Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0:
Facilitating
Engagement
with
Twitter
Nicolas
R.
Laracuente
DO
NOT
CITE
IN
ANY
CONTEXT
WITHOUT
PERMISSION
OF
THE
AUTHOR
Nicolas
R.
Laracuente,
237
Morgan
Street
#1,
Lexington,
Kentucky
40383
nicolas.laracuente@gmail.com
Abstract
One
goal
of
public
archaeology
is
to
increase
public
awareness
of
archaeological
issues
and
their
practical
applications
to
modern
social
issues.
Public
archaeology
facilitates
the
understanding
of
archaeological,
historical,
and
social
issues
through
a
variety
of
methods.
Classroom
visits,
hands‐on
activities,
site
tours,
and
other
events
give
archaeologists
the
opportunity
to
engage
public
audiences
and
transfer
knowledge
through
face‐to‐face
interaction.
A
problem
with
this
approach
is
that
the
engagement
ends
at
the
conclusion
of
the
event.
The
use
of
Internet
applications,
including
Twitter,
can
solve
this
problem
by
offering
a
chance
to
continue
interaction
past
the
boundaries
of
the
event.
Twitter
is
a
micro‐blogging
application
that
allows
one
to
send
140
character
“tweets”
to
their
“followers”.
Tweets
can
be
received
via
the
Twitter
website,
third
party
applications,
feeds
embedded
in
websites,
or
text
messages.
Followers
can
respond
to
the
original
user
or
“retweet”
the
message
to
their
followers.
This
application
transcends
the
spatial
and
temporal
boundaries
of
the
event
by
allowing
sustained
multi‐directional
communication
between
archaeologists,
their
audience,
and
others
who
never
attended
the
original
event.
This
form
of
engagement
facilitates
learning
and
can
be
applied
across
disciplines.
2
Introduction
Archaeology
is
the
study
of
human
societies
through
their
material
remains.
Public archaeology facilitates understanding of archaeological techniques and the
results of our excavations through a variety of methods. Classroom visits, hands‐on
activities, site tours, and lectures provide opportunities for public engagement and
education. Audiences range from children to adults with varying skill levels and
varying interests in archaeology. These events are also time‐limited. They last
anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours and conclude with a few interested
parties who linger to ask a few follow‐up questions. A complete understanding of
the activity’s message depends on the notes taken by the audience, handouts
included in the event, or their memory.
This paper argues that the Internet, specifically social media websites, can
facilitate archaeological engagement by providing opportunities for interaction past
the time limits of the original event. Employing social media effectively requires a
critical understanding of the technology being discussed in addition to an expert
understanding of material that is relayed through that medium. Twitter, a social
media micro‐blogging application, was the focus of this research. Examining
Twitter’s utility as an information communication technology (ICT) device within
the context of archaeological engagement requires shifting focus from the
technology itself to the behavior of the people that use it.
As a result this paper begins with a hypothetical public archaeology event to
illustrate different types of learning behavior. In the second section of this paper,
Twitter is described and its intended uses are contrasted with its actual uses. The
3
paper
concludes
with
suggestions
of
how
to
integrate
Twitter
into
public
archaeological projects in a way that effectively supplements the project goals.
Public
Archaeology
and
Learning
Types
Public
archaeology
events
that
are
created
with
a
focus
on
educational
goals
are conscious of the big ideas they are made to communicate. Enduring
understandings are the big ideas that should stick in an audience’s head even if
nothing else remains after the event’s conclusion (Wiggins and McTighe 1998:10‐
11). Public archaeology events that occur at live excavation sites have several
enduring understandings in common.
Archaeology is destructive. Excavations essentially destroy the
archaeological record. Archaeological techniques are purposefully designed to
record the maximum amount of data from an excavation. They are often employed
with a specific research question and excavation plan in mind. An excavation that
lacks proper documentation or excavation technique destroys archaeological data.
This data is gone forever and cannot be retrieved by conducting the excavation
again.
Archaeological materials are limited. If an archaeological site is destroyed
there are no second chances. This is one reason why archaeologists test portions of
sites rather than excavation a site in its entirety. If we leave a portion of the site
undisturbed, future archaeologists can return to the site with new questions and
different methods.
