Quals reading lists.md

Quals reading lists

Methodological approaches to understanding and representing (archaeological) knowledge work - Costis Dallas

This reading list explores the different ways in which research practice and knowledge construction may be studied. It surveys various relevant methodologies, and assesses the implications that come to bear through their use. What kinds of information are collected through different data collection protocols? How does this contribute to different research outcomes down the road? How might insights garnered through different approaches lead to different ways of extending or applying them? How might the freedom and flexibility afforded by the use of grounded theory be leveraged effectively?

Theoretical and applied approaches to cognition and action - Matt Ratto

The starting point for this reading list is the assumption that archaeological projects be considered as cooperatively constructed socio-technical mechanisms that are iteratively designed and tinkered with to construct coherent, agreeable and legitimate narratives of past human activity. Detailing such a perspective requires exploring the cognition / action relationship, generally and as it pertains to knowledge practices. Relevant fields of work include the sociology of scientific knowledge, pragmatism, actor-network theory, distributed cognition, situated cognition, cultural-historical activity theory, new materialist, design-oriented and critical making approaches. Three general questions guided the production of the list:

• How are different engagements with objects of shared interests effectively reconciled, managed or leveraged?
• How is the knowledge produced, or the mechanisms that contribute to its construction, discussed, legitimized or valued through organizational, communication, documentation and recording practices?
• What is the role of affect especially with regards to cooperation, negotiation, organization and sense-making?

Archaeological method and practice - Ted Banning

This reading list explores discussions about the nature of archaeological knowledge and the processes that contribute to its construction. More specifically, it should cover critical assessments of conceptual, communicative and documentation practices, which codify archaeological modes of thought, and that contribute to the standards upon which archaeological knowledge is ascribed meaning and value. This list will help me to ground my work within the domain of archaeology, and to consider how my work may contribute meaningful insight in relation to ongoing debates within the discipline.

~Methodological approaches to understanding and representing (archaeological) knowledge work.txt

Angelis, S., A. Benardou, N. Chatzidiakou, P. Constantopoulos, C. Dallas, L. M. Hughes, L. Papachristopoulos, E. Papaki, and V. Pertsas. 2015. ‘Documenting and Reasoning about Research on Ancient Corinthia Using the NeDiMAH Methods Ontology (NeMO)’. In 43rd Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference CAA.
Bates, Marcia J. 2009. ‘An Introduction to Metatheories, Theories, and Models’ 11 (444): 275–97.
Benardou, Agiatis, Panos Constantopoulos, and Costis Dallas. 2013. ‘An Approach to Analyzing Working Practices of Research Communities in the Humanities’. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 7 (1–2): 105–127.
Benardou, Agiatis, Panos Constantopoulos, Costis Dallas, and Dimitris Gavrilis. 2010. ‘A Conceptual Model for Scholarly Research Activity’. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/14945.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE.
Choo, Chun Wei. 2002. ‘Sensemaking, Knowledge Creation, and Decision Making’. In The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, 79–88.
Clarke, Adele E. 2003. ‘Situational Analyses: Grounded Theory Mapping After the Postmodern Turn’. Symbolic Interaction 26 (4): 553–76. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553.
Cole, Michael. 1996. ‘Putting Culture in the Middle’. In Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline, 116–45. Belknap Press.
Dallas, Costis. 2007. ‘An Agency-Oriented Approach to Digital Curation Theory and Practice’. ICHIM07 - International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, Proceedings 2007, 1p. http://lekythos.library.ucy.ac.cy/handle/10797/13650.
Doerr, Martin. 2009. ‘Ontologies for Cultural Heritage’. In Handbook on Ontologies, 463–86. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_21.
Doerr, Martin, Chryssoula Bekiari, Athina Kritsotaki, Gerald Hiebel, and Maria Theodoridou. 2014. ‘Modelling Scientific Activities: Proposal for a Global Schema for Integrating Metadata about Scientific Observation’. In Access and Understanding–networking in the Digital Era: The 6th Annual Conference of CIDOC, the International Committee for Documentation of ICOM, Dresden, Germany.
Engeström, Y. 2000. ‘Activity Theory as a Framework for Analyzing and Redesigning Work’. Ergonomics 43 (7): 960–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409143.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1991. ‘What Is Ethnomethodology?’ In Studies in Ethnomethodology. Wiley.
Goodwin, Charles. 1994. ‘Professional Vision’. American Anthropologist 96 (3): 606–33. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.
Hacking, Ian. 2004. ‘Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman: Between Discourse in the Abstract and Face-to-Face Interaction’. Economy and Society 33 (3): 277–302.
———. 2015. ‘Let’s Not Talk About Objectivity’. In Objectivity in Science, edited by Jonathan Y. Tsou, Alan Richardson, and Flavia Padovani, 19–33. Springer Verlag.
Hall, Edward T., Ray L. Birdwhistell, Bernhard Bock, Paul Bohannan, Diebold A. Richard, Marshall Durbin, Munro S. Edmonson, et al. 1968. ‘Proxemics [and Comments and Replies]’. Current Anthropology 9 (2/3): 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/200975.
Hindmarsh Jon, and Heath Christian. 2007. ‘Video‐Based Studies of Work Practice’. Sociology Compass 1 (1): 156–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00012.x.
Hutchins Edwin. 2010. ‘How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds’. Cognitive Science 19 (3): 265–88. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1.
Huvila, Isto. 2008. ‘Information Work Analysis: An Approach to Research on Information Interactions and Information Behaviour in Context.’ Information Research: An International Electronic Journal 13 (3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ837271.
Hyland, Ken. 1999. ‘Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Coursebooks.’ English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 3–26.
Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Psychology Press.
Lotman, Yuri M. 2005. ‘On the Semiosphere’. Σημειωτκή - Sign Systems Studies 33 (1): 205–29.
May, Tim, ed. 2002. ‘Analysing Interaction: Video, Ethnography and Situated Conduct’. In Qualitative Research in Action, 100–121. 6 Bonhill Street, London England EC2A 4PU United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209656.n4.
Nardi, Bonnie A. 1996. ‘Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models, and Distributed Cognition’. In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Vol. 69102. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JeqcgPlS2UAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA69&ots=e-ac-BtZFy&sig=OFN9oBp-ZHlbeDZdb_ZQiLUL5NM.
Palmer, Carole L., and Melissa H. Cragin. 2008. ‘Scholarship and Disciplinary Practices’. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 42 (1): 163–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112.
Pertsas, Vayianos, and Panos Constantopoulos. 2017. ‘Scholarly Ontology: Modelling Scholarly Practices’. International Journal on Digital Libraries 18 (3): 173–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. ‘Chapter 1 - A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation*’. In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, edited by JIM Schenkein, 7–55. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2.
Sanderson, Penelope M., and J.M. Carroll. 2003. ‘Cognitive Work Analysis’. In HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science, 225–63. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Sismondo, Sergio. 1999. ‘Models, Simulations, and Their Objects’. Science in Context 12 (2): 247–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700003409.

~~Theoretical and applied approaches to cognition and action.txt

Agre, Philip E. 1997. ‘Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI’. In Social Science, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide. Erlbaum, edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker, Susan Leigh Star, William Turner, and Les Gasser, 131–57. Psychology Press.
Akkerman, Sanne F., and Arthur Bakker. 2011. ‘Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects’. Review of Educational Research 81 (2): 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435.
Appadurai, Arjun. 2015. ‘Mediants, Materiality, Normativity’. Public Culture 27 (2 76): 221–37. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2841832.
Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oXTlAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=s3XaTJHfZ7&sig=Gn22LPxT9eVhtBkrS7n28fZ5N_8.
Bowker, Geoffrey C. 1994. Science on the Run: Information Management and Industrial Geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920-1940. MIT Press.
Cole, Michael. 1996. ‘Putting Culture in the Middle’. In Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline, 116–45. Belknap Press.
Collins, H. M. 1983. ‘The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Studies of Contemporary Science’. Annual Review of Sociology 9 (1): 265–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001405.
Collins, Harry M., and Stephen Yearley. 1992. ‘Epistemological Chicken’. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, 301–26. University of Chicago Press. http://www.citeulike.org/group/268/article/506680.
Daston, Lorraine. 2004a. ‘Introduction: Speechless’. In Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science, 9–24. Zone Books.
———. 2004b. ‘The Glass Flowers’. In Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science, 223–254. Zone Books.
Duguid, Paul. 2005. ‘“The Art of Knowing”: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice’. The Information Society 21 (2): 109–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240590925311.
Ingold, Tim. 2007. ‘Materials against Materiality’. Archaeological Dialogues 14 (01): 1–16.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.
———. 2001. ‘Objectual Practice’. In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by Theodore R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr-Cetina, and Eike von Savigny, 83:175–88. Routledge. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kOUGDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA83&ots=ujuLVWxyMF&sig=kMmeU3lxzWtBbM-zhGSkvzISaQE.
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press.
Pickering, Andrew. 1992. ‘From Science as Knowledge to Science as Practice’. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering, 1–26. University of Chicago Press.
Ratto, Matt. 2012. ‘CSE as Epistemic Technologies: Computer Modeling and Disciplinary Difference in the Humanities’. Handbook of Research on Computational Science and Engineering: Theory and Practice, 567–586. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-116-0.ch023.
Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. ‘Institutional Ecology, `Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39’. Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.
Suchman, Lucy. 2000. ‘Organizing Alignment: A Case of Bridge-Building’. Organization 7 (2): 311–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072007.
Suchman, Lucy, Randall Trigg, and Jeanette Blomberg. 2002. ‘Working Artefacts: Ethnomethods of the Prototype’. The British Journal of Sociology 53 (2): 163–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310220133287.
Tsing, Anna, and Shiho Satsuka. 2008. ‘Diverging Understandings of Forest Management in Matsutake Science’. Economic Botany 62 (3): 244–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/40390461.
Webmoor, Timothy, Paul Graves-Brown, and Rodney Harrison. 2013. ‘STS, Symmetry, Archaeology’. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World, 105–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.013.039.

~~~Archaeological method and practice.txt

Adams, William Y., and Ernest W. Adams. 2007. Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge University Press.
Ammerman, Albert J. 1992. ‘Taking Stock of Quantitative Archaeology’. Annual Review of Anthropology 21 (1): 231–49. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.001311.
Buccellati, Giorgio. 2017. A Critique of Archaeological Reason: Structural, Digital, and Philosophical Aspects of the Excavated Record. Cambridge University Press.
Chadwick, Adrian. 1998. ‘Archaeology at the Edge of Chaos: Further towards Reflexive Excavation Methodologies’. Assemblage 3: 97–117.
Dallas, Costis. 2015. ‘Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum: From Practice to Infrastructure’. Open Archaeology 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0011.
———. 2016. ‘Jean-Claude Gardin on Archaeological Data, Representation and Knowledge: Implications for Digital Archaeology’. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23 (1): 305–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9241-3.
Dunnell, Robert C. 2002. Systematics in Prehistory. Blackburn Press.
Edgeworth, Matt. 2003. Acts of Discovery: An Ethnography of Archaeological Practice. Vol. 1131. British Archaeological Reports.
———. 2006. Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations. Rowman Altamira.
———. 2014. ‘From Spade-Work to Screen-Work: New Forms of Archaeological Discovery in Digital Space’. In Visualization in the Age of Computerization, edited by Annamaria Carusi, Aud Sissel Hoel, Timothy Webmoor, and Steve Woolgar, 40–58. Routledge. http://www.academia.edu/download/33324903/From_Spadework_to_Screenwork.pdf.
Fotiadis, Michael. 1992. ‘Units of Data as Deployment of Disciplinary Codes’. In Representations in Archaeology, 132–148.
———. 1993. ‘Regions of the Imagination: Archaeologists, Local People, and the Archaeological Record in Fieldwork, Greece’. Journal of European Archaeology 1 (2): 151–68. https://doi.org/10.1179/096576693800719310.
Gardin, Jean-Claude. 1980. Archaeological Constructs: An Aspect of Theoretical Archaeology. Cambridge University Press.
Gero, Joan. 1996. ‘Archaeological Practice and Gendered Encounters with Field Data’. Gender and Archaeology, 251–280.
Goodwin, Charles. 2010. ‘Things and Their Embodied Environments’. The Cognitive Life of Things. Cambridge, McDonald Institute Monographs, 103–120.
Hodder, Ian. 1989. ‘Writing Archaeology: Site Reports in Context’. Antiquity 63 (239): 268–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00075980.
———. 1999. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Wiley.
Huggett, Jeremy. 2015. ‘A Manifesto for an Introspective Digital Archaeology’. Open Archaeology 1 (1): 86–95. https://doi.org/Huggett, J. <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/view/author/8212.html>  <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7535-9312>  (2015)  A manifesto for an introspective digital archaeology.   Open Archaeology <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/view/journal_volume/Open_Archaeology.html>, 1(1),  pp. 86-95.  (doi:10.1515/opar-2015-0002 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0002>).
Huvila, Isto. 2016. ‘Awkwardness of Becoming a Boundary Object: Mangle and Materialities of Reports, Documentation Data, and the Archaeological Work’. The Information Society 32 (4): 280–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1177763.
———. 2017. ‘Archaeology of No Names? The Social Productivity of Anonymity in the Archaeological Information Process’. Ephemera; Leicester 17 (2): 351–76.
Khazraee, Emad. 2013. ‘Information Recording in Archaeological Practice: A Socio-Technical Perspective’, February. https://doi.org/10.9776/13246.
Lucas, Gavin. 2002. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. Taylor & Francis.
———. 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge University Press.
Pavel, Cătălin. 2010. Describing and Interpreting the Past: European and American Approaches to the Written Record of the Excavation. University of Bucharest Press.
Preucel, Robert W., and Alexander A. Bauer. 2001. ‘Archaeological Pragmatics’. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34 (2): 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650127469.
Thorpe, Reuben. 2012. ‘Often Fun, Usually Messy: Fieldwork, Recording and Higher Orders of Things’. In Reconsidering Archaeological Fieldwork, 31–52. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2338-6_3.
Webmoor, Timothy. 2005. ‘Mediational Techniques and Conceptual Frameworks in Archaeology: A Model in “Mapwork” at Teotihuacán, Mexico’. Journal of Social Archaeology 5 (1): 52–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050143.
Webmoor, Timothy, Paul Graves-Brown, and Rodney Harrison. 2013. ‘STS, Symmetry, Archaeology’. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World, 105–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.013.039.
Wylie, Alison. 1989. ‘Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Implications of Practice for Bernstein’s “Options Beyond Objectivism and Relativism”’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839318901900101.
———. 1996. ‘The Constitution of Archaeological Evidence: Gender Politics and Science’. In The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, edited by Peter Galison and David J. Stump, 311–343. Stanford University Press.
Yarrow, Thomas. 2008. ‘In Context: Meaning, Materiality and Agency in the Process of Archaeological Recording’. In Material Agency, 121–37. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_7.

