Shai, an Alter Natives project - expanding the culture of sharing in the heritage field.

Beatrice Byer Bayle & Emmanuelle Cadet

Alter Natives, Paris, France

ABSTRACT: Since a few decades and even more since the ICHC convention has been ratified, many participatory or inclusive heritage practices have emerged and been implemented in various fields such as archaeology, museums, heritage sites and intangible heritage. However, these experiences only have an impact in certain countries, while in others, they are inexistent, or not included into governmental policies. At present, it seems necessary to frame both their diversity, their limits and disseminate successful practices in a collaborative manner. This paper intends to present a methodological framework of participation in the cultural heritage field and introduce a current project led by the non-profit organization Alter Natives. The SHAI project consists in developing a collaborative inventory of participatory practices, based on field experiences imparted by a network of practitioners, with the intent of elaborating methodological tools of interpretation and comparison, gathered from the data assembled throughout the project.

Published in Sharing Cultures 2011, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Intangible Heritage, Tomar, Portugal 3-6 July 2011, ed. S. Lira, R. Amoda, C. Pinheiro, Greenlines Institute for Sustainable Development, Vila Verde, Portugal 2011: 311-320

1 INTRODUCTION Since a few decades and even more since the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention (ICHC) has been ratified through UNESCO, many participatory or inclusive practices have emerged and been implemented in various heritage fields. These encompass community or indigenous archaeology, inclusive museum policies and community museums, as well as other participatory experiences involving stakeholders and communities in the conservation or management of heritage objects and sites. At present, it seems necessary to study these approaches attentively in order to frame both their diversity, their limits and disseminate successful practices. This paper intends to present a current project lead by the non-profit organization Alter Natives, which focuses on this issue. The SHAI project (Sharing Inclusive Practices) consists in developing a collaborative inventory of participatory policies, based on field experiences imparted by a network of practitioners. Aside from encouraging an interactive space of exchange, SHAI intends to elaborate methodological tools of interpretation and comparison from the data assembled throughout the project. The latter is will focus on inclusive decision making processes encountered at different levels of the cultural heritage sector: the identification, the conservation, the interpretation and the means of valorization and display of tangible or intangible objects. This long-term project will be supported through conferences and publications, with the intent both to democratize the heritage field, by supporting policies that work in hand with groups and communities, and to consolidate different cultural perspectives in the interpretation of the past, present and future.

2 HISTORICAL AND CONTEXTUAL REMINDER: EMERGENCE OF PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD Participatory policies are by no means are recent phenomena. The struggle for equal rights during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s sprouted questions relating to the representation of minorities addressing long-standing claims of Afro descendants and First nation peoples. These claims met powerful synergies of indigenous populations in the Pacific Islands, Australia, New-Zealand and Canada in that they have become increasingly outspoken about political issues of self-determination and ownership rights over cultural property. Their engagement shepherded various legal amendments in these countries throughout the 1980s and 1990s,i and eventually brought about the UN Declaration On the Rights of Indigenous People in 2007. From the 1960s on, major criticisms directed at the highest authority controlling the representation of cultural property embodied by the museum, were epitomized by Cameron's lecture on "Museum a temple or forum" in 1971. He questioned the identity and the role of museums and stated: Society will no longer tolerate institutions that either in fact or in appearance serve a minority audience of the elite (Cameron 1971:23). Consequently, in response to the condemnation of eurocentric methodologies, initial participatory policies were undertaken by some North American and Canadian museums, as a means for these institutions to contribute to mapping, re-constructing present identities and their relation to past remains (Clavir 2002). Concurrently developments in the 1960s and 1970s in France saw the emergence of Ecomuseums,ii a concept developed by the anthropologist George Henri Rivire and Hugues de Varine (ICOM president from 1964-1975), which gradually spread to Italy, Spain and Poland, Portugal and South America through ICOM meetings. Eventually this development generated the creation of the International Movement for a New Museology (MIMOM) as a branch of ICOM. These new postures also affected the discipline of archaeology, whereby practitioners gained

