jpi-ch.eujpi-ch.eu/wp-content/uploads/...Report-by-CH-JPI-Scientific-Commit… · Web viewjpi-ch.eu

JPI Cultural Heritage and Global Change

JHEP Workpackage 2

Deliverable 2.6

Report by CH JPI Scientific Committee

Creating the Strategic Research Agenda:an overview by Prof. Koenraad VAN BALEN, Chair of the JPI-CH Scientific Committee

The purpose of this Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) is to outline the priority research areas to be developed, the objectives, the outcomes and desired impacts, the types of intervention and resources available by Member States and sector of intervention. Using the Vision document that was produced in 2010 as our starting point, the SRA has been developed with input from a wide range of stakeholders across Europe to reflect the three different facets of cultural heritage: the tangible, intangible and digital.

As cultural heritage faces challenges on every front, the Joint Programming Initiative, Cultural Heritage and Global Change (JPI-CH) is both timely and welcome. It is an exciting and ambitious endeavour involving 17 Member States and eight Observer Countries. The JPI-CH will streamline and coordinate national research programmes to enable improvements to the efficient and effective use of scarce financial resources, exploit synergies and avoid overlaps. It will help to identify, address and tackle these challenges before any more of this heritage is lost forever.

This was a unique and ambitious endeavour as no example previously existed using this approach to collect such information, and to give it the necessary backing and support as to ensure that the Strategic Research Agenda should be relevant and be supported by stakeholders. The JPI-CH envisages that researchers, heritage institutions, stakeholder organisations and research funding authorities can contribute to the implementation of future research needs for the field of protecting, valorising and enlightening cultural heritage.

The JHEP team responsible for the development and elaboration of the Strategic Research Agenda (WP2) has guided the process. An Expert Group composed of 2 members of the Scientific Committee and 2 external experts was established at the start of the JHEP. The Expert Group provided the expert view in developing the “Common Framework” and at a later stage helped to analyse the inputs from the National Consultation Panels. The common framework was discussed by the Scientific Committee in early 2012 (in a seminar room at Tate Modern, London) and then communicated to the National Consultation Panels with the request for input on identifying and prioritizing research areas, needs and gaps. The level of response and feedback was overwhelming, demonstrating the willingness in participating Member States to collaborate to the exercise and demonstrating the immense efforts made by all people involved in the JHEP. The exercise was not straight forward as understanding all nuances of the Common Framework by the diverse members of the National Consultation Panels in different cultural contexts led to more challenges in interpreting the feed-back than may have been foreseen. But that challenge was taken up and was discussed at the next Scientific Committee meeting in the board Room of the National Gallery in London.

The outcome of the work was that four priority research areas have been identified:

1/ Recognition/developing a reflective society; Including “Identity and perception (for example, cultural interpretations of heritage, significance of heritage, diversity and identity)”; “Values (for example, includes cultural memory and values)”; Ethics (for example, rights and responsibilities, ownership, ethical implications of access to cultural heritage including new forms of access, consequences for CH as a result of demographic changes).

2/ Access/connecting people to heritageIncluding “Protection through use (for example, includes energy efficiency of historic buildings, value creation of heritage, revitalising built and landscape heritage)”; Sustainability (for example, understanding embodied energy in heritage materials, structures and assemblies)”; Security (for example, management strategies for secure access to, for example, objects, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes)”; Heritage information (for example, digitisation, information processes, copyright)”; Digital interaction.

3/ Interpretation/creating knowledge;Including “Linking (for example, linking quantitative and qualitative data, GIS on tangible and intangible heritage; using new technologies to link disparate digital contents and other CH information; reference collections (including digital), overviews of CH)”; “Change (for example, understanding and modelling of material decay, investigation of damage mechanisms, consequences of land use changes for CH)”; “Methods and measurement (for example, instrumentation, non-invasive testing, tele-survey, technical analysis, environmental assessment and monitoring)”; “Integrating risks/risk management”.

4/ Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource;Including “Conservation (for example, material, technologies and procedures for maintenance and conservation, conservation of traditional, modern and contemporary art and heritage materials, as well as digitized and born digital contents)”, “Global and climate change (for example, mitigating the effects of climate change, managing, material, site and structural change, stabilising CH endangered by changes in environmental conditions)”.

In addition, further contribution to the Strategic Research Agenda was expected through a Foresight Study undertaken by a horizon scanning expert.

With the following steps (a Drivers Analysis, a real-time Delphi Study and a Futures Literacy workshop) in preparation, it was anticipated that insight into drivers resulting from those next exercises could have a bearing on the previously identified areas. Given the timescale involved, it was not possible for the Scientific Committee to see the full methodology and outcomes of the Foresight Study before the final draft of the SRA was produced. However, the Chair of the Scientific Committee, Professor Koenraad Van Balen, participated in the Futures Literacy workshop and all members of the Scientific Committee were invited to view, and to take part in, the real-time Delphi Study.

One of the Foresight methods used was the Delphi Technique - a widely used forecasting tool consisting of one or two rounds of questionnaires, set by forecasting experts and sent out to experts of the field of interest in question (in this case, cultural heritage) as well as a few experts with

knowledge of the broader field (for example, ICT experts). In order to gain the optimum spread of information and the best insights and expert views, members of all National Consultation Panels were invited in August 2012 to participate in this method. The Delphi is a process used to collect expert judgement on future events, probabilities and anticipated impacts. A Real-Time Delphi was used which gives more dynamic feedback, both to the horizon-scanning expert and those taking part. It was not duplicating the work of the NCPs (and is not a consultation as such) but instead used the information from the first activity to analyse the drivers as well as look at why differences exist (and why people think differently). The Delphi study on the future of cultural heritage aimed at understanding to what extent and within which timespan major social trends would interact with the way society will be dealing with heritage. It was also asked to what extent those trends and their interaction with cultural heritage may affect research needs in the field.

Foresight is a field that apparently may seem less relevant for people dealing with the past. However, in November 2012 an “eye-opening” JPI Futures Literacy Scenario Workshop was organized at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris under the guidance of Dr. Riel Miller, head of Foresight at UNESCO. The objective was again to have a better understanding how the future of cultural heritage research may look like and to explore the underlying assumptions held about future directions for cultural heritage.

The strategic research agenda reflects the outcome of all previously mentioned endeavours. As is the case in the world of heritage, this SRA is just a starting point of a dynamic process that will lead to a continuous update of this agenda, the more it is cherished and shared the more it will contribute to the preservation and the enhancement of heritage in Europe through relevant and effective research. Future joint activities and European RTD work programs will help to implement this trajectory.

As is the case in the world of cultural heritage, this SRA is just a starting point of a dynamic process that will lead to a continuous update of this agenda, the more it is cherished and shared the more it will contribute to the preservation and the enhancement of heritage in Europe through relevant and effective research. Future joint activities and European Research and Technology Development (RTD) work programs will help to implement this trajectory.

