Archaeology
and
the
Crowd
An
Exploration
of
Socially
Responsible
Archaeology
1
July 2015
Author: Andrea Travaglia
Student Number: VU 2544151 | UvA 10899138
Master’s Thesis for Archaeology, Landscape & Heritage
Amsterdam Centre for Ancient Studies & Archaeology
Vrije University & University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dr. Heleen Van Londen
Second Reader: Dr. Vladimir Stissi
Cover Photo: Andrea Travaglia
2
Declaration
This document is written by Andrea Travaglia, who
declares to take full responsibility for the contents
of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in
this document is original and that no sources other
than those mentioned in the text and its references
have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Archaeology is responsible solely
for the supervision of completion of the work, not
for its content.
3
Acknowledgements
I want to thank my supervisor Heleen van Londen for being my mentor. Her teaching
and discussions have inspired me. I would also like to thank my husband Jonathan
Travaglia for his support, constructive criticisms, and countless cups of tea.
4
Table of Contents
Declaration ...2
Acknowledgements ...3
List of Figures ...5
List of Tables ...5
1. Introduction
...6
1.1 Research Question ...8
1.2 Thesis Framework...9
2. Definitions
...10
2.1 Crowdsourcing ...10
2.2 Online Communities ...13
2.3 Crowdfunding ...17
2.4 Public Archaeology ...22
3. Education & Translational Archaeology
...26
4. Conceptions and Criteria
...29
5. Case Study 1. The Netherlands Drentsche Aa Programme
...30
5.1 Participatory Action Research ...32
5.2 Drentsche Aa Projects ...35
5.3 Landscape Biography ...36
5.4 Field Names Project ...38
5.5 Landscape Vision ...39
5.6 Policy...40
Conclusion ...45
6. Case Study 2. Scotland’s Coastal Heritage at Risk Project
...47
6.1 SCHARP ...49
6.2 Participatory Action Research ...55
6.3 SCAPE Funding ...57
6.4 The Cultural Heritage Virtuous Multiplier Model...59
6.5 Policy...60
Conclusion ...62
7. Analysis: Parameters of Practices
...64
8. Interpretation: Vision & New Developments
...74
Appendix 1: Bibliography...77
5
List of Figures
Figure 1. The site plan for the Sydney Opera House and the ground floor plan... 11 Figure 2. An example of crowdsourced information shared on a webpage from the Archaeowiki
website. ... 14
Figure 3. Mircopasts - crowdfunding and crowdsourcing projects. ... 20 Figure 4. A map indicating the participants who crowdfunded and crowdsourced the Flag Fen
project. ... 21
Figure 5. National Landscapes of the Netherlands designated by the Dutch government in
2004... 31
Figure 6. The Drentsche Aa National Landscape contains one of the best preserved brook
valley systems in the Netherlands. ... 32
Figure 7. The core structure (via Heleen van Londen) of the interaction between knowledge,
policy, imagination and practive, with the knowledge-action nexus running from policy-makers (planning) to scientists (experts & academics). ... 33
Figure 8. An open-air theatre performance from the Field Names Festival in 2009 that drew
around 1200 visitors, inspired by the field names and local stories associated with the location. ... 38
Figure 9. The phased plan for the implementation of Landscape Development Plans... 44 Figure 10. Map displaying locations of all CZAS 1996-2011. ... 50 Figure 11. Map markers for sites include: red (high-priority), orange (medium-priority), yellow
(low-priority), and green (newly-recorded)... 51
Figure 12. One example of twelve community involved archaeological projects around
Scotland's coast... 53
Figure 13. Interpretation of the Cultural Heritage Virtuous Multiplier Model by author. ... 59
List of Tables
Table 1. The different types of action and their relationships to research, policy and the
public. ... 34
Table 2. The criteria used by SCHARP for selecting ShoreDIG projects. ... 54 Table 3. Action Plan to minimise the negative consequences of climate change to the historic
6
1. Introduction
The aim of this thesis is to investigate the current state of crowdfunding and crowdsourcing in the public and academic spheres related to archaeological practice. For the purpose of exploring innovative techniques that can provide new insights into the current practice of archaeology, this thesis will evaluate policies and conventions relevant to the archaeology and heritage sectors. By defining the framework of crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, public archaeology and online communities, the dissemination of knowledge can be facilitated for the archaeology sector and allow for analysis of the parameters of practice for future developments.
For Smith, any constraint on archaeological practice is a constraint on theoretical debate and development, and if theory is practice and practice theory, then how we frame our practice will inevitably frame the way we think about and theorize what it is we do as archaeologists;1 hence the pursuit of evaluating the current state of archaeological practice. In the area of archaeological practice, defining heritage becomes somewhat problematic. Smith argues that the current investment archaeologists, not only in Australia, but worldwide, have in the idea of an ‘archaeological heritage’ constrains archaeological practice and the relationships archaeologists have with a range of publics, including Indigenous communities and peoples.2
Archaeological information has been (and still is) both created and presented in authoritative ways by archaeologists who want to promote archaeological agendas (such as research or stewardship) and those who attempt to enact multivocal archaeology projects work against a long history of archaeological discourse.3 For McDavid, creating new and different ways of implementing new archaeological projects, new ways of interpreting archaeological sites, and new ways of expressing ‘truth’ is needed, along with consideration of the issues involved in multivocality, either as a theoretical idea or as a framework for practice as being a necessary part of conducting ethical archaeology.4
For Wendrich, the concept of multivocality is not just the product of a theoretical argument, but is a result of socio-political and intellectual hybridity that has been introduced in archaeology to express that there are different groups, with different interests and voices, that have a stake in the same subject area.5 In his experience, Hodder states that opening up 1 Smith 2012, § 22. 2 Ibid. § 1. 3 McDavid 2014, 5094. 4 Ibid. 5 Wendrich 2011, 230.
7 archaeological practice to multiple voices and marginalized groups has been a source of relief, excitement, and engagement in the potential to explore their own heritage and identity, along with anger and suspicion resulting from past practices and concerns that the reflexive process is no more than a ploy to achieve incorporation and agreement.6 His work on projects that involves ‘the public’ do not place ‘the public’ per se as an entity, but as diversifying groups that can interact and collaborate in archaeology and the complicated nature of different approaches that entails.
