thePipeLine/Archaeosoup 2018 Brexit Survey
These are the collated results of a survey of the attitudes of archaeologists to Brexit and to the responses of representative bodies in the heritage sector to Brexit which was undertaken by thePipeLine online heritage news website [http://thepipeline.info/] and the archaeological media company Archaeosoup [http://archaeosoup.com/about-us/].
Responses were collected Summer/Autumn 2018 using a Google Forms questionnaire.
It was a condition of taking part that a verifiable personal e-mail address was provided.
It should be stressed this is not a scientific poll so much as a self selecting focus group and the results of the survey are presented “as is”.
However, the spread of opinions recorded and broad correlations between the results of this survey and other polling from the academic and science sectors mean that thePipeLine and Archaeosoup are confident that it represents a valid snapshot of opinion within the archaeology sector in the latter half of 2018.
Andy Brockman and Marc Barkman-Astles
14 December 2018
Responses verified by personal e-mail address.
Total Respondents = 49
35 Respondents identified as professional archaeologists, which translates as slightly over 0.5% of the estimated 6,253 professional archaeologists in the UK, recorded in the Archaeological Market Survey 2017.
Is your role in the archaeology or heritage sector?
35 [71.4%] Professional [you earn your main income from the archaeology or heritage sector].
3 [6.1%] Non-professional [you do not earn your main income form the archaeology or heritage sector].
3 [6.1%] Retired or unwaged professional archaeologist.
0 [0%] Retired or unwaged non-professional archaeologist.
4 [8.2%] Member of the public interested in archaeology and heritage.
1 [2%] Graduate Student in Classical Archaeology.
1 [2%] Heritage Volunteer.
1 [2%] Archaeology and Heritage Media.
1 [2%] PhD Student in archaeology
10 [43.3%] An academic institution [school, college or university].
34 [70.8%] Remain.
10 [20.8%] Did not vote.
Are you a UK passport holder?
39 [79.6%] Yes.
10 [20.4] No.
Do you hold a passport from another EU country?
8 [16.3%] Yes
Do you hold a passport from a non EU country?
7 [14.6%] Yes.
Do you currently work in the UK [England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland]?
If you are a UK passport holder working in an EU country have you applied for citizenship of an EU country or permanent residency in an EU country to enable you to continue to work in the EU after March 2019?
10 I have not applied for citizenship/permanent residency.
1 I have applied for citizenship
Are you aware of any EU passport holders you know or work with in the archaeology or heritage sector choosing to leave the UK because of the UK’s decision to leave the EU?
If you answered “yes” to the previous question, how many EU passport holders are you aware of who have left the UK because of the UK’s decision to leave the EU?
4 respondents knew 1 person who has chosen to leave the UK.
8 respondents knew 2 persons who have chosen to leave the UK.
2 respondents knew 3 persons who have chosen to leave the UK.
3 respondents knew 4 or more persons who have chosen to leave the UK.
If you employ staff from the EU, have any of your staff left employment with you because of the UK’s decision to leave the EU?
17 respondents No
1 respondent Yes
If you employ EU staff, have you found it more difficult to recruit staff from the EU since the Referendum of June 2016?
6 [60%] Yes, we have found it more difficult to recruit staff from the EU since the 2016 EU Referendum.
4 [40%] No, we have not found it more difficult to recruit EU staff since the Referendum of June 2016.
If you employ staff, have you taken on more staff from outside the EU since the referendum of June 2016?
13 No, we have not taken on more staff from outside the EU since the referendum of June 2016.
1 Yes, we have taken on more staff from outside the EU since the referendum of June 2016.
If you have taken on staff form outside the EU where have they come from? [
3 Staff recruited from North America and Canada.
1 Person recruited from Australia/New Zealand.
Do you think the promised restrictions on immigration when the UK leaves the EU will have an impact on your staffing levels and ability to undertake projects?
15 [46.9% of respondents answering this question] Yes,
12 Don’t Know
If you work in higher education, since the referendum of 2016, has your institution seen a fall off in applications for archaeology and heritage courses, or for post graduate study, from students from the EU?
7 [63.6% of those answering this question] Yes there has been a fall off in applications from EU students.
3 Not much difference.
1 Don’t know.
If you work in higher education, since the referendum of 2016, has your institution seen an increase in applications for archaeology or heritage courses, or for post graduate study, from students from outside the EU?
4 [50% ] of respondents reported not much difference.
3 respondents reported fewer non EU applicants.
1 respondent reported more non EU applicants.
Do any projects in which you are currently involved receive direct or indirect funding from the EU?
8 respondents [19% of respondents to this question] reported being in receipt of direct or indirect EU funding.
Which EU programmes have helped fund a project[s] with which you are currently involved?
1x ERC; Romanian Ministry of Culture
2x ERDF European Regional Development Funds
1x European Social Fund
Do you think the UK Government will replace EU funding for heritage and archaeological projects, or will choose to remain within some EU programmes? [Tick any boxes you think apply]
40 [81.6%] the UK Government will not replace EU funding for heritage and archaeological projects.
6 [12.2%] the UK Government will choose to remain within some EU programmes.
4 [8.2%] Don’t Know.
3 [6.1%] The Government will replace EU funding.
Do you believe Britain leaving the EU will be good for archaeology and heritage practice and funding?
42 [85.7%] leaving the EU will not be be good for archaeology and heritage practice and funding.
4 [8.2%] will not make any major difference to archaeology and heritage practice and funding.
3 [6.1%] leaving the EU will be good for archaeology and heritage practice and funding.
Do you think it will be easier or harder to obtain funding for archaeological and heritage research and projects after Brexit?
41 [83.7%] It will be harder to obtain funding for archaeological and heritage research and projects after Brexit.
7 [14.3%] There will not be much difference to the current situation regarding funding.
1 [2%] It will be easier to obtain funding.
Do you think it will be easier or harder to find research partners after Brexit.
37 [77%] It will be harder to find research partners after Brexit.
9 [18.8%] It will be not much different to the current situation.
2 [4.2%] It will be easier to find research partners.
The British Parliament has voted not to transfer EU Environmental obligations and concepts such as “the polluter pays” principle, into the EU Withdrawal Bill. Do you think this is…
44 [89.8%] A bad decision.
3 [6.1%] It will not make much difference.
2 [4.1%] A good decision.
What do you think will be the impact of the decision of the British Parliament not to transfer EU Environmental obligations, concepts and regulatory systems, such as “the polluter pays” principle, into the EU Withdrawal Bill? [Tick all the boxes you think apply]
38 [77.6%] Over time Brexit will lead to reduced environmental protection.
36 [73.5%] Over time Brexit will make it easier for developers to avoid having pay for archaeology.
33 [67.3%] Brexit will result in less professional archaeology and fewer archaeological jobs.
26 [53.1%] Regulation after Bexit will make obtaining planning permission quicker, easier and cheaper.
5 [10.2%] The UK will replace EU principles and regulations with its own versions, which will be as strong.
3 [6.1%] It will not make much difference.
3 [6.1%] Brexit will encourage developers to engage with archaeologists because they will be less afraid of archaeology delaying projects.
3 [6.1%] Brexit will result in archaeology engaging more effectively with politicians and the building industry.
A number of recent Heritage Crime and trafficking cases, including the conviction of two divers for the fraudulent recovery of artifacts from HMS Hermes involved cooperation with EU partners. Will Brexit make such investigations,
37 [75.5%] More difficult in future.
6 [12.2%] Will make no difference.
5 [10.2%] Don’t know.
1 [2%] Will make it easier in future.
Do you think that organisations and representative bodies in the archaeology and heritage sector, such as the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, the Council for British Archaeology, and others, have represented the interests of the archaeology and heritage sector in the Brexit debate as effectively as they could?
29 [60.4%] Given the scale of Brexit they never had a chance to fully represent the views of the sector.
7 [14.6%] Don’t know.
6 [12.5%] Yes they have done a good job representing the interests of the archaeology and heritage sector in the Brexit debate.
4 [8.3%] No they have not done a good job representing the interests of the archaeology and heritage sector in the Brexit debate.
2 [4.2%] The job they have done representing the interests of the archaeology and heritage sector in the Brexit debate is neither good nor bad.
During the Article 50 Process in the EU and at Westminster, in your opinion, what have the organisations and representative bodies in the archaeology and heritage sector such as the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, the Council for British Archaeology, and others, done well and what have they done badly?
1. Not sure.
2. The heritage sector has not managed set out the benefits of heritage to the economy – whether in terms of tourism or the importance of heritage to reviving pride in local communities. the damage done in the past few years with the closure of museums and heritage services will take many more years to repair. We are seen as an extravagance and what hope is there when competing with local authority funds for social care etc. Archaeology is perceived by the public as a hobby rather than contributing to the benefit of the community ( paradoxically all the outreach with schools, open days etc which are so popular probably reinforces this view)- in that respect we are light years behind the environmentalists who are seen to be helping to raise awareness of our fragile environment. The built and archaeological heritage is rarely seen as an integral part of that environment. The CIfA can continue to roll out its programme of chartered status for individuals but what will be the point when there are fewer professional archaeologists around ? Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.
3. From what I have seen, not being based in Britain, they seem to have been vocal in their warnings about the impact of Brexit.
