Rebecca says: Welcome Helle, we are going to start at 10am
Rebecca says: Welcome Laurajane and Trysor
Rebecca says: Hi Chris, Mrs Briggs, Bernadette and Mandraki,
Rebecca says: Lets start,Good morning and welcome to the Our Place on-line Debate. Today we're going to be discussing social inclusion and cultural heritage and if it is possible for institutions to break down social exclusion through community heritage projects. I am delighted to welcome Laurajane and Bernadette as our key speakers,
Laurajane Smith says: Hi all
Bernadette Lynch says: Hi from me too
Rebecca says: look forward to hearing more from Our Place members during the course of the morning, as well as feeding in questions already posed in the Our Place Forum.
To open the discussion, can I ask you first Laurajane:
Given that outreach and inclusion projects are close to the heart of many of our members do you think they are the best way to engage new audiences?
Laurajane Smith says: Yes, some very good work is done under the cover of outreach and social inclusion, but often in spite of what heritage organisations do. An important issue is how are both of these policies defined, and your question suggests, correctly, that these are not the core business of heritage organisations.
Rebecca says: Hello to all of you who are joining us now.
Rebecca says: Bernadette what do you think?
Bernadette Lynch says: This of course makes me question the notion of 'core work', but more fundamentally, the use of these words outreach and social inclusion, which I find inherently problematic, preferrring, as many museums do, to replace them with engagement and participation
Rebecca says: Hi Miriam, Layard and Karl and Jim, do add your comments and questions along the way
Bernadette Lynch says: Well for one thing, 'assimilation' doesn't work. After decades of a politics of 'recognition' in the heritage sector, most young people simply reply, as Ghassen Hage says, 'Good for you but I don't care'. Look at the outcome of the Bicentenary - black communities were angry with the hritage sector - and have taking other strategies to respond in the future. I see this as a useful response. These communities can help change the sector.
Miriam : Can I ask why the terms outreach and social inclusion are problematic? Why are engagement adn participation preferable?
Laurajane Smith says: A core issue for me is how in undertaking engagement/partnership/social inclusion or outreach do you avoid cultural assimilation? How do you ensure multivocality and avoid the misrecognition of a range of stakeholders and interests
Marcus says: Hello, I like the words 'engagement and participation' because they have a less policy heavy feel to them. But they do have something fluffy, and may not quite manage to engage with issues of power - or Bernadette, can you, indeed tell us more...
Rebecca says: Do you mean museums and heritage institutions cannot tell different stories, are they always destined to tell the story of the people in power?".
Laurajane Smith says: No, they are not always destined to do so, but without honest critical self-examination, good and honest dialogue with other interests and an understanding of the power relations between museums and other stakeholders then there is every chance that they will.
Rebecca says: welcome to the debate Amy and M2
Mandraki says: isn't the term 'social inclusion' targeting those groups who would hitherto have felt excluded. Whereas participation and engagement is more generic and may apply to the more traditional audience?
karlmtb says: A question for Lauajane firstly.
Laurajane Smith says: A response to Bernadette – I am not suggesting assimilation does work, but rather that tends to be the aim. The assimilist aims are indeed resisted; I agree the heritage sector has a lot to learn from those groups who question the validity of consensus narratives.
karlmtb says: Given the political pressure to create a sence of Britishness and national identity, how do we square up to that whilst avoiding the issue you just raised of cultural assimilation?
Bernadette Lynch says: The key isse here is 'active agency' in civil society. The heritage sector is the voice of the state, but it is also a public space - a potential participatory sphere at the heart of civil society. Social inclusion implies an 'invited space' rather than a 'claimed' space' for citizens to 'cut their teeth' in practising citizenship. Words reveal a lot - do the terms we currently use imply power is all in the hands of the institution or do they allow people to be active rather than passive in their dealings with heritage institutions?
Laurajane Smith says: Bernadette makes a good point. In response to Kalmth does Britishness and national identity have to be based on a monoculture understanding of heritage and the past?
Bernadette Lynch says: I think we have a make power visible in all our dealings with others (heritage sector with communities). To do that we have to engage more - not less - and be very reflexive in our work
Laurajane Smith says: I think understanding the power relations is very important, as is understanding the political and cultural consequences of what museums and the wider heritage sector do
 Bernadette Lynch says: I was interested in English Heritage's use of words - to 'protect', 'promote' and 'ensure' - I can't see the opportunity for active agency - or participation in these words. It's all very one-sided, defined by the institution, with power held at the 'centre'. This is very different from the mission statements of most museums these days
Laurajane Smith says: But is it different from museum practice?
Rebecca says: Welcome Katie and Dawn nice to have you with us
Laurajane Smith says: Open and honest debate is vital. Heritage is a cultural process of negotiation and the creation and recreation of cultural and social meanings – heritage are not static ‘things’. Exhibitions and the ‘management’ of heritage sites is about, whether acknowledged or not, the negotiation of cultural and social values and thus debate is, or should be, a vital part of ‘doing heritage’.
Miriam : A point for Bernadette, the Outreach team at English Heritage's remit is to 'actively engage hard to reach groups with heritage'. We start from the premise that the people we work with are the heart of what we do and they define what the community heritage projects look like - what they want to do, what skills they want to learn, adn we work with them to make this happen. Its all abuot participation and active agency.
Rosie says: I love Bernadette's example - another one is that of the curator sent into a betting office! Who's on the dsk, how do you approach them ,what do you do...but that makes an interesting assumption that all dividisons are about class and of course they aren't!
Bernadette Lynch says: Sorry, I seem to be ignoring the issue of a 'national identity' - and this is probably because i do! In a country such as this with such a fabulously rich diversity of cultural identities it is the single most useless idea Gordon Brown ever promoted. Just ask communities!
Marcus says: Bernadette, I really like your dynamic and contextual definition of 'engagement and participation' - and yes that has to reflect in value, mission and action statements. I have the sense that during 2007 a free, non-manucured, voice by black communities was never quite allowed to express - museums and heritage are bit too much like a commercial leanly packaged product that erases the rough and ruggid surfaces. There is a great instutional fear about people and communities expressing pent-up frustrations, anger, grief, and concialiation on thier own terms - how can such big issues and fundamental experiences be articulated in public space - who has done it well?
Rebecca says: Sorry about the sudden influx of questions into the mix, it does make the conversation jumpy,
Bernadette Lynch says: That's a good question, Laurajane. I'd say that museums are in conflict about this (the Bicentenary certainly made that obvious) - but I feel that this conflict - as all conclict or discensus in civil society - is useful. There are good debates going on inside many museums and between museums and their cummunity partners - one I was personally involved in bluntly asked the question, 'Are museums racist?' in a public debate that was uncomfortable for the museum, but the beginning of a very healthy debate. Fear of debate - of open discussion - is one of the 'achnge inhibitors' (as Richard Sendell calls them) in m useums - not the only one by any means. But it is a period of change and not one to shy away from. While I agree with many of your criticisms of the heritage sector, I don't believe it means we have to walk away - rather we have to increase the pressure for change - and to do that we NEED our community partners to be engaged and participating - in fact to lead the way
Rosie says: Hello all
Bernadette Lynch says: This is hard - 'engaging' with so many good points at the same time! Social inclusion implies that someone is excluded - from what? Surely not from their own culture/community/heritage? It implies that there is a central 'culture' in a hierarchical sense, that all others should aspire to join - and to do that one has to be 'included' or 'invited'. If our job is to use these publicly funded sites and heritage resources for the benefit of all, this is not a good start.
Rebecca says: Thanks for joining us, please be patient if you have a question in the queue, allow the speakers time to respond.
Inclusion says: Hello. i am wondering what you think of the role of the internet, 'web 2.0' and 'user-generated' content as means to open up concepts of heritage and expertise?
JanW says: I think Bernadette is absolutely correct in identifying the power of words. In which case I wonder if you could expand on your use of the term 'social inclusion', which you initially identified as problematic, in referring to 'invited spaces.'? I am interested here also especially in the implication that inclusion/engagement/participation in heritage activities is in some way a 'rehearsal' for citizenship in a wider sense.
Laurajane Smith says: Sorry that last was to Rebecca.
Laurajane Smith says: Bystander what is it at risk from?
Bernadette Lynch says: Thanks for the clarification Miriam - I was concerned about the wording on the 'who we are' section of the EH site - it does not include tyhese active and engaged words there - which perhaps refers once again - as in many cases - that this work, while supported, is not deemed central or 'core' to the work of the organisation. While this continues to be the case, the work is of course marginalised and dis-empowered. I am not saying this is the case in EH - simply raising the question
karlmtb says: If the assumption is that a national identity is important, is that fostered by monocultural view or hindered? Is the option a fragmented or take it as you please approach to heritage?
katie g says: Hello. What impact do you think that the economic downturn will have on cultural heritage institutions' social inclusion agenda? I wonder if our ability to engage with social issues now is more important than ever before.
Rosie says: Can I just pick up briefly on Bernadett's point about debate? One of the things that interests me as abod doing a lot of social inclusion work in heritage organisations is how far down that debate goes. Of course it is utterly crucial that senior managers and policymakers buy into it but its's equally crucial that people at the front of house end are on side. An instance: doing a telephone interview with a lady who is a volunteer leader of a group for young people with heavy drinking problems - fantastic welcome from FOH staff at some museums (eg the Manchester Museum and IWMN among others) - definitely not from other museums. I know it's a hackneyed point but the quality of the welcome from the learning or outreach officer is not the point. Cheers.
Laurajane Smith says: Marcus raises an intereting question - why is there such fear? What is at stake if the trumaic, the frustrated and etc is talked about in public spaces?
Bernadette Lynch says: I agree with Laurajane (sorry, we seem to be agreeing more than was expected!) that organisational change is at the heart of all of these issues - so that right from the first greeting on the telephone or at the Front Desk of a heritage site, the role of the institition is understood in relation to its communities. We in the North were involved in a reverse anthropology project (in partnership with the University of Manchester) in which some community members were trained as ethnographic researchers to examine the 'culture' of 4 museums. Their role was to 'encounter' these 'foriegn' cultures with their set ways and languages - their 'codes', right from first entering the doors and meeting the Front Desk staff, right through all their dealings with the organisation. Fascinating - the cultural 'norms' we inhabit in the heritage sector that siubtly reinforce barriers or 'inhibitors' to engagement
Laurajane Smith says: Sounds really interesting have you published this somewhere?
Bernadette Lynch says: It's available via Myna Trustram at Renaissance Northwest. It's called 'Ouside In'. Can send contact details later.
JanW says: I would be interested in this reseach as well if it's possible
Laurajane Smith says: Yes please do!!
bystander says: Heritage at risk - do we care?
Laurajane Smith says: No, its not complicated, just uncomfortable – it is too destabilising of comfortable self-images and national identities.
Rebecca says: Laurajane, do you see at as fear of "the other" that stops institutions being open to more than one story. Is it that telling several stories simultaneously feels too chaotic and complicated
Rosie says: Apologies, my point didn't get registered. It was that the quality of the interaction with the cultural institution is often made with the point of contact staff and that unless the messages and values about inclusion are institution wide they can be let down by these contacts - otr alternatively the attendant can achieve what the Director fails to! I think that this will become even more valuable in the recession but fear it may be sidelined because of the income presented by `easier'targets such as schools. Collaborative partnership with communities requires time and commitment and the surrendering of power...
Bernadette Lynch says: Two things I want to pick up on from the debate - one is that while we may be pleased with ourselves that our organisations are fully engaged and committed (in a social justice way) to participation in heritage - we may be offering a very limited form of engagement so that what is ultimately experienced by the cummunity partner is a form of what Cornwall calls 'empowerment-lite'. The other is the 'uncomfortable' fear of the other. Engagement is a negotiation, and as Ghassen Hage says(I am a big fan because he talks about returning to notions of promoting 'activism' ' negotiation is the art of living with the fear of the other'. He says that it's an 'exchange (another useful word for this work in museums) that involves 'a moment of uncertainty - fear of how the pother will receive it - 'I am face-to-face and at the mercy of the other'. I love this notion, for museums are carfeul and controling places. Facing up to that fear and working with and through it seems to me the first step in an ethical, social justice based practice
Rebecca says: For Rosie: sorry your point didn't get through first time round
bystander says: Social exclusion and lack of participation?
Bernadette Lynch says: By the way, just got a little yellow unhappy face in the middle of my too-wordy last submission. Any idea what that means?
Laurajane Smith says: Oh it happens when you hit the semi colon and closed brackets!
Bernadette Lynch says: Thanks Marcus - precisely. Can't seem to scroll back up, but even though we've lost Rosie, would like to properly understand the point she was making about organisations - can't read it again. Any help?
Rebecca says: Unclick the Autoscroll key at bottom of page
Marcus says: Here's a point for when the discussion returns to 'national identity'. I am the ever re-shaping organic product of at least six 'national' cultures and myriad other influences. That fluid plurality within any single individual can't be put in a box. We really need to embrace notions of 'multiple-identities', as developed beautifully by Amin Maalouf in 'Les identités meurtrières' ('the murderous identities', 1998, translated prosaically into English as 'On identity' and Amartya Sen in 'Identity and Violence' (2007) to get away with mono-identical labelling and indeed, the notion of a nation state with a national identity that is past its sell-by date. It always makes me cringe when I see cultural bodies use the word 'national identity' thoughtlessly, simply re-peating the language and its en-coded set of values from their paymasters.
