ArchaeoPhysica's Blog

I was struck recently by a discussion on LinkedIn about the usefulness or not of the setting of industry standards and regulation. While there was basic agreement that the setting of standards is necessary, two separate reasons for this emerged:

• to provide an easily characterisable service package facilitating comparison of quotes
• to prevent cowboy surveyors from trading

What relevance have these got to archaeological geophysics? Well, they have been discussed in different archaeological geophysical fora for over a decade and for the first reason listed above we have had the English Heritage guidelines for many years. This makes perfect sense – the discipline needs to define what it considers to be standard practice. However, it seems that in recent years there are a number of surveyors who regard this guidance as the maximum standard they need to achieve to be acceptable. In contrast, there is nothing to support surveyors who can better this standard, whether through experience, qualifications or innovation. Is this a problem?

A standard set too low supports the lowest common denominator and a minimum that is too easily achieved. The English Heritage guidelines represent only a basic standard even if rigorously followed, however, the discipline has nothing better. If a low quality standard is considered an adequate job, it is too easy for surveyors to become judged on price and price alone, whether experienced, professional or cowboy. This inevitably leads to a price war similar to the one being waged in the UK at the moment and which has the hallmarks of being significantly damaging to the discipline in the medium term. It is too easy for cowboy surveyors to meet the standard and hence guidance only, as a standard and without regulation does the discipline little good.

If it is to become possible for surveyors to differentiate themselves professionally and without reference to price it would appear to need better standards. Guidance merely suggests a standard, but what should that standard be? An ideal standard would take into account changing technologies, ideas and improvements and is thus dynamic; it should change over time. A standard that doesn’t change quickly becomes too easily achievable and loses value as a result.

This is not about regulation, i.e. enforcing a standard; this is simply about stating what is achievable, what is necessary and what should be aspired to. It is a benchmark representing perhaps the best technical capability achievable at a particular time and nothing more. It something against which any surveyor can measure themselves. A surveyor not meeting every aspect of the standard is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that there is room for improvement.

Continual update and raising the standard would promote increasing technical capability within the discipline and over time would differentiate between the capable and the less capable. There will always be some surveyors who will ignore the standard but in doing so their support for their discipline will have ceased and they would no longer be professional in the proper sense.

To take this discussion a final step further, what about enforceable standards or in other words, a system of regulation? This requires the support of the majority and without a majority it is inevitable and arguably right that allegations of exclusivity and unfair trading will arise. Undoubtedly well-intentioned attempts by a small number of Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) members to regulate archaeological geophysics have met with hostility that perhaps with hindsight should have been expected. Conflict must be avoided to achieve regulation by consensus.

Regulation should be accomplished within the discipline, that should be obvious, and not by the customer who usually lacks the detailed technical knowledge necessary for informed judgements. However, some customers, perhaps in this case represented by the IfA, see the lack of regulation within archaeological geophysics as a problem. After all, there is no regulatory mechanism within the discipline and to date little progress has been made towards establishing one. Indeed, at various discussions over the years two things have become apparent:

• no organisation within archaeological geophysics feels able to be a regulatory body
• few surveyors wish to be regulated

Common reasons cited for the first include the perceived costs involved in regulation and a fear of legal consequences. However, this overlooks the fact that a body can regulate indirectly, simply by approving the membership of surveyors without invoking limiting work to its members. In simple terms, it would provide a ‘kitemark’ type scheme. Other disciplines have their trade bodies that do just that, including GPR surveyors working in archaeology (EuroGPR). Plumbers, electricians and most trades have trade bodies but commercial archaeological geophysics seems to view itself differently, arguing against simple schemes in favour of, well, nothing. Is this based on perhaps misguided prejudice about the difference between a trade and a profession?

Coupled to this is a fear of being seen to exclude and this has been raised at various discussions, often by academics who arguably have little remit to comment upon commercial concerns. However, if anything but the very minimum standard is enforced it is inevitable that some surveyors will be excluded in the interest of safeguarding the discipline. It is wrong for a technical discipline to seek to accommodate, and therefore trade to, standards suiting the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately this is precisely what is happening in the UK because those who fear regulation are devolving the responsibility to the customers, relying entirely upon market forces. Any surveyor who has traded throughout the last decade can see that this method does not work and indeed, is there any economic reason why it should? Surveyors who rely on market forces as a sole regulatory mechanism are demonstrating ignorance of the wider world of business. The customer can hardly be expected to exclude cowboy surveyors when there is no higher benchmark to make reference to. Those who devolve responsibility to the customer are perhaps themselves being irresponsible to the disciple and their peers. Ignorance begets ignorance and has no place within a professional discipline.

The second issue, surveyors not wanting to be regulated, is perhaps due to the absence of any proper trade or representative body to represent them. A surveyor cannot have faith in a self-appointed regulatory body that knows little about the discipline, is populated by do-gooders attempting to leave their mark on the profession or just provides an opportunity to get out of the office. It is also sadly the case that a (growing?) number of surveyors are aware they cannot meet standards set higher than the present guidance and who understandably oppose anything that they feel gives others an advantage. However, it is that sort of dead weight a professional discipline should be seeking to shed or at least eradicate through education and training. It takes no great imagination to see that these surveyors are also likely to seek advantage through low prices, relying on other income streams to support professional activities like CPD, membership of professional organisations and research, if indeed they care to do so at all.

So, is a trade body needed? If so, what should its remit be? Should it, for example, seek adherence to the basic standard implied by the English Heritage guidance, or should it be seeking to raise the bar? Should it actively regulate or should it provide a kitemark type scheme? What alternatives might exist?