11th June 2011, 10:05 AM
Excellent read. I especially enjoyed and agreed with this.
The recommendations for visions 3.1.9 and 3.1.10 regarding partnership and public participation are very narrowly focussed towards the profession, giving the impression of a condescending “top down” approach. One of the weaknesses of the heritage profession in this area has been an inability
to both adequately listen to, and communicate with, the wider public and our partnership organisations. The recommendations within this section refer heavily to organisations such as the IfA, ALGAO, IHBC and English Heritage – bodies which by and large have a poor visibility with the
wider public (beyond obviously EH’s role as a manager of historic sites open to the public for tourism). An enforcement of complex professionalism on the wider public by these bodies is not likely to be successful – particularly when it is focussed on Government policy (recommendation 3), standards documents (recommendation 4), or formal training programmes (recommendation 5).
This sort of approach would be better suited to members of the profession and whilst it is recognised that these specific recommendations largely deal with the profession, such an approach can surely only alienate the wider public. At the very least within these recommendations, RESCUE would have hoped to see a commitment to the creation of a proper focus or discussion group, comprising a number of members of alternative professions that have had considerably more success in attracting and involving the wider public. The green lobby has for example, succeeded in galvanising public support and participation in a way that the heritage lobby cannot begin to match, as have the performing arts. Neither of these sectors appear to see the need to provide training for the public on Government policy documents. The heritage profession should be looking for parallels with these areas, and look to take serious note of the practices, principles and projects where they have succeeded – and where we have demonstrably failed.
:face-huh:
The recommendations for visions 3.1.9 and 3.1.10 regarding partnership and public participation are very narrowly focussed towards the profession, giving the impression of a condescending “top down” approach. One of the weaknesses of the heritage profession in this area has been an inability
to both adequately listen to, and communicate with, the wider public and our partnership organisations. The recommendations within this section refer heavily to organisations such as the IfA, ALGAO, IHBC and English Heritage – bodies which by and large have a poor visibility with the
wider public (beyond obviously EH’s role as a manager of historic sites open to the public for tourism). An enforcement of complex professionalism on the wider public by these bodies is not likely to be successful – particularly when it is focussed on Government policy (recommendation 3), standards documents (recommendation 4), or formal training programmes (recommendation 5).
This sort of approach would be better suited to members of the profession and whilst it is recognised that these specific recommendations largely deal with the profession, such an approach can surely only alienate the wider public. At the very least within these recommendations, RESCUE would have hoped to see a commitment to the creation of a proper focus or discussion group, comprising a number of members of alternative professions that have had considerably more success in attracting and involving the wider public. The green lobby has for example, succeeded in galvanising public support and participation in a way that the heritage lobby cannot begin to match, as have the performing arts. Neither of these sectors appear to see the need to provide training for the public on Government policy documents. The heritage profession should be looking for parallels with these areas, and look to take serious note of the practices, principles and projects where they have succeeded – and where we have demonstrably failed.
:face-huh: