Module 6: From Practice to Discipline—Movement Building

Archaeobytology 300: Institution Building & Strategic Infrastructure

Module Overview

Core Question: How do we transform Archaeobytology from scattered individual practice into a recognized field with conferences, journals, departments, career paths, and institutional legitimacy?

Learning Objective: Students will design a complete movement-building strategy—including community organization, knowledge infrastructure, credentialing systems, and advocacy campaigns—to establish Archaeobytology as a discipline.

Time: Week 13-14

The Challenge: Legitimacy and Scale

Modules 1-5 built infrastructure: - Preservation organizations (Archive) - Businesses (Foundry) - Distributed commons (Seed Bank) - Memory institutions (Haunted Forest) - Ownership systems (Ground)

Module 6 asks: How do we turn infrastructure into a movement?

The Discipline-Building Problem

Right now, Archaeobytology is: - ❌ Not taught in universities (no departments, no degrees) - ❌ Not funded by grants (NSF, NEH don't recognize it) - ❌ Not a career path (no jobs titled "Archaeobytologist") - ❌ Not widely known (general public hasn't heard of it)

The Goal: In 10-20 years, Archaeobytology should be: - ✅ Taught (undergraduate major, graduate programs) - ✅ Funded (dedicated grant programs, endowed chairs) - ✅ Professionalized (job postings, career ladder, certification) - ✅ Recognized (public awareness, media coverage, policy impact)

The Challenge: You can't force legitimacy. You have to build it.

Core Reading

Primary Texts

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chapters 1-3. - Focus: How new paradigms emerge and gain acceptance - Key Insight: Disciplines form through "paradigm shifts"—not gradual evolution - Question: Is Archaeobytology a paradigm shift, or just a subdiscipline?

Small, M. (2009). "Disciplinarity and Its Discontent." Social Studies of Science. - Focus: How academic disciplines form (and resist formation) - Key Insight: Disciplines need boundaries, methods, institutions, and enemies - Question: What are Archaeobytology's boundaries? Who are its enemies?

Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. Chapter 4: "The Economics of Social Production" - Focus: How decentralized communities create knowledge commons - Key Insight: Wikipedia, open source, and peer production challenge traditional institutions - Question: Can a discipline form without traditional academic gatekeepers?

Case Study Readings

Digital Humanities (The Slow Burn) - Timeline: 1960s (computational text analysis) → 2000s (institutional recognition) - Strategy: Conferences (ADHO), journals (DHQ), centers (Stanford, UVA), grants (NEH ODH) - Success: Now a recognized field with departments, degree programs, tenure-track jobs - Limitation: Still marginal (seen as "service" to "real" humanities) - Question: Why did it take 40+ years?

Data Science (The Industry Takeover) - Timeline: 2000s (term coined ~2001) → 2010s (explosive growth) - Strategy: Industry demand (tech companies hired "data scientists") → bootcamps → academic programs followed - Success: Now ubiquitous (undergraduate majors, master's programs, certifications) - Limitation: Vague boundaries ("data science" means different things) - Question: Can Archaeobytology follow this path (industry creates demand)?

Science and Technology Studies (STS) (The Interdisciplinary Coalition) - Timeline: 1970s (sociology of science + history of technology) → 1990s (recognized field) - Strategy: Build alliances across disciplines (sociology, history, anthropology, philosophy) - Success: Departments, journals (Social Studies of Science), professional society (4S) - Limitation: Still interdisciplinary (not a standalone discipline) - Question: Is Archaeobytology interdisciplinary, or its own thing?

Information Science (The Rebrand) - Timeline: 1960s (library science) → 1990s (rebranded as "information science") - Strategy: Embrace computing, expand beyond libraries, claim broader relevance - Success: iSchools movement (~100 programs worldwide) - Limitation: Identity crisis (what is information science?) - Question: Is Archaeobytology a rebrand of something (digital history? media studies?), or genuinely new?

Lecture: The Movement-Building Matrix

Disciplines don't spontaneously appear. They're built through coordinated action across multiple dimensions.

