WP2: Development and Elaboration of the Strategic Research...

1

JHEP - Coordination action in support of the implementation of a Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage and Global Change :

a new challenge for Europe "

WP Leader: Dr. Gail Lambourne Project Manager: Dr. Lyndsey Stoakes

Arts & Humanities Research Council (UK)

WP2: Development and Elaboration of the Strategic Research Agenda

2

WP2: Objectives

Focus and sharpen European actions by addressing research gaps & identifying priorities

Help streamline national programmes to reduce overlaps and exploit synergies

Overcome the fragmentation of information on the state of research in MS

Encourage better collaboration among public, private & business sectors

3

WP2: Objectives (cont.)

Foster mutually reinforcing alignment between research and other policies at European level

Identify actions to be taken to address gaps in research areas and innovative methodologies

Provide coordination of research in the cultural heritage area contributing to a fully operational ERA and strengthening Europe’s leadership and competitiveness

4

WP2: Tasks

Task 2.1 Development of Common Framework to enable prioritisation of research

Task 2.2 Identification of research areas, activities, gaps & needs by National Consultation Panels (NCPs)

Task 2.3 Undertake a joint foresight study & an assessment of technological capability

Task 2.4 Input by the CH JPI Scientific committee

Task 2.5 Production of the Strategic Research Agenda

5

JPI WP2 Timeline 2011 2012

Deliverables Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

D2.1 Setting up of Expert Group D2.2 Report by Expert Group on the development of a Common Framework

D2.3 Report on Expert Group on the completed frameworks

D2.4 Foresight Study and Technological Capability Report

D 2.5 Strategic Research Agenda

D 2.6 Report by CH JPI Scientific Committee

6

Summary

• Present the process so far

Includes:

• Inputs from the National Consultation Panels (NCPs)

• Structure of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA)

7

Process so far

8

• Nov 2011 - Expert Group formed and ToRs agreed

• 13th Jan 2012 - First draft of Common Framework developed at EG meeting

• 30th Jan 2012 – JPI Scientific Committee 1st meeting

• Jan/Feb 2012 – Scientific Committee developed/refined common framework

Process so far

9

• 17th Feb 2012 - Final approval of Common Framework by coordinators

• 21st Feb 2012 - Common Framework (with 62 research areas) circulated to all Participants

• 17 participants and 8 observers involved. • March 2012 – Steering Committee meeting – further guidance

Process so far

Task 2.1: Development of Common Framework to

enable prioritisation of research.

10

WP2: Tasks

Task 2.1 Development of Common Framework to enable

prioritisation of research





11

As a reminder, NCPs were asked to:

• Review the Common Framework template and guidance provided

• Add additional, high priority research areas, gaps and needs as required.

• Rank top 12 priorities in terms of: a) the NCP (national) priorities, and b) requiring European collaboration.

Process so far

12

• 4th May 2012 - Deadline for inputs from NCPs

- responses received from 16 Participants

• Summer / Autumn 2012 - Expert Group analysed NCP inputs

• Summer 2012 - Foresight work began

• September 2012 - JPI Scientific Committee 2nd meeting

• JPI Scientific Committee approved process so far

Process so far

Task 2.2 Identification of research areas, activities,

gaps & needs by National Consultation Panels (NCPs).

13

WP2: Tasks


Task 2.2 Identification of research areas, activities, gaps &

needs by National Consultation Panels (NCPs)




14

Input from NCPs

15

• Of the 16 respondents, 8 ranked priorities in terms of European collaboration only. • Very good correlation between national and European priorities for each respondent: - at least 10 of the national priorities matched the European priorities for each country - where a ‘national priority’ did not appear in a participant’s ‘European priority’ list, it often appeared as another participant’s ‘European priority’.

NCP inputs

16

• Some research areas were added, others were amended, many stayed the same as in the common framework. • No drivers were added. • In total, 86 separate prioritised research areas were received and then mapped/aligned. • 31 new research areas • Additional comments were provided by some participants.

NCP inputs

17

Analysis of input

18

The SRA is about presenting cultural heritage as an integrated research area to policy makers. Different types of heritage cannot be seen as separate issues and thus the priorities identified in the SRA cover (and aim to go beyond) the tangible, intangible and digital aspects.

Expert Group analysis of NCP inputs

19

There were two levels of prioritisation in this process:

– NCPs identified and prioritised 12 research areas each;

– Expert Group mapped and aligned all these research areas with each other.

• The information under research gaps and needs, as well as the comments provided by participants informed this mapping.

• Where an individual priority was only mentioned once, it was subsumed into a ‘higher’ and ‘larger’ priority.


20


Risk assessment. Two participants prioritised this as 2nd and 7th

Risk management of all kinds of heritage. One participant prioritised this as 10th

The Expert Group harmonised these two as: ‘Integrating risks’ but with a description that included the detail provided by the NCPs.

Example:

21


Cultural interpretations of heritage and the historical context for it.

6 participants prioritised this as 1st, 1st, 2nd, 8th, 9th, 12th

Landscape heritage. 3 participants prioritised this as 1st, 4th, 10th

Policy and identity 1 participant prioritised this as 1st

Heritage concepts and theories 1 participant prioritised this as 4th

Cultural diversity and identity 1 participant prioritised this as 4th

Mediated cultural heritage 1 participant prioritised this as 5th

Links between cultural heritage and natural resources

1 participant prioritised this as 6th

Example:

Continued….

