 How did you start? What is our motivation for this work? I'll give you just a couple of examples to show. This is from Ingrida's work, and it's from something that she presented a few years ago in CAA. And it is a listing, after a content analysis she did, from 20 Facebook sites, archaeological Facebook sites in Lithuania, in which she tried to elicit the kinds of reactions, emotive reactions, psychological emotive reactions that people have with archaeological material and sort of to identify ones that relate, that are based on artifacts, on replicas, on archaeological places, and this could be positive like, you know, sort of statements of admiration, amazement, insistence, or contentment. Others are negative, in a sense, because they talk about the loss of archaeological monuments, neglect the black archaeology and its problems, and the notions of identity and how identity can be appropriated. So this is something that she feels very strongly is important, if we are to have a notion of archaeology that relates in openness and in communication with society, a reciprocal archaeology, if I may say, in which archaeologists and communities talk to each other. Same thing with my work on the other side, which is based on some analysis of Facebook sites in Greece. So what I tried there is to understand what is happening again with an analysis of, conceptual analysis of the interactions there. What we see here is tents in front of an ancient temple, a temple of Hephaestaeon, the center of Athens, from the movement of the populations when immigrants were forced back to Greece after the Greek-Turkish War in 1922. And you get interactions such as, for instance, somebody saying, well, there's a description there, and that's an interesting thing while this Facebook group is a community group. You have a language that resembles very, very much the language of an institution in a way. So it's like a musicalization of the languages. It takes an institutional voice like that, as you see here. And then somebody says, well, we became a sacrifice this year in front of the Teseon, which is a wordplay of words, but people know that Hephaestaeon is Teseon in Greece these days. What do these tents remind you? And on rooting then and now, history repeats itself. So this notion of antiquity, this notion of tents in front of a monument, and this being sort of imbued with significance that is contemporary is something that is there. Gareth Meele, commenting to Lorna Richardson's paper, a microblogging online community, says that in order to better understand the value of social media to heritage, we need to observe existing communities that are directly or indirectly involved with archaeology, something that we flow to sort of inspired us. And also something that I found by looking at sites, I'm not the first one to find that, is that Facebook, followed by Twitter and YouTube statistically is the most widely used platform around cultural heritage institutions surveyed, that both in Greece, but also from the literature survey that I did for a paper, that it's under publication in volume due early next year. So what is the context of scope of our work? First of all, we want to accommodate different discourses, different ways of trying to sort of understand what is happening with archaeology and social media, including collaborative archaeology, open archaeology, emancipatory archaeology, DIY archaeology, participatory museum, the notion of participatory museum that is also has an impact on archaeological public communication practices, participatory archival practice, marketing, inclusivity and collaborative frames from Jenny Kidd's work, the notion of indigenous curation, agency-oriented research, some notions that we want to have in the picture as interpretive lenses. And what we don't have today, we don't have the data in order to be able to do any of the analysis that would allow us to employ these principles. So in order to sort of do our project, we started with a literature survey, and for this, we scope the project. You might say that there's plenty of work and very, very important work on social media, having sort of Sarah here, having Isto and other colleagues. I mean, it's obvious that, you know, there's been really, really important and seminal work. However, a lot of that work is on different areas. It's not really, really on social networking sites. It is on blogging. It is on crowdsourcing. It's on other aspects, on content sharing or different areas. So if you look at sort of social media in general, it can include many different things, you know, it can include different kinds of digital communication, having to do with networking, collaboration, sharing and commenting. And if you see practically what people do, for instance, in the panel that was organized in 2012 in Helsinki in EAA, well, in the panel on social media, I said, we define these technologies, including online excavation blogs, email discussion lists, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, Skype communications, interactive websites, online magazines, online events, contributory photographic archives, and handheld device software for insight and interpretation. So you get a very broad range and you didn't want to go into that wine. As you have noticed, the title of our presentation is something about Facebook. Now, Facebook is too small. I mean, there's no publications. There are three publications. What's the point of doing a literature survey to sort of survey three publications or something like that? So we took this classification that is a standard classic, a very, very popular classification by Kaplan and Henlein of social media, by social presence and self-presentation in which they divide things between blogs, social networking sites like Facebook, virtual social worlds like social life, and also in low self-presentation, low self-disclosure, collaborative projects such as Wikipedia, content communities such as YouTube and Flickr, and virtual game worlds. So from this, we sort of isolated and hone down to social networking sites. So social networking sites, one