Connected Communities - Heritage Community
Partner Legacy Workshop Report
based on the Workshop held at the Y Theatre Leicester – December 15th
2014
Authors: David Devanny, Nick Higgett and Jenny Wilkinson
Organised by the Connected Communities Heritage Network
www.hertitagenetwork.dmu.ac.uk
Page 1
Introduction
The Heritage Community Partnership Legacy Workshop was a full day workshop for heritage
community partners working with Connected Communities projects. It took place on 15 th
December 2014 and included thirty-four community partners from twenty-one community
groups. The day was facilitated by the Connected Communities Heritage Network on behalf of
Professor Keri Facer (Leadership Fellow for the AHRC/RCUK Connected Communities
Programme) and Dr Bryony Enright (Connected Communities Researcher) and hosted at the Y
Community Theatre (which is not affiliated to a university or research institution). The aims of
the day were to explore ideas of legacy and heritage with regards to the projects, and to share
feedback on the collaborative relationship with research partners. Community partners were
encouraged to share their views through a programme of sessions facilitated by Jennifer
Wilkinson, (Director, Goodman Wilkinson Associates) which involved collage, drawing and
writing practices, alongside more traditional discussions. An outline of the day is provided in
Appendix 1. Feedback was recorded in a variety of forms throughout the day; outputs include a
set of illustrations (provided by Scriberia) and photographs (see appendices), and this written
report.
Looking Back - What Have We Done – Our Story
The first part of the day focussed on evaluating the projects; community partners (CPs) were
encouraged to share the stories of their projects, including what had and had not gone well. A
consensus was quickly established among all groups around the importance of (and a shared
passion for) community heritage projects. Many CPs attributed the value of these projects, to an
identification of culture and heritage as
overarching categories for community and
people. As one CP explained: “At the centre
of all our projects were the people in the
communities. Even projects which might
sound, on face value, like they were about
architecture or industry, ultimately turned
out to be about people.” Another delegate
explained there were many different fruitful
connections to be made: “Under the rubric of ‘Heritage’ there is such a wide spectrum”. Some of
Page 2
the most positive feedback noted that the CC projects had created new communities and broken
down boundaries: “what we are most proud of is that we have created communities; the grant
may be over but the community continues.”
Overall the feedback on CC funding was very positive; in particular numerous CPs explained the
difference that funding had made to their work (e.g. “to have funding for this kind of work is
fantastic”) although some found that “the constraints of this funding can be a challenge,
especially for creative projects”, and some of the finance processes can be slow and complicated
(there were also issues raised about the continuation of funding – see page 4 for further details).
There was a general positive attitude to working with Universities (or other research institutions)
too, which were in most cases reported to be supportive and exciting relationships.
“Relationships with the University are fantastic: dynamic and exciting... ongoing and
collaborative.” This relationship was noted to be useful in two main areas: in the creation of
networking opportunities (“creation of networking opportunities very positive”, “the benefits of
networking beyond my area, county and comfort zone”) and in the support and development of
skills (digital, video, archiving etc.). Indeed many CPs emphasised how useful the project overall
(the imperative, the funding and the university support) had been for the development of skills.
Attitudes towards digital technologies and heritage were more mixed. Most delegates agreed
there were some real positives to digital archiving, “we’re in a much better place nowadays for
recording
history
–
advances
in
technology and graphic media is changing
the nature of history and heritage; this
media is potentially leaving us with
unprecedented detail”. But there were
also some real issues detailed, including
for instance not really knowing what
media will endure (e.g. microfiche, and
floppy disks) and while some CPs had
been supported by the universities to develop digital skills, others reported they had struggled to
develop these digital skills and this was certainly the main priority going forward.
Page 3
There were also some very practical suggestions made to address some of the communications
problems which sometimes arise when working across communities, including: “plan the project
collaboratively from the start”, “always ask for the very specific thing that you want”, “there are
cultural differences in communication and expectations”.
Exploring Legacy
Each table group was asked to generate and present a collage (from visual materials provided
such as newspaper and magazine cuttings which explored the difference their projects had made.
See Appendix 2.
One group felt that
“Community Heritage is a never-ending
story. These projects bring together a
whole host of different characters and
create new communities which cross
divides.” For almost all the delegates
‘legacy’ closely related to heritage’ was
considered an intrinsic part of their
projects. “Legacy is key – the project
looks back in time and leaps into the future; managing this is difficult, a lot of it is about skill
learning, digital literacy, sharing skills.” Or in other words “the function of heritage is to pass the
learning of history through a sustainable legacy created for future generations; that this is done
sustainably (long term) is the key.” If there was one concern that consistently came to the fore it
was how to ensure a legacy. Many CPs described their project as a journey or a river, which had a
life force necessarily extending beyond the
scope of the funding. However, there were
many concerns raised about continuing and
sharing the work after the funding stops;
passing the work on was seen as a cultural
imperative, without which one could feel “as
though my work had been undermined.”
Several suggestions were made to address
the issue of continuing legacy:
-
Projects should have specified deadlines for research outputs
Page 4
-
There should be some real funding for dissemination including “for performances,
public installations and workshops in schools”
-
“Institutions need to make legacy real regarding the legacy for the community (not just
paying lip service to Connected Communities)”
-
Taking seriously “hospitality and friendship” when dealing with “oral history and
community stories”
-
Being aware that the “intergenerational passing of knowledge can be very specific”,
which might mean creating a “localised not necessarily a national knowledge” or “a less
centralised textured knowledge” and finding the right audience for it.
-
Broadening the criteria for funding e.g. “art and heritage can overlap” so sometimes the
funding streams can be inadequate
-
Strengthening relationships with research partners to continue the good work, and
specifically to improve use of digital resources
-
Continued community access to heritage resources (e.g. university libraries, archives)
-
Finding ways to bring in more money (not necessarily as much – but enough to sustain a
certain amount of activity)
My Role As The Community Partner
CPs were asked individually to express their role via a diagram or words. (See Appendix 3) They
then reported back that their roles in CC projects (and in general) were complex and varied (“it is
a very complex role”, “it can be what you
make of it”). Some delegates considered
their role to be “analogous to that of a
custodian” (in a number of different ways,
from broader ideas of heritage and the
community to mode specific artefacts, data
and resources e.g. photos). There was a
strong sense that CPs are “playing a role in
the making of history”. The most positive
CPs were those who felt like they were cocollaborators with their university or research institution; working together as researchers was
important to many: “the relationship was ongoing and collaborative and in general not
hierarchical or patronising”. However some CPs did not feel as though they had this coresearcher status and warned that some academic research partners need to be very sensitive to
Page 5
“the difference between being researched on or with”. In particular there were concerns raised
over intellectual property, and the treatment of ‘personal stories’ as data or research outputs
(“personal stories can be very difficult, is their academic treatment OK?”). It was noted that in
the projects where the relationships were strong, the research partners had put resources
(including access to facilities for instance) into developing the research skills and opportunities
for the CPs.
What Next? Hopes And Aspirations???
In this final activity CPs were asked to consider what could or should happened in the future.
They were asked to record their ideas on labels attached to ‘Baubles of Aspiration’ which were
the hung on a tree. These can be seen in Appendix 4
Here are some examples:
What have you learned? (Green)

