Achieving Impact: Benefits Gained by Both Archaeologists and The Communities in Whose Landscape They Work (original) (raw)
Related papers
What do archaeologists really think about impact?
The Archaeologist, No 89, 2013
Archaeological projects undertaken across research, community and developer-funded sectors are increasingly expected to achieve a real and tangible impact on local communities, whether it be social, cultural or economic. However, having an ‘impact’ may be the easy part – what is conceivably more difficult is proving it. The seminar session ‘Demonstrating impact in archaeological projects’ invited speakers to informally discuss their own projects. This was followed by the audience breaking into groups to suggest ways in which we can ensure that the impact of projects are genuine and can be documented.
Social Impact Archaeology: Pontefract Castle and the Gatehouse Project
Internet Archaeology, 2021
Archaeology is said to add value to development, creating a deeper sense of place, community identity as well as improving health and wellbeing. Accentuating these wider social values has been welcomed by a profession keen to broaden its public relevance and legitimacy and protect its seat at the table in modern cultural life, but how much, if at all, do the public actually benefit from developer-led archaeology? Benefits to individuals and communities from archaeology projects are often abstract, intangible and difficult to attribute, and the discipline arguably lacks a satisfactory frame of reference around which it can express and design for these additional social values. Drawing on the language of social impact investing, this article will explore how the UK-based collaborative platform, DigVentures, has addressed this challenge. It introduces a 'Theory of Change' and 'Standards of Evidence' framework to account for the impact of development-led archaeology prog...
Title: Post-excavation assessment, analysis and dissemination in modern archaeological practice
The anticipated boom in planning-led archaeology will lead to unprecedented amounts of data being produced. However there are concerns that much of this data will be redundant, despite the care and resources spent upon its collection. Audiences are being missed, or worse, ignored. We are facing a crossroads in our professional practice, largely due to how we undertake post-excavation. The current post-excavation assessment procedures were initially established by English Heritage (1991) and have been widely followed across the sector. We have now been using them for 25 years, without a formalised review or renewal. In the meantime, the dual pressures of programme and budget have become more acute and the sheer amount of data created on an average City of London project (for example) can be too complex to be analysed effectively within the timescales available (Cumberpatch 2015). The key question we have failed to ask ourselves thus far is who we are trying to engage. The vast majority of our published material is aimed at fellow archaeologists and the academic sector but the use of archived data remains uncommon. Academic priorities for urban archaeology centre upon synthesis (Bryant and Thomas 2015, 18), which requires the adherence to research strategies (Museum of London 2002, Rowsome and Baker 2016) but these are rarely explicitly adopted, so despite regular calls for improved synthesis (Millett 2013; 2016; Perring 2015; Wilson 2016), it remains clear that there are limited possibilities for thematic work, despite the vast amounts of archived data. We should perhaps redirect our efforts to attract a wider variety of audiences. This proposal leads on from my recently completed PhD which examined professional practice in the City of London and led me to consider that there should be far less distinction made between the worlds of 'commercial' and 'academic' archaeology. The opportunity to study at the McDonald Institute would be the ideal progression from this viewpoint. My employer MOLA has been an industry leader in the innovation of techniques and are keen to encourage this field of study, particularly as our profession is looking forward to the positive influence of the HS2 project.
This paper provides an overview of the ‘I Dig Moston’/‘Dig Manchester’ community archaeology project, which took place in Manchester, England, between 2003 and 2008. This project involved the collaboration of local residents, school children, community groups and professional archaeologists from the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit and the Manchester Museum. The paper reviews the power structures and relationships which characterised the project, with reference to Arnstein’s ‘ladder of citizen participation’. It reviews the aims and impacts of the work, reflecting on methods for the evaluation of community archaeology initiatives.
