Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:23:16.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The future of archaeology, interdisciplinarity and global challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2020

Sarah Kerr Open the ORCID record for Sarah Kerr [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Kerr*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, UK (✉ [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding of the past can inform our approach to tackling a range of global challenges. Yet the inclusion of archaeologists and, more generally, those scholars engaged in studies of the past, is highly limited in most large, problem-oriented, interdisciplinary research projects, such as those supported by funding under Horizon 2020—the European Commission's major research and innovation programme. This article examines the interdisciplinary context of archaeological research and funding, and proposes potential ways forward to ensure that such work is fully integrated into projects supported under the next programme, Horizon Europe (2021–2027). In this way, archaeologists can contribute to and influence societal change.

Keywords

Horizon 2020interdisciplinarityfunding environmentarts and humanities research
Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 94 , Issue 377 , October 2020 , pp. 1337 - 1348
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2020

Access options

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

References

Barry, A., Born, G. & Weszkalnys, G.. 2008. Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37(1): 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J. & Pearce, M. (ed.). 2012. The death of archaeological theory? Oxford: Oxbow. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dk87Google Scholar
Birnbaum, B., Keraudren, P., Strom, T. & Vavikis, T.. 2017. Integration of social sciences and humanities in Horizon 2020: participants, budget and disciplines: 2nd monitoring report on SSH-flagged projects funded in 2015 under the societal challenges and industrial leadership. Brussels: European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/097678Google Scholar
Braje, T.J. 2016. Evaluating the Anthropocene: is there something useful about a geological epoch of humans? Antiquity 90: 504–12. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Academy. 2016a. Crossing paths: interdisciplinary institutions, careers, education and applications. London: British Academy. Available at: https://www.britac.ac.uk/interdisciplinarity (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
British Academy. 2016b. Reflections on archaeology. London: British Academy. Available at: https://www.britac.ac.uk/reflections-on-archaeology (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Bromham, L., Russell, D. & Hua, X.. 2016. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534: 684–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18315CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruce, A., Lyall, C. & Williams, R.. 2004. Interdisciplinary integration in the Fifth Framework Programme. Futures 36: 457–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capper, M. 2009. The practical implications of interdisciplinary approaches: research in Anglo-Saxon East Anglia, in Devlin, Z.L. & Holas-Clark, C.N.J. (ed.) Approaching interdisciplinarity: archaeology, history and the study of early medieval Britain, c. 400–1100 (British Archaeological Reports British series 486). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Criado-Boado, F. 2016. Tangled between paradigms in the neo-baroque era. Archaeological Dialogues 23: 152–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203816000192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Association of Archaeologists. 2016. Programme volumes 1 and 2. Available at: https://www.nearch.eu/IMG/pdf/eaa_-_vilnius_-_full_programme_-_2016.pdf (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
European Association of Archaeologists. 2018. Programme volumes 1 and 2. Available at: https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA2018/Programme.aspx?WebsiteKey=35414e88-a032-42d3-9e9b-d34ff524c79a&hkey=9ba73740-1809-47c0-bd96-13055196e087&Program_ContentCollectionOrganizerCommon=3#Program_ContentCollectionOrganizerCommon (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2013. Regulation (EU) no. 1291/2013 of 11.12.2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020) and repealing decision No 1982/2006/EC. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/fp/h2020-eu-establact_en.pdf (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2017a. LAB—FAB—APP: investing in the European future we want. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/hlg_2017_report.pdf (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2017b. Commission staff working document in-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/h2020_evaluations/swd(2017)220-in-depth-interim_evaluation-h2020.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