Dimension 1: Knowledge Infrastructure

What does a discipline need to produce and share knowledge?

| Infrastructure | Purpose | Examples | How to Build It | |---------------|---------|----------|----------------| | Journals | Peer-reviewed scholarship | DHQ, Social Studies of Science | Found open-access journal, recruit editorial board | | Conferences | Community gathering, networking | ADHO, 4S, ASA | Organize annual meeting, invite keynotes, accept submissions | | Textbooks | Standardized curriculum | Digital Humanities Coursebook | Write introductory text, get adopted by courses | | Handbooks | Reference works | Handbook of Science & Technology Studies | Edited volume, 20-30 chapters by leading scholars | | Online Platforms | Knowledge sharing, discussion | Subreddit, Discord, forum | Create community space, moderate, seed content | | Archives/Datasets | Shared research materials | Software Heritage, Internet Archive | Build accessible collections for research |

For Archaeobytology: - Journal: Archaeobytology Quarterly (peer-reviewed, open access) - Conference: Annual Archaeobytology Symposium - Textbook: This very course (101-300 sequence) - Handbook: The Archaeobytology Handbook (50 chapters, published by MIT Press) - Online: Archaeobytology Discord, subreddit, wikis - Archive: Umbrabyte Database (searchable repository of murdered artifacts)

Key Question: Which comes first? (Usually: online community → conference → journal → textbook)

Dimension 2: Institutional Anchors

Where does the discipline live in universities/organizations?

| Institutional Form | Description | Examples | How to Establish | |-------------------|-------------|----------|-----------------| | Departments | Standalone academic unit | Computer Science, Sociology | Start as interdisciplinary program, grow into department | | Programs/Majors | Degree-granting, within existing school | Digital Humanities, Data Science | Convince dean to approve curriculum | | Centers/Institutes | Research hub (no degrees) | Stanford HAI, Berkman Klein Center | Fundraise for endowment, hire director | | Labs | Research group within department | Media Lab, HCI Lab | Professor founds lab, recruits grad students | | Professional Schools | Practice-oriented (like law, business) | iSchools | Industry demand + university buy-in | | Certificates | Sub-degree credentials | UX Design Certificate | Shorter curriculum, often online |

For Archaeobytology: - Short-term (Years 1-5): Certificate programs, interdisciplinary minors - Medium-term (Years 5-10): Master's programs (e.g., M.A. in Archaeobytology) - Long-term (Years 10-20): Standalone departments, Ph.D. programs, endowed chairs

Adoption Strategy: 1. Convince one university to pilot a certificate (leverage existing faculty) 2. Prove demand (students enroll, employers value credential) 3. Expand to more universities 4. Formalize as degree program

Key Question: Which universities would adopt first? (Likely: tech-forward schools like MIT, CMU, UC Berkeley)

Dimension 3: Professional Pathways

Can you make a living as an Archaeobytologist?

| Career Path | Where They Work | What They Do | How to Create Jobs | |-------------|----------------|--------------|-------------------| | Academic | Universities | Research, teaching | Hire faculty in Archaeobytology departments | | Curator/Archivist | Museums, libraries | Preserve, curate, exhibit | Convince memory institutions to hire Archaeobytologists | | Consultant | Freelance, agencies | Help orgs with digital preservation | Build demand (outreach, case studies) | | Industry | Tech companies | Archival infrastructure, product archaeology | Position Archaeobytology as valuable skill | | Non-Profit | Internet Archive, EFF, etc. | Preservation, advocacy | Archaeobytologists found/lead organizations | | Government | Library of Congress, NARA | Policy, preservation | Advocate for Archaeobytology in public institutions |

Current State: - ❌ No job postings say "Archaeobytologist" - ⚠️ Related jobs exist (digital archivist, preservation specialist) but don't use the term - ✅ Skills are valuable (just not recognized as a discipline)

Strategy: 1. Reframe Existing Jobs: Show how digital archivists, curators, etc. are doing Archaeobytology 2. Create New Titles: Advocate for orgs to hire explicitly as "Archaeobytologist" 3. Prove Value: Case studies showing impact (GeoCities rescue, Vine preservation, etc.) 4. Build Certification: Professional credential validates expertise

