Community Archives and Identities:
Documenting and Sustaining Community Heritage
RESEARCH COLLABORATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION
In seeking to collaborate with [insert name of proposed case study] we are committed to
conducting our research in an ethical and mutually equitable manner. If [insert name of
proposed case study] agree to participating as one of the project case studies, the Community
Archives and Identities research team will seek to carry out the research in accordance with
three guiding principles:
1) Collaboration. The research process is intended to be as open and collaborative as is
possible. We are keen that the case study organisations will be empowered to
contribute not only to the research process and its findings but also to the development
and framing of the research questions themselves. The methodology proposed for this
research is open participant observation and an integral part of this will be the ongoing dialogue between our research team and [insert name] staff and participants
about our observations and research findings.
2) Partnership not exploitation. As above, the research methodology chosen for this
project is open participant observation and as a result our researcher will directly
participate in some of the activities (at the direction and with the agreement of [insert
name] staff) of the case study. As a way both of enabling direct participation by the
researcher in the work of the case study but also as a direct and physical ‘contribution’
to the work of the case study, the Community Archives project staff undertake to offer
their time and any appropriate skills or expertise that might useful to the case study.
The nature of this contribution will be negotiated to reflect the needs and interests of
each individual case study but might for instance include doing specific research work,
cataloguing, visitor services, supporting project evaluations, advising on useful
available resources within the academic and/or formal heritage sectors, etc.
3) A mutually beneficial relationship. Although ultimately a successful research project
will benefit the research team and their institution (University College London) we are
also committed and will strive to ensure that benefits also accrue to the case study
organisations and to the wider sector of independent BAME heritage institutions and
initiatives. We would hope that our research findings will be of interest and use to the
organisations studied but more broadly we also hope that our research may help by
demonstrating the importance and value of such independent institutions and
initiatives to a wider audience. By further demonstrating the knowledge and expertise
held within these organisations and initiatives and the contribution these might make
to heritage representations in the formal museums, libraries and archives sector the
research findings may help the organisations in question make their case to potential
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/icarus/community-archives/
Community Archives and Identities:
Documenting and Sustaining Community Heritage
funders. Finally, where applicable, we would use the expertise and support we have to
advise, support and advocate for the independent sector.
ANONYMITY & CONFIDENTIALITY
After much consideration we have come to conclusion that seeking to try to anonymise the
initiatives and projects that we study is neither realistic nor ultimately useful. In what is still a
relatively small field of endeavour, anyone with a passing knowledge of organisations
working on these histories would be able quickly to identify the institutions concerned. In
addition case studies have been chosen because they are doing specific work, with specific
objectives and with sometimes specific audiences in mind; seeking to deny them their
specificities would not only reduce the interest and relevance of the studies themselves but
would also deny the organisations their own richness and uniqueness.
Given the often small number of individuals working in these organisations, attempting to
give anonymity to prominent workers in this study may also be difficult and problematic for
many of the same reasons. For this reason our suggested position, at least with regard to
more active case study participants, is to name them or at least attribute comments, etc. to a
position. However we will discuss this with individual participants and will offer the option
of using pseudonyms etc.. Of course in the case of sensitive or data given ‘off the record’ we
would ensure complete confidentiality. We welcome any comments and discussion on any
part of this.
RESEARCH TIMETABLE
The exact working details of this relationship would be a matter of discussion and agreement
but might include something along the lines of:
Contact time between researcher and [insert name] project: an average of 2 to 2.5 days per
week. This would include 1-1.5 days per week at the direction of the Project staff and 1-1.5
days per week as participant researcher, working with and observing the [insert name]
project take shape over a period of three months. The suggested period for the initial case
study research would be for three months from approximately [insert date]. However we
would keep in contact with individual case studies throughout the whole period of the
project, keeping in touch with developments at the case studies but also to keep the studies
up to date with the progress of the project.
Any comments or questions please get in touch with the project leader Andrew Flinn directly
on 020 7679 2481 or a.flinn@ucl.ac.uk.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/icarus/community-archives/