INVITATION TO APPLY TO PARTICIPATE IN HERITAGE EXCHANGE 2014
Heritage Exchange (London, 14-15 July 2014) will bring together heritage sector leaders and thinkers to discuss the most pressing challenges and opportunities for heritage now and in the future. Organised by the Heritage Lottery Fund, in partnership with the Royal Society for the Arts, Heritage Exchange is a major thought-leadership event, focusing on new ways of working in a radically different economic and public funding environment. With national and international speakers, the conference aims to champion the resilience and sustainability of heritage, helping the sectors HLF supports to develop new ways of working to survive and thrive, and to learn from each other.
Participation in Heritage Exchange is by invitation and the Heritage Lottery Fund would like to extend this invitation to 10 Postgraduate/Early Career Researchers interested in the economic, social or cultural value of heritage, its uses and its future. This is a fantastic opportunity to contribute fresh perspectives, which have the potential to influence future directions for heritage.
The Conference
Date: Monday 14th & Tuesday 15th July 2014
Approximate timings: 4.30pm - 6.30pm on Monday followed by drinks reception until 8pm; 9am - 5pm on Tuesday.
Venue: LSO St Luke’s, Old Street, London EC1
The Programme
Day 1 will examine the new landscape for heritage through a series of provocations by thinkers and researchers in different heritage arenas.
Day 2 will consist of three sessions:
• Re-imagining heritage – a discussion on the scope for new partnerships based on the contribution heritage can make to core local economic and social goals; supported by new research from the RSA.
• Heritage and the creation of place – the view from elected leaders and entrepreneurs on how heritage can better serve the future of cities, towns and communities.
• The business of heritage – exploring new business models and ways of working; supported by new research from New Philanthropy Capital.
Speakers and panellists include
UK
o Stephen Bediako, Centre for London
o Gillian Tett, Assistant Editor, Financial Times
o John Holden and Robert Hewison, DEMOS
o Sir Peter Bazalgette, Chair of Arts Council England
o George Ferguson, Mayor of Bristol o Baroness Kay Andrews, author of Culture and Poverty
o Loyd Grossman, Chair of Heritage Alliance
o Professor Nick Groom, University of Exeter
o Sir Laurie Magnus, Chair of English Heritage
o Anna Minton, author and former journalist
o Matthew Taylor, Director of the RSA
International
o Bob McNulty, Founder and President of Partners for Liveable Communities, USA
o Mikhail Gnedovsky, Director, Cultural Policy Institute, Moscow
o Desmond Hui, Non-Executive Director of the Urban Renewal Authority, Hong Kong; Managing Director of Culture & Development Consultancy Ltd
How to apply
HLF would like to invite up to 10 postgraduate/Early Career Researchers to attend the conference to engage with the issues of relevance to their research.
Attendees will be encouraged to actively participate and engage with the conference proceedings and produce a post-conference reflection to help inform ongoing dialogue with the sector and to contribute to future policy and direction. This could be in the form of a blog or a short paper.
We are able to offer an expenses bursary of up to £100 on provision of receipts.
Applications should be emailed to ecr@hlf.org.uk to arrive by 12 noon on Friday 9 May.
Successful applicants will be informed by email by 31 May and sent an invitation to register for the conference through the event-brite booking system.
Places will be offered on the basis of relevance to research interests. We also seek to fund participants from a range of academic disciplines and universities across the UK.
For enquiries, please telephone Liz Girling on 029 20 234148
Thursday 24 April 2014
Wednesday 16 April 2014
Overview: Afternoon Workshop 07-04-2014
The afternoon
workshop session, on the theme of 'Cultural Policy-Cultural Politics'
was led by Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City
University London) and Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and
Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds). Both have been involved in
the Connected Communities Research Programme,
and they are currently working together on the Connecting
Epistemologies strand. The session started with an introduction to Dave
and Helen's respective work.
