Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology

Abstract

Based on a case study, the paper analyses the possibilities of social media as a tool for science communication in the context of information and communication technology (ICT) usage in archaeology. Aside from discussing the characteristics of digital archaeology, the social networking sites (SNS) Twitter, Sketchfab, and ResearchGate are integrated into a digital research data dissemination tool. As a result, above-average engagement rates with few impressions were observed. Compared with that, status updates focusing on actual fieldwork and other research activities gain high numbers of impressions with below-average engagement rates. It is believed that most of the interactions are restricted to a core audience and that a clearly defined social media strategy is obligatory for successful research data dissemination in archaeology, combined with regular posts in the SNS. Additionally, active followers are of highest importance. IANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● Online First Dominik Hagmann: Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology Online First Lähteenmäki, Virta 2016; Patrikarakos 2017). Social media wars also occur in the free web-based social messaging and microblogging service twitter, which is used to send short posts (so-called tweets) with originally 140 characters and (since November 2017) 280 characters in some countries (e.g. Rosen 2017; Richardson 2012; 2015; Williams, Krause 2012, pp. 105–113). Originally, it is likely that Twitter wars (in their broadest sense) have become a digital phenomenon in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and thus became known to a wider public during 2012 (Ball 2013), considering the role of social media in modern warfare (Sutter 2012). Hence Twitter war initially belongs to the above-mentioned third definition, incorporating the metaphysical meanings of real and virtual war, but may have adopted additional meanings besides. Thus, a Twitter war may also belong to the first type of social media war. In today’s Twitter lingo (slang) a twitter war may describe in detail a quick public dialogue based on tweets between at least two parties for several hours. The parties involved are addressing each other mainly using the so-called retweet(rt) as well as replies(replying to) and mentions-functions (@) on Twitter (Twitter 2017a; 2017b). A quick review of last months’ tweets mentioning the combined terms “Twitter” and “war” reveals the characteristics of a Twitter war in general (Twitter 2017d). Twitter wars seem to be declared by either one of the two parties or even a third party without following any formal rules. Through simply announcing an explicit statement as well as directly mentioning the other party/parties, the Twitter war starts. Here, one party refers to a certain position while the other party/parties take/s an opposite one. The other party/parties respond/s to this statement with a similar but differing statement more or less immediately. Afterwards, the first party responds again, etc. Other recipients of the dialogue within this Twitter war can comment on individual tweets and may therefore be addressed by the opponents afterwards. This special type of discussion may be conducted as friendly banter but also as a serious debate, depending on the parties involved. Regarding the rhetoric of Twitter users, #twitterwar as well as #twitterWar, #twitterwar, and #tWitterWAr are used, although the term may be also used without any hashtag (e.g. Kehrberg 2015; Twitter 2017d). A hashtag thereby serves as a freely definable visual emphasis of the particular word, as well as a linking tag inside the service that enables users to filter the millions of different messages based on a selected keyword by just clicking on it or searching for it (e.g. Bruns et al. 2016; Enli, Simonsen 2017; Small 2011; Twitter 2017c). The main reason to start a Twitter war may be to stimulate public attention on a large scale. Furthermore, a Twitter war is a social media marketing strategy which gains the attention of customers for all parties involved. It is important that only equal competitors start a Twitter war and that the involved parties treat each other with respect during the whole confrontation (Alaimo 2017). Otherwise a Twitter war could quickly become something else, like a case of internet “trolling”, i.e. the attempt to provoke the counterpart and to outrage him/her, or even flaming (e.g. Kohn 2015). Additionally, Twitter itself sometimes encourages such activities (e.g. @TwitterNotify 2017). Users may further formerly invite or provoke each other to start a Twitter war through using a matching hashtag in a corresponding post, although this kind of request usually would not have the desired effect. An example of a Twitter war is the “conflict” between Denmark and Sweden in 2016: On July 7th, a Twitter war broke out between the Danish Foreign Ministry and the Swedish