Abstract
Land developers are significant stakeholders of archaeological work in the developed world. A better understanding of their information practices is crucial for the preservation and management of archaeological heritage. This study investigates land developers’ use, needs and conceptions of the usefulness- value of archaeological information and their views of development-led archaeological process. The findings are based on a survey of Finnish and Swedish land developers (N=34) that have contracted and financed archaeological fieldwork. The results show that the most useful information for land developers is data on the spatial location of archaeological sites but that the situation is much more nuanced than often suggested. Even if the most of the respondents were rather satisfied with the current situation, the lack of information can have major consequences and there are several obstacles to obtain relevant information. Extensive reliance on people sources can be seen both a symptom of the current problems and an indication of the importance of closer collaboration between archaeologists and land developers. Further, the study shows that the different levels of the perceived usefulness of specific types of archaeological information can be explained by the different regimes determining their worth in the two communities.
References
Aitchison, K. (2015). Professional archaeology in the UK in 2015. Cultural Trends, 24(1), 11-14.10.1080/09548963.2014.1000581Search in Google Scholar
Andersson, C., Lagerlof, A., & Skyllberg, E. (2010). Assessing and measuring: On quality in development-led archaeology (with comments and reply),. Current Swedish archaeology, 18, 11-28.10.37718/CSA.2010.01Search in Google Scholar
Bazelmans, J. (2009). Wie betaalt, bepaalt? 47 de introductie van marktwerking en het ’verstoorder betaalt’ -principe in de nederlandse archeologie. In Het cultuurhistorisch argument, (pp. 49-59). Utrecht: Belvedere.Search in Google Scholar
Berggren, A., & Hodder, I. (2003). Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field Archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(3), 421-434.10.2307/3557102Search in Google Scholar
Boltanski, L., & Thevenot, L. (2006). On justification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400827145Search in Google Scholar
Borjesson, L. (2015). Grey literature - grey sources? nuancing the view on professional documentation: The case of Swedish archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 71(6), 1158-1182.10.1108/JD-09-2014-0137Search in Google Scholar
Borjesson, L. (2016). Beyond information policy: conflicting documentation ideals in extra-academic knowledge making practices. Journal of Documentation, 72(4), 674 - 695.10.1108/JDOC-10-2015-0134Search in Google Scholar
Borjesson, L., Petersson, B., & Huvila, I. (2015). Information policy for (digital) information in archaeology: current state and suggestions for development. Internet Archaeology, 40.10.11141/ia.40.4Search in Google Scholar
Burnett, G., & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). Small worlds, lifeworlds, and information: The ramifications of the information behaviour of social groups in public policy and the public sphere. Information Research, 13(2). http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper346.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Bystrom, K. (1999). Task Complexity, Information Types and Information Sources. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tampere, Information Studies, Tampere.Search in Google Scholar
Carver, M. (1999). Field archaeology. In G. Barker (Ed.) Companion encyclopedia of archaeology, (pp. 128-181). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Case, D. O., & Given, L. M. (2016). Looking for information : a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Bingley: Emerald.Search in Google Scholar
Chirikure, S. (2012). Reverse archaeology or relevance seeking archaeology? Heritage & Society, 5(1), 116-120.10.1179/hso.2012.5.1.116Search in Google Scholar
Cumberpatch, C., & Blinkhorn, P. (2001). Clients, contractors, curators and archaeology: who owns the past? In M. Pluciennik (Ed.) The responsibilities of archaeologists. Archaeology and ethics, (pp. 39-46). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Search in Google Scholar
