Durham E-Theses Contemporary and Competing Vistas: Public Perceptions of Wearmouth and Jarrow LAIDLER, SOPHIE,JANE How to cite: LAIDLER, SOPHIE,JANE (2011) Contemporary and Competing Vistas: Public Perceptions of Wearmouth and Jarrow, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3253/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Contemporary and Competing Vistas Public Perceptions of Wearmouth and Jarrow Volume 2. Appendices Sophie Jane Laidler Student Number: 000471901 “The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged.” Contemporary and Competing Vistas 2 Appendices Contents continued from Volume 1: Contents: Page(s): Appendix 1: Project Time Table 8.1. Project Flow Chart 3 8.2. Project Gantt Chart 4 Appendix 2 : Ethics 9.1. Signed Ethics and Data Monitoring Form 5 9.2. Project Statement Submitted to the Department of Archaeology’s Ethic Peer 8 Review Group (26th April 2010) Appendix 3: Additional Methodological Information 10.1. Required Resources 20 10.2. Participant Information Sheets 22 10.3. Informed Consent Form (Example) 26 10.4. Session Checklists 27 10.5. Summary of Pilot Study 31 10.6. Webpage 32 10.7. Dissemination of Results 33 Appendix 4: Summary of Collected Data 11.1. Summary of Data 37 11.2. Photographic Elicitation Record 39 11.3. Drawing Elicitation Record 54 Appendix 5: Transcripts 12.1. Transcripts from Interviews and Focus Groups 63 Appendix 6: Digital Data 13.1. Description of contents of the Digital Versatile Disk 162 13.2. Digital Versatile Disk 162 Contemporary and Competing Vistas 3 Appendices Appendix 1 8. Project Plans Introduction Literature Background Ethics Review Research Methods Participants Steering Groups The Public Councils Heritage Children Teenagers Adults Academics Church Bodies Interviews Drawing Elicitation Photographic Elicitation Focus Groups Analysis Coding of Interpretation Transcripts ArcGIS of Art Work Discussion Figure 8.1. Chart which illustrates the stages of the project Figure 8.2. Project Schedule (Gantt Chart) 4 | P a g e Appendix 2 9. Ethics 9.1. Copy of the Ethics and Data Protection Monitoring Form Department of Archaeology: Ethics and Data Protection Monitoring Form Learning, teaching, research and other projects that involve human participants and/or raise other ethical issues are subject to the standards set out in the Department’s Ethical Policy (http://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology/research/ethics/ ) and the appropriate Code of Practice listed in that Policy. The Ethics Peer Review Group within the Department of Archaeology will assess research projects proposed by staff and students against the discipline’s guidelines, as indicated in the Department’s Ethical Policy . It is a requirement that, prior to the commencement of all projects, this form must be completed and submitted to the Department’s Ethics Peer Review Group (Dr Becky Gowland). The form is downloadable from Staff and Student DUO sites. The Group will be responsible for issuing certification that the project meets acceptable ethical standards and will, if necessary, require changes to the materials, methods or reporting strategy. APART FROM COMPLETING THIS FORM, PLEASE ATTACH TO THE FORM A STATEMENT OF THE MATERIALS YOU WILL BE ACCESSING FOR YOUR RESEARCH, AND THE METHODS YOU WILL BE USING SEE ( http://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology/research/ethics/ ) FOR GUIDANCE ON WHAT MIGHT BE OF RELEVANCE Name: Sophie Laidler Title of project: Contemporary and Competing Vistas: Public Perceptions of Jarrow and Wearmouth Questionnaire YES NO 1. Does your project involve living Yes IF NOT, GO TO QUESTION 10 human participants? 2. Does your project involve only the NO IF YES, GO TO QUESTION 10 analysis of large, secondary and anonymised datasets? 3a Will you give your informants a Yes If NO, please provide further written summary of your project and details and go to 3b the uses of any data that you might Contemporary and Competing Vistas 6 Appendices generate? 3b Will you give your informants a verbal Yes If NO, please provide further summary of your project and the uses details of any data that you might generate? 4. Does your work involve Yes If YES, please provide further contemporary covert surveillance (for details. example, participant observation)? See attached sheet 5a Will your information automatically be Yes If NO, please provide further anonymised in your work? details and go to 5b 5b IF NO If NO, why not? Will you explicitly give all your informants the right to remain anonymous? 