The pan-European Scientific Committee of experts that contributed their knowledge and expertise wholeheartedly endorses the process of developing this Strategic Research Agenda.

by Prof. Koenraad VAN BALEN, chair of the Scientific Committee of the JPI-CH

Details about the participating groups, the process and the how the priority research areas were chosen can be found in Annex A

An overview of the Delphi Study can be found at Annex B. Reports on all aspects of the Foresight Study will be made available at www.jpi-culturalheritage.eu once the SRA is published.

Minutes from both Scientific Committee meetings can be found at Annex C

http://www.jpi-culturalheritage.eu/

Annex A

Creating the Strategic Research Agenda

Putting together the team

Steering CommitteeThe Steering Committee was comprised of beneficiaries of the JHEP, JPI Executive Board members and Associated Participants. This group provided high-level decisions and guidance on the development of the SRA.

Scientific CommitteeThe Scientific Committee includes 12 experts from the participating Member States and beyond, selected by peer-review. Their function is to support the JPI Consortium and to provide scientific advice and guidance. They also contributed scientific input to the creation and content of the Common Framework and elements of the Foresight study, and provided an external review of the process and input into the Strategic Research Agenda itself. It also contributed to the draft of the SRA.

Expert GroupAn Expert Group composed of two members of the Scientific Committee and two external experts was established at the start of the JHEP. They had a highly operational role and provided the expert view in developing the Common Framework and analysing the inputs from the National Consultation Panels.

National Consultation PanelsEach country participating in the JPI set up a National Consultation Panel by either issuing a Call for Expressions of Interest or by using already established national strategic research groups or other advisory groups. Each member sat on the panel as experts, rather than as representatives of a particular organization or discipline. Each panel identified research areas, activities, gaps and needs across the field of tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage. The membership of all the National Consultation Panels and their inputs to the SRA will be made available at www.jpi-culturalheritage.eu once the SRA is published.

Establishing a Common Framework

The Expert Group established a framework to obtain information on research areas, gaps and needs under the drivers ‘Use’. ‘Access’, ‘Interpretation’, ‘Protection’, ‘Recognition’, ‘Change/Transformation’ and ‘Management’. The drivers chosen were based on information drawn from the JPI description. Information on 1) the activities/instruments required to address these areas/gaps/needs, 2) the benefits of the research to cultural heritage and 3) societal, economic and environmental criteria (impacts/risks) was also captured by the framework.

Defining the drivers for the research areas and interpretation of various drivers was complex and the Scientific Committee requested that it be made clear what is meant by ‘criteria’ and ‘drivers’. The



following schematic was produced and included in the guidance to demonstrate both the definitions of, and the relationship between, the drivers, research areas, gaps and needs and the criteria:

A two stage ranking procedure (one based on priorities as determined by the ‘National Consultation Panel’ (i.e. research areas that are national priorities) and one based on priorities in terms of ‘European collaboration’ (i.e. research areas which would benefit from EU collaboration)) was agreed to be the most appropriate option.

Requesting feedback

Following validation and approval by the Coordinators and the Scientific Committee the Common Framework was sent out to all Partners for distribution to the NCPs.

NCPs were requested to:

Review the template and information provided; Add additional, high priority research areas, gaps and needs as required Review all research areas and rank in terms of a) the NCP priorities and b) requiring

European collaboration (top 12 only).

The response: National Consultation Panel Input

NCP input from 16 participating Member States was received: UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Poland, Sweden, Italy, France, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Cyprus, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Most Member States ranked both NCP priorities and those requiring European collaboration exactly the same thereby resulting in one ranked list per Member State.

Many Member States did not feel able to complete columns such as societal, environmental and economic impacts, activities/instruments, benefits of research area to cultural heritage etc. For this reason, analysis concentrated on the research areas, (including gaps and needs).

Process for Analysis of National Consultation Panel Input

The Expert Group discussed both the content and the ranked lists submitted by each NCP.

Step 1

The top 12 ranked (European collaboration) research areas were grouped initially into the following categories: - Methods, materials and measurement;- Material change and decay;- (Changes in the) use and role of CH;- Historical context and integrity;- Value and memory;- Linking CH information through digital means;- Sustainability and energy;- Ethics, identity and diversity;- In situ testing/preservation;- Natural resources;- Management strategies and consequences;- Policy, regulations and frameworks;- Modern and new CH;- Conceptual issues;- GIS etc;- Adaptation to and consequences of global change;- Ownership, rights and responsibilities;- Cross-cutting issues.

Step 2

For each research area the individual ranking assigned to it by each NCP was included and a simple ‘count’ of the rankings (the number of Member States that included a particular research area in their priority list) was totalled.

Research areas were ranked as follows: by the broad categories in the list above and then by count. This was to retain all the detail

and to give the group a starting point for discussion. They were then sorted by the ‘sum of ranks’. As highest to lowest priorities were ranked from 1 to 12 respectively, the lower the sum of ranks for a research area, the higher up on the priority list it would appear.

by count irrespective of the broader categories that were originally used (in step 1) to group the research areas.

by ‘sum and count’: the sum of ranks multiplied by the count (e.g. Sum of ranks = 53, count = 7, ranking = 371).

Research areas were then re-grouped using the broader categories (as in step 1) then ranked using the total ‘sum and count’ for each grouping.

Formula usedAs highest to lowest priorities were ranked from 1 to 12 respectively rankings were recalculated as 13-X, where X = the original ranking to allow research areas to be ranked by priorities in numerical order of high to low (e.g. if a country scored a research area 12, i.e. lowest in their priority list, the recalculated value (13-12=1) would appear lower on this list and vice versa for those higher up on a Member States’ priority list with a low value of 1,2,3 etc. Research areas were then ranked by the new ‘sum and count’ using the new ‘sum of ranks’ based on the recalculated values.

Step 3

Research areas were then re-grouped using the broader categories (as in step 1) then ranked using the new total ‘sum and count’ for each grouping (based on the recalculated values).

Step 4The Expert Group refined the research areas and removed any redundant or duplicated areas.

Step 9Research areas were assigned to four ‘priority areas’: Access, Interpretation, Protection and Recognition, before being assigned to the following more refined areas:

Digital interaction; Protection through use; Security; Change; Linking; Measurement &methods; Sustainability; Integrating risks; Conservation; Global and climate change; Ethics; Identity and perception; Values; Knowledge sharing; Policy, laws and regulations; Research infrastructure.

In addition, certain research areas were highlighted as being ‘pre-conditions’ and not research, such as ‘IP rights and copyright issues’, ‘Policy development, framework conditions and management’. These ‘pre-conditions’ were later described more accurately as an ‘enabling framework’ by the Scientific Committee.

Step 10Research areas were then ranked according to ‘sum of ranks’ only, and without the impact of count.

Adding Foresight

The final part of the process included three activities under the broad title of Foresight study. This was undertaken by Dr. Martin Rhisiart and his team at University of Glamorgan and Mr Meirion Thomas from CM International.

Analysis of trends and drivers: Drivers and trends information was identified across a range of fields that were relevant to cultural heritage. The headings used to collect and analyse the drivers and trends included ‘evidence for the trend’, ‘potential implications and impacts, risks, opportunities etc.’ Drivers included demography, globalisation, Internet of Things, Big Data, climate change, learning, gamification, security technologies, philanthropy, crowd funding etc.

