Executive Summary and Ways Forward
Altogether 646 responses were received (16% of current EAA Members).
While respondents appreciated the wide range of topics covered in the academic programme, the high number of parallel sessions and the length of the daily programme made the Annual Meeting very intense. The EAA must continue to aim to avoid thematically overlapping sessions, and possibly devise a way how to make session recordings available as soon as the sessions end, still in the All in the Loop platform.
E-poster boards are a good step in terms of sustainability, but hinder discussion of poster authors with the audience. Better presentation of posters must be ensured (e.g. by way of a dedicated poster session and/or formal presentation of posters in sessions and/or making them more visible in the AITL app).
The limit of one contribution per person as the main author suits 48% of respondents, but the EAA will accommodate the 29% respondents who wish to be able to present two contributions as the main author by allowing both oral and poster presentations as the main author. More flexibility will be provided to representatives of EAA constituents (e.g., EAA Advisory Committees).
The onsite organization was generally evaluated in positive terms, highlighting the volunteers’ helpfulness and clear signage within the venue. Minor drawbacks included food quality, quantity, and diversity at coffee breaks, lunch packs, and social events.
The online organization suffered from technical problems, connected with onsite equipment and lacking IT support. Half of the respondents rated the online organization as good, whereas 23% thought it was poor. Only 10% of respondents did not use any of the Annual Meeting hybrid elements, and 64% of respondents found the hybrid format useful. There is much room for improvement especially with regard to onsite equipment, software solutions, and the interaction between the in-person audience and the online audience. The hybrid format will be continued, but the EAA must ensure its seamless technical implementation and aim to better integrate the onsite and online audiences.
The European Archaeology Fair was a success, as an overwhelming majority of delegates (77%) attended the Fair onsite. The foremost reason to visit the online exhibitors’ profiles would be discounts on books or services offered, connected with the possibility to interact with the exhibitors.
Safety issues encountered by respondents refer mostly to Covid-19; the EAA must implement protective measures at future Annual Meetings.
Respondents would welcome better networking opportunities, parents’ room, and quiet room.
Only 7% of respondents will purchase a printed copy of the European Journal of Archaeology (EJA) in 2024.
An overview of the survey
The evaluation survey of the 29th EAA Annual Meeting in Belfast (AM; 30 August - 2 September 2023) and selected membership matters took place between 11 – 18 September 2023. Altogether 573 EAA Members responded in the 2023 evaluation survey in full; further 73 respondents started the survey but dropped out before completing it, and other 48 individuals viewed the survey but did not answer any question. The average time spent completing the survey was 13 minutes.
What is your current career stage?
610 responses
| Career Stage |
Responses |
Percentage |
| BA Student |
9 |
1.48% |
| MA Student |
17 |
2.79% |
| PhD Researcher |
117 |
19.18% |
| Postdoctoral Researcher |
92 |
15.08% |
| Temporary Position as Principal Investigator |
16 |
2.62% |
| Temporary employment in contract/commercial archaeology |
8 |
1.31% |
| Temporary employment in the heritage sector |
13 |
2.13% |
| Permanent academic employment |
144 |
23.61% |
| Permanent employment in contract/commercial archaeology |
24 |
3.93% |
| Permanent employment in the heritage sector |
79 |
12.95% |
| Other permanent employment |
13 |
2.13% |
| Freelancer |
22 |
3.61% |
| Retired |
39 |
6.39% |
| Unemployed |
10 |
1.64% |
| Other |
7 |
1.15% |
What is the country where you work, study or reside (rather than your nationality)?
613 respondents
Did you attend the 29th EAA Annual Meeting in Belfast?
608 responses
Why did you not attend the 29th EAA Annual Meeting?
87 responses
Most of the respondents did not attend due to lack of time or timing incompatibility.
10 respondents could not pay the registration fees.
Other reasons included:
- “EAA conferences are too big and several years ago lost their innovative dimension.”
- Sustainability concerns
My 29th EAA Annual Meeting registration, attendance and travel costs were covered (tick all that apply):
567 responses
Please comment on the academic programme of the 29th Annual Meeting (character, design, and format).
