In February 1994, I joined ARCH-L in order to keep abreast of issues in archaeology, to obtain information about conferences and fieldwork opportunities, and to conduct research on archaeology outreach programs. I subsequently turned my membership into a research topic, and set out to conduct a mini-ethnography of ARCH-L. The following pages document my research of ARCH-L in which I closely monitored the list for three months and conducted a survey via e-mail asking people why they subscribed to ARCH-L. I begin with a description of the list including who subscribes to, the amount of traffic on, the types of posts to, and other characteristics of the list. Next, I discuss the responses to my questionnaire on why people subscribe to ARCH-L. Then, I analyze these responses in reference to my observations on the list, discuss the positive aspects and potential of the list, and offer suggestions on how we, the subscribers, can improve the list and keep the negative aspects to a minimum.
ARCH-L began over four years ago and boasts 840 members from 36 countries as of March 14, 1994 (post from list owner March 14, 1994). The 574 subscribers in the United States make up almost 70% of the list members, followed by 86 from Great Britain, 55 from Canada, 19 from Australia, 16 from the Netherlands, and fewer than 10 from each of the remaining 31 countries.
Of the 73 people who responded to the questionnaire I posted on the list, 26 identified themselves as graduate or undergraduate students in archaeology, 3 as non-archaeology students, 10 as professors or research fellows in archaeology, 7 as non-archaeology professors, 15 as archaeological practitioners (e.g. contract archaeologists, museum employees, forest service employees), 10 as non-archaeology professionals, and 2 as private citizens. Computer science professors and students and computer professionals make up half of the subscribers who are not involved with archaeology by profession or education.
Roughly 60% of the subscribers have been on the list less than a year, and approximately 65% of those people have been on the list less than six months. The length of time people have subscribed to the list does not clearly indicate whether or not subscribers are generally satisfied with the list, because the larger percentage of recent subscribers could be attributed to people shopping around for lists and/or only recently gaining access to and interest in electronic correspondence rather than dissatisfaction with the list.
There are an average of 3-4 posts per day or 30 messages per week on ARCH-L. The posts consist primarily of discussions of archaeological method and theory, information requests, information posts (finds, articles, bibliographies), field school, conference, event and job announcements, requests for assistance in identifying artifacts, information on archaeological electronic resources (archaeology newsgroups, electronic HRAF-Human Relations Area Files, archives), and requests for e-mail addresses. Discussions of method and theory and information requests form roughly 25% and 20% of each month's posts, respectively. However, the fact that 25% of the posts focus on method and theory may be misleading; in the course of one month, only six topics were discussed (three concerned with theory or interpretation and three concerned with method), and only one topic garnered more than five posts (on the use of GIS in archaeology and artifact density maps). Further, discussion posts rarely exceed 1-2 screens of text. Therefore, although the numbers may suggest that there is a good deal of discussion one can tap into on ARCH-L, a closer look reveals that discussion is rather limited. Information requests vary widely, from requests to references on Celtic inscriptions, modified human mandibles and ground stone tools to solicitation of suggestions for textbooks for undergraduate courses to information on graduate programs and field schools.
Although the preceding description gives a prospective subscriber an idea of what to expect from the ARCH-L list, it does not answer why people subscribe to the list, what they expect from the list, or if people are satisfied with the list. These are important questions to consider if people want ARCH-L to continue to be a viable list and serve its community to the best of its ability. However, some of the unique and advantageous aspects of electronic discussion groups make it difficult to obtain answers to these questions. Electronic discussion groups bring together hundreds of people from around the world to debate with and inform one another on shared topics of interest. Unlike conferences, the lists provide this service 24 hours a day at virtually no cost and without the travel time. All subscribers require is access to a computer with a modem and communications software and an interest in the particular topic of a list--no credentials required. One of the most ubiquitous activities at physical gatherings, the sidetalk and gossip which provides a forum for airing grievances which can lead to changes to address those grievances, is all but nonexistent at electronic gatherings. Grievances either take a more direct form, flames, and are aired in posts to the lists which go to every subscriber and can provoke flame wars, or people vote with their keyboards and unsubscribe from the list. Perhaps, a type of suggestion box could be developed for the list to allow people to make suggestions in a less confrontational way than direct posts to the list. One person, either a volunteer or the list owner, could be the node for all suggestions who could then repost the suggestions with comments about their feasibility to the list. Suggestions could be reposted as they come in, or in batches, for example, once a month which would allow subscribers to see how many others share their feelings. Subscribers would then be able to express their views anonymously since the suggestion box manager can delete the original sender information in his/her repost.
In order to answer why people subscribe to ARCH-L and whether or not they are satisfied with the list, and to provide prospective subscribers with a better sense of ARCH-L, I posted a questionnaire entitled "Why do you subscribe to ARCH-L?" on the list asking anyone to respond. The post included the following questions:
By far, the main reason people told me they subscribe to ARCH-L is to monitor the archaeological community, to see what people in this community were doing, thinking and discussing. This is especially true for students and people in non-archaeology professions and areas of study who come to the list to learn, and who often expressed that they felt unprepared to enter discussions themselves. The next most common reason people cited for subscribing to the list is to conduct research. In addition, several people stated that they not only joined the list to conduct research and/or keep abreast of current issues in archaeology for themselves, but also for students, colleagues and friends who do not have access to the list. Subscribers also mentioned that they joined to read announcements for upcoming conferences, field schools, workshops and job opportunities. Others subscribe in order to keep in touch other archaeologists, especially those with similar specialties.
