 What I'm going to present is some work that we've been doing within Daria, the digital research infrastructure for the arts and humanities, in the context of one particular working group called the Digital Practices and Methods Observatory Working Group. What we've been trying to do is to understand how digital humanists and people use digital resources and digital tools and digital methods, what kind of needs, what kind of practices they engage with, what kind of use they make of the resources, what kind of methods they use, and a number of questions like that. So we've got four projects within the working group. And what I'm going to concentrate today is one part of the survey on scholarly practice and digital needs and the human sciences that we conducted for the first time in 2015 and will analyze one particular part of the data of this survey. General questions that we have in the surveys about how people use scholarly data and collections, including digital scholars and also students, also how they engage with scholarly practices in information sitting, organizing, studying, and annotating, sharing, and publishing work related to research, and what kinds of digital use and needs they engage with, what tools of services they use, what kind of infrastructure standards, devices and environments and perceptions and some basic perceptions and norms that they have. And the reason why we do this research is because we want to be able to cover not just information sitting as earlier studies, but also to focus very much on how we can learn useful things in order then to adjust and to tune digital infrastructures to the needs that we understand come from the community. The purpose is comparability. This is a project in which many people participate. It's a working group of more than 15 active members from different countries who co-authored a quite large report, which is still at the final stages of editing now with several chapters on individual national profiles, a consolidated analysis of the results, and also a comparative analysis. And the focus is to do this every year, every few years, every five years. So decided this next turn is going to be 2020 in order then to develop a longitudinal view of what happens in the disciplines. So we have already published a highlights report that is available online in several languages, six languages, and the other, the large long report is under preparation. 2,177 respondents across Europe, 10 languages, six national profiles in the report, and archaeologists. 170 people identify themselves as archaeologists and they're sort of primary disciplinary affiliation in this study. And they come from different professional ranks and levels of research experience. And what we did is what we're going to do is we're going to present now descriptive statistics regarding the information digital practice needs and attitudes of this particular cohort, of these 177 archaeologists. Also, I'm going to say certain things about comparing archaeologists and non-archaeologists. So I'm comparing the 177 with all the rest of the respondents who identify themselves in other disciplines within the human sciences. But I'm only presenting in that statistically significant results, those that succeed the test of rejecting the null hypothesis of no relationship at the 05 level, 5% level, practically meaning that there is, well, only 5% of possibility that what we find as a pattern that differentiates archaeologists from others is due to chance. And I'm doing this using asymmetrical measures of association. I'm looking at how archaeology or non-archaeology, being an archaeologist or not being an archaeologist, can affect the questions, the different other questions that I'm reporting, using these statistical measures, Goodman and Kruskaltau, which is a phenomenal variables, and Somersky, which are ordinal variables. So the first question was really how people use different types of digital and analog resources. And we structured this question to say, are you using this kind of resource on a desktop, or left of PC, on some mobile device, tablet or smartphone, or in print form or using an analog device? And what we find is these are the results for archaeologists in this case. As you can see, the largest number of type of resource in which most people said that they use it in digital form or desktop or laptop or PC is images. You can see that 167 out of 177 people said that. There are 161 people said that they use articles and scholarly journals on a PC or a laptop. 154 use maps, 138 videos, 135 audio. We were surprised to find so many archaeologists that say that they use audio and video as a resource, actually. And it may be a change in the patterns of the discipline using sort of the new approaches to interpretation, to travel search, people sharing notes, and other stuff. We don't have an explanation for this. This is something, actually, in which I have a personal research project. This work that I'm reporting is together with my colleagues on the digital curation unit and Nefeli Hadzidiaku and Agiatis Bernardo. My personal project called Ecurators is based on multiple case studies in which we all try to investigate more cohesively the whole gestalt of what is happening in specific archaeological projects, how we can understand some of these trends. What we see on the other hand is that there is use of archival holdings. But in this case, I mean, it's equivalent. They use an archival holdings in digital form through a PC or through actual sort of physical analog