Nick Boldrini: My concern here is that any standard becomes an extra thing for curators to deal with, when they are already struggling to keep up with work they have, but doesn't actually help them. The fact that it may then benefit researchers in that context is irrelevant, as from a curators point of view it is more work for no direct benefit.
Surely a well-thought out, agreed and used 'standard' should make more effective use of time needed to report for both curators and contractors undertaking the work. Equally it does not just benefit researchers. It should benefit curators in that they could set WSIs with better aims and it should benefit contractors working in the geographical area to understand what is already known and hence target their current proposals more effectively. It would allow appropriate sampling strategies to be undertaken rather than the often broad-brush approaches currently practiced in many cases. Broad brush can be fine under some circumstances but a better use of Regional Research Frameworks and the grey literature should produce information that would take forward our understanding of the historic environment rather than just producing poor quality 'sausage machine' reports in response to planning requirements. I do know what "real" life is - cheaper is more likely to get the job - but that shouldn't stop us aspiring for something better.
best wishes
Jacqui
______________________________
Jacqui Huntley,
English Heritage North East Regional Science Advisor,
Bessie Surtees' House,
41-44 Sandhill, Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 3JF
Tel: 0191 2691250
Mobile (preferred contact): 077134 00387
Save trees. Please do not print this message unless essential