Richardson observes that professional archaeological organisations are increasingly encouraged, if not required, to disseminate their reports, publications, educational resources, data-sets, images and other archaeological informatics through digital means, frequently as mandatory outputs for impact assessment and public accountability.7 Addressing commercial archaeology, she highlights practices in the UK, which the rest of the commercial archaeology world is slowly catching up to with regards to changing mentalities, technological advances and socio-economic policies.
In the Netherlands, public archaeology is ‘non-existent’ according to Van den Dries, but that does not mean that archaeologists do not engage with the public; she states that the archaeology community is well aware of the importance of public support and realize that archaeology can only exist if the public are interested in it, which generates legislation to protect the heritage and funding to study and preserve it.8 By evaluating and analysing two case studies, from the Netherlands and the UK respectively, these concepts will be discussed and further explored.
While the common principle in most countries regarding archaeological practice is generally salvage (or rescue) archaeology whereby ‘the polluter pays’ and in most cases the criterion ‘preservation in situ’ is applicable; what if neither apply? If there is no responsibility for any polluter to financially contribute towards archaeological work, how does one protect cultural heritage? And what of cultural heritage sites that are threatened with destruction by natural processes? These questions will be explored in the second case study with the work conducted around the Scottish coastline. From more of a local heritage perspective, public perception and academia is addressed in the first case study that explores landscape biography research as part of protecting and building a regional identity in the northeast region of the Netherlands.
6 Hodder 2008, 197. 7 Richardson 2013, 1. 8
8 While the Netherlands case study explores avenues for crowdfunding, the UK case study uses crowdsourcing as a tool, and both case studies explore the integration of the public (and other interested stakeholders) into their projects to better educate and/or create public interest for archaeology and cultural heritage. The specifically chosen case studies are a good contrast of the different demands of archaeological practice. For example, the Netherlands Drentsche Aa case study, a protected national landscape, was specifically chosen due to the formal attempts to engage the public and other interested stakeholders in policy with regards to the protection and management of natural areas. Scotland’s coastal case study is a very recent and ongoing example to show the attempts at which policy to involve and engage the public (and other interested stakeholders) is already a prerequisite in regards to the protection and management of archaeological regions at risk of erosion and destruction through natural processes. The similarities and differences between the two case studies highlight the variations of the status quo, the existing state of affairs, in a pan-European context. By researching in this way, the conceptual framework begins with ‘what’ is presently happening in archaeological practice towards ‘how’ to move forward.
1.1 Research Question
What this thesis endeavours to evaluate is the current state of the archaeology sector with what we know about the new developments and current state of crowdfunding and crowdsourcing in archaeological practice. How does it enhance research, heritage and public understanding of archaeology? While a variety of crowdfunding and crowdsourcing examples are highlighted within this thesis, the practical aspects of this research are tied in with two European case studies that are evaluated due to their specific qualities of innovation. The method of an evaluative and interpretative approach requires empirical knowledge, and these case studies are suitable to produce this as they provide real-life situations. The acquisition, discovery and dissemination of knowledge and expertise lie at the centre of the case studies as a research and teaching method in the hopes of learning how to innovate rather than proving that innovation is necessary. The aim is to understand the different viewpoints and practices of the two different case studies. The multi-perspective analyses, and the interactions between them, can be used to explore possibilities and solutions.
9
1.2 Thesis Framework
Terminology such as public, citizen, community, and crowd are used within this thesis, in keeping with the upsurge of current research in various sectors. In the second chapter the thesis concepts are divided into four sections: crowdsourcing, online communities, crowdfunding, and public archaeology. Each section will provide a description that will define the concept’s meaning along with the use of examples, to further establish understanding and better place it within the context of archaeological practice.
The third chapter evaluates the terminology ‘educating the public’ that is used in relevant conventions involving archaeology and cultural heritage. Some andragogic principles are set out here to further connect translational processes to help understand contemporary social problems using archaeological methods.
Chapter four highlights conceptions and criteria using recent examples of how archaeology is politicised in a global context and what that means for the archaeology and cultural heritage sectors; a springboard to introduce the two case studies.
Chapter five focuses on a case study from the Netherlands, the Drentsche Aa landscape. Along with the analysis and outcomes of the projects undertaken, concepts such as participatory action research, landscape biography and policy will be examined, and the case study will be further evaluated on a European scale.
In chapter six the second case study explores the UK, Scotland’s ‘Coastal Heritage at Risk Project’. In the evaluation of the project the use of participatory action research, funding and policies will be explored. Furthermore, interpretation, an analogy for a theoretical cultural heritage model and processes, will lead to addressing some comparative insights with the first case study.
Chapter seven conjoins the two case studies to analyse the different and similar parameters of practices, including the successes and failures. This section draws from previous chapters to enhance the evaluative nature of the thesis question.
In the final chapter, the interpretation of new knowledge gained by working through the evaluation of the research question, the different approaches of the two case studies, and vision for new developments are proposed. The challenges for the field of archaeology are openly laid out and connections are made, leaving room to define potential future developments in both theory and practice.
10
2. Definitions
2.1 Crowdsourcing
The term ‘crowdsourcing’ was originally coined in 2006 by Jeff Howe, who wrote an article entitled ‘The Rise of Crowdsourcing’9 in Wired, which reports on the effect new technologies have on the economy, politics and culture. Crowdsourcing is a relatively new term that is adopted by all credible online dictionaries and is defined as a variation of public contribution and participation. It can be summarised as being the practice of information gathering, for a small task or a big project, by enlisting the services of people (the crowd) who are compensated in payment or experience. As Howe put it:
‘Simply defined, crowdsourcing represents the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of people in the form of an open call. This can take the form of peer-production (when the job is performed collaboratively), but is also often undertaken by sole individuals. The crucial prerequisite is the use of the open call format and the large network of potential labourers.’ 10
Whether the crowd are contributing knowledge via the Internet, or via their physical presence in a project, it can be stated that participation and knowledge are being accessed unconventionally on a large scale. So one might ask, what kind of tasks and projects can the crowd contribute to or participate in? To begin with, crowdsourcing might be a new term that is accepted and used, but it is not a relatively new concept. For example, in 1955 Joseph Cahill, the Premier of the State of New South Wales Australia, ran an international competition offering £5,000 in compensation for an architectural design of a National Opera House building to be positioned at the harbour of Bennelong Point in Sydney.11 Out of 233 entries from 32 countries,12 Danish architect Jørn Oberg Utzon won the competition with his designs. In 1957 he was commissioned by the Government of New South Wales to do the final drawings for the Opera House, as well as supervise its construction.13 It is known today as the Sydney Opera House, and since 2007 it has been listed under UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.14 This social and economical accomplishment over time has turned into an Australian identity icon (fig. 1).