People bestow meanings on material things. This idea can be communicated
with nearly every artifact that comes out of the ground. Ceramic sherds are often
4
correlated
with
specific
cultures.
Designs
that
decorate
pottery
can
reflect
the
identity of the potter or relay a story that is part of that society. This enduring
understanding is more complicated than the first two, but is accessible from a
variety of angles.
Communicating these enduring understandings is feasible in a controlled
setting like a classroom. However, when these issues are addressed during a live
excavation, problems are encountered. A public archaeologist can encounter
unexpected questions in the course of an event. Questions such as “How much is
that bottle worth? “ or “How do you make the holes so straight?” can be distracting
from the main purpose of an educational event.
While these are all good questions and great teachable moments, they do not
contribute to a complete understanding of the event’s enduring understanding. This
scenario demonstrates a flaw in the design of the event. In a standard classroom, a
lesson plan has learning goals and a predetermined route for getting there. An
excavation site is essentially an outdoor classroom. Unlike its indoor counterpart,
educators lack control of the learning environment and have to plan for a variety of
learning situations and potential distractions. This preparation includes a critical
analysis of the event’s audience.
People learn in a variety ways (see Bransford et al. 2000: Chapter 2 and 3).
Two types of learning models are affected by the shift from an indoor to an outdoor
classroom: directed and free‐choice learning. Directed learning works best when
the educator has control over the situation in terms of content and audience
participation (Power and Robinson 2005:19, 23). An example of this approach is a
5
school
field
trip
where
students
have
worksheets
with
questions
they
have
to
answer for class. Students may ask questions that are prompted by their
worksheets. Together, the worksheet and questions can guide audiences to the
predetermined learning goals.
Individual interests guide free choice learning. The audience’s attention will
wander to things that interest them (Chung et al. 2009:43). Free‐choice learning
audiences ask questions that are prompted by their interests. A good example of
this type of situation is a museum. Usually, an audience has a choice of which
exhibits are visited and how they are experienced. A visitor can read all of the labels
or randomly browse. The entire exhibit can be experience at once or over multiple
trips. Learning activities designed for free‐choice learning needs multiple entry
points or hooks to grab someone’s attention and hold it long enough to transfer the
lesson’s content (Pearce 1990:162‐163).
There are multiple ways to engage free‐choice learners. Twitter can be a tool
to engage this type of audience. This engagement must begin with a shift away from
thinking of free‐choice learning questions as distractions. If these questions are
realized for what they are, interest in the process of archaeology, then the barriers
to learning shifts from the audience to the limited amount of interaction between
audience and educator. The need shifts from a way to keep the audiences attention
to a way to extend and sustain our engagement with the audience. This is where
Twitter can become a part of the learning process.
6
Twitter
in
the
News
The
public
opinion
of
Twitter
has
been
formed
through
highly
publicized
events relayed through the news media. These events resonated through the media
and resulted in the implementation of Twitter into business models in a variety of
ways. To begin an objective analysis of Twitter as an ICT these stories are
summarized in the next few paragraphs.
On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 landed in the Hudson River.
News media rushed to cover the story, but the first picture uploaded to the Internet
was not from a traditional news source; it was from Twitter. A twitter user,
@JKrums, wrote, “http://twitpic.com/135xa There’s a plane on the Hudson. I’m
going on the ferry to pick up the people. Crazy.” (Israel 2009:200). This action was
possible because of three technologies: an iPhone, the mobile web, and Twitter. The
event was only one in a line of examples of how Twitter could be used in emergency
situations.
The terrorist attack in Mumbai, India during November 2008 prompted
messages that were dispersed globally through Twitter (Comm et al. 2009:xiii). Like
the Hudson River event, Twitter was used to broadcast information. It followed a
pattern that cause the business writer, Joel Comm, to state that, “We now live in a
time where ordinary citizens are empowered to be conduits of information to the
masses like never before” (Comm et al. 2009:xiv). However, these conduits are not
unidirectional.
On April 10, 2008, James Buck, a student journalist, was unjustly arrested in
Egypt. He tweeted one word, “arrested”, when the authorities were transporting
7
him
to
the
police
station
(Israel
2009:1‐3).
