Touch Decisions: For Heritage Objects

References

• Australia ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites). 2013. Practice Note: Understanding and Assessing Cultural Significance. Burwood, NSW: Australia ICOMOS. https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Practice-Note_Understanding-and-assessing-cultural-significance.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bakhri, Saiful. 2020. “Promoting Traditional Knowledge in Conservation: The Role of The Borobudur Conservation Office.” AICCM Bulletin 41 (2): 95–105. doi:10.1080/10344233.2020.1867360
   Google Scholar
• Balachandran, Sanchita. 2017. “Pedagogy and the ‘Working Collection’: Teaching Technical Research and Experimental Archaeology at the Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum.” In Postprints of the October 2016 Penn Museum Symposium, “Engaging Conservation: Collaboration Across Disciplines”, October 6–8, 2016, edited by Nina Owczarek, Molly Gleeson, and Lynn Grant, 19–28. London: Archetype.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, Foekje, Kathleen Dardes, and James Druzik. 2014. “Precaution, Proof, and Pragmatism: Evolving Perspectives on the Museum Environment.” Conservation Perspectives: The GCI Newsletter. 29 (2): 4–9. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/29_2/evolving_perspectives.html
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, Helen, ed. 2020. Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Classen, Constance. 2005. “Touch in the Museum.” In The Book of Touch, edited by Constance Classen, 275–288. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fekrsanati, Farideh, and Hélia Marçal. 2022. “Affirming Change in Participatory Practices of Cultural Conservation.” In Participatory Practices in Art and Cultural Heritage, edited by C. Rausch, R. Benschop, E. Sitzia, and V. van Saaze, 127–141. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Fields, Jonathan. 2011. Uncertainty: Turning Fear and Doubt Into Fuel for Brilliance. New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Findlay, Cait. 2022. “Cambridge Museums Welcome People with Visual Impairments on ‘touch tours.’” Cambridge News. https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/cambridge-museums-welcome-people-visual-24783918
   Google Scholar
• Fritz, A. 1993. “Put to the Touch.” Textile Asia 24 (7): 74–77. Print.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, Murray. 1994. “Working with Design Professionals: Preventive Conservators as Problem Solvers, not Problem Creators.” Studies in Conservation 39 (sup2): 21–23. doi:10.1179/sic.1994.39.Supplement-2.21
   Google Scholar
• Ginzarly, Manal, and F. Jordan Srour. 2022. “Cultural Heritage Through the Lens of COVID-19.” Poetics 92: 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häyhä, Heikki, Sari Jantunen, and Leena Paaskoski. 2018. “Analysing Significance.” Publications of Finnish Museums Association 75 https://www.museoliitto.fi/doc/verkkojulkaisut/AnalysingSignificance.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, Jane. 2022. “Conservators Delivering Change.” Studies in Conservation 67 (sup1): 105–111. doi:10.1080/00393630.2022.2066320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, Jane, and Tanya Nakamoto. 2016. “Dialogue in Conservation Decision-Making.” Studies in Conservation 61 (sup2): 67–78. doi:10.1080/00393630.2016.1183106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, Jane, and Kloe Rumsey. 2015. “Communicating Pesticide Contamination Messages.” Collection Forum 29 (1-2): 49–60. doi:10.14351/0831-4985-29.1.49
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, Jane, and Robert Waller. 2016. “Effective Preservation Decision Strategies.” Studies in Conservation 61 (6): 308–323. doi:10.1179/2047058415Y.0000000019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, Jane, Robert Waller, and David Hopes. 2020. “Begin With Benefits: Reducing Bias in Conservation Decision-Making.” Studies in Conservation 65 (sup1): P142–P147. doi:10.1080/00393630.2020.1787638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hetherington, Kevin. 2000. “Museums and the Visually Impaired: The Spatial Politics of Access.” The Sociological Review 48 (3): 444–463. doi:10.1111/1467-954X.00225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Historic England. 2019. “Assessing Significance.” https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/caring-for-heritage/places-of-worship/making-changes/principles/assessing-significance/.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 2013. Museums and Their Visitors. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• ICOM (International Council of Museums). 2022. ICOM Approves a New Museum Definition. https://icom.museum/en/news/icom-approves-a-new-museum-definition/.
