Benchmarking Archaeology
It may now be a bit late to be discussing this one, since the
consultation process is now over, but I am interested in what others think
our responses should be to similar initiatives. From informal conversations
it seems to me that many academic archaeologists are unhappy with the whole
endeavour of 'benchmarking', on the grounds that its natural tendency is to
stifle innovation, promote homogeneity, constrain experiment and
increasingly to make archaeology a vocational qualification.
Given that, what is the best thing to do? Part of me wants to
refuse to co-operate (collaborate/ connive) in such developments. Another
view,however, is that if we don't take on some sort of self-regulation,
than external regulation will be imposed , which will be worse. If that is
the case, we want a benchmarking statement which is worded as woollily as
possible, so that no actual changes in our current or proposed practices
are necessary. In that, the document prepared by SCUPHA and recently
circulated by the QAA is reasonably successful. But even in the case of
this document I do have some problems with the main text. These mostly
relate to the privileging of technical skills, particularly field work,
over all other aspects of archaeology. In particular critical reflection
('theory') is underemphasised.
I am concerned that the tendency of benchmarks is to enforce
conformity to a particular agenda, even when we may have well thought-out
reasons to reject the view of archaeology proposed by the benchmarking
document. So, for example, the document demands specialist knowledge of
'one or more classes of archaeological material' While specialists are
useful and necessary and possess knowledge and skills I respect, I would
have thought that at undergraduate level the ability to integrate different
kinds of knowledge in addressing archaeological questions was more
fundamental. Perhaps we could say that all students should have access to
expertise and be able to learn specialist skills if they wish, but the
compartmentalisation of archaeology has been extensively critiqued for at
least a decade, and it would seem to me entirely reasonable for a
department to entertain a different view of what an undergraduate needs to
know.
Although the document is careful to state that archaeology
departments are expected to exhibit diversity in their aims and emphases, I
am nevertheless worried that a few years down the line the benchmarking
document will become a checklist for all teaching quality procedures and
therefore all degree programs will need to conform to this rather narrow
agenda.
I could go on all day, but people have work to do. My main
questions are whether anxieties about benchmarking are shared beyond this
department and if so, is there anything we can do? Do we have to
collaborate in developments we are deeply unhappy about or can we do
something different? I would be particularly interested to hear from any of
those who were involved in drafting the document - was the aim simply to do
as little damage as possible to existing practice, or was there an agenda
to encourage a particular style of degree? Is there a problem in the
quality of archaeology degree provision which benchmarking addresses?
Sarah
Dr Sarah Tarlow,
Department of Archaeology,
University of Wales, Lampeter,
Ceredigion
SA48 7ED
Tel: 01570 422351 ext. 345
Fax: 01570 423669
Email: [log in to unmask]
Department: http://archaeology.lamp.ac.uk/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|