Studies in Conservation, Supplement 1, 2015 ISSN 0039-3630 · Studies in Conservation, Supplement...

Studies in Conservation, Supplement 1, 2015 ISSN 0039-3630Studies in Conservation, Supplement 1, 2015 ISSN 0039-3630

YSIC_60_S2_Cover.indd 1-3YSIC_60_S2_Cover.indd 1-3 28/03/16 11:22 AM28/03/16 11:22 AM

CONSERVATION SCIENCEPapers arising from the ICCROM 2013 Forum on Conservation Science

Supplement to Studies in Conservation

Director of PublicationsJoyce H. Townsend, Tate, London, UK

Supplement EditorsAlison Heritage, ICCROM, Rome, ItalyStavroula Golfomitsou, UCL Qatar, Doha, Qatar

This supplementary issue of Studies in Conservation presents papers arising from the ICCROM Forum on Conservation Science, which was held in October 2013 in Rome.

This volume of Studies in Conservation Supplement (ISSN 0039-3630 (print); ISSN 2047-0584 (online)) is published by Maney Publishing for the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC), and ICCROM (the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property).

Copyright © ICCROM, and the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 2015, MORE OpenChoice articles are Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 3.0.

Online publicationThe full text of this volume of Studies in Conservation Supplement is available via Maney Online at www.maneyonline.com/sic, and via the ICCROM website at www.iccrom.org.

Publisher’s offi ceTaylor & Francis, 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN, UK.

DisclaimerResponsibility for opinions and statements contained in the papers is that of the authors, and not of the editors, the journal copyright owners, or the publisher.

Forum Consortium Partners Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Belgium Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-CECOR, Brazil Canadian Conservation Institute, Canada National Heritage Center of Tsinghua University, China Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, France National Research Council, ItalyNational Research Institute of Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage Administration, Republic of KoreaCultural Heritage Agency, the NetherlandsFaculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, PortugalUniversity College London Qatar, United Kingdom/QatarAHRC/EPSRC Science and Heritage Programme, United KingdomNational Heritage Board, SwedenBern University of the Arts, SwitzerlandThe Getty Conservation Institute, United StatesSmithsonian Institution, United StatesICCROM (The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property)

YSIC_60_S2_Cover.indd 4-6YSIC_60_S2_Cover.indd 4-6 28/03/16 11:22 AM28/03/16 11:22 AM

Volume 60 Number S2 December 2015

Studies in Conservation

EditorialAlison Heritage, Stavroula Golfomitsou S2-1

Summary paperConservation science: Reflections and future perspectives

Alison Heritage, Stavroula Golfomitsou S2-2

Position papersHow can science connect with and contribute to conservation? Recommendations andreflections

Agnes W. Brokerhof S2-7

Shifting the focus to people: Global societal priorities and the contribution madeby conservation science

Gunilla Lagnesjo S2-14

How can we build an impactful future for science in conservation? Essential next stepsNancy Bell S2-20

Tools for assessing needs and impactsStefan Michalski S2-23

Conservation institutions as agents of changeMarie-Claude Corbeil S2-32

Educating future professionals in conservation science: The challenges of aninterdisciplinary field

Stavroula Golfomitsou S2-39

Working with policy-makers for integrating heritage science research intopolitical priorities

Sujeong Lee S2-48

Communicating conservation scienceKaty Lithgow S2-57

AppendixICCROM Forum 2013 on Conservation Science S2-64

Editorial

The papers gathered together in this supplement toStudies in Conservation (supplement 2 for 2015)present the findings of the ICCROM Forum onConservation Science. This international think tankevent which took place in Rome in 2013 was broughtinto being through the collaboration and support ofan international consortium of 16 institutional part-ners, and provided a venue for critical reflectionregarding the current role and future directions ofscience in the field of cultural heritage conservationworldwide.The Forum recommendations focus on enhancing

the integration, relevance and impact of conservationscience within the cultural heritage conservationsector, and its capacity to deliver wider societalbenefit. In its findings, the Forum highlighted keyissues such as the setting of strategic priorities, andpromoting engagement and dialogue with stake-holders beyond the sector (e.g. policy makers and thepublic), as well as the need to strengthen the role ofspecific actors within the sector (e.g. conservationorganizations and educational institutions) to carrythis forward.To communicate the findings of the Forum, the rec-

ommendations developed by the eight discussiongroups on the final day of the Forum have been sum-marized and further elaborated by individual authorsinto the series of position papers presented in thisvolume. Each paper relates to the work of a single dis-cussion group, apart from that by Heritage andGolfomitsou, which provides an overview of theForum findings as a whole and outlines follow-upinitiatives. Four of the papers are concerned withbroad issues of relevance and effectiveness: the paperby Brokerhof focuses on enhancing the contributionof conservation science to heritage conservation,Lagnesjö discusses the contribution to wider societalpriorities, Bell outlines how to set strategic prioritiesfor the sector, and Michalski examines tools forassessing needs and impact. A further four papersfocus on specific actors both within and beyond the

sector: Corbeil considers the role of conservationorganizations, Golfomitsou sets out new paradigmsfor education and training, Lee details the processesof policy making and the needs of policy makers,and Lithgow elaborates opportunities for enhancingcollaboration and co-working with the public.While these papers in part present the individual

viewpoints of the authors, nevertheless it is importantto recognize that each stems fundamentally from thefindings of the Forum discussion groups, and thereforecontains the collective contributions of all thoseinvolved. In writing these papers, each author hasmade considerable efforts to remain faithful to thespirit and recommendations of the Forum. Yet, atthe same time through reflection and in light of theirown personal experiences, the authors have managedto convert the somewhat raw statements that inevitablyresult from such group work into polemical inspiringpieces that take stock of the current status of thefield and make compelling arguments for change. Wewish to thank all those who contributed to thesuccess of the Forum and the production of thesepapers, most notably the consortium partners, theForum participants, the authors of these papers, andalso the fellow colleagues, interns and consultants atICCROM, without whose efforts the Forum, andthis publication would not have been possible. Anappendix with the names of all participating insti-tutions of the Forum Consortium of partners, theirdesignated contact persons, the participants at theForum, and the composition of the various discussiongroups is provided at the end of the volume.

Alison HeritageICCROM, Rome, ItalyEmail: [email protected]

Stavroula GolfomitsouUCL Qatar, Doha, Qatar

Email: [email protected]

© ICCROM, and the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 2015MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivs Licence 3.0DOI 10.1080/00393630.2015.1117855 Studies in Conservation 2015 VOL. 60 SUPPLEMENT 2 S2-1

Summary paper

Conservation science: Reflections and futureperspectivesAlison Heritage1, Stavroula Golfomitsou2

1ICCROM, Rome, Italy, 2UCL Qatar, Doha, Qatar

The ICCROM Forum 2013 on Conservation Science resulted in a series of recommendations for improving therelevance and impact of science within cultural heritage conservation. These recommendations are outlinedin this paper. Central to the Forum recommendations is the responsibility of conservation science to providebenefit through research and innovation. This relies on shared strategic vision and good governance, toidentify priority needs and align efforts accordingly. To enhance the effectiveness of conservation scienceresearch, it is imperative to adopt an approach based on needs assessment, collaboration, and sharing.However, to establish whether desired goals are being met, systematic assessment of what is deliveredand how it is used is required. Evaluation tools provide a structured way to identify needs and to measureresults, offering a basis for learning and improvement. A new initiative is outlined, launched by ICCROM infollow-up to the Forum, to develop a common framework for needs and outcome assessment for heritageconservation science. To achieve this will require participation and support at multiple levels, andcollaboration is called for to continue and sustain this effort.

Keywords: Conservation science, Heritage science, ICCROM, Evaluation methods, Needs assessment

IntroductionSolving problems through scientific inquiry is one ofthe bedrocks of cultural heritage conservation.Conservation science is a well-established field, never-theless, new paradigms in science and culture and theexpectations of society make it imperative to revisitestablished approaches, especially in the ways conser-vation science operates and connects within the heri-tage sector and beyond. Conservation science hasmultiple recipients and there are numerous ways,over and above the production of publicationsaddressed to specialized audiences, by which thesevarious communities can engage with, shape andshare the outcome of its endeavours.

The ICCROM Forum on conservation scienceICCROM (The International Centre for the Study ofthe Preservation and Restoration of CulturalProperty) is an intergovernmental organization with134 member states, created in 1956 by UNESCO. Itsmandate is to promote the conservation of culturalheritage, moveable and immoveable worldwide. Partof ICCROM’s role is to identify issues of commonconcern, and stimulate fundamental debate around

these issues. One of the ways in which it achieves thisis through the organization of think-tank meetingsknown as the ICCROM Fora, which provide a spacefor discussion on topics of primary concern withinthe conservation field. For the 2013 Forum,ICCROM detected a critical need for reflectionregarding the current role and future directions ofscience in the field of cultural heritage conservation.Through the collaboration of a consortium of 16 insti-tutional partners from 14 countries who representeddifferent types of heritage conservation, research andtraining organizations, the ICCROM Forum onConservation Science took place in Rome in October2013.

The Forum brought together participants from allregions of the world, who represented a wide varietyof professional backgrounds and career stages, andincluded conservation scientists, educators, conserva-tors, managers, and other conservation professionals.In total, 80 people were selected from the following27 countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,Chile, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia,Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, NewZealand, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Senegal, SouthAfrica, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, TheNetherlands, United Kingdom, and the United States.Correspondence to: Alison Heritage, ICCROM, Via di San Michele 13,

I-00153 Rome, Italy.Email: [email protected]

© ICCROM, and The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 2015MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivs Licence 3.0DOI 10.1080/00393630.2015.1117858 Studies in Conservation 2015 VOL. 60 SUPPLEMENT 2S2-2

The Forum focussed on conservation science issues,rather than a discussion of heritage science and cul-tural heritage studies in general, and devoted itself tothree key themes posed as driving questions:(1) How can conservation science be of greater benefit

to conservation practice?(2) How can conservation science contribute to wider

societal priorities?(3) How can we build an integrated and impactful

future for science in conservation?More information about the organization of theICCROM Forum on Conservation Science can befound in Heritage et al. (2014).

Findings of the ForumThe Forum concluded that conservation science is aninterdisciplinary applied science domain, the primarypurpose of which is to support the preservation, under-standing, and sustainable use of cultural heritage, withthe goal of promoting wider societal engagement withheritage for current and future generations. The scopeof the conservation science covers both the preser-vation of the material aspects of heritage and its intan-gible values, to which end the natural, social, andformal sciences all have a contribution to make.The Forum recommendations focus on enhancing

the integration, relevance, and impact of the conserva-tion science within the cultural heritage conservationsector, and its capacity to deliver wider societalbenefit. These recommendations are elaborated inthe papers presented in this volume of Studies inConservation by Brokerhof (2015) on contributing toheritage conservation, Lagnesjö (2015) on contribut-ing to wider societal priorities, Bell (2015) on settingstrategic priorities for the sector, and Michalski(2015) on tools for assessing needs and impact. Inaddition, key issues highlighted included promotingengagement and dialogue with stakeholders beyondthe sector such as policy makers and the public as dis-cussed in the papers by Lee (2015) and Lithgow (2015)in this volume, and the role of specific actors withinthe sector — in particular conservation organizationsand higher education institutions — to carry thisforward (see the papers by Corbeil (2015) andGolfomitsou (2015), this volume).1

Looking at the recommendations as a whole, anumber of distinct common themes arise, which aresummarized in the following two sections. In essence,they relate to the central issue of responsibility interms of the ability of the sector to provide benefitthrough relevant research and innovation, and alsobeing seen as doing so in order to leverage support.This relies in turn upon strategic vision and good gov-ernance, which are key to the health of the sector, to

identify priority needs and align efforts accordingly,and also through the monitoring and assessment ofoutcomes — a view which is also widely endorsedwithin the wider science sector (see for exampleEuropean Commission, 2015a).

Strategically positioning the sectorMany of the Forum recommendations relate tostrengthening and strategically positioning the conser-vation science sector. The five key points are summar-ized as follows.

Defining a shared vision and missionThe Forum recommendations spoke of the need todevelop a shared vision and mission statement forthe sector to clarify its purpose and role, and place itmore clearly within policy and funding frameworks.

Strategy developmentCollaboration between producers and users of conser-vation science knowledge is required to developresearch strategies at multiple levels (organizational,national, regional), based on assessment and prioriti-zation of needs, to enhance the relevance and effective-ness of conservation science, and gain leverage withpolicy makers and funding bodies.

Demonstrating benefitDemonstrating benefit is a priority. To attract politicaland financial support, conservation science mustprovide evidence of the benefits that it delivers. Atpresent, the field lacks basic tools and data to demon-strate its effectiveness.

Influencing policyConservation science should seek to play a more activerole in policy making processes, and contributetowards long-term sustainable heritage policies. Thisrequires strengthening of relationships with policymakers as well as a greater understanding of policymaking processes, including the expected timeframesfor the delivery of scientific evidence and advice.Such efforts could be facilitated through politicalscience and governance studies.

Improving communicationThere is a need to communicate better and more stra-tegically at different levels within the sector andbeyond. Here, in addition to improving communi-cation between heritage professionals, heritage organ-izations can play a leadership role reaching out tomultiple target audiences including policy makersand the public. Moreover, education programmescan contribute through communications skills trainingto develop the capacity of heritage professionals toshare their work with different audiences through mul-tiple dissemination platforms.

1Further information regarding the Forum and its findings can be accessedvia the ICCROM website www.iccrom.org

Heritage and Golfomitsou Conservation science: reflections and future perspectives

Studies in Conservation 2015 VOL. 60 SUPPLEMENT 2 S2-3

Delivering better, more relevant scienceFor conservation science to contribute more effectivelyto the heritage sector, the following four recommen-dations were made by the Forum.

Assessing needs and outcomesIn line with the need to demonstrate benefit (as out-lined above), a key issue is the adequate assessmentof needs and outcomes: to make sure that researchfocuses on what is relevant, and to assess how wellthis is being achieved, in terms of the benefits forimmediate client communities and beyond. To thisend, common evaluation tools are needed to providea structured means of identifying needs, trackingactivities and outputs, and measuring outcomes.Such tools would provide a support for learning andimprovement to enhance outcomes and maximizeimpact.

Seeking sustainable solutions throughcollaboration and sharingAs in any applied science domain, maintaining thelink between research and practice is vital. This isbest served through solution-orientated appliedresearch developed in partnership with end-users,which focuses on providing relevant information andtools to sustainably resolve priority challenges in heri-tage conservation. This requires a participatoryapproach to research that welcomes and encouragescollaboration between different actors within culturalheritage conservation, and which also looks beyondthe borders of the sector, to foster interdisciplinaryworking within research projects. In addition, creativepartnerships, including citizen science and crowd-sour-cing initiatives, can strengthen and expand the conser-vation community to become one that is moreinclusive, capable and willing to reach out to engagewith other communities.On a practical level, mechanisms for sharing

resources and expertise between institutions aremuch needed to increase efficiency, knowledgeexchange, and reduce inequalities. This can be realizedby creating international research infrastructures tofoster scholarly exchanges, share equipment andexperts, provide workshops, and facilitate internships.

Expanding and utilizing knowledgeIt is important to recognize the multiplicity of knowl-edge systems that can contribute to the conservation ofcultural heritage. In addition to diverse scientific disci-plines, traditional knowledge and craft skills are a vitalresource, with the potential to provide improvedoptions for conservation practice that are bettersuited to context. Recognizing the value of theseknowledge systems, and through the application ofscientific methods to understand and assess traditionalmethods and materials, their potential application

within heritage conservation can be optimized andenhanced.

However, knowledge is of little use unless it is effec-tively disseminated, and so providing ready access toknowledge is vitally important. Information shouldbe shared in locations and formats such that it canbe most easily accessed by target audiences, ideallyusing free, open access platforms. Knowledge infra-structures and interactive teaching tools adapted toaudiences and context can help disseminate researchfindings and promote best practice at multiple levelsfrom local groups to global networks.

Enhancing qualityTo ensure delivery of high-quality science that is up todate and relevant to needs, conservation science pro-fessionals need to maintain strong links with scientificfields outside the sector. Moreover, outward lookingresearch can lead to the discovery of new paths andapplications of science for cultural heritage.Improving methods, minimizing errors in experimen-tal processes and making use of standardized method-ologies will also enhance the quality of scientific data.

A broader visionProfessional fields, regardless of whether they are wellestablished or relatively new, either evolve or die out.Past developments in conservation science have fol-lowed those in science, cultural heritage, conservation,and beyond. The Forum findings are in line with a keychange generally taking place within both the scientificand cultural sectors, which is the recognition that pro-fessional fields cannot work in isolation but rathermust ally themselves with the rest of society.

In the scientific sector, this is evidenced by increas-ing numbers of initiatives both national and inter-national which aim to foster communication andengagement between science and the wider society,an example at European level being that of Sciencewith and for Society (SWAFS) (EuropeanCommission, 2015b). These initiatives are part of asystematic effort to build broad-based relationshipsthrough which scientific research goals are aligned tosocietal priorities. In addition, new terms such as‘citizen science’ which have emerged through projectsset up to involve the active participation of citizensand local communities in scientific research also evi-dence this movement.

Within the cultural sector, the role of heritageorganizations has also changed to focus more onaddressing societal needs. Museums, for example, inaddition to being the custodians of cultural heritagethrough collecting, studying and preserving heritageassets, are now increasing their engagement withlocal communities, using their collections to educateand strengthen understanding of cultural identities.


Studies in Conservation 2015 VOL. 60 SUPPLEMENT 2S2-4

Similarly, conservation practice has also evolved froma material-based to a people-centred approach. Thedemand for increased access to heritage sites and col-lections, the recognition of new emerging types of heri-tage and material culture to be preserved, and the needto reduce carbon footprints in museums are but a fewexamples of issues which indicate how general socio-political changes are driving a revision of the statusquo within the field, and emphasize the need for con-servation science to connect with societal priorities,in order to stay relevant.A broader vision for conservation science is there-

fore demanded in terms of the contribution it shouldseek to make, which requires the field to reach out toother scientific domains in order to achieve this. TheForum recommendations also highlighted the needfor the sector to become more strategic and to makeevident the benefits that it delivers. This in manyways is in accord with the movement in some partsof the cultural heritage sector towards the establish-ment of ‘heritage science’ as an applied sciencedomain. The term ‘heritage science’ is becomingincreasingly adopted (particularly in Europe andNorth America) as a means to unify a number of inter-related applied science fields which focus on the studyof cultural heritage — such as archaeological science,curatorial science (e.g. technical art history), and con-servation science — under one umbrella to create astronger, more cohesive and readily recognizable fieldwith greater critical mass. Allying these various fieldsseeks to create a larger sector with shared goals,which can enhance its impact through the developmentof common strategy to align efforts and resources, andpromote collaboration. Moreover the intent is to stra-tegically position heritage science within policy andfunding frameworks, and thereby make stronger argu-ments for investment to build capacity (Bell, 2015).At the ICCROM Forum on Conservation Science,

the term ‘heritage science’ was sometimes used in pre-ference to that of ‘conservation science’, and indeedappears in some of the Forum papers collected inthis volume. However, heritage science and conserva-tion science although intrinsically connected are notsynonymous terms. Heritage science is not solelylimited to preservation issues and represents a largerdomain of which conservation science (as it is cur-rently practiced and understood) is a part. That said,while the findings of the Forum specifically relatedto conservation science, it is worth noting that manyare equally applicable to heritage science.

Looking forwardBuilding upon the experience of the Forum and its rec-ommendations, ICCROM together with the Forumpartners have identified two key areas to progress:strategy development and demonstrating benefit.

Strategy development particularly at national andregional level is much needed not only to alignefforts and address needs more effectively, but alsoas a means of creating greater cohesion within the heri-tage conservation community. In turn, this serves as animportant communication tool which allows the com-munity to speak with a stronger more united voicewith government and other decision making bodies.However, the development and implementation ofstrategy requires adequate assessment of needs andavailable resources. Moreover, to determine if thestrategy is working, also requires the evaluation of out-comes — which is directly linked to the issue ofdemonstrating benefit.Demonstrating benefit is a high priority in many

fields — especially those which rely on effective fun-draising and public support for survival — and inrecent years there has been increasing activity in thisarea with regard to culture and cultural heritage (forexamples within Europe, see Cultural HeritageCounts for Europe Consortium, 2015; EuropeanCommission, 2015c). Conservation science, like manyother specialized areas of applied research withlimited funding resources, is under increasing pressureto make evident its relevance and delivery of benefit.However, while there is growing recognition of theimportance of evaluating outcomes and impact, at thesame time there are widespread difficulties in establish-ing common frameworks, language and methods. Inother words, although it is easy to see the merits ofthe exercise, it remains difficult to apply in practice.Accordingly, to enhance the relevance, visibility and

strategic impact of conservation science, a structuredand systematic approach to needs and impact assess-ment is required. An important advance would bethe creation of shared tools for planning and imple-menting evaluation studies (e.g. survey questionnaires,data sets, and protocols). Common tools would alsoenable a ‘big data’ approach to the analysis ofsurveys, opening the way towards the collection ofcomparative data, benchmarking and the developmentof indicators for the field, and in turn provide a quan-tifiable basis to support strategy development.As a first step, ICCROM has started an interdisci-

plinary dialogue between professionals from culturalheritage, cultural statistics, and social sciences togain a clearer picture of evaluation methods used inthe cultural heritage sector and other areas to assessneeds and outcomes, and explore the possibilities forapplying these in a systematic and structured way toheritage conservation science.To this end, ICCROM is currently undertaking a

study to collect data regarding current evaluation prac-tices used in heritage organizations in relation to conser-vation science, and to identify methods used in otherfields (in particular social sciences) which could be of



use. The goal is towork towards building a common toolfor needs and outcome assessment for heritage conserva-tion science, which could in turn serve as a model forfurther initiatives in the wider heritage science field.However, this will require participation and support atmultiple levels, from grassroots to governments. Wevery much hope that the collaborative spirit of theForum consortium will continue to sustain this effort.

AcknowledgementsThe success of the Forum was due to the collaborativeefforts of many people and institutions. The authorswould like to thank the ICCROM Council Membersin initiating the thinking over this Forum, the Forumconsortium partners2; the Forum participants fortheir contribution to the Forum discussions, and alsofellow colleagues, interns, and consultants atICCROM, without whose efforts the Forum wouldnot have been possible. Finally, special thanks go toCatherine Antomarchi, for her vision and support,to Alberto de Tagle, and to Thilo Rehren, TheocharisKatrakazis and two anonymous reviewers for valuablefeedback comments in the writing of this manuscript.

ReferencesBell, N. 2015. How can we build an impactful future for science in

conservation? Essential next steps. Studies in Conservation, 60S2: 21–23.

Brokerhof, A.W. 2015. How can science connect with and contributeto conservation? Recommendations and reflections. Studies inConservation, 60 S2: 8–14.

Corbeil, M.-C. 2015. Conservation institutions as agents of change.Studies in Conservation, 60 S2: 34–40.

Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe Consortium. 2015. CulturalHeritage Counts for Europe Full Report, Krakow: theInternational Cultural Centre Krakow [accessed 7 September2015]. Available at: <http://www.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHCfE_FULL-REPORT_v2.pdf> (ISBN 978-83-63463-27-4).

European Commission. 2015a. Indicators for promoting and monitor-ing responsible research and innovation. Report from the ExpertGroup on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research andInnovation, Directorate-General for Research and InnovationScience with and for Society, Luxembourg: European Union(ISBN 978-92-79-43169-2).

European Commission. 2015b. Science with and for Society(SWAFS) [accessed 29 August 2015]. Available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/index.cfm?pg=about>.

European Commission. 2015c. Getting cultural heritage to work forEurope. Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on CulturalHeritage, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,18 pp. Luxembourg: European Union [accessed 7 September2015]. Available at: <http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/getting-cultural-heritage-to-work-for-europe-pbKI0115128/>. (ISBN978-92-79-46046-3).

Golfomitsou, S. 2015. Educating future professionals in conserva-tion science: challenges of an interdisciplinary field. Studies inConservation, 60 S2: 41–49.

Heritage, A., Anuzet, C., Andersson, E. & Antomarchi, C. 2014.The ICCROM Forum on Conservation Science 2013: a colla-borative partnership for strategic thinking. In: J. Bridgland,ed. ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Conference Melbourne 2014,Preprints, Art. 1903. Paris: ICOM Committee forConservation. (ISBN 978-92-9012-410-8).

Lagnesjö, G. 2015. Shifting the focus to people—global societal pri-orities and the contribution made by conservation science.Studies in Conservation, 60 S2: 15–20.

Lee, S. 2015. Working with policy-makers for integrating heritagescience research into political priorities. Studies inConservation, 60 S2: 50–58.

Lithgow, K. 2015. Communicating conservation science. Studies inConservation, 60 S2: 59–65.

Michalski, S. 2015. Tools for assessing needs and impacts. Studies inConservation, 60 S2: 24–33.

2Forum consortium partners (in alphabetical order of participating memberstate):(1) Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Belgium(2) Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-CECOR, Brazil(3) Canadian Conservation Institute, Canada(4) National Heritage Center of Tsinghua University, China(5) Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France,

France(6) National Research Council, Italy(7) National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage

Administration, Republic of Korea(8) Cultural Heritage Agency, the Netherlands(9) Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa,

Portugal(10) University College London Qatar, UK/Qatar(11) AHRC/EPSRC Science and Heritage Programme, UK(12) Getty Conservation Institute, USA(13) Smithsonian Institution, USA(14) National Heritage Board, Sweden(15) Bern University of the Arts, Switzerland(16) ICCROM



Position paper

How can science connect with and contributeto conservation? Recommendations andreflectionsAgnes W. Brokerhof

Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE), Hobbemastraat 22, 1071 ZC Amsterdam, The Netherlands

This paper reports the conclusions and recommendations of the working group that synthesized thediscussions on ‘How can science connect with and be of greater benefit to conservation practice?’ duringthe ICCROM Forum on Conservation Science. The author reflects on these findings from herown perspective and experiences, and places them in the context of two major shifts in heritage research:the first, a shift in focus from conserving materials to managing meaning. The second, a shift inorganizational structures from single, centrally funded heritage institutions towards diffuse networks whichinclude new players who have no direct responsibility towards heritage. Both shifts are taking place inan environment of decreased funding and increased accountability to society. Science andconservation connect and contribute to each other most effectively if they together contribute to thesocietal benefits of heritage. In this regard, heritage science strategies can stimulate collaboration, anddirect science and conservation towards innovative, applicable outcomes. Moreover, they can promote atransdisciplinary approach which connects social, economic and business sciences and stakeholders.They should also ensure the creation of sustainable nodes for consolidating knowledge within thesedynamic networks.

Keywords: Heritage, Conservation, Science, Strategy, ICCROM Forum, Research infrastructures, Capacity networks

A question, a working group, some reflectionsOn the first day of the ICCROM Forum onConservation Science, the question ‘How can scienceconnect with and contribute to conservation?’ wasposed as a central point for discussion. On the last daya working group was formed to synthesize the resultsof two previous days of discussions, and to draft rec-ommendations specifically in answer to this question.The presentation of their conclusions and recommen-dations can be viewed online (ICCROM Forum,2013). This paper starts with a summary of the con-clusions and recommendations of the working group.In the part that follows the author, who did not takepart in the working group but discussed the questionduring the first day in a different group, reflects on therecommendations from her own perspective and experi-ences in the Netherlands, and places them in the contextof other issues discussed at the Forum.

What came out of the working groupThe group’s point of departure for their discussionswas that the goal of cultural heritage conservation isto bring benefit to society. With this goal in mind,the group emphasized the need for strategies toexpand and exploit scientific knowledge, to improveunderstanding of heritage (and thereby recognitionof its values and significance), and to promote its sus-tainable welfare. The group emphasized that suchstrategies should be developed in collaboration withconservation practitioners, and used to promote crea-tive research partnerships, undertake needs assess-ments, improve methods, and optimize access anddissemination of scientific knowledge andinformation.The group diagrammatically represented science,

heritage and its welfare, as having a symbiotic relation-ship in which science facilitates further understandingof heritage through humanities based research, disci-plines such as archaeometry, and also through conser-vation practice (Figure 1).

Correspondence to: Agnes W. Brokerhof, Cultural Heritage Agency ofthe Netherlands (RCE), Gabriel Metsustraat 8, 1071 EA Amsterdam,The Netherlands.Email: [email protected]


In this context, the group identified three types ofknowledge and outlined the role of science withregard to each of these:• Traditional knowledge, of which little is written down

but exists in oral and practice traditions, for example,in vernacular building techniques. Science can helpunderstand and disseminate this knowledge.

• Existing scientific knowledge, which could benefitconservation practice if it were better known, dissemi-nated, interpreted and understood. However, fundingstreams from academia tend to support new discov-eries rather than the dissemination or application ofexisting knowledge.

• New scientific knowledge which can aid innovationwithin conservation practice.

The working group’s proposal is based around a strat-egy for science in the support of conservation practicethat stresses the need for interdisciplinary collabor-ation to ensure dissemination and applicability. Sucha strategy will need to be supported by policies thatenable it to proceed.The conclusions of the working group are presented

here, with some minor editing to improve legibility.Scientists involved in heritage and conservation

practitioners should collaborate and develop a heri-tage science strategy to:

• engage in creative partnerships,• make assessments of need (and gaps),• improve methods, and• optimize access and dissemination.Through implementing such a strategy, knowledge canbe expanded and exploited, the understanding of heri-tage and its sustainable welfare can be improved andthe recognition of its values and significance can bedeepened. In these ways, science can contribute tothe societal benefits from heritage.

Through the use of strategy, we recommend:

• To promote an interdisciplinary understanding whichresponds to the needs in practice, providing solutionsto conservation problems, and optimizing conserva-tion processes through the use of heuristic and sustain-able methods.

• To develop interactive teaching tools and platformsbased on science to meet needs in practice.

• To scientifically assess traditional knowledge (crafts-manship, ancient techniques) to better understandand optimize its use as an alternative in conservationpractice.

• To tailor new approaches in scientific documentationthat guarantees open access and co-conservation.

• To assure open and credible information, usingcommon language and terminology, accessible for as

Figure 1 Diagram representing the symbiotic relationship between science, heritage, and its welfare. © ICCROM 2013.

Agnes W. Brokerhof How can science connect with and contribute to conservation?


many end-users as possible, adapted to the level andcontext.

• To use impact assessments to assess the effectivenessand influence of science in support of conservationpractice, by means of the ROAME methodology(Rationale, Objectives, Appraisal, Monitoring, andEvaluation).o For example, evaluating the quality of the science,its societal relevance, the access to and disseminationof the findings, and professional and public awarenessand understanding of the results.

• To explore the narratives of conservation practice withscientific support, to demonstrate the applicability,use and benefits of scientific conservation knowledge.

To do all of the above, we need champions (who arewell-known, respected, and dedicated), press coverage,and illustrated examples.

Reflections on a changing worldThe working group recommended connecting scienceand conservation through a heritage science strategy.How does that fit in the bigger picture? The workinggroup focussed on how to improve the relevance andimpact of science to the conservation field, neverthe-less, the bottom-line question for the ICCROMForum was how should conservation science adjustto changes in society in order to stay relevant andhave a sustainable future? This is an important ques-tion, because the world in which we, heritage pro-fessionals, do our work is rapidly transforming. Thescientific world changes, the research infrastructurechanges, the focus in conservation changes, and theinteraction of society with heritage changes.

Shifts in the scientific worldLidia Brito, UNESCO’s director of the Division ofScience Policy and Capacity-Building, in her openingkeynote lecture in the Forum, sketched a globalizedworld in which the balance of global influences is shift-ing, as discussed some years earlier by UNESCO(2010). In terms of science development, continentalAsia is growing rapidly and will overtake the oldplayers Europe, North-America and Japan on manyfronts within the next decade. Science is becomingincreasingly internationalized. The distribution ofresearch and development efforts between North andSouth is shifting with the emergence of new playersin the global economy. A bipolar world in whichscience and technology were dominated by theEuropean Union, Japan, and the USA is graduallygiving way to a multipolar world, with an increasingnumber of public and private research hubs spreadingacross North and South. Newcomers, including theRepublic of Korea, Brazil, China, and India, are creat-ing a more competitive global environment by devel-oping their capacities in the industrial, scientific, and

technological spheres. While once these countries pro-vided cheap labour, they now show a rapid increase inthe number of researchers, combined with the auto-matic incorporation of knowledge and intellectualproperty through the acquisition of ‘Western’companies.Science is also becoming increasingly democratic.

Thanks to modern technology and low-cost easyaccess, science comes to the people. People haveaccess to scientific knowledge from all over the worldand more people are able to get actively involved inscience. Citizen science, or crowd-sourced science,makes use of amateur scientists and members of thegeneral public to collect and analyse data. Theseinitiatives drill into a huge resource of scientific enthu-siasm. A successful example is the Galaxy Zoo, anastronomy project which invites people to assist inthe morphological classification of galaxies on largenumbers of telescope images collected in sky surveys(Zooniverse, 2013). Examples in our own domain arethe Your Paintings tagging project in which thepublic is invited to describe what they see on the digi-tally available UK national collection of oil paintings(BBC, 2015) and the Google Art Project which enablesanyone to study and use high resolution images ofpaintings (Google, 2011). Meanwhile, we live intimes of uncertainty, under pressure on a planet atrisk. Increasingly it is recognized that science canmore effectively contribute to solutions through dialo-gue with stakeholders, through co-design and co-pro-duction with cross-cutting policies and throughbuilding bridges in and between networks.Accordingly, measuring the success of scientificresearch in these terms requires a shift from countingacademic citations as evidence of peer regard tomeasuring impact on society and public engagement.These changes and requirements in the scientific

world at large are equally influencing science for heri-tage. An indicator of the changes taking place in ourfield is the plurality of terminologies used to describeit. This was reflected even in the title of the Forumitself, which when announced was ‘the ICCROMForum on Conservation Science’. However, atvarious stages of its preparations the phrase ‘Sciencein Conservation’ was used. Although the two phrasescontain the same words, they do not convey thesame meaning: in particular, ‘conservation science’ ismore purposeful and focused than ‘science in conser-vation’. Furthermore, during the three days of themeeting many participants, especially those from theUK, used the terms ‘heritage science’ and ‘heritageresearch’. Heritage science ‘is about managingchange and risk and maximising social, cultural andeconomic benefit not just today, but in such a waythat we can pass on to future generations that whichwe have inherited’ (House of Lords, 2006, p. 15).



‘In order to support the various aspects of heritage:conservation, access, research, interpretation andmanagement, heritage science must be based on aninterdisciplinary palette of knowledge, from funda-mental sciences (chemistry, physics, mathematics,and biology) to arts and humanities (conservation,archaeology, philosophy, ethics, history, art history,etc.), including economics, sociology, computersciences, and engineering’ (Wikipedia, 2015). Thisillustrates the expansion of the playing field on whichwe do our work. It implies the need to take time andlook at where we are and where we might go, to stepoutside our comfortable frames and reach out toother science disciplines and heritage domains.

Shifts in focusThe shift towards heritage science coincides withongoing shifts in focus within the heritage field: fromcare and restoration, to conservation, preventive con-servation, and risk management; from freezing tomanaging change; from preservation to access; from‘looking at’ to experience. An example is the develop-ment in approaches to exhibiting objects of art, whichhas changed from ‘looking at art’ presented as a typeof artistic wallpaper (as in the mid-nineteenth-century salons), to ‘isolating’ such as that describedin Inside the White Cube (O’Doherty, 1976), ‘feeling’or interaction with installation art, and ‘experiencing’or immersion in, for example, Olafur Eliasson’s TheWeather Project (Eliasson, 2003).There is also the shift from analogue to digital and

from material to meaning. The emphasis is movingfrom preserving heritage as material culture, with afocus on ‘stuff’, to preserving its content and functionand increasingly to preserving this relationship in aparticipatory society. This amounts to a change infocus from materials and things towards people andtheir interaction with heritage – a shift from the con-tainer; to content and concept; to context. Whereastraditionally keeping authentic material was theprime directive, digitization in archives and librarieshas pushed a move towards preserving informationor content. Contemporary art produces culturalexpressions that are no longer self-explanatory andneed understanding of the concept and the maker’sintent. This becomes highly relevant when artworkscontain media with limited life expectancy such asvideo and audio, which may need replacement to pre-serve the concept. With this shift in focus the topic ofmeaning, value, and significance has re-entered thedebate. The conservation of contemporary art alsoincludes preserving the social aspects of experience,interaction, and relationship with the beholder andstakeholders. The conservation of ethnographicobjects has changed from keeping curiosities placedon a pedestal, towards understanding their meaning

for both the original owners and the collectors andtowards re-establishing and conserving the relation-ship with the original cultures. Thus, the tangibleand the intangible aspects of culture and theirmutual relationship need to be integrated intoresearch. This shift in the focus of conservation hasan impact on the contribution of science. With the rec-ognition of cultural heritage as an anchor of identity atthe heart of society, similarly conservation scienceneeds to place itself within society as well. Hence,the material focus of conservation science and curator-ial practice (technical art history and archaeometry),already interdisciplinarily connected with (art)history, needs to expand to include the social sciences.And as science democratizes, so does heritage. It is nolonger the experts who solely determine importanceand significance, the public has gained a voice inthat process. Public participation, co-care and co-con-servation require new approaches and understandingof the social interaction of heritage. The shifttowards The Object in Context (Saunders et al.,2006) is in full progress.

Shifts in research infrastructure: an examplefrom the NetherlandsThroughout the twentieth century conservationscience and curatorial study have been carried outmainly in single, centrally funded heritage institutionsoften supported by the state. In these institutionsresearch matured from mono-disciplinary applicationsof science to multi- and interdisciplinary projects tofind answers to questions about making, and solutionsfor problems with keeping. Curatorial study and con-servation science have come together for the properinterpretation of objects and to understand therelationship between materials and meaning. Thisunderstanding is paramount for heritage managementand for making well-founded decisions about its devel-opment, use, and preservation.

In the Netherlands, where the state took responsibil-ity for the care and management of its national cul-tural heritage, this development is reflected in theinstitutes that have performed that support service.In the early 1960s, the ‘Central Research Laboratoryfor Objects of Art and Science’ was founded. Itstarted out as a multi-disciplinary institution wherescientists, (art) historians, and conservators cametogether to study the making, degradation and conser-vation of objects. The laboratory developed an inter-disciplinary approach which expanded even furtherafter the merger in the mid-1990s with the Fine ArtsBureau and the Training School for Conservators tocreate ICN, the ‘Instituut Collectie Nederland’. TheDutch name of the Netherlands Institute forCultural Heritage also reflects the development fromstudying objects to managing collections. Research



not only generated knowledge for conservation ofmaterials and objects but also for determining signifi-cance of objects and collections and for their manage-ment. While ICN was widening its view and becomingmore generalist, new research players entered the heri-tage science arena to deepen knowledge. Universitiesformed research groups that used high-tech equipmentto study material change at a molecular level. ICN’sconservation scientists had the task of bridging this‘fundamental’ science with its application in practice,translating science into solutions for conservation,and conservation problems into scientific researchquestions. They also had a role in connecting the diver-sity of research initiatives in sciences and humanities.In 2011 ICN merged with the state services for builtheritage, archaeology and landscape to form RCE,the ‘Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands’,an organization in which all heritage domains havecome together. While ICN aimed at an approachwhich integrated object, content and context, RCEaims to integrate knowledge, policy, and practicethroughout all heritage domains.These developments have taken place in a changing

economic and political environment. While RCEintegrates all the heritage domains, the Dutch state iswithdrawing from the cultural arena. It prefers to takeon the role of conductor or director, and encourages aparticipating society, and the development of privateenterprise and entrepreneurship. Funding for cultureis being reduced and its own heritage support agencyhas shrunk in size. This shift in politics requiresRCE’s conservation scientists to reposition themselvesfor a new role. As scientific research at RCE decreasesin capacity and output, universities, and other researchgroups gain funding from the NetherlandsOrganisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and theEuropean Union. NWO has a history of financingresearch programmes for art and heritage with theMolart, De Mayerne and Science4Arts programs.Over the coming years funding will be available forthe virtual ‘Netherlands Institute for Conservation,Art and Science’ (NICAS) – a network initiative inwhich the Rijksmuseum and primary partnersUniversity of Amsterdam, Delft University ofTechnology and RCE have teamed up with anumber of new players (NWO, 2015). The ‘institute’aims to foster innovative research unifying three differ-ent disciplines: art history, conservation, and science.At this moment, it does not yet cover the full arrayof disciplines that heritage science encompasses, butnevertheless represents an interdisciplinary start withnew players. In January 2015, a match-making daywas organized where proposals could be pitched andmatched with partners to initiate the design ofproper research lines. The enthusiasm was overwhelm-ing, with 51 proposals covering both curatorial study

and conservation science. The day also showed thatthe government’s laboratory, since its birth the leaderof science for heritage in the Netherlands, may nolonger be the central place where knowledge is gener-ated, but rather the place where it comes togetherand from which it is disseminated. A network structureis growing that in due course may be able to take overthis role.The Netherlands is not unique in this development.

As a result of stimulating innovative research throughcooperation and crossing of boundaries, among othersthrough national and international funding schemessuch as the European frameworks, a large number ofnew players have entered the cultural heritage arena.Universities and research organizations have discov-ered cultural heritage as an interesting topic to applytheir knowledge and generate funding to developnew knowledge and technology. These organizationsare well equipped and can do ‘fundamental’ studiesthat the traditional heritage organizations cannot.Old questions are re-addressed with newly availabletechniques and our knowledge can be deepened. Thisrepresents the next jump in scientific progress.Concurrent with this deepening there is also a broad-ening. Heritage research has explored new disciplines,those of humanities, social sciences, and businessstudies, and these new disciplines have in turn discov-ered heritage as a subject of focus.In today’s world, research is increasingly being

planned, organized, and developed in networks,which can receive funding that is unachievable forsingle institutions. Competition between singleplayers is turned into enriching and more efficientco-operation, when the players organize their worktogether. The planning, co-ordination, and fundingof such networks requires research agendas, sciencestrategies, and joint programming initiatives. Thishappens at a large scale in Europe and at a smallerscale in the Netherlands, as sketched above. Whilethe state institute used to take the lead in programmingresearch, it is now increasingly becoming a partner inprogramming research together with heritage organiz-ations and other partners. In the UK, reduced funding,disparate players, and a lack of political support havetriggered a desire to align efforts, demonstrate value,and win recognition as a coherent field. The Houseof Lords sub-committee for Science andTechnology’s Science and Heritage report rec-ommended the creation of a group to produce aNational Heritage Science Strategy, to co-ordinateactivity across the sector. A steering group of heritagescientists drawn from across the heritage sector was setup and in 2009 three reports were published whichform the evidence base for this strategy (NationalHeritage Science Strategy Steering Group, 2010).Similarly, a number of other countries and



international networks have also drawn up heritagescience strategies or research agendas. In preparationfor the ICCROM Forum, a review was commissionedof such strategy documents, which covered eightnational and three European documents (Ottens,2013). In this report, it is interesting to observe thatFrance, Spain, the USA, and Japan all have a strongfocus on materials and their decay, aiming for interdis-ciplinarity; meanwhile the UK, the Netherlands,Australia, and New Zealand already focus more onheritage in society and are crossing boundaries, withan ambition to move towards transdisciplinary heri-tage science.

Opportunities and threatsScience organized in networks offers enormous oppor-tunities for heritage science, benefitting society in theend. However, the question surrounding this type oforganizational structure is whether dynamic and tem-porary networks are solid and persistent enough toconsolidate knowledge and keep it available and appli-cable for the field. The networks need to prove theycan avoid knowledge fragmentation when connectionsbreak and new ones are formed over time. Knowledgeshould not disappear once funding dries up. Somehowthere needs to be a continuing critical mass in whichknowledge comes together, is kept, and is further gen-erated. The National Heritage Science Forum in theUK is an example of a semi-permanent structurethat could fulfil this task. Alternatively in countrieswith national heritage organizations they may haveto act as repositories, connectors, and relays of knowl-edge. They can form the nodes for the application ofgenerated scientific knowledge in conservation prac-tice and policymaking, for dissemination of knowl-edge, and to connect national and internationalheritage science initiatives. These institutions willneed to be actively involved in drawing up nationalheritage science strategies, as facilitators, policymakers, and inspirers. This represents a new role, inline with governments’ visions and society’sdemands, working within networks in which sharingis the new having. Yet, this is only possible if one hassomething to share. Accordingly, there needs toremain a basis and a critical mass in these institutions,if they are to continue as attractive network partners.

So how can science connect with conservation?In the middle of all these changes, the heritage pro-fession will need to create a new, enriched, more holis-tic approach. Conservation science may havesuccessfully crossed disciplinary borders between thenatural sciences, (art) history, and conservation.However, the societal changes that we are facing nowask for a broader perspective, yet more crossing ofnew borders and combining efforts at a higher level

of innovation. Digitization and the generation oflarge datasets, increased involvement of the publicand engagement with society, globalization, and econ-omization, use and repurposing of heritage requirecrossing the borders of social, economic, business,computer, and other sciences alike. The challenge forthe near future will be to integrate these disciplines,include stakeholders, and rise beyond interdisciplinaryto transdisciplinary heritage science.

Simultaneously, the way in which we do our work istransforming. More and more, both science and con-servation take place in environments that can be typi-fied as large-capacity networks. Problem holders,stakeholders and knowledge holders organize them-selves in temporary and diffuse networks to createnew and innovative knowledge and solutions together.Creating sustainable heritage science networksrequires not only dedication at champion level but ata whole level of scientists, conservators, and otherswho perform their work with a prime dedication toheritage be that in heritage organizations or semi-per-manent structures such as fora. Only then can knowl-edge generated by enthusiastic scientists who seeheritage as an opportunity for application of theirown prime passion, be consolidated and continued.The future ‘conservation scientists’ will no longer bescientists who solely conduct research in support ofconservation. They may still remain a main driver insupport of conservation, but in the bigger picture ofheritage science, will need to recognize their positionas reliable and stable nodes within dynamic networksof players with diverse interests. To function effectivelyat those nodes scientific expertise will need to be com-plemented by people skills. They will have to adaptfrom scientist to knowledge manager, from reactiveproblem solver to proactive horizon scanner, andbecome an interpreter of material evidence in asocial environment. Will they then have become ‘heri-tage scientists’? Probably not. Perhaps heritage scienceis too broad for a single person. Indeed, it may onlyexist in a network where many minds come together,including scientists, conservators, and conservationscientists. This will be ‘how’ science and conservationcan connect and contribute to the societal benefitsfrom heritage. And those networks will need strategiesto organize, direct, and fund themselves.

AcknowledgementsThe ICCROM Forum working group consisted of:Gunnar Almevik, Assistant Professor and Head ofThe Craftsmanship Laboratory, University ofGothenburg, Sweden; Hilde de Clercq, Head of theLaboratories, The Institut Royal du PatrimoineArtistique (KIK-IRPA), Belgium; John Fidler,private consultant, John Fidler PreservationTechnology, Inc., USA; Valerie Magar, National



Coordinator of the Coordinación Nacional deConservación del Patrimonio Cultural (CNPC-INAH), Mexico; Navin Piplani, Principal Director,Centre for Conservation Training and CapacityBuilding, The Indian National Trust for Art andCultural Heritage (INTACH), India; Luiz Souza,Coordinator of Lacicor – Conservation ScienceLaboratory, Federal University of Minas Gerais,Brazil; Jan van’t Hof, Head of ConservationTechnology, Netherlands Institute for CulturalHeritage, the Netherlands; and Qing Wei, SeniorEngineer and Vice Director of Cultural Relics andArchitecture Protection Division, ArchitecturalDesign and Research Institute, National HeritageCentre of Tsinghua University (NHC-THU), China.The author would like to thank ICCROM for invitingher to the Forum and all the participants for theirinspirational thoughts. A special thanks goes toAlison Heritage, ICCROM; to the editors andreviewers of this journal, to Tatja Scholte, RCE; andAnna Bülow, The British Museum; for their commentsand suggestions to improve this paper.

ReferencesBBC. 2015. Your Paintings: Uncovering the Nation’s Art

Collections [accessed 13 March 2015]. Available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/>.

Eliasson, O. 2003. The Weather Project. Installation at TateModern, London [accessed 13 March 2015]. Available at:<http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/exhibition/unilever-

series-olafur-eliasson-weather-project/olafur-eliasson-weather-project>.

Google. 2011. Google Art Project [accessed 13 March 2015].Available at: <https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/project/art-project>.

House of Lords. 2006. Science and Heritage. 9th Report of Session2005–2006. House of Lords Science and TechnologyCommittee. London: The Stationary Office Limited [accessed13 March 2015]. Available at: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/256/256.pdf>.

ICCROM Forum. 2013. Final Discussion Group Reports [accessed13 March 2015]. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIJh3XVrTw>.

National Heritage Science Strategy Steering Group. 2010. OurVision and Strategy for Heritage Science [accessed 13 March2015]. Available at: <http://heritagescienceforum.org.uk/strategy.php>.

NWO. 2015. Amsterdam Conservation Centre. NetherlandsOrganisation for Scientific Research [accessed 13 March2015]. Available at: <http://www.nwo.nl/en/research-and-results/programmes/ew/amsterdam-conservation-centre/index.html>.

O’Doherty, B. 1976. Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of theGallery Space. San Francisco: The Lapis Press.

Ottens, J. 2013. Conservation Science in Context. Review ofStrategic Reviews Relating to Conservation Science. Rome:ICCROM [accessed 13 March 2015]. Available at: <http://ottensconsultancy.nl/pdf/conservation_science_in_context.pdf>.

Saunders, D., Townsend, J.H. &Woodcock, S. eds. 2006. The Objectin Context Crossing Conservation Boundaries. London:International Institute of Conservation of Historic andArtistic Works.

UNESCO. 2010. UNESCO Science Report 2010; United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Paris:UNESCO [accessed 13 March 2015]. Available at: <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001899/189958e.pdf>.

Wikipedia. 2015.HeritageScience.[accessed 15March2015].Availableat: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_science>.

Zooniverse. 2013. Galaxy Zoo [accessed 13 March 2015]. Availableat: <http://www.galaxyzoo.org/>.



Position paper

Shifting the focus to people: Global societalpriorities and the contribution made byconservation scienceGunilla Lagnesjö

Riksantikvarieämbetet, Swedish National Heritage Board, Stockholm, Sweden

During the ICCROM Forum on Conservation Science in 2013, one of the main themes discussed was theability for conservation science to contribute to global societal priorities. Today’s world is in many waysglobalized. Human actions have an impact at local as well as global level. Information travels fast, more orless in real time. To set up a framework for international interactions and cooperation, the majority of therecognized nations have joined the United Nations and signed the Universal Declaration on HumanRights. Global societal priorities are various and wide-ranging. This paper deals primarily with those thatare referred to under the UN Millennium Development Goals and the term Sustainable Development. Thefirst aims to fight extreme poverty, raise education levels, achieve gender equality, combat diseases, etc.The second deals with the interconnecting systems of social, economic, and environmental sustainability.A core aspect in the discussion is that culture and cultural heritage is integrated in all human activities, yetis diverse because culture holds various values, meanings, and functions for different groups in society.Cultural heritage is a powerful tool to reach and interact with people. It can be used for good and for ill.For conservation science as a discipline to take its professional responsibility seriously, it shouldcontribute to the multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary environment of conservation, and enhance its benefitsfor society. Through advanced research it can provide historical perspectives and raise awareness oftraditional methods, transforming it into ‘easily accessible’ knowledge. It can also contribute by providingfacts and information that can open up different narratives based on the same cultural historical realia.Examples of how that can be done are given under the headings: social, economic, and environmentalsustainability. Finally, addressing the global conservation community, the following three areas arerecommended for future development: the need for process managers and facilitators; the need for activeparticipation in the global sustainability challenges, and the need for inspirational role models and casestudies.

Keywords: Conservation science and society, Sustainable development, Sustainability, Societal priorities, Transdisciplinary approach, Participatoryconservation science

IntroductionIn 2011, the General Assembly of ICCROM (theInternational Centre for the Study of thePreservation and Restoration of Cultural Property)decided to set up a Forum to gather informationand reflect upon the current state of conservationscience and its capacity to serve the present andfuture needs of cultural heritage and by implication,heritage conservation. It was proposed that themeeting would consider all types of science, includingthe humanities and social sciences. The focus of theForum was to scan the horizon and to revitalize the

discussion on how to respond to current trends in cul-tural heritage studies as well as political and socialpriorities on a global level. The objectives of theForum were outlined in terms of: building capacity,enhancing dissemination pathways, and promotingcollaborative efforts in order to achieve better andmore useful research outcomes for the field as awhole (ICCROM, 2012).

This paper summarizes the concluding discussion ofthe Forum and gives recommendations originatingfrom the key question: ‘How can conservationscience connect with and contribute to world societalpriorities?’ The discussion followed two days ofintense participation in several roundtable discussionsCorrespondence to: Gunilla Lagnesjö, Riksantikvarieämbetet, The

Swedish National Heritage Board, 1114/62122 Visby Stockholm, Sweden.Email: [email protected]

© ICCROM, and the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 2015MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivs Licence 3.0DOI 10.1080/00393630.2015.1117860 Studies in Conservation 2015 VOL. 60 SUPPLEMENT 2S2-14

and inspiring keynote lectures at the Forum onConservation Science (ICCROM, 2013).

Global societal prioritiesFor over 60 years, countries of the world have beengathered together within the United Nations (UN),to discuss shared problems and create shared values.Through the UN, the international community hastaken the initiative to work together to tackle impor-tant global issues. The Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights (UDHR) is the foundation on whichthese activities rest (United Nations, 1948).In 2000, the majority of the UN’s member states

signed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)with the aim of dealing with specific social problemsat global level (United Nations, 2000). The MDGsaim to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieveuniversal primary education, promote gender equalityand empower women, reduce child mortality, andimprove maternal health. They also aim to combat dis-eases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, ensure environ-mental sustainability, and to promote globalpartnership for development through measures suchas fair trade, affordable medicines and by encouragingtechnology transfer. This is a 15-year programme dueto end in 2015 (United Nations, 2000).Although the challenge is overwhelming, the UN

has already stated that significant progress has beenmade. To build on the momentum generated, stepsto formulate a post-2015 sustainable developmentagenda are being taken. The UN together with civilsociety and other partners is working on a programmefor the next 15 years: ‘We can end poverty. MillenniumDevelopment Goals and beyond 2015’. The pro-gramme is expected to be launched in September2015 (United Nations, 2014).Many of the activities intended to address global

societal challenges are now gathered together andreferred to under the commonly used term ‘sustainabledevelopment’. While origins and definitions of thisterm vary, it was most broadly introduced by theBrundtland report of 1987 (World Commission onEnvironment and Development, 1987) which alsogives by far the best known and most often quoteddefinition of sustainable development as being devel-opment that

‘…meets the needs of the present without com-promising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs.’ (World Commission onEnvironment and Development, 1987, p. 41)

The objective of the Brundtland report (WorldCommission on Environment and Development,1987) was to raise the importance of environmentalissues on the political agenda and to discuss thesetogether with development, as one overarching and

interconnected issue. Accordingly, it considered threeinteracting perspectives on sustainability – social,economic, and environmental – with the view thateffective and sustainable solutions to combat environ-mental issues also require action to similarly reducenegative impacts on human development. In relationto this, it is important to recognize that cultural andcultural heritage issues cut right across all threeperspectives.

Cultural heritage: a powerful toolCultural heritage, archival sources, and other culturalexpressions hold various values, meanings, and func-tions depending on when, how, and by whom theyare interpreted.Participation in a certain culture gives individuals

and communities identity and stability. Culturalexpressions and customs vary throughout the worldat both micro and macro levels. In the documentOur Creative Diversity, the authors choose to viewculture as ‘ways of living together’ (UNESCO,1996). The UDHR provides an important set ofvalues for international respect. As heritage conserva-tion professionals, we are obliged to attempt to under-stand both the historical and contemporary culturalexpressions as parts of cultural heritage. On an indi-vidual level, this is sometimes complicated whendealing with human behaviour that is in conflict withthe UDHR. An illustrative example is the traditionof villeinage and of keeping slaves which wascommon through history for most cultures. In OurCreative Diversity, development is defined and sum-marized as a process of enlarging people’s choices,which includes the fostering of respect for all cultures,and the principles of cultural freedom.Cultural heritage manifests itself through interpret-

ations and narratives both written and oral.Narrative content is often confirmed using referencesto physical relics and there may be several parallel nar-ratives. ‘Owning’ the narrative – giving precedence toone interpretation – is often used as an instrument ofpower. A common device used throughout historyhas been for the ruling power to write its own historyin order to cement their right to exercise influenceover other people. This has also resulted in the tacticof destroying their opponents’ and competinggroups’ cultural heritage.To break through reductive and censoring use of

cultural heritage, contemporary theories of conserva-tion are built on a democratic principle of negotiationbetween communities, groups, individuals, and otherinterests. The idea that a selection of representativecultural heritage is meaningful for everyone and thatthe role of heritage experts is to decide by themselveswhich cultural remains are worthy of preservation is

Lagnesjö Shifting the focus to people science


no longer seen as a relevant (Muñoz-Viñas, 2005;Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, 2013).When discussing global societal priorities, it is

important to be aware of the significance of cultureand cultural heritage to individuals and systems ofpower. By reflecting on the aims of, and activelyworking on, projects that support the good intentionsthat the nations of the world under the auspices of theUN have agreed, conservation science can contributeto efforts to level out social inequalities and demon-strate how people’s individual range of choices canbe expanded.

Global responsibility of scienceAt the Forum on Conservation Science, there wasacceptance of the desire to understand global societalpriorities and for the cultural heritage sector to stepforward and take an active role in any way it can. Tounderline this responsibility, Article 27, Paragraph 1of the UDHR was brought forward: ‘Everyone hasthe right freely to participate in the cultural life ofthe community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scien-tific advancement and its benefits’ (United Nations,1948).All scientists are thereby obliged to share their

knowledge. In order to share its knowledge, conserva-tion science needs to facilitate communication, con-nectivity, interaction, and understanding betweenconservation scientists and other stakeholders.At the same time, it can be shown that the collective

ability of different research areas to work together bymulti-, inter- and, transdisciplinary means in orderto solve common problems is rarely practiced. Thenatural sciences, social sciences, and the arts andhumanities each have their own specific research tra-ditions, vocabularies and methods. It is possible,perhaps even probable, that there are changes aheadof us that will see the discovery of new models of meth-odology because the problems humanity is currentlyfaced with contain such complexity.Heritage conservation is an applied discipline in

which the natural, social, and formal sciences allplay a part. It is by its nature multidisciplinary, andis often conducted by practitioners and skill-centredspecialists independently working on the sameproblem. Among them we find conservation scientistswho have the responsibility to support conservationpractice and respond to the needs of society. To fulfilsuch a mission, a transdisciplinary holistic approachhas to be adopted. This is based on inclusion of stake-holders in defining research objectives and strategies.Conservation science can thereby easily adapt to newapproaches to science that open it up to transdisciplin-ary initiatives, collective design, and the collective pro-duction of knowledge.

Conservation science’s contribution to globalsocietal prioritiesThe responsibility of dealing with global societal chal-lenges rests on us all, from the international commu-nity and individual countries, business, andorganizations, all the way down to individuals. Thisalso means that there needs to be active engagementin the global discussion at all levels. It may be regardedas naive to think that conservation science can contrib-ute to solving global problems, but, from the perspec-tive of the significance of many small initiatives,conservation science should, and must, actively con-tribute to this work in any way it can. A key startingpoint for those working in conservation is that culturalheritage plays a large role in people’s identity and nar-ratives. We must always be aware of the fact that thiscan be used for both good and ill. Cultural heritagecan both unite and divide. However, the reallycrucial challenge is how this desire to contribute canbe turned into action.

Together with other professions, conservationscience can contribute by providing historical perspec-tives and, above all, by acting as a link to transferscientific knowledge to professionals and stakeholders.Conservation practice needs to be further explored andenhanced using scientific support, and the applica-bility, use and benefits of scientific knowledge needto be demonstrated. Another important role is thatof highlighting, from an impartial scientific perspec-tive, facts that support or overturn different interpret-ations of cultural heritage.

To provide inspiration, some examples whichdemonstrate how conservation science can contributeare given in the section below. For the purposes ofthis discussion, they have been organized accordingto the three pillars of sustainability – social, economic,and environmental. However, it should be borne inmind that as culture is an integrated part of allhuman activities, it is difficult to compartmentalizecultural issues in precisely this way as they naturallyextend across all of these perspectives.

These and many more, innovative and easilyimplemented initiatives can be discovered throughadopting a transdisciplinary scientific approachwhich treats cultural heritage as a resource that hasnot only to be communicated, but also understoodand embraced by society in order to support effortsto address global societal challenges.

Social sustainabilityThe global challenges of social sustainability affectcommunities and individuals’ well-being and identity.Knowledge of history improves access to cultural heri-tage and increases our enjoyment of it by delivering anintellectual and emotional experience through the

Lagnesjö Global societal priorities and conservation science


sharing of deeper knowledge about our commonhistory and multicultural world.One of the greatest challenges for social sustainabil-

ity is the work towards a world of mutual understand-ing, free from armed conflict and which supports theprinciples of dignity, equality, and mutual respect.Material cultural heritage often holds the keys to nar-ratives that are of great significance in these processes.This can be of importance in healing processes follow-ing traumatic experiences such as natural disasters andafter instable situations where different groups havethreatened each other.Cultural heritage has been targeted in conflicts for

millennia, and this continues today. Conservation isa necessary aspect of the recovery process followingarmed conflicts, terror attacks, and riots. From thetime it was set up, ICCROMwith its global and politi-cally neutral platform has worked in this area. Theseare extremely delicate and sensitive situations, and itis important to continue along this path of takingcare of experience, building capacity, and workingproactively (ICCROM, 2014).Material cultural heritage can be used as a lever to

facilitate social inclusion by breaking through compli-cated historical and sociological structures. Materialcultural heritage and its narrative immaterial contentmight be of common interest to closed groups with amarginalized position in society and the mainstreamcommunity. Through dialogue and understanding ofdifferent, as well as common, stories, and perspectives,platforms for confidence and negotiation can be built.This dialogue-based method can successfully be usedto bring awareness of different and common needsfor different co-existing minority groups in society(Gustafsson, 2003).Education and the long-term rearing of new gener-

ations of researchers in all disciplines is a factor inthe success of the work relating to the global agendafor future sustainability. Cultural heritage and itsenigmas and mysteries that can be solved throughscientific investigations have a huge capacity toattract future young scientists into a career in researchand development. Moreover, aspects of conservationscience can be promoted as an interdisciplinaryapproach in education programmes.

Economic sustainabilityThe global challenges of economic sustainability arehuge. In a just world everyone would have food,housing, and dignity. However, existing resources arefinite and will have to suffice. The implication is thatif this is to be achieved, we must all find sustainablesystems.Most current economic theories are based on the

consumption of new products. At the same time,there is a growing understanding that natural resources

are limited. This opens the way for a trend of conserva-tion and reuse of both historic and contemporaryobjects and constructions. The conservation commu-nity has to take a lead in building capacity and trainingfuture generations to regain the knowledge of how totake care of and reuse the limited resources of theglobe.Cultural heritage knowledge can support this work

by providing important historical knowledge. It ispossible that perspectives on the traditional use oflocal materials, techniques, and economic systems forconstruction and the increased maintenance of existingbuildings, for example, can reduce the pressure onlocal and global resources.Old and new methods of producing energy and gov-

erning its use are one area to be further developed. Thetraditional use of wind power for mechanical devicesand transport are well known and can be revitalizedand used in contemporary society. Traditionalmethods of cooling interiors can be investigated andnew low-cost photovoltaic cell technologies tested.The effects can be analysed by research projects, andthe use of good examples encouraged through legisla-tive instruments. The role of conservation science is totest knowledge from other scientific fields throughresearch, so that it can be used in conservation. Thisspreads knowledge to a wider audience and gives it anew status.Cultural heritage currently provides a livelihood for

many people in the tourism industry, and heritageattractions often drive tourism. The significance oftourism is well-known and examined in, for example,work relating to the World Heritage Convention. Inmany cases, new and previously unknown narrativescan be told about objects and places thanks to conser-vation science. However, cultural heritage attractionshave to be looked after. This requires continuousmaintenance and occasional conservation measures.

Environmental sustainabilityThe global environmental challenges are extensive andmodels indicating the expected development are manyand uncertain. Changes to environmental systems willhave immediate and marked consequences on the con-ditions needed to reach basic needs for living con-ditions for mankind.Conservation science can contribute with infor-

mation that demonstrates change, but also showshow humans have always been at the mercy of environ-mental changes and indicate positive examples ofadaptation to new conditions. Written sourcescontain eyewitness accounts of natural disasters thatoccurred a long time ago. Meanwhile, archaeologicaland historical data can provide confirmation thatthese and other events actually took place.



Meteorology provides information based on every-day observations accumulated over centuries. By com-bining data from several sources, observations aboutenvironmental change can be analysed. The resultsallow emerging threats to cultural heritage to bedetected and mitigated.For example, Cultural heritage objects such as

natural history specimens contain historical referencesshowing the level of toxic substances in organismsthat lived several hundred years ago. This data can becompared with samples from contemporary organisms.This was one of the methods used to demonstrate theaccumulation of the pesticide DDT in the food chain.The use of cultural heritage as indicators in long-

term monitoring and data collection for scientific usecan be increased and improved.These examples show how historical facts and evi-

dence can help to understand the present and to miti-gate change. But, more important is the need to meetthreats like global warming and to prevent an evenmore rapid change in our environment. The demandfor energy and at the same time the need to reduceCO2 levels is a priority on the international agenda.Energy efficiency is one pathway and again it is poss-ible to learn from traditional building techniquesinvolving passive houses and natural ventilationinstead of high-tech solutions dependent on electricity.An example is when constructing permanent storagefor collections.Another evolving threat is the availability of fresh

water. Water is necessary for all living organisms, andis a resource that needs to be handled efficiently. Thisis another important field where we need to regain tra-ditional, and even lost, knowledge on irrigation, andcombine it with the latest low-energy techniques.

RecommendationsThe initiative to set up a Forum and discuss the rel-evance and future agenda of conservation scienceand its relation to cultural heritage studies is of signifi-cant importance. At the end of the 1950s, ICCROMwas set up to provide training, information, research,cooperation, and advocacy in the field of cultural heri-tage conservation. ICCROM has succeeded in itsmission and is a respected organization with influenceon the global agenda for conservation. The Forumthereby wanted to address the following recommen-dations to ICCROM and all of its member states onhow to meet and contribute to the global societal pri-orities in the future.

The need for process managers and facilitatorsCultural heritage can be used as a tool to help solveglobal societal challenges. There are currently manyresearchers, among them conservation scientists, whocan contribute their knowledge towards this. The

results can be harvested and refined and used in newapplications. What is currently lacking are well-edu-cated leaders with a broad knowledge of science, thehumanities, social studies, and diplomacy who can cul-tivate an interdisciplinary approach. Their task will beto understand contemporary global political prioritiesand provide mechanisms for the development of inter-and transdisciplinary projects as part of relevant pro-grammes established through the UN.

In this context, ICCROM, together with competentleaders, has forged a distinct role when it comes tocertain aspects of the preservation of cultural heritage,in order to show how this can be used to achieveshared global goals and facilitate contacts between cul-tural heritage organizations all over the world.

The need for active participation in the globalsustainability challengesCultural heritage can be both a help and a hindranceto bringing about the changes the world needs tomake on a global level to cope with sustainability chal-lenges. Our habitual ways of doing things, our idealsand attitudes can be changed. For example, the con-sumption patterns of developed nations in no way con-stitute a good example from a sustainabilityperspective. This can be contrasted with alternativeideals in which knowledge of the care and preservationof the objects around us are emphasized. It is impor-tant to dare to think innovatively; for example, totake active part in the development of the millenniumgoals beyond 2015, by contacting new collaborativepartners such as the World Health Organization(WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) to introduce aspects of cultural heritage knowl-edge and processes as a tool to help achieve globalgoals.

ICCROM can be the partner that represents the per-spective of cultural heritage conservation and conser-vation science. It can also conduct horizon scanning,analyses of trends and provide indicators in such devel-opment work.

The need for inspirational role models and casestudiesCultural heritage provides perspectives that stretchback over long periods of time and stimulate ourthoughts about the future. Cultural heritage encapsu-lates narratives about people and societies. Successfulcase studies from around the world need to be madeaccessible to highlight the potential of cultural heri-tage and provide inspiration for future projects.Especially the mutual benefit from an extendedcooperation with UNESCO needs to be explored.Aspects on conservation can be promoted in manyexisting programmes such as UNESCO’s Educationfor Sustainable Development programme

Lagnesjö Global societal priorities and conservation science


(UNESCO, n.d. a), Local and Indigenous KnowledgeSystems (LINKS) (UNESCO, n.d. b) or projects likeEmpowerment of Rural Women in Jordan throughHeritage Conservation for Sustainable Developmentby UN Women and many more (UNESCO, 2014).ICCROM can take on the role of an international

clearinghouse to highlight innovative projects andinitiate development of theoretical frameworks andmethods for their performance.

AcknowledgementsThis document is based on a discussion held among agroup of professionals in conservation and conserva-tion science. They represented different disciplinesand continents. Many different perspectives were putforward in the discussion and became an importantfactor for success. The working group included (inalphabetical order): Marc Jacobs, Director of FARO(Flemish Interface for Cultural Heritage), Professorfor Critical Heritage Studies at Vrije UniversiteitBrussel, Belgium; Gunilla Lagnesjö, Head ofConservation Science, National Heritage Board,Sweden; Marco Leona, Head of the ScientificResearch Department at The Metropolitan Museumof Art, USA; Janneke Ottens, Cultural HeritageAgency of the Netherlands, the Netherlands; IsabellePallot-Frossard, Head of Laboratories, Laboratoirede recherche des monuments historiques (LRMH),France; Yoshinori Sato, Researcher, Center forConservation Science and Restoration Techniques,National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,Tokyo, Japan; Andrew Thorn, Wall paintings conser-vator (private practice), ARTCARE, Australia; andXingling Tian, Associate Researcher of Science andTechnology Protection Laboratory of UnderwaterCultural Relics, Restoration Training Center of theChinese Academy of Cultural Heritage, China.

ReferencesAustralia ICOMOS. 2013. The Burra Charter: Charter for Places of

Cultural Significance [accessed 28 December 2014]. Availableat: <http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf>.

Gustafsson, M. 2003. Nationella Minoriteter i Göteborg Och DerasKulturarv. Göteborgska Tidsspeglar. Göteborg: LindelöwsBokförlag.

ICCROM. 2012. Brainstorm on Conservation Science, Report[accessed 15 February 2014]. Available at: <http://www.iccrom.org/>.

ICCROM. 2013. Forum on Conservation Science, Rome, 16–18October [accessed 15 February 2014]. Available at: <http://www.iccrom.org/>.

ICCROM. 2014. International Centre for the Study of the Preservationand Restoration of Cultural Property. Official website [accessed 15February 2014]. Available at: <http: //www.iccrom.org/>.

Muñoz-Viñas, S. 2005. Contemporary Theory of Conservation.Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

UNESCO. (n.d. a). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)[accessed 15 February 2014]. Available at: <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/>.

UNESCO. (n.d. b). Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems(LINKS) [accessed 15 February 2014]. Available at: <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/priority-areas/links/>.

UNESCO. 1996. Our Creative Diversity: Report of the WorldCommission on Culture and Development. UNESCOPublishing [accessed 15 February 2014]. Available at: <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001016/101651e.pdf>.

UNESCO. 2014. Empowerment of Rural Women in Jordan throughHeritage Conservation for Sustainable Development [accessed15 February 2014]. Available at: <https://en.unesco.org/news/empowerment-rural-women-jordan-through-heritage-conservation-sustainable-development>.

United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.10December 1948, 217 A (III) [accessed 15 February 2014].Available at: <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>.

United Nations. 2000. United Nations Millennium DevelopmentGoals website [accessed 15 February 2014]. Available at:<http://http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/>.

United Nations. 2014. United Nations Millennium DevelopmentGoals website [accessed 28 December 2014]. Available at:<http://http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/beyond2015-overview.shtml>.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. OurCommon Future: Report of the World Commission onEnvironment and Development. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress [accessed 15 February 2014]. Available at: <http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf>.



Position paper

How can we build an impactful future forscience in conservation? Essential next stepsNancy Bell1,2

1The National Archives, London, UK, 2The National Heritage Science Forum, UK

This paper presents the outcomes of reflection and debate within the ICCROM Forum (2013) which exploredhow to build an impactful future for science in conservation. It sets out a number of recommendations tosupport a vibrant heritage science community with an impactful future. Key recommendations include:adopting the term heritage science as this reflects the growing use of the term in domains not exclusivelyconservation-focussed, positioning ICCROM as a leader in setting a vision for the heritage sciencecommunity which would grow capacity, and support a high standard of academic research to underpinan impactful future for this growing discipline.

Keywords: Heritage science, Heritage science impact, Heritage science vision, Citizen science, Communicating value, Measuring benefit, ICCROM

IntroductionHeritage science applies scientific, engineering, andtechnology research to advance the understanding,the interpretation, conservation, authentication, andmanagement of cultural heritage — both moveableand built. It is by definition cross-disciplinary,drawing from science in the broadest sense, as well asarts and humanities disciplines. Conservation scienceresearch, technical history research, and other areasof research including areas of digital and big datastudies focussed on cultural heritage fit neatly withina larger frame of heritage science, which includesscience that is not exclusively conservation-focussed.The term ‘heritage science’ is used in the UK and isbeing adopted internationally, for example by insti-tutions such as the CNR, Italy, and the Library ofCongress and the Museum Conservation Institute ofthe Smithsonian Institution, USA. At its best heritagescience brings together expertise drawn from a range ofdisciplines, including both generators and end-users ofresearch.Heritage science does not happen in one place.

Placing heritage — and arts and humanities (ratherthan conservation exclusively) questions centrally, wenot only open up the possibilities of engaging research,higher education and cultural heritage institutions, butwe also have the possibilities of engaging awider rangeof participants, across geographies, as citizen

scientists, or simply engaging the public more gener-ally in the debates surrounding their local culturalheritage.

For these reasons, the term heritage science ratherthan conservation science is used here. The aim ofthis paper is to present the thinking and exchangesthat took place within the group that discussed Howto build an impactful future for science in conservation?at the ICCROM Forum (2013), and the key rec-ommendations given by this group for futuredevelopment.

To realise a more impactful future, three areas offocus were agreed:• to establish a clear vision for building an impactful

future that can sit comfortably within local, national,or international contexts;

• building heritage science research capacity;• communicating the value of heritage science research.

A vision for heritage scienceTo grow a more impactful heritage sciencecommunity, it is recommended that ICCROMtakes a leading role in setting a vision forgrowing heritage science research globallyGiven its global position, independence, and extendedinternational networks, ICCROM is well placed, incollaboration with consortium partners, to take alead in building a heritage science research communityinternationally. Defining a compelling vision, one thatis ambitious, timely and achievable is an importantfirst step. Such a vision should reflect that heritagescience takes place locally, regionally and globally,

Correspondence to: Nancy Bell, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond,Surrey TW9 4DU, UK.Email: [email protected]


and therefore sits within wider cultural frameworks.Such a vision should make explicit the potential forcollaborating with partners internationally, toachieve the ultimate aim of realising an impactfulfuture. Emphasis should be placed on demonstratinghow the outcomes and relevance of heritage sciencecan inform policies at all levels, as well as supportingpractitioner needs.

Build capacity locally, nationally, internationallyBuilding capacity was considered imperative, andshould extend beyond academia where possible.Encouraging active engagement between researchersand the public is an exciting way of demonstratingthe benefits of heritage science research. Engagingthe public in this way can build local support for heri-tage projects; it can bring economic benefit to localcommunities, and can be a means of encouraginglong-term community participation.How to build a heritage science community was

considered in some detail. The development and pub-lication of national heritage science research strategieswas considered essential because the process of defin-ing and publishing such strategies has shown to be asignificant catalyst for galvanising support, forgrowing networks, and demonstrating the need forheritage science research to funders.The National Heritage Science Research Strategy

(available on The National Heritage Science Forum(NHSF) website www.heritagescienceforum.org.uk)published by the UK was a significant achievementand has been shown to be an important mechanismfor growing and coalescing the heritage science com-munity in the UK. Since its publication in 2010, theUK has established the NHSF a charity that bringstogether heritage scientists who carry out research,and practitioners in the arts, humanities, and scienceswho apply research results to their own work. Memberorganisations include universities, heritage organis-ations, and professional bodies. Bringing the commu-nity together in this way enables the heritage sciencecommunity to speak with one voice to governmentand to strategic and funding bodies, to influencepolicy and strengthen the position of heritage sciencenationally and internationally. Importantly, theforum will also lead the delivery of the NationalHeritage Research Strategy.In addition to encouraging the drafting and publi-

cation of national research strategies, understandingand mapping end-users needs against availableresources was also recommended. Identifying thebroad spectrum of end-users of heritage scienceresearch within local contexts and understandingtheir interests is an important first step and anexample of how the long-term goal of achieving amore impactful future can be realised through closer

collaboration between generators and end-users ofresearch.Building capacity can be achieved through heritage

citizen scientist programmes, where committed pro-fessionals working as volunteers can support heritagescience projects that would not otherwise be possiblewithout this resource. Trained volunteers, forexample, have been used to mine large data sets withthe view to making available to researchers muchneeded data to monitor changes within cultural heri-tage collections over time. Citizen heritage scientistshave an important role to play in making this happen.Developing a community of heritage science advo-

cates could realise a huge resource. Conservative esti-mates suggest that there are some 5000 studentsinternationally, enrolled in conservation courses onan annual basis. Just think of the potential this discretegroup of committed professionals has in supportingheritage science research, disseminating the outcomesof their work to new audiences, while building asupport base long term. Social media offer opportu-nities to engage audiences in heritage science projectsand to connect more communities internationally.Understanding the benefits of heritage science is a

key if its value and impact is to be realised longterm. Promoting resource and equipment sharingamong institutions, and extending resources, forexample skills and equipment, to organisations thatwould not have access to facilities enhances theimpact of publicly funded research, and is effectivein building capacity.

Communication and realising the impact ofheritage science researchCommunication and exploiting opportunities topromote heritage science through existing platforms,such as conferences and meetings, public engagementevents, debates, or networking events could usefullybe promoted by ICCROM in collaboration withother professional conservation bodies and theNHSF. If heritage science is to grow and be recognisedbeyond academia it needs to demonstrate the value ofheritage science to policy makers, funding bodies, andthe public in metrics and languages that have reson-ance with these audiences. How to measure the valueand define the metrics for measuring economic,social, and political value, has been subject to somestudy, and will vary internationally. Regardless ofhow we ‘sell’ the benefits of heritage science research,the stories are rich, varied, and compelling.There is a strong public appetite for learning more

about cultural heritage. The work of heritage scien-tists, similar to that of forensic scientists, has alreadycaptured television audiences by revealing traces ofthe object’s biography. Other steps toward a moreimpactful future could include:

Bell How can we build an impactful future for science in conservation?


• Promoting the richness of cross-disciplinary offer andcross pollination with other sciences and humanities.Promote valorisation of research to encourageresearch projects to deliver greater benefit for heritageand society, and thereby achieve higher impact.

• Quantification of research outputs and analysis todemonstrate the economic and social benefits of heri-tage science research is essential. It is important tomove perceptions of heritage science beyond thetoo-often narrow scope of characterising cultural heri-tage materials to one that enriches the cultural experi-ence and embraces a wider, impactful, domain.

Think the unthinkableHeritage science is a growing international disciplinesupported by many outstanding centres of researchglobally. These centres could act as hubs for futuredevelopment to extend the reach and to connect thisfragmented community. ICCROM could usefully pos-ition itself as a facilitator and pollinator of researchand ideas working with heritage science centres inter-nationally to build heritage science locally, and in away that meets local needs. These hubs could bebeacons for local communities.Heritage science has the potential to inform

complex social problems, including climate adaptationstrategies, moving beyond the understanding the valueof cultural heritage to communities, to health andwell-being, or the contribution to national economies,for example. Why not challenge existing centres ofheritage science research to collaborate internationally

and contribute to addressing social and economicchallenges? Leveraging the value of heritage scienceglobally would instantly bring the attention we needto our domain, and create the most impactful future.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to acknowledge the hugely enga-ging and thoughtful contribution of the workinggroup, who listened carefully and debated rigorouslyhow the heritage science community could build acommunity and realise a most impactful future forheritage science research. The working group includedAgnes Brokerhof, Senior Scientist, Cultural HeritageAgency of the Netherlands, the Netherlands;Bertrand Lavédrine, Director of the Centre deRecherche sur la Conservation des Collections,France; Webber Ndoro, Director of the AfricanWorld Heritage Fund, South Africa; Luca Pezzati,Senior researcher, and coordinator of the group BeniCulturali at the National Institute for Optics of theNational Research Council, Italy; Anupam Sah,Head of Art Conservation, Research and Training,CSMVS Museum Art Conservation Centre,Mumbai, India; and Min Seok Seo, Researcher ofthe National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage,Korea. A special thanks to Catherine Antomarchi,Unit Director, Collections Unit, ICCROM; andAlison Heritage, Conservation Research Specialist,ICCROM; for making this seminal forum possible.

Bell How can we build an impactful future for science in conservation?


Position paper

Tools for assessing needs and impactsStefan Michalski

Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa, Canada

The results of the ICCROM Forum 2013 on Conservation Science working group on Tools for assessing needsand impacts is presented. It is used as a starting point for a fundamental study of tools in general, tangible andintangible. The phenomenon of scientists and their organizations becoming defined by their tools, and unableto change when the needs of those they serve change, was noted by Kaplan in 1964. Part of the mechanism isthe human tendency to solve any disagreement between new facts (like client needs) and old beliefs (such asthe importance of one’s toolset) by twisting the facts rather than the beliefs. Collins’ proposal of three kinds oftacit knowledge, with collective tacit knowledge as the most difficult to make explicit, can explain commonproblems of interpretation and communication of assessments, and guide strategies for reliable tools.Kaufmann’s ideas on the structuring of needs assessment by levels, and the distinction between macrooutputs and mega outcomes, is combined with Maslow’s five basic human needs, as well as the threepillars of sustainability, to produce an overall map of where needs assessment tools operate, and whereconservation science organizations fit into this structure.

Keywords: Needs assessment, Tools, Tacit knowledge, Conservation science, ICCROM

IntroductionThere are two parts to this paper – firstly, a summaryof the deliberations by the working group assigned tothis topic during the ICCROM Conservation ScienceForum (2013), and secondly, the chair’s furtherthoughts and research on the topic. These workinggroups and topics were assigned after two full daysof other structured discussions during the forum.Topics such as this one were based on themes thathad emerged in the earlier discussions. As with alltime-limited group work, our results that day were alittle cryptic and a little fragmented, but they were,most importantly, representative of our field, and agood place to begin more solitary ruminations.

The results of the working groupOur group created a structured list of bullet points forpresentation to the forum at the end of the day. Ratherthan subsume that raw material into polished text, it ispresented here as ‘exhibit A’, important for its mix ofindividual and shared phrases.

What tools?• Tools for assessing needs and impacts (and manage-

ment strategies)

Why are tools important?• To get things done that meet our goals.• To increase our efficiency, our effectiveness.• To link beyond preservation issues to social and

environmental needs and impact.

Recommended design principles for toolsCriteria to assess tools• What costs to operate? (expertise x time)• Is it accurate? (depends on algorithms, raw data)• What communication effectiveness?• Are results comparable, i.e., is there a sufficiently

large group of users to share and compare resultsusefully?

• Is it integrated with macro/micro tools? Does it con-sider inter-sectorial integration (in terms of govern-ment sectors)?

Identify target groups for tools1. Managers2. Students (who can also contribute research)3. Conservators4. Scientists

Other design criteria• Learn from other fields, their successes (and failures!)• Make tools not only for analysis but also for

communication.• Make tools for intangible and tangible heritage.• Include inter-sectorial clients and public in the early

design phase of tools when necessary.

Correspondence to: Stefan Michalski, CCI–Canadian ConservationInstitute, 1030 Innes Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1A 0M5.Email: [email protected]

© ICCROM, and the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 2015© Government of Canada, Canadian Conservation Institute, 2015MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivs Licence 3.0DOI 10.1080/00393630.2015.1117862 Studies in Conservation 2015 VOL. 60 SUPPLEMENT 2

S2-23

Examples of tools and new building blocks• Provide infrastructure for archived data sharing, i.e.,

museum data, research data.• Use community ‘polling’.• Make tools for specific risk analysis (e.g., a scenario

tool).• Use mass communication technology.• Use global satellite data.• Provide needs and impact measuring tools for

decision makers before they develop their own forus, i.e., be proactive in meeting the needs of decisionmakers!

Post-forum researchAworking group of exceptional professionals tends tobe both exhilarating and frustrating. As assigned chairof this working group and subsequently author of thispaper, I will admit that I have worked my whole careeron tools, most directed at assessing needs in terms ofrisk reduction in museums. Much of our workinggroup’s discussion felt familiar, and many previousreadings came to mind. This article was an opportu-nity to build a fundamental understanding of toolsin general, and to see how this could guide the discus-sion of needs assessment tools in particular. In theprocess, one will recognize many elements of ourgroup’s thoughts (Figure 1).

The need for professional tools is well known, soperhaps we are discontented‘Tool1. A device or implement, especially one held in the

hand, used to carry out a particular function.1.1 A thing used to help perform a job.

Example sentences:

Computers are an essential tool.

The ability to write clearly is a tool of the trade.

Models and monitored performance are essentialmanagement tools.

As with any occupation, professionals need theright tools to perform their jobs effectively’(Oxford Dictionaries, 2015).

It was both disheartening and reassuring to find theabove definition in the dictionary. There it was – ‘tohelp perform a job’ – a concise and simple phrasethat captured, undeniably, much of our deliberationson why tools are important. And up popped a stringof example sentences that replicated much of ourhard-won content – monitored performance as essen-tial to management, need for communication tools,use of models as tools, and the fact that all professions,not just ours, need the ‘right tools’ to performeffectively.Of course, the group did assemble other specific

details relevant to our field, but in hindsight I think

that the important discovery of the forum was notexplicit but implicit – after so much effort to organizethe collective wisdom of our field we seemed to haveended up simply identifying phrases that were alreadyin the dictionary. Bear in mind that the task of ourgroup – tools for assessing needs and impacts – wasthe distillation of two full days of forum workinggroups, and that these working groups had addressedtopics designed by representatives of the consortiumworking months before over the course of two days. Ibelieve that the emergence of our working group’stopic as a recurring theme must be more than just rec-ognition that such tools are necessary, which the dic-tionary notes is universal to all professions. It is arecurring theme because we are frustrated or discon-tented with the tools that we have, or more likely,that we do not have.

Since tools are extensions of the self, webecome discontented with ourselves‘Artificial prostheses include of course tools, but alsowriting, as an external memory, can be considered aprosthetic extension. Thus, culture is by definition ofthe order of prosthetic extensions – a human strippedfrom everything prosthetic-like is a human strippedfrom culture’ (De Preester & Tsakiris, 2009).

Tangible tools become extensions of our tangible‘self’. Intangible tools become extensions of our intan-gible ‘self’. Although using the word tools in this sensemight be considered only metaphorical, for a socialand thinking animal these extensions of the mind –

intangible tools – must be recognized as just as realand probably just as ancient as sticks and stones.

If we are discontented with our current ‘tools’ and ifprofessional tools are extensions of our professionalselves, then we are discontented with our professional‘selves’, or more precisely with the relation of our pro-fessional selves to society.

Figure 1 Examples of tools, developed and presented by theworking group during the forum. © ICCROM 2013.

Michalski Tools for assessing needs and impacts


Tools bias what we think we can doIn notes from a preliminary brainstorm session for thisforum, one participant wrote: ‘The research directionand capacity of applied scientists and their institutions,are very difficult to change. To respond to change, anapplied science must a) identify the current questionsand b) answer them (and retool where necessary)’.One finds this to be a very common problem.‘I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be for-

mulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, andhe will find that everything he encounters needspounding. It comes as no particular surprise to dis-cover that a scientist formulates problems in a waywhich requires for their solution just those techniquesin which he himself is especially skilled’ (Kaplan,1964).For subsequent variations on this adage, such as the

pithier ‘To a man with a hammer, every problem is anail’ see http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/05/08/hammer-nail/#note-8840-7.‘We shape our tools. And then our tools shape us’

(Culkin, 1967).‘It’s generally much easier to kill an organization

than to change it substantially’ (Kelly, n.d.).I think we can all agree that a person who has devel-

oped great skills in the use of their tool, e.g., a violinist,a microscopist, is not just linked to their chosen tool,but defined by it. Our tools determine our sense ofwhat we can do, and thus our sense of who we are.Similarly, a conservation science organization createdwith a particular set of experts and tools designed tomeet the tasks assumed for a particular mandate willperceive itself in terms of that set of tools and exper-tise. When required to adapt to new tasks or even anew mandate, it may (for a time) avoid changerather than adapt. For a publicly funded organization,sticking to its old mandate when assigned a new one isbad enough, but perhaps even less justifiable is‘mandate drift’, a situation where staff expertise andtools drift over time so task selection also drifts,thereby shaping a de facto (incorrect) mandate.There are two parts to the mechanism behind

Kaplan’s ‘law of the instrument’. The first part is justthe unforgiving logic of availability, the second partis the way humans cope with this logic.Availability has many poetic names – luck, fate, cir-

cumstance – but it is simply the fact that in the realworld one can only use what is available, and what isavailable depends more on randomness than we everwant to admit. In decision-making theory, availabilityexpands to become a principle called ‘bounded ration-alism’ – the idea that rational decision-making isalways imperfect because knowledge and time arealways limited, i.e., bounded. What happens when itis very clear that we do not have the right tools at all?

Cognitive dissonance is a phrase from psychologythat refers to the (unpleasant) state of mind thatoccurs when we take in new information that conflictswith a prior belief, e.g., a scientist (or an organization)accepts a project believing that they have the righttools, but it becomes increasingly apparent that theydo not. Rationalization is the very human process ofgetting rid of any cognitive dissonance between newfacts and old beliefs by modifying the facts ratherthan our beliefs, for example: my tools just need tobe modified (the shoe almost fits); my tools are thebest possible (denial that someone else has relevanttools); or, the task just is not important (trivializingthe goal, and hence the conflict). It is not surprisingthat we have strong mechanisms to help us avoidfeeling useless.The difficulty of adaptation to changing needs by

conservation science organizations is obviously notpeculiar to us, but is it inevitable? Can it be fixed?There is a slew of management books on managingchange, but it is only recently that some of the under-lying phenomena have been studied, dare I say it,scientifically. Organizations trying to implement thesingle most important belief change that the worldfaces – that we are responsible for climate changeand we better do something about it soon – haveonly recently studied the psychology of deniers(rather than just shaking their heads in frustration).An important discovery has been the ‘knowledge

fallacy’. Experts had assumed that climate changedenial can be overcome by piling up more scientificdata, but studies have shown that the opposite istrue: it makes denial more entrenched (ClimateOutreach and Information Network, n.d.). Similarideas had been emerging in studies of voting behaviouron many inflammatory topics. Our issues may be lessimportant, but the mental mechanisms remain thesame. One can understand the knowledge fallacy interms of the current ‘two part’ model of our mind,work summarized well in Kahnemann’s bookThinking Fast Thinking Slow (2011). We have two pro-cessors – one intuitive, fast to provide decisions, andmost importantly, guardian of our beliefs, the othermethodical, learned, but lazy, slow to providedecisions, and most important, only an advisor toour beliefs. The error of the knowledge fallacy is thehope that we can influence the deeply held beliefs ofthe fast intuitive part by piling up knowledge in theslow methodical part. Not so. But opinions, i.e.,decisions on how to act, can be shifted, albeit slowly.Successful strategies discovered to date are not aimedat the slow logical part but at the fast intuitive part:one is ‘framing’, i.e., stating the decision, e.g.,support for carbon footprint reduction, in terms ofthings that the denier values, such as job creation,



protection of wildlife, etc. The second strategy is‘trusted communicators’, i.e., relaying the messagethrough a leader from within the person’s trustedaffiliations. Of course, both strategies are more diffi-cult to plan and implement than piling up facts, butthey work better.Conservation scientists and their management are

human. If they rationalize that their skills and toolsare relevant when clearly they are not, or if they ration-alize that tasks suited to their skills and tools areimportant when clearly they are not, then we shouldnot assume that piling up more facts such as mightemerge from a good needs assessment will instantlylead to staff requests for retooling. Nor do we necess-arily want a commercial model of the perfectly agilecompany – one with only project managers who hireand fire expertise on an ad hoc basis, since our fieldis much too small to maintain a stable pool of free-lance experts. If we want the results of needs assess-ment tools to be implementable, we will need goodframing of the new facts, and delivery by trustedindividuals.

Tools that support reliability and thereforecreate trustThe primary function of a ‘reliability tool’ is to reduceerrors, which in turn builds social trust in the pro-fession. We as a society expect all professionals to exer-cise ‘due diligence’ – the competent use of the standardtoolbox. I think game theory (balancing ‘hits’ and‘misses’) can refine the issue further – professionalsunderstand that the benefit of many good results(‘hits’) is often smaller than the cost of just one error(a ‘miss’). Economists have also found that whenmaking financial decisions about money already inhand, people tend to put more importance on avoidinglosses than on creating gains (Kahneman, 2011) Ithink that in preservation this tendency is greatly mag-nified because we are not dealing with a replaceablecommodity like money, but in things called ‘irreplace-able’, ‘universal heritage’ etc. Our anticipated loss of‘face’ if something goes wrong with irreplaceablethings is much stronger than the anticipated pride ina successful intervention. For example, the 10%chance that a stone treatment might accelerateerosion may outweigh the 90% chance that it willreduce erosion. Hence the recent tendency to favour‘minimal intervention’ or even benign neglect. Thisphenomenon makes reliability tools of particularimportance to our field, and if we are discontentedwith our current toolset, perhaps it is the lack ofreliability tools in particular.If needs assessment tools end up changing the direc-

tion of rare organizations such as ours, then the com-munities we serve will want them to be highly reliable

too, which means they will have to buy in to the designof the tool as well as its implementation.

Tools depend on our collective tacit knowledge‘The calculator can only work as a social prosthesis,the deficiencies of which are made up for and repairedby the surrounding social organism … the human isrepairing the deficiencies of the calculator by fittingits output in with social expectations’ (Collins, 2010,p. 71).

Collins’ book Tacit and Explicit Knowledge (2010) isa partitioning of three very different kinds of tacitknowledge which he calls relational, somatic, and col-lective. ‘Relational’ tacit knowledge can, in principle,be made explicit for all, but in practice it is distributedaccording to the relationships between groups, such ascrafts, professions, or aptitudes. For example, itincludes everything an experienced conservator couldcommunicate to a neophyte about what they do, ifthey had the time, the self-awareness, the communi-cation skills, and the inclination to reveal hard-earned trade secrets. ‘Somatic’ tacit knowledge restsin the body, and includes what a conservator or ascientist acquires when they become skilled in hand-ling tangible tools. It can be communicated withmedium difficulty, more by showing than talking,and is created in the individual primarily through prac-tice. In the past, somatic tacit knowledge has been con-sidered the mysterious core of tacit knowledge,anchored by the archetypal example of riding abicycle, but Collins considers this to be a seriouserror. The inner core of tacit knowledge, the most dif-ficult to extract and make explicit, is ‘collective’ tacitknowledge. It is, in Collins’ words, ‘located insociety’ (Collins, 2010, p. 85). Collective tacit knowl-edge can only be understood by accepting that the‘self’ is more than just an individual body and individ-ual mind. The self is something that knows how to ‘actin concert with what other humans are doing, as aresult of our mutual participation in the larger organ-ism of society’ (Collins, 2010, p. 165). One could usethe drier terminology of complexity theory and saythat whereas relational and somatic tacit knowledgecan be meaningfully analyzed in terms of a single indi-vidual, collective tacit knowledge cannot. It is anemergent property of many individuals interactingwith each other to form a collective.

Tangible tools – a hammer, a scalpel, a violin – areeasy to fit into Collin’s knowledge schema. They aretools reliant on tacit somatic knowledge, i.e., our phys-ical selves. Of course, explicit knowledge helps but weall understand that a ‘skilful’ conservator or microsco-pist can ‘do the job better’ than someone who has nosuch skill but greater ‘theoretical’ knowledge. Whenwe use ‘theoretical’ in this often disparaging sense, inCollin’s terms we simply mean that the person has



more explicit knowledge but less somatic tacit knowl-edge than the skilled person. (We probably also meanthat they lack social graces, i.e., collective tacitknowledge.)Collin’s purpose is to explain the misconception that

tools, even the most elaborate, can ‘do’ what we saythey do when we talk about them informally. Forexample, a calculator does not ‘do’ the calculation ofthe bill in a restaurant, what it does is take yourinputs and choice of operations and applies the explicitlogic coded into it by its maker, then shows the result.You supply not only the explicit knowledge such as thecost of each dish, but collective tacit knowledge suchas whether to divide the bill equally or by individualitems, and whether to assume a uniform tip or not(which can easily become a source of friction due toindividual differences in collective tacit knowledge!).The calculator has a very powerful but very limitedand precise function: rapid and reliable computation.The kind of tools discussed during the forum werenot tangible tools but intangible tools. Like intangibleheritage, they still have a tangible interface (a manual,a computer) but their function is communication andtransformation of knowledge (a set of instructions, adatabase). If a simple tangible tool such as a calculatorcannot be useful without collective tacit knowledge,imagine how much worse the situation will becomefor an intangible management tool like those forneeds and impact assessment.In other words, when we face the inevitable dis-

agreements that we blame loosely on ‘interpretation’,for example, what might the word ‘access’ meanwhen assessing ‘improved access to the object’, thenCollins warns us that despite the best efforts at trans-forming all relational tacit knowledge denoted by theword access, there remains an irreducible body of col-lective tacit knowledge around ‘access’ that is neverexplicit, and will vary across individuals in a way wecannot know. It varies less within a small community,and more across diverse communities – and languages.In our own field, Taylor & Watkinson (2007) havestudied this issue in terms of collection survey judge-ments, and methods for measuring and reducing thisvariability (a reliability tool for the survey tool!).

Four paradigms (types of tool) in the history ofscientific knowledge‘We now have terrible data management tools for mostof the science disciplines. Commercial organizationslike Walmart can afford to build their own data man-agement software, but in science we do not have thatluxury…When you go and look at what scientistsare doing, day in and day out, in terms of data analy-sis, it is truly dreadful’ (Gray, 2009).Gray (2009) suggested four paradigms in the history

of science. The first paradigm was organized

observations, and the second was model building(using mathematics). Models are tools for prediction.Whereas a researcher builds models as a tool toexplore theory, professionals want models as toolsfor reliable and accurate predictions of practical inter-est. Before computers, models were limited in com-plexity by the ability of one or two interestedhumans to calculate the equations in less than a fewmonths. Such models only worked well for phenomenathat were highly consistent and for which the control-ling variables were all known. Those of us who havestruggled to develop good damage ‘functions’ for themessy world of real materials in real environments,for example, usually find ourselves unable to derivethe necessary mathematical functions, for the simplereason that they do not exist.Information is organized by compiling explicit and

relational tacit knowledge from experts. This knowl-edge is organized firstly at the level of sentences,tables, diagrams, and images, then secondly at thelevel of narratives or explanations, and thirdly at thelevel of thematic assemblies. Although as intellectualsor teachers we place the highest value on the highestlevel of organization, e.g., a thesis, a book, or an ency-clopaedia, as day-to-day professionals we place morevalue on the lower levels, the individual buildingblocks of knowledge – if we can find them. In thepast, one would search a library by its book indexingsystem, and then search the book by its index. Nowwe have computerized databases and web searchengines. These are still just indexing tools, but theyare so massively exhaustive and fast and customdesignable that they have, as predicted, changed theway we act and perceive ourselves as knowledgeablebeings. I think that much of our discontent with ourprofessional toolbox is that while we have, asInternet surfers and ‘app addicts’, radically extendedhow our everyday self finds things we want to know,as professionals this extension of ourselves feels, asGray stated above, ‘truly dreadful’. That being said,more over-arching scientific disciplines and technol-ogies are producing online databases, and a fewgood ones have appeared in our field, e.g., theConservation and Art Materials Encyclopedia Online(CAMEO) developed by the Museum of Fine Arts,Boston, USA, see www.cameo.mfa.org, andPreservArt by the Centre de Conservation duQuebec, Quebec, Canada, see www.preservart.ccq.gouv.qc.ca. These information storage and searchtools are still part of the first two paradigms – obser-vations and models – but are just much easier tosearch.Gray (2009) identifies computer simulations as the

third paradigm – computational power far beyondall the graduate students ever born! For example,finite element modelling of mechanical response of



objects is slowly entering our field, and can beexpected to answer many long-standing questionsabout climate control. My own work has movedtowards simulations using widely available softwaresuch as Microsoft ExcelTM (used as a static databaseby most users). For example, I have built a dynamicsimulation of relative humidity (RH) inside an enclo-sure having complex cracks and subjected to achaotic external climate. Ironically, simulations usemuch simpler equations than traditional models,because they do not need an equation for the finalresult, only equations which each piece of an interact-ing network that then ‘runs’ for thousands of timesteps. My RH simulation only contains linearequations, and no exponential terms, but when onetests the model by entering a simple step in externalRH that is known to cause an exponential decayinside the case, the simulation produces an exponentialdecay. Simulation tools are making big changes inscience, but there is an even bigger change coming.Gray is best known for coining his ‘fourth para-

digm’ – the use of massively pooled and coherentlyorganized data to discover phenomena unknowableby the three previous paradigms. Also called ‘bigdata’ or ‘analytics’, it is currently the preserve ofbig commerce and big physics, not so much due tothe money but due to their ‘born coherently digital’data. Sciences like ours must first transform legacydata into something both digital and coherentbefore we can do anything interesting. Other sciences– health, economics, biology – have started. Grayforesees big data becoming a fundamental tool forall sciences. The ARCHLAB project within theEuropean Union CHARISMA project (www.charismaproject.eu) is a small step in this direction.Major museums do open up their conservation andscientific analysis archives to outside researchers tomine in situ, but that is a far cry from theCHARISMA goal of ‘transnational virtual accessto data by a large research community of pro-fessional users’ (CHARISMA, n.d.). If such aportal does ever emerge, a conservator could, forexample, ask for a map of pigment occurrence bydate and location for every cultural object in theworld that was ever analyzed. To enter the fourthparadigm, conservation science must, in Gray’s ter-minology, do a lot of ‘data curation’. The extensionof the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (www.cidoc-crm.org) to scientific data (Forth et al.,2014) seems a step in the right direction, inasmuchas a conceptual coding for conservation sciencedata have been built to be coherent with the museo-logical conceptual coding of the objects. If everimplemented, such a data pool would lead to anexplosion of unexpected discoveries.

Needs (and impact) assessment: mega-, macro-,and micro- levels‘Critical Success Factor 5: Define ‘need’ as a gapbetween current and desired results (not as insufficientlevels of resources, means, or methods)’ (Kaufmann,2005).

So far, I have discussed tools in general, and thoseused by scientists or conservators working on thingsor ideas. Now we can consider the tools used to‘assess needs and impacts (and management strat-egies)’. As with any management models and thetools they promote, needs assessment has a large, com-petitive, and often bombastic literature, but I thinkthat the basic model by the so-called father of needsassessment, Roger Kaufmann, does help. GivenKaufmann’s definition of needs (above), impactassessment is built into ‘needs assessment’. That is, ifyou measure current results and specify desiredresults, then need is the difference between the two,and impact is the difference between last year’s andthis year’s results, which you can demonstrate is dueto your outputs.

The primary lesson from Kaufmann (and manyothers in his field, though not all) is that organizationsshould keep the needs of society (mega-level out-comes) firmly in mind when assessing their impactsand planning their outputs (macro-level). Thisbecomes a bit more complicated for organizationssuch as conservation science institutes since most ofour outputs are mediated first by the conservationcommunity and then the heritage community, beforeinfluencing outcomes at society’s level. Kaufmann’slesson to us becomes: do not expect to measure per-formance primarily, if at all, in terms of youroutputs (number of publications, reports etc.) butinstead measure it in terms of impact at the mega-level, starting with your intermediaries, and yourclient communities. I think this is well known bymodern managers, but it is not so easy, and not inex-pensive, to implement well. My own institute (theCanadian Conservation Institute) recently completeda year-long process of client surveys, interviews, pluscompilation by a third party consultant, to informstrategic planning for the next several years.

Rather than select narrow societal needs and narrownotions of societal communities at the top level ofTable 1, I thought it more helpful to blue-sky thinkingnot to presume particulars, but to use two well-estab-lished universal tools – Maslow’s (1954) five basichuman needs sitting as final outcomes, on top of thethree pillars of sustainability. One of the notions thatthis juxtaposition immediately brought to mind wasthat while impact of the heritage sector within theeconomic pillar may be easy to trace, the final pathto the five human needs will only ever be indirect



Table

1Atable

forstructuringne

edsas

sess

men

tat

various

leve

lsfrom

thesing

lesc

ientistup

toso

ciety

Leve

lEntities

that

produc

eresu

ltsTy

peofresu

ltsSpec

ificresu

ltsExa

mplesoftoolsfora

sses

smen

tofres

ults

due

toco

nserva

tionsc

ienc

eoutput

Meg

aSo

ciety

Outco

mes

:mee

tingthe

fiveba

sichu

man

need

s

1Ph

ysiologica

lne

eds,

e.g.,

food

,she

lter,

etc.

2Sa

fety

3Lo

vean

dbe

long

ing,

individu

alan

dco

mmun

al

4Es

teem

,ind

ividua

lan

dco

mmun

al5Se

lf-ac

tualization,

individu

alan

dco

mmun

al

Survey

andan

alysis

of:e

ffectson

public

(immed

iate

andov

erlife-sp

an)du

eto

heritag

eus

e(life

path,w

ell-b

eing

,creativeproc

esse

s,i.e

.,se

lf-ac

tualization)

andtherelatio

nof

thes

eim

pactson

thestateof

materials,a

mou

ntac

cessible,a

dded

scientifickn

owledg

e.Pu

blic

willingn

essto

payformainten

ance

ofhe

ritag

eas

sets

even

ifun

visited(i.e.,rolein

commun

albe

long

ingan

dco

mmun

ales

teem

)

Mea

sure

thepu

blic’s

crite

riafor‘acc

ess’

(minim

umac

ceptab

le,a

ndpreferred)

andtheir

judg

emen

tofc

urrent

situations

Thepa

thsthroug

hthethreepillars

below

andup

tothefivehu

man

need

sab

oveareco

mplex

andinteracting.

Politicsca

ncrea

teapreferen

ceforas

sessmen

tofo

urim

pact

ontheec

onom

icpillar,bu

tour

spec

ialp

athis

viatheso

cial/c

ulturalp

illar

upto

thehu

man

need

s3,

4,an

d5.

Alth

ough

Mas

low

(195

4)structured

thes

efivene

edsas

ahierarch

ywith

thefifth

as‘highe

st,the

yca

nbe

moreus

efully

cons

idered

here

asase

tofp

arallela

ndinterdep

ende

ntne

eds.

Threepillars

ofsu

staina

bility

Outco

mes

with

inea

chpillar:in

parenthe

ses

unde

rea

chpillar

Econ

omic

pillar

(employ

men

t,ho

using,

good

s,he

alth

services

,etc.)

Environm

entalp

illar

(red

uced

carbon

,hea

lthyec

osystems,

recy

cling,

rene

wab

leen

ergy

,etc.)

Social/c

ulturalp

illar

(culturalp

rodu

ction,

mainten

ance

oftang

ible

andintang

ible

heritag

e,etc.)

Survey

andan

alysis

of:e

ffect

ofhe

ritag

evisits/

useon

econ

omic

activity,o

ther

econ

omic

activity,e

tc.O

urbe

haviou

rin

term

sof

environm

entalissue

s.Effect

ofou

ractivity

onne

wartp

rodu

ction,

e.g.,m

orestab

lematerials

Herita

geco

mmun

ityOutco

mes

Improv

edca

reof

heritag

eas

sets.Inc

reas

edkn

owledg

eof

heritag

eas

sets

Theou

tcom

esin

each

ofthes

eco

mmun

ities

andin

societyca

nbe

due

directly

toou

rmac

roou

tputs,

ormed

iatedby

oneor

both

commun

ities

Client

survey

s,interviews

Stateof

collections

survey

sPe

rman

ents

take

holder

liaison

committee

s

Con

servation

commun

ityOutco

mes

Improv

edtre

atmen

tsof

heritag

eas

sets.Inc

reas

edkn

owledg

eof

heritag

eas

sets

Client

survey

s,interviews

Perm

anen

tstake

holder

liaison

committee

sCita

tioninde

xof

publications

.Web

page

hits

Mac

roCon

servation

scienc

eInstitu

tes,

universitie

s

Outpu

ts:res

ults

delivered

bythe

orga

niza

tionto

the

outside

Publications

,web

sites,

offic

ialrep

orts,v

erba

ladv

ice,

trainingco

urse

s,de

velopm

ento

fnew

expe

rtsCon

tent

analysis

ofex

tant

publications

.Aud

itsof

othe

rac

tivity

such

asrepo

rts,telep

hone

advice

,etc.

(e.g.,bu

sine

ssman

agem

entd

atab

ase)

Micro

Institu

tese

ctions

orindividu

alex

pertstaff

Prod

ucts:res

ults

from

each

build

ingbloc

kNew

data,c

ompiledda

ta,d

rafttexts,

edite

dtexts,

verbal

exch

ange

s.

Toolsforas

sessmen

tate

achleve

lsho

wnin

thelast

column.

Thestructureof

meg

a,mac

ro,m

icro

entities,

andtheidea

that

outputsfro

man

orga

niza

tionareno

twha

tsho

ulddriveits

plan

ning

,but

rather

theou

tcom

esat

high

erleve

ls,isfro

mKau

fman

n(200

5).T

hefiveprim

aryhu

man

need

sin

italicsarefro

mMas

low

(195

4).T

he‘th

reepillars

ofsu

staina

bility’

aredraw

nfro

mnu

merou

sso

urce

s.Ex

amples

oftoolsco

mpiledfro

mva

rious

source

s,as

wella

stheau

thor’s

spec

ulation,

andareon

lyex

amples

,and

areno

texh

austive.

©Gov

ernm

ento

fCan

ada,

Can

adianCon

servationInstitu

te,2

015



and difficult to assign, whereas activity in the social/cultural pillar will often provide a clear path fromthe heritage community to three big human needs –

belonging, esteem, and self-actualization – especiallyif one recognizes that all three have both communaland individual expression.The literature on measuring results or outcomes or

impact, however one calls it, is also large and contro-versial, but one of the generally accepted ideas is thatsocietal outcomes (mega-level) are somewherebetween difficult and impossible to measure, andthat metrics, while more feasible, just opens up anew debate about the link between indicator andoutcome. I think that if conservation science were tofocus on assessment of outcomes within the conserva-tion and museum communities, we will probably bedoing well enough, and if we allowed economic argu-ments to be made where substantial, we will be morepolitic. But we should not be afraid to explore pathsvia the social and cultural pillar directly to the threebasic needs (3, 4, 5 in Table 1) that actually make ushuman.

Romantic serendipity or planned resilienceAs I was finishing this text, news services were coveringthe discovery of human tools plus human markingsmuch older than any previously known, made byHomo erectus 500 000 years ago (Joordens et al.,2015). Even more à propos our field, the discoverywas made on shells collected 120 years ago andresting unknown in a natural history museum. A visit-ing researcher pressed for time made photographs ofthe shells and did not notice the human markingsuntil he looked at digitally enhanced images backhome. The oldest human tools had waited in amuseum for over a century, to be finally ‘seen’ whena scientist’s eyes were extended by the latest tools.This ‘big news story’ confirms the reality aboutwhich of our field’s results are noticed – the pressloves a story about big finds or dramatic restorationof a precious object, not the hard-earned, hidden,but I believe more substantive outcomes due to theheritage community’s shift to preventive conservationand risk management.This news incident also supports those who believe

that science, or at least important science, cannot,should not, be planned, so our fretting over tools forneeds and impact assessment is a waste of time! I amcontent to agree with this view for the purposes of‘fundamental research’ but not for applied research,which is what we do. That said, Orrell (2007), a math-ematician specializing in complex systems and predic-tive modelling, writes convincingly of our over-emphasis on prediction of any kind for long-termplanning purposes. He concludes that organizations,especially those mandated to serve the public good,

should limit predictions to short-term planning, andplan for resilience in the long term. I do not thinkthis should be reduced to the paradoxical homily of‘plan for the unexpected’ but perhaps more the oneabout ‘Don’t think of planning as aiming an arrow,think of it as launching a missile in the general direc-tion. You can always steer it if the target moves’.The trick is to create the steerable organization,which may mean a few moderately steerable scientists.

ConclusionsFor individuals as well as organizations, chosen toolsbegin as extensions of the self but turn around anddefine our capacities and our sense of who we are.Unlike individuals, organizations cannot choose toswitch employers, they are obliged to change theiroutputs if asked to do so by those they serve. To thatend, we must assess current and desired results at thelevels above our organizations, which will not resembleour outputs – no client will say ‘my desired outcome isthat you produce 50% more publications than lastyear’ (they would at least say which kind of publi-cations). Any needs assessment tools must balancereliability with the awareness that collective tacitknowledge is always in play. Face-to-face discussionswith permanent advisory committees or stakeholdersallows the collective tacit knowledge of each groupto be shared gradually (phrased literally as ‘gettingto know each other’), so that communicationbecomes more reliably accurate. When making ‘objec-tive’ needs assessment tools, one must define outcomesin a way that requires as little interpretation as poss-ible, which tends to favour economic measures.Recent examples with promise are the impact of newconservation science advice on life-cycle energysavings, and carbon footprint reduction.

Our organizations and we ourselves must be wary ofthe all too human tendency to rationalize any unplea-sant evidence. It seems to me that the only long-termstrategy for maintaining the relevance of an organiz-ation’s outputs is a culture of honest, effective, andregular needs assessment (monitoring) combinedwith planned resilience. Fortunately, I think our fieldserves a very stable long-term societal outcome –

three of the five basic human needs as defined byMaslow (1954). And since we scientists and our man-agers are human too, it is worth noting that belongingand esteem are useful things to keep in mind whenframing the results of a threatening needs assessment.Human resources studies have long shown that peeresteem has greater importance to a scientist’s job satis-faction than increased salary.

I think ICCROM can provide several key functions,starting small and building upwards. Although ourorganizations’ outputs are not the end game, weshould at least know what they have been. Our most



vaunted as well as easiest-to-measure output is publi-cations – this was the scope of the literature surveycarried out by ICCROM for this forum. I thinkmuch valuable insight will emerge from its detailedinspection. I think the next step would be the creationof shared tools for assessing outcomes at the level ofthe conservation community and the museum commu-nity. ICCROM could shepherd development of acommon survey questionnaire and protocol. Acommon tool would enable a ‘big data’ approach tothe analysis of the surveys. The Forum Consortium,led by ICCROM, is a logical group to do this task.Finally, needs assessment needs a meta-tool withinwhich to understand the role of any individual toolsnoted, i.e., ICCROM could shepherd agreement on astructure such as Table 1, if agreement exists. Theneeds at levels above the heritage community canremain vague, but we must try to imagine how someof our outputs connect to the top, and throughwhich pillars of sustainability.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to thank the working groupmembers for their contribution and collaboration (inalphabetical order): Zaki Aslan, Director, ICCROM-ATHAR Regional Conservation Centre in Sharjah(ICCROM); Łukasz Bratasz, Head of the ResearchLaboratory, National Museum Krakow, Poland;Bruno Brunetti, Professor of General and InorganicChemistry, University of Perugia, Italy; MarjolijnDebulpaep, Head of the Preventive ConservationUnit, KIK-IRPA, Belguim; Philippe Georgen,Curator, Centre de Recherche et de Restauration desMusées de France (C2RMF), France; and LeslieJohnston, Chief of Repository Development, Libraryof Congress, USA. Finally, the author wishes tothank the Canadian Conservation Institute and itsmanagement for their support and critical appraisal

during thirty years of research and tool development,and their voluntary membership in an ICCROM con-sortium designed to question conservation sciencemanagement itself.

ReferencesCHARISMA. (n.d.) CHARISMAWorkplan 8: A Portal to Cultural

Heritage Knowledge [accessed 11 January 2015]. Available at:<http://www.charismaproject.eu/about-the-project/work-plan.aspx>.

Climate Outreach and Information Network. (n.d.) TalkingClimate. Why Are People Still Sceptical About ClimateChange? [accessed 30 October 2014]. Available at:<http://talkingclimate.org/guides/beyond-climate-science-why-people-are-still-skeptical-of-climate-change/>.

Collins, H. 2010. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Culkin, J.M. 1967. A Schoolman’s Guide to Marshall McLuhan.Saturday Review, 51–3: 71–2.

De Preester, H. & Tsakiris, M. 2009. Body-extension Versus Body-incorporation: Is There a Need for a Body-model?Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(3): 307–19.

Forth et al.. 2014. CRMsci Scientific Observation Model. AnExtension of CIDOC-CRM to support scientific observation.[online]. Available at: <www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMsci/docs/CRMsci1.2.1.pdf>.

Gray, J. 2009. Jim Gray on eScience: A Transformed ScientificMethod. In: T. Hey, S. Tansley & K. Tolle, eds. The FourthParadigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond:Microsoft Corporation, pp. xvii–xxxi. [2007 talk transcribedposthumously by the editors].

Joordens et al. 2015. Homo Erectus at Trinil on Java Used Shells forTool Production and Engraving. Nature, 518(7538): 228–31.

Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar,Strauss and Giroux.

Kaplan, A. 1964. The Age of the Symbol—A Philosophy of LibraryEducation. The Library Quarterly, 34: 295–304.

Kaufmann, R. 2005. Defining and Delivering Measurable Value: AMega Thinking and Planning Primer. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 18(3): 6–16.

Kelly, K. (n.d.) BrainyQuote.com [accessed 1 October 2014].Available at: <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/k/kevinkelly268011.html>.

Maslow, A.H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harperand Brothers.

Orrell, D. 2007. Apollo’s Arrow: The Science of Prediction and theFuture of Everything. London: HarperCollins.

Oxford Dictionaries Online. 2015. Available at: <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tool>.

Taylor, J. & Watkinson, D. 2007. Indexing Reliability for ConditionSurvey Data. The Conservator, 30(1): 49–62.



Position paper

Conservation institutions as agents of changeMarie-Claude Corbeil

Conservation Science Division, Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Key messages to conservation institutions were drafted during the ICCROM Forum 2013 on ConservationScience so they could, in turn, influence the profession. The first message is a general statement of thefact that conservation science is an essential part of conservation. The other messages provide guidanceto conservation institutions so that they can achieve maximum impact. Conservation institutions shouldengage in research and development that anticipate issues, provide sustainable solutions and guidelines,and are conducted in a transdisciplinary way; share resources and expertise to be more efficient, increaseaccess and reduce inequalities; and assume a leadership role, promote conservation, and ensureknowledge is made available. The key messages, five altogether, are reproduced in their entirety in thisarticle, which provides further elaboration and development of each message as well as avenues formaking positive changes in strategic areas.

Keywords: Conservation science, Conservation institutions, Conservation science community, Transdisciplinarity, Participative research, Leadership,Sustainable solutions, Research, Knowledge dissemination

IntroductionDuring the ICCROM Forum 2013 on ConservationScience, a discussion group was given the mandate todraft key recommendations to conservation insti-tutions. For the purpose of the exercise, conservationinstitutions were defined as independent institutions(governmental and non-governmental) that werecreated to ensure the proper care and long-term con-servation of national or regional heritage. While con-servation is conducted in other types of institutions(e.g. conservation departments in museums, univer-sities, etc.), the particular focus of the discussiongroup was on conservation institutions because theyare in a key position to influence decisions and policiesthat will have an impact on the conservation of cul-tural heritage. This is because their mandate isfocused solely on conservation, and many of themare government agencies. The group was composedprimarily of people having experience of working insuch institutions, and was moderated by the author.Conservation institutions are found in many

countries; many employ conservators and conserva-tion scientists, while some also employ other heritageprofessionals such as art historians, architects, archi-vists, etc. The institutions are typically engaged in abroad range of activities such as research, expert

services to national or regional heritage communities,and knowledge dissemination that often includes train-ing and publishing.

As key players at the national or regional level, itwas only natural that many conservation institutionssuch as the Canadian Conservation Institute(CCI), the Centre de recherche et de restauration desmusées de France, and the Republic of Korea’sNational Research Institute of Cultural Heritage, toname just a few, joined with ICCROM to organizethe Forum on Conservation Science and that otherconservation institutions later participated in theevent. Their objective was not only to contribute tothe discussion, but also to become agents of change,bringing back recommendations made at the Forumand working towards implementing them in theircommunities.

Key messages to conservation institutions weredrafted during the Forum so they could, in turn, influ-ence the profession. The group responsible for thiswork took into account the results of the deliberationsof the Forum to develop messages that contain impor-tant principles and capture what the group saw as themost important roles conservation institutions shouldplay. This involved intense discussions and, at times,lively debates, as well as carefully choosing and weigh-ing of each word. The results, five key messagesaltogether, are reproduced below.

• Conservation science is an essential part of conserva-tion. We need a conservation science community with

Correspondence to: Marie-Claude Corbeil, Manager, Conservation ScienceDivision, CCI - Canadian Conservation Institute, 1030 Innes Road, Ottawa,Ontario, Canada K1A 0M5.Email: [email protected]


critical mass, credibility, relevance, and influence, thatis well connected both within the science field andwith other disciplines (transdisciplinarity).

• Research and development projects must include allconcerned (i.e. scientists, conservators, and other heri-tage experts) who together will define the issues andobjectives.

• Conservation institutions should engage in researchand development that anticipate issues and providesustainable solutions and guidelines.

• Conservation institutions should share resources andexpertise to be more efficient, increase access andreduce inequalities.

• Conservation institutions must assume a leadershiprole, promote conservation, and ensure knowledge(including knowledge produced by others) is madeavailable at all levels.

This article provides further elaboration and develop-ment of each message, drawing from the author’s pro-fessional experience in the context of the CCI and herknowledge of the profession, as well as outlinesavenues for making positive changes in strategicareas. It must be noted that whereas the first rec-ommendation makes direct reference to conservationscience, the others do not; having been prepared inthe context of the Forum on Conservation Science,they must be understood as referring to conservationscience, as is this article in general.

Conservation science as a discipline and acommunityConservation science is an integral and essential partof conservation. It provides a sound basis for inform-ing conservation activities, and contributes to thedevelopment of the profession. In some conservationinstitutions, conservation scientists have reached acritical mass, i.e. the number needed for a specificresult or action to occur, which translates intoimpact and influence. On a global scale, however, pro-gress has yet to be made, principally on two related keyissues: cohesion and recognition.

Critical mass, cohesion, and recognitionThere are no precise data available on the increase inthe number of conservation scientists over the years.One difficulty in compiling data on this is that thetitle itself, ‘conservation scientist’, is not uniformlyadopted; nevertheless, the growth in the number ofconservation facilities, especially in recent years inAsia and the Middle East, all of which employ conser-vation scientists,1 implies that the number of conserva-tion scientists has also grown. The specialty hasreached a number large enough to justify havingspecial groups in many national and international

conservation associations as well as user groups (forexample, IRUG and MaSC)2 composed primarily ofconservation scientists.Although this community is large enough to

support networks at the international level, its capacityat the national level varies greatly. While in somecountries national networks of conservation scientistsdo exist through the existence of multiple conservationinstitutions and museums with scientific laboratories,in others there may be only a single conservation insti-tution in which conservation scientists are employed.Consequently, in general, the community is ratherscattered, which makes efficient linkages and com-munication difficult to establish and maintain.Another factor contributing to the scattering of theconservation science community is that conservationscientists are often highly specialized and as a resultprimarily communicate and operate within smallsub-specialist groups. The disparate nature of conser-vation science is further heightened by the fact thatin order to adequately fulfil their role in conservation,conservation scientists also need to participate in areasof specialization within mainstream science relevant totheir work. This is necessary so they can grow anddevelop as scientists, transfer and adapt new conceptsand technologies to conservation and establish part-nerships to help with these transfers and adaptations.This is not a one-way street, however, as conservationscientists also develop solutions that can be transferredto or adopted in other fields of science.In order for conservation science to contribute effec-

tively to the profession, we need to find ways tostrengthen this community and improve cohesion byrecognizing conservation science as a discipline in itsown right, by improving its visibility within conserva-tion, and by improving linkages and communicationbetween conservation scientists. This should be donewith the goal of enhancing the visibility of culturalheritage in general and conservation in particular, sothat these efforts contribute to the development andpromotion of the larger sectors of which conservationscience is a part.

Credibility, relevance, and influenceConservation scientists often find themselves sittingbetween two worlds, the world of conservation andthe world of science, trying to belong effectively toboth.Conservation as a discipline is still very much

defined by the work of conservators, and conservationscience is often perceived as an activity somewhat per-ipheral to conservation. To the question ‘what is con-servation?’, the answer relates often rather to thequestion ‘what does a conservator do?’, a solution

1As an example, the Heritage Conservation Centre of the National HeritageBoard in Singapore that opened in 2000 includes a laboratory designed toconduct scientific analysis, material testing, and research.

2Infrared & Raman Users Group (IRUG); Users’ Group for MassSpectroscopy and Chromatography (MaSC).

Corbeil Conservation institutions as agents of change


often adopted for the sake of simplicity, in an attemptto be understood by as wide an audience as possible. Aclear definition of conservation should recognize thefact that not only conservators carry out conservationactions, which are not limited to interventions onobjects. Conservation scientists, like conservators,participate in all aspects of conservation as definedby ICOM-CC (ICOM-CC, 2015): preventive con-servation, remedial conservation, and restoration.Examples of their actions include, to name just afew: for preventive conservation, monitoring ofpollutants, and research on packing methods; forremedial conservation, development of new treatmentmethods, and research on conservation products; forrestoration, analysis of degradation products, andidentification of non-original materials.Conversely, within mainstream science, perceptions

of conservation science vary from an interesting andvaluable scientific discipline in its own right, a curios-ity, or, to the other extreme, a sub-discipline with lowerscientific standards. In the latter case, one factor thatmay contribute to such a negative impression is thatvery few conservation publications, in which conserva-tion scientists need to publish to reach the conserva-tion community, are indexed in the Journal CitationReports (JCR). JCR provides information about aca-demic journals in the sciences and social sciences,including impact factors, which are a measure reflect-ing the average number of citations to recent articlespublished in the journals. Impact factors are fre-quently used to evaluate the relative importance of ajournal within its field. Journals having higherimpact factors are deemed to be more importantthan those with lower ones. The credibility of scientists(i.e. the quality of their work) can be measured by thenumber of articles they publish in journals with highimpact factors. The impact and influence of theirwork can be measured, to some extent, by thenumber of times their articles are cited in articleswritten by others.More conservation journals should be indexed in

the JCR and have impact factors, so that importantindicators such as impact factors and number of cita-tions are accessible to measure the work of conserva-tion scientists using the same standards applied toand by mainstream scientists.However, a more important quality for conserva-

tion research is relevance, i.e. how well conservationresearch answers the needs of the community. Whiletools such as impact factors and citation reportscan contribute to measuring impact and influence,we need to find ways to measure relevance, forexample, by assessing how solutions, tools, andmethods are effectively transferred into conservationpractice.

Participation in conservation researchAlthough the term ‘transdisciplinarity’ was mentionedin the first key message in relation to conservationscience being connected with the science field andother disciplines, it is in the context of the secondkey message that it is the most relevant.

The term ‘multidisciplinary’ is often used in conser-vation when referring to approaches, teams, and pro-jects. The term, most of the time, is used to meanthat participants from different disciplines are involvedin an activity or in an approach to a topic or problem.This is in agreement with most definitions of the adjec-tive that one can find in dictionaries.

In the popular online source Wikipedia, one canfind the following statement about the multidisciplin-ary approach, which well describes what conservationis often about: ‘A multidisciplinary approach involvesdrawing appropriately from multiple disciplines toredefine problems outside of normal boundaries andreach solutions based on a new understanding ofcomplex situations’ (Wikipedia, 2015a).

In the field of cultural heritage and conservation, theadjective ‘multidisciplinary’ or ‘interdisciplinary’ isused to describe many different things. A search inthe Art and Archaeological Technical Abstracts(AATA Online) at the time of writing this articlefound 425 results when looking for ‘multidisciplinary’in the abstract and 700 when looking for ‘interdisciplin-ary’ (Getty Conservation Institute, 2015). Based onthese figures, it seems that multidisciplinary or interdis-ciplinary is what conservation has been aiming for, andsucceeding in achieving. A closer look at what theconcept entails shows that purely scientific studies ofcultural heritage using different techniques (e.g.imaging and spectroscopy) are labelled multidisciplin-ary or interdisciplinary. A group composed of an arthistorian (or curator), a conservator and a conservationscientist working together to gain knowledge about anartwork will be identified as a multidisciplinary orinterdisciplinary team because the disciplines involvedare art history, conservation, and science. As men-tioned in the previous section, in this case it seemsthat conservation is the discipline of the conservator,not of the conservation scientist, who remains firmlyassociated with the scientific discipline they specializedin (e.g. chemistry, engineering, etc.).

So is multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary goodenough? Is it really what we should strive for?

Lidia Brito, Director of the Division of SciencePolicy and Capacity Building at UNESCO andkeynote speaker at the Forum on ConservationScience, mentioned two important points during herkeynote lecture: science is moving from curiosity andcreation of new knowledge to problem-solving addres-sing development issues; and in order to foster and



provide solutions for sustainable development, weneed to adopt a ‘transdisciplinary’ approach.Looking again at Wikipedia, one finds the following

entry under ‘transdisciplinarity’ (Wikipedia, 2015b):

As the prefix ‘trans’ indicates, transdisciplinarityconcerns that which is at once between the disci-plines, across the different disciplines, andbeyond each individual discipline. Its goal is theunderstanding of the present world, of whichone of the imperatives is the overarching unityof knowledge.

Another critical defining characteristic of trans-disciplinary research is the inclusion of stake-holders in defining research objectives andstrategies in order to better incorporate the diffu-sion of learning produced by the research.Collaboration between stakeholders is deemedessential – not merely at an academic or disci-plinary collaboration level, but through activecollaboration with people affected by theresearch and community-based stakeholders. Insuch a way, transdisciplinary collaborationbecomes uniquely capable of engaging withdifferent ways of knowing the world, generatingnew knowledge, and helping stakeholders under-stand and incorporate the results or lessonslearned by the research.

This last part of the text is actually very relevant to con-servation research as defined in the second key messageto conservation institutions. Too many times conserva-tion is perceived as imposing rigid solutions that goagainst the will of other heritage professionals andthat prevent them from accomplishing their projects.A good example is the recent debate about themuseum environment and the need to reduce operatingcosts of expensive air-conditioning systems required tomaintain temperature and relative humidity at specificlevels.3 Clearly, it is necessary to provide solid data onwhich to base decisions. However, involving stake-holders in defining research objectives and strategies,and also in a discussion of the impact of changes inenvironmental guidelines on collections, wouldensure a common understanding of the results of theresearch and contribute to practical solutions.

Proactive research leading to sustainablesolutionsCurrently, in many countries, resources (both humanand financial) are scarce and problems, numerous.Therefore, research plans are usually established

through some type of consultation with the commu-nity to determine which problems need to be addressedas a priority. Owing to the time required for these con-sultations and for confirming that there is a consensuson which topics or problems deserve research, theactual research work may in the end focus on issuesthat the community has been facing for many years.Also, while research is being conducted, new issueskeep emerging. For example, recent objects made ofpolymeric materials now require attention, and thepreservation of digital heritage pose new challengesto institutions. At the same time, traditional materialsstill require research. In painting conservation, a largebody of research is now devoted to the more recentlycreated acrylic paintings while there are still unan-swered questions related to traditional oil paintings,such as how to prevent the formation of disfiguringmetal soap protrusions, and how to treat paintingsaffected by this problem. Research requires time andit is not an activity that can accommodate shifting pri-orities very well. As a result, research, as good as it canbe, is often out of phase with the reality the commu-nity is facing. Most importantly, some excellentresearch may end up providing solutions that areonly accessible to a few because of the complexity orcost involved. Powerful technologies such as multi-spectral imaging and investigations using nationalfacilities for synchrotron radiation studies, to namejust a few, are not currently commonly available.However, the tendency for sophisticated technologiesis to become more affordable and user-friendly asusage becomes more widespread – a good examplebeing Raman spectroscopy instrumentation, whichused to be complex and, for that reason, confined toresearch facilities. In the area of treatment, the same‘democratization’ phenomenon applies: laser cleaningis much more commonly done, and nanoparticles(some types being available commercially)4 are nowused in a variety of applications. Nevertheless, weneed to ensure that conservation research results willbe useful to as many people as possible. One way tomake results more widely applicable is to embracetransdisciplinarity.Can research be proactive in order to provide sol-

utions to problems we do not yet recognise? Theanswer is yes. Researchers who are aware of globaltrends, in their specialty or at a broader level, canrecognize that the conservation community will beimpacted, and take on a leadership role to find sol-utions. A good example is the gradual ban on fumi-gants and pesticides that triggered research ontreatments to combat pests that would not resort tothe use of chemicals (Strang, 2012).

3Since the ‘Dialogue for the New Century’ on this topic by IIC in 2008 (IIC,2008), several workshops and conferences have taken place and adeclaration was recently signed jointly by ICOM-CC and IIC (ICOM-CC &IIC, 2015). A review of the situation was published recently by KirbyAtkinson (2014).

4One example is the product Nanorestore# used for the consolidation ofwall paintings and calcareous stone (Baglioni et al., 2014) distributed byCTS (http://www.ctseurope.com/en/scheda-prodotto.php?id=232 ).



The current emphasis on sustainability and greeningprovides opportunities to find solutions that not onlywould be in line with these concepts but that couldalso ensure greater accessibility to research results,especially in developing countries. For example, itcould be beneficial to replace a specific treatmentinvolving dissolution in solvents, that works verywell, with one that uses greener products, or toreplace the method altogether with one that does notresort to dissolution but to another action. Similarly,traditional techniques, that were deemed less efficientthan methods developed more recently, may beworth researching because, although less efficient,they would provide greener and more sustainablesolutions.Another area to which conservation science research

is expected to contribute significantly over in comingyears is the assessment of changes in environmentalguidelines in order to allow museums to operate in amore sustainable way. This will require a transdisci-plinary approach so that stakeholders take part infinding solutions, as stated previously.

Sharing of resources and expertiseAs mentioned above, resources are scarce in manycountries. Conservation institutions that are often theprincipal resource for the conservation community ina given country are often not in a better positionthan the community they are meant to serve, andstruggle to maintain their capacity. Many have foundways to counteract diminishing resources by establish-ing partnerships and collaborations with other insti-tutions, universities, or the private sector. However,this is not the case everywhere and much could beachieved if conservation institutions engaged in amore coordinated effort that would result in thesharing of resources and expertise. Increased sharingwould have a beneficial impact on many aspects ofthe operations of conservation institutions, anobvious one being the training of scientific staff.Educational programs in conservation science

remain rare and graduates in conservation science (atthe M.Sc. or Ph.D. level) number only a few. Oftenconservation institutions will hire scientists with noconservation experience, particularly if they are partof the government and have to follow governmentrules promoting employment of citizens of thecountry. Conservation scientists will often learn onthe job. Depending on the particular speciality theywere hired to work in, they may end up being theonly one of their kind in the institution they workfor. Beginners in the field, even though they have con-siderable experience in science, would benefit fromworking alongside experienced conservation scientists.This could be achieved through short, intensive

training, such as attending workshops, or long-termsolutions like internships or distance mentoring.

Scholarly exchanges could be another way to shareresources in cases where an institution faces a particu-lar problem that requires expertise on a short-termbasis only. This could be expertise in a particulartype of cultural object or material, or in instrumenta-tion, methods, or techniques. The sharing of instru-mentation is also a possibility.

There are of course obstacles to such sharing initiat-ives, not the least financial. It is not always possible forstaff to travel to other institutions, because of logisticalimplications on both the professional and personal lifeof the individuals involved. Nevertheless, such initiat-ives should be encouraged and we should find ways tomake them possible.

The profession would also benefit from scholarlyexchanges that would go beyond exchange at confer-ences. Although conferences are extremely useful inmaking others aware of progresses and achievements,they may have more or less success in providing aforum where issues and ideas can be exchanged anddebated in a climate of trust, with the aim of solvingproblems and achieving results. Researchers, quitelegitimately, may want to protect the research that isoften a key performance indicator for their institution,until it is published. Formal collaborative agreementsbetween institutions would provide a means for amore trusting exchange of information betweenresearchers while at the same time being recognizedas an appropriate performance indicator in itself bythe authorities responsible for the funding and man-agement of the institutions.

Conservation institutions could also share resourcesand expertise for the purpose of benchmarking. Thiswould promote efficiency and effectiveness.

LeadershipIn countries, where there is a national, governmentalconservation institute, the conservation communityexpects that institution to be the main provider ofinformation and to play an advocacy and leadershiprole. This presents many challenges.

National conservation communities often expectthat the national conservation institution should notonly effectively disseminate information created bythe institution itself, but also be a conduit for infor-mation produced elsewhere. Conservation experts atthe institution are expected to have up-to-date knowl-edge in their area of specialization, which in itself is achallenge given the massive amount of informationbeing produced in conservation nowadays. Becauseof diminishing resources, institutions tend to moveaway from one-on-one conversations to more efficientmeans of communication like web postings. Thiscreates new sets of challenges related to the ongoing



requirement for up-to-date information. This problemcould be alleviated if conservation institutions wereorganized as a network to direct people to the relevantconservation resources. There is also a requirement forinteractivity, so there could be two-way communicationbetween institutions and the communities they workwith. For example, a recent evaluation of the CCIdemonstrated how much the Canadian conservationcommunity appreciates and values direct contact withCCI specialists to discuss issues and obtain solutions.For conservation institutions to play an advocacy

and leadership role, they need to reach beyond theirmain audience, which is the conservation community.To actively promote conservation in closely relatedcircles (e.g. museum professionals, archaeologists,archivists, etc.) and among non-specialists (e.g. poli-ticians, policy-makers, and the general public) meansthat information needs to be disseminated at variouslevels of complexity or that different informationneeds to be directed to different audiences.Conservation institutions should also be integratedinto the professional life of the first group, and thishappens naturally when transdisciplinarity isadopted. This ensures that other heritage professionalsare not only aware of conservation activities butactively engage in them and, as a result, participatein advocacy efforts. To reach a broader audience, par-ticipation in events such as conferences of museums orarchives associations, archaeological societies, etc.provides not only networking that is essential for con-servation institutions to play their role effectively, butalso a forum to demonstrate leadership and play anadvocacy role. Engaging local media for high-profilestories or highlighting case studies to convey theresults of research can be effective ways to engagenon-specialists such as politicians, policy-makers,and the general public.The conservation community itself can be further

divided into two main groups when considering thedissemination of conservation science information:users and peers. Users are primarily conservation prac-titioners whowant to use the information in their workwithout necessarily being interested in the intricatedetails of the science; peers are primarily other conser-vation scientists who, on the contrary, are deeply inter-ested in all details of the science. This means that thesame research results may end up being disseminatedto the two groups in different forms: very detailedfor peers and less detailed and more practical forusers. If conservation science is to be recognized asan important scientific field, conservation sciencearticles should not attempt such a degree of scientificpopularization that would jeopardize their scientificprofile. Instead, multiple communication inside andoutside the conservation community using differentlevels of language and different vehicles is required.

Effectively communicating with such varied audi-ences may take many forms, such as publications, con-ferences, web platforms, interactive discussions,formal submissions to government authorities, pressreleases, etc. It requires different approaches and strat-egies depending on the goals one wants to achieve.This could be to increase conservation expertiseamong practitioners or to convince decision-makersto increase funding to conservation. Conservationinstitutions are often fortunate enough to have special-ists outside the field (e.g. people specialized in trainingor communication) who contribute to make scientificinformation understood by a wider audience. Suchexpertise should be sought if not already available.Communication to advocate and promote of conser-

vation would also benefit from more coordination atthe international level, so that a unified voice can beheard.

ConclusionThe Forum on Conservation Science recognized thatconservation science is an essential part of conserva-tion. We need a conservation science community thatis well connected and has critical mass, credibility, rel-evance, and influence. Conservation institutions play acrucial role building this community because theyemploy a large number of conservation scientists andthey must ensure that conservation science achievesmaximum impact in activities such as research andknowledge dissemination.In doing so, conservation institutions should engage

in research and development that anticipate issues andprovide sustainable solutions and guidelines and areconducted in a transdisciplinary way. They shouldshare resources and expertise to be more efficient,increase access and reduce inequalities; and last butnot least, assume a leadership role, promote conserva-tion, and ensure knowledge is made available.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to acknowledge the essentialcontribution of colleagues (in alphabetical order)who worked together to draft the recommendations:Giacomo Chiari, Chief Scientist, Getty ConservationInstitute, USA (retired); Yong Jae Chung, Head ofInstitute of Preventive Conservation for CulturalProperty, Graduate School of Convergence CulturalHeritage, National University of Cultural Heritage,Korea; Marie Lavandier, Director, Centre derecherche et de restauration des musées de France,France; Maria João Melo, Associate Professor,Department of Conservation and Restoration,Faculty of Sciences and Technology, New Universityof Lisbon, Portugal; Sebastian Dobrusskin, Head ofthe Research Area Materiality of Art and Culture,Bern University of the Arts, Switzerland; and Yu



Zheng, Chief Engineer of Vernacular ArchitectureResearch Center, Tongheng Planning and DesigningInstitute of Tsinghua University, China. Thanks alsoto Alison Heritage, Charlie Costain and two anon-ymous reviewers for useful comments.

ReferencesBaglioni, P., Chelazzi, D., Giorgi, R., Carretti, E., Toccafondi, N. &

Jaidar, Y. 2014. Commercial Ca(OH)2 Nanoparticles for theConsolidation of Immovable Works of Art. Applied PhysicsA-Materials Science & Processing, 114(3): 723–32.

Getty Conservation Institute. 2015. AATA Online [accessed 9January 2015]. Available at: <http://aata.getty.edu/Home>.

ICOM-CC. 2015. Terminology to Characterize the Conservation ofTangible Cultural Heritage [accessed 9 January 2015].Available at: <http://www.icom-cc.org/242/about-icom-cc/what-is-conversation/terminology/>.

ICOM-CC& IIC. 2015. Environmental Guidelines - IIC and ICOM-CC Declaration [accessed 9 January 2015]. Available at: <http://www.icom-cc.org/332/-icom-cc-documents/declaration-on-environmental-guidelines/#.VESqVr78hv0>.

IIC. 2008. Climate Change and Museum Collections [accessed 9January 2015]. Available at: https://www.iiconservation.org/sites/default/files/dialogues/climate-change-en.pdf

Kirby Atkinson, J. 2014. Environmental Conditions for theSafeguarding of Collections: A Background to the CurrentDebate on the Control of Relative Humidity and Temperature.Studies in Conservation, 59: 205–12.

Strang, T. 2012. Studies in Pest Control for Cultural Property.Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Gothenburg.Gothenburg Studies in Conservation 30. Gothenburg: ActaUniversitatis Gothoburgensis, p. 6.

Wikipedia. 2015a. Multidisciplinary Approach [accessed 9January 2015]. Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidisciplinary_approach>.

Wikipedia. 2015b. Transdisciplinarity [accessed 9 January 2015].Available at:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transdisciplinarity>.



Position paper

Educating future professionals inconservation science: The challenges of aninterdisciplinary fieldStavroula Golfomitsou

UCL Qatar, Doha, Qatar

Training and education paths in conservation science have been the subject of ongoing debate over the lasttwo decades. A key issue is that conservation science, although not a new field, is not adequately defined,which leads to a lack of consensus regarding the competencies needed. During the ICCROM Forum 2013 onConservation Science, education for conservation scientists was discussed, with a particular focus on thosenecessary competencies which exceed the scientific domain. This paper reflects on the outcomes of thesediscussions as well as the results of surveys carried out by ICCROM in preparation for the Forum oneducation, job advertisements, and the relationship between conservation professionals and science.Challenges identified included current professional paths, dissemination of scientific findings, use ofspecialized terminology, and the need for professionals who serve more than one area of specialization.These challenges could be viewed as an opportunity to revise and modify educational programmes. Newinteractive platforms could be used to facilitate participative science projects, and could change the wayprojects are carried out in the near future.

Keywords: Conservation science, Education, Interdisciplinary research, Transdisciplinarity, Participative science, ICCROM

IntroductionWhile conservation science is considered by many as arelatively new field, science has played a major part inthe development of cultural heritage conservation forover a century – as evidenced by the early establish-ment of laboratories in museums such as theRathgen Laboratory, Berlin, Germany; the BritishMuseum, London, UK; and the Louvre, Paris,France, in the late nineteenth and the first half of thetwentieth centuries. Considering the variety of scien-tists who work within the sector, and the diversity ofscientific research undertaken, it is safe to say that con-servation science as a field is neither new nor has itbeen the outcome of a specific educational system.Science became part of conservation and followingthis, conservation science became a field in its ownright. However, the recognition of conservationscience as a profession is still ongoing.The definition and the role of conservation scientists

have been the subject of several debates over the lasttwo decades (see, for example, Mazzeo & Tabasso,2000). In 1997, an ICCROM survey on conservation

science showed that conservation scientists were pri-marily professionals trained in one of the naturalsciences who entered the field directly through employ-ment (Mazzeo & Tabasso, 2000, p. 4). In the sub-sequent 1999 ICCROM meeting regarding educationand university curricula for conservation scientists,much attention was placed on the definition of the pro-fessional and his/her educational background andskills, rather than the aims and operational domainof the profession.During the ICCROM Forum 2013 on Conservation

Science, education and the desired attributes of conser-vation scientists were discussed extensively. On thefinal day of the Forum, a discussion group wasformed to focus on this topic, chaired by the author.The group comprised diverse professionals fromdifferent educational and cultural backgrounds, whoprovided very different perspectives of education inconservation science. The recommendations arisingfrom this group form the starting point for thispaper, which were then combined with reflectionsfrom the author’s own experience (both as a graduatestudent and as an educator in conservation), and theresults of a number of surveys undertaken byICCROM in September 2013 in preparation for the

Correspondence to: Stavroula Golfomitsou, UCL Qatar, GeorgetownUniversity, Education City, P.O. Box 25256 Doha, Qatar.Email: [email protected]


Forum. These surveys were intended to capturecurrent views regarding educational pathways for con-servation scientists, the use of science by conservators,and the skills sets employers are looking for whenemploying conservation scientists.With these considerations in mind, this paper then

moves to discuss some of the underlying issuesrelated to the definition of conservation science as anoperational domain, issues in defining competencesin interdisciplinary studies and the use of terminologywhich in theory improves communication but in prac-tice can complicate matters. Regarding terminology, inthis paper the word ‘educator’ refers to anyoneinvolved in the training of conservation scientists.

Findings of the Forum discussion group oneducationThe diversity of the members of the discussion grouplead to thought-provoking and enlightening debates,however, selecting the main points to be given as rec-ommendations to educators was quite challenging.The recommendations and findings on messages toeducators are reproduced unedited here below.

Key messages to educatorsWhy? Education is the future of our profession• Educators should have a clear understanding of the

vast array of necessary sciences that contribute to con-servation to ensure graduates can bridge these differ-ent disciplines.

• Educators should value traditional knowledgesystems as part of the cultural heritage in their ownright. Conservation science could be used as ameans of better understanding this traditionalknowledge.

• Conservation education should consider the socialand political dimensions of conservation in additionto technical and scientific aspects. This shouldinclude how conservation can contribute positivelyto societal priorities.

• Education should empower students with skills thatcould be adapted to meet local needs.

• Education should foster solution-oriented learningattitudes that seek cost-efficient outcomes.

• Conservation education should expand beyondconcern for material culture to consider emergingissues such as intangible heritage and sustainability.

• Educational programmes should respond to the needsof the profession as well as ensuring that graduateshave the skills necessary to be employed.

• Educational programmes must provide communi-cation skills so that students may participate in effec-tive dialogue with a variety of audiences (political,community, professional, etc.) and be strong advo-cates for conservation.

• Conservation education should foster collaboration atthe university, professional, governmental, and com-munity levels.

• Educational frameworks should be developed to beflexible enough to take into account local, govern-mental, and social conditions.

Exploring the issuesDespite the fact that a significant proportion ofcurrent conservation scientists first trained as chemists,there is no single scientific discipline that could serveas the sole foundation of an educational programmefor conservation science. The complexity and rangeof issues encountered in conservation require inputsfrom many different disciplines and specializations.There is, however, general agreement that conserva-tion scientists should be trained in ‘a science’ and usetheir knowledge for the conservation of cultural heri-tage (Corbeil, 2000). Price (2000) suggests that conser-vation scientists in addition to their scientificbackground need to be acquainted with the ethosand the principles of conservation, suggesting thatscientists need further training in conservation tounderstand the constraints but also the broaderresearch horizons under which conservation pro-fessionals operate. Inevitably, the definition of conser-vation science surfaces in the discussion, which in turnraises a number of questions regarding educationalpathways. More often than not the focus has beenon who the conservation scientist is rather than defin-ing what the field of operation should be. However, itwould perhaps be more pragmatic to focus more onthe latter rather than the former, as this would helpestablish conservation science as an independent scien-tific domain, set professional goals and thereby assisteducational institutes in their training of future conser-vation scientists. This particular challenge is by nomeans unique to conservation science, but rather iscommon to all interdisciplinary fields, where the lackof definition of the specific operational domainhinders the specification of required competencies,and consequently the development of relevant trainingprogrammes.

In lieu of a definition, for the purposes of this paperthe author would like to attempt a short description ofthe operational domain of conservation science, inorder to provide a starting point for the subsequentdiscussion regarding conservation science educationand its links to the different facts of cultural heritageconservation. Conservation is considered here as anoverarching field that seeks to preserve cultural heri-tage both in terms of the physical object itself, andthe diverse values and information it carries. To thisend, in addition to technical issues concerning thematerial composition, construction and properties ofobjects, conservation also considers why and howobjects become cultural heritage from the perspectivesof different interest groups, and how perceptions ofvalue can change over time due to physical alterations

Golfomitsou Educating future professionals in conservation science


(e.g. through ageing and interventions) or throughsocietal and cultural changes. Within this context, con-servation science is a scientific domain where diversescientific knowledge and methodologies are appliedto understand, characterize, and preserve not onlythe component materials, but also the values of theheritage. Consequently, the operational domain ofconservation science cannot be limited solely tomaterials science, but must encompass diverse disci-plines, from natural sciences to social sciences andhumanities, each contributing towards the same goalthat is promoting the understanding, preservation,and management of cultural heritage, its values andits sustainable use.

Training and educational pathways inconservation scienceThere are very few undergraduate or postgraduate pro-grammes dedicated to conservation science, asopposed to those for conservators. Moreover, edu-cation in conservation science is highly variable andcomplicated to evaluate. To better understand trainingpathways for conservation scientists, in preparation forthe ICCROM Forum 2013 on Conservation Science,ICCROM together with the support of theICCROM Forum consortium partners undertook anonline survey of educational programmes in conserva-tion and ostensibly conservation science in September2013 (Heritage et al., 2014). The results of the surveyoffer some interesting insights.The majority of the educational programmes sur-

veyed offer postgraduate courses (at masters and doc-toral level) focusing primarily on museum collectionsand site-based conservation (73% and 56% respect-ively). The percentage of the student intake with adegree in a scientific discipline varied greatly: fromless than 10% (for 54% of training programmes) tomore than 90% (for 22% of training programmes).Interestingly, the percentage of students undertakingresearch generating scientific information throughtheir studies are somewhat higher with the majorityof students in around 40% of training programmes car-rying out science-based research. The above indicatesthat scientific research in training programmes isstrongly linked to the objectives of the programme.Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the researchinterests of the academic staff in an educationaldepartment as well as the facilities available stronglyinfluence the research undertaken by students. Thesurvey also revealed that little of this student researchis published – which is not altogether a surprisingfinding as this is known to be a common issuein most tertiary education institutions (Cather, 2013,personal communication; Pye 2013, personalcommunication).

The survey results are less clear when it comes towhat qualifications are needed for a career in conser-vation science. It was clear from the responses thatthere are several possible paths, however, the majority(87%) of the educators agreed that both science andconservation qualifications are necessary, with a firstdegree in science and a masters in conservation beingthe most favoured combination. Moreover, thegeneral consensus was that training in conservationscience should be pursued at postgraduate level,either as a doctorate (60%) or a master’s degree(44%), with only a small percentage supporting theneed for a specialized bachelor (first) degree (14%).A number of educators commented on the employabil-ity of graduates with doctorates in conservationscience, compared to doctorates carried out in a ‘main-stream’ science discipline which they considered tooffer more employment possibilities. Employability islinked to needs and opportunities within the sector atthe time of graduation; however, the skills acquiredare transferable and not limited to the cultural heritagefield.

What are employers looking for?To understand what employers typically require fromconservation scientists, ICCROM undertook asurvey of posts advertised for conservation scientistson the website of ICCROM and the ConservationDistList between 2008 and 2013 (Heritage et al.,2014). In total, 89 job advertisements were surveyed,the majority of which were for positions in NorthAmerica and Europe (93%). However, jobs advertisedat national level and in languages other than Englishwere not traced and these results are discussed withthese limitations in mind.Within the adverts surveyed museums and academic

institutions appear as the main employers for conser-vation scientists with only few positions advertised inthe private sector. The majority of these posts werefor mid-career professionals with only a smallnumber at entry level, indicating the difficulties newprofessionals face when attempting to enter the field.Moreover, the lack of entry level positions might inpart explain the increasing take-up of post-doctoralpositions which offer graduates an opportunity togain expertise and experience in the field prior toobtaining a job. Interestingly, less than half of thejob positions advertised in conservation science listeda Doctorate as an essential qualification. Very fewsenior positions were advertised.In general, only 45% of the adverts highlighted

experience in the sector as a pre-requisite, eventhough the positions advertised were for conservationscientists. Contrary to the opinions polled during theeducators’ survey, the adverts often did not specifywhether the required academic qualifications should



be in science or conservation, with the exception ofDoctorates which, when requested, 68% of theadverts specified it should be in natural sciences orengineering.

Conservation and science: an affair to rememberEducational programmes in conservation and restor-ation are highly varied, ranging from vocationalcourses to Bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees, suchthat the training offered differs from one country toanother, and often within the same country.Similarly, the level of science required to enter conser-vation programmes also ranges dramatically (e.g. fromintermediate and advanced certificates in science tocollege level science courses). As a result, eventhough established training programmes have been inexistence for several decades there is no conformityin conservation training, and the related scienceentry requirements.One of the key themes of the Forum was how to

improve the relevance and impact of science withinconservation. It is logical that at least part of theanswer to this question lies in the effectiveness of inter-disciplinary collaboration within the field – i.e. in whatways, and how effectively different professionals com-municate and work together. In regard to this, edu-cation and training plays a crucial role. Whilediscussions regarding education for conservationscientists have highlighted the need for scientists tobe educated in conservation ethics and principles,similarly, conservation training also needs to focuson improving science literacy, and in particular theapplication of scientific principles and methods toconservation.To better understand the relationship between con-

servators and scientists and in particular the accessto and use of scientific information and services byconservators, an online survey of conservators wasundertaken by ICCROM during September 2013.More than one thousand two hundred conservatorsfrom around the world participated in the ICCROMsurvey which was advertised through professional con-servation websites and social media (see Heritageet al., 2014, for more information). Similar to findingsof the survey of job advertisements, the majority of theconservators who responded were employed inmuseums (55%) with site-based conservators beingthe second largest group (43%). Of the conservatorssurveyed, the majority cited their academic trainingas the primary source of scientific knowledge usedfor their work (69%), in comparison to conservationscience literature (11%) and direct exchange withscientists (9%). This highlights the importance of train-ing programmes as a fundamental resource – andsends a clear signal to educators that this is a vitalwindow of opportunity for enhancing levels of

scientific literacy. Moreover, while conservationscience publications, seminars, and workshops arealso significant resources for knowledge exchange,nevertheless financial constraints and lack of accessi-bility were reported as significant barriers, particularlyfor operators in private practice who, for example, donot have access to subscription-based publicationsthrough an institution.

While in general terms, communication and collab-oration with scientists was reported in the survey asbeing good, nevertheless, from the respondents’ quali-tative comments the precise terms of these collabor-ations warrant closer examination. Increasingscientific literacy without doubt facilitates communi-cation and understanding at the intersection betweendifferent disciplines, and improves levels of collabor-ation. Indeed, academic programmes already deliversyllabi with this in mind at different training levels.While the degree of scientific literacy and competenceof conservators need not match that of conservationscientists since the professional objectives of each aredifferent, conservators with an advanced understand-ing of science can and do lead research projects in con-servation, particularly where the focus is on appliedpractical aspects. As a result, this bridges the gapbetween conservators and academics as well as conser-vation scientists, leading to more effective co-workingand ultimately projects of greater practical relevanceto conservators.

The paradigm shift from the craftsmen and artisanswho characterized the field 40–50 years ago, to currentday science-based conservators, is quite significant.While the modern scientific approach without doubthas led to many advances, it is important not to losethese vital practical roots which are an essential knowl-edge resource. Conservation is as much linked to artsand crafts traditions as it is to science – and this tra-ditional knowledge base should be acknowledgedand incorporated within conservation science researchas a means to enrich understanding, and enhance con-servation methods.

The use of surveysSurveys are helpful to get a snapshot of the field at aspecific moment in time. However, they do have sig-nificant limitations, since the outcomes of a surveydepend on the objectives and the design of the ques-tions and, in the case of quantitative surveys, thepre-selected options for answers. In quantitativesurveys one expects to reveal some of the general ten-dencies that are influenced by personal experiences,rather than a more in-depth analysis that is affordedby qualitative methods using for example in depthinterviews (Creswell, 2014). While it is understandablethat a primarily quantitative approach was adoptedfor the Forum surveys – given the short space of



time available for their design and execution, and theease of analysis that these afford, nevertheless furtherqualitative research would help to elucidate some ofthe results obtained.Comparative analysis of the data collected during

the different surveys yields further insights. Forexample, the relationship between conservators andconservation scientists, and also the access to scientificinformation and services, is conditioned by theworking environment. From the survey data gathered,it is possible to see some clear similarities, and alsosome dissimilarities, between the various groups.While the primary areas of employment for both con-servators and conservation scientists were museumsand site-based organizations, nevertheless almost halfof the conservators surveyed reported themselves asworking freelance or in private practices. In contrast,this is rarely the case for conservation scientists, thevast majority of whom are institutionally based, inmuseums, universities, and cultural heritage organiz-ations. Indeed, the extent to which shared workingenvironments influences the effectiveness of interdisci-plinary collaboration between scientists and conserva-tors is worth investigating further.Another important issue highlighted by the surveys

is the degree of access to new knowledge and scientificadvances, which at present is often limited by journalsubscription costs. Again this is an issue that affectsthe various groups differently depending on theirwork context (i.e. whether institutionally based or inprivate practice). Although a number of organizationsand educational institutions support open-access pub-lications, the majority of scientific papers are still pub-lished in subscription-based journals. These issuescannot be overlooked as the field expands far beyondthe universities and museums of developed countries.As open access journals become more establishedand the benefits of delayed open access publications(papers of subscription-based journals which becomeopen access by the publisher after a predefinedperiod of ‘embargo’ time) are better understood(Laakso & Björk, 2013), such obstacles to the dissemi-nation of new information should diminish. In particu-lar, research carried out to understand better thebenefits of open access has highlighted a number ofadvantages to publishers, which in addition to themore obvious, also include an increase in citationsand accordingly an increase in the journal impactfactor (see Bernius et al., 2013).

Interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, andtransdisciplinary researchA strong message of the Forum was that conservationscience will benefit from a more inclusive attitudetowards other scientific disciplines, including huma-nities and social sciences. Conservation science is

traditionally linked to natural sciences such as chem-istry, physics, biology, geology, and materials science.However, an increasing number of disciplines arenow becoming included in conservation research,and in particular the adoption of a value-basedapproach has led to the incorporation of disciplinessuch as anthropology, psychology, and sociology as anecessary component in scientific research projects(see Dillon et al., 2013).Conservation science has for a long time been

described as ‘multidisciplinary’; however, increasinglythe term ‘interdisciplinary’ is used. While multidisci-plinary research involves the collaboration of severaldisciplines working towards a common goal, neverthe-less, each remains distinct, producing results which aretypically published separately in journals relevant tothe disciplines involved (Aboelela et al., 2007).Conversely, interdisciplinary research is associatedwith the use and integration of theories, concepts,tools, methods, models, data and paradigms of twoor more disciplines to solve a problem (Porter et al.,2006), and results of findings in jointly authored pub-lications. Interdisciplinary research not only borrowsfrom different disciplines but also integrates them,and is characterized as an ‘intellectual landscape ofknowledge, not disciplines per se’ (Huutoniemi et al.,2010). In view of these considerations, the term ‘inter-disciplinary’ would seem the better fit since conserva-tion science research starts from a question, andthrough the synthesis and integration of sciences andhumanities, results in the production of newknowledge.The interdisciplinary nature of conservation science

is also evident in the use of specialized terminologyborrowed from disciplines both in humanities andmainstream science. The language and the methodsused to communicate research findings merits furtherinvestigation, as a significant proportion of conserva-tion science findings are published in mainstreamscientific journals, with little or no dissemination inthe conservation literature. This trend is largely dic-tated by university requirements and departmental pri-orities, which are often ranked in terms of theirpublication outputs for which the journal’s impactfactor is a key criterion.Nevertheless, the use of language and the factors

that influence its selection is significant as a key deter-minant for communication and hence interdisciplinarycollaboration. The breadth of knowledge needed forconservation research has required the integration ofan increasing number of scientific disciplines withinconservation science: from natural sciences and engin-eering to mathematics, computer sciences, statistics,and social sciences. This leads to an increasing multi-vocality within the field. Moreover, the significanceof language comes to the fore as the field transitions



from interdisciplinary towards transdisciplinaryresearch. Transdisciplinary is described as a problem-oriented research that requires cooperation betweenresearchers and practitioners, bridges science withsociety, and ultimately results in mutual conceptualand methodological frameworks (Jahn et al., 2012).Consequently, with roots both in the crafts and thesciences, conservation science has developed to alarge degree along the lines of transdisciplinaryresearch.

Communication, politics, and conservationscienceThe lack of effective communication among differentprofessionals within and outside the field, as well asbetween different interest groups, was a recurringtheme highlighted during the Forum. Scientists needto have a broad understanding of the extended fieldand to be able to make connections between the differ-ent professionals. Communication should includeinstitutional communication with the public, interdis-ciplinary exchange, communication between differentprofessionals within an institution and transmissionof scientific concepts to different interest groups. Thelast few years have witnessed a number of conservationprofessionals including scientists advancing in keymanagerial roles in various cultural heritage insti-tutions. This facilitates the dialogue between differentexperts and stakeholders, and more importantly addscultural heritage to the general agenda focusing onsocietal needs. Cultural heritage is often marginalizedoutside the field and it is apparent that the significanceand the stability it brings to society is not communi-cated properly at higher levels of leadership. Thereasons behind this are far too complex to discuss inthis paper, however, part of the issue is related to themethods, terminology, and language used in special-ized fields such as conservation science, which makecommunication with the general public, policy-makers and other professionals difficult. It is worthlearning to corroborate the value of our work usingcommon language and nomenclature to communicatecompetently and effectively. Communication skillsthat could help advocate for cultural heritage shouldbe acquired via educational programmes and furtherprofessional training.Another dimension to the above is the use of

Internet sources and interactive platforms to designand communicate scientific projects in cultural heri-tage. Participative science projects could be developedin conjunction with different citizen groups. A numberof crowd sourcing projects are currently online; a suc-cessful example of this is the MicroPasts project (seeBonacchi et al., 2014). Apart from the benefit thatthis type of projects brings to data sourcing and analy-sis, they are beneficial for the society as citizens

become part of a larger scientific community. Anumber of platforms are currently available (seeZooniverse, CrowdCrafting, PyBossa, Thinkable,Marblar, and Ushahidi)1 and can also be used todesign projects with the public. Interactive platformslike these and many more that are not mentionedhere can provide data and evidence, which in additionto informing processes and standards, can act as anindispensable communication tool for the field of con-servation science.

Towards a new paradigm for conservationscience educationThere are very few programmes in conservationscience around the world. An example of a dedicatedproject in training conservation scientists was theEuropean PhD in Science for Conservation(EPISCON). The project was funded by theEuropean Union in 2004 and was concluded in 2009.Another noteworthy current example is the Centrefor Doctoral Training in Science and Engineering inArts Heritage and Archaeology (CDT-SEAHA),based in University College London (UCL),London, UK, which is designed to address issues inheritage in collaboration with heritage organizationsand industry partners (www.seaha-cdt.ac.uk). Thisprogramme envisages career paths which are notlimited to heritage organizations, but which willextend to industry and policy making, multiplyingemployment options as well as addressing wider com-munication issues. The initiative is remarkable becauseof its outward-looking approach and the involvementof new partners in heritage science. This model ofstudies is worth exploring further, as it provides alarger framework within which heritage scientistscould operate.

However, due to the heterogeneous nature andbreadth of knowledge required in the field, designinga degree in conservation science is challenging(Golfomitsou et al., 2015). The multifaceted natureof conservation science demands creative solutionswithin educational programmes to further advancethe field. The lack of definition regarding conservationscience makes the design of any syllabus complex,because any degree programme must have clearlydefined learning outcomes. Educational programmesare designed following tested and conventionally

1CrowdCrafting. 2015 [accessed 15 February 2015]. Available at: <http://crowdcrafting.org/>.Marblar. 2015. [accessed 15 February 2015]. Available at: <http://marblar.com>.PyBossa. 2015 [accessed 15 February 2015]. Available at:<http://pybossa.com/>.Thinkable. 2015. [accessed 15February 2015]. Available at:<www.thinkable.org/>.Ushahidi. 2015. [accessed15February2015 ].Available at:<http://www.ushahidi.com/>.Zooniverse. 2015 [accessed 15 February 2015]. Available at:<https://www.zooniverse.org>.



accepted methodologies. The professional reality,however, would be best suited to flexible programmesboth in terms of student profile intake and specializ-ations offered. The focus of such a programmeshould be on the diverse range of competencesrequired, which go over and above scientific expertise(see the findings of the Forum discussion groupabove). The breadth of these skills require the explora-tion of new pedagogical approaches both within andoutside the discipline. For example, research-basedteaching linked to workplace training could contributeto translating research findings into practice. Similarto conservation science, a number of professionsrequire theoretical understanding of processes com-bined with development of motor skills and criticalthinking (Sadideen & Kneebone, 2012 ; Papp et al.,2014). The integration of theory, research and practiceshould be encouraged, and models used in other fieldscan assist in developing suitable training paths.Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a pedagogical

approach which is based on problem-solving, researchand real-life projects, and scenarios (Aditomo et al.,2013). Students participate actively, and teaching cantake place outside the classroom, e.g. in a museum lab-oratory. This model is used to a certain extent byseveral university programmes, where students carryout practical work in museums/sites affiliated to theprogramme. Conservation science in its complexityand interdisciplinarity makes inquiry-based learningimperative. IBL increases awareness of real-life pro-blems and contributes to the development of pro-fessionals who can think and act critically.The latter is immensely important, as conservation

scientists, like all cultural heritage professionals,should be communicating with broader society inmatters that affect our understanding of the past.The value of heritage is not necessarily evident to alay person, and specialists often fail to communicateits worth due to the assumption that its value is self-evident. The complexity of conservation science liesin the preconception that it is a scientific discipline;however, it is based in a field that has numeroussocio-cultural consequences. Enhanced partnershipsamong educational institutions, museums, and rel-evant organizations can bring academic programmesforward, as they should not only respond to presentneeds, but also predict the requirements and predica-ments of the near future. The latter cannot be donein isolation but only within a wider context wherescientific developments as well as general scientificand societal trends are considered, assessed, and incor-porated into the training.In addition to research and analytical skills, edu-

cation in conservation science should equally coverthe intangible values of cultural heritage. Transfer ofcraftsmanship knowledge, sustainable conservation

methods as well as emerging forms of cultural heritageshould be included. Facilitating access to informationat both local and global levels is imperative and luckilythere are many available platforms that can be used forthis purpose. Participating in projects linking local andglobal knowledge, questioning existing knowledgesystems and creating interactive platforms for sharingknowledge should be in the immediate priorities ofany educational programme in an ideal world.In view of this, it is clear that all conservation scien-

tists should be well-versed in more than just conserva-tion principles. They also need to understand the fieldand the stakeholders to be able to communicate withdifferent interest groups at different levels, and to par-ticipate in effective interdisciplinary projects.Conservation scientists cannot be isolated from thecultural heritage sector and the cultural heritagesector cannot be isolated from the rest of the society.In particular, critical and reflective thinking areneeded to develop context-specific research projectsthat will inform decisions in different sectors.Accordingly, communication skills are quintessentialin these multi-, inter-, or trans-disciplinary studies,and more emphasis should be given to them. Thisway programmes can ensure that future professionalsare not only connected with the advances in theirrespected scientific field, but also they also learn tooperate in an inclusive fashion.Yet the role of educational institutes and academics

in conversation science is not merely limited to thetraining of future professionals. Educational institutesin addition to their role of educating future pro-fessionals and producing knowledge through researchhave a key role to play in the development and pro-motion of the discipline. This includes a necessity forwell-founded public outreach activities to positivelyinfluence public perception in relation to heritage,the importance of preserving it and the role it playswithin a community. Academic institutions shouldidentify future research tendencies and drive develop-ments in the field. They should also in collaborationwith partners such as ICCROM offer mid-career con-tinuing professional development which can result inreal-life solution-oriented training. ICCROM providesa link to practitioners and the challenges encounteredaround the world; both are essential to academic insti-tutes. Apart from continuous training in new pedago-gical methods, educators need to maintain aconnection with the field and its challenges, whichcan lead to new creative ways of delivering problem-based teaching.An additional concern in relation to education is the

lack of dedicated conservation science textbooks(Tennent, 2013). Didactic resources in a variety offorms are needed to match different modalities oflearning. For example, online platforms with case



studies could provide an alternative and stimulatingway of learning and also act as a communicationchannel for students and professionals around theworld.

ConclusionSocietal changes, scientific developments, and newchallenges across the field require the implementationof a more pragmatic approach to the education of con-servation and heritage scientists. Definition of theoperational field will allow educators to define pro-fessional competences and learning outcomes requiredfor future conservation scientists. A programme aimedat educating conservation scientists should includetraining in the intangible values of cultural heritageand should be inquiry-based with strong links tomuseums, heritage organizations and institutions, aswell as covering communication skills, and an appreci-ation of the craft roots of the profession. It shouldencourage communication with stakeholders and theplanning of projects that benefit wider society. Itshould allow specialization and encourage dissemina-tion of research findings to a variety of audiencesand through different channels. Educational pro-grammes should accept students from a wide rangeof scientific backgrounds and build upon theirstrengths following a student-centred approach.Research-based learning allows students to participateactively in research projects.Effective interdisciplinary collaboration requires

effective communication, which rests upon all partiesbeing sufficiently literate in both conservation andscience. Emphasis on key transferable skills relatedto communication, adaptation, flexibility in methodo-logical approach, and innovation will allow graduatesto establish efficacious partnerships which will goabove and beyond traditional research pathways, andwill contribute in moving the field forward.Finally, education of conservation scientists should

be based on programmes designed to train a diversebody of students in distinct specializations both inscience and conservation. This would break restrictivebarriers between the distinctive fields, raise awarenessof the mutually complementary roles various pro-fessionals have in the field, and contribute towardsbuilding future effective partnerships. Flexibility inacademic curricula will allow the formation of pro-fessionals that can ‘think globally, act locally’ andwork at different local, governmental, and insti-tutional levels.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the members of all the three dis-cussion groups on education at the Forum, and alsothe consortium partners (in alphabetical order):Gerhard Banik, Professor Emeritus, Former Head of

Paper Conservation, The Stuttgart State Academy ofArt and Design, Germany; Marie Berducou, SeniorLecturer, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne,France; Tharron Bloomfield, Visiting AssistantProfessor at UCLA, Andrew W. Mellon FoundationConservation Resident, New Zealand; May Cassar,Professor of Sustainable Heritage, Centre forSustainable Heritage, University College London(UCL), UK; Alberto de Tagle, Chief Scientist,Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, theNetherlands (now retired); Sebastian Dobrusskin,Head of the Research Area Materiality of Art andCulture, Bern University of the Arts, Switzerland;Kenza Dufourmantelle, Head, Conservation Science,Heritage Conservation and CommemorationDirectorate, Parks Canada, Canada; Eduardo MunozGonzales, Specialist in Conservation and Restorationof Monuments, Institute of AnthropologicalInvestigation, Faculty of Education and HumanSciences, University of Antofagasta, Chile; KyeongSoon Han, Professor of Kunkuk University, Korea;Marc Jacobs, Director of FARO (Flemish Interfacefor Cultural Heritage), Professor for Critical HeritageStudies at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium; JosephKing, Unit Director, Sites Unit, International Centrefor the Study of the Preservation and Restoration ofCultural Property (ICCROM); Maria João Melo,Associate Professor, Department Conservation andRestoration, Faculty of Sciences and Technology,New University of Lisbon, Portugal; Navin Piplani,Principal Director, Centre for Conservation Trainingand Capacity Building, The Indian National Trust forArt and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), India; LuizSouza, Coordinator of Lacicor – ConservationScience Laboratory, UFMG Federal University ofMinas Gerais, Brazil; Dean Sully, Lecturer inConservation, Institute of Archaeology, UniversityCollege London (UCL), UK; Norman Tennent,Professor of Conservation Science, University ofAmsterdam, the Netherlands (now retired); YuZheng, Chief Engineer of Vernacular ArchitectureResearch Center, Tongheng Planning and DesigningInstitute of Tsinghua University (NHC-THU),China. I would like to thank Catherine Antomarchi,Alison Heritage and Katriina Simila for their collabor-ation on the educators’ survey, and Adrian Heritage,Theocharis Katrakazis and Thilo Rehren for the dis-cussion and comments on the paper. Finally, thanksto Alison Heritage for valuable feedback during thepreparation of the Forum and the writing of this paper.

ReferencesAboelela, S.W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola,

A., Glied, S.A., Hass, J. & Gebbie, K.M. 2007. DefiningInterdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a CriticalReview of the Literature. Health Services Research, 42(1):329–46.



Aditomo, A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A.-M. & Ellis, R.A. 2013.Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education: PrincipalForms, Educational Objectives, and Disciplinary Variations.Studies in Higher Education, 38: 1239–58.

Bernius, S., Hanauske, M., Dugall, B. & König, W. 2013. Exploringthe Effects of a Transition to Open Access: Insights from aSimulation Study. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, 64(4): 701–26.

Bonacchi, C., Bevan, A., Pett, D., Keinan-Schoonbaert, A., Sparks,R.,Wexler, J. &Wilkin,N. 2014.Crowd-sourcedArchaeologicalResearch: The MicroPasts Project. Archaeology International,17: 61–8 [accessed 30 January 2015]. Available at: <http://www.ai-journal.com/articles/10. 5334/ai.1705/>.

Corbeil, M.C. 2000. Training Options for Conservation Scientists inUniversity Postgraduate Curricula for Conservation Scientists.In: ICCROM, ed. University Postgraduate Curricula forConservation Scientists: Proceedings of the InternationalSeminar, Bologna, 26–27 November 1999. Rome: ICCROM,pp. 103–108.

Creswell, J.W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, andMixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. London: SAGE.

Dillon, C., Lindsay, W., Taylor, J., Fouseki, K., Bell, N. & Strlic, M.2013. Collections Demography: Stakeholders’ Views on theLifetime of Collections. In: J. Ashley-Smith, A. Burmester &M. Eibl, eds. Climate for Collections: Standards andUncertainties, Postprints of the Munich Climate Conference,Munich 7–9 November 2012. London: Archetype, pp. 45–58.

Golfomitsou, S., Georgakopoulou, M. & Rehren, T. 2015. CulturalHeritage Career Paths for Materials Scientists and CorrosionEngineers. In: H.L. Lim, ed. Handbook of Research on RecentDevelopments in Materials Science and Corrosion EngineeringEducation. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 349–368.

Heritage, A., Anuzet, C., Andersson, E. & Antomarchi, C. 2014.The ICCROM Forum on Conservation Science 2013: ACollaborative Partnership for Strategic Thinking. In: J.Bridgland, ed. ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Meeting Melbourne15–19 September 2014, Preprints, art. 1903, Paris: ICOMCommittee for Conservation.

Huutoniemi, K., Thompson Klein, J., Henrik, B. & Hukkinen, J.2010. Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators.Research Policy, 39(1): 79–88.

Jahn, T., Bergmann, M. & Keil, F. 2012. Transdisciplinarity:Between mainstreaming and marginalization. EcologicalEconomics, 79: 1–10.

Laakso, M. & Björk, B.-C. 2013. Delayed Open Access: AnOverlooked High-Impact Category of Openly AvailableScientific Literature. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, 64(7): 1323–29.

Mazzeo, R. & Tabasso, M. 2000. Preliminary survey on the feasi-bility of a training curriculum for conservation scientists:results and proposals for future developments. In C.Rockwell, ed. University Postgraduate Curricula forConservation Scientists: Proceedings of the InternationalSeminar, Bologna, 26–27 November 1999. Rome: ICCROM,pp. 1–12.

Papp, K.K., Huang, C.G., Lauzon Clabo, M.L., Delva, M.D.,Fischer, M.M., Konopasek, M.L., Schwartzstein, M.R.&Gusic, M.M. 2014. Milestones of Critical Thinking: ADevelopmental Model for Medicine and Nursing. AcademicMedicine, 89(5): 715–20.

Porter, A.L., Roessner, J.D., Cohen, A.S. & Perreault, M. 2006.Interdisciplinary Research: Meaning, Metrics and Nupture.Research Evaluation, 15(3): 187–95.

Price, C.A. 2000. Are Conservation Scientists Real Scientists? In: C.Rockwell, ed. University Postgraduate Curricula forConservation Scientists: Proceedings of the InternationalSeminar, Bologna, 26–27 November 1999. Rome: ICCROM,pp. 75–80.

Sadideen, H. & Kneebone, R. 2012. Practical Skills Teaching inContemporary Surgical Education: How Can EducationalTheory Be Applied to Promote Effective Learning? TheAmerican Journal of Surgery, 204(3): 396–401.

Tennent, N. 2013. Science for Conservation and ConservationScience in the Education Programme of the University ofAmsterdam and Beyond (unpublished paper submitted atICCROM Forum on Conservation Science).



Position paper

Working with policy-makers for integratingheritage science research into politicalprioritiesSujeong Lee

National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage of Korea, Daejeon, Korea

This paper draws upon the deliberations and outcomes of a discussion group at the ICCROM Forum 2013 onConservation Science which focussed on the role of policy-makers within conservation science as importantagents who can determine the future of this field, and how to strengthen the relationship between heritageprofessionals and policy-makers. In developing recommendations, five key areas were considered:identifying policy-makers; the actors involved in drafting and deciding a policy; what policy-makers requirefrom conservation scientists; what conservation scientists require from policy-makers; and the ways todevelop common interest between conservation scientists and policy-makers for efficient policy-making.This report summarizes the findings from each area concluding with two parts: key messages to policy-makers; and recommendations to conservation scientists to ensure that the key messages are included inpolicy-making.

Keywords: Policy-making, Effective communication, Policy-making actors, Quality of policy, Evidence-based, Political agenda, Heritage science researchprioritization, ICCROM

Introduction: key questionsPolicy-makers are important stakeholders in the fieldof cultural heritage conservation, and therefore alsoconservation science, not only as decision-makers butalso as individuals who are both politically and per-sonally benefited by heritage and its conservation.However, within the conservation profession, littleattention is paid to communicating and workingwith this group of stakeholders, in order to raiseawareness, lobby and actively contribute towards heri-tage policy development. This is a missed opportunity.As a large proportion of cultural heritage and its con-servation rest in the public sphere, as does the majorityof research funding for science, conservation science isacutely affected by governmental policy-making withregard to heritage and science. In turn, this sectorshould be acutely aware of the importance of goodcommunication, developing strong relationships andactively contributing at policy-making level.This paper draws upon the deliberations and out-

comes of a discussion group at the ICCROM Forumon Conservation Science (2013) which focussed onthe role of policy-makers within conservation science

as important agents for the future of this field, andwhat recommendations can be made to strengthenthe relationship between the conservation professionand policy-makers.

To facilitate the discussion, this paper is structuredaround the following five key questions:• Who are the policy-makers?• What are the factors that influence the decision-

making process?• What do policy-makers require from conservation

scientists?• What do conservation scientists require from policy-

makers?• How do conservation scientists and policy-makers

develop common interests?However, before moving on to these key questions, afirst basic question to ask is why is it important to con-vince policy-makers of the value of conservationscience? Perhaps the primary reason, even beforethat of resource allocation is that policy-makers havethe capacity to make heritage and its conservation apriority within political agendas, in connection withcontemporary issues and challenges. For example,through the recognition that heritage is a fundamentalelement of exercising human rights, it becomes impor-tant for policy-makers to place value on heritage con-servation (and thereby also conservation science) as an

Correspondence to: Sujeong Lee, National Research Institute of CulturalHeritage of Korea, #305-380, 132, Munji-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Korea.Email: [email protected]


important activity through which heritage can be pro-tected for contemporary and future generations.Following the establishment of cultural heritage

conservation as a political priority, policy-makersthen have the capacity to make or at least influencedecisions to allocate resources, such as funding, toheritage and its conservation, which if successfulwould ensure long-term sustainable heritage policies.Generally speaking, policy-makers prefer to base

their decision-making on evidence. Therefore, it isimportant for conservation science research toprovide evidence regarding the benefits it brings toheritage conservation. If it can also provide usefulinformation that demonstrates the capacity of culturalheritage conservation to contribute to economicgrowth, social issues, and other cultural benefitsthrough integrated approaches, this will provide yetmore reasons for moving cultural heritage conserva-tion up the political agenda.In order for conservation scientists and other heri-

tage conservation professionals to effectively commu-nicate with and influence policy-makers, it isnecessary to have a good understanding of who thepolicy-makers are, and the nature of their work. Thiswill allow heritage professionals to know who to talkto, and how to approach policy-makers in order fortheir needs to be listened to. This raises two questions:• Who directly or indirectly participates in policy-

making?• What are the factors that influence the decision-

making process?Policy-makers not only include conventional groupssuch as politicians, but also a whole range of people,including opinion-makers, and institutes which areinvolved in forming political ideas and influencingpolicy-making. These are not only local people butalso experts and politicians working in internationalorganizations, foreign institutes and non-governmen-tal organizations (NGOs). The process of policy-making and the people involved vary from culture toculture and nation to nation. Moreover, policy is setout not only at local but also at international level.

The decisions at these two different levels can be inter-active and complementary to each other; or they maynot correspond at all. A consideration of these aspectsis given below in the section entitled ‘Policy-makers’.Another important element in understanding policy-making is the knowledge of the factors that influencethe decision-making process. This is needed in orderto develop strategies to lobby policy-makers for con-structive policies. Accordingly, a discussion on thesefactors is given in the section entitled ‘Factors thatinfluence policy-making’.Once policy-makers have been identified, it is

important to think about what conservation scientistsand policy-makers might want from each other. Inorder for both parties to collaborate it is importantto clarify the demands of each party and to identifywhat their common interests are and in what aspectsthey can help each other to pursue common goals.The needs of policy-makers towards conservationscientists are addressed in the section entitled ‘Whatpolicy-makers require from conservation scientists’and those of the conservation scientists towardspolicy-makers are presented in ‘What conservationscientist require from policy-makers’.On the basis of an understanding of both policy-

makers and policy-making processes, as well as theneeds of conservation scientists and policy-makers, alist of recommendations for taking action in policy-making and the practical ways of how it can be devel-oped is given as ‘Recommendation and action: a wayforward’.

Policy-makersThe literal meaning of policy is ‘a course or principle ofaction adopted or proposed by a government, party,business, or individual etc.’ (Concise OxfordDictionary, 1990, p. 921). The role of a policy-makeris to formulate, debate, and enact policy. A policy-maker may be a governmental body, political parties,public or private institutes, interest groups, andpeople who set a direction and priority for an actionto benefit a society, a nation, or community.Policy-making processes for cultural heritage are

highly variable, given that the types of policy-makersin heritage and the ways of setting out and implement-ing policy vary from culture to culture and nation tonation. Moreover, policy development and implemen-tation processes take place at many different levelsfrom local to international. Therefore, the individualsor groups involved in policy-making for cultural heri-tage are equally diverse, depending on the process ofinitiating, discussing, drafting, adopting, and makinga decision. While it is difficult to comprehensivelylist all types of policy-makers, common types ofpolicy-makers can be categorized as shown in Fig. 1.Figure 1 Types of policy-makers.

Lee Working with policy-makers for integrating heritage science research into political priorities


Elected politicians are arguably the most influentialpolicy-makers. They are appointed to take responsibil-ity for policy development for a certain period of timeat the local, national, or international level. However,other types of heritage policy-makers are also influen-tial at international level. A case in point is theICCROM Council, the governing body of ICCROM,an intergovernmental organization dedicated to theconservation of cultural heritage. The ICCROMCouncil is an international expert group and is respon-sible for deciding and advising on the activities of theorganization, from setting out an annual or long-termplan to the financial management of income and expen-diture. For example, the idea for the ICCROM Forumon Conservation Science (2013) came from a proposalby the council members. This recognized the importantrole the organization has played in the past in conserva-tion science and its potential to facilitate the inter-national heritage conservation community inestablishing constructive future directions for thesector. The work of international policy-makers, insome cases, is also closely related to and influencedby the policy of local government. The CHA-ICCROM fund, established by the Cultural HeritageAdministration of Korea for building regional capacityin heritage conservation in Asia, is an example of such acase. The changing of the Korean government’s attitudeto its role as a financial contributor, increasing its over-seas project budget and expanding its interest in culturalactivities, played an important role in setting up theCHA-ICCROM fund in 2012. The fund project hasdirectly contributed to the improvement of the conser-vation skills of local experts and conservationinfrastructure.Another example is the European Union parliament

whose members decide on an extensive range of differ-ent issues and activities shared by member nations.However, unlike ICCROM, its scope of interest is ofcourse not solely limited to cultural heritage, butcovers all human-related issues from economic andpolitical to cultural, academic and scientific matters.Considering such differences, when working from aheritage conservation perspective, it is important tounderstand that conservation science is a part of alarger pool of science and cultural issues, amongwhich it has to strive for priority. Such circumstancesmean that the way of approaching policy-makers andproviding them with the necessary informationshould be tailored to their needs.Civil servants, both in central and local govern-

ments, often work closely with the heritage sectorand so are witnesses to the reality of heritage problems.They play an important role not only in policy devel-opment but also in its implementation. In manycountries, such as Korea and other Asian countrieswhere heritage conservation is led by government,

civil servants are a key group in policy-making. Theyare involved in preparing the necessary information,enacting, and applying policy in a given area.However, as in the case of politicians who have alimited mandate, civil servants in many countrieshave a certain period of time in one position. Whilethis is not universally the case, in countries such asKorea, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and many others, civil ser-vants in all central and local governments move fromone department to another after approximately twoto three years. It is also important to understand thatone of their key duties in the financial managementof state funds is to estimate the budget for a new orexisting policy, and then to distribute or subsidizethe funds to implement it. As in the case of inter-national politicians, central and local governmentsprioritize their needs so that they can subsidizelimited state or local funds. In Fig. 2, the case of theKorean government is taken as an example to illustratethe funding allocation process.

In addition to knowing who the policy-makers are,and the mechanics of the policy-making process, it isalso important to have an up-to-date awareness ofthe strategic directions of the funding body, as thiswill influence not only the allocation of funds, butalso policy development. The Heritage Lottery Fund(HLF), for example, one of the major UK fundingorganizations in heritage, drafted new strategic frame-works in 2011 for the operation of the Fund from 2013onwards (Heritage Lottery Fund, 2011a, pp. 32–35).One of the changes, although it received a negativeresponse during consultation (Heritage LotteryFund, 2011b, p. 18), was that the HLF would increasefunding for identified strategic needs, whereas fundingto open programmes would be decreased.

A further important group that influences policy-making is the general public, which through interestgroups works as an important opinion provider insetting out policies which contribute to understandingthe significance of conservation science, as well asdecisions regarding which research directions in con-servation science should be supported. They are bothcontributors to conservation and at the same time ben-eficiaries of conservation through their use of heritage.The general public is of course extremely diverse in itsmembership, including interest groups such as scho-lars, owners, religious communities, and the inhabi-tants of historic villages. There are also tourists andbusiness people who contribute to and generate finan-cial benefits. However, it is useful to reflect that inmost cases these interest groups have a similar roleto that of institutions, as both groups influence theprocess of policy-making as an opinion providerrather than as a decision-maker, insisting on a requiredpolicy to funders, governments, and electedpoliticians.