definition, a network communication platform which participants have uniquely identified profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content provided by other users, and system-provided data, can publicly articulate connections that can be viewed and traversed by others, and can consume, produce, or interact with streams of user-generated content provided by their connections. Social networking sites, as some call them, and we call them that, we prefer to call them social networking sites, other social network sites, have been thought by others to be a stage for performing an interpretive identity, interpretive identity. Another scholar, Jeanne Kidd, using frame analysis from Goffman suggests that there are three mark frames in which communication on social networking sites works for museums. The one is a marketing frame, which she also sees as a predominant almost, you know, this predominant way in which museums interact with audiences, the inclusivity frame related to notions of real and online community, and the collaborative frame, perhaps the most problematic. You will recognize that the last is the most problematic for archaeology as well in terms of practice. And these are ideas that are inspired, of course, by Goffman's, the drama truth given, the drama truthical theory of the surf, and the frame analysis. So what we did is we did a literature review, we started with an initial informal survey, and we sort of extended the scope to cover social networking sites, covering the generic class of SNS and online communities, and major distinct social networking services, such as Facebook, Twitter, but also ones that are professional, such as LinkedIn and some academic ones. And we created a broader dataset of this analysis on social media more generally. So we used queries, like these are the queries that we use, I'm not going to stay here if you want to come back later if you want to inspect them, in which we created our primary and secondary datasets, and we used three databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and also Google Scholar, limiting ourselves to title-only queries on Google Scholar, because if you search text, it gives you a lot, a real lot of rubbish. Our workload was to look at everything, we put it in Sotero, we duplicated the data, we sort of normalized it, corrected, did all these kinds of things, in order to be able to consolidate our bibliographic results according to their source, and then select from those. So what did we do? We found out that we needed to exclude many, many of the of the citations that we found. Why? Because archaeology and social media, for one thing, recalls a number of approaches in media studies and in cultural studies, including Yusiparica's media archaeology, the archaeology of knowledge of Michel Foucault and others. So those are excluded. Broad reviews on a general topic, archaeozoology, and this is like one paragraph, that there is some work on social media, that people adopt Facebook. This is excluded as well. Works where social network media are really mentioned. Works focused on computer science aspects, how to build a better software for SNS. Works presented in archaeological journals or conferences that do not address SNS within archaeology, but it's about museums, for instance, unpublished sources, such as dissertations, and sometimes very, very wildly irrelevant results, such as a group of statues from Aphrodisias, for instance. Imagine why Google scholar thought that this is, why Scopus thought that this is a relevant source for social networking sites. So our results were like this. We concluded to cut a long story short after combining and sort of selecting and reselecting to 21 specific references on this, and this confirms the fact that Sebastian Walker talks about one says that currently there is only a small body of formal publications about the use of social networking sites in archaeology in museums. In museums there are some more actually, which is surprising given that the apparent ubiquity of use among individual academics and academics and professionals, as well as organizations and institutions. So here's a list of the results. I mean if we sort of circulate the publication, sort of we're happy to share with you. And what did we find? We found things that relate very, very much to questions that there are in the field about social media in general, like this set of questions that was asked in the EAA 2012 session. What are the audiences? What do archaeologists do? What do they want to project? Who uses these network sites? Does it empower or does it undermine traditional structures? How representative are people who use that, the broader population, etc. So this is one actually of the sources that we found, which gives a set of questions like that, and this illustrates the different kinds of content that we found among these 2021 results. Another one is a case study of one particular sort of archaeological site, Conjunto Archeologico de Carmona in Seville, Spain, in which the people who sort of are responsible for that particular sort of initiative indicate how they use social media now, especially Facebook, in order to be able to understand their audiences, understand who visits the Conjunto, it's an acropolis, and improve that. And they get some information that is the demographic information about who is interested and who is using this social media. But also this is their opportunity to launch an initiative, which is a constructivist learning initiative through hidden treasures posts, as they call them. For instance, like they started with a poster like this, why would the dead need a mirror? And then people would have to fill the gaps, so there's a dialogue on Facebook on that. And this is a sort of good case of a case study that we discovered. Others are, like Isto Huvila's engagement has its consequences, is a more systematic approach that is evidence-based. It looks beyond one single case. It tries sort of to tally the situation across different media. Actually, that's the only one I know in archaeology that sort of has this