9 Howe 2006(a) 10 Howe 2006(b), § 5. 11
Sydney Opera House http://bit.ly/1sR1mes
12
Archives In Brief 28: http://bit.ly/1KvXuag
13
Utzon Drawings: http://bit.ly/1mTzW26
14
11
Figure 1. The site plan for the Sydney Opera House and the ground floor plan.15
This example of crowdsourcing manifested through the involvement of various communication media in the form of television, radio, newspapers, and magazine articles; a combined effort that extended to a wider audience who had certain expertise and could follow the building requirements in a timely manner. In this sense, it is clear that there is an overlap with the notion of ‘public participation’ and the concept of ‘crowdsourcing’.
Crowdsourcing can now be viewed beyond the format of competitions and awards to a problem-solving model, opportune for the crowd to participate. According to Brabham, crowdsourcing is a strategic model that attracts an interested, motivated crowd of individuals
15
12 capable of providing different and perhaps better solutions to traditional forms of business, whereby the crowd can help solve problems that stump corporate scientific researchers.16
In the humanities, there appears to be a typology for the terminology of ‘crowdsourcing’ that Dunn and Hedges identify and divide into three broad categories:
1. Contributory projects in which members of the public (via an open invitation) contribute along lines that are tightly defined and directed by scientists;
2. Collaborative projects which have a central design, but to which members of the public contribute data, and may also help to refine project design, analyse data, or disseminate findings; and
3. Co-created projects, which are designed by scientists and members of the public working together and for which at least some of the public participants are actively involved in most or all steps of the scientific process.17
The Sydney Opera House could be categorised as falling in line with the first and second ‘contributory’ and ‘collaborative’ projects approach, while the third ‘co-created’ projects approach shares characteristics with modern concepts of crowdsourcing.
In a framework that is predominantly focused on the relationship between institutions and the public, museum director Nina Simon points out three main reasons that cultural institutions engage in ‘co-creative’ projects; to give voice and be responsive to the needs and interests of local community members; to provide a place for community engagement and dialogue; and to help participants develop skills that will support their own individual and community goals.18 Simon states that the directors of co-creative projects see their institutions as community-based organizations in service to the needs of visitors, rather than as providers of services the institution perceives as valuable, so co-creative projects are ‘demand-driven’ and often require institutional goals to take a backseat to community goals.19 This in turn allows for more of a democratic flow of information building and gathering.
With regards to museums and heritage, Simon discusses the Magnes Museum, a small Jewish art and history museum in Berkeley California, that created a ‘Memory Lab’,20 inviting visitors to contribute their own artefacts and stories to a digital archive of Jewish heritage, and with an emphasis on ‘making memories,’ the contributory project was a success because it
16
Brabham 2008, 79.
17
Dunn & Hedges 2012, 5.
18
Simon 2010(b), § 2.
19
Ibid. § 3.
20
13 invited visitors to explore their own family heritage.21 Benford points out that it is the rethinking of the relationship between official and unofficial knowledge that is the main challenge that cultural institutions have to face when undertaking a crowdsourcing process.22 This is especially important to think about when institutions also lack funding and/or public interest.
2.2 Online Communities
The beginning of the 21st century has brought about more crowdsourcing opportunities via the Internet, a network of networks,23 hosting online communities on a global scale. Rheingold has been researching the world-wide web and its online participation developments from its early stages, noting in the early 1990s its potential influence on people's beliefs and perceptions, he states that the ‘Net’ is connected to the future of community, democracy, education, science, and intellectual life whether or not people know or care about the future of computer technology.24 But who are these communities? And how have they brought about crowdsourcing opportunities?
To begin with, let us examine SOCIENTIZE (Society as e-infrastructure through technology, innovation and creativity) a recent example (2012) of an online citizen science project, funded by the European Council, to involve the general public in scientific processes.25 This form of participatory action research, a term that can be traced back to social psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1940s regarding his work on group dynamics, experiential learning and action research,26 is an approach to research as a social, participatory, practical and collaborative practice. For the SOCIENTIZE project, it is the participants who raise new questions and co-create a new scientific culture that can broaden a networked and trans-disciplinary culture.27 It is the online community in this example that creates the opportunity for interactions between themselves and the sciences for a more democratic research approach. If one wants to raise awareness of scientific methods, then allowing the public to experience and participate in citizen science is one way to go about it.
An example of an online discourse outside the realm of traditional academia is the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. This online collaborative platform is a good example of online crowdsourced knowledge. Quite recently, ArchaeoWiki (fig. 2) was created, an online 21 Simon 2010(a), § 25. 22 Benford et al. 2013, § 60. 23
Internet Engineering Task Force 1989, 6.
24 Rheingold 1993, § 29. 25 Socientize: http://bit.ly/1SJvJkc 26 Lewin 1947, 5-40. 27
14 community-based collaborative resource and discussion platform for archaeological subject matter that aims to provide inclusive context wherein amateur, professional and academic archaeologists can come together to share and discuss knowledge.28 Contributions are made by members of the public, who register as collaborators to the website. Anyone can visit ArchaeoWiki's pages, but only collaborators and administrators can modify and add pages, however, content that is added, erased, or modified inappropriately can always be removed, retrieved, or reverted.29 In this sense, the content presented by the crowd is an ongoing collaborative process that takes place online with amateurs, archaeologists, and academics from all over the world to innovate digital records of archaeological knowledge.
Figure 2. An example of crowdsourced information shared on a webpage from the Archaeowiki website.30 For the archaeology sector, engaging in information-sharing and online dialogue has to begin with an understanding of how information about the past is sought, processed, received, interpreted, associated, subverted and recycled through the Internet.31 Richardson states that there is a high potential for online platforms to guide and support individuals and communities in finding their own archaeological voice, to gather contributions of crowdsourced archaeological content, to discuss archaeological news and discoveries, and foster online community identity situated around the topic of archaeology and wider heritage issues.32 Online communities are still a relatively new concept for the field of archaeology, albeit increasingly important when considering the global perspectives of archaeology regarding the various voices, content,
28 Archaeowiki: http://bit.ly/1KFEb1F 29 Archaeowiki: http://bit.ly/1JbjF8w 30 Archaeowiki: http://bit.ly/1EKdHDI 31 Richardson 2013, 8. 32 Richardson 2013, 6-8.
