Foundations Series / Vol 01 Est. 2025

Chapter 16: From Practice to Discipline — Movement Building

Opening: The Marathon Nobody Knows You're Running

In 1949, a small group of scholars gathered at MIT to discuss "the possibilities of a science of science." They called themselves historians and sociologists of science, though neither history departments nor sociology departments particularly wanted them. They were too historical for sociologists, too sociological for historians, too focused on content for both.

By 1975, they'd founded the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S). By 1990, there were doctoral programs at MIT, Cornell, and Edinburgh. By 2000, Science and Technology Studies (STS) was recognized as a legitimate interdisciplinary field with journals, conferences, and tenure-track jobs.

It took 50 years.

In 2012, a data scientist named DJ Patil coined the term "data science" (building on earlier uses). Tech companies were desperate for people who could analyze big data but didn't know what to call them. Universities scrambled to create programs. By 2020, data science was everywhere—hundreds of degree programs, professional certifications, six-figure salaries.

It took 8 years.

One discipline took half a century to build through patient coalition-building, scholarly legitimation, and institutional negotiation. The other exploded in less than a decade driven by industry demand and money.

Archaeobytology faces the same question every emerging discipline does: How do we go from scattered practice to recognized field?

Do we take the slow road—building scholarly infrastructure, publishing rigorous research, waiting for academic legitimacy? Or the fast road—chasing industry funding, training practitioners, proving economic value?

The answer is: both, strategically, over 10-20 years.

This chapter is your roadmap. By the end, you'll understand:

This isn't just theory. This is praxis—the strategic work of turning an idea into institutional reality.

Let's begin.

Part I: The Movement-Building Matrix

The Five Dimensions

Every successful discipline requires infrastructure across five dimensions. Neglect any one, and the movement stalls.

Dimension 1: Knowledge Infrastructure

What it is: The intellectual scaffolding that makes a field coherent.

Components:

Why it matters: Without knowledge infrastructure, practitioners can't:

Archaeobytology's Current State (2025):

Priority Actions:

  1. Launch Journal of Archaeobytology (open access, online)

  2. Host first Archaeobytology conference (even if small—50 people)

  3. Create archaeobytology.org wiki (methods, case studies, tools)

Dimension 2: Institutional Anchors

What it is: Physical/organizational homes where the discipline can grow.

Components:

Why it matters: Without institutional anchors, the field is:

Archaeobytology's Current State (2025):

Priority Actions:

  1. Launch "Certificate in Digital Preservation and Sovereignty" at 3-5 universities

  2. Establish "Center for Archaeobytology" at one major university (with grant funding)

  3. Create first MA program (likely in iSchool or interdisciplinary program)

Dimension 3: Professional Pathways

What it is: Jobs people can get after training in the field.

Tracks:

Why it matters: Students won't enroll in programs if there are no jobs. Universities won't create programs if they can't place graduates.

Archaeobytology's Current State (2025):

Priority Actions:

  1. Survey existing jobs and map to Archaeobytology skills

  2. Create "Certified Archaeobytologist" credential (like Certified Archivist)

  3. Build job board (archaeobytology.org/jobs)

  4. Develop clear career pathways document ("If you get an MA in Archaeobytology, you can work as...")

Dimension 4: Public Visibility

What it is: Awareness outside academia—general public, media, policymakers.

Mechanisms:

Why it matters: Academic legitimacy alone isn't enough. Public visibility:

Archaeobytology's Current State (2025):

Priority Actions:

  1. Write popular book on platform death (trade press, accessible prose)

  2. Produce documentary: "The Day GeoCities Died" or "Who Killed Your Childhood Website?"

  3. Get 5-10 op-eds in major outlets

  4. Launch public-facing podcast: "Murdered Platforms" (each episode covers one shutdown)

Dimension 5: Policy Advocacy

What it is: Translating research into laws, regulations, and norms.

Policy Goals:

Mechanisms:

Why it matters: Scholarly work alone doesn't change systems. Laws shape:

Archaeobytology's Current State (2025):

Priority Actions:

  1. Draft "Archaeobytologist's Policy Agenda" (5-10 key legislative goals)

  2. Form "Coalition for Digital Preservation Rights" (partner orgs)

  3. Get first Archaeobytologist to testify at congressional hearing

  4. Publish white paper: "The Case for a Right to Archive"

Part II: Case Studies in Discipline Formation

Case Study 1: Digital Humanities (40-Year Marathon)

Timeline:

1960s-1980s: Scattered Practice

1990s: Early Organization

2000s: Critical Mass

2010s: Institutionalization

2020s: Established but Marginal

Key Lessons:

