For how long were you a moderator?
I started moderating the database in 2012.
I think it was launched in September 2012, but we
were involved in the project maybe March-April.
So, at the end of the development, they contacted us.
'They' are the government - the Flemish government - who
built this database and website.
And they attracted us because we had knowledge
of working with participatory
ways and methodologies.
And I worked on it just until
April 2019.
When was the transition to the new database?
The transition happened in 2018
from the beginning of the year and it was launched in the beginning of December.
What role did the Flemish government play in the development of the database?
The first and the second? Yes.
Yeah. Well
they are the owners of the database
and you can say it's a reflection of their policy.
So, their policy on intangible cultural heritage
is totally incorporated in this tool.
You can see it as a mirror of their policies.
There was a new policy since the end
of 2010, there was a new vision on how
to work with intangible cultural heritage in Flanders. And
2012 was a year that they started really to
develop the policy and put it into practice.
And that professional organizations
in Flanders were
beginning to understand what intangible
heritage is and what's it about.
So the government developed a tool to
sustain the work on intangible
cultural heritage.
For the volunteers - the
tradition bearers, the ICH intangible cultural heritage bearers - , but
also for the professionals.
Were you also involved in the process of developing the
database? How did you collaborate on that?
In the beginning it was mainly the government itself
who developed it.
With FARO.
They were mainly involved.
I think also PACKED was involved.
But PACKED was involved later on in the process, together
with us because of
that's an organization who has expertise on
digital heritage and we had expertise on participative methods.
So that's why they attracted us both, but
much later in the process.
So there was already a cooperation building the database.
They already had decided what they wanted, who
was going to build it.
How did you find the first database?
How did I find it? Interesting...
Challenging...
I was the moderator of the platform.
Then you have already two terms and what I'm
saying now has a very broad meaning.
They said it was a platform on the digital cultural heritage,
but with the word platform they meant it's
not only a digital tool, but
it's also a network of
professionals who are working on intangible
cultural heritage and also the volunteers or the tradition bearers.
So
, following up on that.
My role as a moderator was also
not only - let's say - the web master or
the content manager.
But I was also a central
person to this network.
And as an organization we tried to develop
this network the first years: 2012 , 2013, 2014. That was a big part of my job
.
To get this network going.
So I also played a role in that
side and I was the center of
this big network of professionals,
tradition bearers, the government.
And yeah, I was in charge of the
flow of information and guidance
on every aspect and
in every way.
Next to content management and webmaster.
The content was created by professionals,
by tradition bearers, but not by me.
I was only an extra gate
who guided them to ask them extra
questions if some information was missing
and we did minimal editing on
the texts before it was put online.
So my interactions were very minimal.
And that's why the term moderator also came up because
that was very clear from the start, that this was my role.
That it was not to intervene too much in the
content but just manage it and moderate it.
Maybe you could describe how the process
of adding a new element to the
database goes?
There were different ways
to get in contact with people.
So, it starts with people who
wanted to add their - you say element
I say intangible cultural heritage - to the database.
Some people just heard about the database.
Some people just heard about
the official inventory for intangible cultural heritage in Flanders.
That was usually
the most common that people heard about the inventory
and they eventually came up with the question: how can we
get our intangible cultural heritage on
this list, as they see it on the inventory.
So that was usually the most common question and
how they reached us.
Sometimes it was just us
or other professional organisations,
who contacted people and on the other hand, we also organised some
workshops and stuff like that ; promotional
actions to promote the site and the database.
So that once people decide yes
we want to add our intangible
cultural heritage, they could ask for that.
That was how the process was in
the first database.
There it was that they could ask for a login, a
personal one, I would provide it to them.
Then they get access to the actual database.
They have a manual.
On how to work with a database with
explanations at the different fields.
What is what is really asked here
and then they could just go ahead.
But what we also did and what we strongly advised
was to have a conversation with one of our colleague
organizations that
was linked to their intangible culture.
To make it more clear, let's say, someone
who would want to add Carnival or something
like that, then we would guide them through an organization
who worked on social traditions
and that organization would have a conversation with
them on what is intangible heritage.