351 respondents
Most respondents thought the academic programme was well-structured and interesting, offering a wide range of topics.
However, they commented on the high number of parallel (overlapping) sessions and:
- Requested that there are fewer parallel sessions (implying a longer duration of the conference, merger of similar sessions, or fewer sessions/contributions accepted).
- Appreciated the possibility to watch sessions online while running in between onsite sessions.
- Requested that the session recordings are made available.
- Requested that sessions be better thematically organized to avoid overlaps.
- For some respondents, the sessions timetable was too long (8:30 – 18:30).
- Technical difficulties with online streaming impaired the onsite sessions. Having all remote presentations pre-recorded might help avoid some problems.
Respondents appreciated the e-poster boards, but requested there are more of them and that there is a dedicated poster session.
The active participation at the 29th Annual Meeting was limited to one contribution per person as the main author, in order to facilitate the creation of the academic programme. Has this rule affected you (tick all that apply)?
540 respondents
The aspects of the one contribution per person as the main author rule specified in comments included:
- Inability to attend the presentation where a respondent was listed as co-author
- Caution in choosing the topic of the one presentation – presenters tended towards submitting 'safe' talks and reduced the number of more experimental talks
- “The rule meant that I was able to attend, instead of my colleague doing two contributions.”
Please evaluate the poster presentations, which were displayed on e-poster boards onsite and available in the mobile app.
479 respondents
Respondents commented that
- They were unaware of the e-poster boards or did not have time to browse them.
- Most e-posters were completely overlooked; printed posters would have got more attention.
- Posters should be displayed in the respective session.
- Posters are designed for interaction, often used by students to meet their peers, network, etc., which is missed when they are presented in authors’ absence.
- The e-poster boards should be more in number, placed in prominent position and better advertised.
Please rate the onsite organisation of the 29th EAA Annual Meeting.
415 responses
The respondents concurred that the onsite organisation of the 29th EAA Annual Meeting was good (81.5%).
Please comment on the onsite organisation of the 29th Annual Meeting.
300 responses
The respondents commented generally in positive terms, highlighting:
- Volunteers’ helpfulness
- Clear signage within the venue
- Convenience of the reusable cups
- A respondent suggested setting up an emergency hotline for the Annual Meeting that participants can call and get information from the organizers on what to do in a given situation.
Negative comments referred to:
- Registration
- Too short opening hours of registration on the Wednesday
- Registration should be better sign-posted
- Badges at registration should be distributed by their numbers, not evenly by alphabet, which created queues
- Poor QUB technical equipment in lecture rooms (projectors, AC, lacking blinds)
- Problems with hybrid format, difficulties in remote participation in onsite sessions, and inadequate technical support
- Too few coffee break stations that were crowded and difficult to reach from some venues; respondents would prefer to have coffee and tea available throughout the whole day (which was often not the case in Whitla Hall) or at least in the early morning and after lunch. Special diet food options for lunch and the coffee breaks were lacking.
- Difficult access for those with reduced mobility. Elevators were not accessible in some buildings, and bathrooms were often on different floors.
- Lack of transport between the Closing Reception and the Annual Dinner.
Please rate the online organisation of the 29th EAA Annual Meeting (please leave unanswered if you only attended onsite).
240 responses
Half of the respondents (50%) found the online organisation of the 29th EAA Annual Meeting good, while 23% thought it was poor.
Please comment on the online organisation of the 29th Annual Meeting (please leave unanswered if you only attended onsite).
149 responses
Problems with the online element included:
- Streaming
- Internet access
- Accessibility (pop-ups blocking desktop displays, covering parts of presentations)
- Sound
As a result of the technical issues, some sessions were much delayed.
IT support proved difficult to find.
Respondents appreciated the volunteers’ assistance, who however should receive more training, or professional IT support provided.
Online attendees
- Would welcome previous contact with session organizers before presenting.
- Had difficulties seeing and hearing the onsite presentations.
- Complained that the session chat was not monitored.
- Would have preferred to see the onsite audience especially when answering questions, and know how many people were attending the session remotely.
- Requested that strict and enforceable rules for session organizers regarding engagement with the remote audience are created and enforced by the volunteers.