News
of
his
plight
traveled
through
a
network of people connected to him via Twitter ultimately leading to his release a
few days later and a free plane ride back to the United States (Simon 2008).
In April 2009, celebrity Demi Moore was contacted through Twitter by one of
her followers intent on suicide (News Wire Service 2009). Since Twitter allows
communication in real‐time, Moore contacted authorities in time to intervene and
stop the attempt. Incidents like these demonstrate that communication through
Twitter can result in real world consequences. In addition to the ability to
broadcast information to the masses, Twitter users are able to converse with
anyone using this technology in the world. This realization prompts business writer
Shel Israel to mark the death of the “Broadcast Era” and the birth of the
“Conversational Era” in broad generalizations of communication (Israel 2009:8).
In order to fully grasp the ramification of Twitter, this technology needs to be
examined through a critical lens. This next section of this paper examines what
Twitter claims to be and how it is actually used. It traces the rise of Twitter and
contextualizes it within the history of communication to determine if this is a new
type of communication or if it is an extension of what we have been doing before.
To begin this discussion this paper will now turn to an examination of the
mechanics of Twitter.
Development
of
Twitter
In
her
book
All
a
Twitter,
Tee
Morris
traces
the
development
of
elements
of
the Internet that enabled the rise of Twitter. In the early 1990’s the Internet was
one sided. Content was limited in format and visitors were limited to moving from
8
page
to
page.
It
was
not
until
the
development
of
new
programming
languages
(ASP
and PHP) that Internet users were able to communicate between members (Morris
2010:9). However this interaction was limited to communication in forums and
webpages controlled by a single person.
In 2000, Real Simple Syndication (RSS) facilitated the development of blogs
by enabling Internet users to subscribe to a blogger’s content. Media available
through RSS was limited to text until the development of the <enclosure> tag in
2004 (Morris 2010:10‐11). This enabled the distribution of audio and video files
through RSS.
RSS resulted in the rise of content on the Internet. This coincided with the
development of social networking that enabled users to choose how and when they
interacted. Three websites that were created during the rise of social media and RSS
involved the people who would create Twitter.
Ev Williams, creator of Blogger.com, and Biz Stone, founder of Xandga.com,
worked together at Google. They founded a software company called Odeo in 2004.
They hired a software engineer named Jack Dorsey shortly after their company
began (Israel 2009:16‐20). Williams and Stone challenged Dorsey with solving a
communication problem. Odeo’s employees were scattered across Silicon Valley
and all worked on their own time schedules. It was difficult to find times that
everyone could meet in person and nearly impossible to assess productivity.
Dorsey was inspired by the emergency vehicles to communicate their routes
in real‐time. A form of real‐time communication that people carry around on their
person everyday is SMS text messaging (Israel 2009:16). Text messages are capped
9
at
160
characters,
which
meant
that
a
user
name
and
message
had
to
fit
in
a
160
character limit. Dorsey rationed 20 characters for the user name leaving 140
characters for the message (O’Reilly and Milstein 2009:33). Dorsey called his
service TWTTR. It was open‐source software, meaning that Odeo employees were
allowed to distribute TWTTR to people outside of their company (Israel 2009:22‐
25).
TWTTR was a communication tool with viral elements. The more people that
were on TWTTR the more useful it became. As a result TWTTR spread organically,
one person uses it and tells another resulting in a constantly growing pool of users
(Israel 2009:133). Eventually Odeo’s founders realized that their communication
tool had more potential than their original company. They returned their startup
money to Odeo’s investors, added some vowels to their product’s name, and began
Twitter Inc. in October 2006 (Israel 2009:26).
Williams, Stone, and Dorsey took Twitter to the SXSW conference in 2007.
They put a live twitter stream up on the monitors in central conference gathering
places and let information of their product spread by word of mouth. Twitter was
named the best product of SXSW 2007 with a user base that had increased to 60
thousand users (Israel 2009:32, 39). Spreading Twitter was now in the hands of the
people who used the service.
