Talk:Cultural resource management

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Archaeology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Collections Care (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Collections Care, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Collections CareWikipedia:WikiProject Collections CareTemplate:WikiProject Collections CareCollections Care articles

okay guys, maybe we need a different topic for British CRM and American CRM, because in America it's not just federal projects, it's any federal monies that are paid to support projects that fall under this rule.

They are related, but from what I see not the same.

I can't see that as a reason to split them, they still share the 'polluter pays principle' and all the issues of privatisation and commercialisation of the profession. If we split them, CRM regimes in other countries would also need their own pages and we wouldn't be able to provide a general introduction to the discipline. adamsan 07:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should try to make the information more general and not include any country-specific information? I know this will force us to come up with some lists of activities or processes that vary from country to country, but that might be better than country-specific information. ASchoenhofer 30 Oct 2005

Archeological CRM may be a branch of archeology, and archeologists may tend to think of CRM solely in archeological terms, but CRM itself is much broader. Tacking "and architectual" in the introductory sentence is only of modest help. THPOs play a role in CRM but fit into neither category. Similarly, association with significant events or the lives of significant persons are reasons for inclusion in the National Register. I wish I could improve things directly myself, but for now I have only the time to make this assertion. 64.105.60.62 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the broad definition of "cultural resource management" to include non-heritage resources. While this term ostensibly could include this broad definition, is it actually used in this manner? Cultural resource management is a term created by the National Park Service and is specifically used to identify heritage resources. A citation and/or example of the non-heritage use of this term should be in the article or else it needs to be edited to remove its non-heritage references. Wikipedia should not be used as an advocacy vehicle to change the usage of accepted terminology in professional practice. Tous ensemble 16:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I'm aware it's only in the last few years that it has been used more broadly. Some early digital projects started off being about cultural heritage by digitising museum and archive material but didn't restrict the content to being heritage - for example .Scottish Cultural Resources Access Network, others have always been more eclectic e.g. The European Library. In the EU, by the way, especially in EU policy stuff, the term 'cultural heritage' seems to be used quite consistently when they mean heritage and when they say cultural resources, they mean it more inclusively. I seem to recall there was a bit of a switch midway in the 5th Framework Programme around about 2000, when they opened up the Information Society Technology Programme and it stopped being about how do we catalogue collections to put them online and started being about research on interchange of cultural assets. I may also be cynical but it could be that the trend by the intellectual capital movement to put an economic value on intangibles (social capital, creative capital, community capital etc), made the politicians start to be interested in the broader definition e.g [1]. Then of course there's inflation in job titles, so instead of advertising for an Art Gallery Manager, they want a Cultural Resources Manager - although maybe that is appropriate because the scope of such a job has probably changed dramatically in the last few years, and probably involves interactive multimedia experinces and being able to put on performance art in the gallery as well as dealing with concept art, not just paintings! In Europe there is a general trend to bring together government responsibilities for culture (heritage as well as arts etc) e.g. France, Ireland, UK, [2]. For UK, there's a definition of cultural sector which is part of a bigger project to define National Occupational Standards, which aids in comparison of competencies (such as resource management) across industry sectors. In Education, you can take a BA in Cultural Resources Management at Dundalk and an MA at De Montfort in European Cultural Planning. There are recent research papers and projects e.g. [3] [4]. I thought at first it might be another example of usage being divided by the Atlantic, but judging from this [5] perhaps not. Maybe it's just the case that historical material culture is tangible and hence easier to manage. Viv Hamilton 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the validity of your argument, and it would seem that there may be a movement to incorporate the arts into cultural resource management. The issue is that, at least in the United States, CRM is intimately associated with historic preservation and archaeology. (For an example see Sonoma State University's definition of CRM.) The reason for this is because the National Park Service appropriated this term for use with heritage resources. Admittedly, the term cultural heritage management would have been a better definition. My suggestion would be to explain this situation in the article, and the common usage and perception of the term and how it may be evolving to encompass the entire scope of things "cultural". Tous ensemble 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a good idea. I will try to find the time to do it. I wonder if in fact the two positions are so far apart as they might apppear. In Europe we don't have the cultual clash between the indigenous people and incoming Europeans. The definition of CRM you quoted includes liaison with native americans. They are presumably placing a current cultural value on their sites (i.e. place of celebration, sacred etc), not just one of heritage. On the other hand in Europe there are widespread concerns about the integration of cultures of more recent immigrants - as these people are often economically or socially excluded - and making policy decisions about the support and celebration of cultural resources, such as the Notting Hill Carnival can be an attempt to rebalance this. Viv Hamilton 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned this earlier, but if the CRM article is being heavily influenced by European practices, there really should be a reference that is germane to Europe. King's book referenced in the article primarily focuses on the heritage definition of CRM used by the National Park Service. What is the equivalent resource used by Europeans that focuses on the broad CRM definition? Tous ensemble 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some structural changes, in particular moved what was CRM in the USA, up to the first section and merged with heritage management under the new title CRM in the heritage context. Also a few other tweaks and references. Hope this is in the direction of consensus! Viv Hamilton 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the following to this talk page - the place for discussion is the talk page not the article. The opening paragaph, and the first and main section of the article already make clear that there are differences in usage of the term. The references using it in the broader sense are European not just England, and even the definition in the CHM section, which I understand is from King, an american, refers to folklife, orchestras, theatres etc. Viv Hamilton 09:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users of Wikipedia should note that the viewpoint and definition if CRM as presented in this article is based on the definitions used only in England. It does not apply to, and is not relevant to the definition of CRM as used in North America.