22


The significance of heritage: the existential value of cultural heritage


Cognitive-perceptual theory 2 participants prioritised this as 10th and 11th

The significance of heritage from inventory to landscape analysis


The significance of cultural heritage: valuation and selection


Material and immaterial cultural heritage and natural resources


Cultural Heritage ethics and identity 10 participants prioritised this as 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th

Heritage scales, synergies and dissonances 1 participant prioritised this as 7th

The Expert Group harmonised these as: ‘Identity and perception’ but with a description that included the detail provided by the NCPs.

23

• Both the count and level of priority are being used in this process. • The work around drivers will now be taken forward as part of the Foresight study. • These fell naturally into further groups of priorities which have been called ‘Research Priorities’. • Aim was to have coherent Research Priorities that, where possible, covered the tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage.


24


Research Priorities:

Developing a reflective society (Recognition)

Will include:

• Identity and perception (for example, cultural interpretations of heritage, significance of heritage, diversity and identity).

• Values (for example, includes cultural memory and values).

• Ethics (for example, rights and responsibilities, ownership, ethical implications of access to cultural heritage including new forms of access, consequences for CH as a result of demographic changes).

• Insight into drivers (from Foresight work) that could have a bearing on these areas.

25



Connecting people with heritage (Access)

Will include:

• Protection through use (for example, includes energy efficiency of historic buildings, value creation of heritage, revitalising built and landscape heritage).

• Sustainability (for example, understanding embodied energy in heritage materials, structures and assemblies).

• Security (for example, management strategies for secure access to, for example, objects, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes).

• Heritage information (for example, digitisation, information processes, copyright).

• Digital interaction.


26



Creating knowledge (Interpretation)

Will include:

• Linking (for example, linking quantitative and qualitative data, GIS on tangible and intangible heritage; using new technologies to link disparate digital contents and other CH information; reference collections (including digital), overviews of CH).

• Change (for example, understanding and modelling of material decay, investigation of damage mechanisms, consequences of land use changes for CH).

• Methods and measurement (for example, instrumentation, non-invasive testing, telesurvey, technical analysis, environmental assessment and monitoring).

• Integrating risks/risk management.


27



Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource (Protection)

Will include: • Conservation (for example, material, technologies and procedures for maintenance and conservation, conservation of traditional, modern and contemporary art and heritage materials, as well as digitized and born digital contents). • Global and climate change (for example, mitigating the effects of climate change, managing material, site and structural change, stabilising CH endangered by changes in environmental conditions). • Insight into drivers (from Foresight work) that could have a bearing on these areas.

28

Structure of the SRA

29

• Agreed that the SRA should not just be a long list of research topics/projects. • The structure of the SRA has emerged as a result of the NCP inputs. • However, other SRAs were reviewed to ensure that the emerging structure was fit for purpose. • Now the main analysis and mapping is complete, the levels of priority are no longer used.

Structure of the SRA

30

The working structure of the SRA is as follows:

– Foreword, including an overview of the JPI on Cultural

Heritage and Global Change (by JPI Coordinator)

– Preface for the SRA (by the Chair of the Scientific Committee)

– Executive Summary

Working Structure of SRA

31

– Introduction

Explains the scope of the SRA and how it covers the tangible, intangible and

digital as well as different forms of cultural heritage (e.g. existing forms of

CH as well as underwater, industrial, battlefield, maritime, modern and

contemporary , recent and young).

– Current Research Landscape

General overview underpinned by NCP input. Not a research review.


32

– Cultural Heritage Research Priorities

• Research Priorities • Developing a reflective society • Connecting people with heritage • Creating knowledge • Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource

• Cultural Heritage Research Enabling Framework


33

Cultural Heritage Research Enabling Framework

• Query over whether some research areas, gaps and needs expressed by NCPs are scholarly research.

• These are now considered as general areas of enquiry and focus Examples include:

• Capability and capacity • Management strategies • Knowledge sharing • Research Infrastructure • Policy, laws and regulations


34

Working Structure of SRA:

Foresight Study

35

WP2: Tasks






36

• Drivers and trends information will be identified across a range of

fields that are relevant to cultural heritage. The headings used to

collect and analyse drivers and trends will include:

evidence for the trend

potential implications and impacts, risks, opportunities etc.

• Drivers include:

Foresight Study

• Demography • Learning

• Globalisation • Gamification

• Internet of Things • Security Technologies

• Big Data • Philanthropy

• Climate Change • Crowdfunding Etc.

37

• Analysis of trends and drivers

• Real-Time Delphi

• Online questionnaire

• Open October / November

• Identified over 200 people to be approached inc. NCPs and

Scientific Committee

• Scenario Workshop

• Hosted by UNESCO in November

• Chair of JPI Scientific Committee participating

• Final Report

Structure of SRA: Foresight Study

38

WP2: Tasks






39

– Delivery of the SRA Strategy

– Conclusion

– Annexes

• Development of the Strategic Research Agenda, include NCP

process.

• Supporting Documents and links to NCP inputs for

transparency.

• Foresight report.

Working structure of SRA

40

• Aim is for the process to be transparent. • Once SRA is published, aim is for all inputs to be widely accessible.

Structure of SRA: Summary

41

Conclusion

Deliverables Month Achieved

D 2.1: Setting up of Expert Group 1

D 2.2: Report by Expert Group on the development of the Common Framework

4

D 2.3: Report by Expert Group on the completed frameworks

10 (11) In progress

D 2.4: Foresight Study & Technological Capability Report

12 Started

D 2.5: Strategic Research Agenda 15 Started

D 2.6: Report by CH JPI Scientific Committee 15 -

42

Thank you for listening!

“Phew!”

Date post:	18-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times