Connected Communities - Heritage Community Partner Legacy Workshop

Report

based on the Workshop held at the Y Theatre Leicester – December 15th 2014

Authors: David Devanny, Nick Higgett and Jenny Wilkinson

Organised by the Connected Communities Heritage Network

www.hertitagenetwork.dmu.ac.uk

Page 1

IntroductionThe Heritage Community Partnership Legacy Workshop was a full day workshop for heritage community partners working with Connected Communities projects. It took place on 15th December 2014 and included thirty-four community partners from twenty-one community groups. The day was facilitated by the Connected Communities Heritage Network on behalf of Professor Keri Facer (Leadership Fellow for the AHRC/RCUK Connected Communities Programme) and Dr Bryony Enright (Connected Communities Researcher) and hosted at the Y Community Theatre (which is not affiliated to a university or research institution). The aims of the day were to explore ideas of legacy and heritage with regards to the projects, and to share feedback on the collaborative relationship with research partners. Community partners were encouraged to share their views through a programme of sessions facilitated by Jennifer Wilkinson, (Director, Goodman Wilkinson Associates) which involved collage, drawing and writing practices, alongside more traditional discussions. An outline of the day is provided in Appendix 1. Feedback was recorded in a variety of forms throughout the day; outputs include a set of illustrations (provided by Scriberia) and photographs (see appendices), and this written report.

Looking Back - What Have We Done – Our StoryThe first part of the day focussed on evaluating the projects; community partners (CPs) were encouraged to share the stories of their projects, including what had and had not gone well. A consensus was quickly established among all groups around the importance of (and a shared passion for) community heritage projects. Many CPs attributed the value of these projects, to an identification of culture and heritage as overarching categories for community and people. As one CP explained: “At

Page 2

the centre of all our projects were the people in the communities. Even projects which might sound, on face value, like they were about architecture or industry, ultimately turned out to be about people.” Another delegate explained there were many different fruitful connections to be made: “Under the rubric of ‘Heritage’ there is such a wide spectrum”. Some of the most positive feedback noted that the CC projects had created new communities and broken down boundaries: “what we are most proud of is that we have created communities; the grant may be over but the community continues.”

Overall the feedback on CC funding was very positive; in particular numerous CPs explained the difference that funding had made to their work (e.g. “to have funding for this kind of work is fantastic”) although some found that “the constraints of this funding can be a challenge, especially for creative projects”, and some of the finance processes can be slow and complicated (there were also issues raised about the continuation of funding – see page 4 for further details). There was a general positive attitude to working with Universities (or other research institutions) too, which were in most cases reported to be supportive and exciting relationships. “Relationships with the University are fantastic: dynamic and exciting... ongoing and collaborative.” This relationship was noted to be useful in two main areas: in the creation of networking opportunities (“creation of networking opportunities very positive”, “the benefits of networking beyond my area, county and comfort zone”) and in the support and development of skills (digital, video, archiving etc.). Indeed many CPs emphasised how useful the project overall (the imperative, the funding and the university support)

had been for the development of skills.

Attitudes towards digital technologies and heritage were

Page 3

more mixed. Most delegates agreed there were some real positives to digital archiving, “we’re in a much better place nowadays for recording history – advances in technology and graphic media is changing the nature of history and heritage; this media is potentially leaving us with unprecedented detail”. But there were also some real issues detailed, including for instance not really knowing what media will endure (e.g. microfiche, and floppy disks) and while some CPs had been supported by the universities to develop digital skills, others reported they had struggled to develop these digital skills and this was certainly the main priority going forward.

There were also some very practical suggestions made to address some of the communications problems which sometimes arise when working across communities, including: “plan the project collaboratively from the start”, “always ask for the very specific thing that you want”, “there are cultural differences in communication and expectations”.

Exploring LegacyEach table group was asked to generate and present a collage (from

visual materials provided such as newspaper and magazine cuttings which explored the difference their projects had made. See Appendix 2. One group felt that “Community Heritage is a never-ending story. These projects bring together a whole host of

different characters and create new communities which cross divides.” For almost all the delegates ‘legacy’ closely related to heritage’ was considered an intrinsic part of their projects. “Legacy is key – the project looks back in time and leaps into the future; managing this is difficult, a lot of it is about skill learning, digital literacy, sharing skills.” Or in other

Page 4

words “the function of heritage is to pass the learning of history through a sustainable legacy created for future generations; that this is done sustainably (long term) is the key.” If there was one concern that consistently came to the fore it was how to ensure a legacy. Many CPs described their project as a journey or a river, which had a life force necessarily extending beyond the scope of the funding. However, there were many concerns raised about continuing and sharing the work after the funding stops; passing the work on was seen as a cultural imperative, without which one could feel “as though my work had been undermined.”

Several suggestions were made to address the issue of continuing legacy:

- Projects should have specified deadlines for research outputs- There should be some real funding for dissemination including “for

performances, public installations and workshops in schools”- “Institutions need to make legacy real regarding the legacy for the

community (not just paying lip service to Connected Communities)” - Taking seriously “hospitality and friendship” when dealing with

“oral history and community stories”- Being aware that the “intergenerational passing of knowledge can

be very specific”, which might mean creating a “localised not necessarily a national knowledge” or “a less centralised textured knowledge” and finding the right audience for it.