~~~~Methodological approaches to understanding and representing (archaeological) knowledge work.bib

@article{palmer_scholarship_2008,
	title = {Scholarship and disciplinary practices},
	volume = {42},
	issn = {1550-8382},
	url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112/abstract},
	doi = {10.1002/aris.2008.1440420112},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-09-22},
	journal = {Annual Review of Information Science and Technology},
	author = {Palmer, Carole L. and Cragin, Melissa H.},
	month = jan,
	year = {2008},
	pages = {163--212},
	file = {Palmer & Cragin 2008 - Scholarship and disciplinary practices.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Palmer & Cragin 2008 - Scholarship and disciplinary practices.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{pertsas_scholarly_2017,
	title = {Scholarly {Ontology}: modelling scholarly practices},
	volume = {18},
	issn = {1432-5012, 1432-1300},
	shorttitle = {Scholarly {Ontology}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3},
	doi = {10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3},
	abstract = {In this paper we present the Scholarly Ontology (SO), an ontology for modelling scholarly practices, inspired by business process modelling and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. The SO is based on empirical research and earlier models and is designed so as to incorporate related works through a modular structure. The SO is an elaboration of the domain-independent core part of the NeDiMAH Methods Ontology addressing the scholarly ecosystem of Digital Humanities. It thus provides a basis for developing domain-specific scholarly work ontologies springing from a common root. We define the basic concepts of the model and their semantic relations through four complementary perspectives on scholarly work: activity, procedure, resource and agency. As a use case we present a modelling example and argue on the purpose of use of the model through the presentation of indicative SPRQL and SQWRL queries that highlight the benefits of its serialization in RDFS. The SO includes an explicit treatment of intentionality and its interplay with functionality, captured by different parts of the model. We discuss the role of types as the semantic bridge between those two parts and explore several patterns that can be exploited in designing reusable access structures and conformance rules. Related taxonomies and ontologies and their possible reuse within the framework of SO are reviewed.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2017-09-22},
	journal = {International Journal on Digital Libraries},
	author = {Pertsas, Vayianos and Constantopoulos, Panos},
	month = sep,
	year = {2017},
	pages = {173--190},
	file = {Pertsas & Constantopoulos 2017 - Scholarly Ontology.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Pertsas & Constantopoulos 2017 - Scholarly Ontology.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{hacking_between_2004,
	title = {Between {Michel} {Foucault} and {Erving} {Goffman}: between discourse in the abstract and face-to-face interaction},
	volume = {33},
	shorttitle = {Between {Michel} {Foucault} and {Erving} {Goffman}},
	url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0308514042000225671},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2017-08-22},
	journal = {Economy and society},
	author = {Hacking, Ian},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {277--302},
	annote = {Extracted Annotations (2017-09-21, 4:35:56 PM)"In the first chapter of his Archaeology of Knowledge (1969)1 he wrote that his project was the 'pure description of discursive events'. Discursive events are particular utterances, such as statements made or questions asked, diagrams drawn or inscriptions chiselled - and, for anyone concerned with the past, the recorded versions of such events, so often the printed word. Their pure description is their description as entities in themselves, uttered in particular sites, with definite presence or lack of authority, yes, but with the speakers or printers or technical artists left out, or present only by implication." (Hacking 2004:278)"He scrupulously noted the social exchanges between individuals, not only the words but also the tone, the accent, the body language, the gestures, the withdrawals, the silences. But Goffman was not reporting individual exchanges for their own sake. One of his projects was to understand how people were constituted, defined themselves and were understood by others, in terms of exactly such interactions." (Hacking 2004:278)"I call this 'bottom-up' because we start with individual face-to-face exchanges, and develop an account of how such exchanges constitute lives. I call Foucault top-down because he starts with a mass of sentences at a time and place, dissociated from the human beings who spoke them, and uses them as the data upon which to characterize a system of" (Hacking 2004:278)},
	file = {Hacking 2004 - Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Hacking 2004 - Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{benardou_conceptual_2010,
	title = {A conceptual model for scholarly research activity},
	url = {https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/14945},
	urldate = {2017-02-16},
	author = {Benardou, Agiatis and Constantopoulos, Panos and Dallas, Costis and Gavrilis, Dimitris},
	year = {2010},
	file = {Benardou et al 2010 - A conceptual model for scholarly research activity.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Benardou et al 2010 - A conceptual model for scholarly research activity.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@inproceedings{angelis_documenting_2015,
	title = {Documenting and reasoning about research on ancient {Corinthia} using the {NeDiMAH} {Methods} {Ontology} ({NeMO})},
	booktitle = {43rd {Computer} {Applications} and {Quantitative} {Methods} in {Archaeology} {Conference} {CAA}},
	author = {Angelis, S. and Benardou, A. and Chatzidiakou, N. and Constantopoulos, P. and Dallas, C. and Hughes, L. M. and Papachristopoulos, L. and Papaki, E. and Pertsas, V.},
	year = {2015},
	file = {Angelis et al 2015 - Documenting and reasoning about research on ancient Corinthia using the NeDiMAH.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Angelis et al 2015 - Documenting and reasoning about research on ancient Corinthia using the NeDiMAH.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{benardou_approach_2013,
	title = {An approach to analyzing working practices of research communities in the humanities},
	volume = {7},
	url = {http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/ijhac.2013.0084},
	number = {1-2},
	urldate = {2017-08-26},
	journal = {International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing},
	author = {Benardou, Agiatis and Constantopoulos, Panos and Dallas, Costis},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {105--127},
	annote = {Extracted Annotations (2017-09-21, 4:27:49 PM)"precept that, in order to ensure fitness-for-purpose of digital infrastructures for arts and humanities research, it is not sufficient to know what particular functionalities scholars want of digital infrastructures, or how they currently use digital tools and services, but it is necessary to study these dimensions in the context of a broader user-centred perspective on scholarly research practices.3" (Benardou et al 2013:106)"the dimensions of intentionality, sociality and grounded experience. It allows thinking about future digital infrastructures for scholarly work by taking into account the motives, goals and ideas held by researchers, the entire spectrum of parameters and considerations that enter their current interaction with information artifacts, tools and each other as they conduct their research, and the specific context - physical, technological, situational - in which they operate as they do so." (Benardou et al 2013:108)"A particular line of action stems from the observation that, if viewed at an appropriate level of abstraction, scholarly research working practices tend to involve a finite set of fundamental processes common across disciplines. In their seminal grounded theory research, Ellis and his team identified six common processes across disciplines in the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities: starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring and extracting;16" (Benardou et al 2013:110)"these were updated a decade later by Meho and Tibbo with processes of accessing, networking and verifying.17 Along similar lines, Brockman, Palmer and associates recently presented a broadly based conceptual framework of the nature of scholarly work, focusing on processes of reading, collaborative networking, researching and searching, and ways of writing, and emphasizing the differences in information work in the humanities compared with other disciplines.18" (Benardou et al 2013:110)},
	file = {Benardou et al 2013 - An approach to analyzing working practices of research communities in the.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Benardou et al 2013 - An approach to analyzing working practices of research communities in the.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{engestrom_activity_2000,
	title = {Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work},
	volume = {43},
	issn = {0014-0139},
	doi = {10.1080/001401300409143},
	abstract = {Cultural-historical activity theory is a new framework aimed at transcending the dichotomies of micro- and macro-, mental and material, observation and intervention in analysis and redesign of work. The approach distinguishes between short-lived goal-directed actions and durable, object-oriented activity systems. A historically evolving collective activity system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems, is taken as the prime unit of analysis against which scripted strings of goal-directed actions and automatic operations are interpreted. Activity systems are driven by communal motives that are often difficult to articulate for individual participants. Activity systems are in constant movement and internally contradictory. Their systemic contradictions, manifested in disturbances and mundane innovations, offer possibilities for expansive developmental transformations. Such transformations proceed through stepwise cycles of expansive learning which begin with actions of questioning the existing standard practice, then proceed to actions of analyzing its contradictions and modelling a vision for its zone of proximal development, then to actions of examining and implementing the new model in practice. New forms of work organization increasingly require negotiated 'knotworking' across boundaries. Correspondingly, expansive learning increasingly involves horizontal widening of collective expertise by means of debating, negotiating and hybridizing different perspectives and conceptualizations. Findings from a longitudinal intervention study of children's medical care illuminate the theoretical arguments.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {7},
	journal = {Ergonomics},
	author = {Engeström, Y.},
	month = jul,
	year = {2000},
	pmid = {10929830},
	keywords = {Adult, Child, Critical Pathways, Finland, Hospitals, Pediatric, Humans, Man-Machine Systems, Outpatient Clinics, Hospital, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Work},
	pages = {960--974},
	file = {Engeström 2000 - Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Engeström 2000 - Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{doerr_ontologies_2009,
	series = {International {Handbooks} on {Information} {Systems}},
	title = {Ontologies for {Cultural} {Heritage}},
	isbn = {978-3-540-70999-2 978-3-540-92673-3},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_21},
	abstract = {SummaryIn the cultural heritage domain information systems are increasingly deployed, digital representations of physical objects are produced in immense numbers and there is a strong political pressure on memory institutions to make their holdings accessible to the public in digital form. The sector splits into a set of disciplines with highly specialized fields. Due to the resulting diversity, one can hardly speak about a “domain” in the sense of “domain ontologies” [33]. On the other side, study and research of the past is highly interdisciplinary. Characteristically, archaeology employs a series of “auxiliary” disciplines, such as archaeometry, archaeomedicine, archaeobotany, archaeometallurgy, archaeoastronomy, etc., but also historical sources and social theories.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2017-09-21},
	booktitle = {Handbook on {Ontologies}},
	publisher = {Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg},
	author = {Doerr, Martin},
	year = {2009},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_21},
	pages = {463--486},
	file = {Doerr 2009 - Ontologies for Cultural Heritage.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Doerr 2009 - Ontologies for Cultural Heritage.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{dallas_agency-oriented_2007,
	title = {An agency-oriented approach to digital curation theory and practice},
	copyright = {info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess},
	url = {http://lekythos.library.ucy.ac.cy/handle/10797/13650},
	abstract = {Digital curation emerged as an important new concept in the theory and management of cultural information, not least because of its broad applicability and promise of a universal approach to ensure future "fitness for purpose" of digital information. This paper explores curatorial traditions in the field of museums and cultural heritage, in order to contribute to the active current debate on the nature, scope and methods of digital curation. It uses an approach inspired by cultural-historical activity theory in order, first, to understand current digital curation practice, its achievements and limitations; secondly, to explore key activities in the cultural heritage field, i.e., knowledge production in archaeological fieldwork and publication, museum curation, and meaning interaction in exhibition visitor experience. On account of these insights, it concludes that, in order to ensure the declared objective of future "fitness for purpose", and avoid the risk of epistemic failure, more effort should be dedicated by the digital curation community to developing adequate knowledge representation of digital information in specific epistemic and pragmatic contexts; that an agency-based approach, using event-centric approaches to represent knowledge on the content and context of information, would be particularly useful in some application domains; and that formal methods to curation lifecycle based on belief change and ontology evolution could also be used in modeling the co-evolution of the epistemic content and context of curated knowledge.},
	language = {eng},
	urldate = {2017-09-21},
	journal = {ICHIM07 - International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, Proceedings 2007, 1p},
	author = {Dallas, Costis},
	year = {2007},
	file = {Dallas 2007 - An agency-oriented approach to digital curation theory and practice.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Dallas 2007 - An agency-oriented approach to digital curation theory and practice.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{law_after_2004,
	title = {After {Method}: {Mess} in {Social} {Science} {Research}},
	isbn = {978-0-415-34174-5},
	shorttitle = {After {Method}},
	abstract = {John Law argues that methods don't just describe social realities but are also involved in creating them. The implications of this argument are highly significant. If this is the case, methods are always political, and it raises the question of what kinds of social realities we want to create.  Most current methods look for clarity and precision. It is usually said that only poor research produces messy findings, and the idea that things in the world might be fluid, elusive, or multiple is unthinkable. Law's startling argument is that this is wrong and it is time for a new approach. Many realities, he says, are vague and ephemeral. If methods want to know and help to shape the world, then they need to reinvent themselves and their politics to deal with mess. That is the challenge. Nothing less will do.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Psychology Press},
	author = {Law, John},
	year = {2004},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: E20X7N0nBfQC},
	keywords = {Social Science / Research, Social Science / Sociology / General},
	annote = {Extracted Annotations (2017-09-21, 4:40:28 PM)Assemblage Enact Modes of gathering métodos e organização. Como o mundo é 'bagunçado' o problema é acreditar que se pode traduzir em uma (única) narrativa ordenada do mundo. (note on p.4)"Bruno Latour" (Law 2004:8)"Parts of the world are caught in our ethnographies, our histories and our statistics. But other parts are not, or if they are then this is because they have been distorted into clarity." (Law 2004:11)"In any case, if much of reality is ephemeral and elusive, then we cannot expect single answers" (Law 2004:11)"embodiment" (Law 2004:12)"we should certainly be asking ourselves whether 'knowing' is the metaphor that we need" (Law 2004:12)"Many now think that ethnography needs to work differently if it is to understand a networked or fluid world" (Law 2004:12)TESE1 \_ Método não é uma maneira de constatar algo; é uma maneira de criar algo que não existe. Não existe um método que vai demonstrar algo; o método vai criar/construir/performatizar algo. Método = teoria. Não há inocência no método. Enact = uma maneira de fazer existir... LATOUR/ leitura {\textgreater} às vezes cai na ideia de que a Ciência não é suficientemente científica. Questão de verdade. Descrever o real? Reconstruir o (que é o) social? Todo método é um discurso que permite ver certas coisas e não ver outras coisas... novas estratégias metodológicas para ver 'novas' coisas. O que é dito não basta ser dito... Tem que ser performatizado. Qual a performace de outros saberes?Terra = propriedade ancestral (musica, sonho, vento, jeito de caminhar...)O bem viver, por ex, é performatizado de diferentes formas, em diferentes condições... (note on p.13)"there is a world out there" (Law 2004:16)heterogeneidade x singularidade Um tipo de pesquisa que não vai nas causas... mas nos efeitos. Por que as causas sempre mudam. (note on p.17)"complex and generative" (Law 2004:17)Ao contrário de um critério de falseabilidade, mas um critério de complexividade. (note on p.125)"Method always works not simply by detecting but also by amplifying a reality." (Law 2004:125)},
	file = {Law 2004 - After method.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Law 2004 - After method.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{nardi_studying_1996,
	title = {Studying context: {A} comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition},
	volume = {69102},
	shorttitle = {Studying context},
	url = {https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JeqcgPlS2UAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA69&ots=e-ac-BtZFy&sig=OFN9oBp-ZHlbeDZdb_ZQiLUL5NM},
	abstract = {It has been recognized that system design will benefit from explicit study of the context in which users work. The unaided individual divorced from a social group and from supporting artifacts is no longer the model user. But with this realization about the importance of context come many difficult questions. What exactly is context? If the individual is no longer central, what is the correct unit of analysis? What are the relations between artifacts, individuals, and the social groups to which they belong? This chapter compares three approaches to the study of context: activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. I consider the basic concepts each approach promulgates and evaluate the usefulness of each for the design of technology.},
	urldate = {2017-08-26},
	booktitle = {Context and consciousness: {Activity} theory and human-computer interaction},
	author = {Nardi, Bonnie A.},
	year = {1996},