15 identities, discoveries and heritage issues that are explored online, all synonymous with communities offline (in the ‘real’ world).
With regards to established cultural institutions exploring crowdsourcing initiatives both online and offline, Benford et al. analysed collaborations between the crowd (or ‘audiences’ in this instance) and galleries, education, libraries, archives, and museums. They asserted that there was an increasing use of crowdsourcing projects being adopted between these organisations and their audiences.
Examples of the elements that the crowdsourcing projects involved ranged from:
● Curating - selecting, classifying, describing, and organising objects
● Revising - analysing, reconsidering, correcting, and improving objects
● Tagging - classification and creation
● Locating - placing objects in physical space, telling stories, and providing information
● Documenting - crowd contributions related to historical events
● Augmenting - crowd contributions related to locating places 33
Benford et al. acknowledge that their use of the definition ‘crowdsourcing’ describes a type of participative online activity, and that interactions with participants occur exclusively online.34 However, what is later determined from their analysis of 36 different crowdsourcing projects is the adoption of a blended approach, combining crowdsourcing ‘face-to-face’ events with ‘standard’ computer-mediated actions, which in the digital humanities is not limited to interactions with a digital audience, as it can take shape in a ‘hybrid approach’ where both physical and online interactions intertwine.35 One factor is clear, the latest crowdsourcing activities are largely related to online activities, however, this does not mean that it is limited to the online activity itself. When one is ‘crowdsourced’ one can also be actively engaged with activities both online and offline, virtually and physically.
If we direct our attention to the commercial archaeology sector, we can find a number of examples where a combination of crowdsourcing online and offline archaeology is taking place. Organisations such as MicroPasts and DigVentures are adopting an online crowdsourcing and crowdfunding platform. MicroPasts is a web-enabled crowdsourcing and crowdfunding project whose overall goal is to promote the collection and use of high quality research data via 33 Benford et al. 2013. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.
16 institutional and community collaborations, both online and offline.36 The multi-application crowdsourcing project is said to enable community-led and massive online contributions to high quality research in archaeology, history and heritage.37 For Bevan et al. the quality control is improved by having tutorials for new users explaining the necessary tasks on the website, such as the online transcription, georeferencing and photo-masking applications, while the more recent features further enable a form of quality control by using an online user voting approach that allow online contributors to build online reputations.38
Another organisation using online communities that extends beyond the virtual is DigVentures. This company has an innovative model that works to connect heritage sector managers and archaeologists with a worldwide crowd of interested and actively engaged participants, creating a platform for the public to financially support projects as well as to join in, learn new skills, and contribute to internationally important research.39 As an ‘Institute for Archaeologists Registered Organisation’ with accredited field schools, their work and opportunities are stated as being quality-assured and at the top of the industry standard.40 Within two years, DigVentures has raised over £65 thousand in seed funding from a globally networked online crowd of supporters,41 which has enabled excavations, field schools, research, and community involvement in the UK. The DigVentures website hosts videos, photography, research designs and articles associated with their projects, all made freely available to anyone with an Internet connection.
For Boast and Biehl, the rate at which archaeological information is being made available online is increasing, with site reports, virtual museums, digital reconstructions, and ideas being available instantaneously that allows for a wide distribution of knowledge.42 It is certainly useful when archaeological sites can be regularly updated, published and accessed online in real-time. Furthermore, Boast and Biehl point out the benefits of the open-source quality of the archaeological knowledge online, which include allowing users to interactively modify, improve, and redistribute the knowledge.43 Herein lie the possibilities for the online
36 Bonacchi et al. 2014, 61. 37 Bevan et al. 2014, 183. 38 Bevan et al. 2014, 191-192. 39 DigVentures: http://bit.ly/1B53AuR 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42
Boast & Biehl 2011, 126.
43
17 construction of knowledge, dissemination and participation, a step away from institutionalised and hierarchical structures of interpretation to a more networked and ‘multivocal approach’.44
Hodder uses this notion of ‘multivocality’ to describe the participation of more voices, more groups, and more individuals, taking into account the fact that achieving the participation of marginalized groups involves a lot more than providing a stage on which they can speak, but changing practices and contexts so that disadvantaged groups have the opportunity to be heard and responded to.45 Taking this into consideration, online communities can be viewed as an extra layer or a patina to the multivocal approach. The Internet is a stage for participatory culture. Hodder further identifies multivocality with moving away from the methods and principles that are attuned to the Western voice and more towards ethics and rights, ‘reflexive methods’, which involves doing archaeology differently and practicing it differently at all levels, from the phase of research design to field methods to writing, publishing, and presenting the past.46 This is not to say that the archaeological discipline (as it stands) needs to be scrapped, but it can be improved upon.
Online communities have already been slowly changing practices in response to the recent and successful projects that have been, and are currently being, carried out. What will be further examined is the current climate of crowdsourcing knowledge, which can have an effect on archaeological practice and provide new opportunities for meaningful exchanges between archaeologists and all other interested stakeholders. While crowdsourcing work online is an appealing approach because people can work within the limitations of their own spare time, however, offline in real-time it might not be a possibility for some people, due to other life/work commitments. Crowdsourcing might be seen only as an opportunity for the retired or the privileged few and likewise for crowdfunding. To bridge this conceptual gap, some suggestions will be made in the following chapters to address these points.
2.3 Crowdfunding
Crowdfunding is closely related to crowdsourcing, but can function on its own as the practice of the public (the crowd) raising monetary contributions to fund projects, which can enable projects to be initially carried out and/or further improve the process of the project. According to Freedman et al. crowdfunding is a method of collecting many small contributions,
44 Ibid. 45 Hodder 2008, 196. 46 Ibid.
18 by means of an online funding platform, to finance or capitalize a popular enterprise.47 Crowdfunding gained traction in 2003 when Brian Camelio, a Boston musician and computer programmer, launched ArtistShare, a website where musicians could seek donations from their fans to produce digital recordings.48
In the past, monetary donations were attributed to ‘charitable’ causes. However, in recent times online crowdfunding sites have allowed for a different model to solicit donations from the crowd. According to a crowdfunding industry report of 2013, worldwide crowdfunding volume reached $2.7 billion in 2012, which were raised from over 1 million campaigns, compared with $1.5 billion raised in 2011.49 With the introduction of new online crowdfunding platforms, crowdfunding has gained momentum over several years and further encouraged ‘producers’ and ‘consumers’ to interact. This does not limit the consumer to being a passive member of the public, but a member of the public who can also purchase an experience to be involved in a project. People who contribute their money to support the efforts initiated by others do not necessarily have to be placed outside of the project itself.
