CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Archaeology and Cultural HeritageArchaeological Research and ProtectionCultural Heritage Management and Preservation

Co-Creation’s Role in Digital Public Archaeology

Open access
Bollwerk, Elizabeth·2015·Advances in Archaeological Practice
DOI 10.7183/2326-3768.3.3.223
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Simon (2010:187) notes that the purpose of co-creative community projects is “to give voice and be responsive to the needs and interests of local community members; to provide a place for community engagement and dialogue; and to help participants develop skills that will support their own individual and community goals.” This paper explores the role that co-creation currently plays in digital public archaeology and discusses how co-creative methods can inform broader archaeological digital engagement efforts. It begins by placing co-creation in its proper context in order to demonstrate its unique characteristics, its value, and how it complicates approaches used in other types of archaeological engagement projects, such as Open Access initiatives. The discussion then turns to evaluating its impact and the broader need to measure success in digital public engagement projects. A discussion of research from the archaeology and the cultural heritage sectors provides examples of evaluation metrics and methods for assessing digital public archaeology projects. The paper concludes by suggesting that all digital engagement projects can benefit from incorporating some of the principles that are inherently part of co-creative methods but that not all archaeological digital engagement projects should strive to be completely co-creative.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7183/2326-3768.3.3.223

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Content co-creation improves users' motivation to visit exhibitions and fosters collaborative participation between visitors and curators.

    “Furthermore, content cocreation improves the level of motivation for users to visit the exhibitions, and as previously mentioned, it fosters collaborative participation between visitors and curators [23][24][25].”