Dave spoke about the research he carried out while working on the DCMS's Measuring the Value of Culture programme, which has informed the topic of his first book, Cultural Policy: Management, Value & Modernity in the Creative Industries. He contrasted this experience, working among policy elites, with the grassroots approaches to arts engagement employed in one of his current projects, 'Cultural intermediation: connecting communities in the creative urban economy'.
Helen spoke about her project 'How should decisions about heritage be made?', with reference to the Stonebow House case study.
Stonebow House
Who used to use the site?
Who uses it now?
What would we like to use it for in the future?
How can all of us make a good decision?
What do we need to know?
Who needs to be involved?
Because in the case of Stonebow House there will be a ‘decision’, there needs to be:
Democratic understanding of knowledge,
Use of conversation and networking,
Leading to public constituency for more democratic decision.
She demonstrated the complex network of decision makers and agencies implied in the case of Stonebow, using the mapping software Coggle:
Participants (who had been split into groups based on shared research interests) were then asked to develop their own impact plan:
How might you position your research?
How does it relate to ‘policy’ and ‘politics’?
Who are the key actors and networks you might interact with?
Where/when are key decision making points?
How will you know if you’ve been successful?
What is your theory of how your research leads to social and political change?
What kinds of ways of knowing might prove effective in different contexts?
Time was allocated at the end for feedback from the group discussions. Issues that emerged related to the importance of organisational processes and personal relationships for influencing policy (one group asked the question, 'can you systematise a personal relationship?'), the difficulty of translating academic language into policy language, and local vs. national perspectives on cultural policy.
Dave spoke about the research he carried out while working on the DCMS's Measuring the Value of Culture programme, which has informed the topic of his first book, Cultural Policy: Management, Value & Modernity in the Creative Industries. He contrasted this experience, working among policy elites, with the grassroots approaches to arts engagement employed in one of his current projects, 'Cultural intermediation: connecting communities in the creative urban economy'.
Helen spoke about her project 'How should decisions about heritage be made?', with reference to the Stonebow House case study.
Stonebow House
Who used to use the site?
Who uses it now?
What would we like to use it for in the future?
How can all of us make a good decision?
What do we need to know?
Who needs to be involved?
Because in the case of Stonebow House there will be a ‘decision’, there needs to be:
Democratic understanding of knowledge,
Use of conversation and networking,
Leading to public constituency for more democratic decision.
She demonstrated the complex network of decision makers and agencies implied in the case of Stonebow, using the mapping software Coggle:
Participants (who had been split into groups based on shared research interests) were then asked to develop their own impact plan:
How might you position your research?
How does it relate to ‘policy’ and ‘politics’?
Who are the key actors and networks you might interact with?
Where/when are key decision making points?
How will you know if you’ve been successful?
What is your theory of how your research leads to social and political change?
What kinds of ways of knowing might prove effective in different contexts?
Time was allocated at the end for feedback from the group discussions. Issues that emerged related to the importance of organisational processes and personal relationships for influencing policy (one group asked the question, 'can you systematise a personal relationship?'), the difficulty of translating academic language into policy language, and local vs. national perspectives on cultural policy.
Tuesday 15 April 2014
Group Discussion - Issues Raised by Morning Session 07-04-2014
Below are the photographs taken of the group discussion, following the panel session:
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
Friday 11 April 2014
Panel Overview: Morning Session 07-04-2014
We started the day with a ‘Question Time’ style discussion based on theme of researchers’ roles in participatory decision-making, with Chair Leila Jancovich and panellists:
* Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London)
* Karen Brookfield (Deputy Director of Strategy and Business Development, Heritage Lottery Fund)
* Helen Featherstone (Senior Officer, Engagement & Audience, Arts Council England)
* Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)
Here's a summary of the responses to the questions.
