Background and Context

The last two decades have been tumultuous for CRM practitioners across Canada and abroad. Although earlier critiques focused on the capacity of this industry to contribute to the academic aims of the discipline (Epp and Spurling Reference Epp and Spurling1984; Fowler Reference Fowler1982:21–25), contemporary critiques address the lack of Indigenous representation and barriers to equity-deserving groups (Gupta et al. Reference Gupta, Nicholas, Blair, Watral and Goldstein2022; Williamson Reference Williamson2018), gender imbalances (Jalbert Reference Jalbert2019; Overholtzer and Jalbert Reference Overholtzer and Jalbert2021:270), staffing shortages (Altschul and Klein Reference Altschul and Klein2022; Malakoff Reference Malakoff2023; Willson Reference Willson2023), pay disparities (Altschul et al. Reference Aitchison2023; Rocks-Macqueen Reference Rocks-Macqueen2014), and contributions to ongoing colonization (Gupta et al. Reference Gupta, Blair and Nicholas2020, Reference Gupta, Nicholas, Blair, Watral and Goldstein2022; Hutchings and LaSalle Reference Hutchings and Salle2015, Reference Hutchings and Salle2017; McLellan and Woolsey Reference McLellan and Woolsey2024).

Nevertheless, the need for CRM practitioners is growing. Using US federal labor market and funding data, Altschul and Klein (Reference Altschul and Klein2022) project that between 2022 and 2031 growth in CRM activities in the United States will generate the need for 8,000 new archaeologists. Current graduation levels estimate that only 4,000 of those positions will be filled (Altschul and Klein Reference Altschul and Klein2022). Although other estimates are more optimistic (for instance, Aitchison and Dore’s estimate reported in Malakoff Reference Malakoff2023:22–23), this projected labor shortage is not just a North American issue. In the United Kingdom, the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit led to an enormous shortage of trained archaeologists. Although this shortage was partially resolved by 2022, there remains concern that commercial archaeology in the United Kingdom is severely understaffed (Aitchison Reference Aitchison2023). These resource crunches are happening at a time when universities, the institutions responsible for training archaeologists, are experiencing significant decreases in funding and program opportunities are disappearing (Altschul and Klein Reference Altschul and Klein2022; StatsCan 2024a). With fewer departments training fewer archaeologists, there is no indication that the labor market crisis within CRM will be resolved soon.

Canada’s CRM industry is structured much differently than that in the United States. Perhaps most glaringly, we remain the only G7 nation without federal heritage legislation, despite a recent concerted effort (e.g., Parks Canada Reference Parks2022a; see also Burley [Reference Burley1994] for historical context). The basic structure of the Canadian federation allocates responsibility for heritage resources to provinces and territories, except on federal lands (see, e.g., Pokotylo and Mason Reference Pokotylo, Mason, Smith and Messenger2010, Reference Pokotylo, Mason and Smith2020). Each province and territory, as well as an increasing number of First Nations, have their own versions of heritage legislation, regulation, and, in some cases, prescriptive guidelines (e.g., Dent Reference Dent2016; Dow et al. Reference Dow, Hrynick and Holyoke2023; Pokotylo and Mason Reference Pokotylo, Mason and Smith2020). On Canadian federal lands—such as national parks, national historic sites, and Canadian Forces bases—and on First Nations reserve lands, cultural and heritage resources are managed by a suite of laws and the federal Archaeological Heritage Policy Framework (e.g., Parks Canada Reference Parks2022b; Pokotylo and Mason Reference Pokotylo, Mason and Smith2020). Because of the myriad ways in which CRM is administered in Canada at the provincial and territorial level (and even at the municipal level [Moss Reference Moss, Baugher, Appler and Moss2017]), tracking the size of the industry is complicated and has relied on data such as permitting trends (e.g., Dow et al. Reference Dow, Hrynick and Holyoke2023; Insituated Heritage 2025; Jalbert Reference Jalbert2019; LaSalle and Hutchings Reference LaSalle and Hutchings2012). Although the sizable increase in permits issued for impact assessment archaeological work throughout the 1990s and into the 2010s indicates a significant growth in CRM-related work, there is as of yet no measure of the monetary value on that work.

