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

关于遗产的决策是不断变化的，“遗产”的定义也随之改变。旨在赋予地方社区更多决策权的《地方主义法》(2011)形式的新立法可以定位于更广泛的参与性转向，这是对专业知识和机构合法性的质疑，并正在将“遗产”的定义、知识、价值和管理推向新的领域。为了为遗产研究和政策制定响应的研究议程，该项目将共同设计(第一阶段)和共同产生(第二阶段)研究，在遗产决策过程中处于不同位置的一系列组织、社区、团体和观点的人们的知识和观点之间建立新的联系。项目研究小组将在第一阶段共同设计阶段通过一系列迭代循环进行合作，这些循环由与参与性和系统性行动研究方法(如Banks等人)有关的“扩展的”或“激进的”认识论(Schon，1995)提供信息。2012年；伯恩斯2007年)。我们借鉴的想法涉及到为不同的知晓方式(如经验性的、表现性的、命题的和实践的)评价和创造空间(Heron And Reason 1997)，通过行动、互动、体验、概念化和反思产生“知性”的不同方式(在Kolb 1984之后；Burns 2007，p.34)，对你所知道的东西(你自己的观点和观点)感到自信的生产力，以及“未知”的生产力(Vasudean 2011)。我们的共同设计过程将通过六个步骤进行。在第一步“切入点：最初的反思和概念化”中，团队将与PI合作，单独描述他们自己的立场和观点。在第二步“研讨会1：确定问题的范围”中，团队将会面，并使用讲故事和绘制图表的技术来确定问题的范围，这些问题将成为最终研究设计的依据。在步骤3“新视角：经验性的”未知“和反思”中，将通过创新地使用“一天一次生活交换”来转换视角，团队成员将与团队中的其他人共度一天，并通过这一点，利用体现学习而不是来自于不熟悉的地方和环境。在步骤4“研讨会2：关于研究项目的决策”中，最后的研讨会将借鉴步骤2和步骤3的经验和反思性学习，以支持阶段2研究的共同设计和步骤5“编写和协作修订AHRC的最终计划”。最后一步，即第六步，将提交“中期进度报告”。第一阶段的结果将是团队成员之间形成的新关系，以及为该项目发展更广泛的关键朋友网络。第一阶段的输出将是第二阶段研究设计本身，一个正在进行的博客和网站，以及一个反映和捕捉联合设计过程的2页PDF。展望第二阶段，第一阶段研究团队将成为管理小组，并将监督研究方向。说明性地，我们预计我们可以确定一些平行的调查路线，使我们能够有针对性地洞察与该项目的指导问题有关的不同问题和问题。借鉴一种系统的方法，我们可能会故意将这些调查放在不同的地方，并用它们来阐明遗产实践和决策中原本互不相关的方面。这些调查工作可以由第一阶段研究小组的任何成员领导，当然也很可能由不在高等院校工作的研究小组成员领导，并得到私隐专员的支持。可以在研讨会上阐明调查路线之间的联系，这将扩大参与的范围，并将研究小组和更广泛的学术、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.