Advances in Archaeological Practice· 2026Q1
Slow, Digital, Immersive, Accessible: A Crip Studies–Centered Framework for Inclusive Archaeological Practice
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A new four-pillar framework (Slow, Digital, Immersive, Accessible) reframes archaeological practice around accessibility-centered design, moving beyond accommodation to integrate diverse participation and expand disciplinary knowledge.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Archaeological practice has historically excluded practitioners whose bodies, minds, or life circumstances differ from disciplinary norms.
- The 'Homo archaeologus' archetype acts as a gatekeeping mechanism, reinforcing able-bodied, neurotypical, and cisgender norms.
- A four-pillar framework (Slow, Digital, Immersive, Accessible) is proposed for inclusive archaeological practice.
- Accessibility is reframed as a fundamental methodology, not an optional enhancement, benefiting all practitioners and centering marginalized voices.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Archaeological practice has historically privileged fieldwork-intensive methodologies that systematically exclude practitioners whose bodies, minds, or life circumstances diverge from disciplinary norms. Drawing on crip theory and intersectional disability studies, this article uses the Homo archaeologus archetype—an often idealized archaeologist characterized by able-bodiedness, neurotypicality, cisgender identity, and physical presence in the field—which functions as both professional stereotype and gatekeeping mechanism. I argue that moving beyond accommodation-based approaches toward accessibility-centered design transforms not only who can participate in archaeology but what the discipline can know. This article proposes a four-pillar framework for inclusive archaeological practice: (1) Slow , restructuring temporal rhythms to prioritize deliberation over efficiency; (2) Digital , integrating computational methods as core archaeology rather than post-fieldwork analysis; (3) Immersive , employing technologies such as photogrammetry and virtual reality (VR) to multiply modes of engagement with archaeological contexts; and (4) Accessible , designing projects from the outset for diverse participation rather than retrofitting accommodations afterward. Through case studies from archaeological projects, I show that these pillars, in one form or another, are already operational in contemporary practice and that recognizing marginalized practitioners as methodological innovators—rather than problems requiring accommodation—strengthens archaeological rigor while expanding epistemic possibilities. This framework reframes accessibility not as an optional enhancement but as a fundamental methodology that benefits all practitioners while centering those historically excluded from disciplinary legitimacy.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Anthropology
AnthropologySocial Sciences