Publicly available budget documents for federal departments that participate in or fund CRM work, such as the Parks Canada Agency (PCA), also lack the data necessary to calculate CRM spending. Since fiscal year 2019–2020, PCA budgets have varied, decreasing during the COVID-19 pandemic but returning to 2019–2020 levels for fiscal year 2023–2024 when a variety of special initiatives—among them the renewal of the Federal Infrastructure Investment Program (Parks Canada Reference Parks2023) and the Nature Legacy Initiative (DENR 2023)—were implemented. Despite spending on programming reaching a peak in the 2024–2025 fiscal year, Treasury Board estimates forecast a 47.5% decrease in planned spending by fiscal year 2026–2027 as those special programs—ones that directly fund archaeological and heritage programs—wrap up (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2025a). This is coupled with a projected decrease from 6,138 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in fiscal year 2023–2024 to 5,180 FTE in fiscal year 2026–2027 (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2025b). It is unclear how many of these employees are working in CRM-related directorates such as Indigenous Affairs and Cultural Heritage. Where public funding data at the provincial level are available (e.g., GNB 2024), these figures indicate that, in some instances, substantial public monies are being allocated to the management of archaeology and heritage. For example, in the province of New Brunswick more than 21% ($16.3 million) of the operating budget of the Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture is allocated for this purpose.

Because Statistics Canada tracks archaeology as a profession in a variety of ways,Footnote ² labor force participation is similarly difficult to parse. The most recent Canadian census information from 2021 indicates that at least 6,760 people were working in NOC unit group 41409 (“Other professional occupations in social science”), the most likely category for archaeological consultants. This number included 5,430 employees and 1,330 self-employed individuals (Statistics Canada [StatsCan] 2023). However, this number is a gross overestimate because archaeology positions represent only four of the 62 occupations under that NOC unit group (6.5%). Assuming even distributions of those occupations, this suggests approximately 439 archaeologists were employed in 2021.

At a regional level, several studies include snapshots of the CRM industry in Canada, but these may not reflect current industry trends (e.g., Brooks Reference Brooks2012; Dent Reference Dent2016; Jalbert Reference Jalbert2019; La Salle and Hutchings Reference LaSalle and Hutchings2012; Zorzin and Gates St-Pierre Reference Zorzin and St-Pierre2017). A 2012 survey of the Ontario Archaeological Society’s membership indicated that 43 of the 89 members who responded worked in the CRM industry (Brooks Reference Brooks2012). A more in-depth study of the British Columbia CRM industry by LaSalle and Hutchings (Reference LaSalle and Hutchings2012:11) found that there were 202 members of the provincial professional association at that time. They considered this figure to be only a minimum value for the total number of active CRM practitioners (LaSalle and Hutchings Reference LaSalle and Hutchings2012:11). In 2023, 130 active or semi-active PLHPs were reported in Alberta, with no available data on the number of archaeological technicians in the province (Martina Purdon, personal communication 2023).

More broadly, Rowinski (Reference Rowinski2023) derived a national labor pool profile indicating that at least 335 people were employed in CRM in 2021, with the majority working in Ontario (146, or 43.6%), British Columbia (99, or 29.6%), and Alberta (99, or 29.6%). Rowinski’s dataset suggests that CRM is a young person’s workforce, with most industry participants falling into the 25–40 (171/349, or 49.0%) and 25–34 (136, or 39.0%) age range, and only 17.5% (61) older than 45. More than 80% of the workforce is white. The second-largest demographic are persons who identify as Indigenous (47, or 14%), with significantly higher numbers and proportions of Indigenous people working in the CRM industry in British Columbia and Alberta. Using permit data, Jalbert (Reference Jalbert2019:144–150) highlights gender inequalities in Canadian archaeology, drawing attention to a male-dominated CRM industry but one that, at least into the 2010s, was increasing in diversity (see also Overholtzer and Jalbert Reference Overholtzer and Jalbert2021).

