Interpretation of Standards. A consistent concern raised over particular standards was whether or not they were practical based on how Ministry staff would interpret them. Often criticism of specific content in the draft S&G were framed less as being a problem and more a standard that, through Ministry staff interpretation, would undermine the good intent behind the standard. This reveals a broader concern in the community over whether standards are intended to be absolutely proscriptive, or rather define broad expectations of practice that a licensee’s professional judgement would further articulate in a given project context. Four standards mentioned among a broader range of specific instances cited are offered here purely as examples to convey a sense of how members’ thinking was preoccupied with this concern:
Standard 2.1.1(3) Requires 80% visibility for surveying ploughed fields. This would work as a standard, if intent is broad advice, with the expectation that it is then articulated through the judgement of the archaeologist in the field. But the standard will not work if it will be used as an arbitrary expectation, i.e., in the judgement of the Ministry reviewer reinterpreting reported conditions, visibility was only 76%, so go back and do more fieldwork.
Standard 3.4.1 Domestic sites post-dating 1830. The rule of “80% pre-dating 1870” requiring some form of Stage 4 work was seen as generally a workable standard, if the general expectation is that it will be at the discretion of the archaeologist to judge whether to recommend Stage 4 based on specific site context. The standard becomes entirely unworkable if, as was reported by some members, the Ministry treats each “period of occupation” as discrete (e.g., an 1850s-1860s part of a site that was occupied from the 1850s to 1950 is deemed a “pre-1870” component requiring Stage 4).
Section 5 - GPS readings must be accurate to 5 m or less. The variability in that accuracy depends on any number of weather, setting and other variables. So if this is a general expectation the Ministry expects licensees to strive for, okay. But if this is an arbitrary expectation that does not allow for technical limitations and in the field realities (and licensee’s judgement of those realities), it will lead to disputes due to constraints beyond good practice.
Standard 7.8.5 (2) – Requires digital images of a representative sample of retained diagnostic artifacts be included in reports. Members’ experiences have been that sometimes the Ministry has asked for images of undiagnostic material, such as lithic flakes. Terms like “representative sample” and “diagnostic artifacts” in the standard, however, implies a licensee’s judgement (in the absence of constraining definition) determines what to include in the report, and should not be subject to individual reviewers’ variable definitions of these terms.
Recommendation: Based on these examples and other similar comments, we recommend that there should be clarity provided to licensees in the final version of the S&G around the intent and operation of standards. Some standards clearly must be prescriptive (e.g., no survey in snow conditions, must screen soil, etc), but many are more judgemental, identifying best efforts expected, broad parameters for applying judgement, and will be defined by specific field and site contexts. That judgement, from the perspective of our members’ comments, is best served by the Ministry approved and licensed archaeologist making decisions in the field and in report production consistent with the intent of the S&G, rather than applied after the fact at report review.
As such we would encourage the Ministry to include “signals” to both licensees and review staff where users of the S&G can recognise that a standard will need to be read through the filter of licensee judgement in the field or in handling the material record, i.e., “...according to licensee’s judgement,” “as determined by the licensee,” etc. These cues would signal that there is a broad expectation being conveyed for the standard, but also a recognition that in the field judgement of experienced licensees will ultimately define, for example, good visibility (as opposed to 80% vs. 76% visibility).
Additionally, use of these cues would also signal, by their absence, where it is expected that a licensee is not to deviate from a standard. So, purely as an example and not to convey a particular standard preference, the following wording is offered as an example of how standards can incorporate cues:
Land to be surveyed must be recently ploughed and weathered to achieve a maximum surface visibility. The licensee will determine if ploughing and weathering has been recent and sufficient to achieve maximum visibility. A maximum visibility is best achieved when a licensee can generally see 80% or more of ground surface.
In this example, then, a licensee will know that they must only survey ploughed fields when they are ploughed and weathered to facilitate maximum visibility. The licensee also knows that visibility would not be achieved if ground cover reduces visibility much below 80%. Thus the “no deviation” – or intent of the standard - is that the land must be ploughed and weathered. It is then the licensee’s judgement to determine if the ploughing and weathering related to a particular property will meet the intent of maximum visibility. This kind of language would help define for all parties just where a licensee’s good judgement comes into play, and where a Ministry review of the results of that good judgement will be focused.
| 1. Interpretation of Standards | 2. Regional Variation in Standards | 3. Complex Procedures |
| 4. Dispute Resolution | 5. Technical Bulletin on Aboriginal Engagement |
| INTRODUCTION | OAS CONSULTATION EFFORTS | OVERVIEW OF FEEDBACK |
| KEY MESSAGES | THEMES |