awareness that they need to be more conscious of both present significance, and ancestral relations indigenous people maintain to their territories and heritage objects. This increasing consciousness spread through several disciplines related to the heritage field and resulted in some instances, where specialists worked hand in hand with representatives of communities (Clavir, 2002, Thorn 2006, Wijesuriya 2005, Morales 1998), while in others, First Nations people trained as conservators (Moses 2008, Bloomfield 2008), archaeologists (Atalay 2006) or curators to impart their stance onto the overall management of collections or heritage sites. In the UK, the Blair administration initiated a proactive policy through the Social Exclusion Unit, which intended to address and alleviate the causes and consequences of socially excluded or marginalized people. This policy of cultural and educational inclusion gave rise to various outreach programs in museums, whereby they were appointed to become agents of social inclusion (Sandell, 1998). This second wave of the new museology (Boast, 2011: 59) emerging since the new millennium, focuses on what Clifford termed the contact zone (Clifford 1997), where some museums begin to deal with the asymmetrical power relations established during first contacts and as a result of which they were able to gather major parts of their collections. It can be described a buffer zone, where museums and representatives of minorities renegotiate mutual positions, so as to find common work basis. Contact zones have not only been established in museums, but within the confines of interpretation centers, heritage sites, archives, libraries, or within specific cultural projects led by a variety of social actors. They are places where power relations are challenged inasmuch as exchanges can asymmetrical and confrontational (Boast 2011), but these relations are renegotiated and generate multiple practices of democracy. It is therefore worthwhile to deepen the analysis of the processes at play in order to understand what is at stake. With the increasing multicultural composition of contemporary societies, issues of cultural diversity are dealt with in different ways according to the countries' histories, concepts of citizenship and national identity. Each in their own way, Anglo-Saxon countries have accommodated minority groups through recognition policies in the cultural sector. The trend toward inclusive and participatory policies has witnessed a global dynamic as they have been addressed in conferences, declarations and international training courses within ICOMOS, ICOM, UNESCO and ICCROM.iii At a national level this movement can be interpreted as a willingness to acknowledge cultural diversity of populations and thus enhance social cohesion. 3 PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES IN THE CULTURAL HERITAGE SECTOR: SOME GUIDELINES The emergence of the practices presented in the previous paragraph also deal with two necessities that need to be addressed in the cultural heritage sector: the taking into account of two kinds of heterogeneities in our current societies, that of people and that of heritage. 3.1 Taking the heterogeneous nature of society into consideration More then ever, the world is crossed by diverse flows of media and populations, sparking off questions on globalization and the impermeability between states and nations (Appadurai 1996), whereby states can no longer hide behind a homogeneous facade when faced with a growing heterogeneity within countries. Claims for recognition from second and third generation migrants counterbalance official histories, particularly within post-colonial contexts. However, accommodating and coming to terms with contrasting claims within heterogeneous societies implies working on the cultural, social, economical and physical dimensions of exclusion. These four dimensions are interconnected and pave the way for transversal reflections on how to address these issues through a more holistic approach. All these dimensions have been addressed by Sandell in his Museums as Agents of Social Inclusion (1998).

3.2 Taking into account heterogeneous heritage Within our field, one of the main issues addressed through participatory practices are those related to integrating diverse representations of heritage within the mainstream narrative. These long-standing claims finally found a way of materializing with the advent of the ICHC henceforth including voices, values, traditions, languages, oral history, folk life, creativity, adaptability, distinctiveness into the definition of cultural heritage (Galla, 2008). With the article 15, the 2003 Unesco Convention on Intangible Heritage is the first of its genre to establish the participation of communities in the safeguarding of traditions as prevailing practice. Hence the convention compels the States that have ratified it, to implement and operate with participatory approaches. Both tangible and intangible forms and uses of cultural heritage are not only passed on through artifacts, but by people. For this reason, these mechanisms enable to cope with living human expressions and contribute to their preservation, while concurrently challenging an object-centered and expertise-driven Western heritage model. 3.3 A definition As a result, the term Participation covers methods of sharing decision-making processes within the public sphere. Regardless of the kind of discrimination involved, Participation presents a pertinent way of committing various minority groups into an effective decision-making process, with the intention of resolving visible or latent conflicts and of fostering social cohesion. For this reason Participation is used (and sometimes abused) in a great variety of programs: e.g. youth employment, empowerment of communities, adult learning, foster social cohesion on a local territory, to alleviate physical disabilities, and intergenerational conflict resolution. The various levels of engagement of stakeholders in these processes vary, as we will show hereafter, from simple information to the delegation of control. 3.4 Models of participation inspired from political sciences Parallels can be drawn from political sciences, that have done extensive research on the ways in which citizens take part in political decision making processes, which have been developed in urban planning and urban renewal, as well as in the cultural heritage sector. In France for instance, the emergence of Ecomuseums was informed by the experiences of participative democracy at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. Accordingly, the development of inclusive approaches in the heritage field can be paralleled with the deliberative turn, developed at the end of the 1990s by Jrgen Habermas (1996) and John Rawls (1996), whereby polity sought new justifications for the democratic ideal by focusing on the triple inclusive, argumentative and public deliberation. But these links are not so easy to establish in countries or cultures, where such ideas have not found support by governments and where academic disciplines remain sharply compartmentalized. Of interest to us, is that different analytical tools developed in the political sphere can be adapted to the management of the heritage sector, such as specific participation media, like citizens juries, advisory committees, town hall meetings or participatory budgeting. A widely referenced source of citizens engagement in planning processes, is Arnsteins Ladder of Participation (1969), developed by the sociologist to pin down the limits of local control in U.S. Urban development programs.

