Report: Statistical Research, Inc.
The ArchaeoInformatics.org Survey

Methods
The survey was an internet-based survey.  Participants were solicited by e-mail invitations to the Society for American Archaeology’s Digital Interest Group members, individuals in the ArchaeoInfomatic.org network, and by those finding an invitation on the ArchaeoInformatics.org web site.  It is important to note that participants self-selected themselves and, given the invitation methods, were biased towards those with an interest in digital data; this was not a random sample of archaeologists.

Respondents
A total of 445 individuals visited the survey.  These visits resulted in 232 completed and 38 partial surveys.  The plurality (48%) held masters degrees as a terminal degree.  Thirty-six percent had received doctoral degrees and 16% held a bachelors degree.  A wide range of archaeological experience was represented.  Respondents claimed 3-56 years in the discipline; the mean was 19.  The mean age of respondents was 44 years.  Males dominated (66%) those responding.  Eighty percent of respondents lived in the United States of America; almost all other respondents were from European countries, with the United Kingdom dominating (8% of total respondents).  All eight major employment sectors were represented with academic departments (31%) ranking first followed by private for-profit firms (24%) and academic museums or research centers (10%).  The primary research setting of the vast majority (70%) was North America.

Use of Technology
Respondents were skewed, in a self ranking of “geekness”, towards the geek end of the spectrum.  Web search engines, digital imagery, and databases on local computers were used very frequently.  Geographic information systems and web-based databases were used with moderate frequency.  Statistical software and 3D imaging were used infrequently.  None of these technologies were unused by the majority.  There was little difference in those using technologies versus creating data sets via individual technologies.  Thus, it appears that users are active, data creating, users.    

Access to Data
Respondents indicated that learning of the existence of other relevant research is not a significant problem.  However, gaining access to the research materials of others is difficult.  Databases are the most difficult to access followed by primary paper documentation, artifacts, and technical reports.  Even 44% of respondents ranked obtaining technical reports as difficult (compared with 29% who stated it was easy).  When asked about their anticipated use of potential tools to assist in accessing data, nearly half (48%) would use a tool to search gray literature on a weekly basis.  Ranked second (45%) for use on a weekly basis was a tool that could display maps and images from gray literature.  Ranked third was a tool that could search for unpublished excavation databases.  Fourth was the ability to search multiple state site-files simultaneously.    Overall, 94% of respondents stated that they would access electronic data or use databases more frequently if it were easier to work with such data.

Values
Seventy percent of respondents believe that documentation of the archaeological record is being irretrievably lost quickly (32%) or that it is a crisis (38%).  It is believed that the responsibility of preventing this loss is shared.  However, institutions employing archaeologists have the greatest primary responsibility followed by research sponsors, SHPO/THPOs, and individual archaeologists.  Museum’s and repositories ranked slightly lower.  Archaeological professional organizations was the only category to which little primary responsibility was attributed.   Respondents indicated that there is a clear need for some organization to archive digital archaeological data and that there should be officially sanctioned data standards to which archaeologists should adhere.  There was a high level of agreement that there should be a web-based tool for searching for relevant data.

Archiving Data
Ninety percent of respondents thought that research sponsors should carry the responsibility and financial burden of curating archaeological digital data.  Most (63%) thought that a repository at the national or regional scale dedicated to digital archiving was the appropriate location within which to curate these data, although  some (21%) indicated that digital data should reside with the artifacts.  Cultural consulting firms were thought to be the least suitable location for digital archiving.  A slight majority (55%) believed that scholarly journals and presses have a responsibility to make available the data upon which a published work is based.   The greatest concern about contributing data to a digital archive were issues of confidentiality and data security followed by the cost and amount of time necessary to prepare digital data sets for curation.

Costs
Most respondents (61%) thought that there should not be a fee to access to digital data sets.  A slightly greater percent (68%) thought that there should not be a fee to submit data.  If there were a fee to pay for submitting data, 56% stated that their project sponsors would pay this fee.