Indiegogo and Kickstarter, considered the two most popular donation-based crowdfunding websites, were founded in 2007 and 2009 respectively and give people and creative projects the opportunity to raise money via online donations or pre-purchasing of products, services or experiences.50 If a project fails to meet its funding goal however, none of the donation commitments made by the public are actually processed and to Kickstarter, this policy ensures a level of security for project creators and backers.51
For Ordanini et al. the idea that some people may decide to pay for producing and/or promoting a product, bearing the risks associated with that decision, represents a further step in the evolution of consumers’ roles that involves a mix of entrepreneurship and social network participation.52 The power of monetary contributions from the crowd via the Internet has influenced all types of organisations, from nonprofits to heritage sectors, to get involved in crowdfunding projects. In more recent years, the archaeology sector specifically has been involved with crowdfunding projects. As discussed earlier, archaeology companies such as MicroPasts and Digventures have capitalised on these projects with the use of the crowdfunding elements in their company design. MicroPasts, for example, is enabling both crowdfunding and
47
Freedman & Nutting 2015, 1; ArtistShare: http://bit.ly/1eN7Sus
48 Ibid. 49 Massolution 2013, 6-7. 50 Barnett 2013, § 3. 51 Ibid. § 15. 52 Ordanini et al. 2009, 3.
19 crowdsourcing, whereby each of these activities can be undertaken independently from one another.53 Some other examples of online crowdsourcing projects in archaeology and related subjects, noted by Bevan et al.54 have involved locating and photographing prehistoric monuments,55 identifying archaeological features on satellite imagery,56 pooling wartime tangible heritage,57 deciphering papyri,58 interrogating built architecture,59 engaging with Indigenous intellectual property,60 transcribing old excavation records,61 mapping and disambiguating ancient place-names,62 and recording metal artefacts.63 Other projects have employed crowdfunding to call for individually small (but, potentially, collectively large) donations to support the study, conservation and communication of archaeological heritage.64
As part of the MicroPasts project, a website was created where communities that are already established offline (e.g. archaeological and historical societies, groups of metal detectorists) as well as more ubiquitous online ‘crowds’ can participate in co-producing archaeological and historical open data via crowdsourcing; designing new research agendas using co-produced data and a community forum; and crowdfunding some of these new collaborations that have been dreamt up collectively.65 For Bevan et al. a project like MicroPasts (fig. 3) will be enormously beneficial to provide opportunities for people traditionally distinguished as ‘academic archaeologists’, fieldwork ‘professionals’ and ‘amateurs’ not only to collaboratively produce research data across a wide variety of applications, but also to develop new research initiatives collectively, and resource them via crowdfunding appeals.66
53 Bonacchi et al. 2014, 63. 54 Bevan et al. 2014, 184. 55
The Megalithic Portal: http://bit.ly/1SJvKF5
56
Field Expedition Mongolia: http://bit.ly/1uif7F7
57
The Great War Archive: http://bit.ly/1FV4Swl
58
The Ancient Lives Project: http://bit.ly/1FiJ1dt
59
Heritage Together: http://bit.ly/1crhKyk
60
Mukurtu: http://bit.ly/1ACyTki
61
The UR Excavations: http://bit.ly/1KFEoSz
62
Pleiades: http://bit.ly/1dErkPQ
63
The Portable Antiquities Scheme: http://bit.ly/1Gdrw4Z
64 Bonacchi et al. 2014, 62. 65 Ibid. 66 Bevan et al. 2014, 184.
20
Figure 3. Mircopasts - crowdfunding and crowdsourcing projects.67
DigVentures describes itself as a social business at the forefront of culture, technology and entrepreneurship, committed to raising seed capital and increasing participation for sustainable archaeology and heritage projects worldwide.68 In 2012, DigVentures crowdsourced and crowdfunded an archaeological dig at Cambridgeshire's Flag Fen, the site of a Bronze-Age causeway of millions of preserved timbers that are rotting away as groundwater recedes from the site.69 They crowdfunded over £30,000 and crowdsourced a worldwide audience (fig. 4) to excavate the internationally significant Bronze Age site of Flag Fen, boosted visitors to the site, trained over 130 people who had crowdfunded the project on site in archaeological field skills, and increased visitors to Flag Fen by over 30% from the previous year.70 An assessment report has been written by the team of specialists and experts, but not without the help of those that made it happen through crowdfunding. Due to the high amount of collaborative success and newly developed partnerships, this particular project will continue to be on the research agenda in the near future.
67
Mircorpasts Crowdfunding: http://bit.ly/1crhU8P
68
DigVentures: http://bit.ly/1B53AuR
69
Flag Fen BBC: http://bbc.in/1eJ8De6
70
21 Figure 4. A map indicating the participants who crowdfunded and crowdsourced the Flag Fen project.71
From their research, Agrawal et al. interprets that the crowdfunding platform has eliminated most distance-related economic frictions normally associated with financing early stage projects, such as acquiring information (e.g. local reputation, stage presence), monitoring progress, and providing input.72 What they concluded with was the use of crowdfunding as a way to help reduce current market failures.73 However, while the online crowdfunding platform enables reputable people and/or companies to access funds on a global scale, it is important to consider the sufficient offline support that enables them to be somewhat successful in reaching their monetary goals online.
If we place this in an archaeological context, and consider archaeology as declining in importance for the public offline, professionals can turn to crowdfunding online (the other public, the ‘online communities’) to help overcome this perceived constraint. Crowdfunding is already creating a new economic market, financially facilitated by the online interested public anywhere in the world, for an aspiring ‘new generation’ of archaeologists with innovative ideas and visions for future research projects, while also cultivating online public interest in the field of archaeology that can further lead to offline public interest and opportunities.
