2020 EAA survey results

Evaluation criteria

  • Respondents: EAA members (n = 501; note: 1973 participants at VAM)
  • Responses given 1 - 20 October 2020

Executive Summary

Demographic profile of respondents

Most respondents occupy academic positions (56,1%), followed by students (13,6%), and workers in museum (9,0%) and heritage (6,4%) sector. 5,4% of respondents are employed in commercial archaeology and 2,8% are retired. The average respondent is 40 years old resident of United Kingdom / Germany / Italy / Spain / United States / Hungary (the six most represented countries of residence are the same as in the 2020 membership report, according to which they constitute altogether 45% of EAA membership). A historical overview (Chart 1) shows that with the exception of Hungary, these countries rank among the most represented countries since the establishment of the Association (1993-2020). Full members comprise over 60% of EAA membership while students represent 23% and retired 4%; these values have been constant over the past ten years.

Chart 1: Historically most represented countries of residence of EAA members – percentage of total members 1993-2020.

Virtual Annual Meeting (VAM)

Of the 1973 VAM participants, over 60% attended more than half of the Meeting (more than 3 days). Only 9% of the respondents did not attend any of the VAM; in total numbers (VAM attendees vs. current EAA members), about 600 current EAA members did not take advantage of this membership benefit. The main reason preventing members from attending consisted in lack of time, often due to job or family obligations that cannot be put aside when attending remotely. Some respondents stated they did not attend the VAM because of their distaste for virtual events; while the preference for in-person conference was inherent to virtually all responses, members appreciated the possibility to meet online given the current restrictions.

Almost two thirds of the respondents were satisfied with the Hopin software platform used, concurring that many problems were down to internet connection parameters on the participants’ side rather than the software deficiencies. The most frequent reservations referred to the small size of shared screen, low audio-visual quality, recording time limit (recording stopped after 2 hours), and the limited number of session participants shown on stage, connected with anonymity of most of the other session attendees. Hopin features that were positively received include the conference setup (rather than list of individual sessions), ease of jumping between sessions, and the possibility to comment in writing through chat, as it enabled discussions also with participants who at a physical AM would not interact e.g. due to their insecurity in the use of English. Technical support provided by volunteers and staff was highly valued.

The content of VAM academic sessions, keynote lectures and the Opening Ceremony satisfied virtually all respondents. Of the total 167 sessions, 127 sessions, all keynote lectures and the Opening Ceremony were recorded, and more than half of the respondents are likely or very likely to watch the recorded VAM sessions or recommend them to colleagues. Processing of the recorded sessions however takes time, and we hope to be able to release the recordings on the EAA YouTube channel in early 2021.

Networking in Hopin raised mixed reactions: while some respondents were excited by the random meetings, others found them intimidating and would prefer more discretion in the choice of people to meet.

While for some respondents the virtual Annual Membership Business Meeting (AMBM) was a disaster, others considered it a “first time experience” to learn from. The AMBM format is outdated and must be adjusted to improve its representativeness and transparency. The EAA Executive Board together with the Statutes Committee and the lawyers are working on possible new AMBM scenarios and will inform members in a separate communication.

The virtual European Archaeology Fair (EAF) was positively received, but some of the attendees expected more interactive features rather than just meeting the booth attendant, seeing a video or visiting the exhibitor’s web page. Detailed statistics about the EAF were sent to the exhibitors together with a request to fill in a short survey; the feedback received from both members and exhibitors will be used to improve the future EAF editions.

The 27th EAA Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place on 8 – 11 September 2021 in Kiel, Germany. Provided there are Covid-19 related restrictions at the time, 56% respondents are determined to attend in person and further 29% will decide at a later stage; only 12% would prefer to attend virtually and mere 3% do not plan to participate. The acceptable price for 45% respondents is between 50 and 89 EUR; 29% would accept paying registration fees between 90 – 119 EUR, and 16% would pay 120 – 149 EUR; only 10% of the respondents would be willing to register for 150 plus EUR.

Proposed alternative formats include pre-recorded presentations administered by EAA and available in advance, spreading the AM over a longer time (e.g. a month) rather than having so many parallel sessions, or transforming up to 50% of oral presentations into posters. The EAA Executive Board and staff will evaluate all software drawbacks and strengths mentioned, recommendations made for other software solutions, and general feedback received, and address them in organising any future virtual AM events / elements.

Summary per question

Demographic data of respondents

1. Occupation (What is your current principal work affiliation?)

499 responses
  • Most respondents occupy academic positions (56,1%), followed by students (13,6%), and workers in museum (9,0%) and heritage (6,4%) sector. 5,4% of respondents are employed in commercial archaeology and 2,8% are retired.
  • The percentages obtained correspond with figures received in the 2019 membership survey.

