Jonathan Last (English Heritage, UK)

An important aspect of the developing audit culture in British archaeology is
the proliferation of research frameworks, as defined by Olivier (1996). The
scope of current documents includes landscapes of every scale from the region
to the site, particular periods of the past and specific categories of material
culture. But do these frameworks really serve to advance archaeological
research, or do they constrain it? And how do they relate to other forms of
accountability practice (Cooper 2008)? In this paper I wish to explore the
benefits and drawbacks of a research process structured by such documents.
Concentrating on prehistory, I suggest that while there are certain risks and
problems in organising and accounting for research in terms of lists and
bullet-points, the development of more sophisticated research frameworks
potentially offers a more interpretative and effective approach to
archaeological practice, especially in the field.

Cooper, A. 2008. Accounting for research: a critical assessment of English
Heritage's Research Strategy and Agenda 2005-2010. Public Archaeology 7(1),
31-50.
Olivier, A. 1996. Frameworks for our Past: a review of research frameworks,
strategies and perceptions. London: English Heritage.