Should the opening be tweaked so that the commonest use (i.e. synonymous with cultural heritage, in line with the King quote) is discussed first, followed by the usage in the broader sense? The main paragraph in this article Cultural resources management applied to heritage management could also be renamed Management of Cultural Resources Sites in line with the King quote? Viv Hamilton 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the purpose of Cultural Resource Management is to determine eligibility to the National or State Registers of Historic Places. There are 4 criteria (A through D) for determining eligibility. This is not discussed here. It should be. Developers may want to read about these for projects that they are starting, and to understand what the CRM professionals are doing, and why. There should also be summaries of the laws. March 2008

The current CRM article is a list of possible expansions for that acronym, one of which is this article. It is my belief(based on searches), that most users who are looking for CRM are looking for Customer relationship management, and this is a confusing experience for them.

I'm proposing that the CRM article be redirected to Customer relationship management, and the current CRM page be moved to CRM (Disambiguation). The Customer relationship management article will then contain this text under its title:

"(Redirected from CRM) For other uses, see CRM (disambiguation)".

I'd like to have you comment on the issue before I request any changes. I have opened a discussion on the CRM Talk page where you can add your opinion. Thanks!

Kingsley Joseph (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think the Customer relationship management is the primary article, but I've commented on CRM Talk page Viv Hamilton (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it cultural resource management or cultural resources management? I think both terms are being used these days to describe the displine of what used to be called "public archaeology". I've been in that field for 40 years and I think I know a little bit about it. It is diverse and includes many, many elements including heritage management, landscape archeology, digital archaeology, cultural landscapes, traditional cultural properties, and much else. Very eclectic and very difficult to get one's mind around. Nevertheless, it is the bulk of the employment for upwards of 10,000 professionals in this field in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.196.11 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going around trying to straighten out and make sense of a number of ambiguously overlapping topics in the area of cultural heritage, that due to an inability to establish central definitions for scope and coverage the article (regardless of any definitions external to wikipedia) have become tangled messes. This is one of those articles (I mean this in the most civil and descriptive way). To begin, it seems to be a jumbled overlap of Cultural heritage, Historic Preservation, Cultural heritage management (which in some contexts is called CRM), and culture more broadly, without any coherent understanding of the concept as distinguished from elsewhere. While I, having dealt with and formally studied these areas, understand that there is a significant interdisciplinary aspect in any discussion of these topics, the amount of overlap and confusion that it can cause, suggests that it may be better served by dividing out the content to relevant places: the narrow definition (the one most incoming article links seem to think this is) seems to be the cultural heritage management page (which would also be the site of a redirect), the broader usage to cultural heritage, and the historic preservation stuff to that page. If need be, a new page defining "cultural resources" in the new, broader, not-just-heritage category may be warranted, with the management aspect of it included, and links to the relevant, established pages, rather than duplication here. Thoughts? Morgan Riley (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (Morgan Riley (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC): typo fix)[reply]

Like always, I seem to have flashes of insight right after I post. Renaming the article "cultural resources" or "cultural sector" to focus on the current culture + cultural heritage aspect might be more ideal, and spin off all the heritage issues to their relevant pages, rather than trying to fit all definitions in here. See WP:DICTIONARY. Morgan Riley (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A basic Google search has shown no usage outside of the context of cultural heritage preservation. While they may be cultural resources in a broader sense, and they may be managed, the specific, technical phrase "cultural resource management" appears only in context with cultural heritage, and the technical branch thereof. Unless good verifiable evidence can be shown about that usage (I checked the links below, and there is no evidence for it), to the contrary, it seems the UK usage is similar to the US usage (perhaps marginally broader), related solely to cultural heritage, this page needs to be moved or renamed. Morgan Riley (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should focus on the US policies as the term CR is not used outside the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arebenti (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut out most of the US section — it basically duplicated the "Nomination process" section of National Register of Historic Places, and nothing was cited to tie these facts to the CRM process. I'm not a professional, but I read a lot in historic preservation, and I only ever encounter CRM in the context of archaeology. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultural resources management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207233207/http://www.dkit.ie/display.asp?id=161 to http://www.dkit.ie/display.asp?id=161
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416204313/http://www.aandb.org.uk/ to http://www.aandb.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]