Report on RCAHMS User Panel 10 November 2004 Introduction The meeting began with four introductory presentations as detailed below. Participants then broke into three groups and each group discussed the same set of four questions. The responses to the questions are divided below into each of the three groups. In addition to the participants listed, Diana Murray, Secretary and Kathleen Dalyell, Chairman, both RCAHMS, moved between groups. The new format of the meeting was positively received and it was agreed that a summary would be circulated to all members. A theme for next year’s Panel will be considered. Presentations Mike Groves - ‘Battle of Britain’ film clip - Observed that some users grew up in this wartime era, while to others this is pure history. - Noted that aerial photographs are useful to environmental agencies, e.g. for contaminated land assessments. Robin Turner – ‘Braveheart’ film clip - Noted that RCAHMS is held in esteem due to its excellence of survey work, archives and publications, but that it needs to develop a ‘story’ that people can relate to and which catches the imagination. - Partnerships with the ‘arts’ a good idea to create a wider audience, who can then act as intermediaries and help to spread the word. - Becoming user-friendly is necessary to reach out to a wider audience but organisations can sometimes perceive this as dumbing down or undermining. HLF funding applications can often spur this change. - It should not be seen as an either/or situation, and RCAHMS is relied upon to retain its high academic standards. Sebastian Tombs – ‘Alice in Wonderland’ extract, images and song ‘White Rabbit’ - A sense of discovery is evident at RCAHMS, but new and non-regular users must first be attracted by catching their imagination and curiosity with a ‘story’, the sense of ‘following the white rabbit’. - RIAS and other institutions/professions value what RCAHMS does and holds. RIAS has had a good relationship with RCAHMS, with SAPPP and the RIAS guides, which is helping to inspire people. - Positive attributes include reliability, the strength and depth of the knowledge of RCAHMS staff, the NMRS and recognition of IT and its outreach potential. - Once people are inspired, they themselves can be used to spread awareness - ‘viral marketing’. - Could use the press to advertise online facilities and reach a wider audience, cheaply. The well-publicised online launch of the 1901 census led to overload as it was so popular. - Online availability is always going to be limited - opening hours are a problem for some users. - Teachers and school librarians could visit and prepare teaching plans, and their ideas could be explored. - RCAHMS staff could be sent round Scotland to spread the word. - The title ‘RCAHMS’ is seen as off-putting to most people, and leads to confusion, and having to explain who/what RCAHMS is NOT – a negative rather than a positive. Clare Sorensen – ‘The Dish’ film clip - In internal discussions, it was acknowledged that we need to capitalise on our ‘passion’ to communicate with non-traditional audiences. Group 1 Maxine Akhurst - British Geological Survey Iain Banks - GUARD Eila MacQueen - Director, Council for Scottish Archaeology Sarah Parkerson - Loch Lomond National Park Andrea Smith - Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Sebastian Tombs - Secretary, RIAS Led by Lesley Ferguson, notes by Philip Graham, both RCAHMS Q1 What is your perception of the purpose of RCAHMS and the key message it currently projects? - RCAHMS collects information but not sure what is done with this and what it means. It would be good to explain this more, and highlight new discoveries that would spark an interest. - Using the Internet is one good format, but still good to have personal presentations. - Tailoring to each audience is very important - this is not dumbing-down but opening up. Providing the information is correct, tailoring the language to each level of non-professional user with an interest will reach out to new people. - In outreach, it is important to promote special qualities, and education officers in other bodies could be harnessed for this purpose. - There is an impression from RCAHMS staff of a passive role, which therefore needs to be more proactive, in telling people directly rather than waiting for people to come to us. This is why PR and press promotion is required. Also, specialised articles in relevant publications or a newsletter. - Groups who use RCAHMS understand what we do, but that is often limited to that narrow field. Audience is currently too select. An audience planning strategy is needed. Need to define the audience first and determine what we want to communicate. Who are the existing users, and how can barriers to others be reduced? Should outreach be socially exclusive or limited to certain sectors? - Building consultation of RCAHMS into planning guidelines, making it compulsory, would boost awareness and status. - The issue of restrictive opening times needs to be addressed. Q2 What are the key areas of RCAHMS work that are most valuable to users? - Photographs. - The ability to find out what is in a certain area, and what archaeological archive is held for that area. - The online side could be more explanatory. Understandably, there are gaps in the record, but an outsider may not know this. Might something be added to say that RCAHMS hasn’t worked in a certain area since 19--? (The Events table may address this) - RCAHMS’ resources and access are much better than English equivalents. - Positive that it is all in one place, but need to be aware that some local SMRs are connected and some are not. - Less visitors due to online use? - Canmore is often used as the main source of information. Google does bring up items on Canmore. HLA was recently used for management policy for recording recent