Table 1. Arnsteins ladder of participation 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

Citizen Control Delegated Power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Non-participation Manipulation Tokenism Citizen Power

In her article, the author presents examples for the above described participation levels taken from US contexts. Following this approach, Wilcox (1994) developed a model, which illustrates the fact that, the lower the level of participation, the less the degree of control and commitment between the initiator and others stakeholders is followed through. He depicts four main phases in the participation process: Initiation, Preparation, Participation and Continuation. Based on Wilcoxs model, the UK Museum Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) developed a simpler framework of engagement level consisting in : iv Information, Consultation, Deciding together, Acting together, Supporting independent community initiatives. Additionally, the MLA website offers a set of toolkits adapted to different contexts of social exclusion.v Various consultants working with international organizations have attempted to develop models of community engagement in the cultural heritage field. In his works, Hugues de Varine (1991) supports communities initiatives, while exploring necessary conditions for success, but also develops the risks and limits of community development. Another important figure, Amareswar Galla (2008:22) introduces the concept of First Voice in heritage conservation, where he proposes three models of interaction for community engagement. The first one considers Participation as consultation. In this case, projects are initiated by institutional expertise, whereby source community groups are only informants. Hence, expertise remains in the hands of professionals, and the concept of First Voices is marginalized. In the second model, participation is considered as a strategic partnership, where community groups are considered as co-workers with professionals, which therefore generates mutual empowerment and a space for enunciating the First Voice. In the third model, participation is seen as a cultural action initiated and controlled by the community and therefore led by the First Voice. Using those models, he focused on how roles are distributed and how the process is engaged, asking crucial following questions: Who initiates the project?, What is the extent of community involvement? Where is the location of the expertise? What is the nature of information flow and heritage communication ? Is the process empowering?

What is the Intangible Cultural Heritage place? This overview presenting different approaches of the participatory concept reveals how research and action have been booming in recent years, and how they have been used in the heritage field to asses the impact of the frameworks applied in public policies as it is the case of the MLA analyses (MLA 2010).

3.5 Necessity of networking Institutional or individual blogs and forum are constantly expanding on the virtual sphere of the web and many address the issue of participation in the heritage field. Museums are particularly present on these platforms, while some develop their own networks, others evolve into institutional networks applying inclusive approaches (e.g. Reciprocal Research Network, International coalition of Sites of Conscience, Museos Communatorios). vi Among the institutional networks, the platform developed since 2008 by the International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, which ensued from an ICOM task force, is worth mentioning. Inclusive museum holds annual conferences and publishes an online journal.vii Receptive to emerging countries and supported by ICOM, it presents a real tool of diverse expression relevant to issues surrounding the inclusive museum. Another site related to the museum sector, is Museum 3, a social network particularly oriented towards web development, and conducted since 2007 by an Australian NGO of the same name. viii Over 3,000 members from all over the world converse on this interactive website, thus becoming an efficient source of exchange of thoughts and ideas. Other websites or individual blogs also address participatory issues linked to museums field such as Museum 2.0, led by Nina Simon, who displays her works online and shows many posts from external contributors.ix
.