What is a policy on intangible heritage, so that they would
fully grasp the idea of what intangible
heritage really is and what it meant
and where the convention stands for where the policy stands for,
what it meant for them in practice and that it's really all
about working together and providing a future
for your intangible cultural heritage and keep it
active and alive.
And it's not about the history
of heritage but it's more about the
future. And once they
got that idea, then this organization
also guided them not wrote
the text, but they guided them into the process of
"Okay how are you now gonna describe it? How
would other people describe it ? Who is involved
? What actions do you take to create
a future for your intangible cultural heritage?".
Actually that was a large process most of the times.
Some people just described their heritage
and described their community,
but it was also necessary
, otherwise you couldn't be visible
in the front of the database, on the website.
So most of the people really did this full process.
Not everyone. In
the end it mostly led to
filing requests for also
being mentioned on the inventory of intangible culture.
Because of this whole process that they had to
undertake that
was usually the outcome.
So this was not my role.
My role was more like OK get
people involved and explain
what the process is about and refer them to other
organizations who then
did this whole process with the people
and then once they had written the texts and have
come to a consensus about the texts that
they wrote, then they got back to the
database and started really filing in the content.
And then I would just make some little
editing stuff or
say "Oh maybe it's better to use that picture", but
my involvement was nothing more than that anymore at that time.
I'm also wondering about the part where
the different parties that were involved had to reach a consensus.
Yeah.
Are there any traces
in the inventory about the process -
of how they reached a consensus ? Mhm. Or
of the moments where they didn't reach a consensus, for example.
Not
in the database itself, because it was
a process between people.
It wasn't a digital process at that time.
So, the texts that you see
on the website that are texts that
they reached a consensus about,
that's the case certainly now at this
point with a new database.
If someone isn't in consensus with how
it is mentioned, they are free and they can upload
another version and it stands next to each other.
That wasn't the case in the previous.
But now the website is open to that.
Has anyone actually made use of this feature
, at least until April 2019?
Yes.
So far I don't think so.
The professionals really played
the role of mediator the
past 6-7 years.
That was the idea also
of the policy to bring people
together on intangible cultural heritage
and it all came back from the idea they can learn from each
other and it strengthens the
intangible cultural heritage if people work together
and if they share their experience and I think for a big part
that's that's really true.
But you still have different voices
and different meanings and when 0 I can
understand your question when it comes to texts.
People can have another vision on
how something is described or if
they want to feel connected to it, but
in the past they got to the point of a consensus.
One of the examples that you
wrote in your email was about the Giants,
but that - actually I am actually not the
person who who can speak widely about it,
because it wasn't one of our projects - and the organization
who has done that this was LECA, now they're part of Histories.
They were one of the first and actually they had a process
for 7 or 8, 9 years because
in France you have a lot of giants and
a lot of small communities
but actually they're all part of a bigger community
of people who feel
strongly about the Giants and keep them alive and
then they said "well we have to get those people together".
And step by step, year by year,
they started to work with these people and
attract more and more people.
And support them and actually in
the end they created a lot of cells
in different regions with people
who were more or less involved.
They organized workshops in different regions and so
a total movement actually arose
and it came to an association for the
whole of Flanders on this Giant
culture actually.
And then they applied for a place on
the inventory as a whole,
but I have to say before
that smaller communities already applied
for an individual
culture in the city, but
it felt really strong that now they can speak of
a Giant culture in Flanders.
Then they tried to
put the differences
into the text on this culture but of course
you have smaller aspects of
culture in a smaller region that are different.
But yes you can find some main
lines and teams that
apply to them all.
They did a good job, but
people are now certainly also
able to fill in the form
just on their own culture.
That's what I'm trying to say so we took
that idea of "there has to be a consensus and
everyone has to work together ", we
took that down a notch in
the second database now.
So now it's more everyone, even a small community
, even a person can fill in a form
so that the giant of a small community
is also visible on the website.
So the two ways
lie ahead now next to each other in the new database. Yeah.
How was this transition made ? Was the
focus on a multiplicity
of views coming from
the organization Werk plaats Immaterieel Eerfgoed or
was it coming from the Flemish government?
I think it was
from both ways.
And there is also another organ
in this whole process and that's a commission
of experts and
they advise the minister on
which elements should be
on the inventory.
So they really went over all these appliances
and they also had made some
evaluations on the topic of the
past years and made some suggestions.
So when the years went by
faces headed into the same direction
because we all noticed that "OK.
This way of working demands a lot of the people, ir demands a lot of the
professionals who are guiding them.
Certainly
it has has pros, many.
We have done terrific work on that,
but in terms of
displaying on a website on
inventorying ICH in Flanders and displaying
the diversity of ICH in Flanders...
These two processes
can come together. They're just
counterproductive actually, because it
took such a long time to get to a text,
so they can display it and that's not the
match we're trying to make
an inventory of ICHin Flanders that's
really diverse also.
Was this one of the main reasons to move to a new database?
Yes it was. Because
the old database and the content that
was in the database didn't show the
diversity of ICH in Flanders and had problems with that.
So we made an analysis of what is going on
here and there were a lot of technical issues,
barriers that slow down that process
next to the process on how we work with
the tradition bearers and the policy and what they
demanded of
work from these volunteers and that took a long
time for them to develop
and this is almost counterproductive to the inventorying ICH in Flanders.
And then you create an image of ICH in Flanders
only with the ICH
of people who already know the way to the professional organizations.
And then again when you look at look at it
from the perspective of the website only typical
ICH is presented there.
So it's a conflict. A lot of steps
had to be taken and you had a policy,
you had the process on how to
apply for the inventory, that are
all barriers,
but you also had the digital
barriers that were definitely
a big part of it because it was too difficult to work with.
So
in one year we worked on the three.
Did you find that being a moderator
for the NGO the Werkplaats Immaterieel Erfgoed
was different from being a moderator for elements
that went on the Flemish inventory?
It's true that my role was different than
other colleagues of mine in the NGO.
And that sometimes it did
in our day to day work it
did came up that I was more linked to the government.
Or that's how I felt it.
Sometimes I have to say "but no Ellen, no, that's not true".
But I had the feeling that I was moderating a
tool of them and
that is something that I was always conscious about.
It's a very direct line.
In the work we have done as an organization
, we could more develop our own
lines and vision on the website. We could.
But it's more for working and
finding and way in. Okay how far
can we go as an organization whose moderating this tool?
And when do we have to
ask feedback or approval
from the government if we want to do it like this or like that.
And then I was a person who was responsible for that.
So they felt freer in their work
than I could ever be. Me
personally and as a moderator.
So yeah it was reflected in my
my work and that's why I was really happy
that at the end I could guide
this project as a project management to do
the follow up tool in 2018
because at that time we could as an organization
and me also my
personal expertise in moderating this website, it
all could come together.
And at that time we also built up an expertise
or voice as an organization and
we're stronger than in 2012.
It was nice to work in
this way with the government so that we could
develop a tool that everybody was happy about.
Yes this is the way forward.
This is what we need to do to
turn this around.
So at the end we were more... I was more.. .
Yeah I could say..
.
More colleagues also with the government not in a way
like what my colleagues on the Werkplaats,
but we could speak
more freely to each other and everyone has
his position and his expertise and is valued for that.
So that was another way of working than 6, 7 years before that.
How
do you negotiate the differences between
the official Flemish inventory and
the organization's inventory.
Yeah.
That's one of the changes that was made in
developing the sector, because
like I said before in the first tool the restrictions
were rather high.
So there had to be a description.
Of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and then it's
matched with a definition of intangible cultural heritage.
The parameters that are that you can find in the definition.
One important one for example
is: is it still alive
and active? Are
people still doing it? Is
there a future for it? So that's one aspect.
When people enter their information that was one of the things
that I would really look into
and ask extra questions whether
or not it was for the inventory or not that was
for example a very big issue.