- Reported problems when trying to attend two sessions simultaneously.
- Requested that the registration fee for online participation is lower than for onsite.
Which hybrid format elements of the 29th EAA Annual Meeting applied to you (please tick all that apply)?
862 responses
How many sessions did you attend online?
468 responses
Altogether 38% of respondents attended one or more sessions in which they were not presenting or organising.
Did you find the hybrid format of the 29th EAA Annual Meeting useful?
418 responses
Altogether 64% of respondents found the hybrid format useful, as compared to 18% who found the hybrid format not useful. This corresponds with the results of the 2022 annual evaluation survey, where 61% or respondents found the hybrid format useful or very useful, while 23% perceived it as not very useful.
Which hybrid format element do you think needs improvement the most (scale from 0 - does not need to improve at all, through to 100 - needs to improve significantly)? If you do not wish to rate an element, please leave the option unanswered.
862 responses
The elements needing improvement are ordered from those needing most improvement to those needing less improvement (but still significant one):
- Onsite equipment (webcams, microphone, loudspeakers, etc.) need improvement the most – 61.5 score
- Remote presenters’ equipment (headset, internet connection parameters) – 49.8 score
- Software used (All in the Loop + Zoom) – 49.2 score
- Behaviour of onsite participants (talking to the microphone, not moving from the camera, organisation of the discussion) – 49.1 score
- Onsite volunteers / IT support – 47.9 score
- Online test rooms – 36.6 score
Please comment on the hybrid format elements needing improvement.
279 responses
Respondents commented on
- Behaviour of onsite presenters which needs to take into account the remote participants, using the webcam and microphone consistently
- The need for adequate audio-visual equipment (loudspeakers, two webcams (one facing the presenter, the other facing the audience) and ideally 3 portable microphones) for the onsite audience to improve discussion with remote participants
- The interaction between the in-person audience and the online audience which was poor
- Respondents required that it is made clear which presenters will be onsite / online.
- When talking to the mic, the speaker should always introduce themselves.
- Networking opportunities for online participants should be developed.
- Mandatory test for online presenters to be introduced.
- Some respondents thought the hybrid format should be abandoned, as it discriminates the onsite attendees (in terms of cost and behaviour) and feeds into the narrow conception of a conference as a place to present rather than discuss in person. If the hybrid format is maintained, a session organiser should always be onsite.
How satisfied were you with the software used (if you did not use it, please leave the option unanswered)?
235 responses
Respondents gave the All in the Loop software an average of 59 points out of 100.
Respondents gave the mobile app an average of 63 points out of 100.
Please comment on the All in the Loop software and/or the mobile app, specifying the context of your attendance (session organiser, presenter, attendee; if you did not use it, please leave the option unanswered).
198 responses
Evaluation of the All in the Loop software in combination with Zoom often stressed the apparent incompatibility of the two (double streaming, producing echo if AITL was not closed). Having the two platforms equipped with chat functionality meant that either might have been left unmonitored.
The printed Programme summary was useful to many.
Most respondents found the mobile app useful, but commented
- It was slow and crashed frequently.
- On an iPhone, times were not displayed - all sessions/presentations on a given day had the same time.
- It was impossible to copy/paste text from the mobile application to another mobile application such as an email or a notebook, whereas this is possible from a computer.
- If you have starred a session organiser, they do not appear among the starred people to whom it is possible to send a message.
- There is no button for returning to the home page, which is annoying if you are doing several searches among the participants because you need to use the previous button as many times as searches have been done.
- Only the sessions are displayed in "My Agenda", which makes it difficult to organise your day, as it is the session times that are displayed and not the presentation times.
- A universal search function on the landing page would be useful to search names, keywords, session numbers, institutions, etc.
- It would be good if the mobile app could have 2 windows/panes to look at e.g. program and map at the same time.
- Scroll bar function would be useful in the programme tab.
- It would have been nice if the app had a little virtual map to guide you to the different locations. So when clicking on a session, and then clicking on the name of the building, a map would show up telling you were to go. Sometimes it was a little hard to find your way around.
- Inability to go 'back' in the sessions part without it resetting all the tabs.
