Towards a critical heritage approach to heritage interpretation and public benefit : comparative case studies of England and Germany
In this thesis I present a Post-Tilden approach to heritage interpretation that is informed by critical heritage studies. Using particularly Smith's (2006) critique of the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD), I argue that current heritage interpretation discourse and practice is shaped by Freeman Tilden's principles of Interpreting Our Heritage (1957), themselves rooted in the AHD. Subsequent interpretive textbooks have not challenged Tilden's account, leading to an interpretation-specific AHD that does not respond to challenges posed by critical heritage studies, aspirations of decision makers, as expressed in legislation and policy, or to contemporary events. My research question is whether current interpretive practice delivers the public benefits of heritage, which it is attributed by legislation and policy. My methodology is a comparative study at two sites in England and Germany. I test the benefits that visitors associate with heritage and compare these to those asserted in legislation and policy. I examine the impact of current discourse and practice on visitors' ability to realise these benefits. The study reveals gaps between official and visitor-reported benefits. In particular, benefits associated
Deufel, N.
Towards a critical heritage approach to heritage interpretation and public benefit : comparative case studies of England and Germany. In this thesis I present a Post-Tilden approach to heritage interpretation that is informed by critical heritage studies. Using particularly Smith's (2006) critique of the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD), I argue that current heritage interpretation discourse and practice is shaped by Freeman Tilden's principles of Interpreting Our Heritage (1957), themselves rooted in the AHD. Subsequent interpretive textbooks have not challenged Tilden's account, leading to an interpretation-specific AHD that does not respond to challenges posed by critical heritage studies, aspirations of decision makers, as expressed in legislation and policy, or to contemporary events. My research question is whether current interpretive practice delivers the public benefits of heritage, which it is attributed by legislation and policy. My methodology is a comparative study at two sites in England and Germany. I test the benefits that visitors associate with heritage and compare these to those asserted in legislation and policy. I examine the impact of current discourse and practice on visitors' ability to realise these benefits. The study reveals gaps between official and visitor-reported benefits. In particular, benefits associated
towards critical heritage heritage interpretation public benefit comparative_case_study england germany present post heritage interpretation inform critical heritage study using particularly smith critique heritage discourse argue current heritage interpretation discourse_practice shape freeman principle interpreting heritage root subsequent interpretive textbook challenge account lead interpretation specific respond challenge_pose critical heritage study aspiration decision maker express legislation policy contemporary_event question_whether current interpretive practice delivers public benefit heritage legislation policy comparative_study two_site england germany test benefit visitor associate heritage compare asserted legislation policy examine_impact current_discourse practice visitor ability realise benefit study_reveals gap official visitor reported benefit particular benefit associate