Expanding and sustaining the archaeological data ecosystem: lessons from 16 years of publishing data with Open Context

This paper, informed by over 16 years of our work supporting research data management in archaeology, describes the need to provision professional services that cross-cut institutional boundaries. If our vision is to make the communication and reuse of research data a more normal and integral aspect of archaeological practice, several needs must be addressed. First and foremost, we need to we meet complex challenges of making research data FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) while meeting ethical requirements to address data sensitivity and other descendant community needs in alignment with CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles. Addressing FAIR and CARE principles requires dedicated professional services, technical infrastructure, expertise, data governance processes, and deep intellectual and ethical engagement with archaeological data issues. Broadly sharing such expertise and engagement across the discipline will encourage more debate, innovation, and improvement in data management practices. What are the institutional configurations required to sustain such engagement and professionalism in the curation and use of archaeological data?

No single institution working in isolation can “solve” archaeology’s data needs. The following three issues highlight the need for multi-institutional collaboration: 1) Specialized Data Curation (including semantic and geospatial data modeling) to provision specific data publishing, curation, and discovery services that augment general (non-specific) library services; 2) Instruction and Professional Development to develop skills and inclinations to create and reuse data more effectively; 3) Peer-Review and Editorial Practices to expand upon existing systems of professional evaluation and collaborative feedback in ways that promote data professionalism.

Until recently, Open Context has focused largely on the first need, the provisioning of specialized data curation and dissemination services for archaeology that augment more generalized library services. However, we recently expanded our programs to catalyze wider collaborations and coordinations across institutions that support archaeological research. We have launched “Data Literacy” and professional development services to help archaeologists in different institutional settings to better participate in good data practices, in the context of their own research, teaching, or in peer-review roles. For data to be meaningfully preserved and used in intellectually rigorous ways, they need to be integrated fully into all aspects of professional practice, including ethics, teaching, and publishing. We conclude with a discussion about how community capacity building is as important as technical infrastructure.