landslide damage to a building. - Being able to consult building types is also very useful. - As an art college student, the interaction with RCAHMS is very useful. Q3 How do you find working in partnership with RCAHMS and what kind of partnerships would you like to see? - The CSA Bibliographic post is of great benefit to members and to Scotland, and so is very positive. - More communication is needed about what RCAHMS is doing, possibly a newsletter. The ARIA portal should be explored. - Doors Open Day was raised and the disappointing turnout at RCAHMS compared to 800 visitors to the British Geological Survey. Family events, including kids attractions, add to the numbers. - Power of the press can increase awareness, so vital to get the story out there. - Increased engagement with the public. Surveyors working in an area should plan events, visits, school talks to make people aware of what is going on. Possibly target land managers. - Royal Highland Show and Turriff Show were suggested, and are already attended. - Working on the Cursus Monument project – lack of communication/consultation – more cross-fertilisation is needed. - In addition to Arts & Business, important to also spread to science and technology. - Currently concentrate on an area to survey, but should perhaps produce a quick survey of the whole of Scotland for archaeological sites, and possibly buildings. To create a ‘big picture’ for Scotland, to give an overlay. Would certainly improve strategic planning. Farmsteads and vernacular buildings need a Scotland-wide survey. - Financial resources are a general problem, due to the public perception of what is important, and it is worth liasing with James Boyle at the Cultural Commission. - Is there a difference between commercial and non-commercial partnerships? Funding is accepted for the employment of dedicated staff, e.g. MOD Kirkcudbright Defences. - HLA is another good example – this was HS funded but other groups then became involved. RCAHMS is open to other approaches. Q4 How would you like RCAHMS to develop over the next five years? - A national initiative for storage is required for excavation archives and items. - The continuation of additions to online material. - Site records need sifting and simplification, along the lines of ASP. - Quick survey and update summary. - RCAHMS staff need to be permanent and not a mix of permanent and temporary. - RCAHMS needs to be less defensive, e.g. the location map on a leaflet doesn’t include Historic Scotland. There needs to be more acknowledgement of HS. - There is a good working relationship between RCAHMS, HS and RIAS, and with the new Chief Executives at RCAHMS and HS, now is a good time for a cultural shift. In the same way that RIAS and RIBA have resolved differences and forged a better working relationship. - In the same way that The Lighthouse is a recognised centre of excellence for curricula, RCAHMS could function as an information portal through joint ventures with other bodies. HS already recognises RCAHMS’ archaeology database and encourages links through that. - Large sign needed outside RCAHMS, with name change, to encourage people to come in. - Designed landscapes need to be addressed more, and this is being encouraged at RCAHMS. - The Annual Review was seen as a very useful document. Group 2 John Gifford, Buildings of Scotland Research Unit Mark Watson, Inspector Historic Scotland Robin Turner, Senior Archaeologist, National Trust for Scotland Caroline Sibbald, Edinburgh World Heritage Trust Moira Grieg, Archaeologist, Aberdeen Archaeological Services Jack Stevenson, Head of Archaeology, RCAHMS Led by Clare Sorensen, notes by David Easton, both RCAHMS Q1 What is your perception of the purpose of RCAHMS and the key message it currently projects? - Good at survey work - but a perception that only in areas where there is funding available - Much confusion about survey purpose since Inventories ceased - Perception that RCAHMS could exist without any use by general public - Survey material to NMRS, felt that NMRS was only there as a means to an end, some felt that all information should come out as a formal public work - Inventories used to be the main purpose, now no hard purpose can be seen, survey work ‘here and there’ with no systematic geographical coverage. No longer any Regional surveys, example is the omission of Kinross House from Perthshire survey work publication - Inventories never complete, no landscape summary, though this is being redressed to a certain extent, the publication did not always give the public what they want - For the future – will RCAHMS respond to public demand and will they be more proactive even to the point of being the ‘opinion former’. More research agendas by the staff with RCAHMS leading the way in topics. - Impact of the web not as positive as it should have been, RCAHMS not gaining many more users through this medium - Suggested that following the English model would be of benefit, e.g. having one ‘common register’ of sites, though PASTMAP does address this in some ways - CANMORE problems, access, opening hours and the lack of text with many of the sites all hinder customer development - Lack of knowledge about RCAHMS with general public, why for instance do Perth/Falkirk SMRs have lots of users, but never refer to CANMORE etc. - Confusion in the public mind about all the Heritage Bodies, what do they all do, e.g. Historic Scotland, RCAHMS, Cockburn Association, National Archives etc Q2 What are the key areas of RCAHMS work that are most valuable to users? - Expertise of staff – almost as important a source of information as the archive itself, they are very much appreciated - Staff ability to know where to go for further information, ability to know how to make ‘the records’ but could do with better coordination by external bodies to pose the right