top of page

Market Research Group

Public·12 members
Christian Cook
Christian Cook

Governing Heritage Dissonance [REPACK]

72 owners of Babameto 1st category in Gjirokastra have their monument restored now, and its providing income; Nesip Skenduli has a roof over the entrance gate so he can safely receive tourists; Wine Cellar of Shorko in Rogljevo is safe from rain, so he can continue producing and hosting wine lovers; Mills in Jajce are functional and are completing the complex; Site of Witness and Memory in Shkodra has new models on telling the story of a difficult past; Museum in Mitrovica has artefacts catalogued and conserved and can host more visitors; And we could spend days naming the fantastic work you all did in learning and contributing to preservation of our heritage.

Governing Heritage Dissonance

The Incentive Network for Cultural Heritage and the Architectural Heritage Society of Bulgaria are proud to present to you the 'IV-th anual national competition-exhibition of diploma projects on architectural heritage preservation'.

After a three-year period of preventive protection, in December 2016, a skill of dry stone construction has been listed permanently as an intangible cultural heritage in Croatia! The application has been sent in June 2016, and the last, very important step for protection of the dry stone construction skill was to include the database of all dry stone craftsmen, as well as the database of organizations that are dealing with this fascinating technique.

The 2018 European Year of Cultural Heritage will promote heritage as a shared resource for our future. The Year will be managed by the European Commission, with the active participation of cultural heritage organisations and other culture sector stakeholders including trans-national cultural networks, NGOs and cultural organisations.

"The book connects heritage studies and cultural policies with issues of difference, conflict and reconciliation, prompting us to rethink how we approach the past and deal with diversities between cultures." - European Cultural Foundation

SEE Heritage network gathers all those willing to contribute to protecting and promoting the South East European heritage as part of our common European and world's heritage. Read more about the network >>>

South East European Heritage is a network of non-governmental organizations established in 2006. The mission of the SEE Heritage network is to work toward protecting and promoting our common cultural heritage with the aim of encouraging the sustainable development of the region.

Cultural heritage is a multidisciplinary topic that has garnered increasing scholarly interest world-wide during the past few decades (Waterton and Smith, 2009; Harrison, 2013b; Lähdesmäki et al., 2020; SoPHIA, 2020). This interest is reflected in the launch of new research centers, study programs, scholarly associations, conference and seminar series, and research projects that go beyond the traditional view of cultural heritage as material objects requiring conservation and preservation. Publication has a central role in strengthening cultural heritage scholarship: more and more studies are published in peer-reviewed journals on topics ranging from natural to social sciences and from education to the humanities. The increase of publications on cultural heritage across a wider range of publication fora corresponds to the general increase of publication output volume in academia (see for a general tendency, e.g., Kyvik and Aksnes, 2015; Fire and Guestrin, 2019). Cultural heritage scholarship is not only on its way to become international, but also seeks to improve its quality according to productivity metrics and quality assessment methods borrowed from natural sciences.

A wide range of scholars have utilized WOS as a data source for bibliometric studies (Donthu et al., 2021; Crețu and Morândău, 2022; Wahid et al., 2022). These studies indicate how bibliometric analysis can bring out recent thematic tendencies and explain changes in publication output volume to help researchers make informed decisions about their future work (Cancino et al., 2017). However, scholars have noted the limitations of bibliometric analysis and of WOS as a source of data (Holden et al., 2005; Cascajares et al., 2021). One of these shortcomings is that disciplinary differences in the indexation process can have a great influence on citation. Moreover, bibliometric analysis draws on the assumption that citation reflects the quality of the cited source and that all citations are equally important (Poole, 2015), which is not necessarily the case. The humanities were among the last to adopt the bibliometric performance assessment, leading to bibliometric studies in different fields. We identified four studies that have utilized the method in order to explore literature on certain sub-fields or topics in cultural heritage research. Kumar et al. (2020), Bhowmik (2021), and Zhang et al. (2022) have conducted bibliometric analyses to show the development of the main topics in heritage tourism research, as well as its most prominent authors, research institutions, and their host countries. In their article, Zhu et al. (2022) conducted bibliometric mapping and visualization of literature on historical wall paintings, revealing its main thematic focuses and the correlation between the most productive authors and key research institutions. Chen et al. (2020) used the WOS database and CiteSpace bibliometric analysis software in their study in order to explore articles on intangible cultural heritage.