71 Ibid. 72 Agrawal 2011, 3. 73 Ibid. 18.
22
2.4 Public Archaeology
It could be stated that the term ‘public archaeology’ became more prominent in the field of archaeology worldwide during the 1980s, with the transition of processual to post-processual archaeological practice. However, in America it began in the 1960s with the federal and state legislation fundamentally changing the discipline by placing it into the public sphere, and a publicly mandated archaeology emerged, or what Charles McGimsey first called ‘public archaeology’ in 1972.74 According to McGimsey, Public Archaeology was written for colleagues in the archaeological profession, for the growing number of legislators, and for other interested citizens who were becoming increasingly concerned with preserving their states' archaeological heritage.75
Public archaeology, archaeology education and community archaeology are terms that
have been used interchangeably, with grey areas between their boundaries of definition, sometimes defended as separate entities and sometimes seen as mere semantics which need to be adapted to meet local needs.76 ‘Communication’, ‘education’, ‘learning’, ‘outreach’, ‘participation’, and ‘engagement’ are all terms that have been used when referring to the public-archaeology interface, but despite the differences, a common thread in all of the definitions and approaches to participation/engagement in archaeology seems to be the role that the public is perceived to be playing and the nature and role of the disciplinary knowledge.77
For Richardson et al. public archaeology can be defined as both a disciplinary practice and a theoretical position, which can be exercised through the democratization of archaeological communication, activity or administration, through communication with the public, involvement of the public or the preservation and administration of archaeological resources for public benefit by voluntary or statutory organizations.78 In recent years, researchers in the field of public archaeology have urged a thorough review of the theoretical and methodological approaches that can be applied to examine the multiple forms of the interaction between archaeology and society, including the potential of digital technologies to facilitate new collaborative and creative forms of public engagement with the human past.79 In essence, public archaeology involves ‘the public’ as much as possible, while also making contributions to archaeological knowledge.
74 Pykles 2006, 311. 75 McGimsey 1972, xiii. 76
Thomas & Lea 2014, 1.
77
Moussouri 2014, 11.
78
Richardson & Almansa-Sánchez 2015, 194-195.
79
23 Public archaeology is based on the premise that multivocality can improve archaeology with the interpretations of the past; however, this is not to dismiss or compromise the scientific nature of archaeology, but to challenge the inequality of the historical authoritative archetype.80 This leads to the political aspects to which archaeology is always involved in when (re)presenting the past in the present. Interpreting the past is not a scientific act, but a cultural and social one that deals with different accounts of the past that ‘belong’ to different social groups resulting in political entanglements in different countries and regions.81
Holtorf uses three principal models that distinguish the relationship between archaeology and society:
1. The Education Model, which involves the gaining of reliable knowledge by an academic elite and its subsequent dissemination, by public outreach for example, to those with knowledge ‘deficits’ contributing to their enlightenment and competence as citizens.
2. The Public Relations Model, which seeks to improve the public image of archaeology in order to secure its licence to practise and increase social and political support for archaeology and related legislation.
3. The Democratic Model, which emphasizes scientific responsibility and sustainable
development and is based on participatory processes in which non-scientists predominate.82 While each model provides a different approach for public archaeology, they should not be mutually exclusive. The shift to a market-driven economy that is happening worldwide has increased the pressure on archaeology in most countries to stop serving only the intellectual community of scholars and to explicitly demonstrate its value for contemporary society and enhance that value further.83 For Matsuda and Okamura, archaeologists should not be allowed to impose their views on the public, but to be successful, public archaeology needs a two-way dialogue with members of the public.84
With regards to archaeological heritage and the public in Australia, the Australian Archaeological Association clearly identify in the Code of Ethics that:
1.3 Archaeological members recognise that there are many interests in cultural heritage, but they specifically acknowledge the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples;
80
Tully 2007, 158; Pardoe 1992, 139; Schmidt & Patterson 1995, 6.
81
Matsuda & Okamura 2011, 10.
82
Holtorf 2007, 150.
83
Matsuda & Okamura 2011, 9.
84
24
3.3 Archaeological members acknowledge Indigenous approaches to the interpretation of cultural heritage and to its conservation.85
Under the Burra Charter (principles and procedures that have been adopted to create a nationally accepted standard for heritage conservation practice in Australia), people involved in the conservation of heritage places (a monument, building, garden, shell midden, rock art site, road, mining, archaeological site, or a whole region) should:
● Understand the place and its cultural significance, including its meaning to people, before making decisions about its future
● Involve the communities associated with the place
● Care for its cultural significance and other significant attributes, taking account of all aspects of significance
● Care for the place's setting ● Provide an appropriate use ● Provide security for the place ● Use available expertise
● Make records of the place and changes to it, and the reasons for these decisions ● Interpret and present the place in a way appropriate to its significance86
Article 12 in the Burra Charter includes ‘participation,’ encouraging conservation, interpretation and management of a place which should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has significant associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place.87 It could be safe to say that Australian archaeology includes multivocality when addressing public archaeology and can be identified under Holtorf's ‘Democratic Model’, in that participation of Indigenous people is essential in Australian archaeology.
In Europe, the European Association of Archaeologists have a Code of Practice that states in the preamble that archaeological heritage (as defined in Article 1 of the 1992 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage) is the heritage of all humankind, whereby archaeology is the study and interpretation of that heritage for the benefit of society as a whole and archaeologists are the interpreters and stewards of that heritage on behalf of their
85
AAA Code of Ethics: http://bit.ly/1KFEE3I
86
The Burra Charter: http://bit.ly/1dEryq6
87
25 fellow men and women.88 This places the archaeologist in a position of information/knowledge provider for the public by investigating the past on behalf, and ‘for the benefit,’ of the public. Richardson et al. rightly questions who are the ‘publics’ of public archaeology? For instance, are the audiences for the production and consumption of archaeological information simply for local communities? Do these audiences include tourist organisations, religious groups, construction companies, housing developers, media outlets, and consumers of historical television programs, antiques dealers, and politicians? 89 It becomes more complicated when thinking about the theory behind public archaeology, because there are no precise definitions when it is situated in different cultural and political constructs. However, one thing is clear, sharing archaeological findings with the public is not ‘public archaeology’ by itself and it is not only a matter of working with communities or providing educational opportunities, it is about management and the construction of knowledge and the concept of heritage.90 In this way, public archaeology actually moves beyond the ‘community’ towards the political, social and economic spheres.
In the Netherlands, little inclusion and active participation of the public in the actual fieldwork and knowledge production occurs; the engagement with the public only allows for passive engagement, such as informing, educating, and entertaining people, and little to do with concepts like inclusiveness, empowerment, multivocality, or with the democratization of knowledge production.91 In terms of the three models Holtorf distinguishes, according to Van den Dries, the Netherlands applies a combination of the educational model and the public relations model, but not the democratic model.92 According to the Dutch Archaeological Quality Standard, presenting monuments with a ’high perception value’ is a way to create public support for the protection of archaeological monuments.93 By translating the values ascribed to the historic environment based on a form of embodied knowledge, local identity, and shared history, is one approach to get the Dutch public involved with their own cultural heritage.
