Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access April 18, 2022

Improving the usefulness of research data with better paradata

  • Isto Huvila EMAIL logo
From the journal Open Information Science


Considerable investments have been made in Europe and worldwide for developing research data infrastructures. Instead of a general lack of data about data, it has become apparent that a pivotal factor that drastically constrains data use is the absence of contextual knowledge about how data was created and how it has been curated and used. This applies especially to many branches of social science and humanities research, where data is highly heterogeneous, both by its kind (e.g. being qualitative, quantitative, naturalistic, purposefully created) and origins (e.g. being historical/contemporary, from different contexts and geographical places). The problem is that there may be enough metadata (data about data) but there is too little paradata (data on the processes of its creation, curation and use). The aim of this position paper is to draw attention 1) to the need for a better and more systematic understanding and documentation of the contexts of creation, curation and use of research data to make it useful and usable for researchers and other potential users in the future, and 2) to specific obstacles that make the capturing of this particular type of metadata, known as paradata, especially difficult. Failing to understand what information about the creation, curation and use of research data is needed and how to capture enough of that information risks that the currently collected vast amounts of research data become useless in the future.


Adams, V., Burke, N. J., & Whitmarsh, I. (2014). Slow research: Thoughts for a movement in global health. Medical Anthropology, 33(3), 179–197.10.1080/01459740.2013.858335Search in Google Scholar

Akmon, D., Zimmerman, A., Daniels, M., & Hedstrom, M. (2011). The application of archival concepts to a data-intensive environment: working with scientists to understand data management and preservation needs. Archival Science, 11(3), 329–348. in Google Scholar

Aloia, N.,, Binding, C., Cuy, S., Doerr, M., Fanini, B., Felicetti, A., Fihn, J., Gavrilis, D., Geser, G., Hollander, H., Meghini, C., Niccolucci, F., Nurra, F., Papatheodorou, C., Richards, J., Ronzino, P., Scopigno, R., Theodoridou, M., Tudhope, D., Vlachidis, A., & Wright, H. (2017). Enabling european archaeological research: The ARIADNE e-infrastructure. Internet Archaeology, (43).10.11141/ia.43.11Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, C. M., & Larson, S. (2013). Marginalia, or the knowledge of excess. Social & Cultural Geography, 14(7), 739–743. in Google Scholar

Antonijevic, S., & Cahoy, E. S. (2018). Researcher as bricoleur: Contextualizing humanists’ digital workflows. DHQ, 12(3). in Google Scholar

Asuncion, H. U. (2013). Automated data provenance capture in spreadsheets, with case studies. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(8), 2169–2181.10.1016/j.future.2013.04.009Search in Google Scholar

Ball, A. (2011). International digital curation conference 2010. Ariadne, (66). in Google Scholar

Battini, C., & Sorge, E. (2017). Amphitheater of Volterra: case study for the representation of the excavation data. Studies in Digital Heritage, 1(2), 269–281.10.14434/sdh.v1i2.23242Search in Google Scholar

Bauer-Clapp, H., & Kirakosian, K. (2017). Archaeologists and archives: Revisiting an old challenge. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 5(3), 220–226.10.1017/aap.2017.16Search in Google Scholar

Bauman, Z., & Raud, R. (2015). Practices of selfhood. Cambridge: Polity.Search in Google Scholar

Beaudoin, J. E. (2012). A framework for contextual metadata used in the digital preservation of cultural objects. D-Lib Magazine, 18(11-12).10.1045/november2012-beaudoin2Search in Google Scholar

Beck, A., & Neylon, C. (2012). A vision for Open Archaeology. World Archaeology, 44(4), 479–497.10.1080/00438243.2012.737581Search in Google Scholar

Benardou, A., Champion, E., Dallas, C., & Hughes, L. M. (2018). Introduction: a critique of digital practices and research infrastructures. In A. Benardou, E. Champion, C. Dallas, & L. M. Hughes (Eds.) Cultural Heritage Infrastructures in Digital Humanities. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Denard, H., & Baker, D. (Eds.) (2012). Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage. Farnham: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar

Berggren, A., Dell’Unto, N., Forte, M., Haddow, S., Hodder, I., Issavi, J., Lercari, N., Mazzuccato, C., Mickel, A., & Taylor, J. (2015). Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük: integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel´s edge. Antiquity, 89(344), 433–448.10.15184/aqy.2014.43Search in Google Scholar

Bevan, A. (2015). The data deluge. Antiquity, 89(348), 1473–1484.10.15184/aqy.2015.102Search in Google Scholar

Birnholtz, J. P., & Bietz, M. J. (2003). Data at work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering. In Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, GROUP ’03, (pp. 339–348). New York: ACM. in Google Scholar

Boasson, W., & Visser, R. (2017). Sikb0102: Synchronizing excavation data for preservation and re-use. Studies in Digital Heritage, 1(2), 206–224.10.14434/sdh.v1i2.23262Search in Google Scholar

Borgman, C. L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. JASIST, 63(6), 1059–1078.10.1002/asi.22634Search in Google Scholar