These developments confirm both the need for actors to discuss participatory issues, and the vitality with which they reconsider their practices. However, among these configurations, an effective tool for sharing data between actors from different parts of the world, that deal solely with participation issues in heritage field, seems to be lacking.x Such tools could be particularly relevant, both for actors needing support for isolated experiences, as well as for countries where these policies are not developed at all (Cadet 2011). 4 SHAI (SHARING INCLUSIVE APPROACHES): A LONG TERM ALTER NATIVES PROJECT Alter natives is a young non-profit organization created in September 2010 with the intent to promote participatory and inclusive practices in the field of heritage, through research, action and dissemination. It proposes an ambitious project since it is directed at a broad heritage scope, including intangible and tangible , as well as mobile and immobile cultural heritage. Therefore the project not only addresses practices in the institutional sector, be they private or public (museums, historical sites, local or national places of memory, national or international cultural and social policies), but also those developed in the associative sector, namely in the sociocultural field (e.g. uses of diverse memories, fight against exclusion, conflict resolution through cultural dialogue). This unlocking of sectors presents a real asset because it lays the groundwork for genuine holistic approaches. The implementation of the SHAI project implies creating a balance between a necessary framework of exchanges and freedom of expression, while enabling a respectful reassessment of data. The founding members of the association Alter Natives are from Western training background while informed and aware of various inclusive approaches. By means of a common space of exchange, SHAI intends to promote the emergence of diversified participatory practices in order to contribute to a common assessment of specific uses and of related vocabu-

lary. Several Stages of implementation are proposed: 1) Online contribution: Initially, the project will start of as a broad online assessment, which will determine the demands and allow narrowing down the focus, on which the project will concentrate on subsequently. A downloadable application form on the Alter Natives website xi will ask the contributor to describe in detail the participatory project he/she would like to share on the platform. All contributions to the SHAI project are accessible to any actor dealing with, or concerned by a field project related to participatory issues in the heritage sector. For convenience, the form can be filled in five languages: English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and German. Once the form has been sent through the Alter Natives website to the administrator, it will be posted on the page related to the SHAI project. The template of the application form presents itself in the following manner:
Contributor Name Position Affiliated organization Project Name Nature of project Duration Location Internet source Literary reference Context of project Socio-historical background Objectives E.g.: reconciliation between groups (interethnic, interfaith, intergenerational, social categories), identity recognition, local development at social or economic level, gender fight, economical inclusivity, effective community building.. Funding Public, private, amount Involved Partners Institutions, NGOs, local municipality, local population (describe what part of population, e.g.: migrants, elderly, disabled, youth, children, unemployed, ethnic minorities)

Nature and Use of Cultural Heritage in the Project

e.g. the selection of objects: tangible or intangible. In case of tangible :(through participatory collections for example) the conservation of the object, (including, storage, preventive conservation, conservation and restoration), the narrative regarding the object (with reference to the Authorised Heritage Discourse of Laurajane Smith (2006)), the valorisation or the display of the object, through permanent or temporary exhibitions, the steps that define the creation of institutions. Level of Participation e.g. information, consultation, partnership, delegation of control Implementation of the Project: history of the project: Who initiated it? How were representatives chosen? What are the phases of the project and what is the role of stakeholders during each step? Who communicates? Who are the experts? Results and Impact of the Project Are there any assessment tools and/or comments on the project concerning the given objectives, results and related impacts on the focused groups? How did you learn about SHAI Expectations of the SHAI project

The various projects made explicit through the application form will be available to any visitor of the Alter Natives Website. It gives them a visibility and provides a set of shared data. The forms can also be assessed through intuitive research engines like google or tag clouds, which link to the relevant terms emerging in the SHAI project. Since the form requires quite a detailed description of the participatory project in question, this method allows to ascertain the various concepts and meanings that encompass notions likes heritage, patrimoine, participation, inclusion, community, etc. which obviously shift from one cultural background to another. Any contributions to the SHAI project will remain continually accessible. 2) Engagement to contributor in methodological assessment: Once sufficient demands for this project have been deposited on the website, Alter Natives will be able to raise funds to create an interactive platform, enabling additional and more diversified contributions on the issue. According to the needs expressed through the application form, several main topics will arise and will be shared through thematic forums and on-line publications. Web-site contributions will be addressed in greater detail during annual meetings, the first of which is planned in Paris in December 2011. This meeting will be the occasion to confirm the SHAI network and to propose diverse kinds of collaborative and ongoing exchanges. 3) Harnessing common data in a sustainable network: The objective is to create a sustainable network, where new projects, encompassing all sorts of different experiments using participatory approaches, can be uploaded continually. The experiences drawn from diverse actors and contributors from around the world can be turned into free online tools that can be applied for local projects and stimulate public policies.