Finally, Heritage Business International (HBI; 2024:10) collated CRM industry data from “a mix of public, private, and proprietary sources [and datasets] . . . constructed with proprietary methods.” Their figures indicate that, after several years of growth, the heritage compliance sector contracted in 2023 with growth unlikely to outpace inflation in the next five years. Their estimates date back to 2006 and allow for a longitudinal perspective on CRM in Canada not available elsewhere. Although they estimated that the industry had grown in 2023 to more than $155 million, when corrected for inflation it was only worth $109 million (in 2006 dollars), an increase of just over 1.7% in the 17-year period from 2006.

Survey Design and Methods

Building on earlier studies, our project examined the CRM industry across Canada to quantify the need and opportunities for employment in this sector and determine the critical skills and knowledge needed by industry professionals. Specifically, we posed these three research questions:

1. 1. What is the labor market demand for archaeologists in Canada, and is this demand exceeding the supply of new students/professionals?

2. 2. What skills/knowledge are required to succeed in the CRM industry?

3. 3. What are the biggest challenges facing the CRM industry today?

To address these questions, we designed two surveys that were approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board (REB24-0347) and administered through Qualtrics: (1) an employee survey to be completed by those who are working/have worked/hope to work in CRM in Canada and (2) an employer survey focusing on company-level statistics to be completed by a single partner/manager at each company/branch. Surveys were distributed in both French and English. Geographic data were collected in the employer survey to quantify the economic impact of the CRM industry across Canada. No demographic or geographic data were collected as part of the employee survey because these types of questions were not included in our ethics approval. Given the small size of most provincial and territorial archaeological communities in Canada, we chose not to collect demographic or geographic data from employees. We were concerned that this data might allow survey responses to be matched to an identifiable individual, thereby undermining the anonymity of survey responses.

Survey distribution followed a snowball sampling approach. The survey links were initially distributed via email to industry colleagues across Canada and to lists of CRM firms maintained by each branch of government. These lists included all registered CRM companies in each Canadian province for which these lists are either publicly available or were received from regulators (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island). Survey links were also distributed to attendees at the Canadian Archaeological Association Conference in May 2024. Our initial recruitment email included a statement asking individuals to forward the survey to their colleagues for wider distribution, in hopes of broadening the surveys’ reach. Surveys were open for response between April and October 2024. Provincial regulators were also contacted to gather data on the number of active CRM companies in each province.

After the surveys closed, we pulled statistical survey metrics directly from Qualtrics for analysis. Qualitative fields within each survey—specifically a textual response question asking respondents to identify the biggest challenge facing the CRM industry today—were translated into English as necessary and imported into NVivo software for thematic analysis. Responses were manually coded using recurring themes to create categories (Terry et al. Reference Terry, Hayfield, Clarke, Braun, Willig and Stainton-Rogers2017). This thematic analysis was then aligned with quantitative data collected through other sections of the survey. Finally, NVivo was used to create a word cloud for each set of textual data on challenges. Word clouds excluded common words such as conjunctions and prepositions and aggregated words with the same stem word into a single representation.