Twitter spread quickly. In February 2009, the service had 32 million users
(Israel 2009:23). By the end of the year there were 50 million users (Israel
2009:29). Part of this rapid growth was a ‘snowball effect’ that started at the SXSW
conference. The explosion of Twitter can also be attributed to the technology being
10
featured
on
Oprah,
followed
shortly
by
a
well‐publicized
race
between
celebrity
Ashton Kutcher and CNN to be the first to acquire 1 million followers. Twitter had
reached critical mass, a point where it is firmly entrenched in society (Comm
2009:21). This rapid growth hit a snag in 2008.
Every time a tweet is sent it goes out to hundreds of other people
simultaneously. At the same time each of those people are sending tweets. Each
new user increased the amount of data being handled by Twitter’s servers. These
scalability issues resulted in a massive amount of downtime in 2008. Most of this
downtime (84%) was in the first half of 2008 (Peneberg 2009:152‐153). Despite
these problems, Twitter maintained a loyal user base.
A 2008 survey determined that 63% of Twitter’s users were male. A little
more than half (57%) of the users were from California. The average age of Twitter
users were 35‐44. The realization that Twitter’s user base was older people caused
businesses to join the service because of the potential to reach potential customers
in a different way (Comm 2009:6). An example of this movement is the computer
company Dell.
Dell’s chief blogger, Lionel Menchaca, began to use a Twitter feed to
broadcast links to his blog. Menchaca found customers responded directly to him
on Twitter. Communication with customers became centralized on Twitter. He
became the face of Dell on Twitter providing a more personal service directly to
customers (Israel 2009:47‐48). However, Twitter can backfire if companies take an
unfocused stab at participation. Lack of research can backfire and be detrimental to
a company’s image (O’Reilly and Milstein 2009:189).
11
Zoological
parks
have
embraced
the
effort
it
takes
to
engage
customers
through Twitter. An article in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums notes that
social media is, “Not always free, not always easy, and not everyone who is doing it
is doing it well” (Whitman 2010:8). Ciri Haugh with the Houston Zoo remarked that
it takes constant research to stay ahead of the curve. To develop and hold a
subscriber base information and enthusiasm needs to be communicated predictably
and often (Haugh 2010:12‐13). Policies need to be developed that determine what
is placed on social media (Haugh 2010:12). Their research determined that trivia,
photos, and animal facts garnered the most attention (Haugh 2010:13). Research
also determined that 48% of African Americans and 47% of Hispanics accessed the
Internet via mobile devices. This makes Twitter especially effective in contacting
those groups (Haugh 2010:13).
What
is
Twitter?
A
Critical
Analysis
Twitter
is
a
micro‐blogging
application
that
allows
one
to
send
140
character
“tweets” to their “followers”. Tweets can be received via the Twitter website, third
party applications, feeds embedded in websites, or text messages. Followers can
respond to the original user or “retweet” the message to their followers.
It is important to realize that Twitter does not stand‐alone. It is a tool in the social
media toolkit (Israel 2009:8).
As part of a technological tool kit Twitter has to be used in conjunction with
other technologies. With the rapid growth of technologies in the Web 2.0
environment it may not be possible to understand each element of social media.
12
Some
writers
argue
that
Twitter
should
be
used
as
a
facilitator
that
directs
attention
between different social media elements (Morris 2000:15). Others view Twitter as
a chance to distribute ideas and comments about individual interest and expertise
(O’Reilly and Milstein 2009:11). Several entrepreneurs approach Twitter as a
chance to check public opinion of their products and ideas (Israel 2009:50). To
grasp Twitter’s place in the social media ecosystem it may be useful to contrast it
with other technologies.
Twitter is described as a telephone that is used without any aspect of privacy
(Israel 2009:4‐5). An even more accurate analogy is Twitter as a telegraph.
Telegraph lines were piggybacked on the existing infrastructure of the railroad
(Carey 1989:203). After its implementation the telegraph improved on the
railroad’s operation through prevention of train collisions. Twitter was
operationalized using the existing cellular phone and Internet infrastructure. It has
improved communication by removing barriers by allowing people to bypass
secondary sources with a direct link to primary sources (Israel 2009:66‐68). It also
provides new opportunities in networking by breaking down other social barriers.
