Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2012
" A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it-‐subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share-‐alike”(http://opendefinition. org/). Driven by demands for greater transparency from government, general freedom of information and an increased awareness of the unanticipated re-‐use values of existing information, Open Data has seen dramatic growth in the past two years. Is archaeology part of this general trend?
2020 •
Increasing access to open data raises challenges, amongst the most important of which is the need to understand the context of the data that are delivered to the screen. Data are situated, contingent, and incomplete: they have histories which relate to their origins, their purpose, and their modification. These histories have implications for the subsequent appropriate use of those data but are rarely available to the data consumer. This paper argues that just as data need metadata to make them discoverable, so they also need provenance metadata as a means of seeking to capture their underlying theory-laden, purpose-laden and process-laden character.
A vision for Open Archaeology
A vision for Open Archaeology2012 •
By unblocking knowledge bottle necks and enhancing collaborative and creative input 'open' approaches have the potential to revolutionise science, humanities and arts. 'Open' has captured the zeitgeist: but what is it all about? Is it about providing clear and transparent access to knowledge objects: data, theories and knowledge (open access, open data, open methods, open knowledge)? Is it about providing similar access to knowledge acquisition processes (open science)? Obviously it is, however, this is not the whole story. Open approaches require active engagement. This is not just engagement from the 'usual suspects' but engagement from a broader societal base. For example, primary data creators need the appropriate incentives to provide access to Open Data - these incentives will vary between different groups: contract archaeologists, curatorial archaeologists and research archaeologists all have different drivers. Equally important is that open approaches raise a number of issues about data access and downstream data re-use. This paper will discuss these issues in relation to the current situation in the UK and in the context of the DART project: an Open Science research project.
2021 •
While the epistemological affordances and varied impacts of different media on archaeological knowledge production have been scrutinized by many practitioners in recent decades, sources of digital structured data (e.g., spreadsheets, traditional relational databases, content management systems) have seen far less critical enquiry. Structured digital data are often venerated for their capacities to facilitate interoperability, equitable data exchange, democratic forms of engagement with, and widespread reuse of archaeological records, yet their constraints on our knowledge formation processes are arguably profound and deserving of detailed interrogation. In this article, we discuss what we call the emerging supremacy of structured digital data in archaeology and seek to question the consequences of their ubiquity. We ground our argument in a case study of a range of texts produced by practitioners working on the Çatalhöyük Research Project. We attempt to map short excerpts from these texts to structured data via the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. This exercise allows making preliminary observations about the representational affordances and resistances of texts (which can be considered as a type of semi-or unstructured data) and structured data. Ultimately, we argue that the push to create more and more structured and structurable data needs to be tempered by a more inclusive digital practice in archaeology that protects difference, incommensurability, and interpretative nuance.
Complutum 32 (2)
"Open archaeology. Advances and challenges in the management of archaeological contents"2021 •
During the last two decades there has been a crucial change in the ways of producing, accessing and using information from all branches of knowledge, including archaeology. Concepts such as open data and content, open access, free software, social construction of knowledge, etc. have been installed in the theory and practice of scientific research (open science) and administrative management (open government) to become an outstanding potential vector for the advancement of scientific knowledge, the economy based on use of data and the transparency of institutions. In the field of cultural heritage, the democratization of knowledge, social participation in public management or the rise of cultural tourism, also affect the increasingly close relationship between the academic, professional and administrative fields and these, in turn, with a population that ceases to be exclusively passive recipient of the information filtered from these areas, to become involved in many of the aspects that concern its management. In this context, archaeology shows some singularities that will be discussed in this paper, focusing on the Spanish case. For this purpose, the advances that have taken place in the generation of open archaeological contents will be reviewed, as well as the main remaining challenges.
2017 •
In archaeology, we are accustomed to investing great effort into collecting data from fieldwork, museum collections, and other sources, followed by detailed description, rigorous analysis, and in many cases ending with publication of our findings in short, highly concentrated reports or journal articles. Very often, these publications are all that is visible of this lengthy process, and even then, most of our journal articles are only accessible to scholars at institutions paying subscription fees to the journal publishers. While this traditional model of the archaeological research process has long been effective at generating new knowledge about our past, it is increasingly at odds with current norms of practice in other sciences. Often described as ‘open science’, these new norms include data stewardship instead of data ownership, transparency in the analysis process instead of secrecy, and public involvement instead of exclusion. While the concept of open science is not new in a...
