If this matter were caused by an institution, I would ignore it. But the same situation happened to me. I'm writing this problem down here. The following note is my own opinion. Although my note is unlikely to be seen by the researchers or institutions concerned. With the intention of including some self-discipline.
---
In scientific studies, there are many cases where the results obtained from analyses or experiments differ from the initial expectation. The results can be positive, negative, or unknown. Sometimes our theories and methodologies are drastically overturned, and other times we get better results than we expected.
Both results are what science is all about, and the confirmation that something is not there is also an important result. This also leads to the reproducibility of research results and transparency of the research process, which is required nowadays. If we use only the positive results, or deal with only what conforms to our own theory, it is a story, not science.
"The negative results will not be shown in our reports, and so you can do it as a trial". At the very least, all archaeologists applying scientific analysis results need to be aware that they consider strange things.
Furthermore, even if the request is to an individual researcher, you will consume their time, tools, equipment, and depending on the type of analysis, electricity and facilities. It is necessary that we should pay a fair price for their works, or that the analysts should ask for a fair price, like analysis companies' contradicts.
To save budgets, you send requests to individual researchers. I think that there is an unconscious underlying thought that "we allow them to study our materials" and "they should be grateful".
Archaeology is a discipline that has progressed through the process of scientific thinking. I think it is very important for all of us to reflect on our behaviour once again.
Comments
Post a Comment