1. What are the challenges involved in facilitating participatory decision-making without influencing the outcome? (Sarah Harvey Richardson)
Responses - consider approaches that negotiate within the process itself, perhaps it's not so much a question of influence if you can be led by the decision-making process rather than by the decision. On the other hand, some parameters can be useful, as long as they don't exert an undue influence e.g. Disability guidelines might inform decisions about text size in participatory projects like collaborative exhibitions. It is a difficult issue to negotiate since there is often pressure within larger organisations to engage in tokenistic participation, suggesting that often the outcome has already been decided. Sometimes it can be difficult to engage people on policy/decision-making questions.
Questions raised - Is there such a thing as cultural policy? How is it to be defined? Is it possible that participatory approaches have a greater chance of success if you ask people to engage with something they have a strong connection to, e.g. Place?
2. If we are striving for a collaborative environment in which researchers and policy makers work together in cultural decision-making, how do we ensure that the practitioners and artists who deliver the culture are not excluded from this process? What platform do you consider the best upon which to give them a voice? (Niki Black)
Responses - There is a problem when a strong dialogue between elites becomes exclusionary, and decisions are taken without involving other stakeholders. Do artists constitute one such elite? Perhaps, when they are well established but not early on in their careers. Just as researchers and policy makers should be able to work together, so too should practitioners be able to contribute (without occupying a privileged position). Scale is important when considering how best practitioners and artists can contribute to policy/projects. Maybe for smaller scale community projects (which perhaps involve a commissioned artwork) it's more important.
3. When the timing of research and policy-making are so different, how can researchers ensure that their work doesn't get 'left behind' by the speed of the policy making process? (Bethany Rex)
Responses - One way of thinking through the implications of research is as effecting change as part of the process (see above, research that negotiates within the process itself and is practice-led). However, while potentially beneficial, policy usefulness is not the main criteria ECRs will be judged on so it is important not to try and base the value of your research on that. If there are organisations who you want to collaborate with, be proactive about contacting them but try to ensure you use policy friendly language, i.e. cultivate a clear, non-academic writing style.
4. What is the difference, if any, between 'participation' and 'co-production'? (Claire Forbes)
Responses - Participation implies clear authorship or ownership of a project on one side, whereas (the modern usage of) co-production suggests a more equitable relationship between two parties. However, definitions are often contested and it is important to clearly define the terms in your projects/research from the outset (e.g. participation, co-production).
5. The UK model for public subsidy of cultural organisations has come under serious pressure since the last general election. Political priorities have changed and the economic case for the arts is under question. But to what extent do these changes reflect a loss of connection between the British public, in whose name policy is made, and the cultural sector? What can the sector do to revitalise its public mandate? (Jon Price)
Responses - There is a continuity in funding models which perpetuates exclusion, i.e. the largest organisations often get the largest share of funding, so opera, ballet and theatre, which appeal to a relative minority receive disproportionate funds. There is an issue of principles vs. practice here; the hypothetical willingness to fund different types of cultural activity to encourage engagement, vs. what is actually funded.
6. If a 'bottom up' approach to identifying heritage and planning conservation require facilitation skills, what might be the value of the heritage experts skills in archaeology, art history and architecture etc? (Sophie Norton)
Responses - The expertise of heritage professionals can be of great value in a combined approach to planning; it's a case of bringing expertise and know how (the knowledge of different groups and communities) together. Different levels and strands of knowledge can enhance project outcomes, and several current projects (see, e.g., Arts Council England) adopt this approach.
7. Could the panel suggest, perhaps based on their own work, what have been some of the most effective ways to connect participatory modes of research to the making of policy interventions and organizational change? What strategies have you yourselves employed? (Jon Gross)
Responses - While it's often easier said than done, trying not reinvent the wheel is important; participatory models should not be used for the sake of it. Projects that involve participatory decision-making are often hard to negotiate in terms of geography and communication, and the potential for disaster is quite high in adopting this kind of approach. However, it is again a question of scale; while it may be difficult to scale up to a national level, at the level of local government, there can be positive outcomes from participatory approaches (representational democracy model).
* Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London)
* Karen Brookfield (Deputy Director of Strategy and Business Development, Heritage Lottery Fund)
* Helen Featherstone (Senior Officer, Engagement & Audience, Arts Council England)
* Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)
Here's a summary of the responses to the questions.
