Publishing Digital Data: Some Preliminary Thoughts

This week I started to think more systematically about a seminar that I will co-lead in the fall (with Sarah Herr of Desert Archaeology) about publishing (with) digital archaeological data in collaboration with an NEH funded institute titled: Networking Archaeological Data and Communities.

Since most of my experience in this regard is with the technical aspects of archaeological publishing (rather than, say, the ethical aspects) most of my preliminary thoughts related to these matters and, I suspect, are just commonsense.

First, I like to imagine that most projects today consider data publication in the project’s research design. There is always some risk, of course, of planning to publish data before the data is actually produced, but much like the storage of artifacts and the duration of a field season, these are the kind of “known unknowns” that most projects accommodate.

More challenging, of course, is developing data-driven archaeological projects that at the same time produce information, knowledge, and experiences that can’t be captured as data. This kind of consideration also should extend to communities in which we work and their attitudes toward the kind of knowledge that our projects intend to produce.

Second, developing a data publication strategy at the stage of research design also involves understanding how data can be used and reused both by project participants and by non-project members. To my mind, attention to reuse is particularly important for a project inclined to go beyond simply making their data available out of a vaguely ethical or compliance driven attitude and a project that sees data publication as part of its core responsibilities or mission.

Identifying case studies for data reuse can help shape both data production and publication. Moreover (and perhaps more importantly) incorporating available, known datasets from outside of one’s particular project into the analysis and publication of a project ensures that data publication and reuse are intertwined from the start. This might sound like a case of a tail wagging a dog (that is the need to support and demonstrate the viability of data reuse wagging the real work of archaeologists analyzing and producing data), but I’d suggest that the two are deeply intertwined.

Thirdly, I think I’ll recommend building on established foundations, platforms, and practices rather than succumbing to the temptation to build a better mouse trap. Of course, I recognize that grant agencies reward innovation and that archaeologists love to imagine that their approach to understanding their site is not only tailored to the specific and distinct characteristics of the site, but also pathbreaking. What I would like to recommend, though, is that we worry less about doing things the best way for us (or our project) and more (or at least as much) about privileging how our work can build larger communities of practice. This sometimes will involve sacrificing some what we CAN do with our data and privileging how our data contributes to a larger conversation instead.

Four, this is a bit technical, but I would encourage scholars to think about publishing data as not simply publishing so-called “raw data” from a project but also considering the vital interpretative steps that contribute to your analysis. In other words, publishing archaeological data is a great opportunity not only to reproduce data collected from the field, but also to “show one’s work.” This provides a way to make various forms of analysis more transparent and to open — even just slightly — the so-called “Blackbox” of digital methods to critical engagement.

Finally, work with publishers to develop ways to integrate both your own data as well as other data sets into your publications. This may seem self-evident, but the processes for integrating data into traditional publications at many presses remains under development. This is particularly the case with publishers that privilege paper publications over digital ones. This will also often require patience as publishers tend to rely on efficiencies in their workflow to maintain economic viability. Moreover, publishing richly linked data relies on still emerging standards. That said, it remains vital for scholars to take the lead in setting the expectations for publishing digital archaeological data.