What makes public engagement meaningful?
Public engagement in archaeology is the practice of involving the public in the process of archaeology or the dissemination of the results of our work. Engagement comes in many different forms, and it’s important to understand the benefits and drawbacks of different types; equally, it’s essential to consider what level and type of engagement is appropriate to meet project aims. Engagement activities can be designed to increase the breadth of impact from archaeological work by reaching a large and diverse audience. They can also achieve depth of impact by working with a smaller group over a longer and more intense period. In this toolkit, you’ll find a breakdown of what forms engagement can take, with real project examples, in 3.1 - What does engagement look like?.
In order to inform how we work as archaeologists, the impact we have and how the public respond to our work, it is important to consider how we can make public engagement work meaningful. From this perspective, meaningful public engagement is linked to how archaeology can achieve impact. Although engagement activities can be meaningful without project evaluation taking place, the process of measuring our impact means that the delivery team can assess, evidence, refine and improve. Engagement activities need to consider the impact of the engagement – the intended change – to fully test, evaluate and understand the project outcomes. How we measure that intended change should be outlined within pre-project documentation such as the project brief and the WSI, or it will be impossible for the delivery team to evidence. Impact evaluation and the process of measurement is discussed further in 2.4 - Planning for public engagement, and in Infosheet 3 – Evaluating and understanding impact: creating a Theory of Change.
Meaningful public engagement is
- engagement that is carefully planned and designed to achieve specific outcomes with particular impacts for those who get involved
- designed in response to stakeholder (community) consultation and audience research
- inclusive, ensuring diverse representation and participation from different segments of society, including marginalised or underrepresented groups, to ensure a wide range of perspectives are considered
- accessible, by removing barriers to participation wherever possible and making information and resources available publicly by using a variety of communication channels and formats
- properly resourced, costed and delivered by a team who understand the aims of the engagement
- well evaluated, by collecting appropriate data which is analysed to measure the effectiveness of the engagement and shared to create a feedback loop for what does and doesn’t work
- engagement that has a legacy that is proportionate to the project’s aims and objectives
Before getting too deep into how to plan for meaningful public engagement, it is useful and important to have a clear idea of what it is not. From the perspective of this toolkit, meaningful public engagement does not mean
- asking the team to talk to passers-by on a tea-break, ie chance conversations with the public (engagement is part of a planned and resourced programme)
- something that is done ‘to the public’ (engagement means working with targeted audience groups)
- putting data and results behind barriers, such as specialist journal paywalls (the results of archaeological investigations should be freely accessible)
- producing reports that are not easily accessible to the public (because they are hidden or very technical)
- unplanned, unresourced or unmeasured activities (none of which can produce measured and meaningful impacts)
Why are these examples not best practice for public engagement?
- Asking the team to talk to passers-by on a tea break: while chance conversations with the public can be valuable in certain contexts, relying solely on unplanned interactions is not a comprehensive or effective approach to public engagement. Public engagement needs to be part of a planned and resourced programme to ensure consistent and meaningful interactions with the target audience groups.
- Doing something ‘to the public’: public engagement involves working with the targeted audience groups rather than simply doing or presenting things to them. It emphasises collaboration, inclusion and active participation of the public in decision-making processes, policy development, or any other relevant activities. Conducting activities without involving the public can lead to a lack of understanding, limited ownership, and reduced effectiveness of engagement efforts.
- Putting data and results behind barriers: public engagement aims to foster transparency and accessibility. By placing data and results behind barriers like specialist journal paywalls, the information becomes inaccessible to the broader public. It's important to prioritise making relevant information available and easily accessible to those who need it or are interested in it.
- Producing reports that are not easily accessible: public engagement requires clear and effective communication with the public. If reports are hidden, overly technical, or difficult to access because of format, it hinders the public's ability to understand and engage with the information. Reports should be written in plain language, be easily accessible, and use formats suitable for diverse audiences, ensuring that the information reaches and resonates with the intended public.
- Unplanned, unresourced, or unmeasured activities: effective public engagement requires careful planning, sufficient resources, and robust measurement of impacts. Unplanned activities may lack focus and fail to achieve specific goals, while unresourced or under-resourced activities can be limited in scope and impact. Without proper measurement, it becomes difficult to assess the success or effectiveness of engagement initiatives and make informed decisions for future improvements.
In summary, good practice for public engagement involves planned and resourced programmes, collaboration with targeted audience groups, transparent and accessible sharing of information, clear and easily understandable reports, and measured impacts to ensure meaningful and effective engagement with the public.
The effect or influence that an action, project, or event has on individuals, communities, or the environment. In archaeology, impact can refer to the changes, outcomes, or benefits resulting from the archaeological work, such as increased knowledge and interest, preservation of heritage, developing a sense of place and wider community engagement.
The systematic assessment and analysis of the effects, outcomes, and broader changes resulting from a project or intervention. Impact evaluation involves measuring and evaluating changes which can be linked to the archaeological work for defined areas such as people, heritage and communities. Impact evaluation typically involves creating a strategy, collecting and analysing data, applying appropriate evaluation methodologies, and drawing conclusions about the overall impact and value of the archaeological project.
In the context of this resource, meaningful is used to denote projects able to demonstrate the impacts and outcomes of the work. Although engagement activities in archaeological projects can be meaningful without project evaluation, the process of measuring impact means that project team can assess, evidence, refine and improve.
A document that outlines the objectives, scope, requirements, and constraints of a project. In archaeology, a project brief might be issued by the project commissioner or facilitator and should provide a clear description of the goals, expectations, and deliverables for a specific archaeological project. It serves as a reference point and guide for the project team and all stakeholders involved.
