'How should decisions about heritage be made?': Co-designing a research project

Lead Research Organisation: University of Leeds
Department Name: Sch of Fine Art History of Art&Cult Stud

Abstract

Decision-making about heritage is changing and changing with it are definitions of 'heritage'. New legislation in the form of the Localism Act (2011), which aims to give more decision-making powers to local communities, can be located within a wider participatory turn which is questioning professional expertise and institutional legitimacy and is having the effect of pushing the definitions, knowledge, valuing and management of 'heritage' into new areas. To set a responsive research agenda for heritage studies and policy this project will co-design (Phase 1) and co-produce (Phase 2) research through creating new connections between the knowledge and perspectives of people from a range of organizations, communities, groups and perspectives who are situated in different places within heritage decision-making.

The project Research Team will work together in the Phase 1 co-design phase through a series of iterative cycles informed by the 'extended' or 'radical' epistemology (Schon 1995) associated with participatory and systemic action research approaches (e.g. Banks et al. 2012; Burns 2007). Ideas we have drawn on relate to valuing and creating space for different ways of knowing such as experiential; presentational; propositional and practical (Heron and Reason 1997), the different ways through which 'knowing' is produced through action, interaction, experience, conceptualization and reflection (after Kolb 1984; Burns 2007, p. 34) and the productivity of feeling confident in what you know (your own perspective and opinions) as well as the productivity of a sense of 'unknowing'(Vasudevan 2011).

Our co-design process will happen through a six-step process. In Step 1 'Entry points: Initial Reflections and Conceptualizations' the team will work with the PI to individually delineate their own positions and perspectives. In Step 2 'Workshop 1: Scoping the issues' the team will meet up and use techniques of storytelling and diagramming to scope the issues which will inform the final research design. In Step 3 'New perspectives: Experiential "unknowns" and Reflection', there will be a shifting of perspectives through the innovative use of 'day a life swap' which will see team members spending a day with someone else in the team and, through this, draw on the embodied learning than comes from being in unfamiliar places and contexts. In Step 4 'Workshop 2: Making decisions about the research project' a final workshop will draw on the experiential and reflective learning of Steps 2 and 3 to underpin the co-designing of Phase 2 research and Step 5 'Write and Collaboratively Revise final plan for AHRC'. The final step, Step 6, will see the submission of the 'interim progress report'.

The Phase 1 outcomes will be the new relationships formed between team members and the development of a broader network of critical friends for the project. The Phase 1 outputs will be the Phase 2 research design itself, an 'in process' blog and website and a 2 page PDF reflecting on and capturing the co-design process.

Looking forward to Phase 2, the Phase 1 Research Team will become the management group and will oversee the research direction. Indicatively we anticipate that we may identify a small number of parallel lines of inquiry that will give us targeted insights into different issues and questions related to the project's guiding question. Drawing on a systemic approach, we might deliberately site these inquiries in different places and use them to illuminate otherwise disconnected aspects of heritage practice and decision-making. These lines of inquiry could be led by any member of the Phase 1 Research Team and certainly might well be led by members of the Research Team not based in HEIs, with support from the PI. The connections between the lines of inquiry might be drawn out in workshops which will increase the reach of engagement and bring together the Research Team and wider academic, professional and community networks.

Planned Impact

A central principle of action research is to complicate the relationship between 'research' and 'impact' and to see them as intimately connected. Drawing on Huw Davies' work, we are interested in the way in which 'new policy-relevant knowledge often come from collaborative processes that break down the distinction between roles - where technical expertise around data meets other forms of knowing rooted in experience or a sense of the possible' and the way in which 'research often has the most profound impacts [...] when it causes shifts in the language, concepts, conceptual models or frameworks that are used to define the contours of the policy landscape' (Davies 2012).

As such one of the principles of action research, especially that which takes a systemic view, is to constantly broaden out networks of peer feedback. At the heart of the Co-Design process are multiple chances - through conversations within our organizations, with each other formally through the two workshops and with our wider network of critical friends (e.g Kathy Cremin, Clore Fellow, Consultant withing with Bede's World; Nick Merriman, Manchester Museum/Chair, MA Code of Ethics; Georgina Young, Paul Hamlyn Fellow in Arts and Participation, Senior Curator, Contemporary London Museum of London) - to calibrate and recalibrate our Phase 1 design based on multiple readings of what might be relevant or carry resonance. We will track these through reflective blogs/confidential notes (depending on feedback and consent).