Borgman, C. L. (2015a). Big Data, Little Data, No Data : Scholarship in the Networked World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9963.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Borgman, C. L. (2015b). If Data Sharing is the Answer, What is the Question? ERCIM News, (100), 15–16. in Google Scholar

Borgman, C. L., Darch, P. T., Sands, A. E., & Golshan, M. S. (2016). The durability and fragility of knowledge infrastructures: Lessons learned from astronomy. In A. Grove, D. H. Sonnenwald, L. Harrison, C. Blake, C. Schlögl, I. Peters, B. Endler-Jobst, C. Cool, & Y.-L. Theng (Eds.) ASIST 2016 Proceedings of the 79th ASIS&T Annual Meeting. Silver Spring, MD: ASIS&T.Search in Google Scholar

Börjesson, L., Sköld, O., & Huvila, I. (2020). The politics of paradata in documentation standards and recommendations for digital archaeological visualisations. Digital Culture and Society, 6(2), 191–220.10.14361/dcs-2020-0210Search in Google Scholar

Bouwman, M. J., Frishkoff, P. A., & Frishkoff, P. (1987). How do financial analysts make decisions? A process model of the investment screening decision. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(1), 1–29.10.1016/0361-3682(87)90013-4Search in Google Scholar

Bowker, G. C. (1994). Science on the run: information management and industrial geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920-1940. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bowker, G. C. (2005). Memory practices in the sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brocks, H., Kranstedt, A., Jäschke, G., & Hemmje, M. (2009). Modeling context for digital preservation. In E. Szczerbicki, & N. Nguyen (Eds.) Smart Information and Knowledge Management, (pp. 197–226). Berlin: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Brügger, N., Milligan, I., Ben-David, A., Gebeil, S., Nanni, F., Rogers, R., Turkel, W. J., Weber, M. S., & Webster, P. (2019). Internet histories and computational methods: a ’round-doc’ discussion. Internet Histories, 3(3-4), 202–222.10.1080/24701475.2019.1639352Search in Google Scholar

Bruseker, G., Carboni, N., & Guillem, A. (2017a). Cultural heritage data management: The role of formal ontology and CIDOC CRM. In M. L. Vincent, V. M. López-Menchero Bendicho, M. Ioannides, & T. E. Levy (Eds.) Heritage and archaeology in the DigitalAge: acquisition, curation, and dissemination of spatial cultural heritage data, (pp. 93–131). Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-65370-9_6Search in Google Scholar

Bruseker, G., Doerr, M., & Theodoridou, M. (2017b). D5.1. Report on the Common Semantic Framework. PARTHENOS.Search in Google Scholar

Buchanan, S. A. (2016). A Provenance Research Study of Archaeological Curation. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin.Search in Google Scholar

Button, G., & Harper, R. (1996). The relevance of work-practice for design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4(4), 263–280.10.1007/BF01846695Search in Google Scholar

Carr, S. M. (2005). Knowing nursing - the challenge of articulating knowing in practice. Nurse Education in Practice, 5(6), 333–339.10.1016/j.nepr.2005.03.006Search in Google Scholar

Chiquet, V. (2020). Supporting sustainable digital data workflows in the art and humanities. Sharing the Experience: Workflows for the Digital Humanities. Proceedings of the DARIAH-CH Workshop 2019 (Neuchâtel), DARIAH-CAMPUS..Search in Google Scholar

Clemens, R., & Graham, T. (2007). Introduction to Manuscript Studies.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. M. (1997). Programme to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 26(1), 411–437.10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.411Search in Google Scholar

Cooper, A., & Green, C. (2015). Embracing the complexities of ‘big data’ in archaeology: the case of the English Landscape and Identities project. J Archaeol Method Theory, 23(1), 271–304.10.1007/s10816-015-9240-4Search in Google Scholar

Couper, M. (1998). Measuring survey quality in a CASIC environment. In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association.Search in Google Scholar

Couper, M. P. (2000). Usability evaluation of computer-assisted survey instruments. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 384–396.10.1177/089443930001800402Search in Google Scholar

Couper, M. P., & Kreuter, F. (2013). Using paradata to explore item level response times in surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176(1), 271–286.10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01041.xSearch in Google Scholar

Curcin, V. (2016). Embedding data provenance into the learning health system to facilitate reproducible research. Learning Health Systems, 1(2), e10019.10.1002/lrh2.10019Search in Google Scholar

da Cruz, S. M. S., Paulino, C. E., de Oliveira, D., Campos, M. L. M., & Mattoso, M. (2011). Capturing distributed provenance metadata from cloud-based scientific workflows. Journal of Information and Data Management, 2(1), 43–50.Search in Google Scholar

Dallas, C. (2015). Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum: from Practice to Infrastructure. Open Archaeology, 1(1), 176–207.10.1515/opar-2015-0011Search in Google Scholar

D’Andrea, A., & Fernie, K. (2013). Carare 2.0: A metadata schema for 3d cultural objects. In 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage), (pp. 137–143). New York: IEEE.Search in Google Scholar