Bernadette Lynch says: Can only agree with Rosie's very good points - and in this economic climate, those 'activities' that are seen as costly, time-consuming and ultimately marginal, will be the first to go. But there is an interesting political opportunity with current notions of public participation and pressure on all organisations to deliver on visible evidence of participation in action (this is echoed by both Labour and the Tories for their various reasons). This perceived need for evidence of participation is a useful way to maintain support for engagement in heritage, even if the institution begins to waver in its commitment.
Rebecca says: This links into Katie G question earlier about What impact do you think that the economic downturn will have on cultural heritage institutions' social inclusion agenda? And if our ability to engage with social issues now is more important than ever before.
Rebecca says: Sorry Miriam, your question about empowerment-lite disappeared into the ether, would you mind sending it again?
Rebecca says: ooops machine was just slow
Bernadette Lynch says: I think there are two opportunities here (in my glass half-full way!) - one is that the need for 'evidence' of value for money will be greater than ever - this means 'evidence of impact'. Evidence of participation will be central to this for most government agencies (just look at thie mission statements). The HLF, for example, talks about involving the public and local communities in making policies, setting priorities and distributing money and the need to increase access and participation. On the issue of the economic crisis itself, within the context of the myriad other social, economic and environmental issues we are facing - there has never been a greater need for heritage institutions to engage with issue-based work - using the past to inform the present and future. Great opportunities for the museum-as-forum
Laurajane Smith says: This issue will be that non-core business will be cut. I wonder what impact the next election will have? Those working for EH – what are your thoughts on what you think may be coming?
Miriam : Bernadette, I'm really interested in this notion of 'empowerment-lite'. What does real empowerment look like in the context of museums and heritage organisations? I think all of us on the practitioner side of the debate want to work towards real dialogue and engagement but are we still guilty of 'doing unto' the community if we come from a big institution in the first place?  
Laurajane Smith says: If not one cares about what you think are beautiful budilings etc, then why does it matter?
bystander says: Beautiful buildings, amazing monuments, alluring landscapes are crumbling. What are we doing about it?
Laurajane Smith says: Bernadette's issue of 'impact' is important - how is this to be measured?
Bernadette Lynch says: In terms of this issue of 'empowerment-lite', I have recently been looking at participation in other areas of civil society, outside of museums, and particularly in terms of what we in the heritage sector can learn from international development studies (fascinating). It's the subtle ways that we can offer participation and yet set the terms of engagement so that there are limits on what is discussed - what information is shared - how the agenda is set etc. I have been involved (and written about) so-called co-produced exhibitions where this 'empowerment-lite' was certianly teh case, and terhe is a level of understandable resentment and dis-engagement by community partners as the outcome. I think we have to be really honest about what it is we are offering and teh claims we make about the outcome
Rebecca says: Laurajane, would you challenge the notion that "beautiful buildings" should be preserved?
Laurajane Smith says: Whose sense of beauty do you want to protect and why?
Laurajane Smith says: And for whom?
Miriam : Sorry if this is a cross posting, but in answer to your question Laurajane, I only wish I knew what the future had in store for EH adn the rest of the sector. What I do know is that it looks like there is a greater focus on 'the local' in goverment rhetoric but how this translates into practice has yet to be seen. Coming back to what Bernadette says about evidence of impact and value for money - I think this is a really huge issue that will be coming up more and more (see the National Audit Office's audit of EH's widening participation work). We're going to be embarking on a long term study of the social impact of outreach work next year, not just because of a policy steer on this but because I think its vital we have an understanding beyond the anecdotal about what it means for individuals, groups and wider communities (maybe) if they take part in heritage projects.
Miriam : OK, sorry this is a cross-posting but in answer to your question Laurajane, I only wish I knew what the future had in store for EH and the rest of the sector. It seems like there is a greater political focus on 'the local' but how that translates into policy is yet to be seen.
Bernadette Lynch says: I always think that there is a false distinction or notional conflict between 'preservation' of the past and 'engagement' now. In my years of experience in engaging with communities, I have rarely (with a few notable exceptions) come across community partners who want sites/collections not to be preserved. There is almost always a great respect for the technical expertise of museums in this regard. The issue is 'use' - how are they used? By and for whom? Of course we need these sites/collections preserved - but as catalysts for human engagement - and yes, 'learning' - but from each other
bystander says: Everyone's for everyone.