4. They have convinced 99.99% of the British public that they are black and unfit for purpose!
5. Consultation with the sector and representation of key concerns.
6. I don’t think the reality of the leave vote was taken seriously in the campaigns leading up to the referendum. I think every sector should have done more to underscore the negative impact that Brexit will have on the UK
7. They are beginning to work as a united voice, whereas in the past this was not always clear. FAME and CIFA have not articulated what they are doing in talking to the government, whereas CBA appear to have made this a priority, although the Heritage Alliance is more proactive, so it has felt previously naturally disjointed. ALGAO seems to have been hit particularly badly in terms of membership. The main problem is the size of our sector is small but we have an ever increasing workload, not just caused by job losses in vital positions in the planning process. Add Brexit to this and you have a maelstrom of issues to deal with at once.
8. CIfA put out statements and sent out helpful emails about the changes in legislation.
9. Its not that they’re doing anything badly – it’s that they’re not being listened to.
10. Completely unaware that they have done anything at all.
11. I have not been aware of what they have done.
12. I’m really not sure. I have been told off the record that CIfA has been lobbying hard but…
13. Their initial response was somewhat delayed, but that’s perhaps unsurprising. I know much has been done behind the scenes but more public drum banging is still needed.
14. Think they could have shouted louder.
15. CIFA seem to be the only ones holding a position about it (that Brexit endangers our workforce and future projects). The others seem to have adopted a ‘wait and see’ non-stance from what little I’ve gleaned.
16. I don´t feel equipped to answer.
17. Don’t know.
18. Clearly they haven’t told the sector that well – I don’t know what they have done or not done.
As Brexit approaches what do you think the organisations and representative bodies in the archaeology and heritage sector such as the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, the Council for British Archaeology, and others, should now do to see the archaeology and heritage sector through the Brexit process?
1. Try and get UK archaeology departments to improve courses in order to better train full-time undergraduates for the industry. Aim for return of part-time HE courses to provide training for both amateurs and those in the industry (including CPD). Return perhaps of CBA Certificate courses for nationwide training of volunteers and amateurs. Ensure sufficient training of people regarding historic buildings recording and analysis. UK is more than capable of meeting all the required skills needed for heritage if we increase and improve training.
2. There should be a clearly set out framework to ensure that the planning process is not watered down to exclude ‘costly time-consuming’ elements such as heritage, ecology etc that are perceived to hold back development. Development will certainly proceed more slowly without our Polish bricklayers and archaeologists both! Not specific to Brexit we need statutory enforcement for a basic level of service to be provided at local govt level. There is a worrying loss of curatorial staff and their posts must be protected – eg HER and planning archaeologists- too many local authorities are now not paying for any cover.
3. The statements released were careful and considered – but could have garnered more backing from high profile figures to raise the profile of them.
4. Be strong lobbyists and advocates for archaeology and heritage. It might help if they combine forces more and give less of an impression of a splintered and fractured sector.
5. Sh*t in a bucket
6. It’s a little late
7. I don’t see what they can do except for lobby parliament to consider these sectors. Since nothing seemingly has been achieved or effectively negotiated, its difficult to see where exactly archaeology and heritage will suffer most. My guess is that it will be a battle to secure funding and permissions for research.
8. Force the government to amend the current legislation being passed through parliament (and any post-brexit legislation) to be more tough on those who commit heritage crimes of any sort in the UK and reinforce the powers the county archaeologists have in protecting their heritage. Ideally commercial units would get more work in their local areas to help bild up their local knowledge and research to aid our understanding of archaeology at a local level. Perhaps this can be encouraged with tax incentives or tax levies for companies travelling further from their base of operations.
9. Protest even louder.
10. Raise the profile of the potential effects with the general public, fight for equivalent funding, for multinational projects and for educational schemes (like Erasmus)
11. Fight the Brexit process!
12. Continue to lobby to ensure any policy changes are not negative.
13. I’m not sure there’s much more they can do but speak out about the potential pitfalls and, if there are found to be any, potential opportunities as they see fit. Keeping both the arch community and the government and media informed as to the facts ‘on the ground’ is likely their only option.
14. Now is the time for these organisations to earn their money -with a robust defence of the sector/resource, showing how “value” cannot always be measured in monetary terms.
15. At minimum maintain the current level of research & the need for commercial archaeology units
16. Be open-minded and seize opportunities where they exist. It appears to me that this is clearly a BIASED questionnaire coming from the anti-Brexit viewpoint; rationally and in reality there are both positives and negatives about the EU and the positives and negatives are not properly or rationally set out in this questionnaire – I have had difficulties in completing it because the multiple choice questions do not allow me to say that I think. For example, why didn’t you include a box asking “Over time Brexit will lead to IMPROVED environmental protection?” I genuinely believe it will. The CAP has WITHOUT QUESTION been one of the key agents of the destruction of archaeology (and biodiversity) in this country, and leaving it will allow us to change tack significantly. Nobody seems to mention this and yet there is tons of evidence – I believe the EU has done some great things for the environment and some truly terrible things too, yet this latter fact is swept under the carpet. The debate is too polarised – and this questionnaire is part of that, I’m afraid.