European Research Council. 2012. Anthropology and archaeology ERC projects. Brussels: European Research Council. Available at: http://www.gppq.fct.pt/h2020/_docs/brochuras/erc/erc_special_edition_archeology.pdf (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Global Research Council. 2017. Statement of principles: the dynamic interplay between fundamental research and innovation. Bonn: Global Research Council. Available at: https://www.globalresearchcouncil.org/fileadmin//documents/GRC_Publications/Statement_of_Principles_for_The_Dynamic_Interplay_Between_Fundamental_Research_and_Innovation.pdf (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Field, C.B. & Barros, V.R.. 2014. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. New York: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ (accessed 30 June 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand Challenges. 2003–2016. Available at: https://grandchallenges.org (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Hetel, L., Møller, T. & Stamm, J.. 2015. Integration of social sciences and humanities in Horizon 2020: participants, budget and disciplines. Monitoring report on SSH-flagged projects funded in 2014 under the societal challenges and industrial leadership. Brussels: European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/382488Google Scholar
Holas-Clark, C.N.J. 2009. The end of Anglo-Saxon furnished burial: an interdisciplinary perspective, in Devlin, Z.L. & Holas-Clark, C.N.J. (ed.) Approaching interdisciplinarity: archaeology, history and the study of early medieval Britain, c. 400–1100 (British Archaeological Reports British series 486). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Ion, A. 2017. How interdisciplinary is interdisciplinarity? Current Swedish Archaeology 25: 177–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintigh, K.W. et al. 2014. Grand challenges for archaeology. American Antiquity 79: 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1324000111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 2009. The name and nature of archaeology, in Gosden, C., Cunliffe, B. & Joyce, R.A. (ed.). The Oxford handbook of archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 2014. Towards a new paradigm? Current Swedish Archaeology 22: 11–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyall, C., Meagher, L. & Bruce, A.. 2015. A rose by any other name? Transdisciplinarity in the context of UK research policy. Futures 65: 150–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marginson, S. 2017. The case for more liberal arts and science degrees. University World News 484. Available at: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20171123075843679 (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (ed.). 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Geneva: IPCC, World Meteorological Organization and UNEPGoogle Scholar
Mizoguchi, K. 2015. A future of archaeology. Antiquity 89: 12–22. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2014.39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moedas, C. 2017. The European Open Science Cloud: the new republic of letters. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/moedas/announcements/eosc-summit-european-open-science-cloud-new-republic-letters_en (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
National Science Foundation. 2011. Rebuilding the mosaic: fostering research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences at the National Science Foundation in the next decade (National Science Foundation NSF 11-086). Arlington (VA): National Science Foundation. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11086/nsf11086.pdf (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Van der Noort, R. 2011. Conceptualising climate change. Antiquity 85: 1039–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00068472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. 2009. Preface, in Devlin, Z.L. & Holas-Clark, C.N.J. (ed.) Approaching interdisciplinarity: archaeology, history and the study of early medieval Britain, c. 400–1100 (British Archaeological Reports 486). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Rylance, R. 2015. Grant giving: global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity. Nature 525: 313–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/525313aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarre, C. 2016. Editorial. Antiquity 90: 283–89. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, A. 2016. The intellectual base of archaeological research 2004–2013: a visualisation and analysis of its disciplinary links, networks of authors and conceptual language. Internet Archaeology 42. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.42.8Google Scholar
Snow, C.P. 1959. The two cultures. London: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.130.3373.419Google Scholar
United Nations. 2018. Sustainable development goals. Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed 30 June 2020)Google Scholar
Wernli, D. & Darbellay, F.. 2016. Interdisciplinarity and the 21st century research-intensive university. Leuven: The League of European Research Universities. Available at: https://www.leru.org/files/Interdisciplinarity-and-the-21st-Century-Research-Intensive-University-Full-paper.pdf (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Woelert, P. & Millar, V.. 2013. The ‘paradox of interdisciplinarity’ in Australian research governance. Higher Education 66: 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9634-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Economic Forum. 2016. The future of jobs: employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Cologne & Geneva: International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. Available at: http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016 (accessed 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Wylie, A. & Chapman, R.. 2016. Evidential reasoning in archaeology. London & New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Zalasiewicz, J. & Waters, C.N.. 2016. Geology and the Anthropocene. Antiquity 90: 512–14. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar