Projects / Programmes
The potential of ethnographic methods in the conservation of built heritage in contested places, the case of northern Istria
| Code |
Science |
Field |
Subfield |
| 6.04.00 |
Humanities |
Ethnology |
|
| Code |
Science |
Field |
| 5.04 |
Social Sciences |
Sociology |
cultural heritage, heritage studies, conservation, ethnographic methods, community involvement, contested places, Istra/Istria
Data for the last 5 years (citations for the last 10 years) on
April 24, 2024;
A3 for period
2018-2022
Data for ARIS tenders (
04.04.2019 – Programme tender,
archive
)
| Database |
Linked records |
Citations |
Pure citations |
Average pure citations |
| WoS |
7 |
12 |
10 |
1.43 |
| Scopus |
9 |
26 |
19 |
2.11 |
Researchers (1)
| no. |
Code |
Name and surname |
Research area |
Role |
Period |
No. of publicationsNo. of publications |
| 1. |
31227 |
PhD Neža Čebron Lipovec |
Humanities |
Head |
2021 - 2024 |
197 |
Organisations (1)
Abstract
Heritage conservation, especially built heritage conservation, is marked by a double dichotomy between conservation practice and heritage theory, and within these between the two heritage discourses: the authorised and the inclusive. The project addresses the need to explore the potential of ethnographic methods for engaged conservation approaches, namely in contested sites. The idea derives from the problems in built heritage conservation in the multicultural area of Northern Istria in Slovenia. Dissonant views mark the heritage in this region which underwent a major population change after WWII, conveying a major shift in discourses. Situation in Northern Istria is indicative for several other areas in Europe (ie. on the former “iron curtain”). An attempt to address the issue locally took place in 2012-2014 with the initiative “I’m telling the story of the town” that developed the approach of “memory evenings” for local citizens, which the present project aims to critically upgrade. Although the crucial importance of community involvement in heritage has been stressed already by international policies (Faro Convention, 2005), the shift from authorised to inclusive paradigm has only taken place in the field of archaeology and museology, but scarcely in the conservation of built heritage. Conservation has been recently redefined as “the management of creative continuity and socially cohesive heritage practice” (Jokilehto 2016), apparently fine-tuning with the general conceptual shift, yet in practice the examples are few. Over the last two decades, some attempts of developing engaged and participatory conservation have already taken place, yet current research (Avrami&Mason 2019) urges for more research. Since the inclusive paradigm aims at promoting equality through participation of different stakeholders, and does not aim at univocal interpretations of the past, it represents a potential for contested sites. The research problem structures on three levels. On the global professional scale, we deal with the gap between the practice, dominated by the authorised discourse, and the theory promoting inclusiveness. The second level refers to the state in the conservation field in Slovenia, in which the authorised discourse still prevails, but it is opening towards inclusive practices. Yet, it was the Slovene ethnologists that contributed a major community-based research for conservation in late 1970s which was never published and is highly significant for the current research. The contribution of ethnology to the current conservation field in Slovenia, for an upcoming shift in paradigm, could be significant. The third level addresses the heritage dissonance in the contested area of Northern Istria and its related issues in conservation. The objective of the research is to explore the potentials of classical and newer ethnographic methods in conservation, especially for contested heritage. Hence, it aims to contribute to bridging the gap between the authorised discourses (practice) and alternative discourses (theory) in built heritage conservation, and so contribute to the development of contemporary participatory practices in heritage assessment and preservation. Also, the project questions the role of ethnology in conservation from an epistemological perspective and calls the scholars to engage in addressing the “experiential ways of knowing” of the community (van de Port&Meyer 2018). The research is structured in four work packages, that include also the revision of the earlier ethnographic research for conservation in Slovenia of the 1970s, and focuses on fieldwork in the town of Koper, to be conducted first with classic ethnographic methods, and later with the help of contemporary participatory approaches and the upgraded version of “memory evenings”. Aside from publishing scientific results, recommendations for integrating ethnographic methods into conservation practice will be outlined.