2. Age of respondents (What is your age?)

489 responses
  • The average age of respondents is 39,6 years old.
  • The median age of respondents is 38 years old.
  • The results show some somewhat younger respondents when compared with the results of the 2019 membership survey (average of 44 and median of 42 years old) and the 2019 and 2020 membership reports (average age 46 y.o. in both 2019 and 2020).
  • The age spectrum may be conditioned by the higher willingness / ability of younger members to respond to the survey.

3. Gender (Please state your gender)

501 responses
  • Women slightly prevail over men among the respondents.

4. Residence (What is your country of residence?)

493 responses
  • United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, United States and Hungary are the six most represented countries of residence, the same as in the 2019 and 2020 membership reports (with the exception of Hungary, which was replaced by Switzerland in 2019); in 2020 they constitute altogether 45% of EAA membership.

5. EAA membership (What is your EAA membership type?)

499 responses
  • Full members comprise over 60% of EAA membership while students represent 23% and retired 4%; these values have been constant over the past ten years.

Virtual Annual Meeting

6. Did you attend any part of the EAA Virtual Annual Meeting (VAM), offered as a complimentary service to current EAA members?

497 responses
  • 20% of the respondents attended the whole VAM (including or not the AMBM)
  • 40% of the respondents attended most of the VAM (3 – 5 days)
  • 31% of the respondents attended 2 days of the VAM
  • 9% of the respondents did not attend
  • In total numbers (VAM attendees vs. current EAA members), only about 600 EAA members did not attend the VAM.

7. If you did not attend the VAM, what was the reason?

121 responses
  • 69% of the respondents did not attend due to lack of time, often due to job or family obligations
  • 12% of the respondents is not keen to participate in virtual events
  • Other (singular) reasons included health problems, time difference and technical issues

8. Some of the VAM sessions were recorded. How likely is it that you will watch, or encourage others to watch, some of the recordings upon their publication?

1 - Very unlikely (I will not watch any session), 5 - Very likely (I plan to watch several sessions and recommend them to others)

498 responses

  • Of the total 167 sessions, 127 sessions were recorded.
  • More than half of the respondents are likely or very likely to watch the recorded VAM sessions or recommend them to colleagues.

9. How satisfied were you with the technical aspects of the Hopin software platform that we used?

1 – Not satisfied at all, 5 – Fully met my expectations

483 responses

  • Almost two thirds of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the Hopin software platform used.
  • Altogether 65 attendees were not satisfied with the Hopin software platform used.

10. Please comment on the above question, specifying the context (session organiser, presenter, attendee).

283 responses
  • While the majority of respondents was satisfied with the Hopin software platform, they concurred that many problems were down to internet connection parameters on the participant’s side rather than the software deficiencies. The most frequent reservations referred to problems in sessions:
    • Small size of shared screen
    • Low audio-visual quality
    • Recording time limit (recording stopped after 2 hours)
    • Difficulties to stream pre-recorded presentations with sound
    • Limited number of session participants shown on stage
    • Anonymity of participants not present on stage or interacting through chat
    • Inability of the presenter to see both the presentation and the audience while presenting in order to receive feedback
    • No “raise hand” function
    • Limited possibilities of interaction among attendees
    • No possibility of a separate chat for organisers/individuals/groups within a session; breakout rooms for dedicated discussion would be welcome
  • related to Hopin in general:
    • Non-appealing look and user unfriendliness
    • Perceived use of excessive amounts of data
    • Problems experienced by users of browsers other than Chrome
    • Difficult navigation and search for specific sessions and presentations within Hopin schedule
    • Difficulties in finding posters. Posters should have a specific slot where the presenter can briefly present their poster.
  • connected with EAA administration
    • Need of more (guided) testing (in stages: first volunteers and session organisers, then presenters)
    • Need of a more detailed handout with requirements for presentations for presenter and session organiser, perhaps also as a daily reminder
    • Digital fatigue after attending sessions all day five days in row (too many sessions for a virtual meeting spread over too many days).
  • Respondents appreciated in particular
    • The possibility to meet virtually given the current restrictions.
    • The conference setup (rather than list of individual sessions)
    • Ease of jumping between sessions
    • The possibility to comment in writing through chat, as it enabled discussions also with participants who at a physical AM would not interact e.g. due to insecurity in the use of English. The chat feature kept one or two people from dominating the conversation
    • Technical support provided by volunteers and staff

11. How satisfied were you with the content of VAM academic sessions?

1 – Not satisfied at all, 5 – Fully met my expectations

472 responses

12. How satisfied were you with the content of VAM keynote sessions?

1 – Not satisfied at all, 5 – Fully met my expectations

374 responses

  • Respondents appreciated gender balance and mix of senior and junior keynote speakers but asked that the whole EAA community is involved in the selection of keynote speakers as the process seems a bit obscure.