Factors that influence policy-makingThere are many different factors which can influenceinitiation and decision-making regarding a policy.These differ from culture to culture and case by case.However, in Table 1 the major factors are categorizedinto four groups: known factors within the heritagefield affecting policy set-up or change; factors gener-ated from non-heritage fields, which can be expected;factors within the heritage field, which have not beenforeseen or expected; factors originated from non-heri-tage fields, which have not been predicted.Arguably the most important factor influencing

policy-making is the availability of informationregarding the benefits of heritage and the problemsin conserving what is valued. This is because thistype of information provides a useable rationale forthe need of policy. In most cases, such aspects needto be identified through research to establish, forexample, known or newly recognized heritage values,potential and existing risks, the state of conservation,new developments in related science fields, and pro-blems in heritage management.Policy-makers can prioritize actions based on the

balance of the public benefit to be gained and the

urgency of the problem to be solved. Therefore, it isvery important for a policy-maker to have evidencesupported by scientific and statistical data to addressthe benefits and problems in order to draft a policybased on relevant information and knowledge. Forthis it is necessary for conservation scientists toprovide clear and accurate information so that apolicy-maker can set out evidence-based annual andlong-term policies. In particular, the provision oftimely research outcomes is an important factorbecause a policy should respond to a social need assoon as possible once the issue has been raised.Moreover, in the case of governmental policy-making it is important to adhere to parliamentarytimeframes – there is a fixed schedule according towhich parliamentary members follow a certainprocess, such as to review, draft and submit for adecision, and to approve/refuse a policy within afiscal year. For example, Korean Parliamentarymembers need all supporting information for a newpolicy and funding by the end of June at the latest ifit is to be adopted and implemented in the followingyear.Another crucial factor is ‘unexpected problems’,

such as a disaster resulting in rapid destruction of heri-tage. Disasters which affect well-recognized heritagesites attract huge public attention, requiring animmediate response to provide funds and establishan infrastructure to prevent similar problems fromhappening again. It also leads to the drafting of anew policy. The destruction of heritage by fire is agood example, as shown in the case of the steamclipper the Cutty Sark in England (2007), theSungnyemun gate in Korea (2008) and the WangduePhodrang Dzong, a royal palace of Bhutan (2012).The investigation of all of these cases revealed thelack of sufficient on-site monitoring systems and ade-quate fire extinguishing equipment that could haveprevented such extensive damage to the heritage andavoided the large cost of the subsequent restorationworks. These experiences have encouraged policy-

Figure 2 Process of budget allocation (Korean case).

Table 1 Types of factors influencing policy-making

Internal factor External factor

Usual Availability ofinformation concerningthe benefit of heritageand its conservation

Political or socialissues related toheritage

Known risks andproblems (based onpast and ongoingresearch)

New appointment ofdecision-maker orpolitician

Availability of fundingand resources

Unexpected Disasters andaccidents to heritage

New heritage issuescaused by social orcultural interest

New evidence or newissues



makers to set out new policies and to provide emer-gency funds for recovering heritage values. In turnthis also triggers new challenges for conservationscience concerning the study of ancient constructiontechniques and materials, and the development ofnew contemporary conservation methods to respondadequately to such emergency situations.The fire and reconstruction of the Sungnyemun

gate, also known as National Treasure No 1, whichwas the south gate of the old capital city of theJoseon Dynasty (1392–1910) in Korea, illustrates allof the above-mentioned consequences. The loss ofNational Treasure No 1 through fire provided an indis-putable reason for establishing a new ‘Department ofRisk Management’ in the Cultural HeritageAdministration of Korea. It secured the allocation ofstate funds for research on risk and disaster manage-ment of architectural heritage in Korea, thus expand-ing the field of conservation science research. Inaddition the decision to reconstruct the extensivelydamaged stone and wood structure of NationalTreasure No 1 raised new challenges for conservationscience concerning the appropriate materials and tech-niques to be used. Roof tiles, metal components andmineral pigments applied to wood surfaces for decora-tion and protection from insects were particularly pro-blematic areas on account of the lack of availableinformation regarding the original materials and theselection of new materials to be used for reconstruc-tion. The allocation of funding and human resourceshave revitalized the study and reproduction of discon-tinued ancient techniques, and the value of conserva-tion received significant public attention. However,the mineral pigments applied to the new wood struc-ture started to peel off within a few months of the com-pletion of the restoration. The problem was connectedto the difficulties associated with rediscovering lost tra-ditional techniques for producing and applyingpigment to wood surfaces. As a result, governmentauthorities, artisans, and the public have realized apreviously unanticipated need for long-term research.The strong criticism directed against the CulturalHeritage Administration of Korea focussed on thelack of scientific research, and has requested the estab-lishment of a long-term policy for the study and devel-opment of traditional painting materials andtechniques. The case has resulted in new opportunitiesfor conservation science and extended the role of scien-tists in heritage conservation.The conventional role of conservation scientists has

been limited mainly to the analysis of materials andtechniques which were applied to objects for conserva-tion treatment. This is because modern conservationprinciples have stressed the preservation of an objectto retard the process of deterioration rather than therestoration of missing parts. However, the public in

many developing countries, such as Korea, China,and other Asian countries, demand that heritage pol-icies and principles affirm existing values, create newones and bring benefit through the promotion anduse of heritage. Therefore, reconstruction and restor-ation have been approved when a certain heritagehas great public value or has played an importantrole in shaping national identity. In such cases therole of conservation scientists can range, forexample, from scientific analysis to developing newmaterials of the same quality as traditional materials.After the problems of the Sungnyemun gate recon-struction, the Cultural Heritage Administration ofKorea has appointed two institutes to meet thedemand for new pigments in the restoration andrepair of timber buildings: the National ResearchInstitute of Cultural Heritage (NRICH) to analyse tra-ditional pigments and to produce alternative pigmentswhich can replace the lost pigments; and the NationalUniversity of Cultural Heritage to produce commer-cial pigments as soon as the NRICH prototype pig-ments are ready. Conservation scientists in theConservation Science Division of NRICH have setup a five-year project to collect information on pig-ments in old documents, analyse traditional pigmentsin ancient timber buildings and existing commercialpigments on the market, and produce a prototype ofthe same quality as traditional pigments.

What policy-makers require from conservationscientistsFirst, policy-makers need resources to draft a policywhich reflects contemporary social needs and demon-strate the impact of political decisions. Moreover, aquick response to such needs is important. An effectivepolicy must have a positive impact on the targetedissues. In order for policy-makers to do this, theyneed conservation scientists to provide relevant infor-mation and reliable data to display the positivechange on the condition of heritage before and afterimplementing a new policy. A good example is if con-servation scientists, by monitoring a timber structureover time, can indicate to a site manager or adecision-maker when a regular repair should be exe-cuted. Furthermore, if they can work with a quantitysurveyor to compare the cost of regular maintenanceto that of emergency repairs and restoration when aheritage collapses, then policy-makers can establish anew policy or legal framework to oblige site managersand owners to conduct regular monitoring and repairwork as a mandatory process. Policy-makers wouldwelcome such a situation because it can provide anopportunity to generate economic revenue by fosteringprivate sector structural stability monitoring.

Second, the quality of a policy, in terms of its rel-evance, adequacy, and consistency, is a crucial way



for policy-makers to demonstrate their competenceand secure re-appointment or re-election. In manycases, heritage issues appear to be an important toolto satisfy voters and stakeholders. Therefore poli-ticians are interested in integrating heritage into thepriorities of political projects, education, and socialwelfare. In addition, for many developing countries,heritage is becoming a useful political mediator instrengthening cultural association or reaffirmingnational identity. Research on manufacturing tech-niques of metal objects by the Joongwon regionaloffice of NRICH shows how conservation scientistshave played an important role in reaffirming localidentity. Since the office was established in 2007,they have conducted multidisciplinary research inarchaeological excavation and conservation scienceto understand the advanced skills used to produceancient metal objects in Korea, which has shapedlocal distinctiveness for centuries. The outcome oftheir research has attracted the attention of local poli-ticians and people and influenced the setting up of aconservation laboratory in the regional office.Third, rather than ‘wishful thinking’, policy-makers

prefer to work on the basis of clear evidence, soundarguments and scientific data. Funds and resourcesare already limited. Therefore, the reasons for, andthe impact of, a new policy have to be clearly explainedto the public. The quality of a policy is dependent onthe relevant information provided by academic expertsand institutes, and balanced judgement between differ-ent issues both within and outside the heritage field.Policy-makers expect conservation scientists toprovide useful resources in order to facilitate theirrole in policy-making. It is very difficult for a policy-maker to go through all of the steps of collecting,reviewing, and interpreting scattered informationbecause they are not specialized in heritage matters.Therefore, it is inevitable that they depend on expertswho can understand the problem, select and examinerelevant information and synthesize this into auseable resource. Policy-makers want informationwhich is directly relevant to contemporary issues andeasy to understand.Considering the three aspects mentioned above, the

two important things that policy-makers want fromconservation scientists are timely submission of infor-mation to respond to contemporary needs; sound data;and information to draft efficient and competitivepolicies.

What conservation scientists require frompolicy-makersConservation scientists conduct research not just forthe interests of their institution but for it to be usefullyapplied in practice to benefit society. Scientificresearch in cultural heritage conservation is of no use

if the research outcome does not provide useful infor-mation such as understanding an issue or constructivesolutions to tackle problems in practice, but ratherremains buried in papers as a theory or academic refer-ence. In order to convert heritage-related research intoa useful resource to be applied in practice, there areseveral things that conservation scientists requirefrom policy-makers.First, heritage is a resource to generate economic

benefit and social solutions so, conservation scientistswant heritage matters to be integrated into politicalpriorities. Considering that heritage has been auseful resource in education, tourism, urban planning,and many other important social activities, heritagepolicy should be taken as an important issue insetting out policies of social, cultural, and economicactivities.Second, heritage-related policy requires consistency

and continuity in legislation and policy based on along-term vision and commitment. Policy-makersneed to understand the important nature of heritage,which is that it is an irreplaceable resource; it is notpossible to recover its value and authenticity once itis damaged or lost. Accordingly, heritage policiesshould be drafted and decided upon while reflectingon these aspects. Policy-makers should understandthat the conservation of heritage is a long-termprocess which includes various types of activities; heri-tage needs to be regularly monitored, repaired in atimely manner and properly maintained, and evalu-ated with regard to its significance. Therefore, suffi-cient funds for the implementation of a policy shouldbe secured so that the full cycle of all necessaryrelated works can be undertaken without risk of ter-mination due to lack of funding at a later date. Inreality, it is difficult for policy-makers to allow conser-vation scientists enough time and funds to establish adepth of knowledge. However, this can lead to short-comings and sometimes quite high-profile failures –

as demonstrated by the example of the Sungyemunreconstruction project-mentioned above where pro-blems encountered in the reproduction of traditionalpainting techniques were in part caused by a lack oftime allocated for research and development.Therefore, policy-makers should bear in mind that apolicy to solve a problem quickly is not always an effi-cient one in the long run.Third, conservation scientists would like policy-

makers to provide efficient and constructive opportu-nities to exchange ideas and information betweenthem. Feedback on the effect of a policy that policy-makers has drafted and implemented, for example,or information on changing national strategy insocial and cultural field can provide useful informationto conservation scientists to integrate a certain themeof their research into social issues.



Recommendations and action: a way forwardAt the ICCROM Forum 2013 on ConservationScience, it was recognized that conservation scientistsare currently facing a particularly challenging periodin terms of the survival, development and expansionof their role and responsibilities in the heritage field.The challenges differ from culture to culture. ManyWestern countries, which have developed advancedtechniques and research capacity in conservationscience over the last few decades, have been facedwith a constraint in funds in recent years.Conversely, many Asian countries, which need tobuild capacity in conservation science to meet theincreased demands of heritage issues in society, facethe problem of a lack of infrastructure and knowledgeto develop the necessary skills.1 However a lack ofunderstanding about the societal significance of heri-tage in the modern era and the need to insert heritageinto political priorities are problems shared in bothWestern and Asian countries. To solve these problems,the following fundamental messages need to beacknowledged and understood by policy-makers:• Heritage is a key element to sustain cultural and social

identity and enrich the quality of life of the peoplebelonging to that society. Its role in a society canonly be secured by a carefully designed heritage-based policy.

• Heritage is a resource that can generate economicbenefit and provide solutions to social problems.Heritage, therefore, should be integrated into contem-porary political priorities.

• Research on heritage, both in scientific and humanis-tic aspects, plays an important role in all processes ofheritage-related activities: in understanding, conser-ving, and appreciating both the tangible and intangi-ble values of heritage. Research activities, therefore,should be promptly supported and promoted so theycan play their role in providing a constructive plat-form for heritage-related activities.

• Considering that heritage is living legacy, with theimprint of myriad layers of human activities over cen-turies, has been valued, used and conserved for manyyears since it was created, and will be a useful asset tobenefit future generations, heritage-related activitiesshould be managed as a long-term process. Thismeans that long-term policies and legal frameworksto support the activities should be developed.

• Heritage conservation is a social process of under-standing tangible and intangible values, findingvarious options of conserving it, making a decisionon the best way to conserve it and benefit the publicand delivering it to future generations. There is noset of universal solutions for such a social process;therefore, continuous research to make betterdecisions should be carried out.

• Effective policy can be set out when it takes an evi-dence-based, value-based, and people-basedapproach. Policy-makers, therefore, should effectivelycollaborate with experts in the various areas of heri-tage so that they can provide prompt and useful infor-mation to improve the quality of a policy. In order forheritage professionals to bring useful research out-comes to the discussion, it is important that policy-makers share information and ideas on politicalagendas and national strategy with heritage pro-fessionals. This will allow the experts to provide rel-evant knowledge and participate in and contributeto the establishment of effective policies.

In order for the above messages to be emphasized andacknowledged by policy-makers, a number of actionsare needed to improve the working relationshipbetween heritage professionals and policy-makers interms of the manner and content of communication.At present conservation science is insufficiently inte-grated with political or social sciences. Moreover, thenumber of conservation scientists – or indeed anyother heritage professionals – who work directly orindirectly with policy-makers, or who are involvedin policy-making is very small. As a result, there isinsufficient awareness within the heritage conserva-tion field of the processes and people involved inpolicy-making, as well as a lack of capacity andemphasis on research topics needed to providespecific evidence for setting out strategic statementsto policy-makers. In addition, the informationexchanged between policy-makers and heritage pro-fessionals is not always useful enough to supporteach other’s work.

First, it is necessary to establish constructive andefficient communication channels, such as regular oroccasional workshops and parliamentary hearing ses-sions, between policy-makers and heritage pro-fessionals including conservation scientists, and tomake good use of existing ones. Parliamentaryhearing sessions, in particular, are an efficient com-munication channel to discuss specific problems andprojects with policy-makers. Therefore, conservationscientists need to have a prepared audience-focussedstrategy to attract the targeted policy-maker’s atten-tion. Two important bodies making decisions on thenational budget in many countries are central govern-ment and the Ministry of Finance. National budgetprocesses orchestrated by these two bodies includeseveral hearing sessions on the budget requested for

1The Asian Cooperation Program on Conservation Science (ACPCS) run bythe National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage of Korea and CollAsiaand by ICCROM as a CHA-ICCROM funded project on behalf of theKorean government reflects the growing demand of such initiatives inthe Asian region. In addition, the project strategy of Korea InternationalCooperation Agency (KOICA) has changed in recent years from buildingtangible infrastructure such as road construction into capacity building inheritage conservation. Their project in Cambodia, for example, startedwith road and hospital construction in 2005 and extended to restorationof the world heritage site in Ankor Wat in 2011. The government ofBangladesh requested KOICA in 2014 to provide funds to establish a con-servation laboratory in the National Museum and a training programme,and the examination into the request is ongoing.



an individual project from government sectors. Thehearings take place at each phase of the budgetaryprocess, such as reviewing the rationale of eachproject and appropriateness of the requested budget,or adjusting the budget between all projects and decid-ing a final budget for each project for the upcomingyear. The perspective of reviewing and criteria of fina-lizing budget for these bodies can be slightly different.For example, in Korea, parliament is influenced byparty political interests which tend to favour projectswith short-term benefits for the public just before elec-tions rather than those needing long-term funding,whereas the Ministry judges the significance of pro-jects according to different types of social problemsrather than outcomes visible to the public. Therefore,conservation scientists need to understand the aimand perspective of the different decision-makers anduse the relevant strategy for each communicationopportunity. The Korean parliament has aCommittee of Cultural Affairs to review heritage pro-jects (including that of conservation science) and theMinistry has the National Committee of Science andTechnology to review a part of the heritage budget.Therefore, in parliamentary hearing session’s conser-vation scientists need to explain in what way heritageprojects can visibly benefit the public whereas in min-istry hearings they need to emphasize why conserva-tion science projects should be funded rather thanother scientific projects.Second, for the above message to be delivered to

policy-makers, conservation scientists should produceand provide different types of information for eachstep of the process; from preparing, drafting andimplementing a policy as shown in Table 2. It con-siders the three different stages of policy-making andgives a list of aspects for each stage to be clarified,studied, analysed, and prepared by conservation scien-tists and other heritage professionals involved inpolicy-making.

The role of conservation scientists in preparing,drafting, and implementing a policy is to provide rel-evant information and scientific data on time.Therefore, understanding the ways in which theprocess works and what actors influence each stage iskey for them to play their role well. Given the lackof awareness in the heritage field regarding policy-making, further studies on heritage policy-makingprocesses should be conducted at local and inter-national level.In addition to understanding the process, conserva-

tion professionals also have to understand the criteriapolicy-makers use for prioritizing which issues shouldbe tackled with limited funds. Accordingly, it would behelpful if conservation science can integrate with pol-itical science to better understand these criteria, andproduce the relevant information for deciding on pri-ority in policy-making.The value of heritage in terms of its benefit to

society cannot be justified by unsupported statements;it should be demonstrated through evidence andexamples. Therefore, it is necessary for conservationscientists, together with other heritage professionals,to examine heritage issues from the standpoint ofsocial science to evaluate heritage from a new perspec-tive, as a resource to generate economic benefits andsocial solutions which can be integrated into contem-porary political priorities. The benefit of heritagethen should be outlined in statements drafted fordifferent audiences including different types ofpolicy-makers. Conservation scientists need to speakto policy-makers in a clear understandable languagerather than using impenetrable technical terminology.One of the mistakes conservation scientists make is toprovide complex diagrams and charts to show accuratedata and evidence. Policy-makers, however, prefersimple and clear statements on what is the directimpact of a project on the life of the public. TheCultural Heritage Administration of Korea use

Table 2 Recommended actions to support heritage policy development

Preparing stage Drafting stage Implementing stage

What to clarify What do we want from policy-makers Method of decision-making Research priority

What toresearch

1. Benefits of heritage Actors in decision-making 1. Practical information by topics

2. Identification of contemporary issuesand problems

2. Instruments to evaluate thequality of a policy

What toprepare

Strategic documents List of priorities (action plan) Relevant information by topic forimplementing a policyBenefit of

heritageNature of heritage and

conservationWith statistical

dataWith scientific

evidence

Guidingprinciples

Must be easy to understand Political science+ conservationresearch

For whom Policy-maker Policy-maker Site manager

Contractor

Public Public

Heritage experts



caricatures, flowcharts, cartoons, or videos to attractthe public’s attention when advertising new policy inwebsites or posting it on the social network service.Conservation scientists need to get away from conven-tional ways of making statements from their own per-spectives and develop new and effective tools fordelivering information.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to thank the working groupmembers for the fruitful discussion and collaborationduring the ICCROM Forum (in alphabetical order):Zani Cajueiro Federal Prosecutor, Member of theBrazilian General Attorney’s Office, Brazil; MarianDel Egido, Head of the Scientific Department,Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España, Spain;

Fatima Fall, Director of the Centre for Research andDocumentation of Senegal, Senegal; Veerle Meul,Advisor Heritage Services of the Province ofAntwerp, Belgium; Fernando Pina, Professor,Faculty of Sciences and Technology New Universityof Lisbon, Portugal; and Dean Sully, Lecturer inConservation, Institute of Archaeology, UniversityCollege London (UCL), UK.

ReferencesConcise Oxford Dictionary. 1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Heritage Lottery Fund. 2011a. Heritage Lottery Fund Strategic

Framework 2013–2018: A Lasting Different for Heritage andPeople. London: HLF.

Heritage Lottery Fund. 2011b. Consultation of Heritage LotteryFund’s Strategic Framework from 2013 Onward. London: HLF.



Position paper

Communicating conservation scienceKaty Lithgow

The National Trust, Swindon, UK

What are the key messages conservation science should communicate to the public? Although the profile ofconservation science itself can be raised by talking about the process, most feel that the messages shouldconcern what conservation science brings to the focus of its work – cultural heritage. However, it is no longerenough to focus on the needs of heritage in isolation. Demonstrating public benefit is crucial to persuadedecision-makers to invest not only in the conservation of cultural heritage but also in the science thatinforms its care. Conservation science can research the significance of cultural heritage and how toenable access to it, but it now also needs to engage the public actively in its activities. This meanscontinuing to use the traditional ‘hard’ sciences of physics and chemistry but also learning from andcollaborating more with less familiar partners such as the social sciences, the medical sciences, andnatural heritage to demonstrate how conservation science is good for people, and developing newmethods of communication to do this. Conservation science needs to engage with the public not only as asubject for research but also as a means of doing the research, so the end also becomes the means.Public impact should be factored into conservation science projects, with training in communication andthe principles of interpretation provided to those involved. A more fundamental shift may be required in thesector however, that puts people’s benefit at the heart of conservation science as much as the benefit ofthe cultural heritage it engages with.

Keywords: Conservation science, Public benefit, Public value, Public engagement, People-centred approach

On bending a piece of tin. ‘It’s not wondrous straightoff [but by holding and bending it] I felt it cracklebetween my fingers… and heard it [shriek], and sud-denly a ductile bendy material started to feel that itwas splintering and cracking and sounded like glass.Mark explained that this was because of the crystalstructure inside the metal and the crystals slidingover each other. Suddenly what was opened up tome was the world inside stuff, and that through under-standing that stuff I can now imagine differently, I cannow think better about the things that I make and theworld which I inhabit.’1

IntroductionIs conservation about people or about heritage?Increasingly, there is a view that conservation shouldfocus on how people benefit from its work as muchas the heritage asset. The ICCROM Forum 2013 onConservation Science agreed that conservation

science does not exist for its own benefit but for thebenefit it brings to cultural heritage. Conservationscience must also, by extension, focus on how it caninvestigate and demonstrate the value of cultural heri-tage for people. Therefore, the question of how conser-vation science can demonstrate this value is crucial forthe future of both heritage and conservation science.

People-centred conservation scienceThe development of the scientific paradigmof conserva-tion into a model that embraces the interests of peoplecan be traced through many examples and references.Most of the following are from a UK perspective asthis is the main area of the author’s experience. In thetwentieth century, in thewest, the damage to the culturalheritage caused by war and subsequent rebuilding led tocodes of practice such as the 1964 Venice Charter(ICOMOS, 1965). These ethical guidelines developedan objective, scientifically based paradigm of conserva-tionwhose focuswas thewell-being of authentic culturalheritage assets. Threats of damage by warfare and inju-dicious development continue world-wide as Europetries to build its way out of recession, developingcountries attempt to enhance their standards of livingthrough building and redevelopment, and conflict

Correspondence to: Katy Lithgow, The National Trust, Heelis, KembleDrive, Swindon SN2 2NA, UK.Email: [email protected]

1Zoe Laughlin, Co-Founder of the Institute of Making, UCL, on ‘The LifeScientific: Mark Miodownik’. Broadcast on BBC Radio 4 Tuesday 11March 2014, MP3 available at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03xdmz8> [accessed 25 August 2015].

© ICCROM, and The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 2015MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivs Licence 3.0DOI 10.1080/00393630.2015.1117856 Studies in Conservation 2015 VOL. 60 SUPPLEMENT 2 S2-57

persists. By the end of the twentieth century, people andthe intangible qualities of heritage that they value havebeen placed increasingly at the heart of the conservationprocess, as exemplified by the Burra Charter (AustraliaICOMOS, 2013). The beneficiaries of conservation arenow felt to be people as much as, if not more than, theheritage asset itself. Conservation science needs toaddress this change of emphasis.Cultural heritage conservation arguably lags behind

other heritage sectors in demonstrating its value andrelevance to society. In the world of nature conserva-tion, the concept of eco-system services and the benefitsthat they bring to mankind has proved persuasive inleveraging support from governments and institutions.2

The benefits of cultural heritage tend to be measured aseconomic benefits principally in terms of tourism anddevelopment (Mason, 1999; De la Torre, 2002;Cassar, 2006). Whilst other benefits are recognized asbeing delivered by cultural heritage (Jones & Holden,2008), they do not have the same impact, especiallyduring economic recession or where there is a desireto improve standards of living such as housing, ser-vices, and infrastructure (Rypkema, 2008).Even before the most recent economic recession

began in 2007, cultural heritage conservation hadbegun to tackle the need to justify the public fundingof heritage by demonstrating the benefit it providedto the public, not least because public funders suchas government and its agencies, for example in theUK the Heritage Lottery Fund, demanded it. Thepublic benefit of conservation is increasingly addressedin conferences such as those mounted by IIC(Conservation and Access, London 2008), ICOMOS(Le Patrimoine, Moteur de Développement, Paris2011; Heritage and Landscape as Human Values,Florence 2014), DEMHIST (The Artifact, itsContext and their Narrative, Los Angeles 2012), andICOM-CC (Building Strong Culture throughConservation, Melbourne 2014). The need to makethis case is demonstrated by the concerted lobbyingthat was necessary to reinsert ‘Cultural Heritage’ asa theme in the EU’s Horizon 2020 €78 bn researchand innovation grants programme.

What are the key messages that conservationscience should communicate to the publicCommunicating the full significance of heritageScientific analysis and research help to reveal themeaning and significance of cultural heritage, intandem with other disciplines such as history. Inaddition to providing understanding of deteriorationprocesses and developing preservation treatments,conservation science can assist in understanding how

heritage has changed over time, by revealing itshistory (technical art history), authenticating heritageassets, and informing conservation and presentationdecisions such as cleaning techniques and levels.Conservation science can make connections betweencultural heritage artefacts and history, such as identify-ing trade routes that shaped human society. The appli-cation of the social sciences and techniques such asdemographics to the conservation science field ofactivity shows how people benefit from cultural heri-tage, what they themselves value about their heritageand how they wish to use it. New technologies canbe investigated and developed by conservationscience to communicate the significance and valuesof heritage to the public; for example, through digitiz-ation, scanning and computer modelling, givingalternative views, and virtual access where the originalis too fragile or physically distant to be directlyenjoyed.

Communicating current threats to culturalheritage and their management throughconservation scienceConservation science addresses big issues. Climatechange and extreme weather are today consideredamongst the principal threats to cultural heritage.Conservation science is crucial to understanding build-ing physics and material response, often rediscoveringthe lessons of the past in designing sensible and econ-omic adaptations that are applicable not only to cul-tural heritage assets but also to the wider fabric ofpeople’s lives. Rates of decay caused by agentsalready studied by conservation science may be accel-erated through warmer, wetter weather promotingmould and insect attack, or shrinkage and embrittle-ment through drought, or elevated temperatures incities. Extreme weather exposes building weaknessesin domestic as well as historic buildings, such asdamaged roofs and inadequate drainage, and causesdirect damage such as flooding, subsidence, and col-lapse. Conservation science can reveal how ill-con-sidered adaptation risks sacrificing heritage values tono good ‘green’ purpose, for example destroyinglong-lasting historic windows in favour of short-lived, visually inappropriate, uPVC double glazedunits, when the issue is the seals, not single glazing;and demonstrate how everyday measures such as cur-tains and shutters can improve insulation effectively.3

Nevertheless, cultural heritage is still threatened bythe forces of social change, war, and redevelopmentto which the Venice Charter responded. Keynesianstrategies of building out of recession through infra-structure and housing projects still prevail in theWest. Such strategies threaten not only natural

2See for example <www.gov.uk/ecosystems-services> and <www.epa.gov/research/ecoscience/> [accessed 25 August 2015].

3See <http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/gcu-technical-_thermal-efficiency-traditional-windows.pdf. [accessed 21 August 2015].

Lithgow Communicating conservation science


landscape, but also built heritage, as heritage buildingsand neighbourhoods are demolished to make way for,or are submerged by, new high-rise glass and concretestructures such as The Shard in London and the water-front redevelopment in Shanghai. At the same time,some of these buildings may be the heritage of thefuture. Cultural heritage is also threatened by anincreasingly competitive market place for publicsupport which means its presentation must berefreshed constantly to remain relevant.In these threats lie opportunities for conservation

science to contribute to an increasing appetite forcontent, real experience and a desire for value that isnot just financial. Conservation science must continueto deal with the physical issues of decay and theircontrol, but must also develop ways of establishingand delivering the social benefit of cultural heritage,and how best to communicate these issues and benefitsto the public.

Communicating how conservation scienceenables the physical accessibility of culturalheritage to the publicConservation science enables access. The hard sciencessuch as physics and chemistry study the tolerances ofheritage material to agents of deterioration such aslight exposure which people need in order to see, andthe impact of relative humidity (RH) levels and fluctu-ations from comfort heating and cooling. This informsenvironmental control strategies which ensure heritageremains accessible to the public for as long as possible.Conservation science also investigates the risks associ-ated with public access, so that they can be managed,such as a Leverhulme Trust funded joint researchproject by the University of East Anglia, HistoricRoyal Palaces, and the National Trust and EnglishHeritage. This studied visitor-related dust in historichouse collections on open display. It showed thatregular housekeeping and RH control is needed toprevent dust cementation (through the formation ofcalcite and sticky exo-polymers by microbiologicalgrowths), which requires removal through remedialconservation. Acceptable soiling rates and associatedmanagement strategies were identified such as thedesign of visitor routes, protection, and the arrange-ment of displays.4 The ever increasing demand foraccess means all research needs regular review, toenable managers and practitioners to move awayfrom generic rules to site-specific measures: localassessments of risk enable public access to be maxi-mized within acceptable rates of deterioration ratherthan reduced to a minimum. Statistical approachesused in the medical world such as epidemiology anddemographics can be applied to bulk collections such

as libraries to understand decay mechanisms, as inves-tigated by the Collection Demography project, UK.5

How conservation science can help understandhow people value cultural heritage and itsconservation and what they want from itConservation science helps understand people’s needs.The social sciences have been used extensively in mar-keting to understand what customers want, applyingstatistical analyses to quantitative and qualitativedata collected through surveys, observation, andsocial experiments (Lithgow et al., 2012a). As well asbeing applied to the marketing of museums and his-toric houses, these methods are now used to evaluatethe public benefit of conservation activities and influ-ence the design of the work (Lithgow et al., 2012b).In the National Trust for England and Wales, UK,

methods derived from the social sciences have been usedto show that whilst people think that the organization isobjectively a good thing, they may not choose tosupport it personally. The development of the participa-torymodel of museums, of using happiness as ameasure,and of museums as social enterprises with a communityfocus, all evidence the trend for cultural heritage todemonstrate its benefit for people at all levels, not justthe intellectual.6 Conservation science can research thesebenefits and help design ways to enhance the delivery ofthese benefits through cultural heritage conservation.