Davidson, S., & Freire, J. (2008). Provenance and scientific workflows: Challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, (pp. 1345–1350). New York: ACM.Search in Google Scholar

Day, M. (2002). Cedars Guide to Preservation Metadata. Bath: UKOLN. in Google Scholar

DCC (2017). An Analysis of Open Data and Open Science Policies in Europe, May 2017. Apeldoorn: SPARC Europe & DCC.Search in Google Scholar

De Oliveira, D., Silva, V., & Mattoso, M. (2015). How much domain data should be in provenance databases? In Workshop on Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP).Search in Google Scholar

Dell’Unto, N., Landeschi, G., Apel, J., & Poggi, G. (2017). 4D recording at the trowel’s edge: Using three-dimensional simulation platforms to support field interpretation. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 12, 632–645.Search in Google Scholar

Demetrescu, E., & Fanini, B. (2017). A white-box framework to oversee archaeological virtual reconstructions in space and time: Methods and tools. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 14(Supplement C), 500–514.Search in Google Scholar

Demoule, J.-P. (2011). We still have to excavate - but not at any price. Archaeological Dialogues, 18(1), 5–10.10.1017/S1380203811000043Search in Google Scholar

Doerr, M., Chrysakis, I., Axaridou, A., Theodoridou, M., Georgis, C., & Maravelakis, E. (2014a). A framework for maintaining provenance information of cultural heritage 3d-models. In Proceedings of the EVA London 2014 on Electronic Visualisation and the Arts, EVA London 2014, (pp. 267–274). London: BCS.10.14236/ewic/EVA2014.63Search in Google Scholar

Doerr, M., Kritsotaki, A., Rousakis, Y., Hiebel, G., & Theodoridou, M. (2014b). CRMsci: the Scientific Observation Model An Extension of CIDOC-CRM to support scientific observation. Heraklion: FORTH.Search in Google Scholar

Doerr, M., Stead, S., & Theodoridou, M. (2016). Definition of the CRMdigAn Extension of CIDOC-CRM to support provenance metadata. Heraklion: FORTH., version 3.2.1 ed.Search in Google Scholar

Doerr, M., & Theodoridou, M. (2011). Crmdig: A generic digital provenance model for scientific observation. In TAPP11: 3rd USENIX workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance.Search in Google Scholar

Doran, M., Edmond, J., & Nugent-Folan, G. (2019). Reconciling the cultural complexity of research data: Can we make data interdisciplinary without hiding disciplinary knowledge? Preprint of manuscript submitted to CODATA. in Google Scholar

Drachsler, H., Greller, W., Fazeli, S., Niemann, K., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Rajabi, E., Palmér, M., Ebner, H., Simon, B., Nösterer, D., et al. (2012). D8. 1 Review of Social Data Requirements. Open Discovery Space project.Search in Google Scholar

Drude, S., di Giorgio, S., Ronzino, P., Links, P., van Nispen, A., Verbrugge, K., Degl’Innocenti, E., Stiller, J., Oltersdorf, J., & Spiecker, C. (2016). D2.1. Report on User Requirements. PARTHENOS.Search in Google Scholar

Duranti, L. (1998). Diplomatics : new uses for an old science. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Search in Google Scholar

Durrant, G. B., D’Arrigo, J., & Steele, F. (2011). Using paradata to predict best times of contact, conditioning on household and interviewer influences. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 174(4), 1029–1049.10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.00715.xSearch in Google Scholar

Edwards, R., Goodwin, J., O’Connor, H., & Phoenix, A. (2017). Working with Paradata, Marginalia and Fieldnotes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781784715250Search in Google Scholar

Elliot, H., Edwards, R., Phoenix, A., & Boddy, J. (2015). Narrative analysis of paradata from the Poverty in the UK survey: a worked example. Southampton: NCRM.Search in Google Scholar

English Heritage (2012). MIDAS Heritage - The UK Historic Environment Data Standard, v1.1. London.Search in Google Scholar

Eriksson-Backa, K., Hirvonen, N., Enwald, H., & Huvila, I. (2021). Enablers for and barriers to using My Kanta - a focus group study of older adults’ perceptions of the national electronic health record in Finland. Informatics for Health and Social Care.10.1080/17538157.2021.1902331Search in Google Scholar

European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (2011). Strategy Report on Research Infrastructures: Roadmap 2010. Luxembourg: European Union.Search in Google Scholar

Fagan, B. (1995). Timelines: Archaeology’s dirty secret. Archaeology, 48(4), 14–17.Search in Google Scholar

FAIR (2016). Guiding Principles for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable Data Publishing. FORCE11, version b1.0 ed. 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., Frank, R. D., & Yakel, E. (2019). Context from the data reuser’s point of view. Journal of Documentation, 75(6), 1274–1297.10.1108/JD-08-2018-0133Search in Google Scholar

Faniel, I. M., & Yakel, E. (2017). Practices do not make perfect: Disciplinary data sharing and reuse practices and their implications for repository data curation. In L. R. Johnston (Ed.) Curating Research Data, Volume One: Practical Strategies for Your Digital Repository, (pp. 103–126). Chicago: ACRL.Search in Google Scholar