Cummins, J., & Bawden, D. (2010). Accounting for information: Information and knowledge in the annual reports of FTSE 100 companies. Journal of Information Science, 36(3), 283-305.10.1177/0165551510361429Search in Google Scholar
Darlington, M., Culley, S. J., Zhao, Y., Austin, S. A., & Tang, L. (2008). Defining a framework for the evaluation of information. International Journal of Information Quality, 2(2), 115-132.10.1504/IJIQ.2008.022959Search in Google Scholar
De Clercq, W., Bats, M., Bourgeois, J., Crombe, P., De Mulder, G., De Reu, J., Herremans, D., Laloo, P., Lombaert, L., Plets, G., et al. (2012). Development-led archaeology in flanders: an overview of practices and results in the period 1990-2010. Development-led archaeology in North-west Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th-21st november 2009, (pp. 29-55).Search in Google Scholar
De Roo, B., Bourgeois, J., & De Maeyer, P. (2013). A survey on the use of GIS and data standards in archaeology. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 2(4), 491-507.10.1260/2047-4970.2.4.491Search in Google Scholar
De Roo, B., Bourgeois, J., & De Maeyer, P. (2016). Information flows as bases for archaeology-specific geodata infrastructures: an exploratory study in Flanders. JASIST, 67(8), 1928-1942.Search in Google Scholar
Demoule, J. (2007). Scientific quality, control and the general organization of French archaeology. In W. J. H. Willems, & M. H. v. d. Dries (Eds.) Quality management in archaeology, (pp. 135-147). Oxford: Oxbow.Search in Google Scholar
Demoule, J.-P. (2012). Rescue Archaeology: A European View. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 611-626.10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145854Search in Google Scholar
Demoule, J.-P. (2016). Preventive archaeology: Scientific research or commercial activity? In P. Novaković, M. Horňak, M. P.Search in Google Scholar
Guermandi, H. Stauble, P. Depaep, & J.-P. Demoule (Eds.) Recent Developments in Preventive Archaeology in Europe: Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016, (pp. 9-19). Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dries, M. V. D., & Vuuren, M. V. (2012). Het selectiebeleid van gemeenten : Kiezen voor bekende thema’s. Archeobrief, (pp. 32-37).Search in Google Scholar
Everill, P. (2012). The Invisible Diggers : A Study of British Commercial Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2 ed.Search in Google Scholar
Faniel, I., Kansa, E., Whitcher Kansa, S., Barrera-Gomez, J., & Yakel, E. (2013). The challenges of digging data: a study of context in archaeological data reuse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, JCDL ’13, (pp. 295-304). New York: ACM.Search in Google Scholar
Faniel, I. M., Kriesberg, A., & Yakel, E. (2016). Social scientists’ satisfaction with data reuse. JASIST, 67(6), 1404-1416.10.1002/asi.23480Search in Google Scholar
Fleischmann, K. R. (2013). Information and Human Values. Santa Barbara, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Search in Google Scholar
Geser, G., & Selhofer, H. (2014). D2.1 First Report on Users´ Needs. Tech. rep., ARIADNE, Prato.Search in Google Scholar
Gnecco, C., & Dias, A. S. (2015). On contract archaeology. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 19(4), 687-698.10.1007/s10761-015-0305-6Search in Google Scholar
Goudswaard, B., Bos, J., van Roode, S., & Pape, H. (2012a). Forward with reverse archaeology. Heritage & Society, 5(1), 101-115.10.1179/hso.2012.5.1.101Search in Google Scholar
Goudswaard, B., Bos, J., van Roode, S., & Pape, H. (2012b). Reverse heritage. Heritage & Society, 5(1), 137-144.10.1179/hso.2012.5.1.137Search in Google Scholar
Green, W., & Doershuk, J. F. (1998). Cultural resource management and american archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 6(2), 121-167.10.1007/BF02446162Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, L., & Warrick, G. (2006). Stewardship gone astray? ethics and the SAA. In C. Scarre, & G. Scarre (Eds.) The ethics of archaeology, (pp. 163-177). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Search in Google Scholar
Haggren, G. (2014). Haloo muinaisjaannosrekisteri: kylat mukaan! SKAS, (1), 2.Search in Google Scholar