	annote = {Extracted Annotations (2017-09-21, 4:42:43 PM)"1990) has shown that it is not possible to fully understand how people learn or work if the unit of study is the unaided individual with no access to other people or to artifacts for accomplishing the task at hand. Thus we are motivated to study context to understand relations among individuals, artifacts, and social groups. But as human-computer interaction researchers, how can we conduct studies of context that will have value to designers who seek our expertise?" (Nardi 1996:1)"''everyday activity of persons acting in [a] setting" (Lave 1988).3 That this inquiry is meant to take place at a very fine-grained level of minutely observed activities, inextricably embedded in a particular situation, is reflected in Suchman's (1987) statement that ''the organization of situated action is an emergent property of moment-by-moment interactions between actors, and between actors and the environments of their action."" (Nardi 1996:2)So an arena is said to plainly exist? In my understanding, arenas should be considered as constructed by those who act within them, and are therefore unstable. (note on p.2)"An arena is a stable institutional framework." (Nardi 1996:2)Yes, but how do you determine what is archaeological activity? Also, how do individual variations characterize archaeological practice? Can potentially lead to mechanistic interpretations of activity, whereby individual agency is stripped. (note on p.2)"It is a highly particularistic accounting of a single episode that highlights an individual's creative response to a unique situation." (Nardi 1996:2)"A central tenet of the situated action approach is that the structuring of activity is not something that precedes it but can only grow directly out of the immediacy of the situation (Suchman 1987; Lave 1988)." (Nardi 1996:2)"artificial intelligence and cognitive science Such work failed to recognize the opportunistic, flexible way that people engage in real activity. It failed to treat the environment as an important shaper of activity, concentrating almost exclusively on representations in the head—usually rigid, planful ones—as the object of study." (Nardi 1996:2)"Actions are goal-directed processes that must be undertaken to fulfill the object. They are conscious (because one holds a goal in mind), and different actions may be undertaken to meet the same goal." (Nardi 1996:3)Embodied or ideal case (note on p.3)"Objects do not, however, change on a moment-by-moment basis. There is some stability over time, and changes in objects are not trivial; they can change the nature of an activity fundamentally (see, for example, Holland and Reeves, this volume)." (Nardi 1996:3)"Activity theory, then, proposes a very specific notion of context: the activity itself is the context. What takes place in an activity system composed of object, actions, and operation, is the context. Context is constituted through the enactment of an activity involving people and artifacts. Context is not an outer container or shell inside of which people behave in certain ways. People consciously and deliberately generate contexts (activities) in part through their own objects; hence context is not just ''out there."" (Nardi 1996:4)"Context is both internal to people—involving specific objects and goals—and, at the same time, external to people, involving artifacts, other people, specific settings." (Nardi 1996:4)"The cockpit, with its pilots and instruments forming a single cognitive system, can be understood only when we understand, as a unity, the contributions of the individual agents in the system and the coordination necessary among the agents to enact the goal, that is, to achieve ''the successful completion of a flight." (Hutchins 1994 studies shipboard navigation and makes similar points.)" (Nardi 1996:5)"The other major emphasis of distributed cognition is on understanding the coordination among individuals and artifacts, that is, to understand how individual agents align and share within a distributed process (Flor and Hutchins 1991; Hutchins 1991a, 1991b; Nardi and Miller 1991)." (Nardi 1996:5)In Hutchins 2010, in which such a system is played out (involving pilots in a flight simulator), he focuses on various relationships or facets of the system at various points throughout the chapter. He chose what to emphasize, though he recognized that the system is what tied all the components together. (note on p.5)Ah, this is what really interests me, and is what Hutchins was up to (note on p.5)"organization. In these analyses, shared goals and plans, and the particular characteristics of the artifacts in the system, are important determinants of the interactions and the quality of collaboration." (Nardi 1996:5)"Activity theory and distributed cognition are very close in spirit, as we have seen, and it is my belief that the two approaches will mutually inform, and even merge, over time, though activity theory will continue to probe questions of consciousness outside the purview of distributed cognition as it is presently formulated." (Nardi 1996:10)I don't like this nature walk example. It supposes that people are locked into their disciplinary boundaries, and are uncapable of conducting a holistic assessment (the clouds cause rain, which makes worms come out for birds to eat - this requires a discussion among walkers, which is not apparent) (note on p.11)},
	file = {Nardi 1996 - Studying context.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Nardi 1996 - Studying context.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{hyland_talking_1999,
	title = {Talking to {Students}: {Metadiscourse} in {Introductory} {Coursebooks}.},
	volume = {18},
	shorttitle = {Talking to {Students}},
	url = {https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ577537},
	abstract = {This paper explores the possible role of university textbooks in
students’ acquisition of a specialised disciplinary literacy, focusing on the use
of metadiscourse as a manifestation of the writer’s linguistic and rhetorical
presence in a text. Because metadiscourse can be analysed independently of
propositional matter, it provides useful information about how writers support
their arguments and build a relationship with readers in different rhetorical
contexts. The paper compares features in extracts from 21 textbooks in
microbiology, marketing and applied linguistics with a similar corpus of
research articles and shows that the ways textbook authors represent themselves,
organise their arguments, and signal their attitudes to both their
statements and their readers differ markedly in the two corpora. It is suggested
that these differences mean that textbooks provide limited rhetorical
guidance to students seeking information from research sources or learning
appropriate forms of written argument. Finally, by investigating metadiscourse
in particular disciplines and genres, the study helps to restore the
intrinsic link between metadiscourse and its associated rhetorical contexts
and rectify a popular view which implicitly characterises it as an independent
stylistic device.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-08-23},
	journal = {English for Specific Purposes},
	author = {Hyland, Ken},
	year = {1999},
	pages = {3--26},
	file = {Hyland 1999 - Talking to Students.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Hyland 1999 - Talking to Students.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{tsou_lets_2015,
	title = {Let’s {Not} {Talk} {About} {Objectivity}},
	abstract = {The trajectory of objectivity, as an idea, is the triumph of bumbling public good sense over great but bad European philosophy (Descartes, Kant). The public in question is primarily that of querulous western democracies as they entered the age of technocracy, and it did a good if unplanned job of dealing with novelty. It is often hard to be objective in the face of a real-life debate, but there is no problem about objectivity itself—except what is foisted on it by highbrow idealization and misguided polemics. The adjective “objective” does the work for the abstract noun, “objectivity”, but in a negative way: in any single situation, one or more of the host of ways to fail to be objective is what matters. Objectivity is not a virtue: it is the proclaimed absence of this or that vice. When public virtues compete—evidence-based versus clinical medicine, for example—we need to think harder, not more objectively. When objectivity is declared to be the cardinal virtue of science, it at once gets bashed (rightly)—or else abused (deservedly), as in “NAOS: The National Association for Objectivity in Science” (q.v.). So let’s get down to work on cases, not generalities.},
	booktitle = {Objectivity in {Science}},
	publisher = {Springer Verlag},
	author = {Hacking, Ian},
	editor = {Tsou, Jonathan Y. and Richardson, Alan and Padovani, Flavia},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {19--33},
	file = {Hacking 2015 - Let’s Not Talk About Objectivity.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Hacking 2015 - Let’s Not Talk About Objectivity.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{goodwin_professional_1994,
	title = {Professional {Vision}},
	volume = {96},
	issn = {1548-1433},
	url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100/abstract},
	doi = {10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2017-09-22},
	journal = {American Anthropologist},
	author = {Goodwin, Charles},
	month = sep,
	year = {1994},
	pages = {606--633},
	file = {Goodwin 1994 - Professional vision.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Goodwin 1994 - Professional vision.pdf:application/pdf;Goodwin 1994 - Professional vision.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Goodwin 1994 - Professional vision.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{huvila_information_2008,
	title = {Information work analysis: an approach to research on information interactions and information behaviour in context.},
	volume = {13},
	shorttitle = {Information work analysis},
	url = {https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ837271},
	abstract = {Introduction. A work roles and role theory-based approach to conceptualise human information activity, denoted information work analysis is discussed. The present article explicates the approach and its special characteristics and benefits in comparison to earlier methods of analysing human information work.
Method. The approach is discussed in the light of the results of an empirically-based qualitative investigation of the information work of Finnish and Swedish archaeology professionals. The material was gathered in a series of twenty-five thematic interviews, which comprised a variety of different interview approaches. 
Analysis. The data were analysed by using a grounded theory approach, which comprised iterative writing, schema analysis and validity checks. 
Results. Information work analysis is an approach that explicitly focuses on information and work, from an information management point of view and perceives the two as social and cultural, instead of merely cognitive, issues. Unlike the information technology-oriented analytical frameworks, information work analysis aims at improving information work as a comprehensive enterprise instead of merely looking at how to develop a computerised information system.
Conclusions. Information work analysis provides a description and understanding of real world phenomena, but it is also an instrument, which aims at providing necessary premises for changing and developing the present state of affairs.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2017-08-23},
	journal = {Information Research: An International Electronic Journal},
	author = {Huvila, Isto},
	year = {2008},
	file = {Huvila 2008 - Information work analysis.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Huvila 2008 - Information work analysis.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{bates_introduction_2009,
	title = {An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models},
	volume = {11},
	url = {http://en.journals.sid.ir/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=142142},
	language = {En},
	number = {444},
	urldate = {2017-11-18},
	author = {Bates, Marcia J.},
	month = jan,
	year = {2009},
	pages = {275--297},
	file = {Bates 2009 - An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Bates 2009 - An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{choo_sensemaking_2002,
	title = {Sensemaking, {Knowledge} {Creation}, and {Decision} {Making}},
	booktitle = {The {Strategic} {Management} of {Intellectual} {Capital} and {Organizational} {Knowledge}},
	author = {Choo, Chun Wei},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {79--88},
	file = {Choo 2002 - Sensemaking, Knowledge Creation, and Decision Making.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Choo 2002 - Sensemaking, Knowledge Creation, and Decision Making.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@inproceedings{doerr_modelling_2014,
	title = {Modelling scientific activities: proposal for a global schema for integrating metadata about scientific observation},
	shorttitle = {Modelling scientific activities},
	booktitle = {Access and understanding–networking in the digital era: {The} 6th annual conference of {CIDOC}, the {International} {Committee} for {Documentation} of {ICOM}, {Dresden}, {Germany}},
	author = {Doerr, Martin and Bekiari, Chryssoula and Kritsotaki, Athina and Hiebel, Gerald and Theodoridou, Maria},
	year = {2014},
	file = {Doerr et al 2014 - Modelling scientific activities.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Doerr et al 2014 - Modelling scientific activities.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{sanderson_cognitive_2003,
	address = {San Francisco},
	title = {Cognitive work analysis},
	booktitle = {{HCI} models, theories, and frameworks: {Toward} a multidisciplinary science},
	publisher = {Morgan Kaufmann},
	author = {Sanderson, Penelope M. and Carroll, J.M.},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {225--263},
	file = {Sanderson & Carroll 2003 - Cognitive work analysis.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Sanderson & Carroll 2003 - Cognitive work analysis.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{sismondo_models_1999,
	title = {Models, {Simulations}, and {Their} {Objects}},
	volume = {12},
	issn = {1474-0664, 0269-8897},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/science-in-context/article/models-simulations-and-their-objects/F32E78AF8C3A70D862CB292B28C73DA6},
	doi = {10.1017/S0269889700003409},
	abstract = {{\textless}div class="title"{\textgreater}Models, Simulations, and Their Objects{\textless}/div{\textgreater} - Volume 12 Issue 2 - Sergio Sismondo},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2017-11-18},
	journal = {Science in Context},
	author = {Sismondo, Sergio},
	month = jul,
	year = {1999},
	pages = {247--260},
	file = {Sismondo 1999 - Models, Simulations, and Their Objects.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Sismondo 1999 - Models, Simulations, and Their Objects.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{cole_putting_1996,
	title = {Putting culture in the middle},
	shorttitle = {Ch. 5},
	booktitle = {Cultural {Psychology}: a once and future discipline},
	publisher = {Belknap Press},
	author = {Cole, Michael},
	year = {1996},
	keywords = {bibtex-import, cultural, development},
	pages = {116--145},
	file = {Cole 1996 - Putting culture in the middle.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Cole 1996 - Putting culture in the middle.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{charmaz_constructing_2006,
	title = {Constructing {Grounded} {Theory}: {A} {Practical} {Guide} {Through} {Qualitative} {Analysis}},
	isbn = {978-0-7619-7353-9},
	shorttitle = {Constructing {Grounded} {Theory}},
	abstract = {Kathy Charmaz introduces the reader to the craft of using grounded theory in social research, and provides a step-by-step guide. Using worked examples, this book also maps out an alternative vision of grounded theory put forward by its founding thinkers, Glaser and Strauss. To Charmaz, grounded theory must move on from its positivist origins and must incorporate many of the methods and questions posed by constructivists to become a more nuanced and reflexive practice.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {SAGE},
	author = {Charmaz, Kathy},
	month = jan,
	year = {2006},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: v1qP1KbXz1AC},
	keywords = {Social Science / Research},
	file = {Charmaz 2006 - Constructing Grounded Theory.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Charmaz 2006 - Constructing Grounded Theory.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{hall_proxemics_1968,
	title = {Proxemics [and {Comments} and {Replies}]},
	volume = {9},
	issn = {0011-3204},
	url = {https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/200975},
	doi = {10.1086/200975},
	abstract = {Virtually everything that man is and does is associated with space. Man's sense of space is a synthesis of many sensory inputs: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and thermal. Not only does each of these constitute a complex system (as for example, the dozen or more different ways of experiencing depth visually), but each is molded and patterned by culture. Hence people reared in different cultures live in different sensory worlds. What is more, they are generally unaware of the degree to which the worlds may differ. From the study of culture we learn that the patterning of perceptual worlds is a function not only of the specific culture but of the relationship, activity, and emotions present in a given situation. Therefore, when two people of different cultures interact, each uses different criteria to interpret the other's behavior, and each may easily misinterpret the relationship, the activity, or the emotions involved. The study of culture in the proxemic sense is the study of peoples' use of their perceptual apparatus in different emotional states during different activities, in different relationships, settings, and contexts. No single research technique is sufficient in scope to investigate this complex, multi-dimensional subject. The research technique is, therefore, a function of the particular facet under examination at the time and many call for the involvement of many disciplines. Like all basic studies of the communicative process, proxemics, as I think of it, is more concerned with how than why, and more concerned with structure than content. The work is admittedly detailed and is apt to be routine. It addresses itself to basic human situations in an area of culture that is ordinarily hidden from conscious awareness. For this reason, proxemics frequently leads to new insights about specific cultures, as well as to insights into the generalized concept of culture itself. In formulating my thinking concerning proxemics, I have maintained that culture is an extension of basic biological processes. While man's extensions as they evolve may mask the underlying relationships which maintain the equilibrium of biological systems, the relationships and systems are no less real by virtue of being hidden. In the words of Ian McHarg (1963): ...no species can exist without an environment, no species can exist in an environment of its exclusive creation, no species can survive, save as a nondisruptive member of an ecological community. Every member must adjust to other members of the community and to the environment in order to survive. Man is not excluded from this test.},
	number = {2/3},
	urldate = {2018-03-26},
	journal = {Current Anthropology},
	author = {Hall, Edward T. and Birdwhistell, Ray L. and Bock, Bernhard and Bohannan, Paul and Diebold, A. Richard,  and Durbin, Marshall and Edmonson, Munro S. and Fischer, J. L. and Hymes, Dell and Kimball, Solon T. and La Barre, Weston and McClellan, J. E. and Marshall, Donald S. and Milner, G. B. and Sarles, Harvey B. and Trager, George L and Vayda, Andrew P.},
	month = apr,
	year = {1968},
	pages = {83--108},
	file = {Hall et al 1968 - Proxemics [and Comments and Replies].pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Hall et al 1968 - Proxemics [and Comments and Replies].pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{hutchins_edwin_how_2010,
	title = {How a {Cockpit} {Remembers} {Its} {Speeds}},
	volume = {19},
	issn = {0364-0213},
	url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1},
	doi = {10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1},
	abstract = {Cognitive science normally takes the individual agent as its unit of analysis. In many human endeavors, however, the outcomes of interest are not determined entirely by the information processing properties of individuals. Nor can they be inferred from the properties of the individual agents, alone, no matter how detailed the knowledge of the properties of those individuals may be. In commercial aviation, for example, the successful completion of a flight is produced by a system that typically includes two or more pilots interacting with each other and with a suite of technological devices. This article presents a theoretical framework that takes a distributed, socio?technical system rather than an individual mind as its primary unit of analysis. This framework is explicitly cognitive in that it is concerned with how information is represented and how representations are transformed and propagated in the performance of tasks. An analysis of a memory task in the cockpit of a commercial airliner shows how the cognitive properties of such distributed systems can differ radically from the cognitive properties of the individuals who inhabit them.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2018-04-03},
	journal = {Cognitive Science},
	author = {{Hutchins Edwin}},
	month = feb,
	year = {2010},
	pages = {265--288},
	file = {Hutchins Edwin 2010 - How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Hutchins Edwin 2010 - How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{garfinkel_what_1991,
	title = {What is ethnomethodology?},
	isbn = {978-0-7456-0005-5},
	abstract = {This is the first appearance in paper back of one of the major classics of contemporary Sociology. Studies in Ethnomethodology has inspired a wide range of important theoretical and empirical work in the social sciences and linguistics. It is one of the most original and controversial works in modern social science and it remains at the centre of debate about the current trends and tasks of sociology and social theory. Ethnomethodology - the study of the ways in which ordinary people construct a stable social world through everyday utterances and actions - is now a major component of all sociology and linguistics courses. Garfinkel's formidable reputation as one of the worlds leading sociologists rest largely on the work contained in this book. Studies in Ethnomethodology was originally published by Prentice Hall in 1967 and has remained in print ever since. It is widely used as a text book in this country and in the United States. This new paperback is a special student edition of Garfinkel's modern classic.},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Studies in {Ethnomethodology}},
	publisher = {Wiley},
	author = {Garfinkel, Harold},
	month = jan,
	year = {1991},
	keywords = {Social Science / Research, Social Science / Sociology / General}
}