Real-Time Delphi: (this online survey was open Oct-Nov 2012). The Delphi method is a widely used forecasting tool consisting of one or two rounds of questionnaires, set by forecasting

experts and sent out to experts of the field of interest in question (in this case, cultural heritage). In order to gain the optimum spread of information and the best insights and expert views we invited over 200 people to participate, including members of all national consultation panels and members of the JPI Scientific Committee. Results were interpreted by the foresight team at the University of Glamorgan.

o A summary of the Real-Time Delphi Report are in Annex B

Scenario Workshop: The workshop took place over 2 days (19 – 20 November 2012) at the UNESCO Office in Paris. The workshop consisted of a relatively small group of people (13) with a broad range of expert knowledge from the research/practitioner and/or policy community. The 2 days consisted of not only a challenging exercise but also a creative and participatory process to develop strategic scenarios and a rigorous ‘imagining’ of different conditions and also included a section on broader social and technological changes relevant to cultural heritage. The two days were also globally focused and not confined to EU.

Annex B

Real-Time Delphi Study on the Future of Cultural Heritage Research - a summary

Foresight methods have been used by the JPI to provide a structured, forward-looking assessment of the possible landscape for cultural heritage research over the next decade and beyond. The Real-Time Delphi Study is one of the Foresight methods used to assess the potential changes in technologies, society, the environment and the economy

Views on key drivers

Participants in the Real Time Delphi study were asked to provide their judgements and feedback on a range of technological, social, environmental and economic drivers of change that had been analysed in a previous part of the Foresight study. By asking the experts to evaluate the group of 20 drivers included in the survey, a picture emerges of their potential impact and implications. Likert scale questions (1-10) were used to capture these judgements along with free text questions. Participants were also asked to rate their own expertise in these areas (scale of 1-10).

Some of the results are presented according to the profile of respondents:

Primary area of cultural heritage (if their work was directly related to cultural heritage): Tangible; Intangible; Digital;

Primary Profession: Research; Government; Practitioner; Funding Agency; Other.

The two drivers/themes judged to have the greatest impact were Tourism and Transport, and Digitisation of Society. It should also be noted that these are the two drivers where participants expressed the highest levels of expertise (1st=digitisation of society; 2nd= tourism and transport). The other two drivers that make up the ‘Top 4’ – with average scores across the cohorts of above 7.0 – were Social Capital, Mutuality and Volunteering, and Global Migration and Mobility.

Respondents’ views on these four highest-ranking drivers are summarised below.

The full report on the Real-Time Delphi Study, including further detail on the top 4 drivers will be made available at www.jpi-culturalheritage.eu once the SRA is published.

Table: Top 4 Drivers – Future Impact for Cultural Heritage and Participants’ Level of Expertise

Impact Expertise1 Tourism and transport 7.97 6.032 Digitisation of Society 7.93 6.313 Social capital 7.08 5.554 Global migration, mobility 7.08 5.17


Tourism and Transport (#1)Developments in tourism and transport will have a significant impact on cultural heritage.

Tourism and transport is the highest-ranked driver for its future impact. Many respondents emphasise the clear, established links between cultural heritage tourism and transport. Cultural heritage has long been viewed as an economic driver of tourism and travel. It is anticipated that this will continue to be the case over the coming years.

Future Impact Results by Respondent Profile

Tourism and transport was highly ranked amongst all respondent profiles (average of 7.97). The highest average ranking was given by the Practitioner group (9.0) whilst the lowest was given by the Digital group (7.15).

One of the assumptions underpinning most of the responses is the travel will remain relatively cheap and affordable in the next decade or so (e.g. cheap air travel in the European context). Participants refer to increased demand for cultural heritage sites as a result. Whilst broadly supporting access to cultural heritage sites – promoting awareness and appreciation of cultural heritage – a common thread running through responses is the danger of physical stresses and degradation. A suggested response – cited frequently – is the constant monitoring and researching of cultural heritage sites. Another mechanism for avoiding congestion and degradation in cultural heritage ‘hot spots’ would be to encourage tourism around lesser known sites (libraries, archives, small museums) and ‘to cities / towns / places other than the usual "art cities"’.

Although the aggregate view of the group was that tourism and transport would have a very significant impact on cultural heritage, some alternatives were presented. With the advances in digital technologies and increases in energy prices, one participant stated that ‘tele and virtual tourism will take the place of much physical travel’.

Research implications

Physical and economic impacts of cultural heritage, e.g.

“Research should include an examination of current problems with cost-effective, easily-implemented mitigating programmes followed by awareness campaigns for tourism and transport providers.”

“More understanding of the tourism and transport sector is needed to develop sustainable cultural heritage strategies.”

Research on ‘empowering local communities in dealing with heritage, not necessarily having "profit" from tourism is needed’

Research topic "Economy of Culture" as one of the research priorities. In situ conservation and restoration of CH and open access to the public are crucial in this

area

Digitisation of Society (#2)The digitisation of society will have a significant impact on cultural heritage.

The digitisation of society was the second highest ranked-driver in terms of future significance. This view is strongly reinforced by the tenor of textual responses that support these assessments. Many participants point the existing impact of digitisation on cultural heritage, and anticipate that this will continue and become even stronger in future. This is summed up by one participant’s response:

Digitization is already impacting upon all aspects of cultural heritage and will continue to do so.


The average score for the driver across respondent profiles was 7.93. The highest average ranking was given by the Funding Agency group (9.0) whilst the lowest was given by the Intangible group (6.79).

The comments made on digitisation and its impact are broadly positive, but with some qualifying remarks. Participants cite a core set of significant issues for digitisation and cultural heritage. These have been clustered into three (related) themes:

Democratisation and accessDigitisation has a ‘fundamental role in the democratisation of cultural heritage’ (participant). Participants pointed to the positive nature of democratisation as a principle. Some went further in suggesting that ‘digitisation may well be the saviour of many forms of cultural heritage’. In addition to the preservation and communication of cultural heritage, digital technologies have an important role in engaging users and ‘audience participation’ (participant).

Sustainability and durability, archivingThere were some notes of caution in the broad welcoming and recognition of the democratisation effects of cultural heritage. ‘It (digitisation) is inherently democratic but an assurance of sustainability will be essential’ (Participant). The point about the sustainability and durability of digitised cultural heritage was raised by several participants and ‘the possibility of other imminent technological solutions to encoding and preservation of material culture should not be ruled out.’

The increasing number of ‘born digital’ project presents new challenges in accessing and archiving vast amounts of digital data.

InterpretationThe third main theme is the impact of digitisation on the way cultural heritage is interpreted. The ‘digital revolution will be reflected in all aspects of life, including what we perceive as heritage’.

The digital is already as much part of our cultural heritage as the physical.

Timing of impacts: several respondents thought that digitisation of cultural heritage is still in its early stages. One suggested that the impact would be much greater 10 years from now, including developments in virtual reality. Over this period, it is also anticipated that there will be a decrease in the proportion of people that are not computer literate.

The generations with increased digital literacy will hit museums post-2020.

Other suggested that it was very difficult to look beyond 2020 given the potential (and uncertain) developments in technology.

Implications for cultural heritage research: The main implications raised for research are summarised as follows:

Increased efficiency, enabling large-scale projects and teamwork Emphasis on analyzing large data sets and answering big questions Stimulating and enabling new research areas and inter-disciplinary work Participation of users, enabling access and knowledge transfer Interdisciplinary research with living digital artists IPR and copyright issues related to the reuse of DCH; ‘Technologies should be developed to

protect the copyright with respect to duplication of works of art’. Appropriate data management and storage strategies

Some responses flagged the strategic research responses that would be appropriate to address the digital agenda:

The perspective of how to utilize digital media should be more prominent on the research agenda of public and private funders, and in the strategic planning of heritage institutions

Digitisation is a heavy transformation of our approach and of our capacity to have a broad access to cultural heritage, but it underlines in the same time the importance of authenticity and originality : so, we cannot imagine that digitisation will be the only answer to heritage issues

Integration of digital resources from multiple CH organisations will enable new research questions to be addressed.

A minority of respondents did not believe that digitisation had special implications for research, for example, ‘Less than many imagine. Since digitisation is relatively new, its impact is often overrated’. Several respondents acknowledged the opportunities afforded by digitisation but emphasised the need for ‘conventional research. One noted that ‘qualitative heritage research will remain important if we want to catch all cultural variations, impact of globalisation on localities, people, events or objects’.

Social Capital, Mutuality and Volunteering (#3)Social capital, mutuality and volunteering will have a significant impact on cultural heritage.

The importance of social capital and volunteering is clearly articulated in the participants’ responses. One stated that:

Social capital and volunteering has at most times in our history been a major factor in heritage preservation.

Some participants conveyed the sense of an intrinsic relationship between social capital/volunteering and cultural heritage – ‘volunteers and mutuality have always underpinned the valuation and conservation of heritage’. It seen as a social embedding of cultural heritage in everyday life.


The average score for the future impact of social capital, volunteerism and mutuality was 7.08. The highest average score was given by the Practitioner and Government groups (8.6), whilst the lowest was given by the Funding Agency group.

With a future-oriented lens, participants anticipated a very significant role for social capital and volunteering. Beyond the historical associations and benefits, one of the assumptions that emerges in the responses is that there will be fewer Government resources for cultural heritage. One respondent commented:

This is a very important factor for example in Sweden, where there has been a huge dependency on the public financing. Public financing will most likely not increase in the future.

Social capital and volunteering are expedient ways of filling the gap that will be left by real-terms public reduction of funding for cultural heritage. Some remarks were cynical or critical of the push towards volunteering (for example, the Big Society concept in the UK). It is unsurprising that this was an area of concern for many.

The sector is already reliant on volunteers to an alarming extent.

Voluntary work varies a lot over Europe: sometimes it plays a very large role, sometimes it seems to be non-existent. The question is how long we will be able to maintain voluntary work, how we can give volunteers the impression we need them, how long our society can deliver work without pay.

Whilst acknowledging the importance of social capital and volunteering, one respondent made the point that protection and conservation of cultural heritage should ‘remain in the responsibility and supervision of the National/Regional/Municipal administration’.

Research implications:

Participants suggested some broad principles and more specific research needs for social capital and volunteering. The overall ethos and approach to research with communities was emphasised strongly by one respondent:

Research must be relevant, be context-based, in touch with communities, and collaborative as opposed to a top-down rules-based approach to communities and to all those who live with and care for cultural heritage on a daily basis.

The role of social capital was described by one participant as a ‘huge blind spot in modern cultural heritage research’. This captures in one sense the broader comments that there should be a stronger research focus on social capital and civil society issues. Such research might include:

Outreach skills; Understanding the motivation of volunteers – research on what makes people more

engaged in heritage; Preventive conservation; and How professional and volunteer communities could work together more effectively.

Questions about "how to involve local communities" in the preservation of tangible CH (churches, monuments etc...) have to be researched in the context of interdisciplinary (psychology, sociology, behavioural sciences)

With a general awareness of reduced Government spending on cultural heritage research, there is a need to understand how volunteering can function to support research.

Global migration, mobility (#4)Global migration and mobility will have a significant impact on cultural heritage.


The average score for the driver across respondent profiles was 7.08. The highest average score was given by the Practitioner group (8.66) whilst the lowest was given by the Funding Agency group (5.5).

This theme is deeply connected with the interpretations and representations of cultural heritage (whose cultural heritage is being represented?) There are some existing signals of change – which participants anticipate will be amplified in the decades ahead. Evidence of this includes the creation of heritage foundations based on people’s places of origin and the creation of migration museums. This is ‘already an important area as heritage becomes detached from historic national boundaries’.

As the present migration becomes part of both, history and present citizenry, it also becomes part of heritage.

One response summarised some of the key uncertainties and complexities regarding global migration and cultural heritage:

Less certain about this, as recent political developments have shown that cultures may be quite rigid and immovable. Also, global migration has always happened, so I am not sure that in the short term we are to expect any great changes, except if climate change drives migration due to food shortage in certain areas of the world. On the other hand, many EU countries are retrenching in terms of immigration laws, so the trends may reverse.

Several people referred to issues of inclusivity, identities and ownership. One respondent stated that it ‘may lead to greater positive interest in the past of other culture’ whilst another suggested that ‘migration will have to make us think about shared values, new imported values’

This will have major implications because it challenges notions of heritage and identity and dichotomies between us and them

Research implications:

Global migration could have a very significant impact in setting agendas for cultural heritage research.

More international focus in cultural heritage research: respondents identified this as one of the key implications for the research agenda. Diversity and the interface between different cultures and peoples are likely to alter the meaning and practice of cultural heritage.

Migration and mobility will eventually change everything! The global becomes local and vice versa, so that dichotomy will need to be reviewed, and issues of 'ownership/belonging' and identity will need review: not only national but possibly sub-national claims of particular heritages will fade.

Cultural heritage has been discussed as a social integrator – functioning as a bridge between cultures and traditions. Some suggested avenues for research include:

New skills needed to understand the role CH could play in intercultural relationships and to understand how migration affects valuation of heritage

Need to become much more aware of the value and significance of cultural heritage for "new" citizens.

New research fields will open up looking at migration of culture across landsChallenge to develop research into different cultural uses and interpretations of heritage & different ways to make heritage available.

Need for better heritage policies for 'new' groups in societies.

The majority view expressed by the group was that cultural heritage research agendas need to reflect the changes caused by global migration. One respondent was sceptical as to the degree of ‘interference’ of the processes of migration on ‘scientific research’:

Scientific research has no political boundaries and I believe that it should not be affected by migration.

Views on the cultural heritage research environment

Participants were also asked to give their judgements on anticipated changes in the cultural heritage research environment. The key results are summarised below.

Movement towards cross-disciplinary research: there was a high level of consensus amongst respondents that cultural heritage research will become more cross-disciplinary. This is already an established approach which is likely to continue and become more significant in future.

Impact and instrumentality: participants thought that cultural heritage research would become increasingly linked to achieving economic and social goals. This view was stronger for economic goals for policy – where there would be economic or commercial returns for investment in research.

Europe to assume the mantle for funding cultural heritage research: Participants were asked to judge the significance of a range of identified funding sources for cultural heritage research – both the present/recent situation and that anticipated in future. The most significant funding sources at present for the group are, in order: national; regional/municipal; EU. Participants anticipated that national and regional/municipal funding would become proportionally less significant in the future, whilst the EU would become more significant than at present – and the most significant of all sources. They also thought that Private giving, Business and industry, and International Foundations would become significantly more important in future.

Involving users in research: respondents anticipated an increase in the involvement of users in cultural heritage research. Overall, this was regarded as a positive development

Concerns over education and training: it is clear from the scores provided that most respondent groups do not feel that there is an adequate supply of education and training for cultural heritage research. Some of the key factors identified are: lack of inter-disciplinarity/cross-disciplinarity; lack of dedicated programmes for cultural heritage researchers; and inadequate funding for participants to take up programmes available.

Annex C

Agenda and Minutes of the JPI-CH Scientific Committee meetings:

Scientific Committee Meeting - 1Monday 30th January 2012 at Tate Modern, London, UK

Scientific Committee meeting - 2Tuesday 18th September 2012 at the British Museum, London, UK

JHEP ProjectCoordination action in support of the implementation of a

Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe

Scientific Committee Meeting 1United Kingdom

Monday 30th January 2012

Level 2 Seminar Room, Tate Modern*, Bankside, London, SE1 9TG

*Nearest station is London Bridge which is very accessible from Gatwick Airport

Scientific Committee Agenda10.00 – 10.30 Arrival and Coffee

10.30 – 10.45 Welcome and introduction (Coordinator)

10.45 – 11.00 Brief overview of JPI/JHEP (Coordinator)

11.00 – 11.15 Introduction to Work Package 2(AHRC)

11.15 – 11.30 Delivery of Work Package 2 (including role of Scientific Committee) (AHRC)

11.30 – 12.00 Break

12.00 – 12.30 Terms of Reference – discussion (All)

12.30 – 13.00 Common Framework: Criteria, drivers (All)

13.00 – 13.30 Common Framework format – approval & validation (All)

13.30 – 14.30 Lunch

14.30 – 16.00 Discussion on development report for Common Framework – format (All)

- CLOSE -



MINUTES OF THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE MEETING

UK, Monday 30th January 2012

Tate Modern, Bankside,London, SE1 9TG, UK

On Monday 30th January 2012, the first meeting of the Scientific Committee of the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe is held in London (UK), at the Tate Modern.

Opening SessionAntonia Recchia (AR) welcomes all participants at the meeting. AR introduces the JPI and sets the project in the context of the area of cultural heritage across Europe which is then followed by a brief overview of the JPI and JHEP including overall aim, objectives, work packages and participants.

The agenda items are reiterated to the group by Gail Lambourne (GL) including minor changes to timings due to a delay in commencing the meeting before each participant is asked to introduce themselves, stating their area of expertise

Round the table of participants: Arch. Antonia Recchia (MiBAC, Italy, JPI Coordinator) – AR Ms. Anna Conticello (MiBAC, Italy) - AC Dr. Gail Lambourne (AHRC, JHEP WP2 Project Leader) - GL Dr. Lyndsey Stoakes (AHRC, JHEP WP2 Project Manager) – LS Professor May Cassar (UCL, member of the JHEP Executive Board) - MC Dr. Rosa Caffo (MiBAC, Italy) – RC Professor Rob P. J. van Hees (TNO, Netherlands) – RH Professor Anne van Grevenstein Kruse (University of Amsterdam Netherlands) – AGK Professor Koenraad van Balen (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium) – KB Dr. Cyril Isnart (CIDEHUS - Universidade de Évora, Portugal) – CI Professor Willem Willems (Leiden University, Netherlands) - WW Professor Felipe Criado-Boado (Incipit, Spain) –FCB Professor Peter Brimblecombe (University of East Anglia, UK) – PB Dr. Lukasz Bratasz (National Museum in Krakow, Poland) – LB

Apologies:Dr. Matija Strlic (UCL, UK), Ms. Isabelle Pallot-Frossart (Historic Monuments Research Laboratory France), Professor Monika Hagedorn-Saupe (Institute for Museum Research, Germany).

Agenda item : Introduction to Work Package 2

GL as Work Package 2 (WP2) leader presents the JHEP Coordination Action including the schematic of how all Work Packages (WP) link into each other. The objectives of WP2 are then presented.

GL presents the tasks involved in the delivery of WP2 which include the development of a Common Framework to enable prioritisation of research; the identification of research areas, activities, gaps and needs by National Consultation Panels (NCPs), undertaking a joint foresight study and an assessment of technological capability with input from the Scientific Committee and finally the production of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA). GL emphasises that today’s meeting will focus on the first task (development of a Common Framework (CF)) and in particular, the validation and approval of the draft Common Framework created by the Expert Group. The concept of NCPs and the country groupings are explained to the Committee and the tight time schedule for delivery of WP2 is presented. It is understood by the Scientific Committee that WP2 needs to be delivered within the time constraints presented.

Several members of the Committee raise concerns over the next Scientific Committee meeting in being held in July and stress that this may be too early when taking account of what stage the project, and more precisely, the development of the SRA, will have reached at that point. It is put to AR that it may be more suitable to meet in mid-September and that the Deliverable 2.3 'Report on the completed Frameworks by the Expert Group' which is currently stated in the DoW as being due by month 10 is changed to month 11. This would be more appropriate in terms of timings for input from the Scientific Committee to both D2.3 and D2.4.

AR agrees that this change should be made.

Action: GL and LS to obtain formal agreement of this change in due date of deliverable in writing from the Coordinators.

Agenda item: Delivery of Work Package 2 (including role of Scientific Committee)

A separate presentation: “Work Plan for Scientific Committee” is delivered by GL outlining the work that has been achieved by WP2 so far, and what is to be achieved by the end of today’s meeting. GL explains that, at present, the Common Framework consists of a table, guidance and definitions and proposes that the Committee discuss each element individually.

The definitions of tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage are discussed first. GL explains that the practical aspect of delivering the SRA in 15 months means that there is a need for definitions that are relatively brief and broad. MC adds that there must be some relationship/link between the intangible and digital cultural heritage with tangible cultural heritage. Everything else is outside the scope of the JPI. GL states that while the DoW refers to UNESCO definitions – these are broader than the focus of the JPI and therefore must be interpreted in the context of the JPI.

AR agrees and states that there are a number of other projects which focus on other aspects of cultural heritage. KVB suggests the term ‘working definitions’ would be more appropriate in this case. All agree. PB states that it would be best to think of the lists under working definitions as examples rather than explicit lists.

LB asks if software is included under digital heritage. MC reassures the group that both software and hardware will be within the scope of the JPI.

KVB suggests that the scope of the JPI should be defined in the guidance which encompasses the definitions. All agree. AR agrees on the acceptance of the wording of the scope to be settled by email. AR suggests that the wording ‘moveable and immoveable tangible cultural heritage’ must be included in the scope wording.