nature. There's a few in museums that try to do the same thing compared across media. And see, first of all, what are the affordances of specific different media? What are they good for? It sort of tackles this question of multiplex communication that sometimes you see when people have multiple identities, as Jose van Dijk was talking about on Facebook and on LinkedIn, that they're very different to one another, but also where media themselves through their affordances allow for different things and for multiple identities. And Isto's work looks at Facebook, Twitter, Second Life and Pinterest, and sort of compares across those. Lorna Richardson is a prolific writer in the field, actually probably the most prolific writer and one of the most theoretical writers in the field as well. Together with Isto and a couple more, very, very small group of people that are of us inclined, looks at notions of community. She says, for instance, this is a passage that indicates the kind of ideas that she has, the kind of questions that she wants to ask. Are one topic groups, communities, and can share the identity situated in the subject of archaeology via catalyst or community formation? The idea is, I mean, can we sort of be on a single issue, sort of be the community of ice cream lovers or something? This is really the substance of it. And it really goes very, very much into central questions in identity politics, the notions of identity and identity politics today, you know, whether it's Singlishes can lead us somewhere. Since the location of this community is in a new space, online, where discussion and interaction take place in varying formats, time zones, so that a different place, although a synchronous nature of communications, do these differences matter any longer than the formation of a sense of connection and belonging to a network? What conditions is this usually allowed? Otherwise need to exist to support the development of online networks and communities. It's a very pragmatic and almost action research kind of approach. So more or less, because we don't have time to sort of discuss all the various publications that we sort of examined, the 21 results, the initial findings is that the majority of works report on SNS initiatives of authors themselves. So it's self-reporting in many ways. People have a problem. Typically they are archaeologists, so they're working in cultural resource management, archaeological management, the different kinds of public archaeology, either the public oriented or the preservation oriented, and this is what sort of puts them there as authors. There are several advocacy pieces or best practice recommendations. People will say, this is what you should be looking at if you want to somehow sort of adopt the use of social networking sites. Only a few empirical studies that are based on single multiple case studies, surveys or interviewing, and only a handful of authors engaging with theory, bringing up notions such as social social capital, networks communities, web marketing, social inclusion, and also tool agency from the SDS field. So using SNS for either marketing or crowdsourcing and social open publishing through microblogging in particular is a widely shared view among authors that we sampled. And there is consensus on the need for further research. So there's a clear need to understand the ways in which technologies can be used to facilitate better and more rewarding relationships between individual and communities. This seems to drive a lot of the opinion, and in order for this to occur it may be necessary to consider, Gareth Beale says here, the processes that work in the development and marketing of technology, but also it's eventual appropriation by users. That means what users do actually, what those people who are active, the actors of these social networking sites do. So a framework for analysis that we try to develop traces some contemporary shifts, and this is from background paper that Ingrid had prepared a couple of years ago, in which she saw that, for instance, we have institutional and professional trends towards community inclusion, openness, and reciprocity, such as, for instance, the case of the participatory museum and ideas about the participation. You have a shift from institutional to social and participatory archives and ways of recording the past. Like Isto has been sort of experimenting, writing about the decade ago. Social networking sites can be seen as communities of practice connecting archaeologists with amateurs, and this is an idea also that Ingrid does work is very, very much based on that, but others as well in the field have been sort of warming up to the notion of communities of practice. And finally, SNS and archaeological heritage can be factors for generating and regulating social capital. They don't always create social capital. Sometimes they consume it. It's an interesting relationship. So this idea, and this is an idea by Ingrid who's her supervisor knows, this is an idea that really is sort of interesting to consider in a way. I've been sort of working on a different dimension, looking at issues of civic engagement and human creativity, the notion of participation, how can participation is participation really? And if we say we open up and invite the public, we'll have our volunteers come and sort of write and interact with us, how much of this is really participation? And for this, I mean, one needs to take heed of the warnings mostly of these two people, the notion of civic engagement and how Nico Carpentier has been criticizing how this is happening at all really under this sort of wonderful world of participation, but also how much human creativity and this sort of empowerment and creativity does happen. It happens sometimes, but not always. The other question that I also wanted to look at is, and I'm sort of putting that in my own sort of perspective, is the notion of institutional voices on social networking sites. How, for instance, archaeological and heritage institutions adopt the institutional logic of the platform? This is an idea that, it's not