17. Don’t know.
Overall, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the archaeology and heritage sector?
41 [83.7%] Pessimistic.
4 [8.2%] Optimistic.
4 [8.2%] Neither optimistic or pessimistic.
Compared to today, in five years time how do you see the state of the archaeology and heritage in UK higher education and the size and role of the professional archaeology and heritage sector in the UK?
1. This will depend on major reforms to existing departments and hopefully establishment of new ones. Too many academics are too removed from contract archaeology. Arch Depts need to learn how to better sell their courses – esp as interdisciplinary with numerous transferable skills. To date they are not doing a good job.
2. Based on the previous 5 years behaviour I envisage a lack of central govt support for heritage issues as they become embroiled in larger problems relating to social care and trade and industry
3. Everything will be smaller because Brexit will negatively impact the sector.
4. I think it will be far weaker. I already know anecdotally of scholars in other European universities actively avoiding including UK partners in major funding applications for fear of what Brexit will mean – i.e. that it will be less possible to work with UK partners on EU-funded research. Whether this comes true or not, the damage is already done in that we will see far fewer international funded research projects that include UK-based researchers and departments for the next few years.
5. I believe the field of archaeology will be occupied with fewer liars!
6. Reduced funding, reduced powers to protect our heritage and reduced opportunities for international research.
7. I think ultimately Brexit will hurt the future of the archaeology and heritage sectors in Britain. I can foresee less engagement with developers due to a lax in legislation, less funding, less protection, and fewer jobs.
8. Professional s will change in proportion; more specialists are required as a whole. We will have even more pressure on volunteers in all capacities and an acute lack of museum space. We won’t be able to replace the experience lost at county level. HERs need to be reinstated in parts of the country, especially England. In education, it will look more promising however with the introduction of the new vocational courses, which will help make universities make up their minds I Dr whether they want to be offering academic or vocational courses. Neither is better than the other but should provide new opportunities for students. However specialisms will be missing to begin with as commercial providers get the opportunity to tell the education sector about their needs.
9. Returned to the rich and privileged
10. It will probably be reduced as most cultural educations and programs are these days.
11. Already, UK grants have become very oversubscribed and much more competitive because people want certainty in their funding. Such competition is making things such as the HLF more difficult to obtain with many organisations having to hire professional grant writers to submit their bids. This will only become more difficult in the future.
12. As the UK will be a much poorer and less influential country, training and education will suffer and fewer overseas students will want to come here. Archaeology will become a luxury and there will be fewer professional roles.
13. Heritage already appears to be declining in higher education due to the change in the way universities are funded, and the rise in tuition fees. Less people are attracted to archaeology degrees in particular and universities such as Nottingham are scaling back their departments and removing funding. Brexit will further decrease job opportunities and reduce the attraction of a career or education in heritage. This will leave a generational gap in heritage skills, which will have to be brought in from outside of the UK negating pro brexit arguments.
14. Things will get worse unless we stop Brexit
16. Much smaller, less work, less students, less research, less jobs.
17. I’m really not sure. I suspect it will be resilient but perhaps not expand anymore
18. In a ditch.
19. If planning regulations are relaxed, I think our sector will shrink.
20. Smaller less funded and less effective
21. If we leave the EU the sector will shrink unrecoverably
22. No real difference – possibly an improvement because heritage might be taken be taken more seriously by politicians – Heritage is Great Britain etc.
23. I think it will have become even more ‘business’ focused, and valuable collections, resources, archives, and vulnerable sites will have been lost due to limitations on funding – the long term effect will be vanishing heritage and (eventually) difficulty in replacing expertise, as people remain in-post and there is little opportunity for people to gain experience within heritage or archaeology
24. The burden of heritage will fall increasingly on charities as local government cuts back and commercial units go under
25. I see the role of the subject diminished in the face of reduced funding and interest from government, in part because of re-prioritising after Brexit, but also as part of a long-running trend over the past 10 years.
26. I think five years is too early a timeframe to show major impact to these aspects, although higher education will probably attract fewer competent employees and students from outside the UK.
24 [49%] “Exit from Brexit” Withdraw the Article 50 notification and remain in the European Union.
16 [32.7%] A people’s vote with Remain on the ballot paper.
5 [10.2%] Let Parliament proceed with the Brexit process without further referendums or General Elections.
3 [6.1%] a referendum on the final deal on a take it or leave it basis.
1 [2%] A General Election with Brexit as the main issue.