Challenging the problem of un-democratic participation: from destruction to re-construction of heritage
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2022-0025 |
| Published date | 23 August 2022 |
| Date | 23 August 2022 |
| Pages | 509-526 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
| Author | Ina-Maria Jansson |
Challenging the problem of
un-democratic participation: from
destruction to re-construction
of heritage
Ina-Maria Jansson
Department of ALM, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The present study aims to contribute to the understanding of digital participation in heritage
collections as a democratizing practice by identifying and challenging silent assumptions concerning how the
insufficient influence of participants is conceived of as a problem.
Design/methodology/approach –Three carefully selected scholarly texts incorporating problematizations
of insufficient participatory agency were analyzed in detail using a method inspired by Carol Bacchi’s approach
“what’sthe problemrepresented to be?”(WPR), with special emphasis on analysis of ontological elementsof the
problematizations.
Findings –Participation is problematized based on the assumption that participatory agency risks
jeopardizing the protection of heritage and leads to parts of the public memory being forgotten. To challenge
the idea that participatory agency is destructive, the present article argues for elaborating an understanding of
what forgetting entails for heritage. Framing forgetting as a potentially both harmful and generative concept
enables a separation of destructive forgetting (e.g. destruction of historical evidence) and constructive
forgetting (re-contextualization).
Research limitations/implications –The study is based on a limited number of texts, and
problematizations are investigated in relation to a specific perspective on participatory agency.
Practical implications –By understanding forgetting as a potentially beneficial activity for representation
and heritage construction, the article provides a conceptual rationale for facilitating re-contextualization in the
design of multi-layered information structures for heritage collections.
Originality/value –There is little earlier research on the silent assumptions that affecthow participation is
understood and implemented.
Keywords Participation, Agency, Memory, Forgetting, Archives, Information management
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
As civic engagement and public participation have become an increasingly natural part of
institutional processes (Dahlgren and Hermes, 2015) and expectations of democratization
have grown, the work of heritage professionals at archives and museums is expected to
change character as well. In line with the general development in the sector, it has been
suggested to become less hierarchical and authoritative and more inclusive and democratic
(Williams, 2015;Gauld, 2017;Hajibayova, 2018). But as our experience with participatory
initiatives increases, doubts about the representative effects of participatory engagement on
heritage collections have been raised from several perspectives. Participation, once perceived
as a remedy that would leave biased and non-representative heritage collections behind, has
increasingly come to be perceived as window dressing that fails to resolve the fundamental
issue of broadening and increasing the agency of subordinated participants (see, e.g. Boast,
2011;Onciul, 2015). Different models and solutions have been proposed to deal with the
The problem of
un-democratic
participation
509
The author remains grateful to Professor Isto Huvila and Docent Reine Ryd
en, both at the Department of
ALM, Uppsala University, for valuable discussions of this text. The author also would like to express
gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments helped to improve this work.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 30 January 2022
Revised 1 July 2022
Accepted 13 July 2022
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 79 No. 2, 2023
pp. 509-526
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-01-2022-0025
perceived shortcomings of participatory practices. While such models propose different fixes,
they also sanction particular narratives that construct participation as a distinct type of
problem. Being aware of how problems are conditioned and framed, i.e. how they are
problematized, is critical to evaluating the adequacy of proposed solutions and the pre-
understandings they are built on. By viewing insufficient participatory influence not as a
given problem but as a constructed problematization that can be called into question,
alternative perspectives can emerge, which in their turn can be used to diversify the toolbox
of conceivable optional solutions (Bacchi, 2016).
Starting with problematizations of participatory agency, i.e. how the ability of
participants to act according to their needs to achieve a specific goal is explained as being
insufficient, the present study aims to identify and challenge underlying assumptions about
how the agency of participants is constructed as a problem in relation to using participation
to increase representation in heritage collections. Drawing from Carol Bacchi’s approach to
methodological problematization, “what’s the problem represented to be?”(WPR), the present
article inquiries into the ontological dimension of agency to show how participation is
described as a particular kind of “problem that needs to be solved”in the context of realizing
representational collections. By proposing possible alternative understandings of the
problem, the article opens the door to new ways of exploring and conceptualizing the
problem.
To address this aim, three research questions are formulated.
(1) How is the problem of participation being insufficiently representative constructed?
(2) What silent assumptions underlie this problematization?
(3) How can these silent assumptions be challenged and called into question?
Participatory agency and institutions of public memory
One main issue that is crystallizing in the critique of participation’s representative effects is
rooted in the conflicting responsibilities of institutions with responsibility for collections of
heritage objects and documents (incl. archives and museums) that are required to
simultaneously work both to be more inclusive of the general public and to protect their
collections from damage and destruction. The reason for representative participation is based
on such heritage institutions’mission to mirror society in its full diversity (to use Stuart Hall’s
metaphor of heritage institutions as mirrors of national heritage (2005, p. 22), but they are
also expected to shoulder the responsibility for curating and guarding the integrity of
heritage material and information for long-term preservation (MacNeil, 2011). This leads to
the fundamental problem of how we can coordinate expectations to facilitate participatory
influence, while also maintaining institutions’authoritative position, with mandate to act as
gatekeepers of the sanctity of heritage (Yakel, 2011; cf. Phillips, 2014;Hølleland and
Skrede, 2019).
Professionals working at institutions are therefore, by virtue of their ascribed roles as
gatekeepers, forced to balance and control participatory agency. This, at least in theory,
diminishes the possibility to use participatory agency to change collections, something that is
needed for democratic representation.
However, it is important to recognize that the understanding of participation as a method
for democratic influence or a way for participants to have actual impact on the content of and
narratives relating to heritage collections, is far from being uncontested. The discourse of
democracy and empowerment is only one of many understandings of what participation can
mean for heritage (Huvila, 2015). Other alternatives includes participation as a form of user
engagement (see Ridge, 2013;Lascarides and Vershbow, 2014), a way of channeling
JD
79,2
510
To continue reading
Request your trial