Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:03:30.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mobilizing Archaeologists

Increasing the Quantity and Quality of Data Collected in the Field with Mobile Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Anne Austin
Anne Austin*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, Interdepartmental Archaeology Program, 308 Charles E. Young Dr., A210 Fowler Building, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (aeaustin@ucla.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Data collection takes up much of the already limited time archaeologists have to excavate and often requires additional time to digitize. Moreover, despite efforts to standardize data, archaeologists often find errors such as blank or incorrectly recorded fields. To avoid these issues, several projects have made use of tablet computers to streamline and digitize data, but this process can be opaque, specialized, and expensive. Previous research has addressed neither the general feasibility of developing and utilizing mobile devices for data collection nor the quality and quantity of these data. In this article, I review existing methods and practices for integrating data collection on mobile devices in order to evaluate the costs and feasibility of transitioning to a mobile-based data collection system. Through a case study using OsteoSurvey, a series of bioarchaeological data collection forms for Android tablets, I assess the efficacy of data collection on mobile devices. An experiment comparing OsteoSurvey to traditional paper forms demonstrates that participants saved time and made fewer mistakes using the OsteoSurvey forms, resulting in the collection of 21–32 percent more data. Consequently, data collection with mobile devices can significantly increase the overall productivity and quality of archaeological research

La recolección de datos ocupa una gran parte del poco tiempo que los arqueólogos tienen para excavar, y muchas veces es necesario perder aún más tiempo para digitalizar estos datos. Además, a pesar de los esfuerzos para normalizar los datos, los arqueólogos suelen encontrar errores como espacios en blanco o datos incorrectamente registrados. Varios proyectos han integrado computadores personales de forma tablet para evitar estos problemas mediante la racionalización y la digitalización de los datos, pero este proceso puede ser poco claro, especializado y costoso. Investigaciones previas no se han enfocado en la viabilidad del desarrollo y la utilización de dispositivos móviles para la recolección de datos ni la calidad o cantidad de los mismos. En este estudio, se revisan los métodos y las prácticas existentes para la integración de la recopilación de datos en los dispositivos móviles con el fin de evaluar los costos y la viabilidad de la transición a un sistema de recolección de datos en dispositivos móviles. A través de un caso de estudio sobre la OsteoSurvey—una serie de formularios en tablets Android de recolección de datos bioarqueológicos—se evalúa la eficacia de la recolección de datos en dispositivos móviles. Un experimento que compara la OsteoSurvey con los formularios tradicionales en papel demuestra que los participantes se demoraron menos tiempo y cometieron menos errores en la OsteoSurvey que en los formularios en papel, lo que resulta en la recolección de entre el 21 al 32 por ciento más de datos. En consecuencia, la recopilación de datos con los dispositivos móviles puede aumentar significativamente la productividad y la calidad de la investigación arqueológica.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 13 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Ansell, Shaun, and Koenig, Jennifer 2011 CyberTracker: An Integral Management Tool Used by Rangers in the Djelk Indigenous Protected Area, Central Arnhem Land, Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 12(1):13–25.Google Scholar
Atici, Levent, Kansa, Sarah, Lev-Tov, Justin, and Kansa, Eric 2013 Other People’s Data: A Demonstration of the Imperative of Publishing Primary Data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20 (4): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atici, Levent, Lev-Tov, Justin S. E., and Kansa, Sarah Whitcher 2010 “Chogha Mish Fauna: (Overview).” Levent Atici, Justin S.E. Lev-Tov, Sarah Whitcher Kansa (Eds.) Open Context. Electronic document, http://opencontext.org/projects/497ADEAD-0C2A-4C62-FEEF-9079FB09B1A5, accessed December 1, 2013.Google Scholar
Beard, David 2013 Archaeology and the iPad. Electronic document, http://arch-pad.blogspot.com/, accessed December 13, 2013.Google Scholar
Bett, Matthew 2012a Going Paperless. E’se’get Archaeology Project. Electronic document, http://coastalarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/going-paperless/, accessed November 13, 2013.Google Scholar
Bett, Matthew 2012b Field Identification Using VZAP. E’se’get Archaeology Project. Electronic document, http://coastalarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/field-identification-using-vzap/, accessed November 13, 2013.Google Scholar
Brunette, Waylon, Sundt, Mitchell, Dell, Nicola, Chaudhri, Rohit, Breit, Nathan, and Borriello, Gaetano 2013 Open Data Kit 2.0: Expanding and Refining Information Services for Developing Regions. In Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, p. 10. ACM. New York. doi: 10.1145/2444776.2444790Google Scholar
Buikstra, Jane E., and Ubelaker, Douglas 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 44. Fayetteville, Arkansas.Google Scholar
