Undertaking an assessment

• People who were quite quiet in group scenarios would nonetheless engage enthusiastically during a semi-structured interview or other one-to-one activity.
• More ‘active’ methods, like transect walks, and creative engagements with materials or images, proved effective in engaging younger respondents, who were often less communicative or willing to participate in other settings/activities.
• The structured interview leaflets that were returned by self-completion in the Cables Wynd House study reflected very different experiences to those completed face to face and highlighted the importance of ‘safe spaces’ for sharing.

Having a range of options and remaining flexible regarding specific activities made it easier to respond to emerging situations and accommodate participant preferences.

Interview methods are foundational to an assessment. They are a means to access the vast amount of knowledge held within communities that is not available elsewhere or easily understood by non-community members. In interactive discussions, respondents often develop new ideas, share contacts, and suggest potential avenues for investigation that enrich the studies.

Observational techniques provide context and researcher familiarity with the site. They highlight what people do, rather than what they say they do, and provide evidence of absences in participation. Embodied/multi-sensory observation can provide insights into the experiential and affective aspects of place.

Participatory methods build a deeper understanding of what is being observed and the social values being enacted. These often include group discussions, where the dynamics and distinctions between and within communities are more apparent, adding nuance to your understanding.

Online engagement provides opportunities to identify and interact with communities of interest that offline methods (and on-site activities alone) may not include. Social media platforms are used differently by different communities, in some cases fulfilling unique functions that do not have offline equivalents.

Creating or reflecting on photos and films can prompt detailed discussions about locations and personal connections. Discussion is not limited to what is depicted, but also how places have changed, past experiences and what is absent or not shown. When shared, photos can also be used by others to construct individual narratives of place, experiences and emotions.

Creative and arts-based methods are also catalysts for discussion and reflection, particularly effective in engaging younger people (who respond more positively to ‘active’ and participatory techniques).

Although virtual and 3D modelling was not trialled in the case studies, these technologies offer similar opportunities to engage with the historic environment in new ways, reflecting on taken for granted views, and to share stories of personal and community connection.

All of the case studies trialled at least two different types of method that brought different and complementary knowledge. Based on those experiences you may wish to consider:

• Combining interview techniques: this helps to identify common touchpoints and supports the interpretation of observations and other activities.
  • When structured interviews are completed first, they can suggest potential areas for discussion in the more detailed and in-depth semi-structured interviews.
  • Where semi-structured interviews come first, the structured interviews (and other methods) can provide an indication of how widespread the specific experiences and associations mentioned by semi-structured interview respondents are.
• Combining interviews with group or participant-led techniques: similarly, this provides opportunities to explore how the emotions, values and group dynamics that participants describe are reflected in their expressions, manner, and actions during participatory activities (and vice versa).
• Combining multi-sensory observation with participatory techniques: this provides a wider context to your personal experiences and reflections.

Online and offline methods complement one another, identifying complications and gaps in participation, and revealing different narratives of place.

It may be possible to link the outputs from one method into other activities (consider this when sequencing your methods). For example, sharing the materials resulting from a film, photography or creative activity with other community members. This can help to increase the depth and range of participation. When working with younger participants, opportunities to share their work can be helpful in engaging potential adult participants.

Combining methods also helps in determining how much material is required, gradually building to a point where themes are being duplicated within or between methods.

In rapid assessments, methods are implemented more or less concurrently, often with semi-structured interviews taking place throughout the research period and observation fitted in around participatory activities. In more extended studies, the impact of sequencing of methods is clearer.

Based on the Arnol Blackhouse, Cables Wynd House, and Kinneil House and Estate studies, the suggested sequencing is:

• start with forms of observation and accessing public areas/events,
• then engage individuals and groups, e.g. through interviews, and
• then move onto activities that are more participatory, such as transect walks and creative methods.

Rationale: This sequencing is partly practical, as it takes time to identify communities and participants. However, starting with more general exposure is helpful in building up familiarity with the site, key individuals and the wider context, which is important when it comes to implementing more engaged methods and interpretation.

In practice: You will need to respond to the specific context and remain flexible. For example, in the Kinneil House and Estate study public events were attended as they occurred throughout the research period. However, in all cases there was a move from the general to more specific/engaged activities. All the successfully trialled co-creative methods took place later in the assessments, once relationships of trust and understanding had developed.

Qualitative and quantitative methods offer (as with all methods) different understandings. For example, the number of visitors to site can be recorded numerically, with 'visitors' seen as a specific user group, or visiting can be explored qualitatively, as a behaviour that cuts across communities and reflects different motivations at different times.

While quantitative information is largely numeric and qualitative is mostly narrative, these are not mutually exclusive forms of knowledge and can complement one another. Sometimes you will need to draw on quantitative understandings and at other times qualitative, depending on what you want to achieve.

Qualitative social values do not equate with quantitative measures or scores. Social values relate to different communities and all, whether large or small, contribute to the significance of a place. It is not possible, without imposing another set of values on the process and potentially discriminating against some groups, to say that one set of social values ranks more highly than another.

When bringing social values into comparative or prioritisation processes, consider the questions you are asking of the qualitative material and how a contextualised understanding can be most useful. For example, it can help in evaluating whether planned interventions are likely to achieve their stipulated aims, how different communities might respond, and the potential for (positive or negative) impacts.