5 CONCLUSION Participatory approaches can be defined as integrating non-expert knowledge and perspectives in the various steps of reflection, identification and presentation of what is largely called heritage. The most pre-eminent examples are projects initiated by local communities, who engage in elaborating places where local cultural practices and objects come into play in reconstructing and rebuilding a sense of identity and belonging. In addition, outreach programs organized by museums and other heritage institutions can be considered as inclusive as their aim is to attract and address the largest public possible. Participation take place in the decision making process at various levels of established procedures and can be related to the selection, the storage, the conservation and the presentation of heritage objects. Participation includes local custodians in the selection and presentation of tangible and intangible heritage objects; involves communities in the excavation of archaeological sites, while incorporating local narratives and memories into the representation of the found objects; and finally involves experts and the representatives of any minorities, who wish to engage in adapting innovative working ethics in the management and conservation of "culturally sensitive" materials and others (Clavir, 2002; Thorn, 2006; Sloggett, 2009). Hence the scope of participation is quite wide. It implies shifts in practices, perspectives and opening up to standpoints that can sometimes even stand as being contradictory to the mainstream classical heritage doctrine. For instance the fixing of objects into a linear timeframe belong to the raison d'tre of most heritage institutions, which can be challenged not only by world views of First Nations peoples, but many other Asian (Byer Bayle 2011) or African societies. Of course, the idea is not to encourage conflicting outflows, but rather to learn to negotiate meanings and conservation approaches. It only makes sense to include plural narratives and identities into the representation of those heritage objects, whose history has made them into entangled objects (Thomas 1991) in that they are evidence of a shared history of exchange between populations. Exchange is always, in the first instance a political process, one in which wider relationships are expressed and negotiated in a perpetual encounter (Thomas 1991: 7). Up to date, literature and web information clearly reveal that the boom of participative projects arose in specific parts of the world, where governments engaged in tackling issues if social and cultural exclusion in a proactive way. Without such governmental policies inclusive approaches pain to emerge, and if, to sustain themselves. For this reason, Alter Natives proposes the SHAI collaborative project, initially based on the filling in of an application form available on the website, which aims to become a real interactive platform and provide online free toolkits. Furthermore, SHAI strives to develop common reflections on sustainable and holistic methodologies via by meetings and publications on the issue of participation in the heritage field. Since this is a new experiment, we hope to receive many useful observations and applications in order to perfect our common project.

ENDNOTES
i

U.S.A.: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990. Canada : Bill C-31 of the Indian Act, "An Act to Amend the Indian Act" of 1985 was replaced by the The First Nations Governance Act in 2003, Australia: the Aboriginal Heritage Act of 1988. ii Initially Ecomuseums focused on identifying a the sense of place and were largely built on the participation of the surrounding communities. iii - ICCROM/ICOMOS (1994) Authenticity Conference in Nara, Japan, The Nara Document on Authenticity can be retrieved from http://www.international.icomos.org/naradoc_eng.htm (accessed on May 30, 2011). - ICOM (1998) cultural diversity policies with resolutions adopted by ICOMs General Assembly on Museums and Cultural Diversity can be retrieved from: http://icom.museum/resolutions/eres98.html - UNESCO (2001): Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity can be retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf - ICCROM (2007). Sharing Conservation Decisions lessons learnt from an ICCROM course. Rome/ICCROM iv In MLA (2010) Capturing outcomes from regional Museum Hubs Communities Engagement Activities: http://research.mla.gov.uk/evidence/documents/Renaissance_Community_Engagement_%20Final_%20Report_Nove mber_%202010.pdf, retrieved on May 15, 2011 v http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/support/toolkits, accessed 05/15/2011 vi Reciprocal Research Network: http://www.moa.ubc.ca/RRN/about_overview.html, accessed 05/15/2011, International Coalition of Sites of Consciences (http://www.sitesofconscience.org/fr/, accessed 05/15/2011), Museos communitarios (http://www.museoscomunitarios.org/, accessed 05/15/2011); vii The Inclusive Museum : http://onmuseums.com/, accessed 05/15/2011. viii Museum 3. : http://museum3.org/, accessed 05/15/2011. ix Museum 2.0 http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/accessed 05/15/2011. x The relevance of this point can be appreciated in the lights of key recommendations 7.27 given in the final report of MLA policies: MLA has a role in promoting learning and exchange of experience, both across the Hubs and between Hub and non-Hub museums. For example, a central project database would enable project staff to identify colleagues in other museums with experience of delivering similar activities, based on similar themes to similar groups. MLA(2010), op. cit. x i http://www.alter-natives.org