6. Will monitoring devices be used Yes If NO, why not? openly and only with the permission of informants? 7. Will your informants be provided Yes If NO, why not? with a summary of your project findings? 8. Will the outcomes of your project be Yes If NO, please provide further available to informants and the details general public without authorities restrictions placed by sponsoring authorities? 9. Have you considered the implications Yes Please provide full details of your project intervention on your informants? 10. Are there any other ethical issues No If YES, please provide further arising from your project? details. Contemporary and Competing Vistas 7 Appendices Contemporary and Competing Vistas 8 Appendices 9.2. Research Ethics Information submitted to Durham University’s Department of Archaeology Research Ethics Committee [26 th April 2010]. 9.2.1. Statement of Materials and project background: This project aims to explore the diversity of contemporary perceptions of landscapes at Wearmouth and Jarrow. A snap-shot into the ways that the public, local stakeholders and the Wearmouth-Jarrow partnership perceive, use and experience hinterlands around the monasteries of St Peter and St Paul will be obtained through focus groups sessions, interviews, drawing tasks and photographic elicitation. Qualitative focus group and interview transcripts, GPS references and landscape photographs and drawings will be gathered through public engagement. In addition, a desk-based investigation will also be conducted in order to provide context to participant data. This study is the focus of a one year research masters which is funded by English Heritage. It is also a facet of the ‘One Monastery in Two Places’ project which is co-ordinated by Dr. Sam Turner and Dr. Sarah Semple and from the Universities of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne and Durham. The OMTP landscape analysis coincides with the Wearmouth-Jarrow bid for the twin monasteries of Jarrow and Wearmouth to obtain UNESCO World Heritage Status in 2011. It is intended that the results of this project will be published as an element of the OMTP landscape study and as an article in an applicable journal. 9.2.3. Methods: In this project interview, focus groups, drawing and photographic elicitation methods will be used to explore the diversity of public perceptions of Jarrow and Wearmouth’s landscapes. These methods are discussed below. In addition, steps to ensure the ethical treatment of participants throughout the data collection and dissemination periods are also outlined. Contemporary and Competing Vistas 9 Appendices Figure 9.1. A summary of participant groups and methods used to collect data. 9.2.4. Estimated number of participant Participant groups will be limited to 4 - 6 individuals. The focus groups will be kept small due to the complexity of synchronising the GPS readings to photographs in the photographic elicitation task. Groups less than 4 will not be used because this could reduce the group dynamics of the subsequent discussion (c.f. Bedford et al 2001: 121). The number of participants and focus group sessions is partially reliant upon the success of the recruitment strategies. In order to ensure that sufficient information can be colle cted, and that there is enough time to transcribe and interpret the data, a maximum of 12 focus group sessions will be arranged. Six sessions will take place in Jarrow and six focus group discussions will take place in Wearmouth . The maximum number of part icipants required for focus group sessions will be 72 individuals : 6 (max. size of focus group) x 12 (max. no. of focus groups) = 72 Contemporary and Competing Vistas 10 Appendices The minimum number of focus group sessions will be set at eight (four at Jarrow, and four at Wearmouth). Any fewer sessions will restrict our insight into the diversity of contemporary perceptions of the landscapes. Therefore, a minimum number of participants required for focus group sessions will be 32 individuals: 4 (min. size of focus group) x 8 (min. no. of focus groups) = 32 A maximum of 15 one-to-one interviews will take place in order to gain a good sample which can be appropriately analyzed. A minimum number of interviews will be set at 8 to ensure enough data can be gathered. To conclude, a maximum of 87 participants and a minimum of 40 participants will be required for this study. 9.2.5. Participant recruitment Semi-random sampling techniques will be used to recruit participants who will be contacted through gate-keepers and subsequent snow-balling strategies (c.f.