I would be willing to bet that the factory owner did not dig the canal - it is more likely the workers did it. Why would anyone automatically assume that the development of a research design would be based only on issues of gender, race, slavery, or worker lifestyles (generally of previously undocumented populations). Although these are some of the issues that have recently been of primary concern. This is probably  a backlash to the particularistic attitudes of earlier historic archeologists and preservationists who only wanted to deal with the past life ways of important personages. However, the aforementioned  are not the only issues that can be dealt with from an anthropological perspective.

Why did the factory owner choose the location he/she did? Why did the factory produce the product it did, use the methods of production it did, dig the canal at that location? How did this factory fit into the global historic economic scene? Why did the factory shut down? 

There are many questions to ask about the factory that can be examined within a context of cultural constructs on global, national, state, local, ethnic, etc. level. Developing a research design is not a limiting factor - it gives the site relevance to research issues that can answer questions of human behavior in which anthropologists are interested and about which they can then impart information to the world as a whole.

I'm sure no one is foolish enough to think that any archeologist would blithely dig through and throw away the lost city of Atlantis because it was on top of a Middle Archaic site, for which the research design had originally been developed. 

Why do you want to dig up this site? 
Because it's there is not a good answer. Come on we are not really gonna argue that we should support a dig and figure attitude in American Archeological circles.

Diane Dismukes