Survey Results

Four provincial regulators (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island) responded to our request for information, 187 respondents completed the employee survey, and 65 respondents completed the employer/company survey. Those completing the employer/company survey were asked to indicate the provinces and/or territories in which their company/branch does business (Figure 1). Response rates were distinctly higher from Alberta. While this was not unexpected since Alberta is one of the provinces with the highest number of active CRM companies (29.6% of industry employees; Rowinski Reference Rowinski2023), a similar spike was not seen in Ontario where the largest number of companies are based (43.6% of industry employees; Rowinski Reference Rowinski2023). Although we do not have geographic data for the employee survey, we assume that responses show a similar differential distribution. Survey data are thus biased to Western Canada and may not completely represent the CRM landscape across the country. This is further evidenced in the disconnect between the number of active companies and the number of company respondents in each province where these data are available, with the number of active companies significantly exceeding the number of respondents. For example, although data from provincial regulators demonstrate that in 2024 at least 17 and 20 firms were actively conducting CRM assessments in Quebec and Saskatchewan, respectively, only two (Quebec) and four (Saskatchewan) responses from employers in these provinces reported revenue. Similarly, none of the three active consultants in Prince Edward Island in 2023 reported employee or revenue data (Figure 1). This bias toward Western Canada is likely, in part, a result of the fact that our research team is based in Alberta and the survey saw the widest initial distribution in Western Canada. Language barriers are not believed to be a factor in lower response rates from Eastern Canada because both official languages (French and English) were used in our survey distribution email and in the survey itself. Further, one of the authors (Holyoke) conducts research in Eastern Canada and previously worked in CRM there.

Figure 1.

Employer/company survey respondents by region. Numbers in black show number of survey respondents. Numbers in blue show number of active CRM companies reported by provincial regulators (where available).

Figure 1 Long description

The map of Canada displays the number of survey respondents and active CRM companies by province. Numbers in black indicate survey respondents, while numbers in blue show active CRM companies. Alberta has the highest number of active companies (n=29) and respondents (n=4). Quebec shows 17 active companies with 2 respondents. Saskatchewan has 20 active companies and 4 respondents. Prince Edward Island has 3 active companies but no respondents. Other provinces like British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have varying numbers of respondents and active companies, with some provinces showing no active companies or respondents. The map includes a scale bar and a north arrow for orientation.

Table 1 includes a breakdown of employee survey respondents based on job category. Although representation is slightly higher for those holding PLHP positions, all job categories are well represented. The low number of respondents identifying themselves as field directors is striking but results from the fact that this job category only exists in a single jurisdiction (British Columbia).

Table 1.Summary of Employee Survey Respondents by Job Category, Including Average Reported Values of Work-Life Balance, Satisfaction with Compensation, and Alignment of Professional Skills with Job Task

Table 1 Long description

The table compares job categories by respondent count and average ratings (1–10) for work–life balance, satisfaction with compensation, and alignment of professional skills with the job category. Respondents are mostly permit/license holders (33; 25.8%), full-time archaeologists (26; 20.3%), managers/owners (24; 18.8%), and part-time/seasonal archaeologists (23; 18.0%). Work–life balance averages range from 4.87 for part-time/seasonal archaeologists (lowest) to 6.40 for field directors (highest), with an overall average of 5.51. Compensation satisfaction is highest for managers/owners at 7.91 and lowest for unemployed respondents at 5.00; the overall average is 6.17. Skills alignment is generally higher than the other measures, led by field directors at 8.40 and permit/license holders at 7.85, while unemployed respondents report the lowest alignment at 4.67; the overall average is 7.28. Small groups (for example, unemployed n=3 and field directors n=5) may be less reliable for comparison than larger categories.

Figure 2 shows themes identified as challenges within the CRM sector. These challenges are further broken down to show coding references in both the employer/company and employee datasets. Although the frequency of these challenges differs in the two datasets, in both surveys the recurrent themes are labor shortages, working conditions, compensation/pay, and training. Each of these challenges is discussed in detail here.

Figure 2.

Challenges identified with the Canadian CRM industry by employer and employee respondents, showing challenge theme frequency.

Figure 2 Long description

Work Challenges. Legend: Employee; Employer. X-axis categories: Labour shortage; Pay; Training; Working conditions; Government; Advancement; Relevance; Job insecurity; Competition; Indigenous issues; Resources; Communication. Y-axis scale: 0 to 40. Labour shortage: Employee 34; Employer 8. Pay: Employee 27; Employer 5. Training: Employee 24; Employer 4. Working conditions: Employee 23; Employer 7. Government: Employee 18; Employer 0. Advancement: Employee 15; Employer 0. Relevance: Employee 9; Employer 0. Job insecurity: Employee 8; Employer 0. Competition: Employee 8; Employer 0. Indigenous issues: Employee 7; Employer 0. Resources: Employee 6; Employer 0. Communication: Employee 0; Employer 0.

