Supply, demand and a failure of understanding: addressing the culture clash between archaeologists' expectations for training and employment in 'academia' versus 'practice

A university degree is effectively a prerequisite for entering the archaeological workforce in the UK. Archaeological employers consider that new entrants to the profession are insufficiently skilled, and hold university training to blame. But university archaeology departments do not consider it their responsibility to deliver fully formed archaeological professionals, but rather to provide an education that can then be applied in different workplaces, within and outside archaeology. The number of individuals studying archaeology at university exceeds the total number working in professional practice, with many more new graduates emerging than archaeological jobs advertised annually. Over-supply of practitioners is also a contributing factor to low pay in archaeology. Steps are being made to provide opportunities for vocational training, both within and outside the university system, but archaeological training and education within the universities and subsequently the archaeological labour market may be adversely impacted upon by the introduction of variable top-up student fees.

The effect of term-time employment on UK higher education students

In the UK, participation in higher education has risen over the past two decades, along with a shift of the costs of higher education onto the individual and a move to widening participation among previously underrepresented groups. This has led to changes in the way individuals fund their higher education, in particular a rise in the incidence of term time employment. Term time employment potentially plays a much bigger role than in the past, both as a means for individuals to fund their education and reduce debt, and as a way to gain valuable work experience and increase employability. With the increase in the number of graduates in the UK labour market it is now more important for individuals to be able to differentiate themselves in the labour market.

Integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis and comorbid substance misuse: randomised controlled trial

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy in addition to standard care for patients with psychosis and a co-morbid substance use problem. Design Two-centre, open, rater-blind randomised controlled trial Setting UK Secondary Care Participants 327 patients with clinical diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder and DSM-IV diagnoses of drug and/or alcohol dependence or abuse Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy or standard care. Therapy has two phases. Phase one – “motivation building” – concerns engaging the patient, then exploring and resolving ambivalence for change in substance use. Phase two –“Action” – supports and facilitates change using cognitive behavioural approaches. Up to 26 therapy sessions were delivered over one year. Main outcomes The primary outcome was death from any cause or admission to hospital in the 12 months after therapy. Secondary outcomes were frequency and amount of substance use (Timeline Followback), readiness to change, perceived negative consequences of use, psychotic symptom ratings, number and duration of relapses, global assessment of functioning and deliberate self harm, at 12 and 24 months, with additional Timeline Followback assessments at 6 and 18 months. Analysis was by intention-to-treat with robust treatment effect estimates. Results 327 participants were randomised. 326 (99.7%) were assessed on the primary outcome, 246 (75.2%) on main secondary outcomes at 24 months. Regarding the primary outcome, there was no beneficial treatment effect on hospital admissions/ death during follow-up, with 20.2% (33/163) of controls and 23.3% (38/163) of the therapy group deceased or admitted (adjusted odds-ratio 1.16; P= 0.579; 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.99). For secondary outcomes there was no treatment effect on frequency of substance use or perceived negative consequences, but a statistically significant effect of therapy on amount used per substance-using day (adjusted odds-ratios: (a) for main substance 1.50; P=0.016; 1.08 to 2.09, (b) all substances 1.48; P=0.017; 1.07 to 2.05). There was a statistically significant treatment effect on readiness to change use at 12 months (adjusted odds-ratio 2.05; P=0.004; 1.26 to 3.31), not maintained at 24 months. There were no treatment effects on assessed clinical outcomes. Conclusions Integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy for people with psychosis and substance misuse does not improve outcome in terms of hospitalisation, symptom outcomes or functioning. It does result in a reduction in amount of substance use which is maintained over the year’s follow up. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN14404480