Felicetti, A., & Lorenzini, M. (2011). Metadata and tools for integration and preservation of cultural heritage 3d information. Geoinformatics FCE CTU, 6(0), 118–124.10.14311/gi.6.16Search in Google Scholar

Flexner, J. L. (2016). Dark and bright futures for museum archaeology. Museum Worlds, 4(1), 1–3.10.3167/armw.2016.040101Search in Google Scholar

Fook, J., Ryan, M., & Hawkins, L. (1997). Towards a theory of social work expertise. British Journal of Social Work, 27(3), 399–417.10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011220Search in Google Scholar

Foster, A., & Rafferty, P. (Eds.) (2016). Managing digital cultural objects: Analysis, discovery and retrieval. London: Facet.10.29085/9781783301539Search in Google Scholar

Friberg, Z., & Huvila, I. (2019). Using object biographies to understand the curation crisis: lessons learned from the museum life of an archaeological collection. Museum Management and Curatorship, 34(4), 362–382.10.1080/09647775.2019.1612270Search in Google Scholar

Frické, M. (2012). Logic and the Organization of Information. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-3088-9Search in Google Scholar

Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach. Information Processing & Management, 42(1), 299–316.10.1016/j.ipm.2004.09.004Search in Google Scholar

Gant, S., & Reilly, P. (2017). Different expressions of the same mode: a recent dialogue between archaeological and contemporary drawing practices. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 17(1), 100–120.10.1080/14702029.2017.1384974Search in Google Scholar

Gerth, P., Sieverling, A., & Trognitz, M. (2017). Data curation: How and why. a showcase with re-use scenarios. Studies in Digital Heritage, 1(2), 182–193. in Google Scholar

Geser, G., & Niccolucci, F. (2016). D2.4: Final Innovation Agenda and Action Plan. ARIADNE.Search in Google Scholar

Geser, G., & Selhofer, H. (2015). D2.3: Preliminary innovation agenda and action plan. ARIADNE.Search in Google Scholar

Giulierini, P., Coralini, A., & Calandra, E. (Eds.) (2020). Miniere della memoria; scavi in archivi, depositi e biblioteche. Sesto Fiorentino: All’Insegna del Giglio.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, J., O’Connor, H., Phoenix, A., & Edwards, R. (2017). Introduction: working with paradata, marginalia and fieldnotes. In R. Edwards, J. Goodwin, H. O’Connor, & A. Phoenix (Eds.) Working with Paradata, Marginalia and Fieldnotes, (pp. 1–19). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Search in Google Scholar

Graham, S. (2017). Open notebook research in digital archaeology. in Google Scholar

Gratzl, S., Lex, A., Gehlenborg, N., Cosgrove, N., & Streit, M. (2016). From visual exploration to storytelling and back again. Computer Graphics Forum, 35(3), 491–500.10.1111/cgf.12925Search in Google Scholar

Greengrass, M. (2008). Introduction. In M. Greengrass, & L. M. Hughes (Eds.) The virtual representation of the past. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar

Gustafsson, A., & Magnusson Staaf, B. (2001). Rapport om rapporter – en diskussion kring kvalitetsbedömningar av arkeologiska rapporter. Report 2001:3, RAÄ, Stockholm.Search in Google Scholar

Harrison, R., Morel, H., Maricevic, M., & Penrose, S. (2017). Heritage and Data: Challenges and Opportunities for the Heritage Sector: Report of the Heritage Data Research Workshop Held Friday 23 June 2017 at the British Library, London. London: Heritage Research, Heritage Futures, Alan Turing Institute, British Library.Search in Google Scholar

Hauck, O., & Kuroczyński, P. (2015). Cultural heritage markup language-designing a domain ontology for digital reconstructions. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Virtual Archaeology, Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg/Russia, (pp. 250–255).Search in Google Scholar

Hawthorne, S. (2021). An insider’s take on data curation: Context, quality, and efficiency. Journal of eScience Librarianship, 10(3).10.7191/jeslib.2021.1200Search in Google Scholar

Henninger, M. (2018). From mud to the museum: Metadata challenges in archaeology. Journal of Information Science, 44(5), 658–670.10.1177/0165551517741790Search in Google Scholar

Hinds, P. J., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Why organizations don’t “know what they know”: Cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. In M. S. Ackerman, V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds.) Sharing expertise : beyond knowledge management, (pp. 3–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hodder, I. (2003). Archaeological Reflexivity and the “Local” Voice. Anthropological Quarterly, 76(1), 55–69. in Google Scholar

Hollander, H., Morselli, F., Admiraal, F., Conrad, A., Trippel, T., Zeldenrust, D., Ronzino, P., Giorgio, S. D., Madonna, A. D., & Hedges, M. (2017). D3.1. Guidelines for Common Policies Implementation. PARTHENOS.Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, F. L., Renn, J., & Rheinberger, H.-J. (Eds.) (2003). Reworking the bench : research notebooks in the history of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/0-306-48152-9Search in Google Scholar