Labor Market/Shortage

Our survey results indicate that the CRM sector in Canada is a multimillion dollar industry, with 25 (of 38) companies reporting average annual revenue from archaeology work at more than $1,000,000 (Figure 3). These data indicate a low-end estimate for industry value at between $28.25 and $32.5 million. An average of eight full-time and 11 part-time archaeology employees were reported at responding firms across the country (see Supplementary Material 1). An estimate of industry-employed archaeologists can be derived from data from 34 firms that reported the number of employees in ranges. This data suggests between 419 and 713 archaeologists are employed in CRM in Canada. These are almost certainly underestimates of the actual value of the industry and size of the workforce, given the few responding firms from Ontario, for example. Other estimates suggest that the industry is much larger, arguing that CRM in Canada is “at least an 80- to 100-million-dollar annual enterprise not including Indigenous monitoring costs and employs thousands of individuals” (Williamson Reference Williamson2018:13). Indeed, the HBI (2024:4) nominal dollars estimates point to figures from Alberta alone that exceed the total dollar value that our survey estimated. The disconnect between these numbers and our survey is partly explained by the fact that some responding companies chose not to report revenue and, as noted earlier, survey response rates were not consistent across the country. For example, they do not reflect the robust industry in Ontario.

Figure 3.

Self-reported average annual revenue from archaeology projects.

Figure 3 Long description

Reported Average Annual Revenue. Horizontal axis labels: 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30. Vertical axis categories, top to bottom: less than 250 comma 000; 250 comma 000 to 500 comma 000; 500 comma 000 to 1 comma 000 comma 000; greater than 1 comma 000 comma 000. Bar lengths by category: less than 250 comma 000 equals 4; 250 comma 000 to 500 comma 000 equals 5; 500 comma 000 to 1 comma 000 comma 000 equals 4; greater than 1 comma 000 comma 000 equals 25.

Despite the inconsistencies in revenue estimates for the industry, survey responses clearly suggest that labor market demand is outpacing supply. Fifty-five responding employers across the country reported unfilled positions, including postings at all levels of experience (n = 14 PLHPs, n = 11 field directors, n = 11 archaeologists full-time/permanent, n = 15 archaeologists part-time/seasonal, and n = 4 other). This labor shortage is the most frequent challenge identified by employees and employers alike (Figure 2) and is clearly evidenced in the word cloud created from textual data on challenges within the industry that highlights “lack” and “people” as two of the most frequently used words in this context (Figure 4). When broken down further, respondents discussed a lack of trained personnel generally, a lack of PLHP archaeologists specifically, and the ongoing attrition of trained personnel (Figure 5). These labor shortages may relate to structural issues identified in the survey relating to working conditions, compensation/pay, and opportunities for career growth.

Figure 4.

Word cloud highlighting the 50 most frequently used words in the textual responses to CRM challenges (aggregated employer/employee datasets). Size of words corresponds with frequency.

Figure 4 Long description

A word cloud infographic about CRM challenges. Word size varies across the cloud. Text in the cloud includes: working, lack, people, permit, field, career, skills, job, holders, companies, opportunities, experience, indigenous, regulations, support, training, pay, wages, balance, time, development, management, benefits, compensation, graduates, life, masters, education, students, degree, university, professional, advancement, understanding, expected, available, interest, ability, hire, looking, seasonal, labour, shortage, qualified, staff, project, standards, limited, regulatory, undercutting.

Figure 5.

Labor shortage subthemes by frequency.

Figure 5 Long description

The bar graph title reads Labour Shortage sub-theme. The x-axis lists Lack of trained personnel, Lack of permit holders, Attrition. The y-axis shows values from 0 to 25. A legend lists Employee and Employer. For Lack of trained personnel, Employee 21 and Employer 11. For Lack of permit holders, Employee 13 and Employer 4. For Attrition, Employee 8 and Employer 2.