Marcus says: a comment if the discussion comes back to 'crisis' or 'power're the crisis: the 'sector' can make it an advocacy argument - the need to go further with engagement and participation is never bigger than in times of economic crisis - but advocacy apart, the need for culture change within institutions remains big, so the question is are there credible responses, that are more radical than in the past and aims to grant culd cultural rights where they are patently lacking. I see with great sadness how hundreds of millions of pounds have flown and are flowing into museum and gallery and exhibition design, yet the fewest build tactile access for totally blind people and British Sign Language in from the outset, just widening existing exclusion. The latest example is the £80,000,000 Darwin Centre. 'Engagement and participation' definitively requires a shift in funding criteria akin to ground breaking decision by the Arts Lottery in 1994 to make access for disabled people an essential funding criterion (but the criterion is too vague and HLF has broader criteria, and all funding criteria are too full of loopholes). When we talk about power, money is one of the biggest powers and thus barriers!
Bernadette Lynch says: Measurement of impact is very tricky if it's done by institutions 'on' communities - taking us back to the infamous 'box-ticking' exerciise. a more recent move is to use PAR - participatory action research - so that the research and evaluation of a given piece of engagement work is itself a form of participation, jointly done by the heritage institution and community partners. It's not fool-proof but it's beginning to be interesting
Laurajane Smith says: How things are used and who has control over that use is very important. However, so is control over whether certain things are preserved or no or collected or nott, I have encountered a range of community groups who question the legitimancy of storing things in museums – as such a use means that they become useless to the originating communities.
Bernadette Lynch says: Hi Marcus! (Just realised it's my old friend!) I completely agree that there is disgraceful - and questionably 'legal' practice being perpetuated, particularly in the realm of access for disability. You are right that we have to agitate to complain in a very open and public way when public funds are misused in this way - and should have our professional organisations leading the way. On the other hand, there is very encourahging practice of participation by disabled people (and their organisations) in exhibit-design, as noted by the recent Uni of Leicester excellent report - highly recommended
Rebecca says: This brings up a good point that Helen posted on the Our Place forum with an example of approaching the acquisition of objects in a different way: My first thought is that cultural value and personal value are very different. While something may have an inherent 'cultural' value in the arts and heritage world, what we are doing in community engagement projects is trying to support people to feel an individual connection or value with an object/experience. Yet how we do this is often by using something 'culturally valuable' - so there's a bit of tension there even from the start. I think there are some good examples of outreach where the faciliatators have been aware of this and have used it to raise open questions rather than dicatate what's valuable. One of these comes from Brent Museum. I don't work there so this is just an outline of some projects that Louise Lamming (now at Imperial War Museum) worked on and she would need to fill in the details. They acknowledged a lack of objects in their collective reflective of their now very diverse population and invited local people to curate with them a new representative collection. Some items were donated by local people and those that were important but missing were then bought by the museum. So there was real investment there and negotiation about what was valuable locally. I think that's an example of where the cultural habit of collecting and valuing really crossed over into the community.
Roger Martlew says: I'm running community projects and working on plans for a new museum/heritage/visitor centre in the Yorkshire Dales, so I'm finding the debate very interesting. The official rhetoric about community engagement and inclusion is often simplistic and condescending, and the need to tick boxes when chasing funding exerts a pressure to include 'disadvantaged' groups without any consideration of whether they actually want to be included. Or am I just being cynical?
Bernadette Lynch says: Roger, of course you are correcgt about the 'official rhetoric' and the concept of including 'disadvantaged' or 'excluded' groups whether or not they would ever define themselves in this way or wish to be 'included'. i think this is central to Laurajane's whole point, and it's a very valid one. However, what do we do - just walk away and leave these publicly funded institutions that hold vast stores of un-used, or under-used collections reflecting the world inside them? One frustration I always had is that people outside museums just have no idea what's inside - and what is possible? Referring back to the point made by Rebecca, if people are given access to collections in-store (as in Glasgow Museums and manchester, to name only two) and can make a choice about which to discuss and even have physical access (careful and informed handling), then it's a whole other world of enagegement - not pre-determined by the museum. One big help in this is the MA's 'Effective Collections' (and previously, 'Collections for the Future' strategy - raising the question to all museums to defend the sustainability of storing vast collections that are neither researched or used by communities. There is no condescencion in making these available
Rebecca says:  Yes Trysor, we are hoping to add a (mildly) edited version to the Our Place Network website.
