Editorial

Abstract

Papers in volume . of the AICCM Bulletin explore the evaluation processes for treatment case studies and their outcomes. Contributions recognise that conservation practice is an assertion of values and that the treatment of objects is a physical representation of the way conservators interact with material culture, thereby highlighting their decision-making and proposing new treatment strategies across the different materials and areas of gilded frames, lead objects, a silk cheongsam, Japanese tissue and collection care. This is not only for the purposes of sharing and learning new practical methods for treatment cases studies, but for the evidence and values that inform our work to be more broadly scrutinised and thereby advanced. Conservation as a practice-based profession can reach a level of transparency and greater certainty via this process of reflexivity. Reflexivity as a method of inquiry recognises the value of patterning our observations, in this case the response of cultural materials or model samples to conservation treatments or practices, as the basis for actions. We see such an approach in Sarah Benson and Siti Suhailah Salim’s paper on ‘Consolidation of flaking painted decorations on a th century cheongsam dress’. We can see that there is not a single approach and that the values we affirm in the objects we preserve change according to their diverse geographic and demographic circumstances, which are reflected in the treatment materials and processes used for the cheongsam. In our professional work and conservation treatments, we do employ reflexivity with a single and double-looped process of enquiry. The practical and mindful experience of conservators are often evaluated from as many different positions as possible along with the questioning of initial assumptions, their origins and diverse material responses to build accumulated knowledge. When conserving materials, ‘materials think in us, as we think through them’ (Ingold , p. ) recalling the words of Tim Ingold where knowledge is tacit and does not reside in words or documents, but can be found in the objects. Conservation literature has also touched on this process of reflexivity, action research and tacit knowledge such as Caple (), Ashely-Smith () and del Terra (), and such views are important to the way conservators critically analyse and write about treatment case studies, praxis and present authorised accounts. In any conservation laboratory or forum, treatment case studies and decision-making is freely shared informally. This may be why the AICCM Special Interest Group Meetings and informal conference discussions are always very popular. However when it comes to scaling up and publishing conservation case studies and treatment approaches in peer review formats, fewer papers reach this stage (Christodulaki & Sloggett ). Papers in recent volumes of the AICCM Bulletin argue the dominance of materials science as the authorised account in cultural materials conservation, and this may be the reason why qualitative, practice-based conservation is less published and available (Scott ). The lack of peer reviewed papers on conservation treatment case studies and approaches is widely acknowledged by conservators. Christodulaki and Sloggett’s () recent article details the incentives for peer review publishing in conservation and the types of contributions that are most represented, while the JAIC has a call for shorter papers to report on treatment case studies to address the imbalance between scientifically grounded and treatment-based papers. This volume and the AICCM Bulletin also supports the submission of such papers and endeavours to assist authors in revising and improving the quality of papers for a broader representation of papers, crossinstitutional discussion and to testify our interdisciplinarity. Malgorzata Sawicki’s paper on ‘Non-traditional gilding revisited: evaluation of gilded surfaces exposed to uncontrolled day-night fluctuations for over  years’ is founded on materials science and the use of analytical instrumentation; it also combines this with real-time longitudinal modelling unique to the geographic circumstances and environments of the AGNSW in an interdisciplinary way. The evaluation of material responses too is from the perspective of accumulated, practice-based knowledge. Likewise George Bailey, Jennifer Brian and Claire Champion’s paper on ‘An investigation into the impact of sealed wooden and acrylic showcases and storage cases on the corrosion of lead objects during long-term storage and display’ evaluates real-time exposure of lead-based ship models in microclimate display cases for extended time periods. It reports on the construction materials for display cases at the Australian War Memorial and describes the formation of formic acid microclimates and their impact on the lead-based objects. The paper acknowledges the realities of conservation decision-making practices and it is encouraging that institutions are sharing their longitudinal conservation studies. Relatedly, Somayeh Soleymani, Tracy Ireland and Dennis McNevin’s ‘Influence of