✅ Slow and steady wins legitimacy—took 40 years but built durable infrastructure

✅ External funding helps—NEH Office of Digital Humanities accelerated growth

✅ Rebranding matters—"digital humanities" sounded more intellectual than "humanities computing"

❌ Still marginal—even after 40 years, many DH scholars struggle for tenure

❌ Labor exploitation—lots of adjuncts/alt-ac, few permanent positions

For Archaeobytology:

Case Study 2: Data Science (Industry-Driven Speedrun)

Timeline:

2000s: Industry Need

2008-2012: Term Emerges

2012-2015: Academic Response

2015-2020: Ubiquity

2020s: Established but Fuzzy

Key Lessons:

✅ Industry demand accelerates everything—8 years to ubiquity

✅ Money talks—universities created programs because students would pay

✅ Bootcamps work—don't need PhD to be data scientist, practical training suffices

❌ Intellectual incoherence—field still doesn't have clear boundaries or canon

❌ Quality control—some programs are excellent, many are cash grabs

For Archaeobytology:

Case Study 3: Science and Technology Studies (Coalition Model)

Timeline:

1970s: Coalition Formation

1975: Professional Society

1980s-1990s: Boundary Struggles

2000s: Stabilization

2010s-2020s: Maturity

Key Lessons:

✅ Coalitions work—united historians, sociologists, philosophers under one tent

✅ Boundary struggles are normal—every field fights over what it is/isn't

✅ Professional society matters—4S gave STS institutional home

✅ Interdisciplinarity can be strength—not having disciplinary "purity" allows flexibility

❌ Slow growth—40+ years, still mostly joint appointments not standalone departments

For Archaeobytology:

Part III: The Archaeobytology Movement Strategy (10-20 Year Roadmap)

Phase 1: Emergence (Years 1-5) — WE ARE HERE

Current State (2025):

Goals for Years 1-5:

Year 1 (2025-2026):

Year 2 (2026-2027):

Year 3 (2027-2028):

Year 4 (2028-2029):

Year 5 (2029-2030):

Phase 1 Success Metrics:

Phase 2: Coalition Building (Years 6-10)

Goals for Years 6-10:

Infrastructure:

Institutions:

Careers:

Visibility:

Policy:

Phase 2 Success Metrics:

Phase 3: Institutionalization (Years 11-15)

Goals for Years 11-15:

Academic Maturity:

Institutional Expansion:

Funding Ecosystem:

Public Impact:

Policy Wins:

Phase 3 Success Metrics:

Phase 4: Maturity and Expansion (Years 16-20)

Goals for Years 16-20:

Discipline Established:

Global Reach:

Specialization:

Cultural Impact:

Phase 4 Success Metrics:

Part IV: Avoiding Common Failure Modes

Failure Mode 1: Disciplinary Capture

Risk: Existing fields absorb Archaeobytology, prevent independence.

Scenario:

Defense:

Failure Mode 2: Industry Co-optation

Risk: Tech companies use Archaeobytology rhetoric but corrupt mission.

Scenario:

Defense:

Failure Mode 3: Internal Fragmentation

Risk: Practitioners can't agree on boundaries, methods, values → field splinters.

Scenario:

Defense:

Failure Mode 4: Funding Drought

Risk: Foundations/agencies don't fund Archaeobytology, infrastructure collapses.

Scenario:

Defense:

Failure Mode 5: Elitism and Gatekeeping

Risk: Field becomes exclusive club, shuts out marginalized practitioners.

Scenario:

Defense:

Part V: What You Can Do Right Now

If You're a Student

Immediate (This Week):

  1. Call yourself an Archaeobytologist—in your bio, on your CV, on social media

  2. Start a reading group—gather 3-5 friends, work through this textbook

  3. Join online communities—find Archive Team, IndieWeb, digital preservation groups

Short-term (This Semester):

  1. Write a paper using Archaeobytology framework—apply Three Pillars, Custodial Filter, etc. to your research

  2. Propose an independent study—pitch "Introduction to Archaeobytology" to sympathetic professor

  3. Start a blog—document your learning, build public portfolio

Medium-term (This Year):

  1. Attend a conference—submit to ADHO, SAA, 4S, or organize Archaeobytology session

  2. Contribute to a project—volunteer with Archive Team, Internet Archive, etc.

  3. Build something—create a tool, preserve a dying platform, start an archive

If You're a Practitioner

Immediate:

  1. Document your work—write tutorials, case studies, method posts

  2. Publish—submit to journals, blogs, preprint servers

  3. Teach—offer workshop at local library, hackerspace, or online

Short-term:

