In a message dated 98-07-13 10:33:43 EDT, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< These problems should not cause us to consider wiping out a very valuable
method of presenting information to the profession. >>

Citizen Mary,

My apology, I was not suggesting wiping out an established method and I very
much appreciate your comments. My perception is that the other methods of
communication are often sacrificed in preference to the peer-reviewed
presentations. I've been getting my share of reviews to be peer on and quite
honestly I've been knocking most of them down because they are not of very
high quality.

If scientific and objective realism are the goals of a conference, then peer
review is a valuable method. If the sharing of ideas, methodology, and the
politics of preservation is the goal, then the current strictness of peer
review appears to severely limit the diversity of voices. Possibly at one time
there was a very real need for scientific and objective realism... atomism in
preservation in order to fend against something feared... scary developers and
crazed contractors, but life is more complex than anything addressed in a well
researched paper. I think we preserve for life in all of it's complexity.

There is a diversity of viewpoints in preservation, including the property
owners, the builders, and the design professionals (to include the
researchers). If only the scholars are given an opportunity to speak, as a
strict peer review by scholars would tend to lead, then the voices of
diversity are shut down. It is fine to have a conference of scholars, it is
fine to have an organization of scholars, but it is not fine if the
expectation is that the property owners and builders, who may not be scholars,
are made to feel less worthy for their form of knowledge, or for their comfort
in a different means of expression which often tends to stories and myth. I
think it a terrible thing to try to simplify ones acceptable perception of
reality in order to make it more easy to describe.

I think the sense of denigration does occur, particularly in the situation of
craftspeople feeling inadequate to voice their knowledge. I also believe that
there is a bias on the part of many people in the preservation movement to
denigrate the person working with their hands and head -- I want to understand
this problem and I have no other tool than to try to keep expressing myself on
the topic. The craftperson's knowledge may not be one that will pass in a peer
review of scholars, but without allowing it a voice then the goal of
preserving a structure, which is not very much of an objective realism in
practice as much as a kind of sweaty and muddy affair, is somehow thwarted.

In part I think it comes down to those who want to keep clean, and those who
are glad to get dirty. If only the clean people are allowed to talk, then how
will we ever get rid of the termites?

][<en