Institute and lasted for several hours (@denmarkdotdk 2017; @swendense 2017). It all started when the Danish Foreign Ministry quoted a post from the Swedish Institute about special aspects of Swedish taste in interior decoration, which primarily was meant for the amusement of the Swedish Twitter community (@denmarkdotdk 2016b; Podhovnik 2016; @swendense 2016b). The Swedes responded to that tweet, then the Danes countered and the whole conversation culminated into an alternating struggle for amusement (@denmarkdotdk 2016a; @swendense 2016c). As the Swedish Institute stated during the discussion repetitively, the whole conversation was meant as “friendly rivalry” (@swendense 2016a). All in all, a Twitter war may be one concept (among others) of gaining attention of a vast group of interested users as a first step to sell one’s product to this target group. It is a specialised marketing strategy which uses digital information and communication technology (ICT) to gain success in getting noticed. ICT is more important than ever nowadays, mainly due to the high availability of the internet in many parts of the world, although a significant digital divide still exists (Cancro 2016; Mano 2012, pp. 30–31; Walker 2014). Nevertheless, ICT has a very serious impact on society, and thus the effect of ICT on archaeology can also be observed (e.g. Henson 2013). The strategy presented here may be settled in a more passive setting and Twitter wars are hard to find in the field of archaeology. Maybe the archaeological Twitter community is too small and homogenous, or “big players” within this community are not big enough for occurrences like Twitter wars to appear regularly in archaeology. Considering the wider field of cultural heritage management, a recent example from digital museology may be the Twitter war of two British museums in 2017: On September 13th, in the course of the #AskACurator-campaign by Mar Dixon, another Twitter war occurred between the Science Museum and Natural History Museum in Great Britain, because of the question posed by Twitter user Bednarz O’Connell regarding which museum would have the best exhibition (@bednarz 2017a, 2017b; Dixon 2013). While this Twitter war was actually started by an individual non-museologist, there are concepts which try to facilitate mutual as well as pluralistic activities on Twitter in archaeology, like the first CAA Twitter Conference (#CAATCO 2018). Furthermore, it is questionable whether an active and possibly even aggressive marketing concept like that conducted during a Twitter war is suitable for archaeology. IANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● Online First Dominik Hagmann: Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology Online First This paper seeks to evaluate the role of SNS regarding their function as platforms for science communication in the context of digital archaeology (e.g. Kansa et al. 2012; Watkins 2016). In contrast to a Twitter war, the general concept presented here is, in a sense, passive, because although information is actively disseminated, it must also be received by other Twitter users who are not actively involved. A Twitter war, however, is active in all aspects, as not only information is disseminated, but other users are also actively involved. Founded on the evaluation of a case study, it is examined whether it is necessary to start a Twitter war to successfully disseminate information in archaeology. To do so, recent Twitter data received from an official university’s account will be analysed. 2. Digital archaeology Digital archaeology itself is an integral part of today’s archaeological practice and a broad area encompassing various aspects, methods, and ideas (e.g. Hagmann 2017a; 2017b; 2017f; Langendorf et al. 2017; Morgan, Eve 2012; Trognitz et al. 2017). However, digital archaeology seems to be neither an archaeological sub-discipline nor its own specialisation, but rather a pool of different theoretical and practical aspects of information technology and their corresponding applications within archaeology (Costopoulos 2016; Huggett 2017). Applying digital methods in archaeology expands the possibilities of creating insights and generating knowledge (Zubrow 2006). In this sense, Zubrow (2006) defines digital archaeology as the usage of “[...] future technology to understand past behaviour [...]”. Therefore, theory and practice of combined digital input, digital information management, digital analysis, and digital publication are immanent for digital archaeology. In regard to the above, Daly and Evans (2006) mention in their fundamental compilation about digital archaeology that this field of study “[...] explores the basic relationships that archaeologists have with Information and Communication Technology [...]” – a situation, which may be also found in the digital humanities (e.g. Jannidis et al. 2017). The relationship between archaeology and ICT, as well as the term digital archaeology itself, have different