Assessing the Value of Community-Generated Historic Environment Research
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Assessing the value of community-generated historic environment research Final Report 2016 Assessing the Value of Community-Generated Historic Environment Research Project Report Project No: 7178 Project Name: Assessing the Value of Community-Generated Historic Environment Research HE Project reference: 7178 Authors: Rob Hedge, Community Project Officer Aisling Nash, Historic Environment Advisor Archive and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council Contributors: Su Vale, Learning and Outreach Assistant Derek Hurst, Senior Project Manager Alice Cattermole, Heritage Consultant Gillian Draper PhD FRHistS FSA, British Association for Local History Published: 18/04/2016 www.worcestershire.gov.uk/waas "While some of us debate what history is or was, others take it into their own hands" Michel-Rolph Trouillot Contents CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURES AND TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 7 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 METHODS & SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 10 1.5 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 12 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 15 3 PROJECT SCOPE .................................................................................................................................... 18 4 STUDY AREA AND CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................... 20 5 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 22 5.1 LITERATURE AND WEBSITE REVIEWS ............................................................................................................... 22 5.2 NATIONAL SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................... 22 5.3 CASE STUDIES............................................................................................................................................. 23 6 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................. 24 6.1 LITERATURE AND WEBSITE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 24 6.2 NATIONAL SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................... 32 6.3 CASE STUDIES, BY AISLING NASH & CONTRIBUTORS .......................................................................................... 73 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 88 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 92 8.1 REPORT .................................................................................................................................................... 92 8.2 CASE STUDIES............................................................................................................................................. 93 APPENDICES 1. Survey form 2. Case studies: full text 3. Case study output evaluation form and weighting criteria The raw (.csv) and summary (.ods) anonymised survey data is freely available on request from: Rob Hedge: [email protected] Aisling Nash: [email protected] Worcestershire County Council: [email protected] Dan Miles: [email protected] Note: On 1st April 2015 the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England changed its common name from English Heritage to Historic England. This document therefore contains references to publications and policies produced under both titles: these should be understood to pertain to the same organisation. Likewise, most survey responses mentioning the organisation use 'English Heritage', but refer to functions now performed by Historic England. Assessing the Value of Community-Generated Historic Environment Research Figures and Tables FIGURE 1 BARRIERS TO PUBLICATION .............................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 2 CASE STUDY AREAS.. ......................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF BALH MEMBER SOCIETIES ................................................................................... 26 TABLE 2 RESEARCH ORIGINS ........................................................................................................................... 29 TABLE 3 ONLINE VISIBILITY OF HLF-FUNDED PROJECT OUTPUTS BY REGION ................................................ 31 FIGURE 3 GEOCODED RESPONDENT LOCATIONS (N=619) ............................................................................... 33 FIGURE 4 WHICH OPTION BEST DESCRIBES YOUR GROUP OR ORGANISATION? (Q1) ..................................... 34 TABLE 4 WHICH OPTION BEST DESCRIBES YOUR GROUP OR ORGANISATION? (Q1) ..................................... 35 TABLE 5: MAIN FOCUS OF 'OTHER' RESPONSES (Q1) ...................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 5 RECURRING KEYWORDS FROM Q3 FREE-TEXT: HAS YOUR GROUP UNDERTAKEN ANY ORIGINAL HISTORICAL, HISTORIC BUILDING OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE LAST 5 YEARS? ..................... 36 FIGURE 6 IF YOU'VE UNDERTAKEN ORIGINAL RESEARCH, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING HAVE YOU CARRIED OUT? (Q7) ................................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 7 HOW MANY PROJECTS HAVE YOU UNDERTAKEN WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? (Q8) .................. 38 TABLE 6 HOW MANY OF YOUR PROJECTS HAVE PRODUCED RESEARCH OUTPUTS OR PUBLICATIONS BY YOUR GROUP OR ORGANISATION IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? (Q11) ........................................................... 39 TABLE 7 HOW MANY RESEARCH OUTPUTS, IN TOTAL, HAS YOUR GROUP OR ORGANISATION PRODUCED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? (Q12) ...................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 8 WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR CARRYING OUT YOUR RESEARCH? (Q10) ........................................ 41 FIGURE 9 DID YOU SET OUT RESEARCH QUESTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR PROJECT? (Q19) ............. 42 FIGURE 10 IF SO, HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THESE? (Q20). ...................................................................... 42 FIGURE 11 DESTINATIONS OF RESEARCH AMONG PLANNING-CONCERNED GROUPS (Q10, Q15) ................... 44 TABLE 8 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PLANNING-CONCERNED GROUPS & ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICES ............ 45 FIGURE 12 ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH RELEVANT EXISTING RESEARCH FRAMEWORKS (Q16) ........................... 46 TABLE 9 WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH RESEARCH FRAMEWORKS? ....................................................................... 47 FIGURE 13 IF YES, HAVE YOU CONSULTED THE RELEVANT RESEARCH FRAMEWORKS (WHERE THEY EXIST) IN PLANNING YOUR RESEARCH PROJECTS? (Q17) .......................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 14 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK USAGE ...................................................................................................... 49 FIGURE 15 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AWARENESS ..................................... 51 FIGURE 16 AS A GROUP, DO YOU RECEIVE SUPPORT OR ADVICE FROM ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? (Q4)........ 52 FIGURE 17 LINK ANALYSIS OF Q4 'OTHER' RESPONSES USING VOYANT TOOLS' LINKS PACKAGE ..................... 53 TABLE 10: ACTIVITIES TABULATED AGAINST SOURCES OF ADVICE AND/OR SUPPORT .................................... 54 FIGURE 18 HOW HAVE YOU FUNDED YOUR WORK? (PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) (Q9) ........................... 55 FIGURE 19 HOW HAVE YOU FUNDED YOUR WORK? GENERATED FROM Q9 FREE-TEXT COMMENTS .............. 55 FIGURE 20 TEXT LINKS ASSOCIATED WITH FUNDING. GENERATED USING VOYANT TOOLS 'LINKS' .................. 56 FIGURE 21 ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR EXTERNALLY-FUNDED RESEARCH ........................................ 56