| “It
was my pleasure to have been included in the terrific
mix of participants. This experience has certainly enriched
my life, and I am looking forward to bringing my ‘new
knowledge’ into our classrooms.”
“I came back with a lot of new inspiration.”
“An excellent mix of useful discussions and sharing
of opinions and experiences.”
The final course product (described by Frederique
Vincent in another article ) was the result of a
number of crucial decisions that arose years before
— decisions that in hindsight were even more important
than we realized.
Should CCI embark on an international project when
its mandate is to serve Canadians?
The preventive conservation summer school venture
was more than just a CCI course that might include applicants
from abroad. It was explicitly planned in partnership
with ICCROM — an intergovernmental agency created
under the auspices of UNESCO that had a mandate to provide
or facilitate conservation training throughout the world.
Over the years CCI has received numerous requests from
training programs outside Canada for individual lecturers
in preventive conservation, and was happy to comply
whenever needs, benefits, and finances permitted. On
these occasions it was always attempted, as much as
possible, to “build local capacity” rather
than just deliver lectures. As the Institute’s
international reputation developed, it became increasingly
apparent (especially within the preventive conservation
section) that it would be much more satisfying and cost-effective
to bring the world’s trainers to CCI’s doorstep
rather than respond to random requests. This desire
to build capacity and transfer skills was also what
ICCROM desired.
As partners, we agreed from the beginning to keep up
to 10 spaces for Canadian participants and 15 spaces
for international participants. This seemed a reasonable
balance between serving CCI’s national mandate
and the international mandate of ICCROM.
A more subtle, unpredictable, but ultimately crucial
reason for international participation was the opportunity
to provide Canadian participants with a chance to “network”
and “share.” These words have become banal
buzzwords, but as the course unfolded it was evident
that given time and opportunity, constructive and warm
professional linkages between Canadians and their international
peers would be genuine. This became one of the hidden
dividends of a long and well-planned course.
Why commit to a three-week course when CCI’s
usual offerings were three days?
ICCROM is famous for its many professional courses
that typically last four weeks or more. CCI, on the
other hand, has spent years refining its training courses
to meet the North American professional development
model of two or three days, a standard in which one
week is considered really long. At CCI, we were hesitant
to attempt what seemed to us an impossible sell —
three weeks! In the end, we acknowledged what ICCROM
told us: if we wanted to offer a substantive course
on preventive conservation, at a level that merged the
potential of our expert staff with the needs of experienced
educators, then we would need weeks rather than days
to get somewhere valuable.
In fact, it was difficult for the Canadian applicants
in our target group to secure the necessary time and
funding for a three-week course, but most succeeded.
Knowing that low-cost university residence housing and
food was crucial for everyone, it formed a key part
of the early planning.
Why spend so much time and so many resources planning
this course?
Both CCI and ICCROM spent more time and resources
planning and developing this course than was normal
for either organization.
Initiated in 2001, the course concept emerged from
long-standing desires by each organization to offer
substantive training in this area. By mid 2001, preliminary
discussions between the project leaders established
a shared concept that the course must not be a compressed
“crash course,” but instead be a cutting-edge
presentation. It must not be “talking head”
lectures; rather it should reach beyond the best current
education methods.
In late 2001, three separate discussion groups led
by staff from ICCROM and CCI spent three days at CCI
exploring the many ways this concept could be structured
in a real course design. The most promising ideas from
the three groups were merged and contemplated.
In mid 2002, each organization went to its potential
clients and asked what they actually needed from such
a course. CCI invited a representative group of conservation
professionals from across Canada for a one-day discussion
including a “gap analysis” of the subject
area. ICCROM approached a worldwide group through e-mail,
using its extensive network of contacts. Both client
groups were supportive, and both identified similar
concerns in what they needed.
Shortly after, a core design team met and spent four
days planning the course in detail: learning objectives,
unit descriptions, and teaching methods, hour by hour.
The fragments were “orchestrated” not only
to follow a sequence of content but also to vary the
learning method and maintain engagement. Advice from
the education consultants from each organization was
as crucial to the mix as the advice from the needs assessments.
The title “From Current Issues to Common Strategies”
was coined on the last day by the ICCROM project leader
Catherine Antomarchi. It neatly captured the ambitious
plans for the course.
So was all this time and effort worth it? Although
parts of the course were taught in familiar ways, at
least half of it was taught very differently. This approach
not only worked very well, but it also taught both participants
and presenters how to teach better. We asked in great
detail what “they” needed and then delivered
it — and the gratitude showed. In response to
criticism of previous ICCROM and CCI courses, we included
ample time to discuss, to think, to read, to talk to
other CCI staff, to visit, and to practise. And it worked.
Could we borrow resources from other institutions
with expertise?
We were able to leverage our partnership into a suite
of worldwide collaborations — CCI is not the sole
source of the best experts! Course teachers came from
the Canadian Museum of Nature, the Library and Archives
Canada, the Centre de conservation du Québec,
the Instituut Collectie Nederland (Netherlands Institute
of Cultural Heritage), and the Getty Conservation Institute.
Panel speakers included experts from the Woodland Cultural
Centre Museum (Brantford, Ontario), the University of
British Columbia Museum of Anthropology, and the National
Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution.
Our own community also provided essential “behind
the scenes” practicums. Staff from the City of
Ottawa guided participants through various local historic
house museums, and staff from Petroglyphs Provincial
Park northeast of Peterborough, Ontario, provided a
special evening of contemplation on-site. Participants
commented especially on the value of these local experiences.
What is the future of the course?
This first presentation of the course has addressed
almost all of CCI’s primary target group of trainers
of preventive conservation in Canada, so our obligations
to this group will now revert to research, advice, and
supporting publications. For CCI, a second offering
will make sense only if the course content is adjusted
to meet the needs of an expanded target group such as
museology programs, cultural resource management programs,
or even public administration programs. Indeed, this
would reflect the growing recognition that many professional
and administrative personnel outside the traditional
conservation boundaries play a crucial role in preventive
conservation. The situation is somewhat different for
ICCROM: they also recognize the need for an expanded
circle of recipients, but currently have a substantial
waiting list of applicants for the same course, proposals
from other agencies offering other venues, and a desire
to see further returns on the extensive planning investment.
Given these considerations, the precise reincarnations
of the course remain to be seen.
Whatever happens in the future, CCI and ICCROM have
already achieved their initial goal of transferring
to others the capacity to teach the care of their communities’
heritage. And both institutes look forward to continuing
their fruitful collaboration.
|