Huggett, J. (2012). Promise and paradox: Accessing open data in archaeology. In C. Mills, M. Pidd, & E. Ward (Eds.) Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Congress 2012. Sheffield: Humanities Research Institute.Search in Google Scholar

Huggett, J. (2016). Digital haystacks: Open data and the transformation of archaeological knowledge. In A. T. Wilson, & B. Edwards (Eds.) Open Source Archaeology, Ethics and Practice, (pp. 6–29). Berlin: de Gruyter Open.Search in Google Scholar

Huvila, I. (2011). The politics of boundary objects: hegemonic interventions and the making of a document. JASIST, 62(12), 2528–2539.10.1002/asi.21639Search in Google Scholar

Huvila, I. (2012). Being Formal and Flexible: Semantic Wiki as an Archaeological e-Science Infrastructure. In M. Zhou, I. Romanowska, Z. Wu, P. Xu, & P. Verhagen (Eds.) Revive the Past: Proceeding of the 39th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Beijing, 12-16 April 2011, (pp. 186–197). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. in Google Scholar

Huvila, I. (2016). 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. (2019). Management of archaeological information and knowledge in digital environment. In M. Handzic (Ed.) Knowledge Management, Arts and Humanities, (pp. 147–169). Cham: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Kansa, E. C. (2016). Click here to save the past. In D. B. Counts, E. W. Averett, & J. M. Gordon (Eds.) Mobilizing the past for a digital future : the potential of digital archaeology, (pp. 443–472). Grand Forks, ND: Digital Press at the University of North Dakota. in Google Scholar

Kanza, S. (2018). What Influence would a Cloud Based Semantic Laboratory Notebook have on the Digitisation and Management of Scientific Research?. phdthesis, University of Southampton, Southampton.Search in Google Scholar

Karasti, H., Baker, K. S., & Halkola, E. (2006). Enriching the notion of data curation in e-science: Data managing and information infrastructuring in the long term ecological research (LTER) network. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 15(4), 321–358.10.1007/s10606-006-9023-2Search in Google Scholar

Kelleher, C. (2017). Archives without archives:(re) locating and (re) defining the archive through post-custodial praxis. Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies, 1(2), 1–30.10.24242/jclis.v1i2.29Search in Google Scholar

Kersel, M. M. (2015). Storage wars: Solving the archaeological curation crisis? Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies, 3(1), 42–54.10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.3.1.0042Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Y., & Yoon, A. (2017). Scientists’ data reuse behaviors: A multilevel analysis. JASIST, 68(12), 2709–2719.10.1002/asi.23892Search in Google Scholar

Kintigh, K. W., & Altschul, J. H. (2010). Sustaining the digital archaeological record. Heritage Management, 3(2), 264–274.10.1179/hma.2010.3.2.264Search in Google Scholar

Klokmose, C. N., & Zander, P.-O. (2010). Rethinking laboratory notebooks. In M. Lewkowicz, P. Hassanaly, V. Wulf, & M. Rohde (Eds.) Proceedings of COOP 2010, (pp. 119–139). London: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Kolenda, J., & Markiewicz, M. (2017). A medieval bishop’s palace in Milicz: 3d reconstruction as a method of a research hypotheses presentation. Studies in Digital Heritage, 1(2), 428–443.10.14434/sdh.v1i2.23458Search in Google Scholar

Kowal, S., Koszewski, K., Słyk, J., & Wrona, S. (2017). Digital method for verifying archaeological hypotheses. medieval gord under Pułtusk castle. Studies in Digital Heritage, 1(2), 444–455. in Google Scholar

Krauwer, S., Giorgio, S. D., Verbrugge, K., Spiecker, C., Chatzimichail, C., Degl’Innocenti, E., Gautier, H., Giacomi, R., Henriksen, L., Illmayer, K., Madonna, A. D., & Sanesi, M. (2017). D2.3 Report on the Assessment of Data Policies and Standardization. PARTHENOS.Search in Google Scholar

Kreuter, F. (2013). Improving surveys with paradata analytic uses of process information. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.10.1002/9781118596869Search in Google Scholar

Kreuter, F., & Casas-Cordero, C. (2010). Paradata. RatSWD Working Paper 136, RatSWD, Berlin.Search in Google Scholar

Kristiansen, K. (2014). Towards a new paradigm? the third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology, 22, 11–34.10.37718/CSA.2014.01Search in Google Scholar

Laflamme, F. (2009). Data collection research using paradata at Statistics Canada. In Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium 2008: Data Collection: Challenges, Achievements and New Directions.Search in Google Scholar

Lake, M. (2012). Open archaeology. World Archaeology, 44(4), 471–478.10.1080/00438243.2012.748521Search in Google Scholar