Action: GL to draft and add scope of JPI (incorporating wording from the Vision Document and the DoW) to guidance notes. The scope will be circulated to Sci Com members for comment and approval.

- BREAK –

Agenda item: Terms of Reference (for National Consultation Panels) – discussion

The NCP process is explained to the group by GL. The group agrees with the proposed process and the Terms of Reference provided.

RVH asks AR for Terms of Reference for the Scientific Committee. AR clarifies that while the Sci Com are working with WP2 for Common Framework, their role is more generic throughout the JPI and the Committee will therefore be convened for the full 4 years of the initiative. AR states that the Sci Com should feel free to advise, and comment even when not specifically requested, and that a Chair must be elected.

Action: To elect a Chair for the Scientific Committee. Discuss this afternoon and proceed with approval from Coordinators on procedure.

Agenda item: Common Framework: Criteria, drivers

The group discuss the draft Common Framework developed by the Expert Group. GL explains that the criteria and drivers used were set out in the DoW and discussed at the Expert Group meeting and the draft (tabled) is the result of that discussion.

KVB requests that it should be made clear, in the guidance, what is meant by ‘criteria’. The group continue to discuss issues surrounding appropriate definitions of criteria. All agree that both educational and increasing knowledge and understanding aspects must go under ‘societal’ criteria.

Action: GL to explicitly state under ‘societal’ criteria on the Common Framework that educational and increasing knowledge and understanding are included.

- LUNCH –The group continue to discuss the Common Framework and suggest minor changes/additions/deletions which GL works on LIVE. The group discusses the pros and cons of including information on disciplines required to meet the needs of a research gap. The group decide that it is best not to list disciplines explicitly but to make it explicit in the guidance.

GL goes through the drivers used for the Common Framework. MC and LB clarify that the list of drivers here is not exclusive they are just the ones that have been identified so far. The group discuss the existing drivers, possible additions as well as deletions. LB explains that the criteria used in the Common Framework were listed in the DoW but actually also function as benefits.PB states that researchers think of the research area first and then think about the criteria therefore it may be useful to add another column to the Framework for ‘additional drivers’. The group agree.

The group discuss the function of using criteria and drivers in terms of the Common Framework and conclude that Drivers are analogous to ‘inputs’, research areas, gaps and needs are analogous to ‘actions’ and criteria are analogous to ‘outputs’.

Action: GL to produce a schematic which describes this inputs-actions-outputs principle, and to include this in the guidance provided for the Common Framework.

Discussion turns to prioritising/scoring research areas. GL asks the group how we can assist NCPs with assigning priorities. GL states that this was also discussed at the Expert Group meeting where it was decided that a scale of 1-3 would be better than 1-5 as more descriptive.

PB identifies a problem with this way of scoring, explaining that just because a research area is a high priority in one country and not others, it does not mean it is any less important – this is the problem with scoring. Such information will be lost in the analysis if scoring research areas 1 – 3.

PB suggests a ranking procedure. The group agrees that this would be the most appropriate option and discusses the issue further, including what the ranking procedure would be based on.

All conclude that there should be two stages of ranking: one based on priorities as determined by the ‘National Consultation Panel’ (i.e. research areas that are national priorities) and one based on priorities in terms of ‘European collaboration’ (i.e. research areas which would benefit from EU collaboration).

As there are many research areas included in the Common Framework, the group agree that NCPs must only rank the top 12 in each case. LB suggests that there should be no joint ranking (i.e. more than one research area with the same score) – all agree.

Action: GL to add information on the ranking procedure to the guidance for the Common Framework.

Agenda item : Discussion on development report for Common Framework (D2.2 in DoW)

The group discusses the format of the development report and it is agreed that the WP2 leader will draft the report based on the notes taken during this meeting in addition to those taken at the Expert Group meeting and will send to Sci Com members for comment and approval prior to submission to the Coordinators.GL rounds up the main points and actions of the day.

The group briefly discuss the procedure for electing a Chair for the Scientific Committee and state that they would prefer to vote via email. 4 people opt out: LB, CI, AGK and RC.

Action: GL to get approval from Coordinators for email election procedure to elect a Chair for the Scientific Committee.

The next Sci Com meeting to be held in September 2012 (no later than mid-September) on approval of change of deliverable due date by Coordinators.

- CLOSE OF MEETING –


Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe"

Scientific Committee meeting - 2UK

Tuesday 18th September 2012

The Boardroom, The British Museum, Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3DG

AgendaFacilitator: Professor May Cassar

10.00 – 10.30 Arrival

10.30 – 10.40 Welcome and introduction (Facilitator)

10.40 – 10.50 Recap of Work Package 2 actions & objectives (AHRC)

10.50 – 11.10 Process so far (including roles and responsibilities) (AHRC)

11.10 – 11.30 Discussion: Questions for Scientific Committee (All)

11.30 – 11.40 Tea & coffee break

11.40 – 12.05 Expert Group analysis of NCP inputs (Lukasz Bratasz)


12.30 – 12.40 Structure of SRA: Introduction (Gail Lambourne)

12.40 – 13.00 Structure of SRA: Content (Matija Strlic)


13.30 – 14.30 Lunch

14.30 – 14.45 Structure of SRA: Foresight (Gail Lambourne)


15.30 – 15.45 Next steps (Gail Lambourne)

15.45 – 16.00 Next meeting (Coordinators)

- CLOSE -



MINUTES OF THE SECOND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE MEETING

UK, Tuesday 18th September 2012

The British Museum, Great Russell StreetLondon, WC1B 3DG, UK

On Tuesday 18th September 2012, the second meeting of the Scientific Committee of the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe is held in London (UK), at the British Museum.

Opening SessionMay Cassar (MC) welcomes all participants to the meeting and requests a brief introduction from each participant.

Round the table of participants: Ms. Anna Conticello (MiBAC, Italy) - AC Dr. Gail Lambourne (AHRC, JHEP WP2 Project Leader) - GL Dr. Lyndsey Stoakes (AHRC, JHEP WP2 Project Manager) – LS Professor May Cassar (UCL, member of the JHEP Executive Board) - MC Dr. Rosa Caffo (MiBAC, Italy) – RC Professor Rob P. J. van Hees (TNO, Netherlands) – RvH Professor Anne van Grevenstein Kruse (University of Amsterdam Netherlands) – AvG Professor Koenraad van Balen (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium) – KvB Chair of Scientific

Committee Dr. Cyril Isnart (CIDEHUS - Universidade de Évora, Portugal) – CI Professor Willem Willems (Leiden University, Netherlands) - WW Professor Felipe Criado-Boado (Incipit, Spain) –FCB Dr. Lukasz Bratasz (National Museum in Krakow, Poland) – LB Dr. Matija Strlic (UCL, UK) – MS Ms. Isabelle Pallot-Frossart (Historic Monuments Research Laboratory France) - IPF

Apologies:Arch. Antonia Recchia (MiBAC, Italy, JPI Coordinator), Professor Peter Brimblecombe (University of East Anglia, UK), Professor Monika Hagedorn-Saupe (Institute for Museum Research, Germany).

