25 May 1992

    [Press Release: undated and unsigned, but released 
    by the University of Western Australia around 25 May
    1992.  Punctuation as in the original]

Review of the Department of Archaeology:

The University of Western Australia has established 
procedures to review all departments, centres and units 
on a cyclical basis, as outlined below: 

"The University is committed to the regular evaluation of
its activities and processes, including its own
decision-making processes.  Self-evaluation and review are
central to the University's responsibility as an autonomous
institution, and assistance from external evaluators should
be sought where necessary to ensure objectivity and
credibility.  The processes of evaluation should be
supported by the ongoing monitoring and analysis of the
internal and external environments."

These reviews are conducted under the auspices of the
University's Planning and Resources Committee, and address
a range of issues related to the role, quality,
performance, efficiency and effectiveness of the department
concerned.  These issues are reflected in the Terms of
Reference drawn up for each review. The Department of
Archaeology was reviewed in 1991, as were the Departments
of Industrial Relations, English and History.

Archaeology was reviewed in the general routine of reviews
but particular interest was taken in this case, because it
is a very small and quite new department.  Under the review
process current and former students as well as staff
members are contacted to express their views.  Where
appropriate input is sought from people with an interest in
the discipline area.  In the case of Archaeology these
included people from government departments, industry and
other institutions.

The submissions which were given to the review panelists
were examined and a number of interviews took place. 
On that basis the review panel made several
recommendations.  It gave high praise to the quality of the
Archaeology Department, to the professionalism of staff in
pursuing their discipline, to the enormous energy, to the
considerable commitment to teaching and research and the
high productivity in research from such a small number of
people.  It also highlighted difficulties in both
management and interpersonal relationships. 

As is normal with a review, I as Vice-Chancellor, was asked
to follow up these matters.  It became clear after follow
up discussions that it was necessary to take seriously 
some of the criticisms that had come in during the review
process.  I therefore asked Professor Douglas Clyde and
Associate Professor Stan Hotop to examine the written
submissions which I had requested as a follow up to the
review.

On their recommendation it was necessary to take further
action in relation to the management and interpersonal
relationships in the department.  It is clearly a very
small department where two academics with quite different
views about the discipline and quite different
personalities had led to a division into two sectors.  An
enormous amount of criticism was levelled from one sector
to another. There were also various unconfirmed reports of
relationships within the department which were damaging its
objectivity.  I was asked to follow these up.

In so doing I followed procedures laid down in the
Australian Universities Academic Staff award, consulting
with the Industrial Commission on this matter.  From this
body I received assurance that

The University of Western Australia's procedures for
dealing with problems in the area of management, personal
relationships and equity were entirely appropriate.  The
University has in place quite clear procedures for students
or staff to report and have dealt with such issues as
inequitable treatment, or any form of threat or
discrimination.  In the case of Archaeology, no formal
complaint had been made to the Equity Officers.  However in
the material which I received it was clear that there was a
great deal of disquiet about the management and conflict in
the Department.

As a result of further discussions I have decided, in
consultation with the Head of Divisions responsible, that
the Department of Archaeology at the present time is too
small to enable satisfactory conflict resolution. 
Discussions have been held with other departments to see
what the most appropriate future for the teaching of
Archaeology at UWA might be.  There is a very strong and
able group of postgraduate students and a high level of
research.  It is therefore imperative that the discipline
of Archaeology remain intact even if the departmental
structure and management are altered. 

Procedures are now in place to move the Department of
Archaeology into the Department of Anthropology and place
it under the management of the Head of the Department of
Anthropology.  Archaeology will thus become a Centre in a
larger department.

The Centre for Prehistory, the consulting arm of
Archaeology, has been criticised by some members of the
public.  It is not the University's role to close
contentious areas because of outside vested interests which
do not wish particular kinds of research to take place.  It
is well understood that it is essential that a university
remain objective and unafraid of criticism.  Nevertheless
there have been problems in managing a Centre for
Prehistory within a small Department of Archaeology and for
this reason the future of the Centre must be further
considered.  I anticipate that the Centre will be closed
when Archaeology moves to join Anthropology.

This proposal (to place Archaeology as a discipline within
the Department of Anthropology) will go through the normal
academic channels within the next few weeks.