How absorbing research can be and how open-ended

Benefits of networking beyond my area, county etc (and beyond my comfort zone)

That you can crowd source history

Projects with a finite ending-deadline, method of showing research seem to leave
participants with more satisfaction
What would you do differently next time? (Gold)

Next time delegate more and trust in the team

Plan the project collaboratively from the start – not just catch up

Encourage more volunteers to become involved

Publicise project more widely
Future plans (Red)

To use the output of the project in schools and other community projects (even
though it has ended – legacy)

Performance linked to people buried in the cemetery, with local actors, writers and
costume designers

To stop! To share what we have learnt
Page 6

On-line archive of local songs from around the world
What do you need to move forward? (Silver)

More people involved in our group. This project required so much commitment that
only a few of us stuck it out!

Money, but not exactly in the amounts stated in the fund offers eg: 3K minimum for
WW1 projects. We don’t need/want that much

Money (we won’t work for money – realistically)

Professional help/advice support is using digital media to support and promote
recruit participants from the wider community
Conclusions
In general CPs reported positive experiences of their CC projects and the relationships they had
with their research partners (in particular in providing opportunities and developing skills). There
were strong concerns raised about digital technologies, which were seen as one of the gateways
to ensuring legacy, but felt that a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on digital literacy. There
was a strong sense that community heritage work is of value and steps should be taken to ensure
it continues; there were many concerns about legacy and sustainability of the projects beyond the
short term funding and some recommendations were made towards addressing this:
1. The outputs should be varied, and have very specific deadlines and dedicated funding from
the
outset.
2. Communities should be supported, with hospitality and friendship extending beyond the
research outputs. Continued community access to heritage resources (e.g. university
libraries, archives, digital skills sessions) would be extremely valuable.
3. Funders and institutions need to be sensitive to local needs, agendas and knowledge.
4. There is a need for a fund for smaller amounts of money, to keep projects going.
Page 7
Appendix 1: Workshop Overview
Heritage Community Partner Legacy Workshop
Programme Overview
11.00
Arrival
Registration, networking, coffee and muffins
11.30
Welcome
11.40
Looking Back – What Have We Done – Our Story
Interactive groups: sharing stories, discussing outcomes, looking at what
went well and what got in the way, what didn’t work.
12.30
Lunch
13.30
Exploring Legacy
Interactive groups, identifying impact, discussing transformation, legacy,
the changes your project has made and the impression the project has
left.
14.30
My Role as a Community Partner
Exploring the role of the community partner during the project, reflecting
on what your role was like in reality and your relationship with others
involved in the project such as your University partners.
15.15
Tea and Cake
15.45
What Next/ Hopes and Aspirations
Building on the project and moving forward. What have you learned from
this project and how will this influence what you do in the future? What
opportunities are on the horizon and how can you benefit from them?
16.30
Closing Comments
16.40
Break (completion of survey)
17.00
Drinks Reception
Time to relax with live Music – Rafiki Jazz
19.00
Event Finish
Page 8
Appendix 2: Collages
Page 9
Page 10
Appendix 3: My Role Illustrations
Page 11
Page 12
Appendix 4: Baubles of Aspiration!
Page 13