Kinneil House and Estate, Bo’ness

The research was conducted over 10 months from November 2018 to September 2019 and the total time taken equated to approximately 4 weeks of full time equivalent. Throughout the research period, notices were posted at the entrances to the Estate and in the on-site museum to advise that the research was taking place and where people could obtain further information. A total of 12 site visits took place over the 10 months.

Structured interviews, based on a short, six-question format, were conducted at locations around the Estate and in the nearby town centre. Participants completing structured interviews were asked if they would be interested in participating in other research activities and those that responded positively were contacted later in the process regarding other potential methods.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a smaller number of key individuals, including representatives of the managing partners and conservation practitioners. These took place away from the House and Estate, either in offices, public places or respondents’ homes, and were mostly conducted one-on-one, although in one case there was an additional family member present for part of the discussion.

Observation was conducted at different times of the day and in different seasons, while walking around the Estate and during participation in public events, including House open days. In addition to in-person observation, public participatory media was monitored throughout the research period for images and comments linked to the Kinneil House and Estate. This helped in identifying up-coming events at the Estate.

During House open days, it was possible to attend community-led tours, designed and delivered by members of the Friends of Kinneil group. Apart from accompanying heritage professionals in recording of the site, the tours were the only research activities that took place inside Kinneil House. Observation was made of the locations chosen, the explanations given, and the reactions of visitors.

Four community gatherings/meetings were attended during the study, during one of which a participatory creative activity took place (selecting images to be used on postcards to promote the Estate and the Friends group). Creative engagements with place were also observed and discussed during other the research activities.

Two potential arts-based activities were identified for possible inclusion in the study: designing a mural with youth from Bo’ness, an initiative of the Rediscovering the Antonine Wall project, which unfortunately was not taken forward within the research period; and a future visioning exercise, which was superseded by the postcard activity mentioned above.

The other participant-led activity trialled in this case was transect walks. These ranged from relatively short 20-minute circuits up to an hour. As these did not take place on House open days, it was not an option to enter the House, but all those who were involved had visited on other occasions.

Given the relatively high frequency of regular users of the Estate, it was proposed to trial a method to record day-to-day engagements with place, either through accompanying people or a diary-based activity. Approaches were made to structured interview respondents who had indicated their interest in participating in other activities, but low levels of responsiveness meant that this technique could not be followed through in practice.

As the scale of the House ruled out basic photogrammetry (of the sort achievable on handheld devices), enquiries were made with the museum’s curator about access to objects for scanning to create virtual models. A potentially lengthy approvals process, meant the activity could not be trialled as planned.

Social distancing restrictions meant that a meeting scheduled for discussion on the findings had to take place virtually. The draft report was shared over email in advance of the meeting and written feedback was received from other participants in addition to the comments made by those who attended the meeting.

Kinneil Estate is a place of recreation, education, employment and residence. It is used throughout the year for a range of events and as outdoor space by local schools, in addition to day-to-day use by a range of groups and individuals. The research identified a variety of communities of interest, identity, and location for whom the site was of significance. These encompass people resident in the local area and those living further afield, including elsewhere in the UK and abroad:

Residents on the Estate
Residents of the immediate surrounding area
Residents in the wider area
Local school children
Local teenagers
Families/people who grew up visiting the estate
Descendants of Estate workers
Descendants of the Hamilton Family
People originally from or connected to Bo’ness
Members of the Friends of Kinneil
Members of local Church congregations
Staff and volunteers working on the Estate
People connected with the Bo’ness Fair
Gardeners
People interested in classic cars & the Hill Climb
People interested in nature & wildlife
Fishermen (note: this is an unsanctioned practice)
Walkers/runners/dog-walkers
Photographers
Horse riders
Cyclists/mountain bikers
Members of Historic Environment Scotland
People interested in Art History & Architecture
People interested in History & Archaeology
People interested in Engineering & Industrial development/mining heritage

There are formal organisations representing several of these communities/activities and the interests of Bo’ness residents more generally. Bo’ness is a town of over 14,500 people and residents identify with particular neighbourhoods and make local distinctions within the overall population. It cannot be assumed that common behaviour or uses of the Estate, notably walking, running, dog-walking, reflect shared values.

Kinneil House and Estate is a complex site associated with multiple social values. Key findings:

• The values of Kinneil House are inextricably tied up with the wider Estate. It is experienced and framed by the landscape and setting, of which it is a part.
• For many people the House is the lynchpin of the wider Estate. However, the formal conservation priority (the painted rooms) is not necessarily of primary importance to communities.
• The House is an impressive and familiar symbol, mobilised when representing and asserting membership of different communities.
• The site is connected with the formation or origins of many of these communities.
• There is a sense of ownership over the House and of the Estate as public space. This is not about proprietorial ownership but a broader sense of it belonging to the community.
• It is valued as a constant presence, linking communities across time and space.
• However, memories and stories about Kinneil also reveal it to be a dynamic landscape.
• The House and the Estate have spiritual values through connections to formal religion (practices and objects linked with the site of Kinneil Church), informal spirituality, the supernatural and nature.
• The Estate is valued as a place of peace and reflection.

Implications for future consideration and management of the site include:

• The social values of the site derive from a combination of location, history, use and ‘feeling’.
• The House is a constant feature, but there is a tolerance (and desire) for certain changes. Whether a change is felt to be detrimental varies according to people’s interests and values. Changes that were consulted on, well-communicated and understood were generally more acceptable.
• There are conflicting perspectives on balancing human activities and ‘natural’ aspects of the Estate.
• The range of communities identified potentially requires multiple engagement strategies that can reach beyond regular users, formally constituted groups, and locality.