Lambourne, G., Stoakes, L., Cassar, M., Balen, K. V., Rhisiart, M., Thomas, M., Miller, R., & Burnell, L. (2014). Strategic Research Agenda. Tech. rep., JPI Cultural Heritage and Global Change, Rome. in Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1992). ’where are the missing masses? the sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Law, J., & Lynch, M. (1988). Lists, field guides, and the descriptive organization of seeing: Birdwatching as an exemplary observational activity. Human Studies, 11(2/3), 271–303.10.1007/BF00177306Search in Google Scholar

Lee, C. A. C. (2011). A framework for contextual information in digital collections. Journal of Documentation, 67(1), 95–143. in Google Scholar

Leonelli, S., & Tempini, N. (Eds.) (2020). Data Journeys in the Sciences. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-37177-7Search in Google Scholar

Li, C., & Sugimoto, S. (2014). Provenance description of metadata using prov with premis for long-term use of metadata. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, DCMI’14, (pp. 147–156). Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. in Google Scholar

Löwenborg, 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

Lucas, G. (2001). Critical Approaches to Fieldwork Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Ludaescher, B., Cuevas-Vicenttín, V., Missier, P., Dey, S., Kianmajd, P., Wei, Y., Koop, D., Chirigati, F., Altintas, I., Belhajjame, K., & Bowers, S. (2013). Facilitating Scientific Research through Workflows and Provenance on the DataONE Cyberinfrastructure (Invited). AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. in Google Scholar

Luhmann, J., & Burghardt, M. (2022). Digital humanities–a discipline in its own right? an analysis of the role and position of digital humanities in the academic landscape. JASIST, 73(2), 148–171.10.1002/asi.24533Search in Google Scholar

MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2016). Interdisciplinary problem- solving: emerging modes in integrative systems biology. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 401–418.10.1007/s13194-016-0157-xSearch in Google Scholar

Malazita, J. W., Teboul, E. J., & Rafeh, H. (2020). Digital humanities as epistemic cultures: How DH labs make knowledge, objects, and subjects. DHQ, 14(3), 000465. in Google Scholar

Malik, T., Nistor, L., & Gehani, A. (2010). Tracking and sketching distributed data provenance. In 2010 IEEE Sixth International Conference on e-Science, (pp. 190–197).10.1109/eScience.2010.51Search in Google Scholar

Mannheimer, S., Yoon, A., Greenberg, J., Feinstein, E., & Scherle, R. (2014). A balancing act: The ideal and the realistic in developing Dryad’s preservation policy. First Monday, 19(8).10.5210/fm.v19i8.5415Search in Google Scholar

Marquardt, W. H., Montet-White, A., & Scholtz, S. C. (1982). Resolving the crisis in archaeological collections curation. American Antiquity, 47(2), 409–418.10.1017/S0002731600061308Search in Google Scholar

Marsh, D. E., Punzalan, R. L., & Johnston, J. A. (2020). Preserving anthropology’s digital record: Copar in the age of electronic fieldnotes, data curation, and community sovereignty. The American Archivist, 82(2), 268–302.10.17723/aarc-82-02-01Search in Google Scholar

Mayernik, M. S., & Acker, A. (2018). Tracing the traces: The critical role of metadata within networked communications. JASIST, 69(1), 177–180.10.1002/asi.23927Search in Google Scholar

McCoy, M. D. (2017). Geospatial big data and archaeology: Prospects and problems too great to ignore. Journal of Archaeological Science, 84, 74–94. in Google Scholar

McKemmish, S. (2016). Recordkeeping in the continuum: An Australian tradition. In A. J. Gilliland, S. McKemmish, & A. J. Lau (Eds.) Research in the Archival Multiverse, (pp. 122–160). Clayton, Victoria, Australia: Monash University Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Mendez, E., Lawrence, R., MacCallum, C. J., Moa, E., & alii (2020). Progress on Open Science: Towards a Shared Research Knowledge System: Final Report of the Open Science Policy Platform. Brussels: European Commission.Search in Google Scholar

Metadata Ad Hoc Working Group (1998). Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata, vol. FGDC-STD-001-1998. Washington, D.C.: Federal Geographic Data Committee.Search in Google Scholar

Meyers, T. B. (1993). Preserving the archaeological record: An archives management program for archaeological documentation. phdthesis, University of Missouri, Columbia.Search in Google Scholar

Mi, X., & Pollock, B. M. (2017). Metadata schema to facilitate linked data for 3d digital models of cultural heritage collections: A university of south florida libraries case study. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, (pp. 1–14).Search in Google Scholar

Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2014). Workplace learning in informal networks. In A. Littlejohn, & C. Pegler (Eds.) Reusing Open Resources: Learning in Open Networks for Work, Life and Education, (pp. 93–103). New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Missier, P. (2016). The lifecycle of provenance metadata and its associated challenges and opportunities. In V. L. Lemieux (Ed.) Building Trust in Information, (pp. 127–137). Cham: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Morgan, C., & Eve, S. (2012). DIY and digital archaeology: what are you doing to participate? World Archaeology, 44(4), 521–537.10.1080/00438243.2012.741810Search in Google Scholar

Mostafa, J. (2018). Documents and (as) machines. JASIST, 69(1), 3–5. in Google Scholar

