Standards, Values and Professionalisation

This section predominantly highlights the mood in the archaeological environment. It is quite an important theme because it actually provides signals on areas which we – in directing our own profession – need to consider. In later chapters, we look at these themes in a larger context.

5.3.2.1 Shifting Values

As discussed in Section 1.4.2 (also see Figure 4) the development of professionalisation includes a sense of power, or empowerment and capacity to define who we are and build ourselves and our relationships proactively. The individual’s self-perceptions and opinion of their role in greater society is what drives the profession, as each agent becomes part of a whole network community (see Figure 11).

After interviewing a handful of participants, which would later increase to over a hundred, it emerged archaeologists have strong core values and motivations. Although these ‘values’ are not

Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London

defined here, it is clear they develop from (a) a belief that archaeology is important for society, and (b) that the role of an archaeologist is to do the archaeology justice.

In the survey, 70.6% of the participants believe that archaeological ‘values’ are under threat, mostly because ‘we have set up ourselves as a cheap’ profession. If we interpret this response using SNA concepts earlier, the idea that archaeologists feel their values are under threat also means that archaeologists are not happy with how they have conformed to gain professional legitimacy. There is a sense of archaeology becoming ‘corporate’ (see Section 2.2.1) which has decreased the decision-making power of archaeologists. We can see this through comments received in the survey. Comments on issues of why values are under threat from survey participants¹⁰⁶ include:

Too much fierce competition in the commercial sector and a lack of agreement regarding base-line costs means archaeological work is underpaid and under-valued by the development industry and others...(Contract Manager working in London)

Fragility of the legislative and policy framework, reduction in curatorial cover, lack of an integrated approach between branches of the discipline – and everything else in the Southport report, in fact!¹⁰⁷ (IfA Team)

The current economic climate is squeezing all aspects of construction and therefore squeezing the spend on archaeology and archaeological advice. Units are keen for work and sometimes it is felt that managers cut corners to obtain work, leaving field staff either very short of time, staff or equipment. (English Heritage team)

Longer hours, worse pay, bonus payments for early completion of projects, all mean that the core values of being a good archaeologist are under siege. (Senior Archaeologist working in London)

The current threat is summed up by the phrase “knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing”. We are under increasing pressure to do everything quicker and cheaper, and much of this pressure is internal. (Senior Archaeologist working in London)

Archaeologists are forced to think about time, cost and delivery, and it has directly triggered the creation of explicit professional standards. Nevertheless, the absence of a sufficiently strong legal or policy framework requiring adherence to those standards, the presence of intense competition and economic stress all place pressure on standards; and market failure means that public benefit - the real purpose of all branches of archaeology - is frequently not viewed as the most important product.

(CBA Team)

The idea that values are under threat also suggests that values are changing. We see this more clearly from the elder generation, which talk of the 80s in a different way. Sixty percent of those

106 Because survey participants are anonymous, I have identified their title or place of work so that the reader may have an insight as to the sector in which the comments come from.

107 The Southport report: ‘Realising the benefits of planning-led investigation in the historic environment: A Framework for delivery’ (2011) is a report published by a group of professionals from different sectors who formed a working party to creatively and radically think about how to practise and implement PPS 5. See http://www.archaeologists.net/news/110713-publication-southport-report-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%98realising-benefits-planning%E2%80%93led-investigation-historic-e for publication

Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London

interviewed in London agree that there is now a ‘spark’ gone that was previously experienced in the 70s and 80s:

There was certainly a loss of innocence...it was an entirely different world. It was archaeologists against the world in those days. Archaeologists as a breed, and there was a lot of mutual support amongst archaeologists who were perceived to be fighting a good fight. These days it’s becoming much more of a commercial cut-and-thrust and if you see one unit go down or lose a tender, it means someone else has won it. So it’s a dog-eat-dog world now. It’s completely different from what it used to be (pers.

comm., Cotton, 2012: 28).

The nostalgia can be criticised quite easily. The remaining 27.3% who are clearly against this view, reflect how working conditions have increased, the quality and legal requirement and recognition gained, and the quantity of money that is now coming into archaeology. This view of a spark lost, or values threatened (assumedly from what was before), is not about the legitimacy or benefits that we as a profession have won. In fact, negotiating pros against cons and realising that pros may far outweigh the criticisms of where archaeology is, is more destructive than constructive. I would argue that it is the very act of feeling that we have gained so much, and should be so grateful for where we are within the political system and the planning process, that simultaneously disempowers us and strips us from any effort to push for increased decision-making power. My observation is that archaeologists seem to be so shocked and impressed by the huge developments that have happened since the 1970s onwards, that they almost feel it is undeserved. And so there is this sense of fear:

the self-defeating aspect of archaeologists - they always have that sense of Armageddon around the next corner, someone’s going to say I’m not paying for archaeology (pers. comm., Dawson, 2012: 16).