@incollection{sacks_chapter_1978,
	title = {chapter 1 - {A} {Simplest} {Systematics} for the {Organization} of {Turn} {Taking} for {Conversation}*},
	isbn = {978-0-12-623550-0},
	url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780126235500500082},
	abstract = {Turn taking is used for the ordering of moves in games, for allocating political office, for regulating traffic at intersections, for the servicing of customers at business establishments, and for talking in interviews, meetings, debates, ceremonies, conversations. This chapter discusses the turn-taking system for conversation. On the basis of research using audio recordings of naturally occurring conversations, the chapter highlights the organization of turn taking for conversation and extracts some of the interest that organization has. The turn-taking system for conversation can be described in terms of two components and a set of rules. These two components are turn-constructional component and turn-constructional component. Turn-allocational techniques are distributed into two groups: (1) those in which next turn is allocated by current speaker selecting a next speaker and (2) those in which next turn is allocated by self-selection. The turn-taking rule-set provides for the localization of gap and overlap possibilities at transition-relevance places and their immediate environment, cleansing the rest of a turn's space of systematic bases for their possibility.},
	urldate = {2018-04-03},
	booktitle = {Studies in the {Organization} of {Conversational} {Interaction}},
	publisher = {Academic Press},
	author = {Sacks, HARVEY and Schegloff, EMANUEL A. and Jefferson, GAIL},
	editor = {Schenkein, JIM},
	year = {1978},
	doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2},
	pages = {7--55},
	file = {Sacks et al 1978 - chapter 1 - A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Sacks et al 1978 - chapter 1 - A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{hindmarsh_jon_videobased_2007,
	title = {Video‐{Based} {Studies} of {Work} {Practice}},
	volume = {1},
	issn = {1751-9020},
	url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00012.x},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00012.x},
	abstract = {Abstract The use of the visual, let alone video, is surprisingly rare within social scientific studies of work and organisations. Nevertheless there is an emerging corpus of research that use video recordings, augmented by field work, as their principal data; recordings that provide access to the fine details of work as it is accomplished within everyday organisational settings. They include studies of work in a broad range of domains, including call centres, mobile offices, operating theatres, construction sites and control centres. This paper outlines the nature of these video?based studies of work and organisation and highlights some of their major contributions to our understanding of issues such as the nature of skill and expertise, the use of technology and the organisation of teamwork. It also reflects on the impact that these studies, and this approach, are having within the practical fields of industrial and market research.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2018-04-03},
	journal = {Sociology Compass},
	author = {{Hindmarsh Jon} and {Heath Christian}},
	month = sep,
	year = {2007},
	pages = {156--173},
	file = {Hindmarsh Jon & Heath Christian 2007 - Video‐Based Studies of Work Practice.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Hindmarsh Jon & Heath Christian 2007 - Video‐Based Studies of Work Practice.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{may_analysing_2002,
	address = {6 Bonhill Street, London England EC2A 4PU United Kingdom},
	title = {Analysing {Interaction}: {Video}, {Ethnography} and {Situated} {Conduct}},
	isbn = {978-0-7619-6068-3 978-1-84920-965-6},
	shorttitle = {Analysing {Interaction}},
	url = {http://methods.sagepub.com/book/qualitative-research-in-action/n4.xml},
	urldate = {2018-04-03},
	booktitle = {Qualitative {Research} in {Action}},
	publisher = {SAGE Publications Ltd},
	editor = {May, Tim},
	year = {2002},
	doi = {10.4135/9781849209656.n4},
	pages = {100--121},
	file = {2002 - Analysing Interaction.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/2002 - Analysing Interaction.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{lotman_semiosphere_2005,
	title = {On the semiosphere},
	volume = {33},
	issn = {1406-4243},
	url = {https://www-ceeol-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/search/article-detail?id=14996},
	language = {English},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2018-04-03},
	journal = {Σημειωτκή - Sign Systems Studies},
	author = {Lotman, Yuri M.},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {205--229},
	file = {Lotman 2005 - On the semiosphere.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Lotman 2005 - On the semiosphere.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{clarke_situational_2003,
	title = {Situational {Analyses}: {Grounded} {Theory} {Mapping} {After} the {Postmodern} {Turn}},
	volume = {26},
	issn = {0195-6086},
	shorttitle = {Situational {Analyses}},
	url = {http://www.jstor.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553},
	doi = {10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553},
	abstract = {To better address differences and complexities of social life articulated through the postmodern turn, grounded theory is being regenerated and updated. Based on Strauss's ecological frameworks in his social worlds and arenas theory, I offer situational maps and analyses as innovative supplements to the basic social process analyses characteristic of traditional grounded theory. There are three kinds of analytic maps: maps of situations including all the key human and nonhuman elements, maps of social worlds and arenas, and maps of positionality along salient analytic axes. This article introduces all three kinds of maps and explicates one—situational maps—as a means of coherently elucidating and analyzing some of the complexities and instabilities of social life.},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2018-04-03},
	journal = {Symbolic Interaction},
	author = {Clarke, Adele E.},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {553--576},
	file = {Clarke 2003 - Situational Analyses.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Clarke 2003 - Situational Analyses.pdf:application/pdf}
}

~~~~~Theoretical and applied approaches to cognition and action.bib

@article{suchman_working_2002,
	title = {Working artefacts: ethnomethods of the prototype},
	volume = {53},
	issn = {1468-4446},
	shorttitle = {Working artefacts},
	url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/00071310220133287/abstract},
	doi = {10.1080/00071310220133287},
	abstract = {This paper follows recent science studies in theorizing information technologies as socio-material configurations, aligned into more and less durable forms. The study of how new technologies emerge shifts, on this view, from a focus on invention to an interest in ongoing practices of assembly, demonstration, and performance. This view is developed in relation to the case of the ‘prototype’, an exploratory technology designed to effect alignment between the multiple interests and working practices of technology research and development, and sites of technologies-in-use. In so far as it is successful, the prototype works as an exemplary artefact that is at once intelligibly familiar to the actors involved, and recognizably new.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2017-09-22},
	journal = {The British Journal of Sociology},
	author = {Suchman, Lucy and Trigg, Randall and Blomberg, Jeanette},
	month = jun,
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {accountability, ethnomethodological studies of work, Information technologies, innovation, research and development, science and technology studies},
	pages = {163--179},
	file = {Suchman et al 2002 - Working artefacts.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Suchman et al 2002 - Working artefacts.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{ingold_materials_2007,
	title = {Materials against materiality},
	volume = {14},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S1380203807002127},
	number = {01},
	urldate = {2017-01-23},
	journal = {Archaeological dialogues},
	author = {Ingold, Tim},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {1--16},
	file = {Ingold 2007 - Materials against materiality.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Ingold 2007 - Materials against materiality.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{akkerman_boundary_2011,
	title = {Boundary {Crossing} and {Boundary} {Objects}},
	volume = {81},
	url = {http://rer.sagepub.com/content/81/2/132.short},
	doi = {10.3102/0034654311404435},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2017-09-02},
	journal = {Review of Educational Research},
	author = {Akkerman, Sanne F. and Bakker, Arthur},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {132--169},
	annote = {Extracted Annotations (2017-09-21, 4:26:12 PM)"Boundaries are becoming more explicit because of increasing specialization; people, therefore, search for ways to connect and mobilize themselves across social and cultural practices to avoid fragmentation (Hermans \& HermansKonopka, 2010)." (Akkerman and Bakker 2011:132)"A boundary can be seen as a sociocultural difference leading to discontinuity in action or interaction. Boundaries simultaneously suggest a sameness and continuity in the sense that within discontinuity two or more sites are relevant to one another in a particular way." (Akkerman and Bakker 2011:133)},
	file = {Akkerman & Bakker 2011 - Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Akkerman & Bakker 2011 - Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{knorr-cetina_objectual_2001,
	title = {Objectual practice},
	volume = {83},
	isbn = {978-0-415-22814-5},
	url = {https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kOUGDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA83&ots=ujuLVWxyMF&sig=kMmeU3lxzWtBbM-zhGSkvzISaQE},
	urldate = {2017-08-26},
	booktitle = {The {Practice} {Turn} in {Contemporary} {Theory}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Knorr-Cetina, Karin},
	editor = {Schatzki, Theodore R. and Knorr-Cetina, Karin and von Savigny, Eike},
	year = {2001},
	pages = {175--188},
	annote = {Extracted Annotations (2017-09-21, 4:39:53 PM)"appear to have the capacity to unfold indefinite{\textbackslash}y ..They are more Iike open drawers fiJled with folders extending indefinitely into the depth ofa dark doset. Since epistemic are always in the process ofbeing materiaJly defined, they continuaJly" (Knorr-Cetina 2001:4)Great analogy for archaeology! (note on p.4)Detachment to detachment of a certain kind (note on p.4)},
	file = {Knorr-Cetina 2001 - Objectual practice.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Knorr-Cetina 2001 - Objectual practice.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{collins_epistemological_1992,
	title = {Epistemological {Chicken}},
	url = {http://www.citeulike.org/group/268/article/506680},
	urldate = {2017-08-26},
	booktitle = {Science as {Practice} and {Culture}},
	publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
	author = {Collins, Harry M. and Yearley, Stephen},
	editor = {Pickering, Andrew},
	year = {1992},
	pages = {301--326},
	file = {Collins & Yearley 1992 - Epistemological Chicken.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Collins & Yearley 1992 - Epistemological Chicken.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{becher_academic_2001,
	title = {Academic tribes and territories: {Intellectual} enquiry and the culture of disciplines},
	isbn = {0 335 20627 1},
	shorttitle = {Academic tribes and territories},
	url = {https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oXTlAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=s3XaTJHfZ7&sig=Gn22LPxT9eVhtBkrS7n28fZ5N_8},
	urldate = {2017-08-23},
	publisher = {McGraw-Hill Education (UK)},
	author = {Becher, Tony and Trowler, Paul},
	year = {2001},
	file = {Becher & Trowler 2001 - Academic tribes and territories.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Becher & Trowler 2001 - Academic tribes and territories.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{appadurai_mediants_2015,
	title = {Mediants, {Materiality}, {Normativity}},
	volume = {27},
	issn = {0899-2363, 1527-8018},
	url = {http://publicculture.dukejournals.org/content/27/2_76/221},
	doi = {10.1215/08992363-2841832},
	abstract = {This essay outlines a new approach to the problem of mediation, materiality, and the distribution of agency across human and nonhuman entities by moving the focus away from Bruno Latour’s “actants” to a class of agentive entities called “mediants.”},
	language = {en},
	number = {2 76},
	urldate = {2017-09-21},
	journal = {Public Culture},
	author = {Appadurai, Arjun},
	month = may,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {agency, dividual, materiality, mediant, mediation},
	pages = {221--237},
	file = {Appadurai 2015 - Mediants, Materiality, Normativity.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Appadurai 2015 - Mediants, Materiality, Normativity.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{tsing_diverging_2008,
	title = {Diverging {Understandings} of {Forest} {Management} in {Matsutake} {Science}},
	volume = {62},
	issn = {0013-0001},
	url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/40390461},
	doi = {10.2307/40390461},
	abstract = {As high-value gourmet mushrooms, the matsutake complex of the genus Tricholoma has been the subject of extensive research. This article reviews two trajectories of matsutake research, showing how distinctive regional nodes may develop within a cosmopolitan modern science. The global center of matsutake research is in Japan, where problems of artificial cultivation and the "orchard-style" enhancement of production under forest conditions stimulate basic research. U.S. Pacific Northwest research forms a contrasting regional node, with a focus on sustainable yields in the context of timber production. Regional differences in research design and results point to the importance of distinctive scientific legacies, in this case formed in relation to divergent histories of forest management. Attention to regional distinctions in the framing of scientific problems is particularly important as scientific frameworks are exported to new places; for example, both Japanese and American forms of matsutake science have been extended to China. /// マツタケ科学にみる書林聾理の多樺化について高価なグルメきのこであるマツタケと その近晶君重群のTrich olαna属は広範囲に渡る科学的研究の対象となってきた。本論では 二つの地域特徴的なマツタケ研究の軌跡を概観し、文化的差異を超えて世界的に通用す る近代科学においても地域固有の関心に応じて特徴のある知識が結節し発展することを 示す。マツタケ研究の世界的な中心地である日本では人工増殖やマツタケを殖やすため の「果樹園的』な山林作りへの関心が基礎研究の方向性に刺激を与えてきた。一方日本 とは対照的に、米国北西岸州では木材の持続的産出に主眼をおいた山林管理の流れの中 で研究が進んできた。こうした研究計画や結果的に得られる知識の違いは、地域ごとに 特徴のある科学的遺産ー本件の場合は森林管理の歴史が多様に枝分かれしていることー に注目することが重要であることを知らせてくれる。近年日本や米国で発展したマツタ ケ研究の方法や成巣が中国での研究にも影響を与えているが、特に新しい研究の場を広 げる場合には科学的な関心、問題がどのような枠組で組み立てられるか地域によって多 様であることを考慮することが重要である。},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2017-09-12},
	journal = {Economic Botany},
	author = {Tsing, Anna and Satsuka, Shiho},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {244--253},
	file = {Tsing & Satsuka 2008 - Diverging Understandings of Forest Management in Matsutake Science.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Tsing & Satsuka 2008 - Diverging Understandings of Forest Management in Matsutake Science.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{pickering_science_1992,
	title = {From {Science} as {Knowledge} to {Science} as {Practice}},
	booktitle = {Science as {Practice} and {Culture}},
	publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
