1. Fit for Purpose? Skills and employability in UK archaeology How do archaeologists learn their trade and what is the role of universities in teaching vocational skills? Dominic Perring Director, UCL Centre for Applied Archaeology (incorporating Archaeology South-East)

2. The problem A growing gulf between what our universities provide and what archaeological employers need. It is a common complaint that recent archaeology graduates do not have the skills required for archaeological employment. How realistic is it for us to expect universities to provide essential vocational training? What is the use of an archaeology degree – and what should employers expect of recent graduates? Employers perspective: current degree courses fall short of preparing graduates to work in archaeology … students lack practical field experience and technical expertise, but also the conceptual, analytical and interpretative skills required (Profiling the Profession 2008)

3. Is it the job of our universities to produce employable archaeologists? If not, what can employers offer to develop these skills? The questions we have been asked to answer

4. My perspective Co-ordinator of MA in Field Archaeology (York to 2002) and MA in Field Archaeology Practice (UCL to 2010) Director ASE – employing 60 archaeological staff ….. Two disconnected employments …

5. Where archaeologists learnt their trade Fieldwork skills: –Volunteers on major projects: 1960s -1980s –MSC programme Specialist skills: – ‘Finds hut’ and beyond University education only one part of professional formation Chitty 1999: Review of training in Professional Archaeology: 90% of professional archaeologists hold degree in archaeology. But … 70% had obtained fieldwork experience as volunteer prior to undergraduate study.

6. Brookes 2008: number of fieldwork opportunities advertised in the CBA Briefing, Shows the increase in training excavations (black) relative to fieldwork opportunities (white), and the appearance of day and weekend-schools (hatched), for students under greater time and financial constraints

7. Field training: the needs of the profession Concerns raised today are hardly new …. Hardy 1997: survey of fieldworkers : 70%: believed field training should be provided by academic institutions 66%: believed university training excavations did not ‘provide relevant practical experience for future professional field workers’

8. UK – teaching of archaeology Undergraduate teaching (in 1999) 52 universities and colleges offered archaeology degree courses 33 departments offered single honours archaeology in 69 courses. 1100 individuals graduated in archaeology 10-15% (110-160) intended to pursue a career in archaeology Of these a third likely to succeed in finding a career Post Graduate teaching 9+ Universities offer 14+ ‘practical’ MA courses (excluding building, conservation and u/water) Most have emphasis on post- ex and management

9. What is a degree in archaeology good for? 1500+ students graduate with archaeology degrees each year Despite falling applications (12.5% fall in 2012) we teach archaeology to more students than will find employment within the sector. Profiling Profession = 6500+ professional archaeologists in the UK – with 300 jobs advertised annually. At best archaeological employers in the UK will provide careers for 15% of archaeology graduates. University degree has become a pre-requisite for archaeological employment, but not a sufficient condition to gain such employment. ‘The undergraduate degree is not a vocational qualification … it provides training for students who want a general degree strong in transferable skills’ (Chitty 1999)

10. Universities and fieldwork training Diverse approaches to fieldwork training: – 25%: either no fixed policy, or no requirement. –Rest: most require 4 or 6 weeks Wide range of approaches to delivery and assessment

11. Fieldwork training Fieldwork should be an essential component of archaeological education Students need to understand how archaeological data are created Fieldwork offers an introduction into the relationship between data and theory in archaeological research Most undergraduate training is about giving students an appreciation of the range of skills involved, not about making them competent as field archaeologists It is also about developing research skills (source criticism). Problems in meeting that objective: With increasing student numbers and an expanding range of skills involved in archaeological fieldwork, it is ever more difficult to provide field training

12. Outcome based teaching Fieldwork: as part of the learning cycle Kolb’s experiential learning theory: ‘Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience’ focuses on cyclical nature of learning: involving four stages: –Abstract Conceptualisation THINK –Active Experimentation PLAN –Concrete Experience DO –Reflective Observation OBSERVE Intended learning outcomes include: Knowledge and understanding Cognitive skills Subject specific practical & professional skills Key transferable skills Progression to employment & further study Personal development.

13. Brookes 2008: student learning, rather than professional- led skills development, is central: Training excavations are where students are forced to negotiate between professional and academic cultures, between the positivist and the reflexive This perceived dualism within archaeology misrepresents the skills and achievements valued by the wider workplace, namely graduates with generic skills of cognition and collaboration Archaeology curricula should be concerned with promoting the development of core (literacy, numeracy, etc.) and process skills such as abstraction, problem-solving, team-work Fieldwork should also be designed to bolster students personal qualities, as well as their capacity for action

14. What does the commercial sector need? Changing nature of archaeological work with increased needs of specialist skills Archaeology Training Forum: “There is no common or core group of competencies that we could say is essential for everyone entering the profession.” Skills gaps identified in Profiling the Profession: –historic building survey –geophysical survey –desk-based research and assessment –conservation of artefacts –artefact research –ecofact research

15. More general concerns –Research and writing skills –Understanding of the context in which archaeological work is undertaken

16. Some concerns of the professional sector Lack of a structured route from education into professional practice lack of accreditation of vocational elements in post graduate & undergraduate courses. loss of opportunities for voluntary field experience as a prelude to professional working Opportunities for work experience limited and unregulated. Measures advocated include: –assisted programmes of professional placements –well-signposted routes from higher education (with accredited elements) –training integrated with work experience. –long term research projects designed to provide training in vocational skills and as laboratories for developing techniques and practice –strengthening of opportunities for training with amateur & independent groups.

17. Current approaches to vocational training Archaeology Training Forum (IFA) argues for ‘new occupational standards as the basis for developing a range of postgraduate courses… that are carefully structured to meet the vocational training needs of the sector’ Two means by which learning can be delivered in the workplace: informally, through mentoring in a structured way through apprenticeships IFA running two linked schemes, Workplace Learning Bursaries and EPPIC

18. Some points in conclusion –There is a necessary distinction to be drawn between vocational and non-vocational training –UK undergraduate degrees are not vocational, although some postgraduate courses provide a vehicle for professional specialisation –University fieldwork teaching should involve research projects supported by an educational plan –The full training of archaeologists takes place in the work-place, and involves following research-driven projects to their conclusion