While the Netherlands may only be at the beginning stages of public involvement in archaeology and active community participation, they are not alone according to Van den Dries, as members of the European Association of Archaeologists also aim to set up a committee
88
EAA Code of Practice: http://bit.ly/1HDRMjC
89
Richardson & Almansa-Sánchez 2015, 7.
90
Ibid. 9.
91
Dries, M.H. van den 2014, 69.
92
Ibid. 71.
93
26 around these issues.94 The Archaeology in Contemporary Europe (ACE) is a development that aims to look at the professional practices and public outreach aspects of archaeology in Europe.
One good example of public archaeology in Europe that fits in with the ‘democratic model’ is the work Gerhard Ermischer has participated in for over 15 years, the Spessart project in Germany.95 The Archaeological Spessart Project is a registered association with recognized charitable status; also know as a ‘not-for-profit’ organisation. What is further interesting to note is that the aforementioned crowdfunded and crowdsourced projects MicroPasts and DigVentures both support a funding model that also contains a charitable status, and these ‘not-for profit’ research projects allow new opportunities ‘not-for members of the public to directly participate in excavations, as well as collaborate with academic institutions.96 This model is an important connection to consider when thinking about the practice of archaeology, and it will be further explored in the following chapters.
3. Education & Translational Archaeology
What is surprising is the use of ‘educating the public’ terminology found in every European and International convention involving archaeology and cultural heritage. What should be adopted, therefore, are educational principles to the practice of ‘public’, ‘crowdsourced’, ‘crowdfunded’, ‘community‘ archaeology. By adopting andragogic principles, not teaching people but helping them learn, as prescribed by American adult educator Malcolm Knowles in the 1960s,97 can be seen to be a socially responsible approach. That is, more collaborative and problem-based rather than didactic, with the emphasis on equality between the teacher (expert) and the learner (the public).
Some principles that Knowles addresses in the conditions for adult learning include: 1. Learners feel a need to learn.
2. The learning environment is characterized by mutual trust, respect, mutual helpfulness and acceptance of differences.
3. Learners accept and share the responsibility for planning a learning experience and therefore have a level of commitment towards it.
4. The learning process is related to, and makes use of, the experience of the learners. 98
94
Dries, M.H. van den 2014, 70.
95
Spessart project: http://bit.ly/1Jbk76E; Civil Scape: http://bit.ly/1ACzmTB
96
Micropasts: http://bit.ly/1eJ94Fk; DigVentures: http://bit.ly/1LQLhOF
97
Knowles 1970, 38-39.
98
27 The main theory behind Knowles' work is that teachers work with learners towards educational experiences that are cooperative in nature and guide learners to develop their own potential. Shanks presents an analogy between archaeology and craft in education, whereby a creative dialogue between teacher and student around a particular topic produces something new (such as awareness or ability) within student and perhaps teacher (the act of communication as process of learning).99 By applying the four main principles above for adult learning, and relating them to potential archaeological and cultural heritage projects for the crowdsourced public, the outcomes could involve:
1. To better record, survey, or produce surveys for local and/or valued environment. 2. Experts working together with the crowdsourced public, supporting each other online
and/or offline.
3. The crowdsourced public being involved, without an obvious ‘monetary’ reward, create an internal one such as altruism, gaining new skills, personal growth, social interaction, or future job prospects.
4. Learning, through practice and theory, to experience and develop new and unexpected opportunities.
The connection between adult education and developing archaeological and cultural heritage projects is not obvious at first, but stem from the current social and economical circumstances that have allowed for more freely available online education for adults in recent years. Through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), anyone can get involved in learning about how maritime archaeology investigates our changing relationship with the oceans and seas,100 or learn about recovering humankind's past and saving universal heritage.101 These courses are examples that can engage the public in their own learning for future endeavours. The more in-depth vocational training that is available online include courses such as E-Archaeology,102 a European Erasmus initiative which involves improving skills for people who would like to work, or are currently working, in the archaeological, natural and cultural heritage sectors.
99
Shanks 1992, 138.
100
Future Learn: http://bit.ly/1leprG1
101
Coursera: http://bit.ly/1PWeYng
102
28 The development of such courses by professionals and experts is to open up the lines of communication to help people help themselves. In this way, an online community develops; forums connect students with each other, as well as to the professors and teaching assistants. Over the years, people have been accustomed to the use of online social media and already know how to share information online such as status updates, messages, news, links, photos and videos. However, online communities do not come ready-made. They are cultivated over time for different reasons, along with the ongoing digital literacy skills that are required to communicate.
MOOCs continue to be an international model for modern-day learning. It is the motivated adult learners, disrupting outdated educational practices (albeit using Knowles educational principles) that drive it. This is not so different from the online technological developments being more open source for archaeology and cultural heritage education and training. Why do people take the time to learn? Spending one’s free time online watching pre-recorded video lectures and participating in written exercises is not so different from the online archaeology projects that allow inputting of data and sharing knowledge for others to use and build upon. Could this perhaps be seen as a translational process, one in which people translate their findings into information, which can be useful to solve problems such as aforementioned erosion, environmental and cultural heritage protection? Perhaps why so many people participate in crowdsourcing and crowdfunding projects is simply based on the opportunity to participate, donate, and having a general interest in the projects made available to them.
An example of a translational archaeology project that really applies archaeological methods to help understand a contemporary social problem can be seen in research conducted by Zimmerman et al. in Indiana USA, regarding activism and creating a translational archaeology of homelessness. For Zimmerman et al. archaeology can no longer generate knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but, with the public as collaborators, must translate it for the public good.103 There is something that resonates in this statement. The thought of archaeologists putting archaeological information to social uses, and doing so with the collaboration of other disciplines and involving communities with interests in the problems being studied, makes archaeology more relevant and helps it ‘earn its keep’.104 While it can be argued that archaeology is being instrumentalised in this way, it is already apparent that archaeology has always been a political tool and denying, ignoring, or discounting the political nature of
103
Zimmerman et al. 2010, 453.
104
29 archaeology presents real dangers that leaves archaeologists with no say or role in the political life of the knowledge that they create.105
4. Conceptions and Criteria
Archaeology can be used to define cultural history. The recent events in Iraq, with the Islamic State group destroying ancient statues and artefacts at a museum in Mosul, conveys how symbols of the past are politically used to commit war crimes against minority groups. In an attempt to salvage cultural history, political citizen action is taking place with Project Mosul, a volunteer initiative supported by the European Union.