The sense that archaeology could be pulled from the planning system also led to discussions (many of which have been pulled from the record) about how expensive archaeology is for the developer, and how the general site may be dull and boring with potentially nothing interesting to report. This is surprising as archaeology, beside many other industries involved in development, is quite cheap. The fact that these comments were requested to be removed indicates that there is a conflict in how archaeologists actually value themselves.

My observation is that archaeologists feel disempowered and pressured through the tightening of resources and wavering support. So many of the archaeologists interviewed are so passionate about archaeology, however they are frustrated at their inability to dedicate their time and expertise on particular research due to the political landscape they are in.

5.3.2.2 Changes in Standards

Archaeology moving into the planning process is undoubtedly an incredible success, no one actually doubts that. While attending the 2014 European Association of Archaeologists

Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London

Conference in Istanbul, the struggle of a fellow archaeologist working under the Polish system where archaeology is not part of the planning process demonstrated how critical it is for archaeology to be tied in with planning and development applications. The alternative is devastating for cultural resources impacted by development. It is no surprise then that 76.2% of survey participants answered that standards in archaeology have improved under the planning system because archaeology has now become a formalised part of the process: guidelines, assessments, preparation, fieldwork, deposition of finds, reporting; these are all now standardised within a system with a set of professional standards developed by EH and the IfA.¹⁰⁸ While the renegotiation of roles and responsibilities changed the organisational and relational landscape, it simultaneously formed an organised complex structure that strengthened the need to focus and specialise within a particular niche of development-led archaeology. In that sense, the system and structure developed; but more importantly, got a stable source of income for each project. The survey results were triangulated by the interviews: 41.8% of interviewees agree that standards have increased. 25.4% disagree, and 16.4% say it standards remained the same (Figure 44).

If we examine the data a little closer, they show us that most of those who actually see standards as increasing are from the contract and state sector, while 16.4% of those who feel standards have dropped are from academia (Figure 45). The survey results are quite similar in general, as demonstrated in Figure 46.

108 See http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa for IfA Standards and https://www.english-

Figure 44 LDN Interviews: How have standards changed?

Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London

Figure 45 LDN Interviews: How each sector perceives standards have changed

However, the issue of standards is not straight-forward at all. We know that technology has led to a number of advances, from the use of GIS, the huge development of digital data collection and dissemination, to even simple presentation techniques or outreach channels such as Twitter and Facebook. But in terms of standards as a direct consequence of changes in structure and organisation, these standards include issues such as work conditions, improved technique, strong input, output and outcomes, new methodologies and so on. Many of the major advances with site recording, guidelines and manuals were actually developed during the 1970s and 1980s (pers.

comm., Rauxloh, 2012: 6; pers. comm., Williams, 2012: 5, 6). This fact raises an important point in terms of archaeologist’s awareness and accuracy in understanding the profession prior to the 1990s. A staggering 68% said that they thought there was more destruction of sites pre-1990 than now, revealed the interviews. It is interesting how this inaccuracy developed to now become a reality.

18.2%  

21.8%  

1.8%  

16.4%  

7.3%  

1.8%  

10.9%  

1.8%  

5.5%  

0.0%  

5.0%  

10.0%  

15.0%  

20.0%  

25.0%  

Academia   Private   Government   National  &  

Local  Orgs   Other  

Percentage  

Sector  

How  Each  Sector  Perceives  Changes  In  Standards

Improved   Declined  

Remained  the  Same   Unidentiiied  

Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London

Figure 46 LDN Survey: How sectors perceive changes in standards

In their day, the DUA were at the forefront of increasing standards, methods and recording, and their DUA site manual is still an important manual to this day (e.g. pers. comm., Keys, 2013: 26).

Inevitably, any profession should see improvements in standards over a period of 30 odd years.