Trysor says: Will this discussion be available after the online debate? Many of the things that are being said are reflecting what we as a small heritage consultancy have felt for many years. I think particularly the comment from Bernadette about being honest about what is being offered and the outcomes is very important. Archaeologists have recently embraced "volunteers" again on excavations through community involvement but some of the claims about what this will give the individual are far beyond what can, or indeed , should be delivered. Empowering people is so important, but sometimes we have taken on the word without the meaning(s)sometimes.
Rebecca says: Questions from Helen on the Our Place Forum: 1) How can we articulate the value of social inclusion work in an influential way - both internally in our organisations and to the wider world?
2) What are the real benefits in doing this for a large scale organisation? - Is there any positive economic impact at all? - I know some museums in London have been citing the drop in tourism as a driver for investing in local audiences, what are other peoples' experiences?

John Vincent_69 says: I've just travelled home so am only now able to join the debate!! I also haven't had time to scroll through the whole thing, so please forgive me if I'm covering ground that's already been done to death!! However, I'm concerned that, in wanting to abandon the term "social inclusion" (albeit that it's contested), we lose the political importance of all this work. In addition, I think outreach is absolutely what it should be about - using resources to take our services to people outside our organisations who may never cross our thresholds and who may otherwise never have an opportunity to engage with our work.
Bernadette Lynch says: Access is one issue - shared authority is another level of engagement altogether. To answer your question Laurajane, about originating communities and the keeping and preservation of collections as outside their cultural tradtitions - there is, of course, a good deal of interesting collaborative practice in this regard around the world: Te Papa in New Zealand, Glenbow in Calgary and Museum of Anthropology at UBC in Canada, and Museum of World Cultures in Gothenberg, Sweden are notable examples...and the National Museum of Australia in Canberra. All these issues are under constant ongoing negotiation in these institutions. Meanwhile, in the UK at Pitt Rivers in Oxford - and the Manchester Museum - there is very interesting work in terms of negotiating new interpretations of collections in partnership with originating and Diaspora (mainly refugee) communities - and lots of other such practice in the UK. The main and most exciting area of negotiation and collaboration is in the interpretation and documentation of collections. (See Collective Conversations at the Manchester Museum - on the museum's website)
John Vincent_69 says: We need to move away from the thinking that always concentrates on big audiences & big numbers, and advocate our powerful role in working with tiny communities. One good example - lots of museums and cultural organisations are doing superb work with children in care - yet I know of managers and politicans who discourage this because the return in visitor numbers etc is so low. We need to shout about this work and find allies for whom we become indispensible!
Laurajane Smith says: I was not necessarily thinking of the contexts you mention – but they are very good examples. These are also issues within the UK and not just issues in colonial contexts. It is a very challenging, but important, risk that the museums you mention take in sharing control over collections – it is equally an important risk/challenge k in the UK for museums to engage and share power and control with community groups.
ParkFriends_95 says: I was at Univ of York National Science Learning Centre this week for the First National Conference of Open Air Laboratories for Natural Science - funded by the Big Lottery for deprived communities to have access to Nature on their own patch. ( www.opalexplorenature.org ) We need to ensure that English Heritage, Natural England and other Regional Networks are engaging deprived communities through Cultural Inclusion through neighbourhood nature, communities arts and cultural activities, and extended learning access around their local green patch. Tony Fox, Neighbourhood Nature Champions
OPAL West Midlands www.opalwestmidlands.org
Cannon Hill Park Friends cannonhillfriend@aol.com
Laurajane Smith says: How does all that we have been discussing relate to intangible heritage? Just a thought as we often get overly concerned with 'things'.
Rebecca says: In some ways intangible heritage is easier to grasp. (scuse the pun) in that it immediately feels more inclusive, and easier to reach those multiple stories we mentioned earlier.
Laurajane Smith says: My concern with the web is that the technology is not universally available and out of the reach of many. However, some interesting and very usful stuff can be done with it by communites and museums/heritage agencies. It certainly creates a new space for debate and dialouge.
Bernadette Lynch says: Why not 'inreach' (an awkward term I grant you)? Outreach is fine - especially if it means taking collections to where people live - but it has a colonial and dare I say it, 'missionary' feel to it. I am always concerned that by going 'out', we are not bringing people 'in' enough - to claim this public space and use the resouces. i have often heard the term -behind-the-scenes' used in museums - meaning those areas out-of-reach to the public, including three-quarters of the entire space (the offices/labs/and especially the stores. as in Glasgow and now in the new museum spaces at the Museum of Anthropology in UBC, Vanc., Canada - these notions are being turned on their head. People are coming inside the museum and there is far less that is 'behind-the-scenes'
Rebecca says: In terms of sharing power with other groups, we had a question from "Inclusion" earlier about whether Laurajane and Bernadette thought that the world of Web 2.0 could open up the idea of expertise and a preposted question on the Our Place Forum from Bridget that asked Does online engagement offer best potential for open, dialogic interpretation, given issues about inequality of access to digital resources? Can online work positively overcome digital exclusion and social exclusion, or does it lack the essentially relational nature of outreach work?
