By: Lisa Anderson, Cassandra Mesick, Christine Reiser, Krysta Ryzewski & Bradley Sekedat
In April 2007, Brown University fielded a team composed of graduate students from the Department of Anthropology and the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World in the 4th annual Ethics Bowl at the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) general meeting held in Austin, Texas. This year’s competition also included student teams from Indiana University, Michigan State University, Northwestern State University, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and the University of New Mexico.

The SAA Ethics Bowl is a debate-style intercollegiate competition, the content of which is based on a series of ten case studies pertaining to relevant issues in archaeology today. These hypothetical scenarios are designed both to stimulate discussion during the Bowl and to provide teaching resources across the wider discipline. The scenarios incorporate a broad range of archaeological issues. The cases we addressed, for example, concerned themes of Open Access, ARPA, cultural representation and diversity, archaeology in times of war, museum stewardship, and multiple publics.
More detailed information about the Ethics Bowl in general can be found HERE. The case studies for 2007 can be viewed HERE.
We were of course delighted to be adjudged the winners of this year’s Ethics Bowl, but for us it was the lessons and benefits from the collaborative experience of preparing for it and participating in it that provided the richest rewards. We share part of our experience in this short commentary.

PHASE 1: Preparation
Beginning in the fall of 2006, interested Brown students gathered as a discussion group and invited specialists to lead bi-monthly discussions on key ethical topics, such as NAGPRA, cultural resource management law, underwater archaeology, and looting and the antiquities trade. To facilitate continuous and interactive discussion among group members, we created a wiki (a collaborative website that allows visitors to add, remove, and edit content) on which we posted notes, articles, outlines, and comments.

The Brown Ethics Bowl team during the final round (L-R): K. Ryzewski, B. Sekedat, C. Reiser, L. Anderson, C. Mesick
Although our team was limited to five participants during the Ethics Bowl, several additional undergraduate and graduate students of diverse archaeological backgrounds participated actively in these earlier discussions and wiki postings. On March 15th, 2007 the ten case studies were disseminated to all participating teams. Over the following six weeks, our team met weekly for more focused discussions. Every member participated in the preparation of each case, ensuring that we could all contribute as a team during the Bowl.
PHASE 2: The Bowl
While we felt well prepared to discuss the ethical issues raised in the case studies, on the day of the competition we remained uncertain about the kinds of questions that the judges and other teams would pose. The format of the Ethics Bowl permitted only one individual at a time to respond to the judges’ and other team’s questions. While the structure was necessary for maintaining an orderly debate-style competition, we found it to be especially challenging, having prepared collectively as a team. To facilitate collaboration in this format our team wrote and shared copious amounts of notes on the specifics of the cases.

A sample of the many notes scribbled by the Brown team during the discussions
The constant movement of information among our team members provided the opportunity for each individual to respond during the series of questions. Although we hoped for a lively discussion engaging both teams, the formal structure limited interaction to dialogue between one team and the judges, with only one occasion per case for the teams to respond directly to each other.
In the course of the debates we discovered coincidentally that our style of preparation before the Bowl equipped us well for the types of issues we were called on to discuss. For example, in the second round our main case study dealt with the issue of Open Access and its implications for peer-reviewed archaeology journals. The case presented a hypothetical situation in which a U.S. Senator proposed an Open Access Act that would require all federally funded archaeological projects that published in a peer-reviewed journal to also provide a reprint of their publication online, or face strict penalties. We were asked by the judges to suggest whether the archaeologists should publicly support the Act. Our initial response considered the pros and cons of the Act, such as the risk of creating an unmanageable data dump, the rapid dissemination of scholarly research, the potential death of the peer-reviewed print journal, and the ability to reach broader publics. In response to the judges’ questions we ultimately suggested alternatives that integrated more interactivity and participation in the generation and curation of archaeological knowledge via contemporary multimedia interfaces. This discussion resonated with us in a particularly strong and personal way because the wiki had been so integral to our collective training. We used a similarly interactive media space as a way to extend the scope and timeframe of our Ethics Bowl discussions, and as a way to encourage the incorporation of diverse participants and information formats in our preparation, including audio interviews, newspaper articles, and museum exhibition reviews.
PHASE 3: Ethics as Collaboration
In one sense, it seems ironic to us that the Ethics Bowl is posed as a competition. On the one hand, the framework of the competition drove us to master the details and fine points of the issues raised in the case studies, as well as to work together as a team. But on the other hand, the practice of ethics professionally is a collaborative undertaking – a point that many teams raised throughout the day. It raises the question, Does an ethics bowl have to be competitive to be effective?
Like most ethical dilemmas, no definitive answer exists to this question. Instead, the discussion of archaeological ethics can be communicated effectively in a broad range of contexts, whether debated festively, lectured formally, or pursued collaboratively. For our team, the most resonant aspect of preparing and participating in the Ethics Bowl was the collaborative process. We especially valued the rare opportunity to gather together with our colleagues outside of formal classroom and conference settings to discuss fundamental issues of archaeological practice that transcend our individual archaeological interests and shape our discipline.

The Ethics Bowl moderators, judges, organizers and teams from Brown and the University of New Mexico after the final round
At Brown our preparations allowed us to foster new connections among students at all levels and across departments; at the SAAs we shared a common ground with the other participating teams, with whom we enjoyed lasting post-Bowl discussions. The Ethics Bowl and the preparation process created exceptionally unique collaborative learning environments that allow all involved to structure the way we think about and communicate ethics across subfields, specialty interests, and public and professional settings.
Many thanks to the organizers Julie Hollowell, Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, and Dru McGill, the teams who participated, and our stalwart coach, John F. Cherry.