We have a firm impact strategy around Phase 1 in terms of learning about the process of Co-Design. We will facilitate this through active networking with the other Co-Design grant holders, an 'in-process' blog as well as a more formal University of Leeds hosted website and, at the end of Phase 1, a 2 side PDF outlining the process we went through. Indeed, we see the energy we can created around the projects as central to its success and the more people interacting with the project the stronger we will be able to make the Phase 1 design and the Phase 2 research. We will do this through actively using sector networks such as Civic Voice, Group for Education in Museums, Heritage Lottery Fund online communities, Museum Association, Museum Computer Group, Oral History Society, Royal Town Planners Institute, Social History Curators Group and NCCPE.

In terms of Phase 2, it is not possible to be definitive at this stage. However, we are in a strong position to create meaningful and targeted impact within the heritage sector and in terms of heritage policy and practice. We have a particular immediate interest in connecting in with the concurrently running HLF's community grants programme 'All Our Stories' (in partnership with AHRC). This is by no means duplication rather an opportunity to add value to both strands of funding through the reflexive and critical process outlined in this Community Co-creation and Co-design Research Development Project bid. This line of 'impact' will be facilitated by Karen Brookfield.

In designing the research in Phase 1 and indicatively in Phase 2 we will have an interest in considering influencing policy making and funders. We will do this through the inclusion in the Research Team of people actively involved in shaping policy for key organizations (National Trust; Heritage Lottery Fund). Throughout we will initiate conversations with relevant policy makers in our networks about the Phase 1 research design (Brookfield; Cowell; Courtney; Madgin). We make a commitment to track this through reflective logs where possible.

We are also planning to use Phase 1 to actively consider developing an international think tank for Phase 2, drawing on connections made by Callaghan e.g. Matt Reiley, Associate Director, Central Park Conservancy and Graham, e.g. Tracie Spinale, Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies and supplemented by deliberately building appropriate and targeted international networks.

Publications

10 25 50
 
Title Why is heritage decision making difficult? 
Description In October 2013 we held a workshop to test the our research agenda before our Phase 2 research commenced. At this workshop we worked with Scriberia to produce a live illustration of our discussion. 
Type Of Art Image 
Year Produced 2013 
Impact The image proves a powerful discussion point. It has been published in our interim booklet. It has also been used in numerous talks. 
URL http://codesignheritage.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/a-systemic-approach-to-heritage-decision-making-not...
 
Description Heritage is about what we value: places, buildings, objects, memories, cultures, skills or ways of life. So why can it be so hard to get actively involved in heritage decision-making?

Heritage becomes defined when decisions are made: what to preserve, what to show, what to think of as worth celebrating and sharing. In our research project we explored how such decisions could be opened up to democratic participation.
A Participatory Research Project

The 'How should decisions about heritage be made?' project formally began when fourteen of us gathered at Bede's World in Jarrow in March 2013. We were brought together by an innovative pilot scheme developed by the Arts and Humanities Research Council's Connected Communities programme. The Connected Communities 'Co-design and Co-creation Development Awards' scheme sought not only to enable collaborative research between researchers, policy makers, practitioners and community groups but to actively enable the collaborative development of a research agenda, from its earliest stages.

While we all had in common a shared interest in heritage and decision-making, the team was formed deliberately to draw into dialogue people from different backgrounds, positions and approaches. As you will see by how we describe ourselves, we are all situated quite differently in relationship to heritage and its decision-making processes. Some of us are leaders and shapers of policy, organisations or thinking; others of us are practitioners hoping to do good work within structures we don't control; others of us are university-based researchers seeking to find connections between thinking and doing; some of us are activists for our own histories and heritage. Many of us fall into more than one of these categories. The aim was to use our collective experiences, perspectives and positions to create a research project which might explore how to increase participation in heritage decision-making.
'Participation'?

The word 'participation' is everywhere in museums and heritage. Shifts in legislation, such as the Localism Act (2011), are just formal articulations of longer trends towards seeing individual people and groups - once imagined as an undifferentiated 'the public' - as active players in shaping their culture and places.