How conservation science can help understandand develop effective means of communicationConservation science can investigate and develop theways in which cultural heritage and its conservationcan be communicated most effectively to the public.The general science community takes communicationextremely seriously, with an ambition to enablepeople to become as literate in science as they are inculture. There are organizations and events dedicatedto promoting science; with training courses rangingfrom masters courses to workshops to help scientistsdevelop communication skills.7 These skills make con-servation science interesting and entertaining, butthrough skilled messaging avoid over-simplifyingscience in the interests of popularization.It is no coincidence therefore, that theUK’s National

Heritage Science Strategy puts public benefit as the firstof its two aims: ‘to demonstrate the public benefit ofheritage science and to increase public engagementand support for it’ (NHSS Steering Group, 2010).

4See <http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1356397219282/for> abibliography [accessed 25 August 2015].

5See <http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/heritage/research/research-projects/projects/collections-demography> [accessed 25 August 2015].6Participatory museums (<http://www.participatorymuseum.org/>), hap-piness measures (Fujiwara 2013), and the model of community-basedsocial enterprises (<http://www.choicesforchange.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Social-enterprise-and-museums-II.pdf>) [accessed25 August 2015].7See, for example, <http://www.sciencecabaret.org/ and http://www.cheltenhamfestivals.com/science> [accessed 25 August 2015].



VisionWhere should conservation science aspire to be in 5years’ time? It should be connecting with peopleemotionally as well as intellectually, inspiring themthrough cultural heritage and its conservation, sothat their quality of life is improved now and for thefuture. Put in the vernacular, ‘conservation sciencemakes me, my neighbourhood, and my planet feelgood’.8

The ICCROM Forum defined the public benefits ofconservation science as helping tell the story ofhumanity through cultural heritage at the global andthe local level. It allows the diversity of society andits many communities to be appreciated, andencourages people’s sense of personal ownership forcultural heritage. Conservation science forms acrucial meeting place for people and cultural heritagethrough the examination, understanding and care ofheritage assets by scientists, conservators, ownersand the multitude of stakeholders. Conservationscience helps heritage to change as people andsociety change, by enabling what is important aboutthe past to be handed on to future generations.Understanding these processes of change through con-servation science reveals their historic scale and putstoday’s challenges in context as well as reviving sol-utions from the past that are relevant to the future.Therefore conservation science is a positive and con-structive force which improves people’s quality oflife. It can help the healing of damaged communitiesthrough helping their spirit of place to be understoodand recovered, and through telling the stories of theirheritage.Themes that emerged during the ICCROM Forum

to guide conservation science’s communications withthe public included:• Building the future: conservation science connects

people in time and place through conserving heritage.Conserving cultural heritage is the starting point for asustainable future, forming our children’s legacy.

• Making connections: conservation science connectsthe future with the past by enabling the survival ofcultural heritage. It connects people by identifyingand understanding the diversity of publics engagedwith heritage through in-depth and multi-disciplinarystudies that include both hard and social sciences suchas sociology and psychology. Conservation scienceenables links to be made between people and heritage,revealing their past and designing their futures at boththe macro and the micro level, whether dealing withthe impacts of global climate change or of dust.

• Benefitting people: conservation science benefitspeople by preserving their cultural heritage enabling

the various interests of the diverse publics thatcreate and use heritage to be taken into account andsecuring this heritage for children’s future. Thus con-servation science enables people’s fundamentalhuman right of access to their cultural heritage.9

• It’s personal: cultural heritage is created and owned bypeople and looked after by people through conserva-tion science. Conservation science asks people whatthey value about their heritage, reveals their heritage,and helps people discover things for themselves.

• Promotes caring: conservation science enables cul-tures to care for culture through the restoration andconservation of cultural heritage, sustaining it forthe future.

• Is a human resource: conservation science preservescultural heritage so that it is available as a treasurehouse of possibilities to enrich and sustain our future.

Messages that arose from these themes were testedwith visitors to the Trevi Fountain, located besidethe ICCROM Forum meeting venue. Although thesample could be considered self-selecting, and with19 votes in total was evidently not at all statisticallysignificant, the message about conservation scienceenabling ‘cultures to care for culture’ was substantiallymore popular than ones about giving access to culturalheritage, restoration and conservation, and connectingthe past with the future. This illustrates the value thatpeople put on people – which may be a truism, but isforgotten at our peril. If we, the conservation commu-nity, are not enthused and passionate about conserva-tion science, how can we expect this response fromanyone else.

Steps to the future: how to communicateconservation science messages to the publicThings that need to be done to achieve this vision wereidentified as follows.• Developing capability within the conservation science

community. We have some star performers and com-municators within the scientific community but weneed more in conservation science. Capability canbe developed by engaging with interpretation andcommunication professionals, and participating inthe communication programmes of the wider sciencecommunity, but should also be built into training.Those involved in the work should become able tocommunicate effectively not only what conservationscience discovers and the story of how it does this,but also to engage people in doing conservationscience, and use that experience to enable understand-ing of conservation science beyond the exchange ofinformation.

• Devising measures. On the well-established principlethat ‘what gets measured gets done’, to drive thisshift in focus forward, conservation science and the

8Training in communication skills has also recently been called for as ameans of ensuring better collaboration within heritage and conservationscience, let alone beyond it. See <www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/mind-the-gap.htm> [accessed 25 August 2015].

9See the UNESCO declaration on cultural diversity <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf> [accessed 25 August2015].



projects in which it is involved should include publicimpact in their success measures. This is, in anycase, increasingly frequently required by funders, forexample the UK Research Councils.10

• Understanding the needs of diverse publics. Effectivecommunication and interpretation of conservationscience requires a clear understanding of audiencesand their needs, to enable messages and their mediato be designed appropriately. Research needs to estab-lish what people currently value about cultural heri-tage, what they could value in the future, and howthe gap might be filled.

• Define what needs to be communicated. Do peoplevalue things because of facts or because of feelings?Today there seems to be agreement that feelingsdrive value but they need to be built on sound evi-dence. There is guidance already available on inter-preting heritage which is being, and can be more,developed to aid communication of conservationscience. These include six interpretation principlesby Freeman Tilden, commonly regarded as thefounder of the interpretation of all heritage, naturalor cultural (Tilden, 1957),11 and sector guidance(UNESCO, 2007) as well as principles specific to par-ticular organizations. These principles address theneed for layered information, presented in differentways to meet the needs of the audience; using evidenceto drive content, whether scholarly, scientific or livingtradition; taking account of the perspectives of all sta-keholders; ensuring every detail of the activity createsa coherent whole; provoking and stretching people tocreate an emotional and not just an intellectual con-nection, so that they are inspired to care for andrevisit the heritage; and regularly evaluating theactivity through clear and measurable objectives toensure that the content is refreshed and thus remainsrelevant and inspiring.

• Develop methods of communicating conservationscience• Our comfort zone should be stretched beyond tra-

ditional formal print media that convey infor-mation, such as display panels, published papersand lectures. Every contemporary means at ourdisposal should be used, such as informal socialmedia and new communication platforms includ-ing the web, smartphones, and tablets, as well asTV and radio. Imagination, inventiveness, andmany contributors (artists, mediators, pedagogues,etc.) will be needed to adapt communication todiverse publics. Putting this together will need acommunications strategy.

• Conservation science should be done with thepublic, not at or to them. The medium might bethe message, especially where the research is rel-evant to the stakeholders themselves. Surveys andquestionnaires were used in the dust project

discussed earlier; contingent valuation throughsurvey by the London School of Economics,UK, for the Climate for Culture research project(how much more people would be willing to payto protect cultural heritage from the impacts ofclimate change); and observation and experimentas in the Collection Demographies project.

• Conservation science should also learn from howother scientists have engaged people directly withtheir work, harnessing the public’s computerpower to process astronomical observations andobserve wild life, collecting and analyzing data ascitizen scientists.12 Conservation science is begin-ning to doing this, as seen in how scientists, archae-ologists and conservators have had to learn how toaccommodate metal detectorists (EnglishHeritage, 2014). However, such activities willneed to increase, for example working withvolunteers.

• By becoming the show, conservation science canmake more emotional connections with people.Conservation science is an element of ‘conserva-tion in action’, celebrated since 1994 by the IICKeck Award. Recent recipients of this awardinclude the Lunder Conservation Centre,Washington, USA, where the conservation ofcultural heritage forms the visitor attraction13;the Acropolis Museum in Athens, Greece, for thelaser cleaning of the Caryatids in front of thepublic14; and CSI Sittingbourne for the conserva-tion of Anglo-Saxon burial finds in a high streetstore by volunteers trained and supervised by aconservator.15 Increasingly conservation galleriesare included in museums such as the AshmoleanMuseum, Oxford, UK, which illustrate scientificmethods used to understand and conserve culturalheritage. However, they have proved vulnerable tobudget cuts, as was the case with the ConservationCentre of National Museums, National Museumsof Liverpool, Liverpool, UK,16 and the BritishLibrary’s Preservation Advisory Centre inLondon, UK.17 These last have both closed asvisitor attractions, although they still carry outconservation, and provide advice. The reasonsfor this vulnerability might be because of

10See <www.rcuk.ac.uk/pe/>, and <www.rcuk.ac.uk/ke/>, [bothaccessed 25 August 2015].11See <http://thesciencepresenter.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/6-principles-of-heritage-interpretation/> [accessed 25 August 2015].

12See <http://citizencyberlab.eu/2012/11/learning-by-doing-citizen-science/> [accessed 25 August 2015].13See <http://americanart.si.edu/lunder/>.14<http://www.iesl.forth.gr/research/project.aspx?id=131> and Newsin Conservation, Issue 34, 2013, available online only at <https://www.iiconservation.org/system/files/publications/journal/2013/b2013_1.pdf> [both accessed 25 August 2015].15For CSI Sittingbourne, Kent, UK, see <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anglo-Saxon-CSI-Sittingbourne/247290788632730?ref=hl&ref_type=bookmark, http://hc.english-heritage.org.uk/content/pub/2011/cs-csi-sittingbourne.pdf> and News in Conservation, Issue 34, 2013,available online only at <https://www.iiconservation.org/system/files/publications/journal/2013/b2013_1.pdf> [both accessed 25 August2015].CSI is a popular British television series depicting forensic scientistswho undertake crime scene investigations.16See <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080609144937/liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/conservation/>, and <http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/10122010-nml-conservation-centre?c=SUB227819> for the Conservation Centre in Liverpool.17See <http://www.bl.uk/blpac/about.html> for the British Library[all accessed 25 August 2015].



management perception that their visitor appealwas a ‘good’ rather than an ‘essential’ thing,because of a lack of public profile and support.Can conservation science provoke experienceswhich change people’s perceptions and under-standing by using all of their senses as well astheir intellects, in the same way that experientialmethods of learning are being explored inmedical science research at Imperial College,London, UK, by Professor Roger Kneebone?18

ConclusionConservation science needs to put people at its heart toenable ‘cultures to care for culture’. It has to appeal topeople’s hearts as well as their minds so that people areinspired to care for heritage.Conservation science enables cultural systems to

provide services to people. It gives people access toheritage by revealing its meaning and caring for it,so that it survives for future generations to enjoy it.It unites young and old, local and global communitiesthrough being a place where people and heritage meet.By enabling people to enjoy heritage, conservationscience helps people to care for it, so that they can con-tinue to use it.Through revealing the meanings and value of cul-

tural heritage, conservation science allows us to under-stand each other and ourselves. By taking care ofheritage in the face of threats from conflict, the unde-sirable impacts of development, or climate change,conservation science helps us to take care of ourselves,promoting respect and trust of others, whilst demon-strating the value of the long term view that enablespeople to rebuild and heal their society.Conservation science can learn from the experience

of other scientists and other disciplines to acquire theskills and techniques it needs to move the public frombeing audiences to participants in its work, so theybecome co-creators and narrators of the messagescommunicated by conservation science. By sodoing, conservation science will show that it can‘make me, my neighbourhood, and my planet feelgood’.

AcknowledgementsI wish to acknowledge the inspiration of my colleagueson this discussion group: its leader Katriina Simila,Project Manager, Collections Unit, InternationalCentre for the Study of the Preservation andRestoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM); MarieBercudou, Senior Lecturer, Université Paris 1Panthéon-Sorbonne, France; Linda Lindblad,Information Officer at University of Gothenburg,Sweden; Yohei Kiyonaga, Specialist for Cultural

Properties, Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan,Japan; and Nia N. Hasanah Ridwan, MaritimeArchaeologist Researcher, Research Institute forMarine and Coastal Resources and Vulnerability,Indonesia and their courage in putting our thoughtsinto action. I have learnt from my colleagues in theNational Trust (conservators, curators, and visitorinterpretation staff ) engaged in interpreting ourproperties and engaging visitors in our work. Thegenerosity and stimulation provided by colleagues inmulti-disciplinary research projects is the joy of con-servation science.

Appendix: Interpretation principlesFreeman Tilden, interpreting our heritage (1957)1. Interpretation that does not somehow relate what is

being displayed or described to something within thepersonality or experience of the visitor will be sterile.Interpretation should be personal to the audience.

2. Information, as such, is not interpretation.Interpretation is revelation based upon information.Successful interpretation must do more than presentfacts.

3. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts.Any art is in some degree teachable.

4. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction, butprovocation. Interpretation should stimulate peopleinto a form of action.

5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole ratherthan a part. Interpretation is conceptual and shouldexplain the relationships between things.

6. Interpretation addressed to children should not be adilution of the presentation to adults, but shouldfollow a fundamentally different approach.Different age groups have different needs andrequire different interpretive programmes.

The ICOMOS Charter for the interpretation andpresentation of cultural heritage sites(Enamecharter) (UNESCO 2007)

Principle 1: access and understanding (of the publicshould be facilitated by interpretation and presentation);Principle 2: information sources (base interpretationand presentation on scientific and scholarly methodsas well as living cultural traditions);Principle 3: attention to setting and context (of culturalheritage sites should be respected);Principle 4: preservation of authenticity (see ICOMOS1994, The Nara Document);Principle 5: planning for sustainability (should factorsocial, financial and environmental sustainability intothe interpretation plan for a cultural heritage site);Principle 6: concern for inclusiveness (interpretationand presentation should arise from collaborationbetween heritage professionals, the site’s host andassociated communities and other stakeholders);Principle 7: importance of research, training, andevaluation (for and by heritage professionals toensure interpretation and presentation remains freshand relevant).

18An example of such emotional connection is the surgical re-enactmentportrayed at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWtILWOYwpQ>[accessed 21 August 2015].



The National Trust, England and Wales, UKThis organization is an example of developing thecommunication of heritage from ‘telling’ facts to an‘emotional experience’, demonstrated by the movefrom a rules based approach of 2007 which focusseson content to a principles-based approach based oncreating feeling (see also Ingram 2011).Five Golden Rules of Interpretation 2007

1. Know your audience;2. Decide on your general topic and the theme/message

you will use to communicate your topic;3. Set clear and measurable objectives;4. Try different techniques;5. Evaluate the impact, and make changes.In 2014, a principles-based approach which articulatesthe ‘what’ interpretation should achieve, but leaves the‘how’ to the interpreter. Still under development, thisapproach is based on research and understanding butaims to engage with audiences on all levels, as wellas the intellectual.Seven principles of interpretation 2013 — which

combine the principles of service delivery and welcom-ing visitors with interpretation principles:1. Create the right first impression;2. Let the spirit of place shine through;3. The visit should appeal at different levels (multi

layered offer);4. Every detail counts;5. Allow the place to speak for itself if it can;6. Provide reasons to return;7. Stretch and surprise people – using scholarly, techni-

cal, and emotional keys.

ReferencesAustralia ICOMOS. 2013. The Burra Charter: Charter for Places of

Cultural Significance [accessed 25 August 2015]. Available at:<http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf>.

Cassar, M. 2006. Evaluating the Benefits of Cultural HeritagePreservation: an Overview of International Initiatives [unpub-lished report]. London: Centre for Sustainable Heritage.

De la Torre, M. ed. 2002. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage:Research Report. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute[accessed 25 August 2015]. Available at: <http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/values_cultural_heritage>.

English Heritage. 2014. Our Portable Past. London: EnglishHeritage [accessed 25 August 2015]. Available at: <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/ourportablepast/>.

Fujiwara,D. 2013.Museums andHappiness:TheValueofParticipatinginMuseums and the Arts. London: London School of Economics[accessed 25 August 2015]. Available at: <http://www.happymuseumproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Museums_and_happiness_DFujiwara_April2013.pdf>.

ICOMOS 1965. International Charter for the Conservation andRestoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter1964) [accessed 25 August 2015]. Available at: <http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf>.

ICOMOS 1994. The Nara Document on Authenticity [accessed 3September 2015]. Available at: <http://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf>.

Ingram, N. 2011. Chapter 65. Interpreting Conservation. In: TheNational Trust Manual of Housekeeping, Care andConservation of Collections in Historic Houses. ed. J. CronynLondon: National Trust, pp. 745–753.

Jones, S. & Holden, J. 2008. It’s a Material World. London: Demos[accessed 25 August 2015]. Available at: <www.demos.co.uk/files/Material%20World%20-%20web.pdf ?1240939425>.

Lithgow, K., Lloyd, H. & Tyler-Jones, M. 2012a. Conservation forAccess Redux: Narrative, Visitor Flow and Conservation. TheArtifact, its Context and their Narrative: MultidisciplinaryConservation in Historic House Museums. Joint Conference ofICOM-DEMHIST and Three ICOM-CC Working Groups,Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, November 6–9 [accessed25 August 2015]. Available at: <http://www.icom-cc.org/ul/cms/fck-uploaded/documents/DEMHIST%20_%20ICOM-CC%20Joint%20Interim%20Meeting%202012/02-Lithgow_Lloyd_Tyler-Jones-DEMHIST_ICOMCC-LA_2012.pdf>.

Lithgow, K., Boden, N., Hill, M., Lithgow, R. & Measures, K.2012b. Sir James Thornhill, Hanbury Hall, and a ‘Once in aLifetime’ Visitor Experience: the Visitor Response toConservation in Action in Historic Interiors in the NationalTrust. Studies in Conservation 2012 Supplement 1, TheDecorative: Conservation and the Applied Arts, Contributionsto the Vienna Congress, pp. S181–S190.

Mason, R. ed. 1999. Economics and Heritage Conservation: AMeeting Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute. LosAngeles: Getty Conservation Institute [accessed 25 August2015]. Available at: <http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/economics_and_heritage>.

National Heritage Science Strategy (NHSS) Steering Group. 2010.Our Vision and Strategy for Heritage Science. London: NHSS[accessed 25 August 2015]. Available at:<http://www.heritagescienceforum.org.uk/strategy.php>.

Rypkema, D. 2008. Heritage Conservation and the Local Economy.Global Urban Development Magazine, 4(1) [accessed 25 August2015]. Available at: <www.globaluban.org///GUDMag08Vol4Iss1/Rypekema.htm>.

Tilden, F. 1957. Interpreting our Heritage. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press.

UNESCO. 2007. The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation andPresentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (Enamecharter).Oudenaarde: UNESCO [accessed 25 August 2015].Available at: <http://www.enamecharter.org/downloads/ICOMOS_Interpretation_ Charter_EN_10-04-07.pdf>.



Appendix

ICCROM Forum 2013 on Conservation Science

Forum consortium partners (in alphabeticalorder of participating member state):1. Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Belgium

(Hilde de Clercq; Christina Ceulemans)2. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais-CECOR,

Brazil (Luiz A. C. Souza; João Antonio de Paula)3. Canadian Conservation Institute, Canada (Charlie

Costain; Marie-Claude Corbeil)4. National Heritage Center of Tsinghua University,

China (Wei Qing; Li Jianyun)5. Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées

de France, France (François Mirambet; PhilippeGoergen)

6. National Research Council, Italy (DanieleMalfitana; Luca Pezzati)

7. National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage,Cultural Heritage Administration, Republic ofKorea (Sujeong Lee; Lee Yena; Jeong Eun-seon)

8. Cultural Heritage Agency, the Netherlands (Jan van‘t Hof; Suzanne Maarschalkerweerd-Dechamps)

9. Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia, UniversidadeNova de Lisboa, Portugal (Fernando Pina; MariaJoão Melo)

10. University College London Qatar, UnitedKingdom/Qatar (Thilo Rehren; StavroulaGolfomitsou)

11. AHRC/EPSRC Science and Heritage Programme,United Kingdom (May Cassar; Simon Cane)

12. National Heritage Board, Sweden (GunillaLagnesjö; Christian Runeby)

13. Bern University of the Arts, Switzerland (SebastianDobrusskin; Stefan Wülfert)

14. The Getty Conservation Institute, United States(Jeanne Marie Teutonico; Leslie Friedman)

15. Smithsonian Institution, United States (SharonC. Park; Carol Grissom)

16. ICCROM (The International Centre for the Studyof the Preservation and Restoration of CulturalProperty) (Catherine Antomarchi; Alison Heritage;Alberto de Tagle).

ICCROM Forum 2013 group photo


Forum participants (in alphabetical order):Gunnar Almevik (University of Gothenburg),Catherine Antomarchi (ICCROM), Zaki Aslan(ICCROM), Gerhard Banik (The Stuttgart StateAcademy of Art and Design); Mandana Barkeshli(International Islamic University Malaysia), NancyBell (The National Archives, UK); Marie Berducou(Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), TharronBloomfield (UCLA; Andrew W. Mellon FoundationConservation Resident), Łukasz Bratasz (NationalMuseum Krakow), Lidia Brito (UNESCO), AgnesBrokerhof (Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency),Bruno Brunetti (University of Perugia), Zani Cajueiro(The Brazilian General Attorney’s Office), GiacomoChiari (The Getty Conservation Institute), Yong-JaeChung (Graduate School of Convergence CulturalHeritage, Korea National University of CulturalHeritage), Marie-Claude Corbeil (CanadianConservation Institute), Marjolijn Debulpaep (KIK-IRPA), Stefano De Caro (ICCROM), Hilde De Clercq(KIK-IRPA), Alberto de Tagle (formerly NetherlandsCultural Heritage Agency), Marián Del Egido(Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España),Sebastian Dobrusskin (Bern University of the Arts),Kenza Dufourmantelle (Heritage Conservation andCommemoration Directorate, Parks Canada), FatimaFall (Centre for Research and Documentation ofSenegal), John Fidler (John Fidler PreservationTechnology Inc.), George Gawlinski (PlanningTogether Associates), Philippe Goergen (Centre deRecherche et de Restauration des Musées de France,C2RMF), Stavroula Golfomitsou (UCL Qatar),Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines (European ParliamentCommittee on the Environment, Public Health andFood Safety), Kyeong Soon Han (KunkukUniversity), Nia Naelul Hasanah Ridwan (ResearchInstitute for Marine and Coastal Resources andVulnerability), Alison Heritage (ICCROM), MarcellaIoele (Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione e ilRestauro), Marc Jacobs (FARO, Flemish Interface forCultural Heritage), Leslie Johnston (Library ofCongress), Yohei Kiyonaga (ICCROM), Joseph King(ICCROM), Johan L. Kuylenstierna (StockholmEnvironmental Institute; Stockholm University),Gunilla Lagnesjö (Riksantikvarieämbetet), SimonLambert (Canadian Conservation Institute), MarieLavandier (Centre de Recherche et de Restauration desMusées de France, C2RMF), Bertrand Lavédrine(Centre de Recherche sur la Conservation desCollections, CRCC), Sujeong Lee (Cultural HeritageAdministration, The National Research Institute ofCultural Heritage, R. Korea), Marco Leona (TheMetropolitan Museum of Art), Linda Lindblad(University of Gothenburg), Katy Lithgow (TheNational Trust), Valerie Magar (CoordinaciónNacional de Conservación del Patrimonio Cultural,

CNPC-INAH), Daniele Malfitana (Institute ofArchaeological Heritage-Monuments and Sites,IBAM-CNR), Maria João Melo (New University ofLisbon), Lynne Meskell (Stanford ArchaeologyCentre, Stanford University), Veerle Meul (HeritageServices of the Province of Antwerp), Stefan Michalski(Canadian Conservation Institute), François Mirambet(Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Muséesde France, C2RMF); Eduardo Muñoz Gonzales(University of Antofagasta), Salvador Muñoz-Viñas(Polytechnical University of Valencia), Webber Ndoro(African World Heritage Fund), Janneke Ottens(Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency), IsabellePallot-Frossard (Laboratoire de recherche des monu-ments historiques, LRMH), Luca Pezzati (INO CNR),Fernando Pina (New University of Lisbon), NavinPiplani (The Indian National Trust for Art andCultural Heritage, INTACH), Anupam Sah (CSMVSMuseum Art Conservation Centre), Yoshinori Sato(National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,Japan), David Saunders (British Museum), Min SeokSeo (National Research Institute of Cultural Heritageof Korea), Luiz A.C. Souza (UFMG FederalUniversity of Minas Gerais), Katriina Simila(ICCROM), Dean Sully (UCL Institute ofArchaeology), Norman Tennent (formerly Universityof Amsterdam), Andrew Thorn (ARTCARE),Xingling Tian (Restoration Training Center of ChineseAcademy of Cultural Heritage), Jan Van’t Hof(Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage), QingWei (Architectual Design and Research Institute,Tsinghua University, NHC-THU), Gamini Wijesuriya(ICCROM), Stefan Wülfert (Bern University of theArts), Yu Zheng (Tongheng Planning and DesigningInstitute of Tsinghua University, NHC-THU).

ICCROM Forum Support Team:Pietro Baldi, Marco Carra, Isabelle De Brisis,Florence Lamy-Joly, Roberto Nahum, Ileana Olmos,Flavia Parisi, Carla Pianese, Isabelle Verger.

ICCROM Social Media Team:ErikaAndersson, Cécilia Anuzet, Jennifer Copithorne,Maria Del Mar Gaitan, Simon Lambert, LucillePouillard, Amy Amaya Sanchez.

Forum working groups (1Moderator, 2Speaker,3Rapporteur):

Day 1How can science connect with and be of greater benefit to

conservation practice?• Needs and StrategiesGroup A, members: Alberto de Tagle1, MarieLavandier, Sujeong Lee, Marco Leona, StefanMichalski, Webber Ndoro3, Janneke Ottens2, LucaPezzati.


Studies in Conservation 2015 VOL. 60 NO. 2 S2-65

Group B, members: Zaki Aslan, Agnes Brokerhof, ZaniCajueiro, Marián Del Egido2, John Fidler3, PhilippeGoergen, Leslie Johnston, Gunilla Lagnesjö1

• Education and TrainingGroup A, members: Sebastian Dobrusskin3, StavroulaGolfomitsou1, Marcella Ioele, Joseph King, EduardoMuñoz Gonzales, Navin Piplani, Norman Tennent2,Yu Zheng.Group B, members: Gerhard Banik2, Marie Berducou,Tharron Bloomfield, Kyeong Soon Han, Marc Jacobs,Yohei Kiyonaga, Maria João Melo, Luiz A CSouza1, Sully Dean3.• DisseminationGroup A, members: Marie-Claude Corbeil1, Hilde DeClercq3, Fatima Fall, Linda Lindblad, Katy Lithgow,François Mirambet, Anupam Sah2, Min Seok Seo.Group B, members: Mandana Barkeshli, GiacomoChiari1, Veerle Meul2, Salvador Muñoz-Viñas3,David Saunders, Katriina Similä, Xingling Tian,Stefan Wülfert.• Research ProjectsMembers: Łukasz Bratasz, Bruno Brunetti1, MarjolijnDebulpaep, Bertrand Lavédrine, Valerie MagarMeurs2, Yoshinori Sato, Jan Van’t Hof3, Yong-JaeChung.• Research & PracticeMembers: Gunnar Almevik1, Nancy Bell2, KenzaDufourmantelle, Nia Naelul Hasanah Ridwan, Pallot-Frossard Isabelle3, Fernando Pina, Andrew Thorn,Qing Wei.

Day 2How can science in conservation connect with and

contribute to the wider societal priorities?• Science for AccessGroup A, members: Hilde De Clercq, Alberto de Tagle,Marián Del Egido, Philippe Goergen, Marco Leona3,Katy Lithgow2, Yoshinori Sato, Katriina Similä1, YuZheng.Group B, members: Mandana Barkeshli2, KenzaDufourmantelle3, Kyeong Soon Han, Luca Pezzati1,Fernando Pina, Jan Van’t Hof, Stefan Wülfert.• Science for Green ConservationGroup A, members: Gerhard Banik, Giacomo Chiari,Stavroula Golfomitsou, Maria João Melo1, JosephKing3, Gunilla Lagnesjö, Navin Piplani, DavidSaunders2, Yong-Jae Chung.Group B, members: Bruno Brunetti, Zani Cajueiro, NiaN. Hasanah Ridwan, Marcella Ioele BertrandLavédrine1, Linda Lindblad3, Stefan Michalski2,Norman Tennent.• Science for DiversityGroup A, members: Tharron Bloomfield1, ŁukaszBratasz3, Marjolijn Debulpaep, Sebastian Dobrusskin,Fatima Fall, Marie Lavandier2, Salvador Muñoz-Viñas, Min Seok Seo, Gamini Wijesuriya.

Group B, members: Gunnar Almevik, Marc Jacobs3,Yohei Kiyonaga, Valerie Magar1, François Mirambet,Janneke Ottens, Dean Sully, Andrew Thorn2.• Science for Emerging HeritageMembers: Nancy Bell, Marie Berducou2, AgnesBrokerhof3, Marie-Claude Corbeil, Leslie Johnston,Sujeong Lee1, Luiz A C Souza, Xingling Tian.• Science for the Macro ScaleMembers: Zaki Aslan, John Fidler, Veerle Meul,Eduardo Muñoz Gonzales, Webber Ndoro1, IsabellePallot-Frossard3, Anupam Sah, Qing Wei2.

Day 3: Looking aheadHow can we build an integrated and impactful future for

conservation science?• Connecting In: How Can Science Connect with and

be of Greater Benefit to Conservation Practice?Members: Gunnar Almevik, Hilde De Clerq, JohnFidler1, Valerie Magar, Navin Piplani, Wei Qing,Luis Souza, Jan Van’t Hof.• Connecting Out: How Can Conservation Science

Connect with and Contribute to World SocietalPriorities?

Members: Isabelle Pallot-Frossard, Gunilla Lagnesjö1,Marc Jacobs, Marco Leona, Janneke Ottens, YoshinoriSato, Andrew Thorn, Xingling Tian.• Building the Future: How Can We Build an

Integrated and Impactful Future for Science inConservation?

Members: Catherine Antomarchi, Nancy Bell1, AgnesBrokerhof, Bertrand Lavedrine, Webber Ndoro, LucaPezzati, Anupam Sah, Min Seok Seo.• Tools: Tools for Assessing Needs and Impacts (and

management strategies)Members: Zaki Aslan, Bruno Brunetti, ŁukaszBratasz, Marjolijn Debulpaep, Philippe Georgen,Leslie Johnston, Stefan Michalski1.• Key Messages to Conservation InstitutionsMembers: Giacomo Chiari, Marie-Claude Corbeil1,Yong-Jae Chung, Sebastian Dubrusskin, MarieLavandier, Maria-Joao Melo, Francois Mirambet, YuZheng.• Key Messages to EducatorsMembers: Tharron Bloomfield, Kenza Dufourmantelle,Stavroula Golfomitsou1, Eduardo Muñoz Gonzales, JoeKing, Salvador Muñoz-Viñas, Kyeong Soon Han,Stefan Wulfert.• Key Messages to the PublicMembers: Marie Berducou, Linda Lindblad, YoheiKiyonaga, Kathy Lithgow1, Nia N. Hasanah Ridwan,Katriina Simila.• Key Messages to Policy MakersMembers: Zani Cajueiro, Marian Delegidoi, FatimaFall, Sujeong Lee1, Veerle Meule, Fernando Pina,Dean Sully.



Studies in Conservation, Supplement 1, 2015 ISSN 0039-3630 · Studies in Conservation, Supplement...

Documents

Transcript of Studies in Conservation, Supplement 1, 2015 ISSN 0039-3630 · Studies in Conservation, Supplement...