Our article builds on the previous bibliometric research seeking to map, visualize, explain, and understand the publication output volume, the patterns distinguished in the output, and the interdependencies of cultural heritage scholarship. We also draw on previous criticism directed against the method and seek to critically assess the WOS as a tool of knowledge management. The article is structured into five sections. After the introduction, we explain how we built our dataset of bibliometric information for 1843 articles on cultural heritage and describe the growth of this scholarly output over time, across countries, and in the most populated research areas and most used languages. Next, we map the patterns of cultural heritage publications in the humanities to reveal emerging collaborative networks between authors, research institutions, and countries, as well as the most prevalent thematic clusters of cultural heritage research and the recent knowledge-oriented approaches. Subsequently, we discuss the results in the context of the development of cultural heritage research during the past two decades, particularly against the backdrop of its critical turn and the generative matrix of the shifting cultural heritage regime. Finally, we summarize how WOS manages the knowledge on cultural heritage research, discuss the limitations of our study, and suggest future research avenues for scholars working on cultural heritage.

In order to describe the performance of different research constituents on cultural heritage over the past 20 years, we scrutinized the most productive countries and institutions. Table 4 shows the top 10 countries that together account for 69% of the articles in our dataset. Italy, England, and Spain are the most prominent, since one third of the articles are written by authors affiliated with institutions based in these three countries. This result is in line with the expectations drawn from the literature documenting the scientific production in relation to cultural heritage governance prevalently oriented towards safeguarding heritage and sustainable tourism, especially in countries such as Spain and Italy, marked as they are by growing concerns regarding touristification and its consequences; in England, however, the prominent debates revolve around the enhancement of cultural experiences through digitization (Echavarria and Samaroudi et al., 2020).

Our dataset includes more than 630 publication titles. The leading position is occupied by the International Journal of Cultural Heritage, that accounts for 269 of the sampled articles on cultural heritage. The second most productive publication is Heritage, followed by ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage, with 200 and 143 articles, respectively. These three publications account for more than a quarter of the total number of articles included in our sample, while half of the articles are issued by the eight most productive journals listed in Table 6.

The author with the highest number of articles on cultural heritage in our dataset is Massimo Montella, University of Macerata (Italy), who authored 12 articles, along with other various types of texts written during the past decades and published online in Il Capitale Culturale: Studies on the Value of Cultural Heritage in 2020. He specializes in economics, heritage marketing, the theory of cultural heritage management, and cultural heritage as service (see e.g., Montella, 2020). Melissa Terras from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, is the second most prolific author, having published seven joint articles in two journals (i.e., Digital Scholarship in the Humanities and Big Data and Society) between 2017 and 2021, with 53 citations. Her expertize is in digital cultural heritage and her recent work exposes the dissimilarities between some Western European and Russian policies of open access to digitized museum objects (see, e.g., Terras et al., 2018).

Despite the small number of prolific authors with three articles or more (78), we further mapped the strength of links between authors based on the direct collaboration through joint publications. After creating a thesaurus file on authors to eliminate duplicates from the dataset by merging different spellings of the same name, we used VOSviewer to perform a co-authorship analysis for the 78 authors who met the criteria of having published at least three articles on cultural heritage. For those authors, a total link strength was calculated using the full counting method of co-authorship ties between two authors (with a total link strength score ranging from a minimum of 1 to maximum 21). No connection was found for 32 prolific authors. For the remaining 46 prolific authors, VOSviewer mapped the emergence of 12 clusters that indicate distinct patterns of collaboration (Fig. 2). 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page