Only 7 people expressly stated that they joined ARCH-L to participate in discussions, which contrasts with the 40+ people who joined to view the discussions. Apparently, the audience is there, but they are still waiting for more players to arrive. Consequently, one of the more common complaints about ARCH-L is the relative lack of discussion and, in particular, several people would like to see more discussion of computer use in archaeology and other technical subjects. This problem, one subscriber informed me, is quite common on electronic discussion groups; some lists have hundreds of passive subscribers waiting for someone to get up the nerve to post. One subscriber commented,
The Archlist seems typical of professional lists in that subscribers seem reluctant to post discussions and opinions.
Perhaps we are afraid of going out on a limb and looking foolish in front of colleagues. Or maybe we're afraid of putting forth ideas (and remember that ideas=careers for us academic types!) in such a casual forum.
Moreover, three people were upset that there seems to be a core group which monopolizes discussion. However, during the three months I have been on the list, I have found few people who post more than once a week, and compared to other lists such as ANTHRO-L I would not characterize this list as dominated by a core group of people. Some subscribers have also stated that they feel that the discussions are often trivial in nature, focused on arcane topics, cover too wide a scope of topics, are too biased to social anthropological aspects of archaeology, are not at the level they want or, conversely, are "theoretical mumbo-jumbo." On the other hand, other subscribers enjoy the wide scope and scientific bent of the discussions and find them interesting, productive, and good resources for teaching and research projects. Overall, it appears that most of the subscribers who responded would like to see more discussion on the list, but it is unclear whether they are willing to contribute to these discussions themselves.Several subscribers expressed that one of the chief benefits of the list is that it provides opportunities for people to keep in touch with others interested in archaeology around the world. Although this feature may be an added bonus for some subscribers, for others who do not have access to an archaeological community, as one subscriber from Poland commented, it provides a mechanism for them to overcome their physical distance from these communities.
Other subscribers like the friendly nature of the list stating that there are fewer flames than on other lists and that people are very willing to help others locate resources, answer questions and provide contacts. Over the past three months, only two flames were posted: one was a complaint about the large number of test messages which were sent by the list owner in order to locate which node was causing messages to be sent more than once, and the other was a response to this post reprimanding the sender for getting upset because someone was trying to solve a problem with the list. Although I only have my experience with one other anthropology list and two sports lists for comparison, I am also struck by the lack of hostility on ARCH-L that one usually finds to some degree on lists, as well as subscribers' interest in and willingness to help others. From the questionnaire responses, it appears that even if the list has not met their expectations, subscribers are optimistic about the list and committed to making it a viable one.
As any undergraduate will tell you, the archaeological literature can be intimidating and inaccessible, and people outside of academia may be unaware of much that is available. ARCH-L can provide access to numerous topics in archaeology in a relatively painless manner for those people who want more than PBS and The Learning Channel's documentaries, but who are not necessarily looking to sift through the occasionally less than stimulating scholarly literature.
One of the advantages or disadvantages of electronic lists, depending on your perspective, is the fact that academic credentials and titles, one's appearance and other outward markers of status have less relevance in electronic communication. As one subscriber wrote,
I do like the mix of informal discussion and "formal" announcements and requests for information...all of these are valid and useful ways of sharing information--in "real life"...they tend to be separated both by content and by who is doing the sharing. For example, undergrads don't hang out at the anthro department coffee machine sharing informal information with profs and stuff; formal announcements are not posted near the coffee machine; if someone is looking for information, this is usually done one-to-one after class or during office hours--i.e. everyone is not party to the exchange, even though others may have similar questions... On ARCH-L, those boundaries between student/prof, formal/informal, public/private are blurred.
Although it may disconcert some people, on electronic discussion lists you are what you write.If anyone ever doubted that for any situation there are as many interpretations of it as there are people on earth, the responses to my question regarding what people dislike about the list should convince them. While one person would like to see more job announcements, another feels that the list is an inappropriate place for such posts. As well, some feel that there are not enough conference, field school or event announcements where others feel that are too many. While some dislike the "talk-show quality" of discussions and the "noise" from amateurs, others dislike the "theoretical mumbo-jumbo" of some posts. Further, whereas one subscriber commented that the list was of little use to Europeans, another felt that there was too much emphasis on Europe and Egypt. By my count, there were twice as many information requests and discussions on Old World topics than on New World topics, although announcements tend to focus on American events. Perhaps, this is a new development and the first subscriber's remarks come from 3-4 year's experience with the list, whereas the second subscriber and I have subscribed for less than six months.
