@jwbaker 14/01/2022 - further to discussion with @amara, this property is the result of the need for a way to record work that sits between employment ("employer" (Property: P18)) and [https://beyond-notability.wiki.opencura.com/wiki/Property:P64 "area of expertise" (Property:P64) and where specific acts of labour/work can be listed. This stems from the historically specific conditions of women's work in archeology/heritage this period, where women performed a range of (overlapping) waged, unwaged, and prestige tasks, often under the instruction/auspices of an organisation, but where that organisation cannot be said to have been their 'employer'. See Heidi Egginton and Zoë Thomas (eds.), Precarious Professionals: Gender, Identities and Social Change in Modern Britain (London: University of London Press, 2021), https://humanities-digital-library.org/index.php/hdl/catalog/book/precarious-professionals. This property is likely to be revised and refined as we work through the data.
Logic is based on:
I think one solution to this might be 1) use employment if we have evidence that someone has a contract - things like lecturer at university, or the women who were working for VCH had contracts of sorts. This might not help with the Winifred Lamb question but there is a biography of her recentishly published that might have more on the post in her case. 2) use work for anything that we don’t have evidence of a contract, or if it’s a prestige post like Secretary, or if its someone writing or illustrating. 3) continue to list archaeological work separately as member/director (it’s going to be the case here, I’m fairly confident, that the only people who were getting paid in this scenario were the workers actually doing the labour, or if people were giving ‘professional’ services - eg architects or artists. Maybe the director (if it is a he), if funding allows) @amara, 14/01/2022