my idea actually, it is an idea which Gauntlet has advanced about YouTube. For instance, you are on YouTube, then you sort of talk about YouTube. Talking a sort of very, very professional, you know, sort of perfect immaculate advertising video. And the thing is that they do adopt, sometimes they adopt voices like that. You talk to people in a more sort of informal way. But what's interesting is that also people talk in a different way when they talk. When I say people, I mean sort of individuals, amateurs on these sites. And they adopt sometimes the voice of institutional authority and knowledge. That's like a phenomenon of hybrid performativity, as Schoenberg had called it. Because it's different theoretical perspectives regarding how institutions and institutional voices, authorities, you know, sort of act in the field, notions of governmentality, the notion of infrastructural inversion of Jeff Bowker, the notion that infrastructures make us do what we do. And then we need to take heed and look at, you know, how things are work in these infrastructures, below the lines, right? You'll find the rules or the changing rules of Facebook. You'll understand how these changing rules may change practices some authors have identified. The notion of functional genre in these utterances and these communications that happen on social networking sites, it's like the archaeological reports that we're saying is a genre. It's something and it really plays a functional role. What is this function about? What can we learn about the functions? They are the right functions that have been manifested between people in these communities by looting at the form of these documents. And finally, institutional isomorphism. So there's several things that end up sort of concluding at two or three minutes, right? Yes. Yeah. So several different things that one can find by looting, listening in on our social network site conversations that we thought is irrelevant. And, you know, because at the end of the day, as you were saying, what it tries to develop a method rather than do a substantial, substantive work at this stage. You don't try to say, this is what these social networking sites do. What do we mean? What do we want to say? Okay, what is happening in the field? What do people research? And what do we need as tools for documentation? And for representation, are we able to allow different conversations and different explorations, theoretical explorations. But among things that one can see is object agency. Many threads, as we find on Facebook in particular, start from a photograph, from a drawing or other record. And this, you know, sort of mobilizes some conversation. And then the conversation goes elsewhere. It might be on notions of identity, ethnicity, whatever. And that photograph is forgotten or the archaeological object is forgotten. But that's how it starts. Performativity. People like to post comments like, and these are efficacious, almost static acts in a way. Some people, you know, present themselves through that and the group becomes a middle stage in a sense because it's not even the open world, but it's not private either. It's somewhere in the middle. Multiple identities of people as they interact in this. You can be different things at the same time. Diverse foci with archaeological heritage, community memory, events, current issues and controversies sometimes that become part of this. And fun and trivia. Different modes of engagement, including activism and various aspects of pragmatic efficacy. Social capital, identity-making, affiliation, differentiation, community-building, symbolic appropriation of archaeological materials and goods, memorialization, and ethical and political outcomes that are part of this discussion. So, I apologize for my sort of power point. I should have put the PDF which is there, but I couldn't imagine that it won't work properly. But anyway, what I've been sort of working for some years now, when I was looking at the notion of archaeological knowledge curation, and with a couple of large case studies and some smaller ones, I was looking at Tertal, you can say, you know, what happens there with the use of these technologies. One of the things that I was working on also is the development of some abstract model, which is like an activity theory, cultural historical activity theory, derived model in a sense. It doesn't do very much like Einstein, but it is derived by some of the saving intuitions. And the notion is, if we need to be able to sort of create some formal mechanism that would allow us to create a grid, a descriptive grid and demonstrate how sort of represent things, what do we need to represent? And as you will see, this diagram is really like, it is like a graph, you know, it is like a network, right? Because the idea is that to be able to say, this is one activity in the center, and this is the actor who made that activity. Is it a post on the side? Maybe someone posted something, or maybe somebody has already commented or something else. So we're going to try to look at the actor's artwork activity, but also what is the algorithmic source? That's actually the document. It might be the text of a post, it might be a photograph, it might be something else. And this has also references. It refers to a historical event. It refers to a concept. It refers to some cultural object of another kind. So this is the kind of idea for this model. And for this, the key idea and the key idea for our sort of topic is that we need to take into account both objects and people. So we want to see interactions between the objects themselves that are manifested in these sites, the photograph of this site, the photograph of this artifact, or the notion of the historical event as it is represented, and humans being archaeologists and non-archaeologists using notions such as the affiliative objects notion of Lucy Suchman. So what we did is, and I don't have to talk in detail about that because my time is running off, I think. I have a little time? Okay. Because of the cause one... I was just right. Yes, okay. So you will bear