Training and Teaching in the Historic Environment

Everill, Paul; Finneran, Niall; Flatman, Joseph

doi:10.1179/1756750515z.00000000075

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whilst a major focus of the literature has been about how we train archaeologists and the relationship between academics and professionals in this process ( e.g. Aitchison 2004 ; Colley 2004 ; Dowson 2004 ; Everill 2015 ; Everill et al 2015 ; Bradley et al 2015 ; Flatman 2015 ), much of this literature has also provided an important source for examining diversity issues. At the heart of this literature has been a movement away from instrumentalist forms of teaching (passive student, active teacher), to approaches which recentre the student as active, and the processes of teaching and learning as politically situated and thus subjects for critical analysis in their own right (Hamilakis 2004 ).…”

Section: How Do We Recentre Diversity Within Archaeology?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal, Political, Pedagogic: Challenging the Binary Bind in Archaeological Teaching, Learning and Fieldwork

Cobb

Croucher

2016

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we consider how we can undercut the various binaries of gender and sexuality in archaeological practice and particularly in our teaching. We argue that taking an assemblage theory approach enables us to look at the multiplicity of identities of those practicing archaeology as different and intersecting assemblages that bring one another into being through their connections at different scales. In particular, we examine how this approach can be applied to archaeological pedagogy and how this in turn enables us to move away from modern binary distinctions about sex and gender identities from the ‘bottom up’, fostering an approach in our students that will then go on to be developed in professional practice.

show abstract