Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:59:59.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Back to the futurist. Response to Dawdy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2009

Carol McDavid
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

First I will offer a view of public archaeology which differs from Dawdy's perspective. Then I will respond briefly to one of her specific questions. Finally, I will comment on her suggestion for a futurist archaeology.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , December 2009 , pp. 163 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 A few of the most recent examples, other than those cited elsewhere in this paper, would include Castaneda and Matthews (2008), Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson (2007), Derry and Malloy (2003), Little and Shackel (2007), Marshall (2002a), Merriman (2004a), Mortensen and Hollowell (2009), Shackel and Chambers (2004) and Smith and Waterton (2009).

2 Institutional Review Board procedures were created for science research in response to US federal regulations; see Title 45, US Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46. Consider that in 2003 the Office for Human Research Protections/Health and Human Sciences (the federal agency enforcing the regulation), in conjunction with the Oral History Association and the American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, unstructured interviews (as if for a piece of journalism), collecting anecdotes and similar free-speech activities do not constitute IRB-qualified research, and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules. See Shopes and Ritchie (2003).