2025/11/19 by Claire Davin, Jess Beck, Lai Ma · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Computer Science · #Digital Humanities and Scholarship #Digital and Traditional Archives Management #Research Data Management Practices
paper · doi:10.3998/jep.7833
openalex created_date 2025/11/19 · openalex publication_date 2025/11/19 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/17
Open research frameworks alongside encompassing principles such as FAIR and CARE, have seen an increase in uptake across the global academic landscape in recent years. However, their implementation remains uneven, particularly within the humanities and social sciences (HSS), where disciplinary traditions, methodological diversity, and structural limitations present persistent challenges. This study investigates the integration of open research practices within archaeology—an interdisciplinary field situated within both categories of STEM and HSS, that draws on both qualitative and quantitative methods.Through a qualitative research design based on in-depth interviews with archaeologists, we examine how researchers conceptualise open research, the extent to which they engage with it in practice, and the institutional, epistemic, and ethical factors shaping their engagement. Participants reported varying levels of familiarity with open research, often associating it primarily with open-access publishing, while expressing uncertainty or concern about the applicability of openness to sensitive or context-dependent data, such as excavation records, material cultural heritage, and collaborations with descendant communities.Our findings reveal three main types of barriers to open research implementation in archaeology: (1) conceptual and disciplinary barriers, including tensions between openness and interpretive, context-specific scholarship; (2) practical and infrastructural constraints, such as the lack of repositories or guidelines tailored to the specific formats and sensitivities of archaeological data; and (3) socio-political concerns, particularly regarding the commodification of cultural heritage and ethical obligations to stakeholder communities. At the same time, the study highlights existing opportunities and initiatives within the field—such as digital repositories, data standardisation efforts, and funding mandates—that are gradually facilitating more open practices. In conclusion, we argue that infrastructure and training are required to encourage and sustain meaningful engagement with open research and that a shift in ideology and practice is needed to ensure that researchers are active participants in shaping open research policies rather than passive recipients of mandates.