2010
DOI: 10.1080/13527250903441671
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
167
1
21

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 381 publications
(189 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
167
1
21
Order By: Relevance
“…A similar situation occurs in the field of heritage studies, where the few accounts exploring the relation between heritage and community do not tackle the issue (e.g. Crooke 2010, Waterton andSmith 2010).…”
Section: The Commonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar situation occurs in the field of heritage studies, where the few accounts exploring the relation between heritage and community do not tackle the issue (e.g. Crooke 2010, Waterton andSmith 2010).…”
Section: The Commonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, the participatory process may generate certain feedback mechanisms, whereby a rise in the value of a space for one group may mean a devaluation for others . This is connected with the subjective character of the creation of space, which again has its roots in the individualized perception of the value of elements of cultural heritage and various variants of the collective memory (Waterton and Smith, 2010;Kapralski, 2010;Huigen and Meijering, 2005;Rampley, 2012;Wertsch and Billingsley, 2011;Whelan, 2005) . For this same reason many of the projects proposed will be exponents of a particular vision of the past and judgment of it.…”
Section: Social Participation In Shaping Public Spaces Using Culturalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Waterton and Smith, (2010), professional heritage efforts, including those of the academy, are dominated by a nostalgic ideal of communities as homogenous collectives with communal pasts. In contrast, evidence suggests that local communities are 'run through with divergent interests, anger, boredom, fear, happiness, loneliness, frustration, envy, wonder and a range of other motivating or disruptive energies' (ibid p. 10).…”
Section: Motivations For Rural Areas To Develop Digital Archivesmentioning
confidence: 99%