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

关于遗产的决策正在发生变化，“遗产”的定义也随之变化。以《地方主义法》（2011年）为形式的新立法旨在赋予地方社区更多的决策权，可以在更广泛的参与性转向中定位，这对专业知识和机构合法性提出了质疑，并将“遗产”的定义、知识、价值和管理推向了新的领域。为了为遗产研究和政策制定一个响应性的研究议程，该项目将通过在遗产决策中位于不同地方的一系列组织，社区，团体和观点的人们的知识和观点之间建立新的联系，共同设计（第1阶段）和共同制作（第2阶段）研究。项目研究团队将在第1阶段共同设计阶段通过一系列迭代周期共同工作，这些迭代周期由与参与性和系统性行动研究方法相关的“扩展”或“激进”认识论（Schon 1995）提供信息（例如Banks et al. 2012; Burns 2007）。我们所借鉴的思想涉及到为不同的认知方式（如经验的、表象的、命题的和实践的）创造价值和空间（Heron and Reason 1997），通过行动、互动、经验、概念化和反思产生“认识”的不同方式（Kolb 1984年之后;伯恩斯2007年，第34页）和对你所知道的感到自信的生产力（你自己的观点和意见）以及“未知”感的生产力（Vasudevan 2011）.我们的共同设计过程将通过六个步骤进行。在第1步“切入点：初步思考和概念化”中，团队将与PI合作，单独描述他们自己的立场和观点。在第2步“研讨会1：确定问题范围”中，团队将会面并使用讲故事和图解的技术来确定问题范围，这将为最终的研究设计提供信息。在第3步“新视角：体验“未知”和反思”中，将通过创新使用“日常生活交换”来转变视角，这将使团队成员与团队中的其他人一起度过一天，并通过这种方式，利用具体的学习而不是来自不熟悉的地方和环境。在第4步“研讨会2：对研究项目做出决定”中，最后一个研讨会将借鉴第2步和第3步的经验和反思学习，以支持第2阶段研究的共同设计和第5步“编写和协作修改AHRC的最终计划”。最后一步，第6步，将看到提交“中期进度报告”。第1阶段的成果将是团队成员之间形成的新关系，以及为项目发展更广泛的关键朋友网络。第1阶段的产出将是第2阶段的研究设计本身，一个“正在进行中”的博客和网站，以及一个反映和捕捉共同设计过程的2页PDF。展望第二阶段，第一阶段研究小组将成为管理小组，并将监督研究方向。作为指示，我们预计，我们可能会确定一些平行的调查路线，这将使我们有针对性地了解与项目指导问题有关的不同问题和问题。借鉴系统的方法，我们可以故意将这些调查放在不同的地方，并利用它们来阐明遗产实践和决策的其他方面。这些调查路线可以由第1阶段研究团队的任何成员领导，当然也可以由不在高等院校的研究团队成员领导，并得到PI的支持。调查线之间的联系可能会在研讨会上得出，这将增加参与的范围，并将研究团队与更广泛的学术，专业和社区网络聚集在一起。

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.