Working Conditions

Both employees and employers highlighted working conditions as a key challenge within the CRM industry (Figure 2), with this theme further broken down into working conditions generally, work-life balance specifically, and the availability of work (Figure 6). Additional themes of advancement opportunities and job insecurity (Figure 2) are also highly correlated with perceptions of working conditions within the CRM sector.

Figure 6.

Working conditions subthemes by frequency.

Figure 6 Long description

The bar graph title is Working Conditions sub-theme. The x axis categories are Work dash life balance, Working conditions, Availability of work. The y axis shows values from 0 to 12. A legend lists Employee and Employer. Work dash life balance: Employee 11, Employer 5. Working conditions: Employee 9, Employer 2. Availability of work: Employee 3, Employer 1.

Poor work-life balance was the most frequently identified challenge within the working conditions theme, though it is less prevalent within employer data than in the employee data (Figure 6). When asked to rate their work-life balance on a scale of 1–10, employee respondents averaged only a 5.5, suggesting a lack of balance is prevalent within the industry (Table 1). Those in project management positions (PLHP, field director, and manager) reported slightly better work-life balance than those in seasonal or full-time archaeology technician roles, although none of these values exceeded an average of 6.5 (Table 1). This lack of work-life balance relates, in part, to the number of hours these individuals work on an annual basis, where field season hours routinely exceed a 40-hour work week and office season hours can be highly variable, and in part to the precarity of seasonal work. A chi-squared test identified a statistically significant relationship between work-life balance and the number of hours worked during the field season, wherein perceived work-life balance decreases as the number of hours worked increases (p-value 0.06). No similar relationship was identified for work hours during the office season. This suggests that the long hours and ever-increasing length of the CRM field season are contributing factors to poor work-life balance and burnout.

Consistent with these values, employees repeatedly expressed that the difficult work-life balance of the CRM industry is not worth the poor pay and the physically and mentally demanding working conditions. For example, one respondent stated, “CRM currently leaves little room for a healthy home life, hobbies, sports, pets, and I can only do this for so long. I don’t see many new students staying in this field for the duration of their careers before moving on to a different industry that pays more and allows for a better work/life balance.” In contrast, employers/companies identified working conditions as an issue because employees are reluctant to work away from home for long periods and “have false expectations of workload and conditions.” This highlights a disconnect between expectations among employers and those in the labor pool.

Though classified as a separate theme, job insecurity was identified as a challenge in CRM and is highly integrated with working conditions in the industry. Both employers and employees identified the seasonal nature of fieldwork and employment as a barrier to careers within the CRM industry, with employers further expressing that the unpredictability of projects and contracts compounds this issue.

One way in which job security could be increased is through advancement within an organization (another theme in our qualitative analysis), given that permit holders and managers tend to have more consistent year-round employment. However, respondents overall perceive that there are limited opportunities for career growth within the CRM industry (Table 2). This perceived lack of opportunity for advancement is more pronounced among those in full- or part-time archaeological technician roles, with many respondents discussing how in many provincial frameworks one cannot advance into more senior roles without a graduate education and suggesting that higher education is inaccessible for some individuals. For example, one respondent stated, “Having to get a masters, and the emphasis on Canadian Masters mean you need to take 2-4 years of your life, often without pay, to advance and not everyone can do that.” A lack of opportunities for advancement is not entirely due to the CRM companies themselves but also relates to regulations and legislation at the provincial level about who can and cannot hold archaeological permits (related to government, a less frequently noted theme that is not discussed here).