While the word 'participation' may often be evoked, there are number of specific challenges we've sought to engage through our research:

• What participation is: The meaning of 'participation' is often opaque and is often used far too loosely to describe attendance at events, volunteering or consultation - we wanted to tie participation to the sharper and more specific idea of 'decision-making'.
• Where participation happens: Participation is too often limited to a range of established practices (such as small display interventions) and to silos (for example, museum learning teams) - we wanted to think about participation systemically within whole organisations and places.
• How participation feels: 'Participation' is often seen as hard, painful and characterized by conflict, owing to the inequalities and exclusions it seeks to breach - we wanted to draw out the human and social ways in which we can all feel more able to influence things that matter to us.
• The politics of participation: Although celebrated in some quarters, 'participation' remains politically contested. Questions often asked are: Can direct public engagement, with decision-making, deal with complex information? Can participation be scaled to involve more than the 'usual suspects'? - we have sought to address criticisms of participation through articulating more fully our practices and through modelling alternatives.
Political questions, practical pathways

In this project we've tried to tread useful and practical pathways through these persistent challenges - this booklet shares the collective know-how of the team. We worked together in two distinctive ways. Some of the insights shared in this booklet are derived from reflecting on innovative work already undertaken by practitioners in the research team, other insights have been generated by the research experiments conducted throughout the project. Our purpose is to show how participation in heritage decision-making can be increased from wherever you work or live and whatever your position - professional, researcher or someone who cares about your own culture and place.

Our key ideas are:

Act: Make change from where you are
Connect: Cross boundaries and collaborate
Reflect: See your work through other people's eyes
Situate: Understand your work in context

These approaches are not meant to be seen in a linear way, nor as a simple cycle. They are more akin to different modes of being that could to be taken up as and when needed: sometimes you can't see enough to situate your work without acting and seeing which walls you run into and sometimes you can't connect without seeing your work another person's eyes first.
Our readers

In writing our end of project booklet and developing this website we've had an imagined reader in mind - you. You probably already care about participation in heritage and try lots of different things to make it happen. So this booklet is less about us disseminating research or telling you what we found. It is more an invitation to a conversation - so we can share what we've learnt in ways which might help you reflect on your own work. But we also offer it as an invitation to dialogue, in the hope that we can ultimately also learn from you as we develop these ideas in our own work and in future projects.
Exploitation Route We expect to develop finding which will be useful to four key groups of people:
heritage policy makers
heritage practitioners
community activists
academics working in heritage studies.
Again we will be able to report further on these key audiences by January 2014.
Sectors Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections

URL http://heritagedecisions.leeds.ac.uk/
 
Description In the summer 2015 we published our final public booklet 'How should heritage decision be made?: Increasing participation from where you are', along with a two page summary. The document includes accounts of the impact the process of involvement in the project had on the members of the extended team, which includes practitioners, policy makers and communities activists. Since then the document has been viewed over 5500 times via our website. The key ideas emerging from the research represented in the booklet have been picked up by the Heritage Lottery Fund and RSA as part of their Networked Heritage work (2016), an account of how our ideas fed in this has been written by Gareth Maeer, Head of Research & Evaluation, Heritage Lottery Fund (2016). The York strand of the project has developed into an ongoing action research project called My Future York (initially funded as Heritage + Utopia, AHRC Connected Communities Festival 2016), which is deploying, testing and developing the techniques identified for increasing partipcation in decision making at a city level. This has led to two long term and large scale public engagement projects in collaboration with the City of York Council (My Castle Gateway May 2017-; My York Central February 2018-) and is enabling the City of York Council to rethink its approaches to 'consultation'. The Science Museum co-collecting strand of work influenced the development of a sucessful AHRC bid 'Bradford's National Museum' in collboration with the National Science and Media Museum, part of the Science Museum Group (Oct 2017-September 2020). References: Maeer, G (2016) 'Networked Heritage', Available at: http://heritagedecisions.leeds.ac.uk/2016/11/09/networked-heritage/ My Future York project. Available at: http://myfutureyork.org/
First Year Of Impact 2016
Sector Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections
Impact Types Cultural,Societal