with me. I'm sorry. That's a terrible thing to you said now, Rembidas. I'm sure that nobody, not all people are going to thank you for this. But anyway, I'll take then a couple of minutes to say that in this model, and like in activity models in general, we have some basic notions as a notion of the actor. There's a notion of the activity itself. And there's a notion of mediating to and make many different notions. For instance, in a social networking site complex, and mediating to can be a system itself, but it's a fortress. But another mediating tool, it can meet the various norms or ideas or people see the ideas that people have. And another mediating tool is the actual post that people write. And all these are trying to sort them out in a way. And it can be a little complex if you try to do it in the big scale or try to do it formally. But at the end of the day, what we wanted to do is to come up with something that would allow them to create a simple descriptive grid. So that you can use this grid in order to say, okay, we've got this particular sort of community confession. We've got this Twitter interaction. What can we do in order to be able to document it and to put it then open for intellectual inquiry, for discussion, for understanding. This was the idea. And for this, we needed to look then at each of them in separate. For instance, actors, we needed a taxonomy of actors. We don't have one. But here's Collie in one of the few studies that are really sort of surveying the field in Australia, what they do is surveying social media use in Australian archaeology. One of the things that they do is they provide a list of taxonomy of classification of typology of different kinds of users, including archaeologists, both academic and professional archaeologists, government departments, architect scientists, other professional schools, university colleges, students who are in school or university, development, mining, another resource excavation, extraction companies, sub-original communities, et cetera, et cetera. So you need a list of subjects. You also need to have a sense of what these meat-making tools that this social network insights as we need to use our life. And for this, we draw from a publication from the field of management that identified the notion of building blocks. So they say all these sites, all these sites have the following things. They have something that is called presence. So they facilitate people to know whether they are online and exposed and facilitate that what others are online. There's something called sharing. They can exchange, then distribute and receive content to others. They can have conversations and they can communicate with with each other. They have groups. They can be grouped together in recognizable groups. There is reputation that is negotiated. People know the standing of others and they negotiate the room standing versus standing of others. There's relationships that can relate to each other. And finally, there is identity and people reveal themselves. And these blocks are useful as a heuristic in order to allow us and to say, okay, then what is happening with social networking sites within archaeology? Which of these functions are more predominant and in what way do they manifest themselves? So it gives us this. This is why we adopted this. We also sort of looking at stuff like relations, ties, multiplexity and composition for following standard, you know, sort of classic social network analysis theory. This is the work from Barry Wellman and his team that provides this classification here. And also, we're looking at the genres of actual texts and other sort of communication objects that appear in social networking sites. And we draw this from Gronemann and colleagues which were identifying the field of museums, a taxonomy, a classification of different kinds of content. Stories providing information, entertainment, news, announcements, records, stereo point of view, quizzes, pseudo questions and help needed. That's the things that that they identify. We're not exactly sure whether we want to sort of how we're going to proceed with that. Most likely, we're going to bring this with our colleagues in artwork and discuss it in the group and then refine it because we're not certain that some of these specifications are not elegant enough but consistent enough to put it like this. But still, I mean, this is where we are at the moment with this. So what is the purpose and approach when I'm finishing? It is to facilitate the collection and representation of empirical evidence on SNS archaeological practice, which is open to analysis and interpretation using diverse social research concepts and methods, such as the ones I mentioned before. And to do so, the idea is, first of all, to develop and use a simple activity model, not like the model I showed you, something much simpler that will allow us to have a syntactic layer so we can sort of put things in slots. Secondly, to refine an approach so that we can document SNS interactions and sites using conceptual graphs probably and populate data sets through either automated or human documentation according to scope and what it would do. And sort of discuss it with our colleagues in artwork waiting group three. So in our descriptive grid, we're going to include things like who are the actors of an SNS activity? How do these diverse actors interact with objects? And how is such interaction? Sorry, you were missing. What do they do? What are their actions? Do they post all the time? Do they just lurk? Do they just comment? Do they just like? What do they do? What is the input and the output of these interactions? How are these interactions motivated for specific actors and what are their consequences? What procedures, norms, system functionalities are they mediated by? What kinds of facilities they use? And what kind of community network effects does this produce? So this is what we did so far. So thank you. And for more information, I'm very happy myself and Ingrid to answer your questions now for me and either of us via email or Twitter. Thank you.