Land Developers and Archaeological Information

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.

[1]  Susan Leigh Star.  Ceci n'est pas un objet-frontière !: Réflexions sur l'origine d'un concept , 2010 .

[2]  Reijo Savolainen,et al.  Information need as trigger and driver of information seeking: a conceptual analysis , 2017, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[3]  Isto Huvila.  Archaeologists and their information sources , 2014 .

[4]  Fredrik Stjernberg.  Comments on ‘Assessing and Measuring: on Quality in Development- led Archaeology’ Fredrik Stjernberg , 2021 .

[5]  Katriina Byström,et al.  Task complexity, information types and information sources : examination of relationships , 1999 .

[6]  P. Trompette.  The Politics of Value in French Funeral Arrangements , 2013 .

[7]  Kenneth Aitchison.  Professional archaeology in the UK in 2015 , 2015 .

[8]  H. Kars,et al.  Archaeological resource management and preservation , 2008 .

[9]  Lisa Börjesson,et al.  Grey literature - grey sources? Nuancing the view on professional documentation: The case of Swedish archaeology , 2015, J. Documentation.

[10]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Task complexity affects information use: a questionnaire study in city administration , 2013, Inf. Res..

[11]  L. Zimmerman,et al.  Collaborating with Stakeholders , 2014 .

[12]  Daniel Löwenborg,et al.  Recuperating GIS data from excavations : On the use, or lack of use, of digital archaeological information , 2014 .

[13]  Agneta Lagerlöf,et al.  Assessing and Measuring: On Quality in Development-led Archaeology , 2021 .

[14]  Isto Huvila,et al.  Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data, and the archaeological work , 2016, Inf. Soc..

[15]  Philippe De Maeyer,et al.  A Survey on the Use of GIS and Data Standards in Archaeology , 2013 .

[16]  Philippe De Maeyer,et al.  Information flows as bases for archeology‐specific geodata infrastructures: An exploratory study in flanders , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Paul Solomon,et al.  Looking for Information—A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior , 2003, Information Retrieval.

[18]  Donghee Sinn,et al.  Historians' use of digital archival collections: The web, historical scholarship, and archival research , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Kristian Kristiansen,et al.  Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity , 2009 .

[20]  Julian Thomas,et al.  The great dark book: archaeology, experience and interpretation , 2004 .

[21]  Reijo Savolainen,et al.  Information use and information processing: Comparison of conceptualizations , 2009, J. Documentation.

[22]  J. Demoule,et al.  Preventive Archaeology: Scientific Research or Commercial Activity? , 2018 .

[23]  Simon A. Austin,et al.  Defining a framework for the evaluation of information , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Qual..

[24]  S. van Roode,et al.  Forward with Reverse Archaeology , 2012 .

[25]  J. Demoule.  Rescue Archaeology: A European View , 2012 .

[26]  N. Shepherd.  What Does It Mean ‘To Give the Past Back to the People’? Archaeology and Ethics in the Postcolony , 2016 .

[27]  David Miller,et al.  Information resources used by children at an English secondary school: Perceived and actual levels of usefulness , 2007, J. Documentation.

[28]  Bart van den Hooff,et al.  Dimensions of quality and accessibility: Selection of human information sources from a social capital perspective , 2012, Inf. Process. Manag..

[29]  Cristóbal Gnecco,et al.  On Contract Archaeology , 2015 .

[30]  P. Wells,et al.  Multi-stakeholder perspectives on the use and influence of “grey” scientific information in fisheries management , 2011 .

[31]  David Bawden,et al.  Accounting for information: Information and knowledge in the annual reports of FTSE 100 companies , 2010, J. Inf. Sci..

[32]  Isto Huvila,et al.  Information Policy for (Digital) Information in Archaeology: current state and suggestions for development , 2015 .

[33]  Patricia Ayala Rocabado.  Neoliberal Multiculturalism and Contract Archeology in Northern Chile , 2015 .

[34]  Åsa Berggren,et al.  Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field Archaeology , 2003, American Antiquity.

[35]  Isto Huvila,et al.  'If we just knew who should do it', or the social organization of the archiving of archaeology in Sweden , 2016, Inf. Res..

[36]  Leo Groarke,et al.  Stewardship gone astray? Ethics and the SAA , 2006 .

[37]  S. Chirikure.  Reverse Archaeology or Relevance Seeking Archaeology? , 2012 .

[38]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[39]  Elizabeth Yakel,et al.  Social scientists' satisfaction with data reuse , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[40]  Tefko Saracevic,et al.  The Notion of Relevance in Information Science: Everybody knows what relevance is. But, what is it really? , 2016, The Notion of Relevance in Information Science.

[41]  Chris Kimble,et al.  Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[42]  Luc Boltanski,et al.  On Justification , 2006 .

[43]  Lisa Börjesson,et al.  Beyond information policy: Conflicting documentation ideals in extra-academic knowledge making practices , 2016, J. Documentation.

[44]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Information seeking in context: A challenging meta-theory. , 1997 .

[45]  Sanna Talja,et al.  Challenges for future research on learning, literacies and information practices , 2010 .

[46]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Small worlds, lifeworlds, and information: the ramifications of the information behaviour of social groups in public policy and the public sphere , 2008, Inf. Res..

[47]  Machteld Bats,et al.  Development-led archaeology in Flanders: an overview of practices and results in the period 1990-2010 , 2012 .

[48]  Elizabeth Yakel,et al.  The challenges of digging data: a study of context in archaeological data reuse , 2013, JCDL '13.