 
Description Heritage Lottery Fund Micro Grants Pilot Scheme
Geographic Reach National 
Policy Influence Type Implementation circular/rapid advice/letter to e.g. Ministry of Health
Impact The Heritage Lottery Fund has started to pilot a new initiative, based on research conducted as part of the 'How should decisions about heritage be made?' project. A key idea which emerged through with work with community groups and activists was that a small amount of money can have a big impact in catalysing heritage activity, and that HLF's current threshold for grants of £3,000 is too high for those getting involved for the first time with local heritage. Another requirement was noted that to be an organisation to be eligible for funding, with a constitution and a bank account, was a barrier. Karen Brookfield, Deputy Director of Strategy and Business Development at Heritage Lottery Fund (and a member of the research team) reflected at the end of the project: 'Funders, policy-makers and development agencies all influence how people participate in making decisions about heritage, but do we really know what's needed? You have to make time to get out, see how the system is working, talk to people on the ground and ask what they would change. Through doing just that in this project I've learnt that elements of the heritage ecology are more important than money: breaking down barriers; helping people to value their own heritage and act to give it a future; building a community of interest and creating a sense of ownership in good times as well as when there is the threat of loss. Clearly funding isn't irrelevant, but as little as £50 may be all that is needed to kick-start activity and make change happen'. (Bashforth et al. 2015: 8) In summer 2017, as part of work on HLF's next Strategic Funding Framework, Karen was able to feed this thinking - from the Heritage Decisions project - into a proposal to explore the practicalities and benefits of giving grants under £3k and giving grants to individuals as well as organisations. HLF decided to work in Barrow-in-Furness, part of one of its existing Priority Development Areas (places that have received considerably less funding than the UK average and experience multiple social disadvantages) and the location of some of Esme's research. On 9 November 2017 the initiative was launched to a wide range of community groups organisations, and local people, and HLF made the first grant within an hour. Karen sees the Barrow Pilot as an experimental initiative to inform future strategy: 'HLF is regarding this work as action research. We are taking more risks than we have so far; we are prepared for unexpected outcomes; we are prepared to fail in the interests of learning. We have external evaluators and we will feed the findings directly into shaping our funding from 2019 onwards'.
 
Description AHRC Connected Communities Festival 2014: Heritage Inquiries
Amount £12,600 (GBP)
Organisation Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) 
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 06/2014 
End 07/2014
 
Description AHRC Connected Communities Festival 2015: Visions for Community-led Heritage
Amount £5,275 (GBP)
Organisation Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) 
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 03/2015 
End 11/2015
 
Description Arts and Humanities Research Council
Amount £934,500 (GBP)
Funding ID AH/P008585/1 
Organisation Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) 
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 10/2017 
End 09/2020
 
Description Arts and Humanities Research Council Connected Communties Festival 2016: Heritages + Utopias: Possibility Thinking for Living Together
Amount £14,908 (GBP)
Organisation Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) 
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 02/2016 
End 12/2016
 
Description Bradford's National Museum: Methods for re-founding 'inter/national' museums translocally
Amount £759,777 (GBP)
Funding ID AH/P008585/1 
Organisation Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) 
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 10/2017 
End 09/2020
 
Description Heritage Legacies
Amount £100,000 (GBP)
Funding ID AH/L013193/1 
Organisation Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) 
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 02/2014 
End 01/2015
 
Description Impact Acceleration Scheme
Amount £10,740 (GBP)
Organisation Economic and Social Research Council 
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 05/2017 
End 07/2018
 
Description Pararchive: Open Access Community Storytelling and the Digital Archive
Amount £477,000 (GBP)
Funding ID AH/L007800/ 
Organisation Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC) 
Sector Public
Country United Kingdom
Start 09/2013 
End 03/2015
 
Description Connecting with the Clyde- multi-disciplinary canoe journey as part of the AHRC Connected Communities 2015 Festival 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an open day or visit at my research institution
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact This AHRC Connected Communities festival event took 11 participants on a multi-disciplinary, heritage learning journey, by canoe, down a stretch of the River Clyde, Scotland. At the arrival point they explored the heritage of Wolfclyde and met up with many more participants. On land, through multi-disciplinary approaches from archaeology to story-telling and creative artistic interventions, they explored some of the multiple heritages of Wolfclyde.

Participation
Eleven heritage adventurers spent two days canoe training with the Scottish Outdoor Education Centre at Broomlee, near West Linton in South Lanarkshire. The training up-skilled the participants and got them prepared for the canoe journey, down the River Clyde from Hardington Mains to Wolfclyde Bridge. On the day of the festival journey there were 15 canoeists. We travelled downstream for around 6km and stopped at various points on the way. At the stopping points we explored various aspects of river heritage: from story-telling of miller's daughter who drowned, to huge gravel quarries that were used to build the M74 motorway in the 1980s. When we arrived at Wolfclyde we were met by over 40 people, some local and some who had travelled from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Fife and the Borders to take part in the afternoon activities. These activities were collaborative and practice-based, and enabled participants to engage with the range of heritages at Wolfclyde. They ranged from a photographic exercise to 'capture' the heritage, to a 'sights, sounds and smells' activity on the medieval Coulter Motte, to imagine the place when it was occupied in the 12th century. Overall a total of 56 people took part during the festival.