1. What are the challenges involved in facilitating participatory decision-making without influencing the outcome? (Sarah Harvey Richardson)
Responses - consider approaches that negotiate within the process itself, perhaps it's not so much a question of influence if you can be led by the decision-making process rather than by the decision. On the other hand, some parameters can be useful, as long as they don't exert an undue influence e.g. Disability guidelines might inform decisions about text size in participatory projects like collaborative exhibitions. It is a difficult issue to negotiate since there is often pressure within larger organisations to engage in tokenistic participation, suggesting that often the outcome has already been decided. Sometimes it can be difficult to engage people on policy/decision-making questions.
Questions raised - Is there such a thing as cultural policy? How is it to be defined? Is it possible that participatory approaches have a greater chance of success if you ask people to engage with something they have a strong connection to, e.g. Place?
2. If we are striving for a collaborative environment in which researchers and policy makers work together in cultural decision-making, how do we ensure that the practitioners and artists who deliver the culture are not excluded from this process? What platform do you consider the best upon which to give them a voice? (Niki Black)
Responses - There is a problem when a strong dialogue between elites becomes exclusionary, and decisions are taken without involving other stakeholders. Do artists constitute one such elite? Perhaps, when they are well established but not early on in their careers. Just as researchers and policy makers should be able to work together, so too should practitioners be able to contribute (without occupying a privileged position). Scale is important when considering how best practitioners and artists can contribute to policy/projects. Maybe for smaller scale community projects (which perhaps involve a commissioned artwork) it's more important.
3. When the timing of research and policy-making are so different, how can researchers ensure that their work doesn't get 'left behind' by the speed of the policy making process? (Bethany Rex)
Responses - One way of thinking through the implications of research is as effecting change as part of the process (see above, research that negotiates within the process itself and is practice-led). However, while potentially beneficial, policy usefulness is not the main criteria ECRs will be judged on so it is important not to try and base the value of your research on that. If there are organisations who you want to collaborate with, be proactive about contacting them but try to ensure you use policy friendly language, i.e. cultivate a clear, non-academic writing style.
4. What is the difference, if any, between 'participation' and 'co-production'? (Claire Forbes)
Responses - Participation implies clear authorship or ownership of a project on one side, whereas (the modern usage of) co-production suggests a more equitable relationship between two parties. However, definitions are often contested and it is important to clearly define the terms in your projects/research from the outset (e.g. participation, co-production).
5. The UK model for public subsidy of cultural organisations has come under serious pressure since the last general election. Political priorities have changed and the economic case for the arts is under question. But to what extent do these changes reflect a loss of connection between the British public, in whose name policy is made, and the cultural sector? What can the sector do to revitalise its public mandate? (Jon Price)
Responses - There is a continuity in funding models which perpetuates exclusion, i.e. the largest organisations often get the largest share of funding, so opera, ballet and theatre, which appeal to a relative minority receive disproportionate funds. There is an issue of principles vs. practice here; the hypothetical willingness to fund different types of cultural activity to encourage engagement, vs. what is actually funded.
6. If a 'bottom up' approach to identifying heritage and planning conservation require facilitation skills, what might be the value of the heritage experts skills in archaeology, art history and architecture etc? (Sophie Norton)
Responses - The expertise of heritage professionals can be of great value in a combined approach to planning; it's a case of bringing expertise and know how (the knowledge of different groups and communities) together. Different levels and strands of knowledge can enhance project outcomes, and several current projects (see, e.g., Arts Council England) adopt this approach.
7. Could the panel suggest, perhaps based on their own work, what have been some of the most effective ways to connect participatory modes of research to the making of policy interventions and organizational change? What strategies have you yourselves employed? (Jon Gross)
Responses - While it's often easier said than done, trying not reinvent the wheel is important; participatory models should not be used for the sake of it. Projects that involve participatory decision-making are often hard to negotiate in terms of geography and communication, and the potential for disaster is quite high in adopting this kind of approach. However, it is again a question of scale; while it may be difficult to scale up to a national level, at the level of local government, there can be positive outcomes from participatory approaches (representational democracy model).
