The British Academy
POLICY REGARDING UNPUBLISHED FIELD-WORK in BASIS INSTITUTIONS
Guidelines on best practice
These notes have been prepared following discussion by BASIS of the problem of unpublished fieldwork in the institutions it supports. They are not intended as a blueprint or definitive statement on how to eliminate such problems, but they set out some general recommendations which institutions are encouraged to follow.
Introduction
Unpublished fieldwork (or any other work for which public funding was supplied or permits issued) is a potentially serious problem for the reputation of UK scholarship abroad. Almost all field or project work is intended to be followed up by publication, though the form and scale of publication may vary considerably. Nowadays, grant-giving bodies such as the AHRB or the British Academy insist on a plan for publication and are highly unlikely to make further awards to a grant-holder until publication is under way. In the context of BASIS-sponsored institutions, the problems are largely historical, usually deriving from a period when the pace of writing-up was much more leisurely than would be contemplated today and season after season of fieldwork would be undertaken with no firm plan or timescale for writing-up and publication. BASIS believes that in today’s world this is unsustainable. Not only does it run counter to the intentions of all grant-giving bodies, it also creates a poor impression in the host countries where the institutions operate – even though the record of their own organisations may be far from perfect.
There are admittedly complications, for instance where it is uncertain who has responsibility for the writing up, or where the institution in question was only loosely connected with the project, or not at all. Whether the host country views this as an important distinction is a moot point. There is also a question of what field and project work BASIS institutions can be expected to keep within their purview – archaeological fieldwork certainly, but not geological or geographical work, which are funded quite differently and for which entirely separate arrangements will have been made. But environmentally-based projects may well include elements of both. Thus there can be no hard and fast rules for how to proceed, as each situation will have to be treated on its merits. What follows is an attempt to lay down some general rules which BASIS expects its sponsored bodies to follow.
- Field projects by UK scholars in countries of interest to BASIS institutions will vary from those funded wholly or largely by BASIS funds, and those for which formal permission has been granted by the host country through the BASIS institution, to those receiving no or minimal BASIS funds or help-in-kind from the member institution. In practice, the BASIS institution operating in a host country abroad will frequently be perceived by the latter as the body ultimately responsible for ensuring timely publication of project work. BASIS is aware of the difficulty, but wishes to encourage institutions to regard all UK-funded humanities-based fieldwork (as defined in 2 below) carried out in their host country as in principle falling within their remit as far as publication is concerned. Publication of those projects for which they were the major funding body, or for which they sought permits, or for which their own staff were the main participants, MUST be regarded as obligatory.
- Humanities-based fieldwork falling within the remit of BASIS institutions is primarily archaeological, but also includes some other work such as geological and geographical studies developed within “landscape archaeology” projects, and anthropological fieldwork. While it is not reasonable to expect the institutions to cover all disciplines, BASIS does expect them to keep all UK-funded archaeological fieldwork within their purview, and will lend support where necessary to ensure that other UK-based operators in the field liaise with the institutions and keep them informed of progress.
- Arrangements should be in place for ensuring that current fieldwork has a viable writing-up and publication plan. Grant committees within the institutions should always ensure that applicants spell out their publication plans (including budgetary arrangements where appropriate) not only for fieldwork but also for the analysis of the fieldwork data (including laboratory studies where appropriate), its preparation for publication, and the publication itself, together with the arrangements for the compilation of an appropriate archive. The progress of this overall programme should be carefully monitored. Fieldwork should not be funded without a clear idea of how publication will also be funded.
- Funding for new fieldwork should not be given, or permits sought, where an applicant has past projects on the stocks where significant progress has not already been made in the writing-up process. BASIS expects institutions to be robust in their judgments about what constitutes “significant progress”. Where an applicant has several such projects, a complete ban on new fieldwork funding to that person should be considered.
- With large fieldwork projects extending over many seasons, it is a good idea for the project director(s) to set a series of intermediate publication goals – preferably not merely descriptive “interim reports” – and for the institution to monitor progress in achieving them. As a general rule, the first of these should fall not later than five years after the start of the project; subsequent ones should be spaced appropriately so that there is a continuing sense of urgency about the writing-up process. Institutions also need to have scrutiny measures in place to review the final outcomes of large fieldwork projects, to provide them with robust judgments as to their appropriateness.
- Responsibility for fieldwork and for the study of the most significant bodies of data produced by it should not be entrusted to those who have no expectation of remaining in post long enough to continue the key components of the project through to final publication. While it is entirely reasonable, indeed essential, for graduate students and short-contract staff to take part in projects, a person or persons must be identified who will be responsible for continuing the project through to final publication, and any departure from this programme must be addressed by the institution as a matter of the utmost importance. Retired staff may well be able to work actively on their projects after retirement, but institutions should have regard to the timescale of the writing-up process and the level of support offered when entrusting fieldwork and its publication to those nearing or in retirement.
- Where fieldwork took place many years ago, and the person who carried it out is no longer available to undertake the writing-up, BASIS institutions must take active steps to fulfill their responsibilities. These might take a variety of forms: withholding part of the current budget intended for new fieldwork in order to fund research assistance; seeking grants from trusts and other bodies for this purpose; assigning staff in post to work on projects; or soliciting assistance from staff and students in higher education to undertake the work. BASIS regards it as essential that its sponsored institutions are interventionist in ensuring that such work progresses and encourages them to prioritize this work. In some cases, it may be appropriate that the institutions seek to secure an understanding with an individual’s employing body in the UK to accept joint responsibility for unpublished fieldwork.
- BASIS requires its sponsored institutions to present an annual report on the progress of writing-up of all fieldwork undertaken within its area of jurisdiction. These reports (which are now an integral part of the annual bidding process) need not be lengthy, but they should include a brief account of progress on all projects that are on the books until such time as publication is achieved. BASIS is unlikely to increase the funding to institutions where signs of progress are limited.