‘Participatory processes and conservation practice’, a 2013 Survey

The survey ‘Participatory processes and conservation practice’ was designed on the online research survey tool SurveyMonkey, and disseminated on conservation discussion lists and a blog throughout July 2013 (table 1). Besides aiming to assess how widespread participatory processes are within the conservation profession, it also aimed to find out how conservators perceive these projects, and how they articulate their motivations and impact. It was available online for around 40 days, and completed by 134 (78.8%) individuals (out of the 170 who started it).

Ethnographic Conservation	Focuses on conservation of ethnographic collections. 283 members from around 50 countries. Established in 2001. http://groupsoo.com/group/ethnographicconservation/
Conservation Distlist	Includes conservators from several specialties, scientists, curators, archivists, librarians, and academics. 10,087 members from 94 countries. Established in 1987. Currently the largest conservation discussion list. http://cool.conservation-us.org/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/aboutcdl.shtml
UCL Conversations on Conservation of Cultural Heritage Blog	Focuses on the broad field of heritage conservation. Average of 1,300 hits monthly, from over 110 countries. Established in 2010. http://uclconversationsonconservation.blogspot.co.uk

Table 1: Details of primary Internet conservation discussion lists and blog in which the survey was publicized in 2013 (figures relate to that year). Note that the link may have been forwarded and shared through other lists.

How many conservators have participated in participatory projects in their careers?

 Question 1 (‘Have you ever taken part in a project where conservation decision making was informed by consultations with groups of non-conservators such as originators/creators of materials, their heirs/descendants or other groups/communities relating to them?’) was answered by 168 respondents. Out of those, 26 (15.5%) ticked ‘Yes, once’, while 63 (37%) ticked ‘Yes, a few times’, 25 (14.9%) ‘Yes, many times’, and 40 respondents (23.8%) ticked alternative ‘No’. Thus, 128 (76.2%) individuals declared to have taken part in such projects at least once. 

 Where do these conservators work?

A set of questions was included to attempt a better understanding of the public of the survey. This included questions to attain what kind of institution the respondents worked for, what positions they held, and in which countries they worked. Question 8 (‘What kind of institution/s did you work for during the last 15 years?’) aimed to obtain information about what motivated institutions to set up participatory projects. Although the question did not restrict the answer to those who had declared to have participated in such projects, Question 1 had already revealed that 76.2% of the respondents had participated in such projects at least once.  Out of the 138 who answered Question 8, 101   (73.2%) worked in museums completely or partially funded by public money, 46 (33.3%) in educational institutions, while 29 (21%) worked for private museums, and 21 (15.2%) for private conservation firms. The predominance of educational institutions or institutions funded by public money may indicate, among other things, that the participatory projects may have been motivated by governmental policies of social inclusion, or ethical issues flagged up by educational institutions.

The answers to Question 9 (‘How long did you work for this/these institution/s?) suggested that the professionals involved in these projects were mostly in long-term contracts. Out of the 137 respondents, 56 (40.9 %) declared to have worked for the same institution from 10 to 15 years, 32 (23.4%) from 5 to 10 years, 42 (30.7%) from 1 to 3 years, 20 (14.6%) from 6 to 12 months, and 14 (10.2%) for less than 6 months. Naturally, conservators on longer contracts know their professional contexts better and probably have more autonomy to conduct the projects than those hired on short-term contracts. The longer commitments would probably also facilitate the continuation of these projects. 

Out of the 170 individuals who completed the survey, 134 answered Question 10 (‘What was/were your job title/s and where was/were these institution/s?) and provided data to indicate that most respondents have worked in participatory projects in North America  (58 in the USA, 15 in Canada, and 3 in Mexico), and Europe (14 in the UK and 27 in other European countries, see table 2 for more details). Although this does indicate that participatory projects may be more common in these countries, this may also be the result of their more professionalized and organized conservation contexts. That is, more professionalized conservators would be more willing to fill in a survey because it would probably feed back on their own work.   

Table 2: Declared places of work. Note that not all respondents provided details. 

Limitations

One of the limitations of the survey was not having an item asking where the respondent found the link to the survey. Therefore, it is impossible to calculate how many saw the link and decided to follow it. It is worth noting though, that one of the discussion lists in which the survey was advertised specializes in ‘Ethnographic Conservation’, and has a membership more inclined to be involved in such discussions. Therefore, it is very likely that many respondents followed the prompt to participate from there. It is also likely that those inclined to follow the link to this survey would already have been involved in similar ventures or be interested in the subject. Thus, the apparent high number of respondents declaring to have participated in such projects should perhaps not be taken at face value.

Another important limiting factor is that the survey was written in English and disseminated primarily in English lists and blogs. 

 All questions and answers are listed here.