	author = {Pickering, Andrew},
	editor = {Pickering, Andrew},
	year = {1992},
	pages = {1--26},
	file = {Pickering 1992 - From Science as Knowledge to Science as Practice.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Pickering 1992 - From Science as Knowledge to Science as Practice.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{collins_sociology_1983,
	title = {The {Sociology} of {Scientific} {Knowledge}: {Studies} of {Contemporary} {Science}},
	volume = {9},
	shorttitle = {The {Sociology} of {Scientific} {Knowledge}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001405},
	doi = {10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001405},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-09-24},
	journal = {Annual Review of Sociology},
	author = {Collins, H. M.},
	year = {1983},
	pages = {265--285},
	file = {Collins 1983 - The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Collins 1983 - The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{suchman_organizing_2000,
	title = {Organizing {Alignment}: {A} {Case} of {Bridge}-{Building}},
	volume = {7},
	issn = {1350-5084},
	shorttitle = {Organizing {Alignment}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072007},
	doi = {10.1177/135050840072007},
	abstract = {The project of building a bridge is a canonical example of what John Law (1987) has termed `heterogeneous engineering', involving the arrangement of human and nonhuman elements into a stable artifact. This paper reports ethnographic research on the work of civil engineers engaged in designing a bridge scheduled for completion by the year 2004. My emphasis is on a view of bridge-building as persuasive performances that both rely upon and reflexively constitute the elements to be aligned. The work of designing a bridge, on this view, is as much a matter of story-telling as of analysis, calculation, and work with concrete and steel.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2017-11-22},
	journal = {Organization},
	author = {Suchman, Lucy},
	month = may,
	year = {2000},
	pages = {311--327},
	file = {Suchman 2000 - Organizing Alignment.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Suchman 2000 - Organizing Alignment.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{star_institutional_1989,
	title = {Institutional {Ecology}, `{Translations}' and {Boundary} {Objects}: {Amateurs} and {Professionals} in {Berkeley}'s {Museum} of {Vertebrate} {Zoology}, 1907-39},
	volume = {19},
	issn = {0306-3127},
	shorttitle = {Institutional {Ecology}, `{Translations}' and {Boundary} {Objects}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001},
	doi = {10.1177/030631289019003001},
	abstract = {Scientific work is heterogeneous, requiring many different actors and viewpoints. It also requires cooperation. The two create tension between divergent viewpoints and the need for generalizable findings. We present a model of how one group of actors managed this tension. It draws on the work of amateurs, professionals, administrators and others connected to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, during its early years. Extending the Latour-Callon model of interessement, two major activities are central for translating between viewpoints: standardization of methods, and the development of `boundary objects'. Boundary objects are both adaptable to different viewpoints and robust enough to maintain identity across them. We distinguish four types of boundary objects: repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries and standardized forms.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2017-11-22},
	journal = {Social Studies of Science},
	author = {Star, Susan Leigh and Griesemer, James R.},
	month = aug,
	year = {1989},
	pages = {387--420},
	file = {Star & Griesemer 1989 - Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Star & Griesemer 1989 - Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{webmoor_sts_2013,
	title = {{STS}, {Symmetry}, {Archaeology}},
	url = {http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199602001-e-039},
	doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.013.039},
	abstract = {This chapter considers the disciplinary history of exchanges between the object-oriented fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and archaeology of the contemporary past. It uses the topology of knots to examine these engagements and introduce readers to several key issues. Knots are practical heuristics that are useful in subverting mereology, a dominant logic of modernist thought that figures epistemological, ontological, and sociological relations. Against mereology knots do not parse, but instead focus attention upon collective action and outcome. The chapter deploys a particular symmetrical weave that binds ropes through adding weight and friction-load. With respect to the intellectual ‘load’ of temporality, performativity/representationalism, scale and symmetry, key matters of concern for both fields, it is argued that there is slippage. Consequently, STS misses out on re-sharpening its provocative edge in not developing these issues through the rich empirics of archaeological practice. Archaeology, in this asymmetry, risks not contributing to the timely conversation around things transversing the disciplines.},
	urldate = {2017-11-22},
	journal = {The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World},
	author = {Webmoor, Timothy and Graves-Brown, Paul and Harrison, Rodney},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {105--120},
	file = {Webmoor - 2013 - STS, Symmetry, Archaeology.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Zotero/storage/UHI92VA9/Webmoor - 2013 - STS, Symmetry, Archaeology.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{knorr-cetina_epistemic_1999,
	title = {Epistemic {Cultures}: {How} the {Sciences} {Make} {Knowledge}},
	isbn = {978-0-674-25894-5},
	shorttitle = {Epistemic {Cultures}},
	abstract = {How does science create knowledge? Epistemic cultures, shaped by affinity, necessity, and historical coincidence, determine how we know what we know. In this book, Karin Knorr Cetina compares two of the most important and intriguing epistemic cultures of our day, those in high energy physics and molecular biology. Her work highlights the diversity of these cultures of knowing and, in its depiction of their differences--in the meaning of the empirical, the enactment of object relations, and the fashioning of social relations--challenges the accepted view of a unified science. By many accounts, contemporary Western societies are becoming "knowledge societies"--which run on expert processes and expert systems epitomized by science and structured into all areas of social life. By looking at epistemic cultures in two sample cases, this book addresses pressing questions about how such expert systems and processes work, what principles inform their cognitive and procedural orientations, and whether their organization, structures, and operations can be extended to other forms of social order. The first ethnographic study to systematically compare two different scientific laboratory cultures, this book sharpens our focus on epistemic cultures as the basis of the knowledge society.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Harvard University Press},
	author = {Knorr-Cetina, Karin},
	year = {1999},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: g6nDQgAACAAJ},
	keywords = {Philosophy / Epistemology}
}

@incollection{cole_putting_1996,
	title = {Putting culture in the middle},
	shorttitle = {Ch. 5},
	booktitle = {Cultural {Psychology}: a once and future discipline},
	publisher = {Belknap Press},
	author = {Cole, Michael},
	year = {1996},
	keywords = {bibtex-import, cultural, development},
	pages = {116--145},
	file = {Cole 1996 - Putting culture in the middle.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Cole 1996 - Putting culture in the middle.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{agre_toward_1997,
	title = {Toward a critical technical practice: {Lessons} learned in trying to reform {AI}},
	shorttitle = {Toward a critical technical practice},
	booktitle = {Social {Science}, {Technical} {Systems} and {Cooperative} {Work}: {Beyond} the {Great} {Divide}. {Erlbaum}},
	publisher = {Psychology Press},
	author = {Agre, Philip E.},
	editor = {Bowker, Geoffrey C. and Star, Susan Leigh and Turner, William and Gasser, Les},
	year = {1997},
	pages = {131--157},
	file = {Agre 1997 - Toward a critical technical practice.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Agre 1997 - Toward a critical technical practice.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/zackbatist/Zotero/storage/Y9LJ2N5T/critical.html:text/html}
}

@incollection{daston_introduction:_2004,
	title = {Introduction: {Speechless}},
	shorttitle = {Introduction},
	booktitle = {Things that talk: {Object} lessons from art and science},
	publisher = {Zone Books},
	author = {Daston, Lorraine},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {9--24},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/zackbatist/Zotero/storage/QC8KKBEM/viewItemOverviewPage.html:text/html}
}

@incollection{daston_glass_2004,
	title = {The glass flowers},
	booktitle = {Things that talk: {Object} lessons from art and science},
	publisher = {Zone Books},
	author = {Daston, Lorraine},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {223--254},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/zackbatist/Zotero/storage/35N9265U/viewItemOverviewPage.html:text/html}
}

@book{latour_pandoras_1999,
	title = {Pandora's {Hope}: {Essays} on the {Reality} of {Science} {Studies}},
	isbn = {978-0-674-65335-1},
	shorttitle = {Pandora's {Hope}},
	abstract = {A scientist friend asked Bruno Latour point-blank: "Do you believe in reality?" Taken aback by this strange query, Latour offers his meticulous response in Pandora's Hope. It is a remarkable argument for understanding the reality of science in practical terms. In this book Latour, identified by Richard Rorty as the new "bête noire of the science worshipers," gives us his most philosophically informed book since Science in Action. Through case studies of scientists in the Amazon analyzing soil and in Pasteur's lab studying the fermentation of lactic acid, he shows us the myriad steps by which events in the material world are transformed into items of scientific knowledge. Through many examples in the world of technology, we see how the material and human worlds come together and are reciprocally transformed in this process. Why, Latour asks, did the idea of an independent reality, free of human interaction, emerge in the first place? His answer to this question, harking back to the debates between Might and Right narrated by Plato, points to the real stakes in the so-called science wars: the perplexed submission of ordinary people before the warring forces of claimants to the ultimate truth.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Harvard University Press},
	author = {Latour, Bruno},
	year = {1999},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: RMu6wbzVrVkC},
	keywords = {Social Science / General, Science / General, Science / Philosophy \& Social Aspects},
	file = {Latour 1999 - Pandora's Hope.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Latour 1999 - Pandora's Hope.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{ratto_cse_2012,
	title = {{CSE} as epistemic technologies: {Computer} modeling and disciplinary difference in the humanities},
	shorttitle = {{CSE} as epistemic technologies},
	doi = {10.4018/978-1-61350-116-0.ch023},
	journal = {Handbook of Research on Computational Science and Engineering: Theory and Practice},
	author = {Ratto, Matt},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {567--586},
	file = {Ratto 2012 - CSE as epistemic technologies.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Ratto 2012 - CSE as epistemic technologies.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/zackbatist/Zotero/storage/9WKBX3YQ/60375.html:text/html}
}

@article{duguid_art_2005,
	title = {“{The} {Art} of {Knowing}”: {Social} and {Tacit} {Dimensions} of {Knowledge} and the {Limits} of the {Community} of {Practice}},
	volume = {21},
	issn = {0197-2243},
	shorttitle = {“{The} {Art} of {Knowing}”},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240590925311},
	doi = {10.1080/01972240590925311},
	abstract = {Community of practice theory is inherently a social theory. As such it is distinct from more individualist accounts of human behavior, such as mainstream economics. Consequently, community of practice theory and economics favor different accounts of knowledge. Taking a community of practice perspective, this article challenges economists' attempts to reduce knowledge to information held by individuals and to reject tacit knowledge as mere uncodified explicit knowledge. The essay argues that Polanyi's notion of a tacit dimension affected numerous disciplines (including economics) because it addressed aspects of learning and identity that conventional social sciences overlooked. The article situates knowledge, identity, and learning within communities and points to ethical and epistemic entailments of community practice. In so doing it attempts to limit, rather than expand, the scope of community of practice analysis and to stress the difference, rather than the commonalities, between this and other apparently congenial forms of social analysis.},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2018-01-25},
	journal = {The Information Society},
	author = {Duguid, Paul},
	month = apr,
	year = {2005},
	keywords = {knowledge, social capital, codification, communities of practice, economics, methodological individualism, practice theory},
	pages = {109--118},
	file = {Duguid 2005 - “The Art of Knowing”.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Duguid 2005 - “The Art of Knowing”2.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{bowker_science_1994,
	title = {Science on the {Run}: {Information} {Management} and {Industrial} {Geophysics} at {Schlumberger}, 1920-1940},
	isbn = {978-0-262-02367-2},
	shorttitle = {Science on the {Run}},
	abstract = {In this engaging account, Geoffrey Bowker reveals how Schlumberger devised a method of testing potential oil fields, produced a rhetoric, and secured a position that allowed it to manipulate the definition of what a technology is. This is the story of how one company created and codified a new science "on the run," away from the confines of the laboratory. By construing its service as scientific, Schlumberger was able to get the edge on the competition and construct an enviable niche for itself in a fast-growing industry.In this engaging account, Geoffrey Bowker reveals how Schlumberger devised a method of testing potential oil fields, produced a rhetoric, and secured a position that allowed it to manipulate the definition of what a technology is. Bowker calls the heart of the story "The Two Measurements That Worked," and he renders it in the style of a myth. In so doing, he shows seamlessly how society becomes embedded even in that most basic and seemingly value-independent of scientific concepts: the measurement.Bowker describes the origins and peregrinations of Schlumberger, details the ways in which the science developed in the field was translated into a form that could be defended in a patent court, and analyzes the company's strategies within the broader context of industrial science.Inside Technology series},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {MIT Press},
	author = {Bowker, Geoffrey C.},
	year = {1994},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: PN7bQ3lHTggC},
	keywords = {Science / History, Business \& Economics / Infrastructure, Technology \& Engineering / Civil / General}
}