Laurajane Smith says: Outreach certainly has a missionary and assimilatory feel to it - I agree.
ParkFriends_95 says: I was at Univ of York National Science Learning Centre this week for the First National Conference of Open Air Laboratories for Natural Science - funded by the Big Lottery for deprived communities to have access to Nature on their own patch. ( www.opalexplorenature.org )

We need to ensure that English Heritage, Natural England and other Regional Networks are engaging deprived communities through Cultural Inclusion through neighbourhood nature, communities arts and cultural activities, and extended learning access around their local green patch.
Tony Fox, Neighbourhood Nature Champions
OPAL West Midlands www.opalwestmidlands.org
Cannon Hill Park Friends
cannonhillfriend@aol.com
Bernadette Lynch says: Hard to argue economic benefit - other than 'value for investment'. However, as more and more people become unemployed, the issue of accredited volunteering becomes interesting - developing broader skills. The In-Touch project led by the Imperial War Museum North and the Manchester Museum is an interesting one in this regard. Most govt. agencies are nervously looking at employment figures and investing particualrly in young people volunteering in all areas of civil society. It is a particularly useful moment for museums to make use of this and turn this into an opportunity for working with young people as particiapnats, learning to be fully enagaged and active citizens. This expectation of museums, by the way, is including the nationals (it's a DCMS priority) - so there is more of a focus than before on 'local' engagement - but still not enough
ParkFriends_95 says: Anthropology in Vancouver has strong links inside and outside museums. Manchester Muuseum is another fine example of bringing excluded families in whilst reaching the roots of the city in estates, and neighbourhoods where they are at. The Darwin Centre Cocoon also works inside the new Cocoon (7 levels) with real hands on in the green apace outside Natural history Museum.
JanW says: I'm not sure I agree about intangible heritage being easier to grasp (and personally I loved the pun!) I may be coming at this from a different angle from most people as I am researching attempts to widen participation in Shakespeare with a teenage audience (so not musuem related) - I think the heritage of Shakespeare (and theatre in general) is intangible and there are certainly problems in this area in allowing multiple stories.
Bernadette Lynch says: Keep feeling I am a few steps behind the discussion here - but just to respond to the use of the web. I feel ambivalent here. The web is anarchic in that it constantly presents the most interesting examples of shared authority, forever spawning new examples faster than the market can appropriate them. The book I'm working on with the title 'Practsing Radical Trust' was inspired by the web - so yes, there are wonderful examples on the web for museums, and great ways to use blogging and discussion forums such as this! BUT< I am always concerend that museums are using online access as a way of avoiding actual offline access - and there can be no substitute for sensory (and affective) exploration of collections. Just ask any curator - could they work only with digital images?
bampot says: Someone mentioned 'beautiful things' earlier, which makes in some ways a nice link to intangible heritage. If we want to talk about democratising heritage, then maybe things, beautiful or not, aren't the point to many people. Practices, traditions etc might be...but not nice buildings. Uncomfortable for some...but maybe there is aneed to escape the tyranny of things.
Alan says: I think we need to be careful about concluding about the death of national identity for a whole host of audiences and reasons. Post nationalism is very current within the museological, academic world. Audiences on the ground be it visitors to sites and within community projects may tend to disagree about the decline of a 'national' identity. Many citizens today self-identify with a range of multiple heritages. We shouldn't brush it under the carpet!
Laurajane Smith says: Yes I feel I am a few steps behind the discussion too. You make some good points Bernadette, but why not work only with images? We are as Bampot noted very tied to things which helps imped dialogue with communities.
Laurajane Smith says: Back to national identity - an issue here for 'social inclusion' is surely the destablisation of nonocultural national identity.
Helen says: I agree with that - I think we simplify identity too much
Laurajane Smith says: That should be mono-culltural identity - sorry!