Key Question: What's the "killer job" that proves Archaeobytology is a career? (E.g., Internet Archive hires "Chief Archaeobytologist")

Dimension 4: Public Visibility

How do we make the public aware of Archaeobytology?

| Visibility Strategy | Mechanism | Examples | How to Execute | |--------------------|-----------|----------|----------------| | Popular Books | Trade publishing | The Archive, Race After Technology | Write accessible book, find agent, pitch publishers | | Podcasts | Audio storytelling | 99% Invisible, Reply All | Start podcast on digital preservation, build audience | | Documentaries | Visual media | The Social Dilemma, AlphaGo | Partner with filmmakers, tell compelling stories | | Op-Eds/Essays | Journalism | New York Times, The Atlantic | Pitch timely pieces (platform shutdowns, data breaches) | | Social Media | Direct audience | Twitter threads, YouTube explainers | Build following, explain concepts clearly | | TED Talks | High-profile speaking | Brewster Kahle, Tim Berners-Lee | Get invited (requires existing reputation) | | Museums/Exhibits | Physical presence | GeoCities exhibit, Internet Archive tours | Partner with museums, curate public-facing shows |

For Archaeobytology: - Book: The Archaeobytology of the Social Web (trade press, tells GeoCities story) - Podcast: Dead Platforms Society (archaeology of murdered platforms) - Documentary: The Lost Internet (film about Umbrabytes, platform shutdowns) - Op-Eds: Every platform shutdown = opportunity to explain Archaeobytology - Social Media: Archaeobytology Twitter/Mastodon account with case studies - Museum: Traveling exhibit on Web 1.0 (partner with local museums)

Key Question: What's the "hook" for general audiences? (Nostalgia for GeoCities? Anger at platform shutdowns?)

Dimension 5: Advocacy & Policy

How do we shape laws to support digital preservation?

| Policy Goal | Current Barrier | Advocacy Strategy | Potential Allies | |------------|----------------|-------------------|------------------| | Right to Archive | Copyright restricts preservation | Lobby for expanded fair use, mandatory deposit laws | Libraries, EFF, Internet Archive | | Platform Accountability | Platforms can shut down with no warning | Require export tools, advance notice of shutdown | Consumer advocates, EU regulators | | Digital Right of First Refusal | When platforms sell/close, assets often destroyed | Law requiring offer to archives before deletion | Academics, cultural heritage orgs | | Public Digital Archive Funding | No dedicated funding stream (unlike Library of Congress) | Advocate for national digital archive | Librarians, historians, technologists | | Anti-Speculation for Domains | Squatters hoard domains, raise prices | Use-it-or-lose-it rules for domain ownership | Open web advocates, small businesses |

Organizations to Partner With: - Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): Digital rights, platform accountability - Internet Archive: Natural ally, shares mission - Library of Congress: Could house national Archaeobytology program - UNESCO: Cultural heritage preservation - National Archives (NARA): Government records, could expand to digital - Academic Societies: AHA (historians), SAA (archivists), ACM (computing)

Advocacy Tactics: 1. Whitepapers: Research demonstrating need for policy 2. Testimony: Speak to legislators, regulatory bodies 3. Coalition Building: Unite libraries, archives, museums, activists 4. Media Campaigns: Publicize failures (GeoCities loss) to build pressure 5. Model Legislation: Draft laws, offer to legislators

Key Question: What's the "wedge issue" that gets lawmakers interested? (E.g., cultural heritage loss, economic waste)

Framework: The Movement-Building Canvas

Your assignment will design a complete strategy to establish Archaeobytology as a discipline.

Section 1: Vision & Goals

What does success look like in 20 years?

