Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:50:56 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Glibness aside, as an employer of field (and lab) technicians, I expect
'technicians" to be well trained professionals much in the same way that
biotech or other scientific research "technicians" are. In our company they
need to meet certain educational and experiential criteria and are hired to
perform specific tasks. I would make a distinction between a technician and
an archaeologist. I don't expect a field technician to make the same kinds
of decisions that a fully experienced archaeologist might. In my view, an
archaeologist has the ability to understand the nuances of fieldwork and to
make decisions in the field based on their knowledge and understanding of
accepted methods as the field situations change. I would not expect a
technician to do this, although I consider him or her essential to the
effort. The issue is treating the technician with the respect they have
earned, not to deflect from the issue by changing a name.
Ellen Marlatt
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "geoff carver" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:57 PM
Subject: [Shovelbums] New poll for shovelbums (fwd)
> apologies for cross-posting, but this looked kind of interesting (at least
for
> someone living in germany, where there is a very real difference between
> "archaeologists" and "technicians") -
|
|
|