- Broadening the criteria for funding e.g. “art and heritage can overlap” so sometimes the funding streams can be inadequate

- Strengthening relationships with research partners to continue the good work, and specifically to improve use of digital resources

Page 5

- Continued community access to heritage resources (e.g. university libraries, archives)

- Finding ways to bring in more money (not necessarily as much – but enough to sustain a certain amount of activity)

My Role As The Community PartnerCPs were asked individually to express their role via a diagram or words. (See Appendix 3) They then reported back that their roles in CC projects (and in general) were complex and varied (“it is a very complex role”, “it can be what you make of it”). Some delegates considered their role to be “analogous to that of a custodian” (in a number of different ways, from broader ideas of heritage and the community to mode specific artefacts, data and resources e.g. photos). There was a strong sense that CPs are “playing a role in the making of history”. The most positive CPs were those who felt like they were co-collaborators with their university or research institution; working together as researchers was important to many: “the relationship was ongoing and collaborative and in general not hierarchical or patronising”. However some CPs did not feel as though they had this co-researcher status and warned that some academic research partners need to be very sensitive to “the difference between being researched on or with”. In particular there were concerns raised over intellectual property, and the treatment of ‘personal stories’ as data or research outputs (“personal stories can be very difficult, is their academic treatment OK?”). It was noted that in the projects where the relationships were strong, the research partners had put resources (including access to facilities for instance) into developing the research skills and opportunities for the CPs.

Page 6

What Next? Hopes And Aspirations???In this final activity CPs were asked to consider what could or should happened in the future. They were asked to record their ideas on labels attached to ‘Baubles of Aspiration’ which were the hung on a tree. These can be seen in Appendix 4

Here are some examples:

What have you learned? (Green) How absorbing research can be and how open-ended Benefits of networking beyond my area, county etc (and beyond

my comfort zone) That you can crowd source history Projects with a finite ending-deadline, method of showing

research seem to leave participants with more satisfaction

What would you do differently next time? (Gold) Next time delegate more and trust in the team Plan the project collaboratively from the start – not just catch up Encourage more volunteers to become involved Publicise project more widely

Future plans (Red) To use the output of the project in schools and other community

projects (even though it has ended – legacy) Performance linked to people buried in the cemetery, with local

actors, writers and costume designers To stop! To share what we have learnt On-line archive of local songs from around the world

What do you need to move forward? (Silver)

Page 7

More people involved in our group. This project required so much commitment that only a few of us stuck it out!

Money, but not exactly in the amounts stated in the fund offers eg: 3K minimum for WW1 projects. We don’t need/want that much

Money (we won’t work for money – realistically) Professional help/advice support is using digital media to

support and promote recruit participants from the wider community

ConclusionsIn general CPs reported positive experiences of their CC projects and the relationships they had with their research partners (in particular in providing opportunities and developing skills). There were strong concerns raised about digital technologies, which were seen as one of the gateways to ensuring legacy, but felt that a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on digital literacy. There was a strong sense that community heritage work is of value and steps should be taken to ensure it continues; there were many concerns about legacy and sustainability of the projects beyond the short term funding and some recommendations were made towards addressing this:

1. The outputs should be varied, and have very specific deadlines and dedicated funding from the outset.

2. Communities should be supported, with hospitality and friendship extending beyond the research outputs. Continued community access to heritage resources (e.g. university libraries, archives, digital skills sessions) would be extremely valuable.

3. Funders and institutions need to be sensitive to local needs, agendas and knowledge.

4. There is a need for a fund for smaller amounts of money, to keep projects going.

Page 8

Page 9

Appendix 1: Workshop Overview

Heritage Community Partner Legacy WorkshopProgramme Overview

11.00 ArrivalRegistration, networking, coffee and muffins

11.30 Welcome

11.40 Looking Back – What Have We Done – Our StoryInteractive groups: sharing stories, discussing outcomes, looking at what went well and what got in the way, what didn’t work.

12.30 Lunch

13.30 Exploring LegacyInteractive groups, identifying impact, discussing transformation, legacy, the changes your project has made and the impression the project has left.

14.30 My Role as a Community PartnerExploring the role of the community partner during the project, reflecting on what your role was like in reality and your relationship with others involved in the project such as your University partners.

15.15 Tea and Cake

15.45 What Next/ Hopes and AspirationsBuilding on the project and moving forward. What have you learned from this project and how will this influence what you do in the future? What opportunities are on the horizon and how can you benefit from them?

16.30 Closing Comments

16.40 Break (completion of survey)

17.00 Drinks ReceptionTime to relax with live Music – Rafiki Jazz

19.00 Event Finish

Page 10

Appendix 2: Collages

Page 11

Page 12

Appendix 3: My Role Illustrations

Page 13

Page 14

Appendix 4: Baubles of Aspiration!

Page 15