Define success metrics across dimensions: - Academic: X universities offer degrees, Y tenure-track jobs - Professional: Z job postings explicitly for Archaeobytologists - Public: A% of population has heard of Archaeobytology - Policy: B laws passed supporting digital preservation - Institutional: C memory institutions have Archaeobytology departments

Example:

By 2045:

- 50 universities offer Archaeobytology degrees (10 Ph.D. programs)

- 500+ job postings/year for Archaeobytologists

- 25% public awareness (on par with "data science" today)

- 5 major laws passed (Right to Archive, Platform Accountability Act, etc.)

- Every major museum/archive has Archaeobytology curator

Section 2: Knowledge Infrastructure Strategy (Years 1-5)

How do we create the intellectual foundation?

Build These (in order):

1. Online Community (Year 1) - Platform: Discord + Subreddit + Wiki - Goal: 1,000 active members - Content: Case studies, tools, reading lists

2. Annual Conference (Year 2) - Format: 2-day symposium, ~200 attendees - Location: Rotate (first year: San Francisco, near Internet Archive) - Tracks: Preservation tech, memory institutions, policy advocacy, pedagogy

3. Open-Access Journal (Year 3) - Title: Archaeobytology: Preservation & Practice - Format: Quarterly, peer-reviewed, open access - Sections: Research articles, case studies, tool reviews, book reviews

4. Introductory Textbook (Year 4) - Format: Open educational resource (OER), free PDF + print-on-demand - Content: 101-300 sequence (this curriculum) - Adoption: Target 10 universities to pilot

5. Handbook (Year 5) - Format: Edited volume, 40-50 chapters - Publisher: MIT Press, Routledge, or open access - Content: State of the field, methodologies, case studies, future directions

Budget: - Online community: $2k/year (hosting, moderation) - Conference: $50k/year (venue, speakers, catering) - Journal: $30k/year (editor, platform, copyediting) - Textbook: $20k (author advance, copyediting) - Handbook: $10k (editor compensation) - Total (5 years): ~$200k

Section 3: Institutional Anchors Strategy (Years 5-10)

How do we embed Archaeobytology in universities?

Adoption Ladder:

1. Certificate Programs (Years 5-7) - Target: 5 universities (MIT, Berkeley, Maryland, Michigan, NYU) - Format: 4-course sequence (101, 200, 300, elective) - Pitch: "Train students for digital preservation careers"

2. Master's Programs (Years 7-10) - Target: 3 universities (CMU, Stanford, UNC) - Format: 1-year M.A. or 2-year M.S. - Thesis/Capstone: Design a preservation institution - Jobs: Graduates hired by Internet Archive, libraries, museums

3. Interdisciplinary Minors (Years 6-10) - Target: 20 universities - Format: 5-course minor (pair with CS, History, Media Studies, Library Science) - Appeal: Complements existing majors

Advocacy Strategy: - Faculty Champions: Recruit professors to propose programs at their universities - Student Demand: Build groundswell (students petition for courses) - Employer Validation: Get Internet Archive, Library of Congress to endorse - Grant Incentives: Offer seed funding (Mellon, NEH) to launch programs

Section 4: Professional Pathways Strategy (Years 1-10)

How do we create jobs?

Career Paths to Develop:

Path 1: Memory Institution Archaeobytologist - Where: Museums, archives, libraries - What: Curate Umbrabyte collections, design exhibits, acquire digital artifacts - How to Create: - Convince institutions to reclassify "digital archivist" as "Archaeobytologist" - Advocate for dedicated positions ("Curator of Digital Ephemera") - Showcase successful hires (case studies)

Path 2: Corporate Archaeobytologist - Where: Tech companies (Google, Meta, Microsoft) - What: Manage historical product archives, document internal systems, preserve deprecated platforms - How to Create: - Pitch to tech companies (internal preservation = institutional memory) - Highlight failures (lost codebases, forgotten products) - Position as "historian in residence" model

Path 3: Preservation Consultant - Where: Freelance, agencies - What: Help organizations design preservation strategies, migrate off dying platforms - How to Create: - Build consulting agency ("Archaeobyte Consulting") - Case studies showing ROI (cost of not preserving) - Certification program (Certified Archaeobytologist)

Path 4: Academic Archaeobytologist - Where: Universities (tenure-track faculty) - What: Research, teaching, publish - How to Create: - Graduate students complete Ph.D.s in Archaeobytology - Departments hire into newly created lines - Tenure cases establish precedent

Certification Program (Professional Credential): - Name: Certified Archaeobytologist (C.A.) - Requirements: Course completion (101-300), portfolio project, exam - Administered By: Professional society (Society for Digital Preservation) - Value: Employers recognize credential, validates expertise

Section 5: Public Visibility Strategy (Years 1-10)

How do we reach general audiences?

