[open-archaeology] Ethics, archaeology and open data

Tue May 11 18:31:20 UTC 2010

Hello,

I'm not sure that it would be as productive as an organization to draft a
position statement as much as it would be to have a best practices
statement.  As Eric has mentioned, we face considerably different
challenges in the United States in general and our ability to share can
vary wildly between projects.

A best practices template would be something for projects to embrace at
inception, or to modify according to their particular needs.  We have
drafted a statement particular to a bioarchaeology project we are working
on at the Hearst museum, here:

http://bbproject.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/ethics-statement-version-2-0/

It is highly specialized to our particular project wherein we are as open
as we can be without violating the various rules of the Hearst museum and
broader accords put forward by WAC and the SAA.

If we could create a document that is easy to use and modify that has a
range of sharing options open I think that it would be a great service. 
Encouraging transparency about data that you are and are not sharing is a
great first step and one that many projects do not concern themselves with
at inception.

I know it isn't exactly "open" but I've had pretty good luck collaborating
in google docs on projects like these.

Cheers,

Colleen

> Dear All,
>
> I thought it about time to raise the spectre of open approaches and
> ethics.
> Of recent I have chatted to a number of people and organisations who want
> to
> open up their data. The conversation always comes back to the ethical
> issues. I’d like us to generate a statement or a set of ethical principles
> to help move this forward.
>
> Like other disciplines, such as ecology, there are potential ethical
> issues
> to making our data open. I personally think the benefits outweigh the
> costs.
> However, that is not the point: this is going to be a recurring question
> and, as a group, we should be able to provide a position statement to
> provide clarity. I’m sure we can get advice/feedback on such a statement
> from national heritage agencies (RCHMS etc.), umbrella institutions
> (ICOMOS
> etc.), extant repositories (ADS, HEAcademy) and global affiliates
> (Earthwatch etc.).
>
> Anyway, the position as I see it:
>
>    - there is an ingrained friction to providing open data
>       - complex underpinning rationale:
>          - contract units (whose data is it anyway?)
>          - national bodies (organisations inertia)
>          - academics (stealing of publication thunder? Does anyone have
> any
>          documented evidence that this has EVER happened?)
>          - individuals (it’s just not something people are used to doing)
>        - Public access is provided to some data (either patchy coverage or
>    generalised)
>       - Regional and national monuments record
>       - Repositories (like the ADS: offering static as opposed to dynamic
>       data holdings)
>    - The really interesting and useful stuff is grey (source data is
> silo-ed
>    and inaccessible)
>
> The oft touted reason, in the UK at least, is that if access is given to
> this information then it will be exploited by “night hawkers”
> (irresponsible
> metal-detectorists) and other “treasure hunters” and sites (I don’t like
> that word) will be destroyed. This is obviously biased and plays to the
> lowest common denominator. It does not bring into play any of the benefits
> that data sharing can provide.
>
> I think the opposite argument is about those archaeologists who have sat
> on
> their archive for 10’s of years. We know of its significance but it is not
> available for academic and research analysis and does not inform the
> planning process. It is in someone’s attic waiting to be written up in
> their
> dotage. This has enormous impact on local planning policy, public and
> academic understanding, theory, practice etc. etc. Since PPG16 came in
> (essentially commercial archaeology) in the UK (early 90s (?)) there has
> been less of this approach. However, there are a number of locations where
> these grey records are the most intact heritage statements for substantial
> areas of the UK.
>
> In my mind those are the polarised worst case ethical scenarios. Somewhere
> in between lies the path of reason. So basically I'm asking:
>
>
>    - Is this the kind of thing we should do?
>    - Who should do it (I'm happy to lead or just to participate: if this
>    floats someone elses boat)?
>    - Do we need legal advice (can OKFN help in this capacity - you do,
> after
>    all, have some lawyers on board)
>    - Should we align this with other international organisations (I think
>    so: UNESCO, ICOMOS and EAC spring to mind)
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Ant
>
>
>
> As an aside I believe the heritage system, or the UK heritage system at
> least, has too much of a bias towards the generation of synthetic
> material:
> time and money, IMHO, that could be better spent on putting the data in
> order and making it available. How can we realistically advocate informed
> regional research agendas (which we do in the UK) when the data to support
> these agendas is not available or generalised to such an extent that it is
> not useful?
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
>

-- 
Archaeology PhD Candidate
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley