Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to nuance the perception about professional documentation (a.k.a. "grey literature"), assuming perception of documentation being a cultural aspect of accessibility. Design/methodology/approach -The study explores variations within the archaeological report genre through a bibliometric analysis of source use. Source characteristics are explored as well as correlations between report authors and source originators. Statistical frequency distribution is complemented by a correspondence analysis and a k-means cluster analysis to explore patterns. The patterns are interpreted as "frames of references" and related to circumstances for archaeological work. The study also discusses source representations. Findings -The source use patterns reveal a latent variation, not visible in the general analysis: a professional/academic frame of reference (mainly among authors affiliated with incorporated businesses and sole proprietorships) and an administrative frame of reference (mainly among authors affiliated with government agencies, foundations, and member associations) emerge. Research limitations/implications -The study focuses on Swedish field evaluation reports. Future research could test the results in relation to other types of reports and go beyond the document perspective to explore source use in documentation practices. Social implications -The results on variations in frames of references among report writers have implication for report readers and user. The results should also be considered in archaeology management and policy-making. On the level of source representation the results call for clarifications of vague representations and possibly omitted sources. Originality/value -This study contextualizes archaeological information use and focuses on variations in professional archaeology which has received little previous research attention. The bibliometric approach complements previous qualitative studies of archaeological information.

PurposeSharing information about work processes has proven to be difficult. This applies especially to information shared from those who participate in a process to those who remain outsiders. The purpose of this article is to increase understanding of how professionals document their work practices with a focus on information making by analysing how archaeologists document their information work in archaeological reports.Design/methodology/approachIn total 47 Swedish archaeological reports published in 2018 were analysed using close reading and constant comparative categorisation.FindingsEven if explicit narratives of methods and work process have particular significance as documentation of information making, the evidence of information making is spread out all over the report document in (1) procedural narratives, (2) descriptions of methods and tools, (3) actors and actants, (4) photographs, (5) information sources, (6) diagrams and drawings and (7) outcomes. The usability of reports as conveyors of information on information making depends more on how a forthcoming reader can live with it as a whole rather than how to learn of the details it recites.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is based on a limited number of documents representing one country and one scholarly and professional field.Practical implicationsIncreased focus on the internal coherence of documentation and the complementarity of different types of descriptions could improve information sharing. Further, descriptions of concepts that refer to work activities and the situation when information came into being could similarly improve their usability.Originality/valueThere is little earlier research on how professionals and academics document and describe their information activities.

Digitalisation of research data and massive efforts to make it findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable has revealed that in addition to an eventual lack of description of the data itself (metadata), data reuse is often obstructed by the lack of information about the datamaking and interpretation (i.e. paradata). In search of the extent and composition of categories for describing processes, this article reviews a selection of standards and recommendations frequently referred to as useful for documenting archaeological visualisations. It provides insight into 1) how current standards can be employed to document provenance and processing history (i.e. paradata), and 2) what aspects of the processing history can be made transparent using current standards and which aspects are pushed back or hidden. The findings show that processes are often either completely absent or only partially addressed in the standards. However, instead of criticising standards for bias and omissions as if a perfect description of everything would be attainable, the findings point to the need for a comprehensive consideration of the space a standard is operating in (e.g. national heritage administration or international harmonisation of data). When a standard is used in a specific space it makes particular processes, methods, or tools transparent. Given these premises, if the standard helps to document what needs to be documented (e.g. paradata), and if it provides a type of transparency required in a certain space, it is reasonable to deem the standard good enough for that purpose.

No abstract

A significant part of all research takes place in extraacademic organizations. Practitioner researchers often present their results in publications different from those in academia, e.g. in reports, sometimes (and here) referred to as "gray literature". Gray literature is increasingly available online. However, availability does not mean that reports are exploited to their full potential in research. Disciplines like archaeology have substantial problems with the scholarly communication and knowledge sharing between extraacademic and academic research. This paper approaches this problem from a report-user perspective. For the benefit of potential report users' gray literature literacies, reportwriting practices are analyzed by means of practice theory. Qualitative interviews with six practitioner researchers in Swedish archaeology firms make up the material. The analysis focuses on how report writers draw on regulative, institutional, and infrastructural resources in their practices. Based on the findings about the practices in which reports are written and become informative, the paper presents seven suggestions supporting report users' potential to critically analyze and use report content. The results contribute to the information science field with insights into extra-academic information practices, and as input in a wider critical discussion of the information-related conditions for research outside academia.