At the 2010 Modern Language Association Convention in Philadelphia, the
organizations executive director, Rosemary Feal, invited her twitter followers to an
exclusive event. Her followers, mostly graduate students or recently minted PhDs,
would have never heard of this normally private meeting with elite social leaders,
supporters, and financial donors to the institution (Golden 2010). While this
provides an example of Twitter breaking down social hierarchies and providing real
life access to the people at the top of the ‘social ladder’, Feal’s use of Twitter
13
prompted
criticisms
of
the
technologies
‘trivialization’
of
the
English
language
(Golden 2010).
Ironically, the same issue confronted the telegraph. The translation of
written language into dots and dashes was initially used to play long‐distance chess
(Carey 1989:202). Thoreau criticized this technology as ‘trivialization’ of the
English language, but his criticisms were drowned out by those who embraced its
potential (Carey 1989:202‐203). Hemingway cited the telegraph as a major
influence on his attempts to “pare his prose to the bone” (Carey 1989:211). The
broad reach of the telegraph also resulted in the objectification of the news (Carey
1989:210). This was a result of the need to make news stories palatable to people of
every political type. Unlike the telegraph, Twitter’s structure does not result in
objectification of information. Indeed, it results in the exact opposite.
The 140 characters limit of tweets forces an author to strip a message to its
bare essentials. The size of this chunk of information moves quickly and is
distributed through a variety of channels (Levinson 2009:134). As the number of
accounts a user follows increases the amount of tweets the author sees increases
exponentially. When “people treat [Twitter] as a river of messages, dipping in when
they happen to be next to the stream” information contained in a tweet may lose its
context (O’Reilly and Milstein 2009:155, 165). If people do not read the tweet
within 5 minutes of posting they may not see it at all (O’Reilly and Milstein
2009:155). This amount of information results in a change in the user’s
expectations from social interaction in this environment.
14
Unlike
Facebook,
and
other
social
media
sites,
Twitter
users
do
not
have
to
follow each other to see the information (Buckley 2006:7). This publically
accessible, asymmetrical model has two implications: 1. Twitter users are more
likely to find information by strangers 2. People will unfollow you if you are not
interesting (O’Reilly and Milstein 2009:7, 25). The realization that users can
selectively follow who they are interest in results in the creation social ‘islands’
where everyone is of the same mindset. The opt‐in nature of Twitter is a vivid
contrast from the required participation of the telegraph. Instead of a movement
toward objectivity, it is increasingly easy to find subjective information portrayed as
fact.
The problems related to an Internet user’s behavior are succinctly written
about by Peneberg:
“…skimming
blogs
and
news
sites,
downloading
music
and
videos,
cruising
MySpace,
creating
and
maintaining
blogs…
take
time.
All
the
time
we
make
choices.
We
sift,
filter,
ignore.
Even
turning
it
all
off
is
an
option.
(Peneberg
2009:76)”
The
choices
described
by
Peneberg
describe
habits
that
are
diverse
and
instantaneous. The fragmentary nature of our consumption of information results
in "nicheification" or our lives. Interaction is no longer confined to person to
person, but social cluster to social cluster (Peneberg 2009:76). However, these
clusters are still composed of people. According to Whitman these social media user
behaviors can be classified in six types (Whitman 2010:9):
1.
Creator:
submits
photos
and
other
content
2.
Critic:
leaves
comments
3.
Collector:
Retweets,
Social
Bookmarks,
RSS
Feeds
15
4.
Joiner:
becomes
a
fan
on
Facebook,
follower
on
Twitter
5.
Spectator:
reads
blogs,
watched
YouTube
videos
6.
Inactive:
No
social
media
use.
To
critically
participate
in
social
media
it
is
important
to
realize
that
audiences
are
made up of people that identify with one or more of these behavior types. Whitman
and others encourage an approach to Twitter where the user consciously chooses
their approach and adapts it based on feedback from measurement of web traffic
(Whitman 2010:9). If this approach is used in conjunction with a critical approach
to public archaeology, the audience and quality of engagement can be increased.