Moulin, C., Ciula, A., Kelleher, M., Mittler, E., Tadic, M., Ågren, M., Bozzi, A., & Kuutma, K. (2011). Research Infrastructures in the Digital Humanities. Science Policy Briefing 42, European Science Foundation, Strasbourg.Search in Google Scholar

Münster, S., Pfarr-Harfst, M., Kuroczyski, P., & Ioannides, M. (2016). 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage II : How to Manage Data and Knowledge Related to Interpretative Digital 3D Reconstructions of Cultural Heritage. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-47647-6Search in Google Scholar

Newman, J. (2012). Revisiting Archive Collections: Developing Models for Participatory Cataloguing. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 33(1), 57–73.10.1080/00379816.2012.666404Search in Google Scholar

Niccolucci, F. (2010). Technologies, standards and business models for the formation of virtual collections of 3d replicas of museum objects: The 3d-coform project. In 2010 IST-Africa, (pp. 1–8).Search in Google Scholar

Niccolucci, F., Felicetti, A., Amico, N., & D’Andrea, A. (2013). Quality control in the production of 3d documentation of monuments. In Built Heritage 2013 Monitoring Conservation Management, (pp. 864–873). M: Politecnico di Milano.Search in Google Scholar

Nicolaas, G. (2011). Survey paradata: A review. Discussion paper, NCRM, Southampton.Search in Google Scholar

Niven, K., & Richards, J. D. (2017). The storage and long-term preservation of 3d data. In D. Errickson, & T. Thompson (Eds.) Human remains: another dimension : the application of imaging to the study of human remains, (pp. 175–184). London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Olivier, L. (2015). The dark abyss of time: archaeology and memory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Olson, K. (2013). Paradata for nonresponse adjustment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 142–170.10.1177/0002716212459475Search in Google Scholar

Pančur, A., Šorn, M., & Erjavec, T. (2018). SlovParl 2.0: The collection of Slovene parliamentary debates from the period of secession. In D. Fišer, & a. d. J. Maria Eskevich (Eds.) ParlaCLARIN 2018 Workshop Proceedings May 7, 2018 Phoenix Seagaia Conference Center, Miyazaki, Japan. Luxembourg: ELRA.Search in Google Scholar

Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Pinheiro, R., Holanda, M., Araujo, A. P. F., Walter, M. E., & Lifschitz, S. (2013). Automatic capture of provenance data in genome project workflows. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine. IEEE.10.1109/BIBM.2013.6732621Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, J. (2015). Metadata. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/10237.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Poole, A. H., & Garwood, D. A. (2018). Interdisciplinary scholarly collaboration in data-intensive, public-funded, international digital humanities project work. Library & Information Science Research, 40(3), 184–193. in Google Scholar

Power, C., Lewis, A., Petrie, H., Green, K., Richards, J., Eramian, M., Chan, B., Walia, E., Sijaranamual, I., & Rijke, M. D. (2017). Improving archaeologists’ online archive experiences through user-centred design. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 10(1), 3:1–3:20.Search in Google Scholar

Prainsack, B., Schicktanz, S., & Werner-Felmayer, G. (Eds.) (2014). Genetics as social practice : transdisciplinary views on science and culture. Farnham: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar

Raghu, T. S., & Vinze, A. (2007). A business process context for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 1062–1079.10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.031Search in Google Scholar

Randles, B. M., Pasquetto, I. V., Golshan, M. S., & Borgman, C. L. (2017). Using the jupyter notebook as a tool for open science: An empirical study. In 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), (pp. 1–2).10.1109/JCDL.2017.7991618Search in Google Scholar

Romary, L., Banski, P., Bowers, J., Degl’Innocenti, E., Ďurčo, M., Giacomi, R., Illmayer, K., Joffres, A., Khan, F., Khemakhem, M., Larrousse, N., Litke, A., Monachini, M., van Nispen, A., & Ogrodniczuk, M. (2017). D4.2 Report on Standardization. PARTHENOS.Search in Google Scholar

Ronzino, P., Hermon, S., & Niccolucci, F. (2012). A metadata schema for cultural heritage documentation. In V. Capellini (Ed.) Electronic Imaging & the Visual Arts: EVA 2012, (pp. 36–41). Florence: Firenze University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rosén, C., Gainsford, S., Toreld, C., Alfsdotter, C., Carlstein, C., & Öbrink, M. (2017). The Nya Lödöse project. strategies and context. International Journal of Historical Archaeology.Search in Google Scholar

Rytter, M., Andersen, A. O., Rubow, C., Kusk, M. L., Dalsgård, A. L., & Nielsen, M. (2020). Anthropology Inside Out: Fieldworkers Taking Notes. Canon Pyon: Sean Kingston Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Schloen, J. (2001). Archaeological Data Models and Web Publication Using XML. Computers and the Humanities, 35(2), 123–152.10.1023/A:1002471112790Search in Google Scholar

Schöpfel, J. (2019). Grey literature and professional knowledge making. In L. Börjesson, & I. Huvila (Eds.) Research Outside The Academy : Professional Knowledge-Making in the Digital Age, chap. 137-153. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. in Google Scholar