Media Milestones:

Year 1-2: Build Foundation - Launch blog/podcast ("Dead Platforms Society") - Active social media (Twitter, Mastodon, YouTube) - Op-eds in tech press (Wired, The Verge, Ars Technica)

Year 3-4: Expand Reach - Publish trade book (The Archaeobytology of the Social Web) - Pitch podcast to major network (Radiolab, 99% Invisible) - TED Talk or similar (keynote at major conference)

Year 5-7: Mainstream Breakthrough - Documentary film (The Lost Internet, distributed by Netflix/Amazon/PBS) - New York Times / Atlantic long-form feature - Museum exhibit (MoMA, Smithsonian, or similar)

Year 8-10: Cultural Penetration - Archaeobytology referenced in popular culture (TV shows, novels) - Mainstream media routinely covers platform shutdowns through Archaeobytology lens - Public polling shows 25%+ awareness

Content Pillars: - Nostalgia: GeoCities, MySpace, early internet (emotional hook) - Outrage: Platform shutdowns as cultural vandalism (political hook) - Education: How digital preservation works (intellectual hook) - Hope: Three Pillars, sovereignty, building alternatives (aspirational hook)

Section 6: Policy & Advocacy Strategy (Years 1-15)

How do we change laws?

Policy Roadmap:

Phase 1 (Years 1-5): Build Legitimacy - Publish whitepapers on preservation gaps - Testify at hearings (copyright, platform regulation) - Build coalition (libraries, archives, EFF, Internet Archive)

Phase 2 (Years 5-10): Win Small Victories - Target 1: Expand Library of Congress web archiving mandate - Target 2: EU "right to export" (GDPR expansion to include platform data) - Target 3: Grants program (NEH Digital Preservation Initiative)

Phase 3 (Years 10-15): Major Legislation - Right to Archive Act: Clarify fair use for preservation (US) - Platform Accountability Act: Require notice before shutdown, export tools (US/EU) - Digital Cultural Heritage Protection: UNESCO treaty recognizing digital artifacts

Advocacy Tactics: - Policy Briefs: Short documents for legislators - Model Legislation: Draft bills, offer to sympathetic lawmakers - Media Campaigns: When platform shuts down, frame as policy failure - Celebrity Advocates: Recruit well-known figures (Brewster Kahle, Tim Berners-Lee, etc.)

Section 7: Three Pillars in Movement Design

Does your movement embody sovereignty principles?

Declaration (Movement Sovereignty)

- ❓ Is the movement independent? (Not captured by platforms, funders, or institutions) - ❓ Can it survive without any single leader or organization? - ❓ Is governance distributed? (Not top-down)

Connection (Intentional Community)

- ❓ Do practitioners choose to identify as Archaeobytologists? - ❓ Is there real community? (Not just professional association) - ❓ Can members communicate/organize directly?

Ground (Institutional Ownership)

- ❓ Does the movement own its infrastructure? (Journals, conferences, platforms) - ❓ Is knowledge openly accessible? (Not paywalled, not proprietary) - ❓ Can the movement be forked? (Governance is transparent, resources are open)

The Test: If the founding organization disappeared, would the movement continue? If no, you're too centralized.