Conclusion:
A
Movement
Toward
Public
Archaeology
2.0
A
handful
of
archaeologists
and
archaeological
organizations
are
experimenting with Twitter. The Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN)
provides live coverage of their digs. Links tweeted from a dig in Jupiter, Florida took
FPAN’s followers to pictures taken in the field. This provided local and global
communities the opportunity to ask questions about the excavation, what they were
finding, and why they were working there. Tweets about other projects or public
archaeology events are common from this twitter stream.
The Campus Archaeology Program at Michigan State University posts links to
photos as well as links to Facebook pages with schedules of research presentations.
They conduct assessment of their work through websites that analyze how many
times their tweets are retweeted or their links are clicked on (Brock 2010). This
allows them to gauge how well they are engaging their audience.
Twitter may serve as a foundation for beginning public archaeology through
social media. It serves as a relatively easy entry point for archaeological experts
16
that
may
not
be
accustomed
to
social
media.
Facebook,
MySpace
and
similar
sites
can be time intensive. There are many options for ways to interact with your
friends and the accounts can be high maintenance. Twitter has three fundamental
options: follow, not follow, and block (Morris 2010:22‐23). Twitter allows one to
address broad subjects without alienating their audience. However, information can
be lost in the rapid Twitter stream (Morris 2010:20‐21). The asymmetrical nature
of Twitter gives a user the option to reply. Applications such as chat clients require
a reply to most messages (Morris 2010:19). One who does not reply to all instant
messages can be considered rude.
Public archaeologists that decide to implement Twitter into their projects
need to realize that one‐way communication will not result in success:
“Twitter
isn’t
so
much
a
broadcast
medium
as
it
is
a
discussion
channel…the
secret
of
social
media
is
that
it’s
not
about
you…
It’s
about
how
you
can
add
value
to
the
communities
that
happen
to
include
you”
(O’Reilly
and
Milstein
2009:101).
Just
like
the
end
user
who
identifies
with
several
social
media
behaviors,
public
archaeologist need to move between the six social media behaviors in order to
maintain the interest of a diverse audience. To combat the information overflow
present in a Twitter stream, they may want to repeat their own messages
throughout the day. This will also engage their global audience who may be
sleeping during the times public archaeologists typically use Twitter. Public
archaeologists on Twitter will also have to be increasingly self‐critical.
A user’s Twitter handle can influence the audience’s perception of a Twitter
user. Accounts such as @brockter or @vcwestmont are essentially modifications of
a user’s name. Followers of these accounts would expect to see tweets about that
17
individual’s
life
and
interests.
Accounts
such
as
@archaeologyDN
and
@archaeology101 are institutional accounts. These accounts are usually associated
with organizations or publications. As a result, the topics they cover may be more
limited to certain themes. A pitfall that lurks in this approach is when the official
message and individual interest overlap. For example, @archaeology101 regularly
tweets about dinosaurs. As an account that portrays itself as an archaeological
official (incidentally this account is affiliated with the Archaeology Institute of
America), they are actively spreading the misconception that archaeologists
research dinosaurs. Official and individual interests need to be separated in the
contextless world of Twitter.
Approaching archaeology with social media in mind may be a daunting task.
Contrary to public opinion it is often not easy and the ramifications of something
that occurs in social media can be unpredictable. Public archaeology without
Twitter results in limited engagement. In a standard archaeological project,
archaeologists interact with a public audience during an excavation, while artifacts
are being processed, or when the results of archaeological work are published. The
audiences are usually limited to those who are local to the excavations.
By including Twitter as a part of the project, barriers of time and location are
overcome. Engagement can take place at anytime between people in any location.
Publicizing Twitter accounts in a variety of ways can result in a diverse audience
that remain engaged long after a traditional event would have ended. Perhaps the
biggest hurdle to overcome is the idea of creating a single program that requires
little maintenance. Communication through Twitter flows both ways, which means
18
that
both
the
educator
and
the
audience
are
engaged
in
learning.
Through
assessment and modification, public archaeology programs should become dynamic
constructs that are capable of engaging a variety of social media behaviors, learning
types, and content to broaden their impact past traditional techniques.
19
References
Cited
Brock,
Terry
P.
no
date.
dirt
‐
a
blog
about
archaeology,
higher
education,
and
baseball.
http://terrypbrock.com/dirt/
(last
accessed
Feb.
17,
2010)
Calhoun,
C.