2017
This report provides a rapid, point-in-time review of progress against the long-term aspirations and specific recommendations set out in the Southport Report (2011). It has been prepared within the scope of the original Southport Report as an update and prelude to '21st century Challenges in Archaeology', a programme of cross-sector discussions in 2017 led by Historic England and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. The core of this report is a review of progress against the specific recommendations (with detail given in the accompanying table referred to as the Southport Reporter), a comment on whether the vision has been achieved, notes on what appear to be the main drivers and barriers involved and pointers for the future. The report highlights priorities for the historic environment sector to address: Assuring a resilient place for archaeology and heritage in statute and government policy - in other words in a structure that is better able to withstand the pressures of budget cuts and streamlining of planning process being experienced in England. Seizing opportunities created in the archaeology services market - where a forecast spike in demand for skilled archaeologists offers a rare and invaluable chance to establish a stronger and different model for archaeology in England. Reinforcing among policy-makers the recognition of the beneficial role and capability of archaeology as a contributor to socio–economic growth, especially in the context of economic upturn. Prioritising the funding necessary to ensure that practitioners and employers are able to put in place the expertise, training, resources and confidence to design, manage and deliver innovative, quality-based archaeology that benefits development as well as society. Getting the historic environment sector fully aligned behind a shared definition and purpose of what we do and what outcomes we want – and then ensuring that we put policy into practice in all parts of that sector. Disseminating our research in ways that demonstrate its worth, and successfully convince policy makers of the value of archaeology as a catalyst for regeneration and a focus of community and place, even when weighed against other pressing domestic issues requiring limited funding.
Evaluating community archaeology in the UK
Public Archaeology, 2008
Does community archaeology work? In the UK over the last decade, there has been a boom in projects utilising the popular phrase 'community archaeology'. These projects can take many different forms and have ranged from the public face of research and developer-funded programmes to projects run by museums, archaeological units, universities, and archaeological societies. Community archaeology also encapsulates those projects run by communities themselves or in dialogue between 'professional' and 'amateur' groups and individuals. Many of these projects are driven by a desire for archaeology to meet a range of perceived educational and social values in bringing about knowledge and awareness of the past in the present. These are often claimed as successful outputs of community projects. This paper argues that appropriate criteria and methodologies for evaluating the effi cacy of these projects have yet to be designed. What is community archaeology for? Who is it for? And is it effectively meeting its targets? Focusing on the authors' experiences of directing community archaeology projects, together with the ongoing research assessing the effi cacy of community archaeology projects in the UK, this paper aims to set out two possible methodologies: one of self-refl exivity, and one of ethnoarchaeological analysis for evaluating what community archaeology actually does for communities themselves.
Sustainability in community archaeology
Arqueologia Publica, 2014
This paper considers the rise of community archaeology in England and Wales, its relationships with other branches of archaeology, and its long-term sustainability. It is argued that true sustainability for community archaeology will only be possible if research outcomes and public benefit are considered as being of equal value.
Community Archaeology or Bust: What Future for Archaeology?
There is a crisis in archaeology that could be fatal to the discipline in its present form. Decades of neglect, followed by savage current cutbacks will transform what has been a dynamic profession in Britain into an elite rump, similar to that which exists in most countries in Europe. Community archaeology projects work at the heart of what has historically been the backbone of support for the entire framework of archaeology in this country; the taxpaying voters. In order to survive, we must embrace community involvement in archaeology and encourage communities to give the clear message to local authorities that our work, and the infrastructure that supports it, is valued and must be properly supported. The choice is between community involvement, or oblivion for archaeology in Britain.
Ensuring Archaeology in the Planning System Delivers Public Benefit
Public Archaeology, 2020
Archaeologists in the UK work in a variety of structures, but all archaeology is for the benefit of the public. Since 1990 the majority of archaeological work has been undertaken as part of the planning process. A complex system has evolved which attempts to deliver wider public benefit. There are differences between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the underlying principles are broadly the same across the UK. In 2020 radical changes were proposed to the planning system in England which could potentially impact on both the archaeological profession and the public benefits it generates. This paper outlines the evolution and operation of the current UK system with particular reference to England, and highlights some changes that the new proposals could make to the status quo. Some structural issues are highlighted which will need to be overcome for archaeologists to improve things for themselves and for the society they serve in the future.