   Google Scholar
• Joy, Annamma, and John F. Sherry Jr. 2003. “Speaking of Art as Embodied Imagination: A Multisensory Approach to Understanding Aesthetic Experience.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 259–282. doi:10.1086/376802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1982. “The Psychology of Preferences.” Scientific American 246 (1): 160–173. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katifori, Akrivi, Maria Roussou, Sara Perry, George Drettakis, Sebastian Vizcay, and Julien Philip. 2018. “The EMOTIVE Project-Emotive Virtual Cultural Experiences through Personalized Storytelling.” CIRA@EuroMed, 11–20 Nicosia, Cyprus, November 3, 20.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, Suzanna, and David G. Proverbs. 2019. “How Adaption of Historic Listed Buildings Affords Access.” International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 38 (4): 589–605. doi:10.1108/IJBPA-11-2018-0093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, Brook Lee. 2010. “The Meaning of the Touching.” PhD diss., University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Viñas, Salvador. 2022. “Conservation Science, Conservation Practice and the Conservator’s Knowledge: A Naïve Exploration.” Journal of the Institute of Conservation 45 (3): 173–189. doi:10.1080/19455224.2022.2112407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narkiss, Irit, and Helena Tomlin. 2008. “Close Encounters: Enabling Access to Museum Collections.” Studies in Conservation 53 (sup1): 166–169. doi:10.1179/sic.2008.53.Supplement-1.166
   Google Scholar
• N’gbala, Ahogni, and Nyla R. Branscombe. 1997. “‘When Does Action Elicit More Regret Than Inaction, and is Counterfactual Mutation the Mediator of This Effect?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33 (3): 324–343. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.1322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton, Bryan. 1999. “Ecology and Opportunity: Intergenerational Equity and Sustainable Options.” In Fairness and Futurity, edited by A. Dobson, 118–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ntieche, Gamaliel Njoya. 2021. “Traditional versus Contemporary Conservation Methods in West Cameroon's Community Museums.” Museum International 73 (1–2): 156–163. doi:10.1080/13500775.2021.1956762
   Google Scholar
• Pye, Elizabeth. 2008. “The Benefits of Access Through Handling Outweigh the Risks.” Studies in Conservation 53 (sup1): 162–165. doi:10.1179/sic.2008.53.Supplement-1.162
   Google Scholar
• Pye, Elizabeth, ed. 2016. The Power of Touch: Handling Objects in Museum and Heritage Context. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, Sandip. n.d. “Fundamental Attribution Error: 6 Crucial Questions Answered.” In The Happiness Blog. Accessed September 2022. https://happyproject.in/fae-bias/.
   Google Scholar
• Sekuler, Robert, and Randolph Blake. 2006. Perception. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Sofaer, Joanna, Ben Davenport, Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, Eirini Gallou, and David Uzzell. 2021. “Heritage Sites, Value and Wellbeing: Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic in England.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 27 (11): 1117–1132. doi:10.1080/13527258.2021.1955729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sully, Dean. 2015. “Conservation Theory and Practice: Materials, Values, and People in Heritage Conservation.” In The International Handbooks of Museum Studies: Museum Practice, vol. 2, edited by Conal McCarthy, 1–23. Sydney: John Wiley & Sons Australia. doi:10.1002/9781118829059.wbihms988
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Joel. 2014. “Re-contextualising the ‘Conservation Versus Access’ Debate.” In ICOM Committee for Conservation preprints. 17th Triennial Conference, Melbourne, September 15–19, edited by J. Bridgland. Paris: ICOM. Art. 1906: 9. https://www.icom-cc-publications-online.org/1402/Re-contextualising-the-conservation-versus-access-debate.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, Garry. 1978. The Museum Environment. London: Butterworths.
   Google Scholar
• Thorn, A. 2008. “Access Denied: Restricted Access to Indigenous Cultural Sites.” In Conservation and Access: Contributions to the London Congress, 15–19 September, edited by D. Saunders, and S. Woodcock, 209–213. London: IIC.
   Google Scholar
• Welsh Government. 2022. Anti-racist Wales Action Plan. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-06/anti-racist-wales-action-plan_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, Joelle D. J., and Anisha Gupta. 2022. “Leadership: The Act of Making Way for Others.” Studies in Conservation67 (sup1): 319–325. doi:10.1080/00393630.2022.2065956.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, Lucy Fowler, Nina Owczarek, Molly Gleeson, and Lynn A. Grant. 2017. “Supporting Community Revitalization: Curatorial and Conservation Stewardship at the Penn Museum.” In Engaging Conservation: Collaboration Across Disciplines, edited by Williams, 109–114. London: Archetype Publications.
   Google Scholar