  1. Organize a meetup—gather local practitioners, even if just 5 people

  2. Propose conference session—at existing conference, submit "Archaeobytology panel"

  3. Seek funding—apply for grant explicitly for "Archaeobytology research"

Medium-term:

  1. Mentor students—take on interns, advise theses

  2. Build partnerships—connect with libraries, museums, universities

  3. Advocate—write op-ed, contact your representative about digital preservation

If You're a Professor

Immediate:

  1. Teach a course—offer "Introduction to Archaeobytology" (use this textbook)

  2. Cite Archaeobytology—in your research, explicitly name the field

  3. Advise students—encourage dissertations in Archaeobytology

Short-term:

  1. Organize working group—gather colleagues across departments interested in this work

  2. Apply for grant—propose "Center for Digital Sovereignty" or similar

  3. Hire—when job openings come, advocate for Archaeobytology specialization

Medium-term:

  1. Create program—certificate, minor, or master's in Archaeobytology

  2. Launch journal—start Journal of Archaeobytology at your university press

  3. Host conference—organize first major Archaeobytology conference at your institution

If You're an Administrator

Immediate:

  1. Support faculty—when they propose Archaeobytology courses/programs, approve them

  2. Fund infrastructure—allocate space, servers, staff support

  3. Strategic hire—create position in Archaeobytology (signal to field it's legitimate)

Short-term:

  1. Create certificate program—low-cost way to test demand

  2. Partner with institutions—connect with Internet Archive, local libraries

  3. Seek external funding—apply for grants to create center/program

Medium-term:

  1. Launch degree program—MA in Archaeobytology (draws students, generates revenue)

  2. Build center—dedicate space and staff to Archaeobytology research/teaching

  3. Advocate—tell peer institutions, accreditors, funders that this field matters

Part VI: Movement Coalitions and Alliances

Who Are Our Natural Allies?

1. Librarians and Archivists

2. Digital Humanists

3. Digital Rights Activists

4. Tech Workers and Ethical Engineers

5. STS Scholars

6. Museums and Memory Institutions

Building the Coalition

Strategy 1: Multi-Stakeholder Convenings

Strategy 2: Cross-Organizational Membership

Strategy 3: Shared Infrastructure

Strategy 4: Policy Coalitions

Conclusion: The Long Game

Building a discipline takes patience, strategy, and collective will.

Digital Humanities took 40 years. Data Science took 8 (but with massive industry backing). STS took 40 (but created durable coalitions).

Archaeobytology's timeline: Somewhere in between. With strategic action, we could achieve:

This won't happen automatically. It requires:

You are not just reading about a discipline. You are helping build it.

Every time you:

...you are building the movement.

In 20 years, there might be Archaeobytology departments at universities. Students might major in it. Laws might protect digital culture because we advocated for them.

Or not. That depends on us.

The marathon has begun. You're running it whether you know it or not.

Now: Run intentionally. Run together. Run toward the finish line.

The discipline we need is the discipline we build.

Discussion Questions

  1. Personal Role: In the Movement-Building Matrix (knowledge, institutions, careers, visibility, policy), which dimension are you best positioned to contribute to? Why?

  2. Timeline Realism: Is a 20-year timeline realistic? Too optimistic? Too pessimistic? What would accelerate or slow discipline formation?

  3. Failure Modes: Which threat (capture, co-optation, fragmentation, funding drought, elitism) seems most dangerous for Archaeobytology? How would you defend against it?

  4. Case Study Lessons: Should Archaeobytology follow the DH model (slow academic legitimation), Data Science model (fast industry-driven growth), or STS model (interdisciplinary coalition)? Or some hybrid?

  5. Coalitions: Who else should be allied with Archaeobytology that wasn't mentioned? What organizations or movements should we partner with?

  6. Action Plan: What's one concrete thing you'll do in the next month to help build Archaeobytology as a discipline?

Exercise: Draft Your Movement Strategy

Task: You're leading the Archaeobytology movement. Design a 5-year strategic plan.

Part 1: Situation Analysis (500 words)

Part 2: Goals and Metrics (500 words)

For each dimension, set 5-year goals:

Include measurable metrics (e.g., "3 universities with certificates" not just "more programs")

Part 3: Priority Actions (1000 words)

Choose 10 highest-priority actions for Years 1-5:

Part 4: Risk Mitigation (500 words)

Part 5: Call to Action (300 words)

Further Reading

On Discipline Formation

On Movement Building

On Academic Coalition Building

On Professional Pathways

Primary Sources

End of Chapter 16 — End of Part IV: Systems & Movements

Next: Part V — Public Scholarship & The Future Chapter 17 — The Public Intellectual in Archaeobytology