Re-purposing Excavation Database Content as Paradata

Abstract

Although data reusers request information about how research data was created and curated, this information is often non-existent or only briefly covered in data descriptions. The need for such contextual information is particularly critical in fields like archaeology, where old legacy data created during different time periods and through varying methodological framings and fieldwork documentation practices retains its value as an important information source. This article explores the presence of contextual information in archaeological data with a specific focus on data provenance and processing information, i.e., paradata. The purpose of the article is to identify and explicate types of paradata in field observation documentation. The method used is an explorative close reading of field data from an archaeological excavation enriched with geographical metadata. The analysis covers technical and epistemological challenges and opportunities in paradata identification, and discusses the possibility of using identified paradata in data descriptions and for data reliability assessments. Results show that it is possible to identify both knowledge organisation paradata (KOP) relating to data structuring and knowledge-making paradata (KMP) relating to fieldwork methods and interpretative processes. However, while the data contains many traces of the research process, there is an uneven and, in some categories, low level of structure and systematicity that complicates automated metadata and paradata identification and extraction. The results show a need to broaden the understanding of how structure and systematicity are used and how they impact research data in archaeology and in comparable field sciences. The insights into how a dataset’s KOP and KMP can be read is also a methodological contribution to data literacy research and practice development. On a repository level, the results underline the need to include paradata about dataset creation, purpose, terminology, dataset internal and external relations, and eventual data colloquialisms that require explanation to reusers.

Documentation of data making, processing and use facilitates future reuse of research data: the CAPTURE project

“…In particular, information about data management procedures, standards, and structuring of data is rarely documented in detail. Results also demonstrate that data creators and users often have different views on what paradata is needed [26]. When paradata is documented, the data creator would probably focus on those elements that are obvious to them, that accord with their ideas about what is central to data creation, and that are easy to document.…”

“…This palette of methods consists of document and documentation studies (e.g. [24][25][26]), conceptual [27] and citation analysis [28], ethnography, review and testing of previously proposed and newly developed methods for documenting paradata, as well as interviews [29] and focus group discussions with key stakeholders.…”

“…Standardised data and metadata formats lack the flexibility to document all possible forms of process information and are unsuited to preserve such implied or inherent paradata. Perhaps somewhat counterintuitively from a research data management perspective, therefore, extensive standardisation and data cleaning therefore risk resulting in a loss of essential paradata [26].…”

Managing Information Gaps and Non‐Information

“…Information seekers’ avoidance of information and intentional creation of information gaps can also function as strategies of directing attention to more relevant aspects of the remaining information. Börjesson et al (2022) analysis of archaeological research data points to how even the lack of information can be informative of how research was conducted. Harviainen and colleagues (e.g., 2020) have shown how in anonymous environments, factors such as artificially created usernames can become important pieces of information for establishing potential trust.…”

On Infrastructural Speculation

“…Here the opening of the black box Huggett proposes for making interfaces less opaque could well be extended to expanding the ongoing work (e.g. Börjesson et al 2022) of increasing the transparency of standards, standardization, metadata and metadata work to decrease their opacity and what they do to archaeological knowledge.…”