1992
The
Infrastructure
of
Modernity:
Indirect
Social
Relationships,
Information
Technology,
and
Social
Integration.
In
Social
Change
and
Modernity,
edited
by
Haferkamp
and
Smelser,
pp.
205‐236.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press.
Carey,
J.W.
1989
Technology
and
Ideology:
The
Case
of
the
Telegraph.
In
Communication
as
Culture:
Essays
on
Media
and
Society,
pp
201‐230.
Winchester,
MA:
Unwin
Hyman.
Chung,
James,
Susie
Wilkening
and
Sally
Johnstone
2009
Coming
Soon:
The
Future,
The
Shape
of
Museums
to
Come.
Museum,
May‐June.
Comm,
Joel,
Anthony
Robbins
and
Ken
Burge
2009
Twitter
Power:
How
to
Dominate
Your
Market
One
Tweet
at
a
Time.
Wiley.
Douglas,
Nick
2009
Twitter
Wit:
Brilliance
in
140
Characters
or
Less.
It
Books.
Golden,
Serena
2010
Tweetup
at
the
MLA.
Inside
Higher
Ed,
January
4,
2010.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/04/tweeps
(last
accessed
Feb.
17
2010)
Haugh,
Ciri
2010
Right
Back
at
You.
Connect
Feb
2010,
pp.
12‐13.
Israel,
Shel
2009
Twitterville:
How
Business
Can
Thrive
in
the
New
Global
Neighborhoods.
Penguin
Group,
NY
Johnson,
David
J.
2009
Managing
Knowledge
Networks.
Cambridge,
UK.
Levinson,
Paul
2009
New
New
Media.
Boston:
Allyn
&
Bacon.
Levstik,
Linda
S.
2008a
Border
Crossings.
In
Researching
History
Education:
Theory,
Method,
and
Context
by
Linda
S.
Levsitk
and
Keith
C.
Barton
pp
335‐365.
2008b
Crossing
the
empty
spaces:
Perspectives
taking
in
New
Zealand
adolescents'
understanding
of
national
history.
In
Researching
History
Education:
Theory,
Method,
and
Context
by
Linda
S.
Levsitk
and
Keith
C.
Barton
pp.
366‐392.
McDavid,
Carole
2004
From
"Traditional"
Archaeology
to
Public
Archaeology
to
Community
Action:
The
Levi
Jordan
Plantation
Project.
In
Places
in
Mind:
Archaeology
as
Applied
Anthropology,
edited
by
P.
Shackel
and
E.
Chamgers
pp.
35‐56.
Routledge,
New
York.
McFedries,
Paul
2009
Twitter
Tips,
Tricks
and
Tweets.
Wiley.
Morris,
Tee
20
2009
All
a
Twitter:
A
Personal
and
Professional
Guide
to
Social
Networking
with
Twitter.
Que.
News
Wire
Service
2009
Demi
Moore
uses
her
Twitter
to
help
stop
a
woman's
suicide
attempt.
April
3rd,
2009.http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/04/04/20090404_demi_moore_use
s_her_twitter_to_help_stop.html
O'Reilly,
Tim
and
Sarah
Milstein
2009
The
Twitter
Book.
O'Reilly
Media.
Pearce,
Susan
M.
1990
Archaeological
Curatorship.
Smithsonian
Institution
Press.
Power,
Leslie
and
Jennifer
Pace
Robinson
2005
Exhibit
Development
with
School
in
Mind.
Journal
of
Museum
Education,
Spring/Fall.
Simon,
Mallory
2008
Student
'Twitters'
his
way
out
of
Egyptian
jail.
CNN
April
25,
2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/25/twitter.buck/
(last
accessed
Feb.
17
2010)
Whitlock,
Warren
and
Deborah
Micek
2008
Twitter
Revolution:
How
Social
Media
and
Mobile
Marketing
is
Changing
the
Way
We
Do
Business
Market
Online.
Xeno
Press.
Whitman,
Rebecca
2010
Finding
Your
Place
in
Social
Media.
Connect
Feb
2010,
pp
8‐9.
Wiggins,
Grant
and
Jay
McTighe
1998
Understaning
by
Design.
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.
21