Yes! I agree.
Research and publication and distribution builds revelence and fee
structures which restrict research limit the entire process- original
research-fieldwork-curation.
I am always encouraged to think of relevance whenever funding issues are
raised. So much time is spent on the engines of funding without much
being done to improve and oil the engines of relevancy. When there is
greater relevency to the cultures that are asked to fund research and
curation and fieldwork then they will give more priority to it.
In tough times working with the engines of relevancy should receive a
high level of attention. Sadly many organizations are creeking along
with dated concepts of public education and involvement of the public. I
see far too much of "society" and not enough "historical" in my local
county organization. My state historical society as well as local major
art gallery is still practicing mono crop funding- tapping the wealthy
and higher social orders rather than the average patron. As with the
Irish Potato Famine- reliance on one crop or group is terrible. I
recently contacted my local state historical society to see if I could
afford a simple one line add in their glossy publicaiton. Something that
should not cost all that much was beyond my reach by several hundred
dollars. Impact of my work was restricted- relevancy suffered.
Tough times also call for adaptation. Of course the local Opera went
bankrupt. The cost of a seat was way too high. This is caused by relying
upon the wealthy to purchase them but also because of the food chain
grabbing at each level more than can be found in the marketplace.
So....costs have to come down too.
Hopefully a way will be found to contain costs, expand access and
increase relevancy of our work while at the same time encouraging
research and spreading its results as widely as possible. The wider
research is distributed the greater the work that can be done and the
more taxpayers can be impressed by what we are doing. Much of what we
do needs to be encorporated into the daily lives of taxpayers where it
will eventually provide greater opportunity and protect the resources
with which we work. As with healthcare an ounce of prevention can save a
ton of curation and fieldwork. Trouble is that taxpayers know less about
when to call an archeologist, curator, or historian than they do about
when to call a doctor. They know even less about curation and resource
management.
I am confident that building practical relevancy will take care of many
financial problems.
Can't resist a story-
I create and drive art cars daily.
I took my magnet truck out shopping- to walmart
It had a series of paintings by Van Gogh attached by magnets- large and
bright
A crowd gathered
they were amazed by the paintings
These are wonderful they asked- others asked Did you do them?
I had to say no.
The walmart customers were hungry for art, it had a unique appeal.
I told them that they could go downtown to the Walters art gallery and
see many such works.
The response was telling:
"places like that are not for us" (absolute accurate quote!)
Our work needs to be more relevant and visible on the cultural radars of
the groups we serve and from which we hope to receive funding.
Gala events for the wealthy just wont accomplish this....
Yes many people are working hard on these problems- but we have to see
an intensification of this by everyone involved in the process and yes
sometimes on their own time but also by thinking up and employing new
strategies.
Conrad Bladey
Peasant
Cheryl Ward wrote:
> These are good points, but the reality is that archaeology, especially
> curation, is signficantly underfunded and providing secure access to
> collections is expensive...maybe the best procedure is to get more
> funding in place before any new guidelines or principles are
> established. And the political reality of that process is dismaying to
> think about for too long.
>
>
> Conrad Bladey Conrad Bladey On 12/11/09 1:12 PM, "Conrad Bladey"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Interesting-
>
> Although in the field of Archeology protection of sensitive site
> location is important; as a researcher I fully agree that once as a
> taxpayer, I have paid for research that it should be fully
> available on
> line for free. I do not think I should have to pay again for
> access to
> journals or databases for something that was publicly funded. I would
> immagine that the best way to do this would be to provide a limited
> access something like two successful downloads within a year or
> something similar. I think information should be available long term
> until it has been accessed by a taxpayer. Information downloaded
> should
> also be non transferable.
>
> I also believe that institutions getting tax breaks because they
> claim
> tro enable research should also provide free access to their
> collections. If you say you are an educational institution and get
> either fed funds or tax breaks then you should remove the fees which
> prohibit research from being done with your collection. I don't make
> much money at all doing my research and writing and the largest
> chunk of
> research expenses these days comes from museum memberships and access
> fees I have to pay to read a book or document at institutions that
> are
> federally funded.