What the project uses are crowdsourced images to virtually recreate artefacts as 3D objects, using the latest in photogrammetry techniques, and these 3D representations are then presented in an online museum where the data will be freely accessible to the public.106
This positive effort to engage communities around the world to preserve knowledge and cultural heritage empowers people to be politically active and participate in remarkable ways. The project is expanding to include other countries where destruction of archaeological sites and monuments has taken place such as Nepal, Egypt, and Syria.
In Australia, laws that protect archaeological heritage is seen to be based on a perceived public need with archaeological heritage having a perceived value; in the absence of either, legislation to protect archaeological heritage would be non-existent.107 The same could be asked of archaeological practice in Europe; can archaeology continue in the commercial sectors without the help of legislation to protect it if there is no ‘public need’ or any ‘perceived value’? It is a political question that relates the responsibilities of archaeology and heritage to its citizens.
The research conducted by Zimmerman et al. indicates ways in which archaeology can be translational and lead to policy shifts. Even though the public (and perhaps archaeologists) rarely thought of archaeology in relation to contemporary social issues, they asked themselves how archaeological examinations of homelessness might be used to inform public policy related to improving the daily lives of homeless people.108 This is an example of contemporary archaeology that ‘does politics’ and openly recognizing that current archaeology also does politics, the use of it should invoke a responsibility for those political powers.109
105
McGuire 2008, 17.
106
Project Mosul: http://bit.ly/1dEtEGr
107 North 2006, 139. 108 Zimmerman et al. 2010, 446. 109 Ibid. 444.
30 Furthermore, abuse of the knowledge archaeologists create and the power associated with it is always a risk, but risk at least can be diffused if knowledge is put to use by communities, not individuals, and if power can be shared instead of concentrated, then archaeologists need to be civically engaged and try to become translational, working with others to transform their knowledge into practical applications to benefit communities.110 It is here that Zimmerman et al. contends that the public will not truly value archaeology until archaeologists recognize the political nature of their own work and develop activist strategies in conjunction with the communities with which they collaborate.111
If archaeologists and professionals from the heritage sectors, along with the public, can identify problems and needs, they too should be able to suggest changes in governmental policies. That sounds more like a democratic process. By making archaeology more political and relevant to issues relating to the present (homelessness, climate change, erosion, environmental diversity, endangered species, educational equality), it has the potential to be so much more than the perceived few digging in the dirt. It leaves room for the broadening of the archaeology discipline itself, which should evolve as people, culture, environment, and technology advance.
5. Case Study 1. The Netherlands Drentsche Aa Programme
Drenthe is a province in the Netherlands located in the northeast region of the country (fig. 5). The majority of the province lies within the broad belt of Pleistocene sandy and moraine landscapes that extend across northwest Europe, from Flanders (via the southern and eastern parts of the Netherlands) into northern Germany and western Denmark.112 The Drentsche Aa National Landscape (fig. 6) encompasses around 20% of the province, and coincides with the catchment of the Drentsche Aa brook system (Aa = stream, small river) which drains the northern part of the old boulder clay plateau.113 Villages are integrated in the Drentsche Aa landscape, with the region itself containing over 3500 archaeological find spots from almost every period, including Prehistory, Protohistory, and the Middle Ages.114 With a long history of settlement, it is described as one of the most unspoilt sandy soil landscapes in the northwest
110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112
Elerie & Spek 2010, 94.
113
Ibid.
114
31 European lowlands with well-preserved historical stratification.115 This makes it more than just an important Dutch landscape, but an important European one too.
A research and action programme of the Drentsche Aa region was carried out as part of the NWO programme ‘Preserving and Developing the Archaeological Archive’ (Bodemarchief in Behousen Ontwikkeling, PDL/BBO)116 during 2005-2009; a five year project that explores issues of research and public participation in more depth. According to Elerie & Spek, there is a growing awareness in the Netherlands that nature management, heritage management and public participation need to be more integrated117 and their work tries to address this in the Drentsche Aa region.
Figure 5. National Landscapes of the Netherlands designated by the Dutch government in 2004.118
115
The Drentsche Aa National Landscape: http://bit.ly/1AFynln 2005, 9.
116
Elerie & Spek 2010, 85.
117
Ibid. 83.
118
32 According to the Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed -RCE), the Drentsche Aa National Landscape project was an interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers from different disciplines, which included the active input of knowledge and ideas from local residents and community organizations.119 This highlights the practice as being an acceptable model to which the Dutch government finds agreeable, as it is further emphasised by the RCE that scientific knowledge will have a direct relationship in the social practice of environmental policy via action research in the future.
Figure 6. The Drentsche Aa National Landscape contains one of the best preserved brook valley
systems in the Netherlands.120
5.1 Participatory Action Research
Active research is a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others or part of a ‘community of practice’ to improve the way they address issues
119
Erfgoedbalans 2009: http://bit.ly/1AFysoU
120
33 and solve problems.121 Lewin’s work during the 1940s around participatory action research conceived an important notion; one in which research and action can be (and should be) done with people, not for people, to achieve rewarding outcomes. The dialogue between public authorities and experts on the one hand, and local residents and stakeholders on the other, takes place most specifically in a process referred to as ‘participatory planning’, ‘communicative planning’, ‘interactive planning’ or ‘consensus planning’122 and by setting goals together, policy can formulate. Bloemers and Van der Valk address the role of science in policy, the ‘knowledge-action nexus’, in that, academic knowledge plays a role in the transdisciplinary process when decisions are being made in the Netherlands regarding archaeology.123 The knowledge-action nexus can be better shown in a diagram (fig. 7).
Figure 7. The core structure (via Heleen van Londen) of the interaction between knowledge, policy,
imagination and practice,124 with the knowledge-action nexus running from policy-makers (planning) to scientists (experts & academics).
The relationship between research, policy and the public is expressed as ‘knowledge-action’ in the following table (tab.1) regarding landscape and transformation. The interaction between research and design, focusing on the role of facts and constructions of the past and the future, is ‘imagination’ and the knowledge production and experiences stemming from interaction, which is generally mediated by stories, maps and designs to share with all actors, is ‘sharing knowledge’.125 121 Ibid. 92. 122 Ibid. 93. 123
Valk, A. van der & Bloemers 2006, 30.
124
Bloemers 2010, 13.
125