~~~~~~Archaeological method and practice.bib

@book{lucas_critical_2002,
	title = {Critical {Approaches} to {Fieldwork}: {Contemporary} and {Historical} {Archaeological} {Practice}},
	isbn = {978-0-203-13225-8},
	shorttitle = {Critical {Approaches} to {Fieldwork}},
	abstract = {This work takes as its starting point the role of fieldwork and how this has changed over the past 150 years. The author argues against progressive accounts of fieldwork and instead places it in its broader intellectual context to critically examine the relationship between theoretical paradigms and everyday archaeological practice.In providing a much-needed historical and critical evaluation of current practice in archaeology, this book opens up a topic of debate which affects all archaeologists, whatever their particular interests.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
	author = {Lucas, Gavin},
	month = jan,
	year = {2002},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: n9MrZN4iRFIC},
	keywords = {Social Science / Archaeology}
}

@book{pavel_describing_2010,
	title = {Describing and {Interpreting} the {Past}: {European} and {American} {Approaches} to the {Written} {Record} of the {Excavation}},
	isbn = {978-973-737-881-1},
	shorttitle = {Describing and {Interpreting} the {Past}},
	abstract = {Archaeology has an ethic dilemma at its root--quite simply, if excavation is destruction, what, if any, can be its justification? Such a line of thought, with its champions and chastisers, is that even if the excavation physically destroys the site, it compensates for this by re-creating, by means of symbolic models and narratives, the historical sequence whose witness and result was the site itself.--From publisher description.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {University of Bucharest Press},
	author = {Pavel, Cătălin},
	year = {2010},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: 8cmlZwEACAAJ}
}

@article{preucel_archaeological_2001,
	title = {Archaeological {Pragmatics}},
	volume = {34},
	issn = {0029-3652},
	url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00293650127469},
	doi = {10.1080/00293650127469},
	abstract = {To what extent is semiotics an appropriate model for understanding material culture meaning? The answer to this question, of course, depends upon the kinds of semiotics that one is talking about. In our article we argue that Saussurean and post-Saussurean approaches favored by some Post processualists are incomplete and advocate an alternative approach inspired by the 'other father'of semiotics, namely Charles Sanders Peirce.},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2017-09-22},
	journal = {Norwegian Archaeological Review},
	author = {Preucel, Robert W. and Bauer, Alexander A.},
	month = jun,
	year = {2001},
	pages = {85--96},
	file = {Preucel & Bauer 2001 - Archaeological Pragmatics.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Preucel & Bauer 2001 - Archaeological Pragmatics.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{khazraee_information_2013,
	title = {Information recording in archaeological practice: {A} socio-technical perspective},
	copyright = {Copyright © 2013 is held by the authors. Copyright permissions, when appropriate, must be obtained directly from the authors.},
	shorttitle = {Information recording in archaeological practice},
	url = {https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/38939},
	doi = {10.9776/13246},
	abstract = {Archaeology is a collective practice and cannot be done in isolation. In addition, given the variety, quantity and scale of archaeological evidence, information technology is a central component of current archaeological practice. This situation provides an excellent case study for the interplay between Information and Communication technologies (ICTs) and institutional and cultural context. This paper reports on a work in progress that examines the role ICTs play in the construction of archaeological knowledge in practice, which focuses on the processes of data recording and information organization. This study uses the conceptual lens of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and explores important socio-technical aspects of the development of information systems in archaeology. The socio-technical challenges of information recording are conceptualized as practice fault-lines. Three fault-lines of information recording in archaeology are recognized and presented in this paper: 1) Within community vs. cross-community practices; 2) Data management vs. data analysis; 3) Information system designers vs. archaeology practitioners. Recognition of these fault-lines has substantial implications for the design of information organization technologies for collaborative practices.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2017-08-23},
	author = {Khazraee, Emad},
	month = feb,
	year = {2013},
	file = {Khazraee 2013 - Information recording in archaeological practice.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Khazraee 2013 - Information recording in archaeological practice.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{edgeworth_spade-work_2014,
	title = {From spade-work to screen-work: new forms of archaeological discovery in digital space},
	shorttitle = {From spade-work to screen-work},
	url = {http://www.academia.edu/download/33324903/From_Spadework_to_Screenwork.pdf},
	urldate = {2017-08-23},
	booktitle = {Visualization in the age of computerization},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Edgeworth, Matt},
	editor = {Carusi, Annamaria and Hoel, Aud Sissel and Webmoor, Timothy and Woolgar, Steve},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {40--58},
	file = {Edgeworth 2014 - From spade-work to screen-work.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Edgeworth 2014 - From spade-work to screen-work.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{goodwin_things_2010,
	title = {Things and their embodied environments},
	journal = {The cognitive life of things. Cambridge, McDonald Institute Monographs},
	author = {Goodwin, Charles},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {103--120},
	file = {Goodwin 2010 - Things and their embodied environments.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Goodwin 2010 - Things and their embodied environments.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{edgeworth_acts_2003,
	title = {Acts of discovery: {An} ethnography of archaeological practice},
	volume = {1131},
	isbn = {978-1-84171-504-9},
	shorttitle = {Acts of discovery},
	publisher = {British Archaeological Reports},
	author = {Edgeworth, Matt},
	year = {2003}
}