>
> Governemnt funding should always facilitate widespread access.
>
> Conrad Bladey
> Peasant.
>
> scarlett wrote:
>
>> I think several people might be interested in this process...
>> Cheers,
>> Tim Scarlett
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: December 11, 2009 12:24:28 PM EST
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: White House seeks public input on science policy
>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Make your voice heard!
>>> We have been asked to relay to the broad scientific community the
>>> following opportunity to advise US government policymaking
>>> deliberations.
>>> You can read the latest updates at: www.whitehouse.gov/open
>>>
>>> The Obama Administration is seeking public input on policies
>>> concerning access to
>>> publicly-funded research results, such as those that appear in
>>> academic and scholarly journal articles. Currently, the National
>>> Institutes of Health require that research funded by its grants be
>>> made available to the public online at no charge within 12
>>
> months of
>
>>> publication. The Administration is seeking views as to whether this
>>> policy should be extended to other science agencies and, if so, how
>>> it should be implemented.
>>>
>>> The Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office
>>> of the President and the White House Open Government Initiative are
>>> launching a "Public Access Policy Forum" to invite public
>>> participation in thinking through what the Federal government's
>>> policy should be with regard to public access to published
>>
> federally-
>
>>> funded research results.
>>>
>>> To that end, OSTP will conduct an interactive, online discussion
>>> beginning Thursday, December 10. The discussion will focus on three
>>> major areas of interest:
>>>
>>> * Implementation (Dec. 10 to 20): Which Federal agencies are good
>>> candidates to adopt Public Access policies? What variables
>>
> (field of
>
>>> science, proportion of research funded by public or private
>>> entities, etc.) should affect how public access is implemented at
>>> various agencies, including the maximum length of time between
>>> publication and public release?
>>> Add your comments >>
>>>
>>> You will want to read the "Terms of Participation" and will need to
>>> register a new account and log in using the link at the bottom of
>>> the page to comment. Tips on how to comment and moderate posts are
>>> listed in the right-hand column.
>>>
>>> * Features and Technology (Dec. 21 to Dec 31): In what format
>>
> should
>
>>> the data be submitted in order to make it easy to search and
>>> retrieve information, and to make it easy for others to link to it?
>>> Are there existing digital standards for archiving and
>>> interoperability to maximize public benefit? How are these
>>> anticipated to change?
>>>
>>> * Management (Jan. 1 to Jan. 7): What are the best mechanisms to
>>> ensure compliance? What would be the best metrics of success? What
>>> are the best examples of usability in the private sector (both
>>> domestic and international)? Should those who access papers be
>>
> given
>
>>> the opportunity to comment or provide feedback?
>>>
>>> Each of these topics will form the basis of a blog posting that
>>
> will
>
>>> appear at www.whitehouse.gov/open and will be open for comment on
>>> the OSTP blog at blog.ostp.gov.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS and Executive Publisher, Science
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email was sent to [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>> To get on and off our e-mail lists, please change your e-mail
>>> preferences here.
>>> If you need additional help, please write to [log in to unmask] .
>>>
>>> AAAS / Science
>>> 1200 New York Avenue NW
>>> Washington, DC 20005
>>> U.S.A.
>>> Telephone: +1 202-326-6417
>>> Toll Free in the U.S.: 866-434-(AAAS) 2227
>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> Privacy Policy:
>>> http://www.sciencemag.org/help/readers/privacy.dtl
>>>
>>> [ AAAS / Science does not endorse any 3rd party products or
>>
> services
>
>>> advertised here. ]
>>> © 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All
>>> Rights Reserved.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Cheryl Ward
> Director, Center for Archaeology and Anthropology
> Associate Professor & Maritime Archaeologist
> Department of History
> Coastal Carolina University
> P.O. Box 261954
> Conway, SC 29528-6054 ww2.coastal.edu/cward/drward.php
> 1.843.349.6657 tel. [log in to unmask]
|