13. How satisfied were you with the content of VAM Opening Ceremony?

1 – Not satisfied at all, 5 – Fully met my expectations

264 responses

14. How satisfied were you with the content of VAM Annual Membership Business Meeting (AMBM)?

1 – Not satisfied at all, 5 – Fully met my expectations

209 responses

  • “(AMBM) can be pretty boring unless you are in the 'inner circle” – reason given for non-attendance
  • “The temperature in the 'chat' became too heated and 'insensitive' to the fact that the EAA board was just trying to do their best in a tough situation, and not 'cheat' anybody!”
  • The 2020 AMBM should be taken as a "first time experience" we can learn from.
  • AMBMs are unrepresentative – online open debate should be combined with (separate) online secret voting.
  • Advance voting on all matters is essential – voting by raise of hands is unsustainable (not only in virtual format).
  • The 2020 statement should have been read and explained in detail (as Statutes amendments were).
  • The decision to postpone the AMBM voting was correct (and courageous), but it is not clear until when or indeed what will be the next steps.
  • There should be public consultation hours when members can meet the President and the Board and ask questions or recommend actions.

15. How satisfied were you with the content of VAM European Archaeology Fair?

1 – Not satisfied at all, 5 – Fully met my expectations

270 responses

  • More “window shopping“ rather than one-to-one meeting the exhibitor would be appreciated. It was not easy to browse booth content without meeting the stand person directly.

16. How satisfied were you with VAM networking?

1 – Not satisfied at all, 5 – Fully met my expectation

319 responses

  • While some respondents appreciated the randomness of the networking, others found it intimidating.
  • More choice/discretion on choice of people to meet would be better. Perhaps instead of pooling everyone, people could be grouped by interests.

17. Please comment on the above VAM features.

164 responses
  • Comments included in previous questions.

18. If you attended, please comment on the AMBM specifically.

79 responses
  • Comments included in question no. 14.

19. How satisfied were you with the technical assistance provided by EAA staff and volunteers?

1 – Not satisfied at all, 5 – Fully met my expectations

439 responses

20. Please comment on any VAM aspect not covered by the above (e.g. what worked well, or suggestions for improvements).

104 responses
  • VAM was a success, even if not nearly equivalent to an in-person meeting. Virtual attendance option should be kept in future AMs. Advantages include reduced carbon emissions, lower cost and easy participation in numerous sessions.
  • The weakness of any virtual meeting is the fact that the participants do not leave their office and can hardly escape from their daily duties.
  • There should be breaks scheduled in the morning and afternoon.
  • It would be good to be able to consult the programme for a session when in the session, including the last minute changes.
  • There should be a function for taking time/signalling to the speaker about time.
  • There should be a specific role to moderate the written chat and identify the key points to discuss.
  • Proposed alternative VAM formats include
    • Pre-recorded presentations administered by EAA and available in advance would address the audio-visual quality, internet issues, and the time management of sessions, and enable in-depth discussion.
    • Spreading the event over a longer time (e.g. a month), rather than having so many parallel sessions.
    • Reducing sessions by 50% (transforming the papers into posters).
  • EAA did not take sufficient effort to make sure unpublished data is not leaked.
  • Most of the information about the event was last minute - more and timely communication for the future is required.

21. Can you recommend other virtual events softwares? Please share your experience with other virtual events

99 responses
  • Adobe connect
  • Yotribe (now called Wonder wonder.me) for networking
  • Whova
  • Exordo
  • Zoom (technical support provided by GloCast)
  • Microsoft Teams
  • Webinarjam
  • Discord
  • Google suite
  • @GatherTown
  • Big Blue Button
  • HeiCon

22. The 27th EAA Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place on 8 – 11 September 2021 in Kiel, Germany; the normal EAA registration and conference fees will apply. If there are no Covid-19 related restrictions at the time, I am likely to

499 responses


23. Bearing in mind that a 2020 was an exceptional year and a virtual AM involves considerable costs for organisation and software, should the 27th EAA Annual Meeting at Kiel have to be hybrid / virtual, or it is possible to arrange a virtual option, what would be the highest acceptable registration fee level for your remote attendance? Please note there will be single rate for onsite and online attendance.

481 responses