Some subscribers are concerned that others use the list to get cheap, fast bibliographies for their research without leaving their desk. Many people consider discussion groups a legitimate research tool through which one can find resources that do not result from library searches, and many people enjoy sharing their knowledge and hooking up with others who share similar interests (whose numbers are often surprising). However, there seems to be a fine line between use and abuse of this tool and subscribers should, perhaps, not make the list their first research stop.
Further concerns focus on the setup of the list, and addressing these concerns would require, in most cases, more work on the part of the list owner. For example, one of the more common requests is that the list have a moderator who would screen out messages meant for the listserver and duplicate messages. Others would like the moderator to organize posts into a structured format subdivided by subject, geography or type of post (e.g. GIS uses in archaeology, conference and field school announcements, Southeast U.S. archaeology, journal tables of contents and articles). Some of the problems regarding the lack of organization of the list can be minimized by the subscribers themselves. Several people have requested that others provide better subject identification on both the subject line and the first lines of text of their post. This would allow people to quickly scan messages and to follow ongoing discussions more easily. One subscriber has requested an annual posting of field schools rather than the sporadic, individual posts the list presently receives. However, this would require someone to collect all this information. Perhaps, such a document is more appropriate for a bulletin board accessible by gopher than for ARCH-L. People have also voiced interest in access to an archive database of messages for ARCH-L and a list of subscribers, and equipping the list with the capability to send information in graphics format.
In addition to the desire for more discussion mentioned earlier, subscribers made a number of suggestions for enhancing list activity including more research and publication listings, posts of tables of contents and articles of journals, especially journals only available regionally, and summaries of ongoing discussions and the responses people have received to information requests. One subscriber's request for posts of papers given at conferences, or abstracts of papers with e-mail addresses from where one could obtain the entire paper, in order to allow those unable to attend access to them, echoes others' sentiments that the list could provide access to more current discussions in archaeology than the written literature. As one subscriber states, "people tend to air philosophical and ethical issues FIRST on the internet, probably as some sort of catharsis, and much of this idealizing never makes it into print, so it is nice to `hear' what people think."
Archaeology has been blessed with a popularity few other academic disciplines can boast. The almost unanimous response to someone's discovery that I study archaeology is "Wow! Really? That's so interesting," followed by a barrage of questions such as what sites I have been to, what types of artifacts have I found, and when do I think humans first arrived in North America. I rarely am asked to explain my motivation for studying archaeology, unlike our kissing cousins in anthropology, because people find archaeology exciting. The general public has always been an integral part of archaeology, and without them archaeologists would have discovered far fewer sites and known much less about human history than they do today. Yet, the archaeological community often treats non-archaeologists as guests in their community. Characterizations of amateurs' contributions to discussions as "noise" are not only untrue, but also uncalled for. If anything, the archaeologist is indebted to the public, not vice-versa. But amazingly, archaeology fans still humble themselves in the presence of archaeologists and ask politely to watch and be included in their work. Over half of the subscribers who responded to my questionnaire are students and non-archaeologists and, perhaps, they make up a greater percentage of all subscribers as it is quite possible that the comprise the majority of lurkers whose limited participation may have prevented them from replying to my survey. As a "private citizen" writes,
Information can increase understanding, which is both edifying and addictive. Those of you who are professionals need to understand that you may well be becoming teachers when you use the listservice, and that your silent and unseen class depends on your good offices and intentions to shape its grasp on the subjects addressed. It is possible that just this sort of activity (kibitzing on an academic list) is the forerunner of a new educational format.
Although I agree with the subscriber that we have the opportunity and responsibility to educate a large number of people, I do not believe that this class should necessarily remain silent and unseen. People who feel unprepared to participate in discussions could get the ball rolling by asking questions about topics, theories, and sites they have encountered. This way, more people can become involved and the discussions most people join the list to read become a mainstay of the list.One cannot assume that the credentials of the discussants determines the level of discussion. Strictly "professional" debates can be less productive because people often do not make their arguments as explicit as they would for non-archaeologists. They assume that their fellow archaeologists share with them a certain type of knowledge. However, it is often when one has to explain his/her ideas to someone outside of his/her field, which requires more explicit explications of one's argument, that one recognizes problems, gains new insights, and finds new solutions. And lest we forget that teaching in archaeology has always been a two-way street, non-archaeologist subscribers have already provided valuable advice to ARCH-L subscribers on computer applications and statistical packages for archaeology and retain a wealth of information archaeologists have only begun to explore. Therefore, I believe that everyone has something to contribute to the list and that the diverse backgrounds of the subscribers are an asset.
ARCH-L offers people the opportunity to become acquainted with numerous topics in archaeology, converse with archaeologists and others interested in archaeology around the world, meet others in one's area of interest, get quick answers to practical problems, brainstorm about methods and theory, conduct research, develop topics for research, and learn about archaeological events in one's area. Overall, subscribers indicate that they are pleased with ARCH-L and felt that it has the potential to become an even more viable list. Like any other physical community, the members of ARCH-L, a "virtual" community, are struggling to define who and what constitute their community.
Please note that the names of ARCH-L subscribers are not provided in this text as I stated in my questionnaire that no names would appear in this paper.