Table 2.Perception of Opportunities for Advancement by Job Category

Table 2 Long description

The table reports response percentages (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) by job role: permit/license holder, field director, full-time archaeologist, part-time/seasonal archaeologist, manager/owner, unemployed, and other. Permit/license holders show the strongest overall agreement: 51.5% somewhat agree and 18.2% strongly agree (69.7% agree total), with 30.3% disagreeing and 0% neutral. Field directors are even more positive, with 60.0% somewhat agree and 20.0% strongly agree (80.0% agree), and 20.0% neutral. Full-time archaeologists are more mixed: 30.8% somewhat agree and 19.2% strongly agree (50.0% agree), while 38.5% disagree and 11.5% are neutral. Part-time/seasonal archaeologists also split, with 43.4% agree, 45.2% disagree, and 17.4% neutral. Managers/owners lean toward agreement (37.5% somewhat agree, 29.2% strongly agree; 66.7% agree) but have a sizable neutral share (25.0%). Unemployed respondents are concentrated in disagreement (66.7% somewhat disagree, 4.2% strongly disagree; 70.9% disagree) with 33.3% neutral and 0% agreement. The “Other” category is polarized, with 50.0% neutral, 21.4% strongly disagree, and 28.6% agree; results may be sensitive to small group sizes not shown in the table.

Junior employees are not the only ones who feel that opportunities for career growth are limited. About 30% of PHLP respondents also indicated that there are limited opportunities for advancement in their career (Table 2). One respondent noted, “There’s not much room for advancement within archaeology. Once you get your master’s and do fieldwork for several years, still making the same wage you did when you started, leaves few options for what to do next.”

Educational Preparedness

Finally, the survey found that practicing professional archaeologists and those entering the workforce feel that postsecondary education does not adequately prepare students for roles in the CRM industry (Figure 7). We asked respondents to indicate how well they feel that undergraduate and graduate degrees in archaeology or anthropology prepare students for a career in CRM. Archaeology degrees outperformed anthropology degrees in this regard. Yet only 45% of respondents agree or somewhat agree that an undergraduate archaeology degree prepares students for the workforce, with a graduate degree in archaeology faring somewhat better, reaching 60% of agree/somewhat agree responses.

Figure 7.

Perceptions of degree preparedness.

Figure 7 Long description

The grouped bar graph has four x axis categories: Undergraduate anthropology, Graduate anthropology, Undergraduate archaeology, Graduate archaeology. The y axis shows percent, ranging from 0.0 percent to 45.0 percent. A legend lists five response levels: Strongly agree, Somewhat agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat disagree, Strongly disagree. Undergraduate anthropology bars: Strongly agree about 1 percent; Somewhat agree about 12 percent; Neither agree nor disagree about 10 percent; Somewhat disagree about 37 percent; Strongly disagree about 35 percent. Graduate anthropology bars: Strongly agree about 3 percent; Somewhat agree about 24 percent; Neither agree nor disagree about 21 percent; Somewhat disagree about 31 percent; Strongly disagree about 21 percent. Undergraduate archaeology bars: Strongly agree about 5 percent; Somewhat agree about 30 percent; Neither agree nor disagree about 12 percent; Somewhat disagree about 36 percent; Strongly disagree about 10 percent. Graduate archaeology bars: Strongly agree about 6 percent; Somewhat agree about 40 percent; Neither agree nor disagree about 21 percent; Somewhat disagree about 24 percent; Strongly disagree about 6 percent.

This perceived lack of preparedness results from a disconnect between the skills that CRM practitioners feel are most important in their careers and those skills that are prioritized in traditional academic archaeology programs. In our survey, respondents ranked a list of skills based on what they felt were most important for CRM archaeologists (Supplementary Material 2). The top-five skills identified by respondents were (1) fieldwork, (2) critical thinking, (3) archaeological survey, (4) artifact identification/analysis, and (5) outdoor skills. Notably, excavation skills are not in the top-five skills, and knowledge taught prevalently in academia such as culture history and research skills are near the bottom. At the same time, across all job categories, respondents reported fairly good alignment between their professional skills and daily tasks (Table 1). This suggests that a significant amount of on-the-job learning is occurring and that postsecondary education may need to adapt to better align with the skills and knowledge our graduates require to succeed in the workplace.