Participation in heritage crowdsourcing

Bonacchi, Chiara; Bevan, Andrew; Keinan-Schoonbaert, Adi; Pett, Daniel; Wexler, Jennifer

doi:10.1080/09647775.2018.1559080

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This methodology has a double positive by engaging communities with the conservation issues alongside collecting reference data. Similar outreach often helps ascertain the social value of heritage [31][32][33], and can be used within a toolkit of other approaches [34]. Whether this methodology could be used with or alongside such a toolkit requires further research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Citizen Heritage Science to monitor remote sites; a comparison of two methods

Brigham

Orr

Wilson

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For large heritage organisations the monitoring and documentation of sites in their care presents considerable challenges; continual monitoring of the smaller, unstaffed and more remote sites is often not practical. Long-term trends, one off events or seasonal variations can sometimes go unnoticed or undocumented. However, heritage sites are often popular tourist destinations and can receive a high level of footfall from visitors who carry increasingly sophisticated mobile phones. It seems a logical conclusion that heritage organisations capitalize on using visitors’ images to record and monitor remote heritage sites. This research proposes Citizen Heritage Science as an effective method to gather reliable data for heritage sites. We compare two methods for data collection: a ‘guided’ approach, in which on-site signage prompts visitors to submit photographs of specific areas of a site; and an ‘open’ approach, in which the public is asked to send any photographs they have of the site in question. At the study sites in Scotland, Machrie Moor and Clava Cairns, the guided approach provided enough images to monitor specific risks to the site (erosion and flooding). Visitors conformed to the instruction provided and the majority of submitted images could be included in the analysis. The open approach was successful in gathering a large number of submissions during the national lockdown in the spring of 2020 in which access was restricted to heritage sites. Notably, the open approach led to more diverse images which was ultimately beneficial, resulting in a multi-faceted understanding of long-term changes in site interpretation and management. Finally, we found great benefit in storing the data in an accessible database; this meant research data was easily accessible for heritage managers in real time, requiring no specialist knowledge for access or analysis. This allowed for rapid responses to urgent one-off events, such as heritage crime. In summary, both approaches have potential to inform monitoring of heritage sites which would otherwise require significant resources to be more frequently monitored by staff. In presenting both methodologies we hope heritage institutions will be able to set up similar projects and continue research in the field of Citizen Heritage Science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Citizen Heritage Science to monitor remote sites; a comparison of two methods

Brigham

Orr

Wilson

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is demonstrated by a study on MicroPasts, which is a popular platform, especially in the UK. The platform primarily addressed academics and people who are already interested in humanities topics and institutions (Bonacchi et al 2019). To attract new participant groups and keep them active in the long term, citizen humanities projects have to target the interests of broader social groups, and address certain groups and minorities directly.…”

Section: Objectivity and Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen Humanities

Heinisch

Oswald

Weißpflug

et al. 2021

The Science of Citizen Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizen humanities is the term for citizen ‘science’ in the humanities. It has a long tradition and, since the object of investigation is human culture, raises questions about values, cultural significance, and deeper meaning of phenomena related to human culture.The development of digital technologies not only led to the emergence of digital humanities but also to new ways of involving citizens in the activities of cultural heritage institutions and academic research. Participants’ contributions to academic research and to the preservation of cultural heritage range from uncovering treasures hidden in archives and digital environments to tapping local knowledge. Their tasks have included tagging, transcribing, or cataloguing artefacts, through which they acquire specialist knowledge and competences, while assisting scholars and researchers to gain new insights. Challenges in the citizen humanities include biases, participant training and retention, as well as the advancement of digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence.Citizen humanities can combine topical issues in society with academic knowledge, demonstrate the relevance of the humanities for society, and establish a direct link to its members. In addition to the advancement of knowledge, the citizen humanities can unlock the potential of embedded, diverse, and culturally sensitive knowledge and play a crucial role in preserving and enriching cultural heritage.

show abstract

“…Similarly, consumers may want to engage with heritage content for various reasons. Participants in heritage crowdsourcing are motivated to take part in a history-and archaeology-related project; to learn about the subject; to connect with the institution; to develop skills, for fun, out of curiosity; to help out; to contribute to knowledge production; and to learn more about a personal cultural background (related to identity forming) (Bonacchi et al, 2019).…”

Section: Crowdsourcing and Digital Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdsourcing the digital transformation of heritage

Navarrete¹

2020

Digital Transformation in the Cultural and Creative Industries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crowdsourcing, or outsourcing to the crowd, serves to redistribute the cost of developing new products and services beyond the firm to a crowd who provides finances, information, labor, or ideas for a marginal cost. Digital networked technologies have increased the pool of providers and speed of provision with important economic implications. Adoption in the heritage field has not been widespread. This chapter proposes a taxonomy of crowdsourcing projects and presents a selection of representative projects in the heritage sector focusing on advancing digital heritage activities. The analysis identifies four main benefits to involve the crowd: (1) work can advance surpassing limitations of institutional budgets constraints; (2) participation and further crowd engagement stimulate the notion of socially constructed commons; (3) tapping into a global crowd enables the redistribution of costs and benefits beyond geo-political boundaries, strengthening notions of a common heritage resource; and (4) by engaging in digital collaboration with the crowd, greater insight can be gained into the cultural consumption dynamics evolving on the Internet. Challenges identified include the sustainability of the crowd's work, involving the reuse of results beyond the crowdsourcing project, as well as incorporating the crowd's contribution into the organizational production process, adopting it for instance as part of the collections' information system.

show abstract

Participation in heritage crowdsourcing

Cited by 43 publications

References 31 publications

Using Citizen Heritage Science to monitor remote sites; a comparison of two methods

Using Citizen Heritage Science to monitor remote sites; a comparison of two methods

Citizen Humanities

Crowdsourcing the digital transformation of heritage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About