJOJQJ^JaJh)CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh;yCJOJQJ^JaJh*CJOJQJ^JaJhrCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhUCJOJQJ^JaJ%9999999999g:::::::ͼͼwfTfBf4h S-CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yh S-CJH*OJQJ^JaJ#h;yh S-6CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh S-CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh;yCJOJQJ^JaJ#h;yh;y5CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhSWCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhs%CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhjCJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh?CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhFpQCJOJQJ^JaJ:;.;2;3;E;F;y;;;;;;;;;ͿveTA-A'h;yh=>*@CJOJQJ^JaJ$h;yh=@CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yhDCJOJQJ^JaJ hX5CJOJQJ\^JaJ&h;yhX5CJOJQJ\^JaJ&h;yhX6CJOJQJ\^JaJh6xXCJOJQJ\^JaJ#h;yhXCJOJQJ\^JaJh6xXCJOJQJ^JaJh6xXh6xX5CJOJQJaJ"h6xXh6xX6CJOJQJ\aJh6xXh6xXCJOJQJ\aJ;7<Q<R<S<<<<<<== ==Ųq^J6'h;yh5@CJOJQJ^JaJ'h;yh6@CJOJQJ^JaJ$h;yhB@CJOJQJ^JaJ+h;yhB5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h;yhBCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h;yhB6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH $h;yh@CJOJQJ^JaJ$h;yhs%@CJOJQJ^JaJ$h;yh=@CJOJQJ^JaJ'h;yh=6@CJOJQJ^JaJ S<<<==j=gdB==7=b=j=#h;yh~e6CJOJQJ^JaJ h;yh~eCJOJQJ^JaJ$h;yh~e@CJOJQJ^JaJ,1h. A!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No Listj5h*+ jklz{&#'#%%((@0A0111111111f2g222233333R4S44455l50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000*+&#'#%%(11f2g223R4S44455l500000000000000000000000 0000 00    Bl 0#M*#+-49:;=j="#$%&'()*,-./013'S<j= +2j=!Q |#R \S dT |EU lV tW dX  '''224>4>4l5'''22 4D4D4l59*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region  l5 5 A l5333  ae9G( ( 6 8   J O X p p 01cc##""##$$$$"%"%$%.%:%:%P%%+(,(5-7-../0?0H000B1k133i5l5l5n{KJfw *aW<=?1  s%2(){+)Q*Y9, S-`-#0x6B{9JDU?8rR>MMrI;y|>=q=!)}YEv3b5l5ym0ym0@L.j5@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial]& Swis721 Lt BTTrebuchet MSI&  Swis721 BTArial"hx ⼦-r-`r-`$24dO5O5HP(?s%2MICHAEL HEATONMICHAEL HEATONOh+'0d   , 8DLT\MICHAEL HEATONNormalMICHAEL HEATON45Microsoft Office Word@z9@Xt@Ԡ)Ir-՜.+,0 hp|  `O5  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012346789:;<>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ]Root Entry F5`)I_Data 51Table=dWordDocument.hSummaryInformation(KDocumentSummaryInformation8SCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q