Tuesday 8 April 2014
7 April Workshop Photos
Thanks again to our speakers, participants and to everyone that helped to make the workshop possible.
 |
| Post Panel Discussion 1 |
 |
| Post Panel Discussion 2 |
 |
| Post Panel Discussion 3 |
 |
| Afternoon Workshop with Helen and Dave |
Friday 4 April 2014
Participation & Engagement in the Arts Network
Leeds Metropolitan University run the Knowledge Exchange Network and a series of seminars exploring key issues in participation and engagement in the arts across the North of England.
The project is coordinated by Leila Jancovich, Senior Lecturer in Cultural Policy, Arts and Festivals Management and Professor Franco Bianchini from the Cultural Planning and Policy Unit in the School of Cultural Studies.
The Network creates opportunities for knowledge exchange between cultural researchers, policy makers, managers and practitioners, from across the North of England, to debate key issues around cultural development generally and participation and engagement in particular.
For further information, please visit:
http://www.participationandengagement-arts.co.uk/
This is an Arts Council England-commissioned project.
The project is coordinated by Leila Jancovich, Senior Lecturer in Cultural Policy, Arts and Festivals Management and Professor Franco Bianchini from the Cultural Planning and Policy Unit in the School of Cultural Studies.
The Network creates opportunities for knowledge exchange between cultural researchers, policy makers, managers and practitioners, from across the North of England, to debate key issues around cultural development generally and participation and engagement in particular.
For further information, please visit:
http://www.participationandengagement-arts.co.uk/
This is an Arts Council England-commissioned project.
Wednesday 2 April 2014
Final Programme - 7 April
Participation and Cultural Policy Decision-making Workshop
7 April 2014
10:00-10:30 - Registration, coffee
10:30-10:40 - Welcome and Introduction, Liz Stainforth, Workshop Organiser (University of Leeds)
10:40-12:10 - Panel Session, Leila Jancovich (Chair), Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London), Karen Brookfield (Deputy Director of Strategy and Business Development, Heritage Lottery Fund), Helen Featherstone (Senior Officer, Engagement & Audience, Arts Council England), Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)
12:10-13:00 - Group Discussion
13:00-14:00 - Lunch break
14:00-16:00 - Cultural Policy-Cultural Politics: Workshop Session, Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London) and Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)
16:00-16:30 - Closing Comments: Where Next? Alice Borchi, Workshop Organiser (University of Warwick)
------------
16:30-18:30 - Wine reception in the School of Fine Art, History of Art and Cultural Studies
AHRC Collaborative Skills Development project hosted by the Centre for Critical Studies in Museums, Galleries & Heritage, University of Leeds, Leeds Metropolitan University and the University of Warwick.
7 April 2014
10:00-10:30 - Registration, coffee
10:30-10:40 - Welcome and Introduction, Liz Stainforth, Workshop Organiser (University of Leeds)
10:40-12:10 - Panel Session, Leila Jancovich (Chair), Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London), Karen Brookfield (Deputy Director of Strategy and Business Development, Heritage Lottery Fund), Helen Featherstone (Senior Officer, Engagement & Audience, Arts Council England), Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)
12:10-13:00 - Group Discussion
13:00-14:00 - Lunch break
14:00-16:00 - Cultural Policy-Cultural Politics: Workshop Session, Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London) and Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)
16:00-16:30 - Closing Comments: Where Next? Alice Borchi, Workshop Organiser (University of Warwick)
------------
16:30-18:30 - Wine reception in the School of Fine Art, History of Art and Cultural Studies
AHRC Collaborative Skills Development project hosted by the Centre for Critical Studies in Museums, Galleries & Heritage, University of Leeds, Leeds Metropolitan University and the University of Warwick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)