Dale, Oystein, and Hagen, Kaare Birger 2007 Despite Technical Problems Personal Digital Assistants Outperform Pen and Paper When Collecting Patient Diary Data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60(1):8–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, Shawn K., Thompson, Jessica L., and Schweizer, Sarah E. 2012 Innovations in On-Site Survey Administration: Using an iPad Interface at National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(4):282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djuric, Uros 2013 Portable Geotechnics—Using Android Smartphones and Tablets for Geotechnical Field Investigations. In Proceedings of the 13th SGEM GeoConference on Informatics, Geoinformatics and Remote Sensing, 1:513–520. Varna.Google Scholar
Ellis, Steven J.R., and Wallrodt, John 2011 iPads at Pompeii. Electronic document, http://classics.uc.edu/pompeii/index.php/news/1-latest/142-ipads2010.html, accessed October 1, 2013.Google Scholar
Falkingham, Gail 2005 A Whiter Shade of Grey: A New Approach to Archaeological Grey Literature Using the XML Version of the TEI Guidelines. Internet Archaeology 5(17), doi: 10.11141/ia.17.5Google Scholar
Faul, Franz, Erdfelder, Edgar, Lang, Albert-Georg, and Buchner, Axel 2007 G* Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39(2):175–191.Google Scholar
Fee, Samuel B., Pettegrew, David K., and Caraher, William R. 2013 Taking Mobile Computing to the Field. Near Eastern Archaeology 76(1): 50–55.Google Scholar
Gnaden, Denis, and Holdaway, Simon 2000 Understanding Observer Variation When Recording Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity 65(4):739–747.Google Scholar
Hartung, Carl, Lerer, Adam, Anokwa, Yaw, Clint, Tseng, Brunette, Waylon, and Borriello, Gaetano 2010 Open Data Kit: Tools to Build Information Services for Developing Regions. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development: 1–12. London.Google Scholar
Häyrinen, Kristiina, Saranto, Kaija, and Nykänen, Pirkko 2008 Definition, Structure, Content, Use and Impacts of Electronic Health Records: A Review of the Research Literature. International Journal of Medical Informatics 77(5):291–304.Google Scholar
Houk, Brett 2012 The Chan Chich Archaeological Project’s Digital Data Collection System. In The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project 6:73–82. Lubbock.Google Scholar
Kintigh, Keith 2006 The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Integration. American Antiquity 71(3):567–578.Google Scholar
Levy, Thomas E., Smith, Neil G., Najjar, Mohammad, DeFanti, Thomas A., Kuester, Falko, and Yu-Min Lin, Albert 2012 Cyber-Archaeology in the Holy Land. Biblical Archaeology Society, California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Madaba Plains Project 2009 Tall al-’Umayri Dig Database. Electronic document, http://umayri.opendig.org/, accessed February 2, 2014.Google Scholar
Ogburn, Joyce L. 2010 The Imperative for Data Curation. portal: Libraries and the Academy 10(2):241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettegrew, David K. 2012 iPads in Cyprus: Practical Matters in Fieldwork. The Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project. Electronic document, http://pylakoutsopetria.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/ipads-in-cyprus-part-4-practical-matters/, accessed September 21, 2013.Google Scholar
Poehler, Eric E., and Ellis, Steven J.R. 2012 The 2011 Season of the Pompeii Quadriporticus Project: The Southern and Northern Sides. Fasti Online Documents and Research (249):1–12.Google Scholar
Poissant, Lise, Pereira, Jennifer, Tamblyn, Robyn, and Kawasumi, Yuko 2005 The Impact of Electronic Health Records on Time Efficiency of Physicians and Nurses: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 12(5):505–516.Google Scholar
Rains, Michael 2011 Creating a Virtual Research Environment for Archaeology. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration, edited by Kansa, Eric C., Kansa, Sarah Whitcher, and Watrall, Ethan, pp. 159–169. Cotsen Digital Archaeology series. Cotsen Institute Press, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Rajput, Zeshan A., Mbugua, Samuel, Amadi, David, Chepnǵeno, Viola, Saleem, Jason J., Anokwa, Yaw, Hartung, Carl, Borriello, Gaetano, Mamlin, Burke W., Ndege, Samson K., and Were, Martin C. 2012 Evaluation of an Android-based mHealth System for Population Surveillance in Developing Countries. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 19(4):655–659.Google Scholar
Ross, S., Donnely, M., and Dobreva, M. 2004 Emerging Technologies for the Cultural and Scientific Heritage Sector, DigiCULT Technology Watch Report 2. Electronic document, http://www.digicult.info/downloads/twr_2_2004_final.pdf, accessed December 15, 2013.Google Scholar
Schloen, J. David 2001 Archaeological Data Models and Web Publication Using XML. Computers and the Humanities 35(2):123–152.Google Scholar
Smith, Neil G., and Levy, Thomas E. 2012 Real-time 3D Archaeological Field Recording: ArchField, an open-source GIS system pioneered in southern Jordan. Antiquity 85(331).Google Scholar
Snow, Dean R., Gahegan, Mark, Lee Giles, C., Hirth, Kenneth G., Milner, George R., Mitra, Prasenjit, and James Z., Wang 2006 Cybertools and Archaeology. Science 311:958–959.Google Scholar
Sobotkova, Adela, and Ballsun-Stanton, Brian 2013 Assessment Report on the Beta Release of Mobile Application. FAIMS Project. Electronic document, https://www.fedarch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads//2012/12/FAIMS15.pdf, accessed August 28, 2013.Google Scholar
Spinuzzi, Clay 2003 Using a Handheld PC to Collect and Analyze Observational Data. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Documentation, p. 73–79. ACM. New York.Google Scholar
Wallrodt, John 2014 Paperless Archaeology. Electronic document, http://paperlessarchaeology.com/, accessed February 2, 2014.Google Scholar
Wilson, Douglas 2013 Fort Vancouver Public Archaeology: Battery Life in the Field. Fort Vancouver Public Archaeology. Electronic document, http://fortvancouverarchaeology.blogspot.com/2013/07/battery-life-in-field.html, accessed November 25, 2013.Google Scholar