Hill, M. (2005). The impact of information on society : an examination of its nature, value and usage. Munchen: KG Saur.10.1515/9783110935349Search in Google Scholar
Huvila, I. (2006). The ecology of information work - A case study of bridging archaeological work and virtual reality based knowledge organisation. Abo: Abo Akademi University Press. Diss. Abo Akademi UniversitySearch in Google Scholar
Huvila, I. (2012). Information Services and Digital Literacy: In search of the boundaries of knowing. Oxford: Chandos.10.1533/9781780633497Search in Google Scholar
Huvila, I. (2014a). Archaeologists and their information sources. In I. Huvila (Ed.) Perspectives to Archaeological Information in the Digital Society, (pp. 25-54). Uppsala: Department of ALM, Uppsala University.Search in Google Scholar
Huvila, I. (2014b). Introduction. In I. Huvila (Ed.) Perspectives to Archaeological Information in the Digital Society, (pp. 1-9).10.4324/9781315225272-1Search in Google Scholar
Uppsala: Department of ALM, Uppsala University.Search in Google Scholar
Huvila, I. (2016a). Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data and the archaeological work. The Information Society, 32(4), 280-297.10.1080/01972243.2016.1177763Search in Google Scholar
Huvila, I. (2016b). ’if we just knew who should do it’, or the social organization of the archiving of archaeology in Sweden. Information Research, 21(2). http://www.informationr.net/ir/21-2/paper713.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Kimble, C., Grenier, C., & Goglio-Primard, K. (2010). Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 437-444.10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.002Search in Google Scholar
King, T. F. (2005). Doing archaeology: a cultural resource management perspective.Search in Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. (2009). Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity. World Archaeology, 41(4), 641-648.10.1080/00438240903371486Search in Google Scholar
Lowenborg, D. (2014). Recuperating gis data from excavations: On the use, or lack of use, of digital archaeological information. In I. Huvila (Ed.) Perspectives to Archaeological Information in the Digital Society, (pp. 11-23). Uppsala: Department of ALM, Uppsala University.Search in Google Scholar
Luoto, K. (2015). Vastine Muinaistutkijan (3/2015) paakirjoitukseen “Firmat, kilpailu ja arkeologia”. Muinaistutkija, (4), 54-55.Search in Google Scholar
Madden, A. D., Ford, N. J., & Miller, D. (2007). Information resources used by children at an English secondary school: Perceived and actual levels of usefulness. Journal of Documentation, 63(3), 340 - 358.10.1108/00220410710743289Search in Google Scholar
Museiverket (2016). Kvalitetsanvisningarna för de arkeologiska fältarbetena i Finland [Quality guidelines for archaeological fieldwork in Finland]. Helsingfors.Search in Google Scholar
Pere, K. (Ed.) (2014). Kulttuuriympäristöstrategia käytäntöön [Implementation of the Cultural Environment Strategy]. Helsinki: Ymparistoministerio.Search in Google Scholar
RAA (2015a). Uppdragsarkeologi : Rapportering, förmedling och arkeologiskt dokumentationsmaterial. Stockholm.Search in Google Scholar
RAA (2015b). Uppdragsarkeologi: Det uppdragsarkeologiska systemet. Stockholm.Search in Google Scholar
Riksantikvarieambetet (2012). Verkställighetsföreskrifter för uppdragsarkeologi : Återrapportering av regeringsuppdrag. Stockholm.Search in Google Scholar
Rocabado, P. (2015). Neoliberal multiculturalism and contract archeology in northern chile. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 19(4), 775-790-. Saastamoinen, M., Kumpulainen, S., Vakkari, P., & Jarvelin, K. (2013). Task complexity affects information use: a questionnaire study in city administration. Information Research, 19(4). http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-4/paper592.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Saracevic, T. (2016). The Notion of Relevance in Information Science: Everybody knows what relevance is. But, what is it really?. Santa Barbara, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Search in Google Scholar
Savolainen, R. (2009). Information use and information processing: Comparison of conceptualizations. Journal of Documentation, 65(2), 187-207.10.1108/00220410910937570Search in Google Scholar