questions to/of RCAHMS. Confusion of roles between RCAHMS and Historic Scotland - The NMRS part needs to continue, but with added information e.g. proper surveys both documentary and physical of specific buildings (Kinross House) - Suggest expansion of Listed Building Recording Programme as one-way forward - Is it a question of targeting? - Improve Buildings Archaeology – from beyond pure survey work and include designed landscapes - There is a requirement for written reports for buildings – RCAHMS should follow English Heritage style on this Q3 How do you find working in partnership with RCAHMS and what kind of partnerships would you like to see? - Closer liaison with local archives and more interactive links - Improved partnership with ARIA and other similar organisations - There is a lack of awareness of local/National Conservation Plans would like to see this redressed. Provide these plans with a wider dissemination, at present few copies produced then these are lost. RCAHMS could be proactive in this area. - The continued willingness to allow staff to become more involved in external projects Q4 How would you like RCAHMS to develop over the next five years? - More Industrial survey, rapid recording etc before installations close, this should include farm building survey work. It has been noted that there has been a reduction in staff in this area - Recording newly built buildings e.g. the radar station on St Kilda - RCAHMS requires a systematic data enhancement programme particularly the provision of polygon area on-line, which will require close liaison with the SMRs and more liaison with the SMRs - The survey and research into specific building types (thematic) similar to the schools project (School Board schools) – RCAHMS should undertake or encourage this work - Enhancement programme for records in the database, updating using partnerships and internal skills - Encouraging external students/graduates etc to take on research under the RCAHMS umbrella and providing the raw material - Improvement of reception telephone response, which at times can be very unhelpful Group 3 Christopher Dingwall, Garden Landscape Historian Thorsten Hanke, University of Edinburgh Dr Stuart Jeffrey, West of Scotland Archaeology Service Mike Groves, Great Circle Communication Diana Burton, Head of Administration & Finance, RCAHMS Led by Rebecca Bailey, notes by Sharon Gibb, both RCAHMS Q1 What is your perception of the purpose of RCAHMS and the key message it currently projects? - National archive, library resource - Mostly described as NMRS as opposed to RCAHMS when asked by non-users what we do - The name of the organisation and in particular the use of the word ‘monuments’ suggests something static and unchanging. It suggests we hold historical information but does not refer to the fact that we undertake current survey work etc. - Name can be intimidating to the non-professional world - Professionalism and expertise of staff ensures that the information we disseminate can be relied upon. - Purpose is to record and survey, providing information to professionals - Offers structured academic services whilst also appealing to the general public - Explore general ways of communicating to reach a wider audience to ensure that the casual user of RCAHMS is encouraged by what is available through the website and when coming into the library. We should ensure that the academic nature of our work does not alienate potential users. - The frontage of the buildings does not reflect what is going on inside – greater publicity through the use of banners/posters would encourage the general passer-by to venture inside if it were clear that we are open to the public. Q2 What are the key areas of RCAHMS work that are most valuable to users? - ‘National Memory’ – our strength lies in our diversity. Something for everyone. - Consider different methods of disseminating information – medium of storytelling would appeal to users who are not necessarily from an academic background. - RCAHMS is considered to be underused by the general public. - Make greater use of RCAHMS field survey work. Seeing staff at work out in the field is of real interest to the public. Explore the possibility of using a webcam when field survey staff visit sites. Formal interaction between RCAHMS staff taking questions from the public via our website – chatroom/forum. - Greater use of more user-friendly elements to the website, such an animation and drawings to illustrate our work. - Social history is a topic that most users are interested in and could be developed further - An extensive range of visual material, which can be browsed through at leisure, but reproduction costs can be rather expensive for students. Q3 How do you find working in partnership with RCAHMS and what kind of partnerships would you like to see? - Partnership with WOSAS has changed for the better over the last year. Extremely positive experience of working alongside RCAHMS. - Quality of information is excellent, access to information has improved greatly. - Staff are always attentive and helpful - More collaboration with the education sector - Staff lectures and visit to local history groups Q4 How would you like RCAHMS to develop over the next five years? · Strengthen current partnerships/relationships · Positive image of RCAHMS will encourage new partnerships to develop. · RCAHMS could introduce individuals with similar interests and organisations working on similar projects to each other. · Development of web based discussion groups, arranged by subject type. This would require in-house moderation. · Working with architects to a greater extent. · Placing buildings and monuments in their wider context would be beneficial · Whilst moving forward we must retain established archiving standards and practices. · Identify and target potential users.