Information Policies for (Digital) Information in Archaeology: current state and suggestions for development

Börjesson, Lisa; Petersson, Bodil; Huvila, Isto

doi:10.11141/ia.40.4

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development-led archaeological process is organized as a commercial quasi-market with a certain degree of central and regional control (Kristiansen 2009;B€ orjesson, Petersson, and Huvila 2015). It involves several private and public actors (communities in BO sense; cf.…”

Section: Working With Reports and Documentation Materials In Swedish Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data, and the archaeological work

Huvila

2016

The Information Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information about an archaeological investigation is documented in an archaeological report, which makes it the boundary object par excellence for archaeological information work across stakeholder communities such as field archaeologists, heritage managers, and land developers. The quality of reports has been a subject of debate, and recently it has been argued that more emphasis should be placed on making primary research data at least similarly available. This study explores the changing materialities and reciprocal formation of documents and their users with the advent of digitization, and how documents form and lose their status as boundary objects in these processes. The study posits that in order to be functional, a boundary object needs to provide a disclosure that makes it accessible to cognate communities. Further, it shows how assumptions about the functioning of the human and nonhuman (material artifacts) influence the ways in which archaeologists conceptualize the preservation and archiving of archaeological information and the role and potential of different types of digital and paper-based documents. This article is based on an interview study of Swedish archaeology professionals (N D 16) with theoretical underpinnings in the notions of boundary objects, mangle of practice, and disclosure.

show abstract

Section: Working With Reports and Documentation Materials In Swedish Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data, and the archaeological work

Huvila

2016

The Information Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To study how informants draw on regulative resources I analyze their approaches to information policy in legislation, regulations, and guidelines 1 (cf. Börjesson, Petersson & Huvila, 2015). To study institutional resources I analyze informants' expressions of documentation ideals (cf.…”

Section: Impose Pragmatic Limitations To One Focal Point Of Analysis ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Development-led archaeology documentation is more regulated by formal information policies than research archaeology is (Börjesson, Petersson & Huvila, 2015). Yet, the way the informants talk about policy documents suggests that they have a relatively distanced relation to regulative resources.…”

Section: Regulative Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In state heritage governance reports are means to assure compliance with heritage legislation. The boundary-zone setting is noticeable for example in how information policies for this research activity are formulated (Börjesson, Petersson & Huvila, 2015), in experienced professionals' documentation ideals (Börjesson, 2016), and in practitioners' information source use (Börjesson, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research outside academia? – An analysis of resources in extra‐academic report writing

Börjesson

2016

Proc. Assoc. Info. Sci. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Even efforts to make archaeological knowledge more open and accessible to the public can be strictly underpinned by the ideology of the national policy behind it (e.g. Börjesson, Petersson and Huvila 2015). The difficult issue of heritage protection is also complex -with options of preserving in situ, reusing, conserving and a whole range of preventative or restorative measures affecting what 'protection' might actually mean in practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction

White¹,

Campbell²,

Thomas³

2018

Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information Policies for (Digital) Information in Archaeology: current state and suggestions for development

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data, and the archaeological work

Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data, and the archaeological work

Research outside academia? – An analysis of resources in extra‐academic report writing

Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About