forms. It's 11, 113, 111. It's the same. I mean, this is actually the same number of people taking statistical confidence margins into account. Books, predictably, is the one source that people still consult much more on digital form. However, more than half of our respondents said that they use, they read books also on a PC, which may be significant. The third category that we added here, which is if people use something on a mobile device, tablet or smartphone, is for us interesting just because we have this hunch that things are changing a lot now with all this pervasive ubiquitous technologies that are being introduced anywhere from the fieldwork to really the dissemination, et cetera. And we see this as a trend that we imagine with surveys that speculate rather than it's going to increase next time we do this survey. But still now, you get something like 40 people using smartphones or tablets in order to access images, 31 to access maps, 39 to access video or audio, which is actually something that is worth thinking about. So we did this comparison then, and we found that there is a statistically significant difference in how archaeologists and others consult certain kinds of materials and certain kinds of devices. For instance, and this is surprising, we found that archaeologists tend to consult articles more often than others in printed form. You see the number is small here because there's fewer archaeologists in the surveys on 177 and about 2,000 of the others. But still, proportionally speaking, archaeologists consult more than others articles in printed form. We found this surprising. We don't know how much of this is really sort of to be taken up face value at this time, but it's certainly something that we'd like to investigate. On the contrary, what we found is that archaeologists consult books less often than others on a smartphone or tablet. There are other disciplines in the digital humanities that are represented in the survey, and they use that more. Archaeologists consult archival holdings more often than others in analog form. This we find also surprising. There are several questions, as you will see later on, that point to an important place of materiality for archaeologists that can only be explained by how the profession understands the primacy and the difference between primacy and second-handness in resources. We can't have any other explanation for that. You will see some other questions that I will return with a comment on those as well. Archaeologists consult maps and images less often than others on a smartphone or tablet while they do. And you saw that it was something like 30 out of 170, which is not a small percentage. It's more than 20%. However, other disciplines use more tablets than archaeologists for that purpose. Archaeologists do digital technologies and tools more often than others in order to process, analyze, and visualize. There was a number of questions that we asked following the research lifecycle, and we said, OK, how do you use how much do you use digital methods, tools, anything in order to sort of conduct fieldwork, to collect data, or to analyze, and to organize, or to the same age, et cetera? And more or less, archaeologists are the same in all these other questions. The only question in which they differentiate it and as more archaeologists answer positively to this is processing, analyzing, visualizing. And this is no accident, of course. I mean, it relates very, very much to the central role of visualization in archaeological research. There's also analysis that now takes the form of digital, digitally-enabled analysis, in a sense. Well, the use of various kinds of tools in order to manage data in archaeology and resources. We call these sedimentary data and specific research resources. We have this sort of general term. And what we find here is that the research assets. And in this case, what we found is that more archaeologists, comparatively speaking, use databases. And more archaeologists use spreadsheets compared to other people in the digital humanities. And we find this is a sign of the maturity of the discipline, in a sense, in using the tools for such a time of the way in which some of the research in archaeology works as very, very much a series-based research or research that is based on vectors of information or geographical information, as well that also feeds into this extended use of databases. What you see here, and I think this is something to consider, is that spreadsheets, such as Excel, are almost double in terms of popularity than databases. And this is, again, something that is confirmed by a number of other sort of qualitative and quantitative investigations that the spreadsheets are there for good. And they're not disappearing anywhere any day soon from archaeology. Archaeologists are differentiated in the kind of databases that they use from others. While, yeah, clearly, there is a number of archaeologists that use a personal database, about 40, 50. So about half of the respondents use a personal database, either a personal or an institutional database. Archaeologists tend more often than other humanists to use, and social scientists, human scientists, to use personal databases for their research. And this is also interesting, because it sort of indicates a level of particularity and a ideographic approach to research that is peculiar to archaeology and that troubles everyone who's working in the area, for instance, of digital aggregation, digital preservation of archaeological material. Archaeologists also