Heritage Studies

Methods and Approaches

Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, John Carman, Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, John Carman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781135249496
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Administration des musées

This is the first volume specifically dedicated to the consolidation and clarification of Heritage Studies as a distinct field with its own means of investigation. It presents the range of methods that can be used and illustrates their application through case studies from different parts of the world, including the UK and USA. The challenge that the collection makes explicit is that Heritage Studies must develop a stronger recognition of the scope and nature of its data and a concise yet explorative understanding of its analytical methods.

The methods considered fall within three broad categories: textual/discourse analysis, methods for investigating people's attitudes and behaviour; and methods for exploring the material qualities of heritage. The methods discussed and illustrated range from techniques such as text analysis, interviews, participant observation, to semiotic analysis of heritage sites and the use of GIS. Each paper discusses the ways in which methods used in social analysis generally are explored and adapted to the specific demands that arise when applied to the investigation of heritage in its many forms.

Heritage Studies is a seminal volume that will help to define the field. The global perspective and the shared focus upon the development of reflexive methodologies ensure that the volume explores these central issues in a manner that is simultaneously case-specific and of general relevance.

Part I
SETTING THE SCENE

1
INTRODUCTION
Making the means transparent: reasons and reflections

Marie Louise Stig Sørensen and John Carman

Aims and rationale

The investigation of heritage has become a distinct research area within the Arts and Humanities. We have come to recognise that heritage, in its many different forms, constitutes an influential force in society. We see it expressed, for instance, in the strong links between identity formation and heritage, in the changing valorisation of the tangible as well as intangible heritage, and the increased links between heritage and the leisure society. In response we have seen the development of Heritage Studies as an explicit area of research.

Heritage is a merging interdisciplinary field of study, and its investigation has increasingly been recognised as important by scholars, practitioners (including locally constituted groups and the ‘public’) and institutions. Investigations of heritage may thus draw on expertise from a range of other disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, architecture, art, history, psychology, sociology and tourism. Each brings a slightly different focus, whether this is a matter of ontological, epistemological or practical differences, and each has different aims and established routines. The heritage itself may also be understood differently. It may be approached purely as an object of study, or it may be seen as a means of generating income, or as part of political action or sustainable development to engender community spirit and involvement. The concern may be with its regulation or with deciphering its multifaceted characteristics and many roles. Some may see heritage as their inalienable right, while for others it is a construct; yet others see it as timeless and belonging to all.

In different ways and based on a variety of assumptions and practices, heritages play central roles in contemporary societies ranging from definitions of self and claims on identity to being a central income stream through cultural tourism. Clearly such diverse roles, meanings and appearances cannot be captured within a simple terminology but neither can we engage in their studies if it is only the conceptual and theoretical framework that is critically assessed. We also need to engage with the tools – physical, practical and intellectual – that we may employ to study these phenomena. We need to be reflexive, self-aware and critical, sensitive as well as imaginative about how we study heritage. This, moreover, relates to both how we set our intellectual agendas and how we respond to practical challenges. Meanwhile, although methods, of course, have been routinely used in Heritage Studies, there has been little methodological reflection. Heritage Studies has borrowed extensively from other disciplines, but whereas this is a reasonable, indeed a sound tactic, it does not ensure that methods are developed and adapted to the needs of Heritage Studies.

There is a growing number of volumes dedicated the discussion of the phenomenon of heritage generally (e.g. Lowenthal 1998; Smith 2004) and volumes discussing specific topics such as value (e.g. Carman 1996), or branches of heritage activities such as public archaeology (e.g. Jameson 1997; Merriman 2004), or its role in politics, including the creation of nations (e.g. Díaz-Andreu and Champion 1996). There are volumes dedicated to particular sites, such as the Acropolis (Yalouri 2001) or Great Zimbabwe (Ndoro 2001), or to places including museums (e.g. Crooke 2000). But with the exception of discussions of heritage interpretations (e.g. Uzzell and Ballantyne 1998) and the use of questionnaires (Merriman 1991) there is no volume that provides a reflection on and discussion of the range of methods that may be used in Heritage Studies. As a consequence there has been little dialogue about how heritage as a phenomenon can be investigated, and little effort has been given to clarify how our analytical procedures affect and dictate the aims and premises of research and thus shape our understanding. Key concerns that need clarification include recognition of how different methods can be used to investigate heritage, and how interpretations may be constructed from data. As more mature and diversified studies of heritage emerge it is becoming ever more important that the means through which we gain our insights are made explicit and open to scrutiny.