Schwartz, J. M., & Cook, T. (2002). Archives, Records, and Power: The Making of Modern Memory. Archival Science, 2, 1–19.10.1007/BF02435628Search in Google Scholar

Stamatogiannakis, M., Groth, P., & Bos, H. (2015). Looking inside the black-box: Capturing data provenance using dynamic instrumentation. In Provenance and Annotation of Data and Processes: 5th International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2014, Cologne, Germany, June 9-13, 2014. Revised Selected Papers, (pp. 155–167). Cham: Springer.Search 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

Stead, S., & Doerr, M. (2015). CRMinf: the Argumentation Model - An Extension of CIDOC-CRM to support argumentation. Purley: Paveprime, version 0.7 ed.Search in Google Scholar

Stenmark, D. (2000). Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 9–24.10.1080/07421222.2000.11045655Search in Google Scholar

Stieger, S., & Reips, U.-D. (2010). What are participants doing while filling in an online questionnaire: A paradata collection tool and an empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1488–1495.10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.013Search in Google Scholar

Suchman, L. (1996). Supporting Articulation Work. In R. Kling (Ed.) Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, (pp. 407–423). Academic Press, second ed.Search in Google Scholar

Tempini, N. (2017). Till data do us part: Understanding data-based value creation in data-intensive infrastructures. Information and Organization, 27(4), 191–210. in Google Scholar

The London Charter Organisation (2009). The London Charter for the computer-based visualisation of cultural heritage. Tech. Rep. 2.1, London.Search in Google Scholar

Turner, M. J. (2012). Lies, damned lies and visualizations: Will metadata and paradata be a solution or a curse? In A. Bentkowska-Kafel, H. Denard, & D. Baker (Eds.) Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage, (pp. 135–143). Farnham: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar

Vatanen, I. (2003). Deconstructing the (re)constructed: issues on annotation of the archaeological virtual realities. In M. Doerr, & A. Sarris (Eds.) CAA2002 The Digital Heritage of Archaeology. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 30th Conference, Heraklion, Crete, April 2002, (pp. 69–74). Archive of Monuments and Publications, Hellenic Ministry of Culture.Search in Google Scholar

Vatanen, I. (2004). Argumentation paths in Information Infrastructure of the Archaeological virtual realities. In M. der Stadt Wien Referat Kulturelles Erbe Stadtarchäologie Wien (Ed.) Enter the Past - The E-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage. CAA 2003. Computer Applications and Quantitative methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 31st Conference, Vienna, Austria, April 2003. (On the accompanying CD-ROM), vol. 1227 of BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress.Search in Google Scholar

Voss, B. L. (2012). Curation as research. a case study in orphaned and underreported archaeological collections. Archaeological Dialogues, 19(2), 145–169.Search in Google Scholar

Wallrodt, J. (2016). Why paperless: Technology and changes in archaeological practice, 1996–2016. In D. B. Counts, E. W. Averett, & J. M. Gordon (Eds.) Mobilizing the past for a digital future : the potential of digital archaeology, (pp. 33–50). Grand Forks, ND: Digital Press at the University of North Dakota.\_mobilizingthepast/Search in Google Scholar

West, B. T., & Sinibaldi, J. (2013). The quality of paradata: A literature review. In Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information. Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., Gray, A. J., Groth, P., Goble, C., Grethe, J. S., Heringa, J., ’t Hoen, P. A., Hooft, R., Kuhn, T., Kok, R., Kok, J., Lusher, S. J., Martone, M. E., Mons, A., Packer, A. L., Persson, B., Rocca-Serra, P., Roos, M., van Schaik, R., Sansone, S.-A., Schultes, E., Sengstag, T., Slater, T., Strawn, G., Swertz, M. A., Thompson, M., van der Lei, J., van Mulligen, E., Velterop, J., Waagmeester, A., Wittenburg, P., Wolstencroft, K., Zhao, J., & Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, 160018.10.1038/sdata.2016.18Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, E. A. (2020). Text encoding with the text encoding initiative (TEI) and the music encoding initiative (MEI). In E. A. Wilson (Ed.) Digital Humanities for Librarians, (pp. 87–106). Lanham; Boulder; New York; London: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Wofford, M. F., Boscoe, B. M., Borgman, C. L., Pasquetto, I. V., & Golshan, M. S. (2020). Jupyter notebooks as discovery mechanisms for open science: Citation practices in the astronomy community. Computing in Science & Engineering, 22(1), 5–15.10.1109/MCSE.2019.2932067Search in Google Scholar

Yarrow, A., Clubb, B., & Draper, J.-L. (2008). Public Libraries, Archives and Museums: Trends in Collaboration and Cooperation. IFLA Professional Reports 108, IFLA, The Hague.Search in Google Scholar

Yoon, A. (2016). Data reusers’ trust development. JASIST, 68(4), 946–956. in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-11-09
Accepted: 2022-03-25
Published Online: 2022-04-18

© 2020 Isto Huvila, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 8.12.2023 from
Scroll to top button