    From Motiv-ARCHE: co-creation of augmented reality educational content to motivate cultural and natural heritage learning (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Abstract describes co-creation as collaboration between archaeologists or archaeological organizations and non-specialist communities, and says it can make digital resources more engaging. The paper does not establish that content co-creation increases users’ motivation to visit exhibitions, nor does it specifically examine collaboration between exhibition visitors and curators. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Atalay, Sonya 2012 Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  2. Beale, Nicole 2012 How Community Archaeology Can Make Use of Open Data to Achieve Further Its Objectives. World Archaeology 44:612-633. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.3.3.223 Published online by Cambridge University Press Co-Creation's Role in Digital Public Archaeology (cont.)
  3. Bevan, Adam 2012 Value, Authority and the Open Society. Some Implications for Digital and Online Archaeology. In Archaeologists and the Digital. Towards Strategies of Engagement, edited by Chiara Bonacchi, pp. 1-14. Archetype Publications, London.
  4. Boast, Robin, and Peter Biehl 2011 Archaeological Knowledge Production and Dissemination in the Digital Age. In Archaeology 2.0: New Tools for Communication and Collaboration, edited by Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, pp. 119-156. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.
  5. Bonacchi, Chiara, Andrew Bevan, Daniel Pett, and Adi Keinan-Schoonbaert 2014 Crowd-and Community-Fuelled Archaeology. Results from the MicroPasts Project. Proceedings of the Conference Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. 22-25 April 2014. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
  6. Bonney, Rick, Jennifer Shirk, Tina Phillips, Andrea Wiggins, Heidi Ballard, Abraham Miller-Rushing, and Julia Parrish 2014 Next Steps for Citizen Science. Science 343(6178):1436-1437.
  7. Boyd, William E. 2014 Citizen Science. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research, edited by David Coghlan and Mary Brydon-Miller, pp. 98-100. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
  8. Brown, Deidre, and George Nicholas 2012 Protecting Indigenous Cultural Property in the Age of Digital Democracy: Institutional and Communal Responses to Canadian First Nations and Maori Heritage Concerns. Journal of Material Culture 17:307-324.
  9. Christen, Kimberly 2008 Archival Challenges and Digital Solutions in Aboriginal Australia. SAA Archaeological Record 8(2):21-24. 2011 Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation. The American Archivist 74:185-2010.
  10. 2012a Balancing Act: The Creation and Circulation of Indigenous Knowledge and Culture Inside and Outside the Legal Frame. In Transnational Culture in the Internet Age, edited by Sean A Pager and Adam Chandeub, pp. 316-345.
  11. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton. 2012b Does Information Really Want to be Free? Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the Question of Openness. International Journal of Communication 6:24. 2015 Tribal Archives, Traditional Knowledge, and Local Contexts: Why the "S" Matters. Journal of Western Archives 6:1-19.
  12. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip and T. J. Ferguson (editors) 2008 Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
  13. Eisner, Wendy R., Jessica Jelacic, Chris J. Cuomo, Changjoo Kim, Kenneth M. Hinkel, and Dorin Del Alba 2012 Producing an Indigenous Knowledge Web GIS for Arctic Alaska Communities: Challenges, Successes, and Lessons Learned. Transactions in GIS 16(1):17-37.
  14. Goskar, Timothy 2012 Wessex Archaeology and the Web. In Archaeologists and the Digital. Towards Strategies of Engagement, edited by Chiara Bonacchi, pp. 25-37. Archetype Publications, London.
  15. Hodder, Ian, and Scott Hudson 2003 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to the Interpretation of Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, London.
  16. Iverson, Lee, Susan Rowley, Dave Schaepe, Andrea Sanborn, Ryan Wallace, Nicholas Jakobsen, and Ulrike Radermacher 2008 The Reciprocal Research Network. In Museums and the Web 2008: Proceedings, edited by D. Bearman and J. Trant. Archives and Museum Informatics, Toronto.
  17. Jeppson, Patrice L., Mary L. Kwas, Maureen Malloy, and Carol McDavid 2003 Archaeology for the Public: A New Addition to SAAweb. SAA Archaeological Record 3(5):8-10.
  18. Kansa, Eric C. 2011 New Directions for the Digital Past. In Archaeology 2.0: New Tools for Communication and Collaboration, edited by Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, pp. 1-26. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.
  19. Kansa, Eric C., and Sarah Whitcher Kansa 2011 Toward a Do-It-Yourself Cyberinfrastructure: Open Data, Incentives, and Reducing Costs and Complexities of Data Sharing. In Archaeology 2.0: New Tools for Communication and Collaboration, edited by Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, pp. 57-92. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.
  20. Kansa, Eric C., Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall (editors) 2011 Archaeology 2.0: New Tools for Communication and Collaboration. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.
  21. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher, and Francis Deblauwe 2011 User-Generated Content in Zooarchaeology: Exploring the "Middle Space" of Scholarly Communication. In Archaeology 2.0: New Tools for Communication and Collaboration, edited by Eric Christopher Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, pp.185-206. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.
  22. Lin Albert Yu-Min, Andrew Huynh, Gert Lanckriet, and Luke Barrington 2014 Crowdsourcing the Unknown: The Satellite Search for Genghis Khan. PLoS ONE 9(12):1-17.
  23. Little, Barbara J., and Paul A. Shackel (editors) 2007 Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. 2014 Archaeology, Heritage, and Civic Engagement: Working Towards the Public Good. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