Savolainen, R. (2017). Information need as trigger and driver of information seeking: a conceptual analysis. Aslib Journal of Info Mgmt, 69(1), 2-21.10.1108/AJIM-08-2016-0139Search in Google Scholar
Seppanen, L. (2014). Is the output worth of input? Estimating the value of past excavations for new information. In Presentation at the CHNT 2014 conference, Vienna, Nov, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
Shepherd, N. (2007). What does it mean ’to give the past back to the people’? archaeology and ethics in the postcolony. In Archaeology and capitalism: From ethics to politics, (pp. 99-114). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sinn, D., & Soares, N. (2014). Historians’ use of digital archival collections: The web, historical scholarship, and archival research. JASIST, 65(9), 1794-1809.10.1002/asi.23091Search in Google Scholar
Skyllberg, E. (2013). Uppdragsarkeologins malgrupper - en utvardering av publik arkeologisk verksamhet och av hur de arkeologiska resultaten tas om hand i samhallsplaneringen och i skolan. Rapport, Lansstyrelsen i Uppsala lan, Uppsala.Search in Google Scholar
Sohlenius, R. (2014). Förstudie FMIS-processen [Prestudy of FMIS process]. Stockholm: RAA.Search in Google Scholar
Soomai, S., Wells, P., & MacDonald, B. (2011). Multi-stakeholder perspectives on the use and influence of ̈grey ̈ scientific information in fisheries management. Marine Policy, 35(1), 50-62.10.1016/j.marpol.2010.07.006Search in Google Scholar
Star, S. L. (2010). Ceci n´est pas un objet-frontiere! Reflexions sur l´origine d´un concept. Revue d´anthropologie des connaissances, 4(1), 18-35.10.3917/rac.009.0018Search in Google Scholar
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ’Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.10.1177/030631289019003001Search in Google Scholar
Stjernberg, F. (2010). Comments on assessing and measuring: On quality in development-led archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology.Search in Google Scholar
Talja, S., & Lloyd, A. (2010). Challenges for Future Research in Learning, Literacies and Information Practices. In A. Lloyd, & T. S. (Eds.) Practicing Information Literacy: Bringing Theories of Learning, Practice and Information Literacy Together, (pp. 357-364). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (2006). The Great Dark Book: Archaeology, Experience, and Interpretation. In J. Bintliff (Ed.) A Companion to Archaeology, (pp. 21-36). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Tornqvist, O. (2015). Rapport fran Riksantikvarieambetet - inventering av data fran uppdragsarkeologin aktorer, data och forutsattningar for att ateranvanda informationen. Tech. rep., RAA, Visby.Search in Google Scholar
Trompette, P. (2013). The politics of value in french funeral arrangements. Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(4), 370-385.10.1080/17530350.2013.827990Search in Google Scholar
Vakkari, P. (1997). Information seeking in context: A challenging metatheory. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, & B. Dervin (Eds.) Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, (pp. 451-464). London: Taylor Graham.Search in Google Scholar
Widen-Wulff, G. (2007). Challenges of Knowledge Sharing in Practise: A Social Approach. Oxford: Chandos.10.1533/9781780632018Search in Google Scholar
Willems, W. J. H. (2008). Archaeological resource management and preservation. Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaeological Studies, 10, 283-289.Search in Google Scholar
Willems, W. J. H., & Dries, M. H. v. d. (2007). Quality management in archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.Search in Google Scholar
Woudstra, L., van den Hooff, B., & Schouten, A. P. (2012). Dimensions of quality and accessibility: Selection of human information sources from a social capital perspective. Information Processing & Management, 48(4), 618-630.10.1016/j.ipm.2012.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Zimmerman, L. J., & Branam, K. M. (2014). Collaborating with Stakeholders. In J. Balme, & A. Paterson (Eds.) Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses, (pp. 1-25). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Zorzin, N. (2010). The political economy of a commercial archaeology : a Quebec case-study. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