Outcomes of evaluation
To evaluate the outcomes of the Festival event we undertook a number of surveys. The canoeists were surveyed twice: firstly before they had undergone the training and then again after the festival journey. The third evaluation was for participants who came by land and took part in the afternoon activities, they were surveyed at the end of the day. Results from the surveys of the canoeists (see appendix 1) indicated that the training had a positive impact on them, especially in terms of their improved or newly gained skills to become proficient flowing- and calm-water paddlers. This up-skilling also increased confidence levels in team working, paddling and developing methods that apply to journeys, canoes and heritage. In addition, the training and the festival event broadened participants' understanding of how other disciplines consider rivers and the multiple heritages of a river.
The responses of the afternoon participants to the survey indicated that they have an enthusiasm for river heritage, combined with an outcome that some of them are now thinking about how their discipline can develop this model of engagement with people, rivers, canoes and heritages.

Learning/reflections
As part of the festival all canoeists were asked three questions with regard to their learning and reflections. The results are incorporated into appendix 2, and indicate a range of learning points from all participants. In terms of my own reflections and learning points, I shall mention three:
• This ambitious festival event illustrated that with practice-based engagement and working across multi-disciplines, riverine heritages can be explored in diverse ways and have multiple impacts.
• Five of the participants on the canoe journey were local, including two high school pupils and their teacher. It is hoped that a re-iteration of the journey will be repeated next year, in which case I would wish to increase the number of local participants, in order to develop and broaden the public co-design, and co-production aspects of a participative project.
• As a committed Connected Communities researcher, working on a physical feature such as a river, but applying multi-disciplinary lenses to investigating it can help people to develop new ways of thinking about rivers and our entanglements with them.

Summary of feedback
Feedback is still coming in for the event, but it focuses on three areas: primarily people enjoyed the day, and they want to repeat it annually. People are discussing how we can work collaboratively to enable it to be up-scaled and take place each year, for the duration of the Discovering the Clyde programme (2015-2020). Second, the feedback is that people are keen to use some of the data that was gathered during the event (video, photography, sketches) in order to further explore their relationships with the river and its heritages. Finally, people have already collaborated to explore future projects, such as with the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership scheme and the Clydesdale Mills Society.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://discoveringtheclyde.org.uk/blog/
 
Description DIY Heritage in Minton Public Library 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Local
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact An event to encourage local people and visitors to take part in the remedial conservation clean up, photographic record and condition survey of tiles in Minton Library (Stoke-on-Trent). Local families, enthusiasts and heritage professionals have helped to remove wallpaper, wash down and photograph nearly 500 tiles. The event led to a number of follow up events (see link below) and involvement in national network, Fun Palaces: http://funpalaces.co.uk/
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://ceramiccitystories.postach.io/page/minton-library
 
Description Group for Education in Museums Conference 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Clear active engagement with the ideas in the talk. It was followed by a publication in Journal for Education in Museums (33).

The paper lead to an invitation to publish in an edited volume Engaging Communities (forthcoming 2015), eds. Onciul, Stefano, Hawke.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2013
URL http://www.gem.org.uk/pubs/journal/jemcat.html
 
Description Heritage Hit Squad: not just saving old buildings, but campaigning for better new buildings 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Local
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact Themes running through the conversations at the Heritage Hit Squad event - held as part of the Arts and Humanities Research Council's Connected Communities Festival - centered around a lack of local government interest or concern in Manchester's heritage, and the issue of current architectural commissions being poorly designed.

It was discussed whether Manchester Civic Society becoming less effective has opened up space for a new faction that could also work towards enabling communities become more aware and involved in the local issues often concealed. London Road Fire Station has gathered an army of 200 volunteers who are eager to help but have no space to train. It would be beneficial for organisations to share resources but with personal time scarce, establishing a platform to communicate these ideas is unlikely/challenging?

Save the Oxford Road Corner campaign is an example of how campaigners can work together and broadcast their goals to a wider audience through smart social network tools; however with lobbyists vying for limited funding there is often competition between groups who quite often have shared aims and are fighting against the same opponent, the Save Library Walk was successful in bringing together people from many groups because it did not need money.

Whilst councils have bowed to intimidation, not applied their authority in saving vulnerable buildings and English Heritage seemingly helpless in putting their powers to effect, the group explored if would it be more productive to campaign for better architecture? Rather than fight to stop buildings being demolished, is there a chance that we could stop bad buildings being built? Whatever the next step is for now, it's clear that a long term strategy demands to be developed to create a new model for heritage and the built environment.