  24. McDavid, Carol 2002 Archaeologies that Hurt; Descendants that Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology. World Archaeology 34:303-314. 2003 Context, Collaboration, and Power: The Public Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. In SAA Community Partnership Handbook, edited by Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, pp. 45-66. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 2004a Towards a More Democratic Archaeology? The Internet and Public Archaeological Practice. In Public Archaeology, edited by Nick Merriman, pp. 159-187. Routledge, London. 2004b From "Traditional" Archaeology to Public Archaeology to Community Action: The Levi Jordan Plantation Project. In Places in Mind: Archaeology as Applied Anthropology, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Erve Chambers, pp. 35-56. Routledge, New York. 2014 Co-Creation, the Public, and the Archaeological Record. Discussant comments presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin.
  25. McManamon, Francis P., and Keith W. Kintigh 2010 Digital Antiquity Transforming Archaeological Data into Knowledge. SAA Archaeological Record 10(2):37-41.
  26. Merriman, Nick (editor) 2004 Public Archaeology. Routledge, New York. Micropasts 2013 MicroPasts: Crowdsourcing. Electronic document, http:// crowdsourced.micropasts.org/, accessed April 1, 2015.
  27. O'Reilly, Timothy 2005 What is Web 2.0? Electronic document, http://oreillynet. com/pub/a/oreilly-/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html, accessed December 12, 2014.
  28. O'Reilly, Timothy, and J. Battelle 2009 Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On. Web 2.0 Summit. Electronic document, http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/28/ web2009_websquared-whitepaper.pdf, accessed December 10, 2014.
  29. Pett, Daniel, and Chiara Bonacchi 2012 Conclusions. In Archaeology and Digital Communication. Towards Strategies of Public Engagement, edited by Chiara Bonacchi, pp. 127-137. Archetype Publications, London.
  30. Phillips, Lori Bryd 2014 The Role of Open Authority in a Collaborative Web. In Crowdsourcing Our Cultural Heritage, edited by Mia Ridge, pp. 247-268. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., London.
  31. Richards, Julian, Jeffery Stuart, Stewart Waller, Fabio Ciravegna, Sam Chapman, and Ziqi Zhang 2011 The Archaeology Data Service and the Archaeotools Project: Faceted Classification and Natural Language Processing. In Archaeology 2.0: New Tools for Communication and Collaboration, edited by Eric Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Ethan Watrall, pp. 31-56. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.
  32. Richardson, Lorna J. 2012 Twitter and archaeology. In Archaeologists and the Digital. Towards Strategies of Engagement, edited by Chiara Bonacchi, pp. 15-24. Archetype Publications, London. 2013 A Digital Public Archaeology? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 23(1):10. 2014 The Day of Archaeology: Blogging and Online Archaeological Communities. European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies 4:421-446.
  33. Rowley, Susan, Dave Schaepe, Leona Sparrow, Andrea Sanborn, Ulrike Tadermacher, Ryan Wallace, Nicholas Jakobsen, Hannah Turner, Sivia Sadofsky, and Tristan Goffman. 2010 Building an On-Line Research Community: The Reciprocal Research Network. In Museums and the Web 2010: Proceedings, edited by J. Trant and D. Bearman. Archives & Museum Informatics, Toronto. Electronic document, http://www. museumsandtheweb.com/mw2010/papers/rowley/rowley.html, accessed December 30, 2014.
  34. Russell, Matthew A. 2014 Mining the Social Web: Data Mining Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, GitHub, and More. O'Reilly Media, Inc., Cambridge.
  35. Shackel, Paul, and Evre Chambers (editors) 2004 Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Archaeology. Routledge, New York and London.
  36. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Witmore 2012 Archaeology 2.0? Review of Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches To Communication And Collaboration. Internet Archaeology 32. Electronic document, http://dx.doi. org/10.11141/ia.32.7, accessed December 1, 2014. · DOI
  37. Simon, Arleyn, and Destiny Crider 2002 ArchNet. SAA Archaeological Record 2(5):26-69.
  38. Srinivasan, Ramsesh, Robin Boast, Katherine Becvar, and Jim Enote 2010 Diverse Knowledges and Contact Zones within the Digital Museum. Science Technology and Human Values 35(5):735-768.
  39. Thornton, A. A. 2012 Wikipedia and Blogs: New Fields for Archaeological Research? In Archaeologists and the Digital Towards Strategies of Engagement, edited by Chiara Bonnachi, pp.103-113. Archetype Publications, London.
  40. Walker, Dominic 2014 Decentering the Discipline? Archaeology, Museums and Social Media. AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology Special Vol. 1:77-102.
  41. Watrall, Ethan 2002 Digital Pharaoh: Archaeology, Public Education and Interactive Entertainment. Public Archaeology 2(3):163-169. 2014 Red Land/Black Land: Teaching Ancient Egyptian Archaeology through Digital Game-Based Learning. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2:38-49.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bollwerk, E.
Affiliations
Thomas Jefferson Foundation (US)
Corresponding author
Bollwerk, Elizabeth
ORCID
Bollwerk, Elizabeth
Venue
Advances in Archaeological Practice
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2015-08
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
223-234
ISSN
2326-3768 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7183/2326-3768.3.3.223
OpenAlex
W2569696261
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
16.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Advances in Archaeological Practice (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Archaeological Research and Protection
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Keywords
co-creation, community participation, citizen participation, evaluation metrics, open access, cultural heritage, digital engagement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review