Ethical Challenges in Digital Public Archaeology

Richardson, Lorna-Jane

doi:10.5334/jcaa.13

Cited by 36 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The emergence of big data research paradigms in digital heritage calls for further critical and reflexive thinking around what ethical issues complex data environments might generate -and most importantly, we need to encourage more discourse on the ethical issues encountered by researchers in published research papers. There has been a notable neglect of ethical issues in social/digital archaeologies published to date, with the exception of Richardson (2018) and Huffer, Wood & Graham (2019). Whilst it is beyond the scope of this paper to fully examine the ethical issues attached to research in these forms of digital public archaeology, it is important for researchers to be familiar with the ethical issues raised in the archaeological field, especially in the light of the argument for methodological pragmatism laid out in this paper.…”

Section: Methodological Pitfalls: Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Social Media as a Source for Understanding Public Perceptions of Archaeology: Research Challenges and Methodological Pitfalls

Richardson¹

2019

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital social science research has had an important impact on the types of methodological approaches to the internet and digital social phenomena, practices and communities. Whilst this paper does not seek to include empirical data, it aims to elaborate further on these debates in digital social research, that is, research on 'life in digital society' (Lindgren 2017: 230), using insights from my own research methods. This paper will firstly consider some methodological pitfalls that could sabotage our digital social archaeology research. It will then discuss the importance of understanding the framework and sources of our data. It will outline the two main methodological approaches I have used in my own empirical research to date -'thick' social media data collection and analysis, and digital ethnography. It will discuss some of the many ethical considerations that must be assessed and implemented when undertaking this type of work. I will argue for a methodological pragmatism when undertaking social research in the fields of archaeology and heritage, although this pragmatism can be applied to any field of social study in the digital world.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Pitfalls: Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Social Media as a Source for Understanding Public Perceptions of Archaeology: Research Challenges and Methodological Pitfalls

Richardson¹

2019

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This comes with the challenge of obtaining approval from agencies in both the U.S. and Honduras, which will take more time and which will likely continue to inform and shape our opinions regarding data ownership and access. While there is no doubt in our minds that making the dataset open access can bring multiple scientific and societal benefits, it is important to note that open access comes with the risk of damage or loss of cultural and natural patrimony that we cannot anticipate (see, for example, discussions in Huggett 2014;Richardson 2018;Ur 2006).…”

Section: Data Ownership and Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose Data Is It Anyway? Lessons in Data Management and Sharing from Resurrecting and Repurposing Lidar Data for Archaeology Research in Honduras

Fernández-Diaz¹,

Cohen

2020

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a response to Hurricane Mitch and the resulting widespread loss of life and destruction of Honduran infrastructure in 1998, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted the first wide-area airborne lidar topographic mapping project in Central America. The survey was executed by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin (BEG) in 2000, and it was intended to cover 240 square kilometers distributed among 15 flood-prone communities throughout Honduras. The original data processing produced basic digital elevation models at 1.5-meter grid spacing which were used as inputs for hydrological modeling. The USGS published the results in a series of technical reports in 2002. The authors became interested in this dataset in 2013 while searching for geospatial data that would provide additional context and comparative references for an archaeological lidar project conducted in 2012 in the Honduran Mosquitia. After multiple requests to representatives from the USGS and BEG, we found various types of processed data in personal and institutional archives, culminating in the identification of 8-mm magnetic tapes that contained the original point clouds. Point clouds for the 15 communities plus a test area centered on the Maya site of Copán were recovered from the tapes (16 areas totaling 700 km²). These point clouds have been reprocessed by the authors using contemporary software and methods into higher resolution and fidelity products. Within these new products, we have identified and mapped multiple archaeological sites in proximity to modern cities, many of which are not part of the official Honduran site registry. Besides improving our understanding of ancient Honduras, our experiences dealing with issues of data management and access, ethics, and international collaboration have been informative. This paper summarizes our experiences in the hope that they will contribute to the discussion and development of best practices for handling geospatial datasets of archaeological value.

show abstract

“…While a muchneeded body of work on ethics for archaeology and heritage in the 21st century is emerging (cf. Gnecco and Lippert 2015, Haber and Shepherd 2015, Ireland and Schofield 2015, Richardson 2018, Dennis 2019, the ethics of participatory archaeological practice remain underdeveloped (though see Waterton 2015).…”

Section: Towards An Ethical 'Open Archaeology'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Decoupling ‘Open’ and ‘Ethical’ Archaeologies: Rethinking Deficits and Expertise for Ethical Public Participation in Archaeology and Heritage

Fredheim

2020

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I caution the assertions made in the 2018 volume of NAR on the future of archaeology that archaeology is well on its way to decolonising itself and that 'open' archaeologies that invite public participation and utilise new digital technologies are inherently ethical. I begin by critiquing the exclusively positive connotations of archaeology, digital technologies and public participation, before drawing on critiques of the 'simple deficit model' within science communication, which I argue are equally applicable to public archaeology. I use the 'simple deficit model' and a review of shifting perspectives on legitimate heritage expertise to lay the foundation for an archaeology that is both 'open' and 'ethical'. I conclude that, as in science communication, such an archaeology requires archaeologists to develop more accurate understandings of both archaeology and publics.

show abstract

Ethical Challenges in Digital Public Archaeology

Cited by 36 publications

References 20 publications

Using Social Media as a Source for Understanding Public Perceptions of Archaeology: Research Challenges and Methodological Pitfalls

Using Social Media as a Source for Understanding Public Perceptions of Archaeology: Research Challenges and Methodological Pitfalls

Whose Data Is It Anyway? Lessons in Data Management and Sharing from Resurrecting and Repurposing Lidar Data for Archaeology Research in Honduras

Decoupling ‘Open’ and ‘Ethical’ Archaeologies: Rethinking Deficits and Expertise for Ethical Public Participation in Archaeology and Heritage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About