What’s wrong with heritage experts? An interdisciplinary discussion of experts and expertise in heritage studies

Hølleland, Herdis; Skrede, Joar

doi:10.1080/13527258.2018.1552613

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The model is premised on the idea that experts have a focal role in how a canon is formed, which seems a justified assumption also in the context of heritage given the specialised division of labour in our societies (cf. Smith 2006 or Hølleland andSkrede 2019). Our case study outlines how the experts' attention, opinions and definitions indeed guided how the wooden towns gained their heritage status.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…An official status as a 'significant' heritage object is usually a precondition for such preservation. The significance is typically defined or authorised by heritage experts, whose role in this process has been widely discussed and criticised in the heritage studies literature (see for example Smith 2006 or Hølleland andSkrede 2019). In this paper, we analyse how the heritage status is construed in the expert discourse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our findings propose that the accumulation of experts' attention on a specific heritage object, site or category plays a major role in how heritage becomes recognised by the wider society. This is influenced by the authorised nature of the heritage discourse (Smith 2006), which follows from the specialised division of labour and the significant role of specialists' work in modern societies in general (Hølleland and Skrede 2019). Heritagisation can also start from within local communities or other groups without professionals being the first party to identify the heritage as heritage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

From obscurity to heritage: Canonisation of the Nordic Wooden Town

Kalakoski

Huuhka

Koponen

2019

International Journal of Heritage Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Art historian Juan Pablo Bonta has presented a nine-step model for analysing how the interpretation of architectural oeuvres becomes canonised. We suggest that in terms of the built heritage, canonisation and heritagisation are essentially the same process, so Bonta's model can be used for analysing heritagisation processes. This article testifies to this assumption by examining how the interpretation of historic Nordic wooden towns became stabilised in Finland. The concept was introduced in the 1960s to describe the Nordic urban heritage that was threatened by massive town development projects. The identification of the heritage category enabled the preservation of some remaining wooden districts. Examining this process allows us to discuss the role of expertise in the building preservation. In the case of wooden towns, experts' early recognition was a crucial precondition for the preservation of the heritage, which enabled novel generations to form a living relationship with it. Seen through the experts' writings, the heritagisation process of the wooden towns also reflect the expanding scope of the built heritage discipline. Based on our findings, the canonisation model is applicable not only to the individual oevres, as Bonta addresses, but also to broader built environments and, more conceptually, to heritage categories.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From obscurity to heritage: Canonisation of the Nordic Wooden Town

Kalakoski

Huuhka

Koponen

2019

International Journal of Heritage Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like Hølleland, digital public archaeologist Lorna-Jane Richardson has collaborated with a sociologist to explore expertise in archaeology and heritage Lindgren 2017, cf. Hølleland andSkrede 2019):…”

Section: Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Decoupling ‘Open’ and ‘Ethical’ Archaeologies: Rethinking Deficits and Expertise for Ethical Public Participation in Archaeology and Heritage

Fredheim

2020

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I caution the assertions made in the 2018 volume of NAR on the future of archaeology that archaeology is well on its way to decolonising itself and that 'open' archaeologies that invite public participation and utilise new digital technologies are inherently ethical. I begin by critiquing the exclusively positive connotations of archaeology, digital technologies and public participation, before drawing on critiques of the 'simple deficit model' within science communication, which I argue are equally applicable to public archaeology. I use the 'simple deficit model' and a review of shifting perspectives on legitimate heritage expertise to lay the foundation for an archaeology that is both 'open' and 'ethical'. I conclude that, as in science communication, such an archaeology requires archaeologists to develop more accurate understandings of both archaeology and publics.

show abstract

“…Ce tournant participatif a contribué à la remise en question du rôle des experts, qui a amené certains à théoriser leur inutilité (Schofield 2016(Schofield [2014), à l'heure où tout citoyen serait attitré pour définir, sur la base d'un système de valeurs qui lui est propre, ce qui constitue, à ses yeux, un patrimoine. D'autres, de manière plus nuancée, ont invité à redéfinir le rôle des experts, qui devraient être capables de promouvoir des pratiques réellement inclusives (Hølleland & Skrede 2019). Ils se sont ainsi attachés, sur des registres spécifiques, à écarter les termes d'une analyse jugée réductrice, qui procédait par opposition binaire : patrimonialisation ordinaire vs savante (Isnart 2012) ou profane vs experte (Bortolotto 2011), official heritage vs unofficial [heritage] (Harrison 2013), ou encore entre approche top-down, véhiculée par les organismes nationaux et internationaux (dont l'UNESCO) vs bottom-up initiée par la participation citoyenne dans et par le patrimoine (Tornatore 2017) 16 .…”

Section: La Fabrique Urbaine Et Territoriale Du Champ Patrimonial En unclassified

La fabrique urbaine et territoriale du champ patrimonial en Asie du Sud-Est. Lectures croisées à travers les projets, les mots et les acteurs

Andujar¹,

Goldblum²,

Lancret³

2020

moussons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recherche en sciences humaines sur l'Asie du Sud-Est 36 | 2020 Le champ patrimonial et sa fabrique urbaine en Asie du Sud-Est La fabrique urbaine et territoriale du champ patrimonial en Asie du Sud-Est. Lectures croisées à travers les projets, les mots et les acteurs The Development of Urban and Landscape Heritage as fields of knowledge production and political action in Southeast Asia. Comparative views based on the analysis of projects, vocabularies, and the sociopolitical interplay of actors

show abstract

What’s wrong with heritage experts? An interdisciplinary discussion of experts and expertise in heritage studies

Cited by 27 publications

References 53 publications

From obscurity to heritage: Canonisation of the Nordic Wooden Town

From obscurity to heritage: Canonisation of the Nordic Wooden Town

Decoupling ‘Open’ and ‘Ethical’ Archaeologies: Rethinking Deficits and Expertise for Ethical Public Participation in Archaeology and Heritage

La fabrique urbaine et territoriale du champ patrimonial en Asie du Sud-Est. Lectures croisées à travers les projets, les mots et les acteurs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About