use a database storing images, maps, or 3D models, more often than others. Nothing to comment really. It's pretty obvious why and how. What we found, and this was a surprising result, in a sense, is that archaeologists do not fare well with the whole sort of world of social media or the whole world of web technologies. Despite the existence of projects, such as open contexts, for instance, and despite the hype about some archaeological projects and websites online, et cetera, what we found is that compared to other disciplines, archaeologists use less web content management systems and use less social media in order to store and manage research assets. This was a question about using research assets. But then we asked other questions as well that went into attitudes and to ask even more questions regarding strategies of dissemination. I'm going to turn in the last five minutes of my talk to those. Here what we see is a slightly complex graph. It's a cumulative graph. What we see is percentages on the side. And the question was, I visit historical archives, special collection store museums. We ask people to respond to that question saying, and I use it very often, often, seldom, or never. And what we see is the lowest band, this band here, is the very often. What I want you to look at is the very often or often. So that is the mark, for instance, for I visit historical archives, special collection, museums, is that more than 60%. About 65% of the people say that they do visit. And I'm going to sort of offer a comment about comparing with other humanists on this in a moment. If you look at what is higher, what is this level? The highest is I collaborate with others at the research project. This is surprisingly high. More than 70% of archaeologists say that the collaborative work is surprising, you'd say, excavation, fieldwork, very often is collaborative by necessity. And that indicates some differences that we have in the form of institutional practices that then disciplinary practice that we have in archaeology with other disciplines, like cultural studies, literature, et cetera, where research is very solitary in many ways. I use my own keyword list of resources to organize my research assets that attracts more than 60%, 62%, or something like that. But for people who say use it often or very often, however, the people who answer the same question of how often or very often they use standard keywords, so that's all right. Knowledge organization systems are only between 35%. It's almost half. And this is also indicative of the resistance to standardization that exists within the profession. I access primary sources outside my country of residence. This is, again, high. And it indicates still the role of post-colonial archaeology, world archaeology. I don't mean that all of us or all of you who's working in the eye work internationally are post-colonial or colonial in any sense. But it's really part of a tradition in which archaeological teams of one country would work in other countries. And sometimes then that means that you need up to access materials from other countries very clearly. So just a couple of observations now on comparisons here between archaeologists and non-archaeologists. Archaeologists visit more often than others, archives, collections, and museums, clearly. Archaeologists access primary sources outside our country more often than others. Again, I just gave an explanation for that. They use search engines or research publications however, less often than others. This is puzzling. They don't use, we sort of, we cited, we quoted Google Scholar, Microscopic Research, names like that, right? Scopus, what have you. And people said less archaeologists than others, comparatively speaking, said that they use those for their research. Archaeologists disseminate also their work less often than others through their site or blog. This we found, as I said, surprising because the hype is that there is a lot of activity in that area within archaeologists. It's something that we'd like to look into in more detail. And finally, they disseminate, however, they disseminate their work more often than others through a community site, a site such as academia.edu, for instance, or research aid. They disseminate, however, their work less often than others through a content community, Flickr, YouTube, those communities with slideshare, et cetera. And less often than others through a social networking site. More in general, there's many, many questions in which people said that they're sort of less eager to sort of work with those. And if you look at the numbers, they're very minimal. There's three or four people out of 177 who said that they do use often or very often these things. So the final question that we asked is what people consider tech support for tools or infrastructures are important. And we asked people to rate several questions in a scale from 1 to 10, writing the importance of that. And interestingly, archaeologists said that they consider tech support more important in comparison with other people. So what we saw in this research is we got a snapshot, which is more or less a snapshot of the what in research. And what we hope is that through coordinated research, we're going to be able to supplement this with the questions of how and why, and also that we're going to be able to trace the continuation of these patterns in the profession from time to time after we sort of conduct the second round of this survey in 2020. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.