Case Study Deep-Dives

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

Timeline: - 1960s: Computational text analysis (Father Roberto Busa, concordances) - 1980s: Humanities computing (small conferences, newsletters) - 2000s: "Digital Humanities" rebrand (bigger tent, more disciplines) - 2010s: Institutional recognition (departments, journals, grants)

What Worked: - ✅ Conferences (ADHO) created community - ✅ Open-access journal (DHQ) established scholarly legitimacy - ✅ Centers (Stanford, UVA, Nebraska) provided institutional anchors - ✅ Grants (NEH Office of Digital Humanities) funded research - ✅ Manifestos (Digital_Humanities, Debates in DH) defined field

What Took So Long: - ❌ Seen as "service" (helping "real" scholars with tech) - ❌ Methodological skepticism (is "distant reading" real scholarship?) - ❌ Disciplinary gatekeeping (tenure committees didn't value DH work)

Student Discussion: 1. Why did DH take 40+ years to gain recognition? 2. Can Archaeobytology accelerate this (learn from DH's mistakes)?

Case 2: Data Science (The Industry Speedrun)

Timeline: - 2001: Term "data science" coined (but not widely used) - 2008-2012: Tech companies hire "data scientists" (Google, Facebook, LinkedIn) - 2012-2015: Bootcamps proliferate (General Assembly, Metis, etc.) - 2015-2020: Universities launch programs (undergraduate majors, master's degrees)

What Worked: - ✅ Industry demand (companies needed data scientists, created jobs first) - ✅ High salaries ($100k+ starting) attracted talent - ✅ Media hype ("sexiest job of the 21st century") - ✅ Accessible entry (bootcamps, online courses, no Ph.D. required)

What Didn't: - ❌ Vague boundaries (what is data science? Statistics? ML? Programming?) - ❌ Lack of theory (very applied, not much foundational research) - ❌ Credibility issues (some programs are just rebranded statistics)

Student Discussion: 1. Can Archaeobytology follow the data science path (industry demand → academic programs)? 2. What would "industry demand" for Archaeobytologists look like?

Case 3: STS (Science & Technology Studies) (The Coalition Model)

Timeline: - 1970s: Sociology of science + history of technology converge - 1980s: Interdisciplinary programs (MIT, Cornell, Virginia Tech) - 1990s: Professional society (4S), journals, recognition

What Worked: - ✅ Coalition building (united multiple disciplines under one banner) - ✅ Timely relevance (environmental crises, tech ethics, etc.) - ✅ Strong methodology (social construction, actor-network theory) - ✅ Public engagement (scholars active in policy debates)

What Didn't Fully Work: - ⚠️ Still interdisciplinary (not a standalone discipline) - ⚠️ Small programs (most universities don't have STS departments) - ⚠️ Career challenges (PhDs often hired into sociology/history, not "STS")

Student Discussion: 1. Should Archaeobytology be interdisciplinary (like STS) or standalone? 2. Who are the natural coalition partners? (Archivists, historians, librarians, media scholars)

Assignment: Design Your Movement

Objective: Create a 10-20 year strategy to establish Archaeobytology as a recognized discipline.

Deliverable: Movement Strategy Document (4500-5500 words)

Required Sections:

1. Vision Statement (300 words)

- What does "success" look like in 20 years? - Metrics: Academic adoption, professional pathways, public awareness, policy wins - Why does this matter? (Cultural preservation, sovereignty, intellectual value)

2. Knowledge Infrastructure Plan (800 words)

- Years 1-5: Online community, conference, journal, textbook, handbook - Timeline: What gets built when? (Sequence matters) - Budget: Cost to build each piece - Governance: Who runs these? (Independent org, university-hosted, distributed)

3. Institutional Anchors Strategy (800 words)

- Target Universities: Which 5-10 universities would adopt first? Why? - Program Types: Certificates, minors, master's, Ph.D.s (in what order?) - Faculty Strategy: How do you recruit champions to propose programs? - Student Demand: How do you demonstrate need?

4. Professional Pathways Plan (700 words)

- Career Paths: What jobs exist for Archaeobytologists? (Memory institutions, consulting, industry, academia) - Job Creation: How do you convince orgs to hire explicitly as "Archaeobytologist"? - Certification: Professional credential (requirements, value proposition) - Proof of Concept: First 10 hires (where? doing what?)