The aim of this volume is to respond to this lack of discussion. It will not provide an exhaustive listing or discussion of the many methods that have been or could be used – such as semiotics, discourse analysis, various forms of interview and participant observations, use of media and computer software, psycho-metric analysis, spatial or material studies, etc. – rather, it will consider and reflect on the need for methodological self-awareness based on a number of specific case studies as well as sharing the insights gained and the solutions selected in each case. Thus, the volume aims to provide a taster of the suite of methods that can be used in Heritage Studies and to illustrate their application through case studies from different parts of the world. The underlying challenge which the volume engages with is that Heritage Studies must develop a stronger recognition of the scope and nature of its data and develop a concise yet explorative understanding of its analytical methods.

The methods to be considered fall within three broad categories: textual/discourse analysis; methods for investigating people’s attitudes and behaviour; and methods aimed at exploring the material qualities of heritage. In consequence, the methods discussed and illustrated range from techniques such as text analysis, interviews and participant observation, to semiotic analysis of heritage sites and the use of GIS. Each essay discusses the use of a particular method and how it was adapted to the specific demands that arise when used to investigate a particular dimension of heritage. At the same time, while each essay in its own right provides a significant case study and reflection on methodological development, it is as a collection that their contribution becomes most distinct. Collectively the essays demonstrate the richness of the field: they show the varied dimensions of heritage that call for investigation as well as the wide-ranging and imaginative ways we can meet these needs. The global perspective and varied disciplinary and professional backgrounds furthermore ensure that the authors reflect on the methods to be used in terms of a wide range of countries and contexts. Despite their diversity the shared focus upon the development of reflexive methodologies unites the essays, and the volume aims to explore the question of heritage methodology in a manner that is simultaneously case specific and of general relevance.

Background to the volume

The volume arose out of research activities and collaborations conducted around a number of seminars and workshops in Cambridge during 2002–3 that culminated in the British Academy-sponsored conference Making the Means Transparent: Research Methodologies in Heritage Studies in the spring of 2004.¹ This means that substantial feedback and consultation have taken place between many of the authors. The aim of these events was to encourage further research and reflection on the question of heritage methodologies. During the preparation of the volume a number of additional themes were identified, as the field is expanding and methods are being introduced or further refined. In response to this, chapters were solicited from Charlotte Andrews and Matthew Fitzjohn to complement the range of approaches.

The volume is composed of five parts: an introductory part that seeks to outline some of the background to Heritage Studies, three further parts based on the different kinds of dataset that are commonly collected and analysed, and a final part that allows commentary from the perspective of some of the fields from which heritage researchers draw their inspiration. The introductory part provides the necessary context to the volume. In this chapter we outline the background to its production and explain the need for clarification and scrutiny of the methods used to investigate heritage. Chapter 2 provides an outline of heritage as a field of study in order to contextualise the need for methodological reflection and clarity. Chapter 3 helps with this contextualisation by providing a detailed account of the development of public archaeology in the US. Heritage Studies everywhere must acknowledge and respond to the needs of variously composed social groups and to variations in historical trajectories. These needs have been particularly clearly recognised in US heritage discourse and identifying and responding to the needs of different social groups, including descendent communities, are a major concern there. Overall the introductory chapters augment the call for explicit research methodologies within Heritage Studies.

The three parts that follow aim to provide detailed examples of the main research methodologies used in Heritage Studies, how they may become adjusted and implemented in response to specific research objectives and the nature of the data. Cohesion is brought to the parts through their shared focus upon a particular data source for heritage (texts, people and objects/materiality) and the methods that can be used to investigate each of them. Under each theme a range of case studies with their specific reflection and use of methods are presented. The final part consists of commentaries from two experts on social science research methodologies, each representing a distinct disciplinary background (social anthropology and environmental psychology).

