价值观与干预:国际学说中的动态关系

IF 1.1 Q4 GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Michael C. Y. Lin, A. Pereira Roders, I. Nevzgodin, Wessel de Jonge
{"title":"价值观与干预:国际学说中的动态关系","authors":"Michael C. Y. Lin, A. Pereira Roders, I. Nevzgodin, Wessel de Jonge","doi":"10.1108/jchmsd-10-2022-0178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeEven if there is a wealth of research highlighting the key role of values and cultural significance for heritage management and, defining specific interventions on built heritage, seldom the relation to their leading values and values hierarchy have been researched. How do values and interventions relate? What values trigger most and least interventions on heritage? How do these values relate and characterize interventions? And what are the values hierarchy that make the interventions on built heritage differ?Design/methodology/approachThis paper conducts a systematic content analysis of 69 international doctrinal documents – mainly adopted by Council of Europe, UNESCO, and ICOMOS, during 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the intervention concepts and their definitions, in relation to values. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and values is determined based on the frequency of mentioned values per intervention.FindingsThere were three key findings. First, historic, social, and aesthetical values were the most referenced values in international doctrinal documents. Second, while intervention concepts revealed similar definitions and shared common leading values, their secondary values and values hierarchy, e.g. aesthetical or social values, are the ones influencing the variation on their definitions. Third, certain values show contradictory roles in the same intervention concepts from different documents, e.g. political and age values.Originality/valueThis paper explores a novel comparison between different interventions concepts and definitions, and the role of values. The results can contribute to support further research and practice on clarifying the identified differences.","PeriodicalId":45408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Values and interventions: dynamic relationships in international doctrines\",\"authors\":\"Michael C. Y. Lin, A. Pereira Roders, I. Nevzgodin, Wessel de Jonge\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jchmsd-10-2022-0178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeEven if there is a wealth of research highlighting the key role of values and cultural significance for heritage management and, defining specific interventions on built heritage, seldom the relation to their leading values and values hierarchy have been researched. How do values and interventions relate? What values trigger most and least interventions on heritage? How do these values relate and characterize interventions? And what are the values hierarchy that make the interventions on built heritage differ?Design/methodology/approachThis paper conducts a systematic content analysis of 69 international doctrinal documents – mainly adopted by Council of Europe, UNESCO, and ICOMOS, during 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the intervention concepts and their definitions, in relation to values. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and values is determined based on the frequency of mentioned values per intervention.FindingsThere were three key findings. First, historic, social, and aesthetical values were the most referenced values in international doctrinal documents. Second, while intervention concepts revealed similar definitions and shared common leading values, their secondary values and values hierarchy, e.g. aesthetical or social values, are the ones influencing the variation on their definitions. Third, certain values show contradictory roles in the same intervention concepts from different documents, e.g. political and age values.Originality/valueThis paper explores a novel comparison between different interventions concepts and definitions, and the role of values. The results can contribute to support further research and practice on clarifying the identified differences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jchmsd-10-2022-0178\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jchmsd-10-2022-0178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

即使有大量的研究强调了价值观和文化意义在遗产管理中的关键作用,并定义了对建筑遗产的具体干预措施,但很少研究其主导价值观和价值观层次之间的关系。价值观和干预是如何联系在一起的?哪些价值观对遗产的干预最多,哪些最少?这些价值观是如何联系和表征干预措施的?又是什么样的价值层次使得对建筑遗产的干预有所不同?本文对1877年至2021年间主要由欧洲理事会、联合国教科文组织和ICOMOS采用的69份国际教义文件进行了系统的内容分析。主要目的是揭示和比较干预概念及其定义,与价值的关系。干预概念和价值之间关系的强度是根据每次干预中提到的价值的频率来确定的。调查结果主要有三个发现。第一,历史价值、社会价值和审美价值是国际教义文件中引用最多的价值。第二,虽然干预概念的定义相似,具有共同的主导价值观,但其次要价值观和价值观层次,如审美或社会价值观,是影响其定义变化的因素。第三,某些价值观在不同文献的同一干预观念中表现出相互矛盾的作用,如政治价值观和时代价值观。原创性/价值本文探讨了不同干预概念和定义之间的新颖比较,以及价值的作用。研究结果有助于进一步研究和实践,以澄清已识别的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Values and interventions: dynamic relationships in international doctrines
PurposeEven if there is a wealth of research highlighting the key role of values and cultural significance for heritage management and, defining specific interventions on built heritage, seldom the relation to their leading values and values hierarchy have been researched. How do values and interventions relate? What values trigger most and least interventions on heritage? How do these values relate and characterize interventions? And what are the values hierarchy that make the interventions on built heritage differ?Design/methodology/approachThis paper conducts a systematic content analysis of 69 international doctrinal documents – mainly adopted by Council of Europe, UNESCO, and ICOMOS, during 1877 and 2021. The main aim is to reveal and compare the intervention concepts and their definitions, in relation to values. The intensity of the relationship between intervention concepts and values is determined based on the frequency of mentioned values per intervention.FindingsThere were three key findings. First, historic, social, and aesthetical values were the most referenced values in international doctrinal documents. Second, while intervention concepts revealed similar definitions and shared common leading values, their secondary values and values hierarchy, e.g. aesthetical or social values, are the ones influencing the variation on their definitions. Third, certain values show contradictory roles in the same intervention concepts from different documents, e.g. political and age values.Originality/valueThis paper explores a novel comparison between different interventions concepts and definitions, and the role of values. The results can contribute to support further research and practice on clarifying the identified differences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
63
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信