5. Public Visibility Strategy (700 words)

- Media Milestones: Book, podcast, documentary, op-eds, TED Talk (timeline) - Content Pillars: Nostalgia, outrage, education, hope (how to balance?) - Target Audiences: General public, policymakers, potential students, employers - Metrics: How do you measure public awareness?

6. Policy & Advocacy Roadmap (700 words)

- Policy Goals: Right to Archive, Platform Accountability, etc. (prioritize) - Coalition Building: Who are allies? (EFF, Internet Archive, libraries, etc.) - Advocacy Tactics: Whitepapers, testimony, model legislation, media campaigns - Timeline: Small wins (5 years) → major legislation (10-15 years)

7. Movement Governance (400 words)

- Organizational Structure: Professional society? Non-profit? Distributed? - Leadership: Rotating? Elected? Founder-led initially? - Decision-Making: How are priorities set? (Democratic, steering committee, etc.) - Three Pillars Check: Is movement sovereign, intentional, owned by members?

8. Risk Analysis (500 words)

- Threats: Co-optation (by platforms/tech companies), gatekeeping (academic elitism), fragmentation (splinter groups), irrelevance (no demand) - Mitigation: How do you defend against each threat?

9. Comparison to Existing Disciplines (400 words)

- How is your strategy different from Digital Humanities, Data Science, STS? - What did you adopt from them? - What did you avoid (learn from their mistakes)?

Evaluation Criteria:

| Criterion | Points | What We're Looking For | |-----------|--------|------------------------| | Comprehensiveness | 25 | Did you address all dimensions (knowledge, institutions, careers, public, policy)? | | Realism | 25 | Is the timeline plausible? Budget achievable? Strategy grounded? | | Strategic Coherence | 20 | Do the pieces fit together? (E.g., conference before journal, community before advocacy) | | Originality | 15 | Did you learn from other disciplines but innovate? | | Three Pillars | 10 | Does movement embody sovereignty, intentionality, ownership? | | Persuasiveness | 5 | Would this strategy convince funders, universities, allies? |

Total: 100 points

Discussion Questions for Seminar

1. The Discipline vs. Interdiscipline Question: Should Archaeobytology be standalone (like Computer Science) or interdisciplinary (like STS)?

2. The Industry vs. Academia Path: Should we follow data science (industry demand → academic programs) or digital humanities (academic programs → slow professionalization)?

3. The Boundaries Problem: What is Archaeobytology not? (If it's everything digital, it's nothing)

4. The Gatekeeping Risk: How do you build legitimacy (journals, conferences, departments) without creating exclusionary gatekeepers?

5. The Co-optation Threat: If tech companies hire "Archaeobytologists," do they corrupt the discipline (like "ethics washing")?

6. The 40-Year Question: Digital Humanities took 40 years. Can we do it in 10-20? What's the accelerant?

Module Deliverables

By the end of Module 6, students will have:

1. ✅ Completed Reading Responses (Kuhn, Small, Benkler on paradigms, disciplines, peer production) 2. ✅ Case Study Analysis (Digital Humanities, Data Science, STS comparative analysis) 3. ✅ Movement Strategy Document (4500-5500 words, complete 10-20 year plan) 4. ✅ Timeline & Budget (Roadmap with costs for knowledge infrastructure, advocacy, etc.) 5. ✅ Coalition Map (Who are allies? How do you recruit them?)

Looking Ahead: Module 7

Next week, we focus on individual public intellectuals within the movement.

Module 7: The Public Intellectual—From Scholarship to Impact asks:

"How do you, as an Archaeobytologist, translate research into public discourse, policy, and cultural change?"

You'll design a personal public intellectual strategy—writing, speaking, advocacy—to amplify your work beyond academia.

Instructor Notes

- Guest Speaker: Invite someone who built a field (Digital Humanities pioneer, Data Science educator, STS founder) - Workshop: Draft conference CFP, journal mission statement, professional society bylaws - Simulation: Role-play coalition building (students pitch Archaeobytology to skeptical university dean) - Debate: Discipline vs. interdiscipline (argue both sides) - The "Would You Join?" Test: If students wouldn't join the movement they designed, it's not compelling

End of Module 6