Abstract
Archaeology and zoology are fields in which data collection and analysis involve destruction. In this study, we examine the results of 49 interviews with archaeologists and zoologists, focusing on researchers’ discussions of internal or disciplinary norms and external factors affecting their attitudes and actions concerning preservation. We identified two categories of disciplinary practices: data collection and data management/recordkeeping as key to shaping attitudes and activities about preservation. Likewise, we found three external factors: funding, legal requirements, and the status of museums and repositories, influencing attitudes toward preservation. We found that while archaeologists and zoologists are uniquely positioned to appreciate the value of data preservation, because data collection in both disciplines involves destruction, they are sceptical about whether preservation is possible and that these attitudes are influenced by both internal and external factors.
Highlights
The nature of data collection and analysis as destructive acts has played a significant role in shaping the practices of each field
We find that the ways in which archaeologists and zoologists contribute to, interact with, and experience this sociotechnical system affects their attitudes about data preservation and the actions they take regarding the preservation of data
We find that the disciplinary practices of data collection and data management and recordkeeping, and the external factors of funding, legal requirements, and the status of museums and repositories influence attitudes toward the long-term preservation of research data
Summary
The nature of data collection and analysis as destructive acts has played a significant role in shaping the practices of each field. Zoologists trap specimens or take a small sample (such as a fin clipping) to be used in analysis. In both cases, the original object and the context of study are necessarily altered by the researcher. We consider disciplinary norms for data collection and management as well as external factors, such as funding, legal requirements, and repositories, as the sociotechnical infrastructure supporting the work (research, knowledge creation) of the archaeological and zoological communities (Hughes, 2012; Ribes & Finholt, 2009; Van der Vleuten, 2004). We argue that the similarities between the two disciplines – including their consciousness of data collection as a destructive act – are reflected in attitudes about the value of data preservation and actions taken to preserve data, but that differences in both internal and external factors result in divergent attitudes about the feasibility of long-term data preservation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