Text and heritage

Although a category of ‘heritage’ can in many ways be described as the result of the production of texts – legal texts, official guidelines and indeed academic literature – there has been very little in the way of specifically textual analysis that has had major impact in the field. Carman’s (1996) analysis of law in England – utilising a methodology designed to be exportable to other territories – has largely gone unremarked, despite the significance to heritage scholars of understanding and critiquing relevant regulation. Where textual analysis has been applied, it has most commonly been in looking at popular, journalistic and tourist literature (e.g. Beck 2006). Another approach is exemplified by the recent application of critical discourse analysis to the ‘Burra Charter’ on heritage management practice in Australia (Waterton et al. 2006).

The essay by Sommer (chapter 6) demonstrates the valuable insights historical sources (exemplified by different types of publications and their contexts) can provide and how they reveal how commonly understood ideas about group identity were constructed as master narratives and how this involved the perpetuation of certain images and connotations. By contrast, Soderland and Baxter (chapters 4 and 5) focus upon the manner in which ‘official’ texts exert a strong influence on our understanding of the heritage as a contemporary phenomenon. Soderland demonstrates how US conservation law and its development can be examined with the aim of appreciating how the legal understanding of heritage was constructed, while Baxter shows how text can be used to analyse the construction of a modern heritage ‘audit’ in the UK.

People and heritage

Investigating people and their attitudes is probably one of the methods that has seen most exposure within Heritage Studies, and a few seminal publications can be identified. One is Merriman’s (1991) early discussion of the construction and use of questionnaires, which highlighted the difficulty of ensuring the validity of data. Another is Jones’s account (2004) of her participant observation work in Scotland concerning the Hilton of Cadboll cross-slab. Her study was not only particularly useful in providing insight into the experience of being a participant observer but also an inspiring example of how to use the interview data in the presentation of the data analysis.

In this volume various approaches to the study of people’s attitudes towards, recognition of and expressions about heritage in its different forms are considered. The demanding questions of how value is given and how we can analyse value ascription are illustrated through case studies that discuss and show the use of methods such as interviews and participant observation. The case studies range from assessing ways in which local people’s attitudes towards the development of tourist products in Botswana (Keitumetse, chapter 11) can be understood, to the attempt at locating how and when people construct their own sense of heritage and the experience of engagement that fieldwork demands (Andrews, chapter 8). Participant observation is also used as a method for investigating some of the motivations and outcomes for heritage tourism (Palmer, chapter 7), while various forms of interviews and in particular the use of unstructured explorative interview techniques are considered in Kersel’s chapter 10, discussing the complexity, including ethical considerations, arising from interviewing those involved in the trade in antiquities in Israel and Palestine. In chapter 9 Sørensen, based on her conversations with farmers about their attitudes to the past and its remains, focuses on interviewing as a journey of discovery and the need to pay greater attention to how we listen. McDavid (chapter 12) is also concerned with participation, but in this case with how one can conduct community archaeology in a way that involves different stakeholders as equal partners. Her essay touches on a number of methods but also includes reflections on what is demanded of the researcher or project manager.

Objects of heritage

Less attention has been given to developing methods for looking at things, monuments or landscapes as heritage. Semiotics is a potential method, but it has proved more suitable to the study of, for instance, museum exhibitions, which through their similarities to texts often provide more evident opportunities for such analysis (Macdonald 2006) than to other parts of the heritage. Two theoretical arguments, Thompson’s Rubbish Theory, which argued that objects undergo a cycle of value-devaluation and revaluation (Thompson 1979), and Appadurai’s (1986) ‘social life of things’ (or biography of objects) do, however, provide frameworks within which the changing value and roles of objects/things may be tracked and dissected. This has been applied to the field of heritage by, for instance, Carman in his discussion of categories of objects (Carman 1990).

Among newly developing methods we seem to see increased influence from wider society rather than primarily borrowing from neighbouring disciplines. There is, for instance, a distinct influence coming from development concerns, in particular through the use of heritage as a cultural resource and in terms of sustainable development. There has also been a growing involvement with public archaeology, outreach programmes and social inclusion concerns, all of which call for different understandings of what heritage can provide and thus new kinds of analysis. The use of media, in particular new types of software and the internet, is also adding and searching for entirely new qualities, ...