@article{gero_archaeological_1996,
	title = {Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data},
	journal = {Gender and archaeology},
	author = {Gero, Joan},
	year = {1996},
	pages = {251--280},
	file = {Gero 1996 - Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Gero 1996 - Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{huvila_awkwardness_2016,
	title = {Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: {Mangle} and materialities of reports, documentation data, and the archaeological work},
	volume = {32},
	issn = {0197-2243},
	shorttitle = {Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1177763},
	doi = {10.1080/01972243.2016.1177763},
	abstract = {Information about an archaeological investigation is documented in an archaeological report, which makes it the boundary object par excellence for archaeological information work across stakeholder communities such as field archaeologists, heritage managers, and land developers. The quality of reports has been a subject of debate, and recently it has been argued that more emphasis should be placed on making primary research data at least similarly available. This study explores the changing materialities and reciprocal formation of documents and their users with the advent of digitization, and how documents form and lose their status as boundary objects in these processes. The study posits that in order to be functional, a boundary object needs to provide a disclosure that makes it accessible to cognate communities. Further, it shows how assumptions about the functioning of the human and nonhuman (material artifacts) influence the ways in which archaeologists conceptualize the preservation and archiving of archaeological information and the role and potential of different types of digital and paper-based documents. This article is based on an interview study of Swedish archaeology professionals (N = 16) with theoretical underpinnings in the notions of boundary objects, mangle of practice, and disclosure.},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2017-09-02},
	journal = {The Information Society},
	author = {Huvila, Isto},
	month = aug,
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Archaeology, boundary objects, data, documents, reports},
	pages = {280--297},
	annote = {Extracted Annotations (2017-09-21, 4:38:42 PM)
"(new-)materialist lens" (Huvila 2016:282)
"It is a "thick of things" that is "a symmetric, decentred process of the becoming of the human and the non-human"" (Huvila 2016:282)
"A central element of Pickering's theory is the notion of resistance, that the nature sometimes "punches back" and resists our pursuits." (Huvila 2016:282)
"Instead of conceptualizing the interplay of human and nonhuman synchronic reciprocation of interests and constraints, Pickering (1995) sees them as a diachronic mangle of resistance (of how material objects hold out against human endeavours) and accommodation (how humans adapt to the resistance) in time." (Huvila 2016:282)
"this article explicates the mechanisms of why something is part of a BO and what makes a sociomaterial assemblage "become" BO in the process of counter-hegemonic formation." (Huvila 2016:282)
"However, what remains to be explained is the influence of the agency of the reception and of the object itself." (Huvila 2016:282)
"According to Hekman (2010), the basis of disclosure is that perspectives, concepts, and theories make a difference as the means of accessing reality." (Huvila 2016:282)
"Here concepts are not seen as constituting reality but rather influencing how it is portrayed." (Huvila 2016:282)
"This article combines Pickering's notion of mangle with Hekman's concept of disclosure to explicate the material constituents in the making of BOs." (Huvila 2016:282)
"notion of an investigation of the "invisibilities" of work" (Huvila 2016:283)
"In contrast to the study of invisibilities in the sense of infrastructure studies (Edwards et al. 2009), this study delves deeper into explicating the becoming of BOs, an infrastructure behind infrastructures." (Huvila 2016:283)
"After a small number of initial questions about education and work experience, the informants were asked to describe their current work (daily routines, challenges, organization) and to sketch the mangle of their daily work." (Huvila 2016:283)
"A report becomes a BO because of the (relative) trust in it, its timeliness, comprehensiveness, and the merits of the process of its becoming." (Huvila 2016:285)
"They act as tokens of completed investigation projects forfield archaeologists and administrators (e.g., Gradasso) and even as embodiments or epitomes of archaeologicalfield research." (Huvila 2016:286)
"An "overmade" BO loses its neededflexibility." (Huvila 2016:286)
"Similarly to how Shanks (2007) argues in general that the archaeological methods determine how the past looks like, the methods of making archaeological BOs are part of the same process of making archaeology and the past." (Huvila 2016:291)
"The social contours for different archaeological actors, their relative intellectual independence of each other, and their consequently diverging disclosures (as in Hekman 2010) buttress the usefulness of self-contained (butflexible-tointerpret) BOs, as opposed to vaguely framed intermedial resources that require diligent negotiation between bordering communities in the mangle." (Huvila 2016:292)
"However, in addition to a mere intention to make one, in order to become a BO that bridges perceptual and practical differences, the object needs to be capable of providing a disclosure (borrowing the concept of Hekman [2010]), a means shared by adjacent communities to access a particular reality." (Huvila 2016:293)},
	file = {Huvila 2016 - Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Huvila 2016 - Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{huggett_manifesto_2015,
	title = {A manifesto for an introspective digital archaeology},
	volume = {1},
	copyright = {cc\_by\_nc\_nd},
	issn = {2300-6560},
	url = {http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/104047/},
	doi = {Huggett, J. <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/view/author/8212.html>  <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7535-9312>  (2015)  A manifesto for an introspective digital archaeology.   Open Archaeology <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/view/journal_volume/Open_Archaeology.html>, 1(1),  pp. 86-95.  (doi:10.1515/opar-2015-0002 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0002>)},
	abstract = {This paper presents a grand challenge for Digital Archaeology of a different kind: it is not technical in and of itself, it does not seek out technological solutions for archaeological problems, it does not propose new digital tools or digital methodologies as such. Instead, it proposes a broader challenge, one which addresses the very stuff of archaeology: an understanding of how digital technologies influence and alter our relationships with data, from their creation and storage ultimately through to the construction of archaeological knowledge. It argues that currently this area is under-theorised, under-represented, and under-valued, yet it is increasingly fundamental to the way in which we arrive at an understanding of the past.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-08-26},
	journal = {Open Archaeology},
	author = {Huggett, Jeremy},
	month = mar,
	year = {2015},
	pages = {86--95},
	file = {Huggett 2015 - A manifesto for an introspective digital archaeology.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Huggett 2015 - A manifesto for an introspective digital archaeology.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{fotiadis_regions_1993,
	title = {Regions of the {Imagination}: {Archaeologists}, {Local} {People}, and the {Archaeological} {Record} in {Fieldwork}, {Greece}},
	volume = {1},
	issn = {0965-7665},
	shorttitle = {Regions of the {Imagination}},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/096576693800719310},
	doi = {10.1179/096576693800719310},
	abstract = {This paper takes a close look at the relationship of an archaeological team engaged on a regional survey for the Greek Archaeological Service to the local population, and at the practices and scholastic assumptions of the archaeologists. Regional survey, with its emphasis on populations and resources is found to resemble the work of census takers and bureaucrats (and not surprisingly many locals see the archaeologists as representatives of the state). Prehistoric farmers are treated as 'sensible' and apolitical, and archaeology is seen to adopt refined tactics that domesticate the unfamiliar and banish the difficult and contradictory from concern. The intellectual safety of demographic approaches becomes clearer when the multiplicity of relations between the team and the locals is considered - precisely the variety missing from the texts written about the past - and when the archaeologists attempt to banish local life and politics from their narratives.},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2017-09-21},
	journal = {Journal of European Archaeology},
	author = {Fotiadis, Michael},
	month = sep,
	year = {1993},
	pages = {151--168},
	file = {Fotiadis 1993 - Regions of the imagination.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Fotiadis 1993 - Regions of the Imagination2.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{dallas_curating_2015,
	title = {Curating {Archaeological} {Knowledge} in the {Digital} {Continuum}: from {Practice} to {Infrastructure}},
	volume = {1},
	issn = {2300-6560},
	shorttitle = {Curating {Archaeological} {Knowledge} in the {Digital} {Continuum}},
	url = {https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opar.2014.1.issue-1/opar-2015-0011/opar-2015-0011.xml},
	doi = {10.1515/opar-2015-0011},
	abstract = {As a “grand challenge” for digital archaeology, I propose the adoption of programmatic research to meet the challenges of archaeological curation in the digital continuum, contingent on curation-enabled global digital infrastructures, and on contested regimes of archaeological knowledge production and meaning making. My motivation stems from an interest in the sociotechnical practices of archaeology, viewed as purposeful activities centred on material traces of past human presence. This is exemplified in contemporary practices of interpretation “at the trowel’s edge”, in epistemological reflexivity and in pluralization of archaeological knowledge. Adopting a practice-centred approach, I examine how the archaeological record is constructed and curated through archaeological activity “from the field to the screen” in a variety of archaeological situations. I call attention to Çatalhöyük as a salient case study illustrating the ubiquity of digital curation practices in experimental, well-resourced and purposefully theorized archaeological fieldwork, and I propose a conceptualization of digital curation as a pervasive, epistemic-pragmatic activity extending across the lifecycle of archaeological work. To address these challenges, I introduce a medium-term research agenda that speaks both to epistemic questions of theory in archaeology and information science, and to pragmatic concerns of digital curation, its methods, and application in archaeology. The agenda I propose calls for multidisciplinary, multi-team, multiyear research of a programmatic nature, aiming to re-examine archaeological ontology, to conduct focused research on pervasive archaeological research practices and methods, and to design and develop curation functionalities coupled with existing pervasive digital infrastructures used by archaeologists. It has a potential value in helping to establish an epistemologically coherent framework for the interdisciplinary field of archaeological curation, in aligning archaeological ontologies work with practice-based, agencyoriented and participatory theorizations of material culture, and in matching the specification and design of archaeological digital infrastructures with the increasingly globalized, ubiquitous and pervasive digital information environment and the multiple contexts of contemporary meaning-making in archaeology.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-09-21},
	journal = {Open Archaeology},
	author = {Dallas, Costis},
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {archaeological curation, digital continuum, digital infrastructures, ontologies, social studies of practice},
	annote = {Extracted Annotations (2017-09-21, 4:30:36 PM)"In short, I argue that the epistemological premises and pragmatic consequences of emergent archaeological practices, combined with the growing role of global and ubiquitous digital infrastructures on archaeological research activity, redefine the question of where archaeological curation is, which is its object, how it is enacted, and what kinds of technological "mediational artefacts" - not just hardware devices but also methods and procedures, digital services and tools - it entails [32, 33]. Adopting a practice-centred perspective [34-36] to understanding archaeological curation, I look at examples of how the archaeological record is constructed and curated through archaeological activity "from the field to the screen" (taking into account approaches and ideas stemming from Web 2.0, participatory, and open archaeology), in order to establish the magnitude and particularity of problems faced in the curation of archaeological curation in a variety of contexts; then, I examine a case study of a high profile, wellresourced, and purposefully open to experimentation archaeological fieldwork project, in order to identify how digital technology may, in such circumstances, spur new practices and bring to the fore new challenges for the digital curation of the archaeological record; subsequently, I introduce a theorization of digital curation as pervasive epistemic-pragmatic activity, aiming to situate discussion of archaeological record management in the context of contemporary debates in archival science and digital curation; and, finally, on this basis I advance a medium-term research agenda that speaks both to epistemic questions of theory and epistemology of archaeological and archival work, and to pragmatic concerns of digital curation, its methods, and application in archaeology." (Dallas 2015:4)},
	file = {Dallas 2015 - Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Dallas 2015 - Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum.pdf:application/pdf;Dallas 2015 - Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Dallas 2015 - Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{fotiadis_units_1992,
	title = {Units of data as deployment of disciplinary codes},
	booktitle = {Representations in {Archaeology}},
	author = {Fotiadis, Michael},
	year = {1992},
	pages = {132--148},
	file = {Fotiadis 1992 - Units of data as deployment of disciplinary codes.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Fotiadis 1992 - Units of data as deployment of disciplinary codes.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{ammerman_taking_1992,
	title = {Taking {Stock} of {Quantitative} {Archaeology}},
	volume = {21},
	issn = {0084-6570},
	url = {http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.001311},
	doi = {10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.001311},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-09-21},
	journal = {Annual Review of Anthropology},
	author = {Ammerman, Albert J.},
	month = oct,
	year = {1992},
	pages = {231--249},
	file = {Ammerman 1992 - Taking Stock of Quantitative Archaeology.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Ammerman 1992 - Taking Stock of Quantitative Archaeology.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{adams_archaeological_2007,
	title = {Archaeological {Typology} and {Practical} {Reality}: {A} {Dialectical} {Approach} to {Artifact} {Classification} and {Sorting}},
	isbn = {978-0-521-04867-5},
	shorttitle = {Archaeological {Typology} and {Practical} {Reality}},
	abstract = {Classifications are central to archaeology. Yet the theoretical literature on the subject, both in archaeology and the philosophy of science, bears very little relationship to what actually occurs in practice. This problem has long interested William Adams, a field archaeologist, and Ernest Adams, a philosopher of science, who describe their book as an ethnography of archaeological classification. It is a study of the various ways in which field archaeologists set about making and using classifications to meet a variety of practical needs. The authors first discuss how humans form concepts. They then describe and analyse in detail a specific example of an archaeological classification, and go on to consider what theoretical generalizations can be derived from the study of actual in-use classifications. Throughout the book, they stress the importance of having a clearly defined purpose and practical procedures when developing and applying classifications.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Adams, William Y. and Adams, Ernest W.},
	year = {2007},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: abDhtdHFyCkC},
	keywords = {Social Science / Archaeology, History / Ancient / General}
}

@article{dallas_jean-claude_2016,
	title = {Jean-{Claude} {Gardin} on {Archaeological} {Data}, {Representation} and {Knowledge}: {Implications} for {Digital} {Archaeology}},
	volume = {23},
	issn = {1072-5369, 1573-7764},
	shorttitle = {Jean-{Claude} {Gardin} on {Archaeological} {Data}, {Representation} and {Knowledge}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-015-9241-3},
	doi = {10.1007/s10816-015-9241-3},
	abstract = {This paper presents Jean-Claude Gardin’s distinctive approach to archaeological data, representation and knowledge in the context of his early engagement with semiotics and structural semantics and his grounding in fields as diverse as documentation, classification theory, material culture studies, argumentation theory and the philosophy of the human sciences. Pointing at Gardin’s ambivalence vis-à-vis the promises of automated classification and machine reasoning in archaeology, it shows that his approach goes beyond a normative, positivist conception of archaeological research, recognizing the contextual, theory-laden nature of archaeological data constitution, the priority of focusing on actual archaeological interpretation practices and the complementarity between narrative and formal representations of archaeological reasoning. It connects his early development of archaeological descriptive and typological metalanguages with his later elaboration of a theoretically informed approach to archaeological argumentation, analysis and publication, situates his logicist programme as a relevant contribution to the development of an archaeological “theory of practice”, grounded on reflexivity and modesty vis-à-vis the possibility of knowledge and the limits of scientism, and highlights aspects of Gardin’s work that point to potentially fruitful directions for contemporary research and practice in the field of archaeological informatics and digital humanities communication.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-09-21},
	journal = {Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory},
	author = {Dallas, Costis},
	month = mar,
	year = {2016},
	pages = {305--330},
	file = {Dallas 2016 - Jean-Claude Gardin on archaeological data, representation and knowledge.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Dallas 2016 - Jean-Claude Gardin on archaeological data, representation and knowledge2.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{mickel_reasons_2015,
	title = {Reasons for {Redundancy} in {Reflexivity}: {The} {Role} of {Diaries} in {Archaeological} {Epistemology}},
	volume = {40},
	issn = {0093-4690},
	shorttitle = {Reasons for {Redundancy} in {Reflexivity}},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2042458214Y.0000000002},
	doi = {10.1179/2042458214Y.0000000002},
	abstract = {Archaeological research projects employ a diverse body of recording strategies to preserve detailed information about material evidence of the past. One of the most persisting and common forms of recording is the archaeological diary. Despite having undergone transformations in form and function over the history of archaeology as a discipline, diaries are most often integrated into contemporary excavations in order to enhance reflexivity and to provide a greater context for understanding both the processes and products of these research endeavors. I argue that diaries do succeed in promoting reflexive archaeological practice, though not because of the greater contextual information they capture. Instead, the degree to which diaries repeat information recorded by other media embodies their integral role in reflexive archaeological epistemology. By comparing diary entries from Çatalhöyük, Turkey to the pro forma produced at this site, I demonstrate that archaeological diaries' power derives from their position in the local network of objects and inscription devices at archaeological sites and from how authority is formulated within the contemporary disciplinary framework of archaeology.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2017-09-22},
	journal = {Journal of Field Archaeology},
	author = {Mickel, Allison},
	month = jun,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {archaeological epistemology, diaries, fieldwork, methodology, recording, reflexivity},
	pages = {300--309},
	file = {Mickel 2015 - Reasons for Redundancy in Reflexivity.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Mickel 2015 - Reasons for Redundancy in Reflexivity.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{lucas_understanding_2012,
	title = {Understanding the {Archaeological} {Record}},
	isbn = {978-0-521-27969-7},
	abstract = {This book explores the diverse understandings of the archaeological record in both historical and contemporary perspective, while also serving as a guide to reassessing current views. Gavin Lucas argues that archaeological theory has become both too fragmented and disconnected from the particular nature of archaeological evidence. The book examines three ways of understanding the archaeological record - as historical sources, through formation theory, and as material culture - then reveals ways to connect these three domains through a reconsideration of archaeological entities and archaeological practice. Ultimately, Lucas calls for a rethinking of the nature of the archaeological record and the kind of history and narratives written from it.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Lucas, Gavin},
	month = feb,
	year = {2012},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: fO9cMgEACAAJ},
	keywords = {Social Science / Archaeology},
	file = {Lucas 2012 - Understanding the archaeological record.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Lucas 2012 - Understanding the archaeological record.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{wylie_archaeological_1989,
	title = {Archaeological {Cables} and {Tacking}: {The} {Implications} of {Practice} for {Bernstein}'s ‘{Options} {Beyond} {Objectivism} and {Relativism}’},
	volume = {19},
	issn = {0048-3931},
	shorttitle = {Archaeological {Cables} and {Tacking}},
	url = {http://journals.scholarsportal.info/detailsundefined},
	doi = {10.1177/004839318901900101},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-09-29},
	journal = {Philosophy of the Social Sciences},
	author = {Wylie, Alison},
	year = {1989},
	pages = {1--18},
	file = {Wylie 1989 - Archaeological Cables and Tacking.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Wylie 1989 - Archaeological Cables and Tacking.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{yarrow_context:_2008,
	title = {In {Context}: {Meaning}, {Materiality} and {Agency} in the {Process} of {Archaeological} {Recording}},
	isbn = {978-0-387-74710-1 978-0-387-74711-8},
	shorttitle = {In {Context}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_7},
	abstract = {No Abstract available for this chapter.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2017-09-22},
	booktitle = {Material {Agency}},
	publisher = {Springer, Boston, MA},
	author = {Yarrow, Thomas},
	year = {2008},
	doi = {10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_7},
	pages = {121--137},
	file = {Yarrow 2008 - In Context.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Yarrow 2008 - In Context.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{hodder_archaeological_1999,
	title = {The {Archaeological} {Process}: {An} {Introduction}},
	isbn = {978-0-631-19885-7},
	shorttitle = {The {Archaeological} {Process}},
	abstract = {This provocative introduction examines the most important new school of archaeological thought and practice to have emerged over the last two decades and provides students with an assessment of the impact and importance of recent theoretical debates.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Wiley},
	author = {Hodder, Ian},
	month = mar,
	year = {1999},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: L1rx6oQin\_cC},
	keywords = {Social Science / Archaeology, History / General}
}

@article{hodder_writing_1989,
	title = {Writing archaeology: site reports in context},
	volume = {63},
	issn = {0003-598X, 1745-1744},
	shorttitle = {Writing archaeology},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/writing-archaeology-site-reports-in-context/A603C08C487C0C3BE7432A4926C9B786},
	doi = {10.1017/S0003598X00075980},
	abstract = {As it is written in site reports today, the modern language of archaeology is not a handsome tongue, efficient though it may be at conveying neutral data (another horrid word). Are there lessons to be found in the beguiling style of site reports from a couple of centuries ago? And is there more to their charm than antiquarian romance?},
	number = {239},
	urldate = {2017-09-22},
	journal = {Antiquity},
	author = {Hodder, Ian},
	month = jun,
	year = {1989},
	pages = {268--274},
	file = {Hodder 1989 - Writing archaeology.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Hodder 1989 - Writing archaeology.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{gardin_archaeological_1980,
	title = {Archaeological {Constructs}: {An} {Aspect} of {Theoretical} {Archaeology}},
	isbn = {978-0-521-10938-3},
	shorttitle = {Archaeological {Constructs}},
	abstract = {Archaeology, like all scientific disciplines, is accumulating an ever-increasing volume of data which the researcher must be able to retrieve and use in formulating and testing theories of interpretation. There are many practical questions of how information can best be recorded, stored and disseminated, but behind these lie fundamental intellectual questions. It is to the latter that Jean-Claude Gardin addresses this book. The advent of data banks, computers, micro-publishing, etc. will not in itself improve the access of the researcher to information of real value unless some consensus can be reached on the way the information is selected and presented and the reasoning processes that these different modes of presentation embody. Jean-Claude Gardin sees this as a long-term goal, the book as one step on the way to its achievement.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Gardin, Jean-Claude},
	year = {1980},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: Uj1dPwAACAAJ},
	keywords = {Social Science / Archaeology}
}

@book{edgeworth_ethnographies_2006,
	title = {Ethnographies of {Archaeological} {Practice}: {Cultural} {Encounters}, {Material} {Transformations}},
	isbn = {978-0-7591-0845-5},
	shorttitle = {Ethnographies of {Archaeological} {Practice}},
	abstract = {Ethnographic perspectives are often used by archaeologists to study cultures both past and present - but what happens when the ethnographic gaze is turned back onto archaeological practices themselves? That is the question posed by this book, challenging conventional ideas about the relationship between the subject and the object, the observer and the observed, and the explainers and the explained. This book explores the production of archaeological knowledge from a range of ethnographic perspectives. Fieldwork spans large parts of the world, with sites in Turkey, the Netherlands, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Germany, the USA and the United Kingdom being covered. They focus on excavation, inscription, heritage management, student training, the employment of hired workers and many other aspects of archaeological practice. These experimental ethnographic studies are situated right on the interface of archaeology and anthropology\_on the road to a more holistic study of the present and the past.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Rowman Altamira},
	author = {Edgeworth, Matt},
	year = {2006},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: l5IgBRjlGPoC},
	keywords = {Social Science / Archaeology, Architecture / Decoration \& Ornament}
}

@article{chadwick_archaeology_1998,
	title = {Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further towards reflexive excavation methodologies},
	volume = {3},
	shorttitle = {Archaeology at the edge of chaos},
	journal = {Assemblage},
	author = {Chadwick, Adrian},
	year = {1998},
	pages = {97--117},
	file = {Chadwick 1998 - Archaeology at the edge of chaos.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Chadwick 1998 - Archaeology at the edge of chaos.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{buccellati_critique_2017,
	title = {A {Critique} of {Archaeological} {Reason}: {Structural}, {Digital}, and {Philosophical} {Aspects} of the {Excavated} {Record}},
	isbn = {978-1-108-16576-1},
	shorttitle = {A {Critique} of {Archaeological} {Reason}},
	abstract = {In A Critique of Archaeological Reason, Giorgio Buccellati presents a theory of excavation that aims at clarifying the nature of archaeology and its impact on contemporary thought. Integrating epistemological issues with methods of data collection and the role and impact of digital technology on archaeological work, the book explores digital data in order to comprehend its role in shaping meaning and understanding in archaeological excavation. The ability of archaeologists to record in the field, rather than offsite, has fundamentally changed the methods of observation, conceptualization, and interpretation of deposits. Focusing on the role of stratigraphy as the center of archaeological field work, Giorgio Buccellati examines the challenges of interpreting a 'broken tradition'; a civilization for which there are no living carriers today. He uses the site of Urkesh in Syria, where he has worked for decades, as a case study to demonstrate his theory.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Buccellati, Giorgio},
	month = apr,
	year = {2017},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: kN7PDgAAQBAJ},
	keywords = {Social Science / Archaeology},
	file = {Buccellati 2017 - A Critique of Archaeological Reason.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Buccellati 2017 - A Critique of Archaeological Reason.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{huvila_archaeology_2017,
	title = {Archaeology of no names? {The} social productivity of anonymity in the archaeological information process},
	volume = {17},
	copyright = {Copyright Nick Butler (On Behalf of the Editorial Collective of Ephemera) May 2017},
	shorttitle = {Archaeology of no names?},
	url = {https://search.proquest.com/docview/1919408261/abstract/BECCBAE9BD940C0PQ/1},
	abstract = {The portrait gallery of archaeology presents a conspicuous mix of discoveries of the great characters of the past and an everyday labour of faceless individuals of the past and present in the service of 'archaeology' and 'archaeological knowledge'. The aim of this text is to discuss the premises and conditions of why and how the anonymisation happens in the archaeological information process and the forms of social productivity (or consequences) of the anonymous moves. Anonymity becomes a boundary object that is authored in the course of the switchings from netdom to another to emerge as a particular type of social relation and a constituent of a social imaginary of being archaeological.},
	language = {English},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2017-11-21},
	journal = {Ephemera; Leicester},
	author = {Huvila, Isto},
	month = may,
	year = {2017},
	keywords = {Archaeology, Actors, Archives \& records, Cultural heritage, Knowledge management, Library and information science, Museums, Productivity, Science, Social Sciences: Comprehensive Works, Studies},
	pages = {351--376},
	file = {Huvila 2017 - Archaeology of no names.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Huvila 2017 - Archaeology of no names.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{webmoor_mediational_2005,
	title = {Mediational techniques and conceptual frameworks in archaeology: {A} model in ‘mapwork’ at {Teotihuacán}, {Mexico}},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-6053},
	shorttitle = {Mediational techniques and conceptual frameworks in archaeology},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050143},
	doi = {10.1177/1469605305050143},
	abstract = {A recent trend in archaeology has been to turn reflexive attention upon the methods                 employed by archaeologists in field practice. In this article, I take a step back to                 consider the map as a fundamental conceptual framework that archaeologists utilize                 in directing their methods and formulating interpretations. I explore what a map                 ‘does' for the consideration of a site. I work around this                 question with the ‘Millon map’ of Teotihuacán, Mexico                 as a case study. Building upon ideas expressed by Alfred Gell and Roland Barthes, I                 argue that maps cannot be utilized as independent, self-contained media, as maps                 ‘work’ via an inherent mutuality of subjective and objective                 elements. In archaeological discourse, this is best expressed by the integration of                 photography and graphic representation. Finally, I offer an example of integrated                 ‘mapwork’ through a novel interpretation of space at                 Teotihuacán. It is reiterated that media such as maps operate as                 conceptual frameworks and so predispose certain interpretations. Acknowledging this                 recursive relationship between media and interpretation draws critical awareness to                 the media archaeologists employ and encourages the innovative use of mediational                 techniques to engage archaeological subjects.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2017-11-22},
	journal = {Journal of Social Archaeology},
	author = {Webmoor, Timothy},
	month = feb,
	year = {2005},
	pages = {52--84},
	file = {Webmoor 2005 - Mediational techniques and conceptual frameworks in archaeology.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Webmoor 2005 - Mediational techniques and conceptual frameworks in archaeology.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{webmoor_sts_2013,
	title = {{STS}, {Symmetry}, {Archaeology}},
	url = {http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199602001-e-039},
	doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602001.013.039},
	abstract = {This chapter considers the disciplinary history of exchanges between the object-oriented fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and archaeology of the contemporary past. It uses the topology of knots to examine these engagements and introduce readers to several key issues. Knots are practical heuristics that are useful in subverting mereology, a dominant logic of modernist thought that figures epistemological, ontological, and sociological relations. Against mereology knots do not parse, but instead focus attention upon collective action and outcome. The chapter deploys a particular symmetrical weave that binds ropes through adding weight and friction-load. With respect to the intellectual ‘load’ of temporality, performativity/representationalism, scale and symmetry, key matters of concern for both fields, it is argued that there is slippage. Consequently, STS misses out on re-sharpening its provocative edge in not developing these issues through the rich empirics of archaeological practice. Archaeology, in this asymmetry, risks not contributing to the timely conversation around things transversing the disciplines.},
	urldate = {2017-11-22},
	journal = {The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World},
	author = {Webmoor, Timothy and Graves-Brown, Paul and Harrison, Rodney},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {105--120},
	file = {Webmoor - 2013 - STS, Symmetry, Archaeology.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Zotero/storage/UHI92VA9/Webmoor - 2013 - STS, Symmetry, Archaeology.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@inproceedings{carver_digging_1990,
	title = {Digging for data: archaeological approaches to data definition, acquisition and analysis},
	booktitle = {Lo {Scavo} archeologico: dalla diagnosi all'edizione: {III} {Ciclo} di lezioni sulla ricerca applicata in archeologia, {Certosa} di {Pontignano} ({Siena}), 6-18 novembre 1989. {Vol}. 23},
	publisher = {Edizioni all'Insegna del Giglio},
	author = {Carver, Martin O.H.},
	editor = {Francovich, Riccardo and Manacorda, Daniele},
	year = {1990},
	pages = {45--120}
}

@incollection{thorpe_often_2012,
	title = {Often {Fun}, {Usually} {Messy}: {Fieldwork}, {Recording} and {Higher} {Orders} of {Things}},
	isbn = {978-1-4614-2337-9 978-1-4614-2338-6},
	shorttitle = {Often {Fun}, {Usually} {Messy}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-2338-6_3},
	abstract = {This paper has had a long gestation which began in 1997 as an article Chris Cumberpatch and I (Cumberpatch and Thorpe 1997) began to put together where we questioned the focus of the debate, played out in the pages of Antiquity, between Fekri Hassan and Ian Hodder (Hassan 1997; Hodder 1997, 1998). Later, in 2004, I was fortunate enough to be asked to contribute an overview paper to the proceedings of the Stratigraphy Conference held at York in 2001. Unfortunately the first paper was never completely finished and the publication of the Stratigraphy Conference proceedings has been cancelled. This chapter then draws together aspects of both papers, as the debate is still one with relevance today and includes an expansion of my thinking (up to June 2010) on other areas addressed by my original paper given in the Reconsidering the on-site relationship between subject, object, theory and practice session of the Theoretical Archaeology Group conference in at York in 2007.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2017-11-23},
	booktitle = {Reconsidering {Archaeological} {Fieldwork}},
	publisher = {Springer, Boston, MA},
	author = {Thorpe, Reuben},
	year = {2012},
	doi = {10.1007/978-1-4614-2338-6_3},
	pages = {31--52},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/zackbatist/Zotero/storage/896ETP2N/Thorpe - 2012 - Often Fun, Usually Messy Fieldwork, Recording and.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@incollection{salmon_explanation_2001,
	series = {Synthese {Library}},
	title = {Explanation in {Archaeology}},
	isbn = {978-90-481-5827-0 978-94-015-9731-9},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-9731-9_10},
	abstract = {Archaeology is an interdisciplinary field of study with implications that reach far beyond academia. Today, most people recognize the close connections between archaeology and the state. Governments regulate, at least indirectly, most archaeological work since they are charged with preserving their countries’ cultural heritage. Archaeological excavation is so expensive that government money is required to support any large scale project. Archaeological work is politically important because archaeologists can trace the occupation of ethnic groups in particular territories over significant periods of time. By combining archaeological information about former inhabitants of a land with politicians’ contemporary cultural views about the continuity of property rights, governments attempt to challenge or to defend present political boundaries.1},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2017-11-24},
	booktitle = {Explanation},
	publisher = {Springer, Dordrecht},
	author = {Salmon, Merrilee H.},
	year = {2001},
	doi = {10.1007/978-94-015-9731-9_10},
	pages = {231--248}
}

@incollection{wylie_constitution_1996,
	title = {The {Constitution} of {Archaeological} {Evidence}: {Gender} {Politics} and {Science}},
	shorttitle = {The {Constitution} of {Archaeological} {Evidence}},
	booktitle = {The {Disunity} of {Science}: {Boundaries}, {Contexts}, and {Power}},
	publisher = {Stanford University Press},
	author = {Wylie, Alison},
	editor = {Galison, Peter and Stump, David J.},
	year = {1996},
	pages = {311--343},
	file = {Wylie 1996 - The Constitution of Archaeological Evidence.pdf:/Users/zackbatist/Dropbox/Zotero Library/Wylie 1996 - The Constitution of Archaeological Evidence.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@book{dunnell_systematics_2002,
	title = {Systematics in prehistory},
	isbn = {1-930665-28-8},
	publisher = {Blackburn Press},
	author = {Dunnell, Robert C.},
	year = {2002}
}

@book{banning_archaeologists_2006,
	title = {The {Archaeologist}'s {Laboratory}: {The} {Analysis} of {Archaeological} {Data}},
	isbn = {978-0-306-47654-9},
	shorttitle = {The {Archaeologist}'s {Laboratory}},
	abstract = {This text reviews the theory, concepts, and basic methods involved in archaeological analysis with the aim of familiarizing both students and professionals with its underlying principles. Topics covered include the nature and presentation of data; database and research design; sampling and quantification; analyzing lithics, pottery, faunal, and botanical remains; interpreting dates; and archaeological illustration. A glossary of key terms completes the book.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Springer Science \& Business Media},
	author = {Banning, E. B.},
	year = {2006},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: X0UyBwAAQBAJ},
	keywords = {Social Science / Archaeology, Social Science / Anthropology / General, History / Ancient / General}
}