REFRENCES
Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large - Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Mineapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press. Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation, in JAIP 35 (4): 216-224. Atalay, S. 2006. Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. In American Indian Quartely 30(3&4):280-310 Bloomfield, T. 2008, Pupura te mahara Preserving the memory: Working with Mori commmunities on preservation projects in Aotearoa / New Zealand, In ICOM-CC Preprints of the 15th Triennial Meeting, Delhi (India), 22-26 September 2008 (1), Delhi: James & James. Boast, R. 2011. Neocolonial collaboration: Museum as Contact Zone Revisited. In Museum Anthropology 34 (1): 5670. Bruchnac, M.M.; Hart, S.M. and Wobst, H.M. 2010.Indigenous Archaeologies A reader on Decolonization.Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press Byer Bayle, B. 2010. Contemporary murals conservation in Thai and Sri Lankan Buddhist monaster ies: Some thoughts on culturally integrated conservation policies. Upcoming in 16th triennial con ference of ICOM-CC, 19-24 September 2011, Lisbon: upcoming Cadet, E. 2011. Mute national institutions towards inclusive approaches : When the French Cultural Heritage Systems meets its limits, In The international Journal of Inclusive Museum (3): upcoming Cameron, D. 1971. The museum, a temple or the forum, Curator 14 (1): 11-24. Clavir, M.2002. Preserving what is valued: Museums, Conservation and First Nations. Vancouver/Toronto: University of British Colombia Clifford, J. 1997. Museums as contacts zones. In Routes: Travel and Translation in the late Twentieth Century. Clifford J. (ed.): 188-219. Cambridge: HUP. Galla, A. 2008. The First Voice in Heritage Conservation. In International Journal of

Intangible Heritage 3:1-17. Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: The Mitt Press. M.L.A. 2010. Capturing outcomes from Regional Museums Hubs Communities Engagement Activities, Final report, from: http://research.mla.gov.uk/evidence/documents/Renaissance_Community_Engagement_%20Final_ %20Report_November_%202010.pdf, accessed on may 15th2011 Morales, T. 1998. Community Museums of Oaxaca. From http://www.planeta.com/planeta/98/0298oaxaca.html, accessed on May 20, 2011 Moses, J. 2008. A Canadian Aboriginal Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property at the th Canadian Museum of Civilisations. In 15 Triennial Conference ICOM-CC, New Delhi, 22-26 September 2008. New Delhi: Allied Publishers: 370-375 Ocampo, C.C., Morales Lersch, T. 2010.The community museum: a space for the exercise of communal power, Sociomuseology 28 (4): 135-152. Pendlebury, T., 1999, The Conservation of Historic Areas and Public Participation, 5(2), 72-88. Shaftbury : Donhead Publishing. Rawls, J. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press Sandell, R. 1998. Museums as Agents of Social Inclusion, In Museum management and Curatorship 17(4): 401-418. Sloggett, R. 2009. Expanding the Conservation Canon Assessing Croos cultural and interdiscipli nary Collaborations in Conservation. In Studies in Conservation 54 : 170-183 Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. New York/London: Routledge. Thomas, N. 1991. Entangled Objects Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge/Massachussetts/London: Harvard University Press Thorn, A. 2006.Tjurkulpa: A conservator learns respect for the lan. In The Object in Context: Crossing Conservation Boundaries, IIC-conference August 28- September 1, 2006. London: IIC Varine De, H. 1991. Linitiative communautaire - recherche et experimentation. Paris: Editions W/MNES, 1991 Wilcox, D. 1994, The Guide to Effective Participation, Brighton: Partnership Book. Also available at: http://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide/main1.html, accessed on may 20th 2011