While our fascination with understanding the past is sufficient to warrant an increased focus on synthesis, solutions to important problems facing modern society require understandings based on data that only archaeology can provide. Yet, even as we use public monies to collect ever-greater amounts of data, modes of research that can stimulate emergent understandings of human behavior have lagged behind. Consequently, a substantial amount of archaeological inference remains at the level of the individual project. We can more effectively leverage these data and advance our understandings of the past in ways that contribute to solutions to contemporary problems if we adapt the model pioneered by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis to foster synthetic collaborative research in archaeology. We propose the creation of the Coalition for Archaeological Synthesis coordinated through a U.S.-based National Center for Archaeological Synthesis. The coalition will be composed of established public and private organizations that provide essential scholarly, cultural heritage, computational, educational, and public engagement infrastructure. The center would seek and administer funding to support collaborative analysis and synthesis projects executed through coalition partners. This innovative structure will enable the discipline to address key challenges facing society through evidentially based, collaborative synthetic research.

Background: While smoking rates in the United States have decreased, some population subgroups have smoking rates that exceed national and state averages. These higher rates often are associated with higher incidence rates of tobacco-associated cancers. Over time, a decrease in smoking rates leads to lower cancer incidence. Methods: Using spatial modelling techniques, we identified an underserved geographic locale in South Florida with higher than expected incidence rates of tobacco-associated cancers. We then used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) design to conduct focus groups in 2011 to elicit information about the acceptability of a smoking cessation intervention delivered by trained former smokers from within peer networks. Results: A variety of smoking cessation strategies was presented and discussed in separate, gender-stratified focus groups comprised of former and current smokers (n = 39). Focus group findings consistently indicated that support groups were the preferred cessation mechanism in this community. Based on this finding, we changed our initially proposed cessation approach to one which employed support groups as a quit method. Conclusions: Currently, we are collecting pilot data to test this intervention and to reach smokers who might not otherwise be directly targeted with cessation messaging from larger tobacco control initiatives. If successful, this strategy can be adapted to effect other important changes in health behaviours in at-risk populations.