MC adds a new item to the original agenda:

Agenda item (new) : Introductory discussion s ession on NCP input and process (led by KvB)

KvB highlights three points regarding the Common Framework (CF):

1) Some difficulties were experienced in terms of interpretation of the words used in the CF.

GL explains that it was always expected that there would be issues over interpretation which is why NCPs were asked for comments in addition to ranked lists. Some comments (and ensuing dialogue) from NCPs dealt with clarifying the meaning of certain words and all comments were taken into account when considering the research areas.

2) When NCPs added new research areas, there were concerns over how they should rank them as they would not fit with the lists of other countries.

GL explains that NCPs were invited to add entirely new research areas to those already included in the CF, and were informed that they could rank both old and new in one list (therefore no discrepancy between the original and new research areas). Some countries did not add new research areas although did add additional text to the existing research areas.

3) There were concerns over the interpretation of the scope.

GL explains that the scope was only intended to act as a ‘flavour’ for what the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) should include and based on what was received from NCPs, it appears that this was interpreted correctly. GL emphasises that there is no intention of using the scope in the SRA and that it will be made clear that tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage will not be separated out. This is also reflected in the groupings of research areas that will be presented later today as the Expert Group (EG) did not separate out tangible, intangible and digital.

RvH also requests clarification on the role of the EG and the role of the Scientific Committee (SC). This will be covered in the presentations.

IPF asks how the process of ranking and analysis was carried out. This will also be covered by LB’s presentation however GL emphasises that ranking was a tool used to bring about a selection of priorities to ensure a democratic process and several analytical methods were attempted to determine the most suitable, and to ensure no information was lost.

KvB states that any problems we have faced with this process are due to the fact that most other processes used for the similar means have been autocratic and therefore no roadmap exists.

CS states that this JPI had only 3 ERA-nets to build on unlike other JPIs.

GL adds that with regards to the analytical process, while input came from researchers, the SRA will be a policy document with a different audience to researchers, which must be taken into consideration.

MC reminds SC that the ‘raw information’ will be available online on publication of the SRA in order to allow for total transparency.

Agenda item: Process so far (including roles and responsibilities)

GL presents the roles of the EG and SC (with regards to WP2) emphasising that the SC are involved with the JPI as a whole and the Expert Group are concerned with the Coordination Action (JHEP). The SC is required to provide an external review of the processes used for Tasks 2.2 and 2.3 and further input into the draft SRA with a delivery date of month 15 (see Annex II). The SC are asked to use the information presented today to assess the process (for task 2.4), advise the Work Package leader and the EG on specific aspects of, and comment on the structure of the SRA.

GL presents the process so far (see Annex II).

QUESTION FOR SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE: How might non-respondents (8 observers and one participant) be engaged at this late stage?

CS explains that the 8 observing countries were not expected to input into SRA so no need to be engaged at this stage. Also, receiving 16 out of 17 responses is viewed as a sufficient response from participants.

RvH enquires as to whether or not observing countries can submit proposals to future calls arising from the JPI. CS responds by saying that the JPI is an open process so countries can join at a later stage however, with regards to observers applying to the calls, this will entirely depend on decision made by the participating countries for each specific call.

Action: GL/LS to compile summary of issues encountered whilst analysing NCP input in order for SC to have a complete picture of the process and disseminate to SC.

- BREAK –

Agenda item: Expert Group analysis of NCP inputs

LB presents information on how NCP input was assessed and analysed by the EG (see Annex II) and highlights two limitations that the EG had to consider when working: time and compliance with the DoW. LB explains that the design of the CF was a challenging stage as it needed to be designed in such a way to allow for completion democratically and to avoid information being submitted in a fragmented form. The target audience also had to be considered when designing the structure of the CF so had to be designed in a way that the information could be easily conveyed to policy makers while avoiding separation of tangible, intangible and digital CH.

LB explains that the EG attempted to sum up research areas into more broad research areas in order to make it easier to communicate the main points to policy makers (examples included in presentation).

LB demonstrates how research areas naturally fell into 4 overarching research areas/priorities (Recognition/developing a reflective society, Access/connecting people to heritage, Interpretation/creating knowledge, Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource). When considering these, common denominators were determined so as to avoid separating out tangible, intangible and digital CH.

IPF enquires as to why ‘global and climate change’ is included under the ‘Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource’ research priority but not as part of ‘change’ under the ‘Interpretation/creating knowledge’ research priority.

LB explains that while ‘change’ obviously includes global and climate change, the EG made the distinction between ‘change’ as creating knowledge (for its own sake, and which was included under ‘Interpretation/Creating Knowledge’) and that which is included under ‘Safeguarding the cultural heritage resource’ as action. LB suggested that in the case of cultural heritage, knowledge can be gained but the use of it in preventative actions is not necessarily known thereby causing a distinction.

MS highlights that the SRA must demonstrate that cultural heritage is an area of science where new knowledge is both created and also used and applied under the ‘safeguarding and technology’ banner.

LB adds that several similar research areas were received from different NCPs but were framed in different contexts therefore the EG added each under the most suitable priority.

For example, even though ‘sustainability’ features under access, it is also under the other priorities although not as explicitly.

IPF states that she is very happy with the four priorities created by the EG and highlights that there are many links between them.

Others agree but LB explains that it is best to have information under four priorities for the sake of conveying the information to policy makers. A matrix demonstrating these links would be interesting but not as useful for policy makers.

MS adds that a lot of the richness of information is available (at the meeting) so that people can see what the EG based their work on and how the groupings came about.

FCB states that he is happy with what the EG have proposed, but feels anthropological heritage is lacking (which would not come under perception or recognition).

GL responds by stating that it is included but will fall under more than one priority area such as “connecting people to heritage” and “developing a reflective society”. These titles are based on what input ‘naturally’ drew together and are working titles only.

MC highlights that there is no common language here therefore the use of it will vary slightly. The EG therefore, to the best of their understanding, created natural groupings but which may now require refinement and so FCB’s comments will be taken into consideration.

IPF asks whether or not the four overarching research priorities are now ‘level’ despite the NCPs being asked to rank priorities originally. All confirm that this is the case.

QUESTION FOR SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE: The process does not distinguish between under- and over- researched areas. Do they need to be identified? How might these areas be identified?

MC elaborates by saying that certain research gaps are continually being identified but are they really research gaps, or does the knowledge already exist but is just unknown. Should we be reflecting on whether or not NCP inputs are real gaps or not?

IPF states that if NCPs are based on ‘expert’ input then we must trust that the research gaps they have put forward are real.

RVH responds by saying that there is a lot of knowledge that is now widely known across all of cultural heritage so maybe this is something to address.

MC states that the Heritage Portal (under WP 6) was designed to hold, for example, grey literature, however, this issue is outside the scope of the SRA.

MS adds that in every field of research there are baseline issues such as ethics for example but possibly the foresight study will look into how drivers will affect these baselines. In addition, KvB states that from a scientific point of view you cannot say that something is ‘over researched’ as there is always more to learn.

The SC concluded that it did not feel it would be useful to include such information in the SRA.

Agenda item(s): Structure of SRA: Introduction and content

GL introduces the structure of SRA and highlights that the working structure of the SRA developed on the basis of the NCP input received.

MS commented on the presentation and states that the current research landscape will provide a narrative to the NCP input which will follow. The section ‘Cultural heritage priorities’ is to include both research priorities and pre-conditions. MS stresses that the research priorities will need to be clearly presented as overlapping/interlinked in the SRA.

MS describes ‘pre-conditions’ as inputs from NCPs that the EG did not consider to be research areas per se (capability and capacity, management strategies, knowledge sharing, research infrastructure, policy, laws and regulations).

QUESTION FOR SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE: Is there a more appropriate title for these ‘research pre-conditions’?

KvB stresses that the structure of the SRA must be consistent with that set out in the DoW.

IPF asks how we will deal with research areas that were not prioritised.

GL responds by saying as the 62 original priorities included in the CF, and presented to the NCPs, did not come about following a broad consultation but were suggested by the EG and SC, it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about these. The 62 priorities were only intended to be used as a guide.

Action: LS to add NCP input into a Dropbox that can be accessed by the SC.

KvB steers discussion back to pre-conditions and states that some of those listed appear to be research needs.

GL explains that for each research area received, the EG asked “is this something that needs research or is this something that affects research?” Care needs to be taken at this stage not to add information to research areas that was not received from NCPs, but can be added to the SRA where appropriate.

IPF states that the terms ‘pre-conditions’ is not clear and may be misinterpreted. MS adds that these are not just pre-conditions but actually ‘essential elements’. After a discussion GL suggests the term ‘enabling framework’ could be used. All agree.

- LUNCH –

Following lunch the SC resume the discussion of ‘enabling framework’. CS adds that we can state in the SRA that “we advise X,Y,Z… on the basis of expert/scientific knowledge” and need to make it clear that the SRA is advice based on the expert/scientific knowledge from across Europe. All agree.

Agenda item: Structure of SRA: Foresight

GL presents the foresight study component of WP2 and describes the three activities involved in the study (drivers analysis, RT-Delphi, scenarios workshop).

The SC discuss possible people to invite to the scenario workshop in addition to the UNESCO staff who are on the Advisory Board for the JPI. WW states that the workshop should be global and not confined to EU. GL adds that it is also necessary to have people that work outside the area of CH to gain a broader perspective in terms of drivers.

CS enquires how the Delphi will be managed.

GL explains that the Delphi survey will be an online questionnaire and the AHRC/Foresight team at University of Glamorgan will be contacting participants directly (have already requested and been granted permission to do this). GL also states that we have already discussed possible questions with Dr Martin Rhisiart (Foresight Expert) and there will be an email address set up for any questions participants have regarding the Delphi to which either Martin or AHRC will respond (depending on who is most suitable to answer). The foresight team will then process and analysis results from the Delphi as well as results from the scenario workshop and drivers analysis.

KvB states that there will be no conflict of interest if SC members are involved in the Delphi study.

Action: invitations to be sent out to SC members to participate in Delphi study.

KvB agrees to take part in the scenario workshop.

Action: LS to send SC members the link to Riel Miller’s website for information on methods used in scenario workshops.

IPF asks what the method of selecting people for the scenario workshop will be and whether or not the SC will have a role in the foresight process.

GL explains that AHRC are in talks with Martin Rhisiart now regarding participants and while SC members can input via the Delphi, as all foresight methods are well established there will be no need for SC input into these but they will be required to comment on the process for their report.

CS adds that the ‘Monitoring and Evaluating the JPI’ work package (WP5) will carry out an evaluation post-SRA.

MC asks what the Coordinators plan to do with the SRA once published. CS explains that they will be presenting it to the GPC.

RvH enquires as to the number of pages of the SRA. GL responds that the actual ‘enabling framework’ part of the SRA will be no more than 6 pages and adds that the SRA will include images as well as key points highlighted in the margins.

QUESTION: What other areas could be included in the structure of the SRA?

CS states that in the section on ‘pre-conditions/enabling framework’ research programming must be emphasised (what we must have in the future).

MC suggests the issue of ‘researcher mobility’ regarding the fact that it’s easier for younger researchers than those who are well established. GL adds that maybe a ‘brake’ or an ‘accelerator’ identified by the foresight study will address this. CS also adds that as well as physical mobility, effort into the international dimension of research without moving should also be developed (technological capability).

GL states that ‘knowledge sharing’ may need some elaborating in the SRA as a lot of information surrounding this was received from NCPs.

QUESTION: Does the Scientific Committee have any suggestions with regard to the language used?

MC states that care must be taken so that language/terminology does not become a barrier, and suggests that the term ‘cross-disciplinary’ could be used throughout the SRA rather than ‘interdisciplinary’ as it reflects researchers being strong in their discipline but working across it. All agree.

LB asks if politicians are likely to understand the meaning of cross-disciplinary. GL states that this term will be explained clearly in the SRA.

AvG suggests listing disciplines. GL responds by saying that while it would be quite impossible to list all disciplines, it could be phrased as “may include…”

LB raises the use of the term ‘drivers’ as a problem with it being used differently in relation to NCP input and to the foresight work (drivers analysis). GL agrees that it would be better to use a different word to ‘drivers’ in the SRA relating to NCP input.

KvB adds that the copywriter the AHRC will be working with can advise on terminology.

MC suggests that advice is also sought from a political writer. GL suggests Ben Cowell (Deputy Director, External Affairs at National Trust) as a second reader, who has worked on a number of European initiatives previously.

RC requests that the text of the SRA must allow for translation. GL stresses that the focus must be on the actual deliverable (SRA delivered in English) to be submitted by month 15 however, following submission there will be opportunities for translation.

Agenda item: Next steps

The AHRC, with the help of the EG will now begin to draft the sections of the SRA.

Action: Coordinator to draft foreword of the SRA.

Action: KvB to draft preface of the SRA.

The foresight work will continue and the SC will be contacted regarding participation in the Delphi study.

In order to allow for total transparency discussions will continue regarding the most suitable place to store the NCPs inputs (in full).

MC suggests that the minutes of today’s meeting along with the presentation slides can be used as a basis for the report that the SC have to prepare on a review of the process. GL adds that the review of the process for the foresight work can also be added later on.

Action: AHRC to put together bullet points of process for KvB.

Action: AHRC to set up a dropbox containing all NCP inputs which SC members can access (also include presentation from today’s meeting).

Agenda item: Next meeting

CS states that the date of the next SC meeting will be decided at the next Steering Committee meeting in October and that the SC will only be required to meet once per year following completion of WP2.

Final comments:

All SC members confirm that they are happy with the process so far and have found the information presented today to be interesting and clear, and that all questions and concerns they had prior to and during the SC meeting in January have now been addressed.

MC and GL thank SC for all their input and advice.

- CLOSE OF MEETING –

Minutes recorded by Lyndsey Stoakes

jpi-ch.eujpi-ch.eu/wp-content/uploads/...Report-by-CH-JPI-Scientific-Commit… · Web viewjpi-ch.eu

Documents

Transcript of jpi-ch.eujpi-ch.eu/wp-content/uploads/...Report-by-CH-JPI-Scientific-Commit… · Web viewjpi-ch.eu