Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Stephen meeting notes - 2021-11-12 - Coggle Diagram
Stephen meeting notes - 2021-11-12
Just Stephen and I present
Meeting with Mel Barge planned, and should just be Mel and Stephen and I
Need to clarify questions for Mel ahead of meeting, and also what my plans are for sampling
How much do I need to have defined in my head or in writing prior to that meeting?
HE response general
Stephen noted that letter was very positive, not flat refusal
This suggests that they are keen to open a dialogue for sampling, not close it down completely
Actually very unusual for them to reply and suggest a
more
destructive method of sampling!
Asking questions which implies some level of pushback allowed
May be the opportunity to stick to guns and argure for 45 samples for validity of results, but will probably require some level of compromise, particularly in instruments
Mention of support suggests keen for some level of engagement with post-doc research
Deliberately open ended, but may include mentoring, lab access or monetary support, though dependent on successfully cultivating a dialogue with HE
Mel suggested meeting, but unclear whether materials science people will be present, though highly unlikely
Meeting should be soon, i.e. in the next few weeks
Asked Stephen to contact Mel to clarify, let him know that 25th and 25th November not good for me
Options now are to withdraw application, or to reply to HE with suitable alterations; cannot just walk away!
Replying will involve tailoring of proposal to methods suitable for post-doc research. Securing of these permissions will be highly valuable, but research into ICP-MS and alteration of sampling strategy could be a huge timesink
Important to get quotes or an idea of costs of processing and ICP analysis of samples to inform estimations for post-doc funds necessary
Any quotes must involve costs of outcrop samples too! Without these value of RB samples will be extremely limited
Sampling proposal does not have to have all costs and methods sorted and ready to go (as most proposals will not as will be in project formation stage). Instead, determine and select method then run with that for the proposal. If any project funds do not reach the necessary value then the sampling will just go ahead, I will not be penalised.
Scheduled Ancient Monument Consent lasts for 5 years once granted, so time to arrange project funds after application sorted
Should have asked Stephen whether it is easier to withdraw application, rewrite strategy with new methods then resubmit, but probably not as would be hard to ensure fast response, and by then Stephen might have left
This suggests change in methods will supplement (or entirely replace) original proposal
Results from pXRF analysis of in-situ stone might be used to argue that pXRF (or drilling) can be used alone if results are successful enough
Plans after PhD
Move to Reading
How practical is this?
Do they definitely have the equipment I would like?
Is Kevin Hayward's stone collection still there?
How likely is it that I can switch to Reading just by talking to Mike Fulford after viva?
Is there any way I can develop other links with the department to suggest that I would be valuable to have there?
Would Reading be more keen on offering an invitation if they saw that I had HE backing for stone sampling at RB?
If this does not pan out, what can I do to encourage BU to keep me? Is UCL another option, and how would I get back there?
York Street project
Still keen to do this
Stephen has access to a few pots of money at the moment
Is this something I could develop now?
Can I get this drafted for future society/foundation meetings
When does RB Foundation next meet?
Keep up convos with Zosia about this project
Would be keen to see Amanda's view on project as a barometer of her intentions for research at the Museum
If drawn up, funded and the completed it would be a very valuable project management experience and demonstrate that I am capable of developing and delivering high quality research projects
Sampling of RB stone will ideally follow York Street project, as part of a larger regional (?) research aim
Tempting to tie it in with CBM, then try and get Kevin Hayward on board to manage the stone side of things, with both elements tying together as the project progresses
Tricky though as prestige might be tied more closely to the stone than the CBM, which could be detrimental to my reearch career
Maurice is perhaps another alternative who could collaborate or otherwise assist
Future project
Sampling of Roman Baths stone should form a key component, both as it is an important research theme and because it will be necessary in order to attract funding and support from the Roman Baths
The more collaboration this project can integrate, however, the better placed it is to draw multiple contributions from different entities
This could include society grants, Museum grants and University or HE if I cultivate the relationships well
RB Foundation, Corinium Museum, Reading Uni and Society for Roman Studies appear key targets
Future projects could investigate the comparative importance of both Bath and Cirencester in the supply of stone to Roman Britain, and could include samples from Corinium or could integrate Kevin Hayward's PhD dataset for a fuller scope
If I used the RB sampling as part of this, would I have to submit a new rationale for the sampling, or could I just alter the methodology of the current proposal and say I wanted to submit the results as part of a paper (freeing me of the need to closely define the post-doc project) integrating aspects of my PhD research?
This is a really important question, and definitely something to go through with Mel in a meeting
Would results in just a single paper be enough to justify the considerable sum of money necessary for ICP-MS analyses of the RB samples and outcrops? How about in BAR publication of thesis?
This would include the cost of taking the samples (c.£2300), plus at least £100 per sample for ICP-MS (c.£4500), so would be nearly £7k before outcrop sampling is factored in
Restriction in number of samples is possible, but restricts security and value of information
Perhaps 15 samples, with 5 samples per phase on comparable (i.e. normal building stone) stone from single structures, e.g. Great Bath phase 1 walls, Spring Reservoir north wall, walls in late phases of West Baths
Could coopt ex-situ samples and add in ICP-MS analysis for this to expand scope
Alternatively, do 45 samples by drilling and pXRF with supplementary ICP-MS sampling once sample groups identified? This would minimise number of ICP-MS samples required while maximising info they provide
Results of pXRF on ex-situ stone could be valuable trial, and justify use of drilling and pXRF in a way other arguments could not