Dama International Journal of Researchers
Critical Project Success Factors and its Empirical Studies on Project Management PracticesIn the study of critical success factors in a Public Housing Building Project (PHBP) Adinyira et al. (2012) found that the critical success factors were time, cost and quality management; satisfaction, hand environmental safety; beneficiary affordability and design consideration; and cost of individual units and technology. These above mentioned critical success factors seem inadequate considering recent benchmarks for measuring project success by some scholars to include end-user benefit or user involvement, and cultural and political influence (Atif, 2012; Shenrar & Dvir, 2010). Considering that most projects in the MMDAs are classified under the construction category, the outcome of this research regarding critical success factors would be relevant to the MMDAs in Ghana. In another study undertaken in Imo State, Nigeria, Amade, Ubani, Omajeh, Anita and Njoku (2015) found the key success factors in the public sector construction industry were efficient and effective procurement processes/methods; effective communication management; sufficient planning; leadership abilities of the project manager; weather conditions; and effective coordination of project activities. However, planning served as the most significant success factor of construction projects. According to Baccarini, Salm and Love (2004), critical success factors of projects are a " set of circumstances, facts or influences which contribute to the project's outcome " (p. 22). It is also defined as the key variables that a project manager must pay attention to in order to achieve its stated goals and objectives (Ika et al., 2010). Key success factors of projects have varied from one project to the other based on the nature of projects and the goals of the projects. Chan, Scott, and Chan (2004) identified key success factors for construction projects. These factors relate to project management practices, project procedures, human related factors, and external environments. Chan et al. (2004) were of the view that a project will be successful based on the following conditions: " if the: project complexity is low; project is of shorter duration; overall managerial actions are effective; project is funded by a private and experienced client; client is competent in preparing the project brief and making decisions; project team leaders are competent and experienced; and project is executed in a stable environment with developed technology together with an appropriate organization structure " (Chan, Scott & Chan, 2004, p. 155). As recent as these works may be, they have excluded the end-user benefit as one of the critical success factors, especially for a house building project. Although Amade, Ubani, Omajeh, Anita, and Njoku (2015) left out the end-user benefit in the analysis of critical success factors, the research, however, included some laudable factors including effective communication management, effective coordination of project activities and leadership skills of the project manager. It goes without saying that what measures determine a project success may vary from project to project (Adinyira et al., 2012). While that point is notable, the researcher believes that an important component of project success factors must include the user involvement and end-user benefit, however, both research works above excluded it. In essence, the researcher believed that a key stakeholder such as the end-user of a said project should be a reference for measuring project success among other critical success factors. I. EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS Pinto and Slevin (1987) posit that critical success factors can be viewed as the major elements that are relevant for a strategy to be successful. They put it specifically as: " factors which, if addressed, significantly improve project implementation chances ". Pinto and Slevin (1987) jointly outlined a collective set of 10 critical success factors that determine the successful implementation of projects as: Project Mission: Preliminary clarity of goals and general guidelines Top Management Support: Willingness of top management to provide the necessary resources and authority/power for project success Project Schedule/Plans: A detailed specification of the individual action steps required for project implementation Client Consultation: Communication, consultation, and active listening to all impacted parties Personnel: Recruitment, selection, and training of the necessary personnel for the project team Technical Tasks: Availability of the required technology and expertise to accomplish the specific technical action steps
The Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature
Inclusion and Trans Literature2024 •
REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación
Sociología de la Educación Comparada: Aportes desde la Perspectiva de Pierre Bourdieu2009 •
Journal of Science and Technology - IUH
Đo Lường Giá Trị Cảm Nhận Của Người Tiêu Dùng Đối Với Nhóm Sản Phẩm Tiêu Dùng Hàng Việt Nam Chất Lượng Cao2020 •
2022 •
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Do female zebra finches prefer males exhibiting greater plasticity in foraging tactic use?2020 •
1995 •
Journal of Universal History Studies (JUHIS)
Orta Asya İlk Türk Devletlerinde Haberleşme Yöntemleri Communication Methods in the First Turkish States of Central AsiaNarcotráfico y control territorial: Una mirada desde el Ejército
Los Cultivos Ilícitos y el Narcotráfico en Tumaco: un desafío para la Seguridad Nacional y para las Fuerzas Militares2018 •
2018 •
The Journal of Medicinal Plants and By-Products (JMPB)
Cattle Manure Influences Plant Yield, Antioxidant Capacity and Essential Oil Quality of Sahandi Savory (Satureja sahendica Bornm.) under Different Plant Densities