Outcomes since the event:
• Groups have written guest posts for MadLab's website.
• MadLab have been championing their work more via social media in particular.
• MadLab are supporting London Road and Skyliner to get the word out about a development on "Pomona Island". See:

For more information see: http://madlab.org.uk/
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://heritagedecisions.leeds.ac.uk/2015/07/31/heritage-hit-squad-not-just-saving-old-buildings-but...
 
Description Heritage Lottery Fund workshop 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact At the workshop, members of the 'How should decisions about heritage be made?' project team share key ideas from their work, we then offered targeted provocations. We then discussed these with HLF staff. There was a high level of engagement with our ideas.

We can't report on this yet. We will update this box as the impact of our work with HLF become more clear and well developed.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2014
 
Description Keynote Europa Nostra (Turku, Finland) 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Lianne Brigham, Richard Brigham (York Past and Prsent) and Helen Graham (University of Leeds) gave a keynote talk about the York-strand of the How should heritage decisions be made? project. It led to a lot of interst in Lianne and Richard's community-based work with Facebook. As a result Helen was asked to talk part in the experts group of for the Geneva Declaration on 'Human rights and cultural heritage: committed cities working together', to be signed by the Mayor of Geneva in March 2018.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2017
URL http://www.europanostra.fi/en/forum-sharing-heritage-citizens-participating-in-decision-making/
 
Description Museums Association 'Take Your Partners' Event, 16th June 2015 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact 45 professionals attended a one day workshop hosted by the UK Museum Association. The preseatation sparked discussion and follow up email contact.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://www.museumsassociation.org/news/06052015-seminar-on-participation
 
Description Presentation to the AHRC Heritage Legacies workshop, Leeds 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact Lots of debate and discussion followed our presentation. This has helped us develop the York strand of the 'How should decisions about heritage be made?' project and to see how our work fits with emerging practice in community heritage.

It has lead to a wider network for our work within the UK - especially with other heritage projects fro the AHRC Connected Communities programme.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2014
 
Description Presentation to the Engaging Conservation Conference, York 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? Yes
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact The 'How should decisions about heritage be made?' team were represented twice. On the first day Peter Brown, York Civic Trust spoke. Helen Graham spoke on the second day. The presentations led to an involved discussion and people being signed up to our mailing list.

Helen Graham was then asked to present to the Department of Archeology York Heritage Research Seminars in October 2014. Peter Brown has an ongoing teaching relationship with the Department.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2014
 
Description Science Museum Lates 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Public/other audiences
Results and Impact We used a series of thought provoking activities to get members of the public engaged with questions of collection electronic music. The activities were fun and generated a lot of discussion. The points raised by the participants also helped us develop our thinking about the kind of criteria both museums and members of the public use for deciding on which objects museums should collect.

We used what we learned through this activity in the final phase of the Co-collecting Project, through influencing presentations to the Science Museum collections board. The discussions at the Lates event will also be a feature of our project findings.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2014
 
Description The Political of Participation, Brighton, 12th November 2014 
Form Of Engagement Activity A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact Not yet happened
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2014
 
Description Workshop (Connected Communities Festival) 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? Yes
Geographic Reach National
Primary Audience Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.)
Results and Impact Danny Callaghan and I led a workshop on the 'How should decisions about heritage be made?'. There were 35 people present - a mixture of academics and professionals. We used the session to generate contributions to our stall held as part of the Festival.

Danny digitized all of the plaques contributed and we have kept in touch with those who contacted us as part of our wider engagement strategy.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2014
URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHBgO-p0ACo
 
Description York: What has heritage ever done for us? 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Local
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact 45 people gathered to explore the question 'What has heritage ever done for us?' From this event further project work has emerged (Histories Behind the Headlines, Nov 2015) in turn leading to an AHRC Connected Communities Festival Grant (2016).

Blog: http://heritagedecisions.leeds.ac.uk/2015/07/31/what-has-heritage-ever-done-for-us-democratic-heritage-decision-making-and-heritage-for-enlivening-democracy/
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL http://heritagedecisions.leeds.ac.uk/2015/11/04/york-what-has-heritage-ever-done-for-us/
 
Description Yorkshire Museum Federation, 29th May 2015 
Form Of Engagement Activity A talk or presentation
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach Regional
Primary Audience Professional Practitioners
Results and Impact A presentation was given, drawing on case studies from the How should heritage decisions be made? project. The presentation has led to a number of follow up conversations.
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2015
URL https://www.york.ac.uk/ipup/events/conferences/exploring-communities/