JanW says: And I think I would agree with bampot in terms of an interest in practices, traditions etc as this fits with problems of multiple voices in theatre heritage that I mentioned - eg popular v art theatre
Bernadette Lynch says: The point is that there can be no imposed (or coerced) notion of a monolithic cultural identity that all are expected to subscribe to 9and worse, prove it as a factor in 'becoming citizens' Just look at the US if you want to see what a bad idea this is. Meanwhile people have a hold of their own 'national'/cultural identities - of course. For refugess sometimes the myths that those identities hold can be very powerful and important to their survival. In terms of intangible heritage - I am interested in the intersection between the tangible and the intangible - the way in which access to colelctions inspires intangible heritage (again, see Collective Conversations of the recent work of archaeologiist, Adriana Munoz at the Museum of World Cultures in Gothenberg, Sweden and so much of what Te Papa does in NZ with Maori communities. let's not only focus on the intangible because it's easier
Bernadette Lynch says: Not if the tangible is used intangibly! It's all about interpretation and whether the arena of interpretation is wide open and available - in such cases the objects are a springboard not a fence - too many metaphors!
bampot says: interesting link JanW - the most effective constumed heritage interpreter I have seen is a working class woman who went to uni as a mature student, and ended up writing a masters thesis on radical populist 18th theatre and used it to inform her practice - which does not require things as such, but does a lot of solid engaging at the Natiional Coal Mining Museum at /wakefield.
Marcus says: re 'onsite' and 'online', it's not either or, it's both. Online is becoming an inseparable part of the whole experience and can offer many new ways of engaging with heritage and burst the bubble of authoritative discourse. The web is not a substitute to embodied experience, I agree - nobody would claim that. The question is how to make the web a place of multiple forms of engagement, beginning with the most basic challenge of making online learning resources and collections accessible e.g. to disabled people. We give out the Jodi Awards for accessible digital culture and you see good practice examples on our new website www.jodiawards.org.uk. We do it to raise awareness of pervasive barriers and invite responsiveness.The museums computer communities have a point when they say the web remains outside what museums do, not fully part of it yet.
Laurajane Smith says: I don't see a focus on the intagible as easier - tangible is much easier to put fences around and put in glass cases etc than the intangible...
Laurajane Smith says: alan yes acknowledgement of difference is vital, but does require also a deprivaging of dominant consensus national narratives
Laurajane Smith says: the intangible should be used tangibly
Alan says: Agreed about destablisation of monocultural national identity but many minority communities don't necessarily want a watering down of majority community histories to purely make them feel included - if smacks too much of an agenda and minority groups see through it. Better to just acknowledge difference in all its forms.
Bernadette Lynch says: I absolutely agree that there needs to be no watering down in a condescending way of 'majority' community histories - in fact I have been involved for years in a debate as to whether we should change traditional displays or rather leave them in place as a springboard for debate. However, it's getting a little harder to agree on what the 'majority' community history is about - this is where Laurajane's issue of class comes in.
Rebecca says: We are coming to the end of our time here. Sorry if it is been a bit of a bumpy and eclectic journey. Feel there are whole conferences needed to excavate some of the ideas here. I would just like to ask our key speakers one last question:
Is cultural change in institutions necessary before outreach and inreach! projects can make a real, long term difference?

Bridget in the forum commented: Most people are voting Yes. I'm voting No (though I'm not alone). In a way my No vote is me being pedantic: It is surely possible for outreach work to make a real difference to people's lives whatever a source institution is like. Also, I would rather like to think positively about outreach or community engagement, that it really is a gentle force for change within institutions. I know sometimes it feels hopeless and outreach teams can feel marginalised but I think they can make institutional changes, not by demanding it and bewailing the lack of change but by persistent small gentle subversive actions.
Laurajane Smith says: The short answer is yes. Institutional change is fundamental. Having said that though both work at the margins of these institutions and work that has absolutely nothing to do with them is part of on going change. I do despair how ridged certain cultural institutions can be.
Bernadette Lynch says: As we're about to sign off - and there would be no way to conclude such a stimulating debate! - I just want to add that it always seems to me that these issues - so hot for all of us - are usually internal to the profession, and I wonder why we don't share our uncertainties with our community partners - adn thus engage them in these debates
Laurajane Smith says: Good point Bernadeete.
Rebecca says:  I want to thank everyone who contributed, both Our Place participants, and especially our two speakers; Laurajane and Bernadette, who have so generously given their time this morning. Of course the conversation does not end here, and we would love to hear your thoughts on the Our Place Forum. This page will stay up for a day or so, then become part of the Our Place Resources. Thank you everyone, and goodbye
Bernadette Lynch says: And yes, institutional change is essential - and on the way!
Rebecca says: So much food for thought...such a stimulating morning. Thank you everyone.