And archaeology has. Improvements include: more archaeologists employed; more money coming into archaeology; more being recorded; more being excavated through legislation; more being saved either on site or on record; and more being published with site reports being a legal requirement so every site has, at least, a report submitted and available to the public. There are also improved working conditions, code of ethics, job contracts, working standards, and better mechanisms in place to ensure archaeology is done and monitored. To those believers, the laments of the opposing who remember a ‘Golden Age’ are frustrating: ‘by no means was it a Golden Age of archaeology before PPG16... Archaeology was on more of a tenuous footing…Sites weren’t very well funded…Dug less well...It wasn’t particularly good then’ (pers.

comm., Francis, 2013: 4). Now there is a recognised profession, unlike before (Biddle et al, 1973:

8). Archaeology is now more established and is professionalising at a rapid pace alongside new external demands from policy, and also increased competition expansions into different niches, offering value added through community projects and inclusion. ‘It’s wrong to call it a Golden Age…If I were in archaeology now, there are huge sites now! Seeing something excavated today with the professionalism today’ (pers. comm., Keily, 2013: 5).

Ultimately what we see here is not an issue with standards per se. It is an ideological clash, or 9.0%  

Academia   Private   Government   National  &  

Local  Orgs   Other  

Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London

confrontation. It returns us to different issues raised in understanding professionalization (Section 1.4.2), changes through the 80s and 90s including battles won and lost (Section 4.2.5 and 4.2.6), and about how we as archaeologists feel about decisions in government and how those decisions affect our ability to decide the quality of our own profession (Section 5.3.1). The debate of standards is a projection of a tension far more deep. It is about fragmentation, professional exclusion, redundancies of staff with years of experience, and a form of institutional confrontation (discussed in Section 5.3.3 and in Chapter 8).

5.3.2.3 Underbidding Versus Professionalisation

Deeply embedded in the standard discussion is the argument that competitive tendering drives costs down, and consequently standards. Winning contracts and dropping prices was discussed in Section 5.2.5.3 briefly, however how underbidding really affects the profession and professionalisation is far more destructive than simply a badly done site. Going back briefly, after the introduction of PPG16, there were new teams created to deal with the new created market of archaeology and in the market came underbidding.

Underbidding devalues the profession as a whole. Not only does the quality of our work go down, but quite simply, our clients – who do not know much, if anything, about archaeology nor the standard in which it is done - begin to assume there is no skill, expertise, research or ‘good’

archaeology. Nixon explains, ‘it’s very common for us to be, as individuals...sitting around a table with members of other professions - part of the same development team working for the same client - and for us to be charging a hundredth of what the other client team members are charging....’ (pers. comm., Nixon: 2013: 8).

Because the developer invites tenders for a job which – in essence- has no use to him in the development built and making sure it is safe, archaeologists are only recently learning to change their language to suggest that archaeology is not a hindrance: ‘Our starting proposition in the early 90s, certainly, was ‘archaeology’s a big risk to you, it’s potentially a big detail, it’s a cost factor, you wish it wasn’t there - let’s try to manage it out of the way for you’. And that was very deliberately part of our language’, says Taryn Nixon from one of London’s most prominent contract units (pers. comm., Nixon, 2013: 8).

Jay Carver¹⁰⁹ also comments:

Archaeologists in the market-place undercut themselves severely. Terribly. In the terms of the money they think they can demand from the market, they absolutely destroy themselves by undercutting themselves and selling their expertise so cheap. If only they wouldn’t do that! A client organisation would have no problem paying an archaeologist a professional equivalent rate. The fact that they continue to undercut themselves, it’s not about competition between themselves - they all undercut each

109 Director of 4AD Consultants Ltd – currently undertaking London’s Crossrail project (2006-present); Member of Technical Advisory Group for Historic Environment (CEEQUAL).

Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London other - it’s a mystery to me. It’s a lack of exposure and really a lack of...belief in themselves. That they have a professional role. [It’s a] self-fulfilling prophecy.

Archaeologists feel that they are poorly paid and underrepresented and they continue to be until they get out of that mindset... (pers. comm., Carver, 2012: 26)

Archaeologists sold archaeology as a risk and unwanted hindrance that they could manage for a long time, something that is only recently starting to change. They did not talk about positive risk management nor added value for the developer. They did not value their work nor have the confidence to charge higher prices. ‘But that’s because we as a sector weren’t all bringing ourselves up to speed at the same time, we were undercutting each other’ (pers. comm., Nixon, 2013: 8).

Lowering the bar for quality work is self-destructive. As a young profession, we need to understand and address these concerns and how it affects the profession internally, but also how it affects the image of archaeology externally.