- Cumbersome navigation. Had to start over for every new enquiry and go through multiple steps to find most things. (eg. to find out where and when NN is presenting, one had to go to the presenters list, then search for NN (even if NN was previously starred), then go to NN's profile, then scroll down and go on to NN's presentation, then from there go to NN's session. Then remember the venue code/name and time. Then go back to the main menu and select maps. Then find the right building to open the building sketch and look through it to find the right room code. Then still find a physical map of the campus to find the way there.
I visited the 29th EAA Annual Meeting European Archaeology Fair (EAF).
470 responses
An overwhelming majority of delegates (77%) attended the Fair onsite while only 5% visited the online exhibitors’ profiles.
One-fifth of respondents did not attend the Fair at all.
Please tick the reason that brings, or would most likely bring you, to visit the online profile of the European Archaeology Fair exhibitors (tick all that apply):
552 responses
The foremost reason to visit the online exhibitors’ profiles would be discounts on books or services offered, connected with the possibility to interact with the exhibitors.
Attractiveness of gaming elements is negligible.
Among other factors that would bring visitors to the online exhibitors’ profiles were:
- Possibility to see new technologies and equipment
- Access to independent reviews of the books available, online author interviews, or discussions about the titles presented at the Fair
I experienced safety issues while attending the 29th EAA Annual Meeting (onsite or online).
462 responses
While 90% of respondents did not experience any safety issues while attending the Annual Meeting, 9% of respondents did. In other questions, respondents complained about lack of Covid-19 preventive measures (hand sanitizers, encouragement to wear masks, better ventilation, availability of test kits). Only six respondents commented:
- I did not experience any but it was good to see so many clear statements on expected behavior and who to contact if there was a problem. I think these notices are very important.
- COVID super-spreader event - no mitigations
- Lots of wires spread across flooring which presented hazards for tripping. No briefing on fire or emergency procedures/evacuations. Building work going on across a few buildings which caused disruptions for presentations as well as health concerns for dangerous equipment around spaces.
- While I did not, some known bullies were registered, and I am aware that it caused anxiety to their victims.
- I didn't myself, but a colleague of mine was accosted when she was walking back to her hotel after the party. Fortunately, she was able to get away without any physical harm done.
- A colleague reported issues to me.
Please comment on any aspect of the 29th EAA Annual Meeting not covered by the above.
114 responses
Respondents suggested:
- To offer a mobile device charging station
- To design the printed Programme as well as the web in an easy-to-read format (contrast)
- To create a forum/group in which people traveling alone can previously meet and share costs (travel, room)
- To allow delegates to dance at the Annual Dinner
- The Annual Dinner was not worth the price
- Stop handing out canvas tote bags as they require vast amounts of water to make; paper bags can be used instead
The 30th EAA Annual Meeting will take place on 28 - 31 August 2024 in Rome, Italy; the same EAA Annual Meeting registration fees will apply to both onsite and online attendees. If there are no Covid-19 related or other restrictions at the time, I prefer to
562 responses
While only 8 respondents commented, the foremost reasons for a decision to attend online are timing constraints and increased cost of onsite attendance.
Is there any feature, currently not present at EAA Annual Meetings, that you would recommend implementing?
177 responses
Respondents would welcome:
- Better networking opportunities (both onsite and online), e.g. by way of more focused parties (such as MERC) or a buddy system for first-time attendees.
- Room for parents with young children equipped with some toys, hygienic products, etc.
- Quiet room with soft seating furniture
- Separate the morning and afternoon sessions in different tabs in the app so you don’t have to scroll through ALL of the morning ones to get to the afternoon or evening ones
- A disclaimer at the Annual Meeting web encouraging train/bus or other non-flying travel options.
Since January 2022, receipt of a print copy of the European Journal of Archaeology (EJA) is no longer part of the EAA membership benefits. The price of the printed EJA copy will be 18 EUR in 2024.
541 responses
The European Archaeologist (the EAA’s newsletter) has been running a photojournalism competition, the theme of which is: “Out of the comfort zone: Fieldwork in perspective”. Which of the following images best reflect this theme (select three; view the images by clicking on the individual options below)?
954 responses
Go back to top