But also as certainly on the first
database people had to describe their community.
And
the government was really strict about it: from they have to
describe their community , otherwise they cannot be visible in the front.
So they can be in the back-end, they can work on their
content, but it can only be
made visible once all this information is included.
One extra was that they had to show
that they already had made some
safeguarding measures.
So that was three very big descriptions, we think.
Because what also comes up is that you have
to have prior and informed consent.
I don't know if you're familiar with that.
That's something that is strict in the convention.
You have to have prior and informed consent to call
something intangible cultural heritage.
So the government felt really strongly
about and that was a really strong restriction
for me to moderate this content
and that would lead up to asking extra
questions to the people.
So for 6, 7 years, me
as a moderator,
there was almost nothing that I could moderate
and make visible in the front
other than the inventory
for cultural heritage because the standards are so high.
So there was almost no difference.
And that's something that we made notable to
the government and now the restrictions are much lesser.
So we pulled it apart.
So now people who want to make their intangible
cultural heritage visible they can.
They only have a form.
And five six questions that they had to fill in.
And then they click a bottom where they
say yes I have read the definition
of intangible cultural heritage and this is intangible
cultural heritage to me.
And that's
also all that the convention asks for.
But the government interpreted the
convention at a very high level.
Difficult level.
So we tried to narrow it down
and split it out.
The moderator now, he can just look
into the texts that come up on
this little forum and
if people are interested in
applying for the inventory they can
start to fill in another form with
more questions but also easier questions
than ever before to fill in a
form to apply for the inventory and they
can also
get in contact with other organizations if they wanted.
But also that is not necessary anymore. And
previous times it was necessary.
When
you made the transition from the previous database to the new
database, what happened with these elements?
Very important in this
process was it was not only a new database
, but it was also a new way of reporting.
I don't know if you are familiar with that concept ? That every
year elements who are on the inventory
, they had to make a report on how they
develop safeguarding measures that year and how it has evolved.
And also they were asked to
look into the description of the heritage
and make changes if something
changed, or has come up, or add something or.
But not many have done that in the past years.
So we thought well there's a new database now.
But it's also a different way of working.
So we kept them informed.
We thought that was very important.
On the new process, but also what we
were aiming for with this new website and
this new database and actually it was the government
who led that process.
I made suggestions on how to do that, but they were in
contact with the communities.
So we were restricted
the number of characters that a text could have
and a lot of texts were for example I'm
giving you a very straight clear example.
The texts were very long. So we narrowed it down
and we did edit
the texts to make it more web friendly
and then we gave it back to the communities,
we informed that we were going to do that and then we gave it back to the
communities and we didn't
enter any new texts before we got their consent.
Looking at the experts from their new database
one column that stands out is that of weight,
referring of course to the order in which the elements are
displayed on the website.
And most of the elements seem to have a different weight from another.
Could you mention how that selection is made?
The grand idea about the new website was all
diversity, diversity, diversity. And we
wanted to have an impact on the image of intangible cultural
heritage and what it all can be and is in Flanders
and not only just typical Carnival
and Processions
but that is much more than that.
So we wanted to have also
a sort of algorithm, because
there's only a few elements that can be shown
on the front page and also
when you enter the part of the elements.
Also there, there is every day
, every element has a different place
in how it's presented.
It can be on the first page it can be the second.
We wanted it also to change to have algorithms in the database.
And that's all because we wanted to show
this diversity of elements,
but we would have done it in a full
automatic way.
But the budget wasn't sufficient enough.
So the developers came back to us
and said "no we can't do it that way but we have another idea.
We switch it.
And with this bar you can give
it a percentage and then it has a lower or higher
chance to come on the front page
or to come on the first or the second or the third".
And when we speak of diversity it's on different
levels: it's the level of the different domains
of cultural heritage.
It's whether it's heritage
that takes place in cities or
in the mainland or that's
mainly done by elders or by youngsters.
So these differences, we
wanted to reflect it all.
And with that in our back of our head we would manually
give it a different percentage every month,
every week.