Participatory Methods and Community-Engaged Practices for Collecting, Presenting, and Representing Cultural Memory

  • Margo SheaEmail author


Collaborative and participatory research methodologies are particularly significant to scholarship in memory studies, place attachment, and place-making. This chapter explores how participatory research methodologies, including participatory project design, crowdsourcing, participatory community mapping, and community curation, can render more visible the individual and social functions of cultural memory to researchers and participants. Participatory methods make visible the performances of memory, simultaneously honoring individual representations and narratives, constructing intimate publics and highlighting community identities through collected and collective memories. Scholars and their coresearchers construct meaning and negotiate its broader and deeper significance together using these methods. The widely democratic nature of memory, place-based knowledge, and place attachment offers possibilities for understanding these phenomena and their intersections in new ways.


  1. Aptheker, B. (1989). Tapestries of life: Women’s work, women’s consciousness, and the meaning of daily experience. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Ayers, E. (2015). Turning toward space, place and time. In D. Bodenhamer, J. Corrigan, & T. Harris (Eds.), Deep maps and spatial narratives (pp. 1–13). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, J. M. (2017). Griffintown: Memory and identity in an Irish diaspora neighbourhood. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berlant, L., & Prosser, J. (2011). Life writing and intimate publics: A conversation with Lauren Berlant. Biography, 34(1), 180–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodenhamer, D., Corrigan, J., & Harris, T. (2015). Deep maps and spatial narratives. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cahn, E. (2014). Project space(s) in the design professions: An intersectional feminist study of the Women’s School of Planning and Architecture (1974–1981). Doctoral dissertations May 2014 – current. 160.
  7. Casey, E. (1992). Public memory in place and time. In K. Phillips (Ed.), Framing public memory (pp. 17–44). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  8. Corbett, K. T., & Miller, H. S. (2006). A shared inquiry into shared inquiry. The Public Historian, 28(1), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CRESC Encounters Collaborative. (2017). (Un)doing collaboration: Reflections on the practices of collaborative research. Manchester: University of Manchester/The Open University.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, N. (2015). Memory work: The second generation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbons, L. (1996). Transformations in Irish culture. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  12. Glassie, H. (1981). Passing the time in Ballymenone. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grele, R. (1981). Whose public? Whose history? What is the goal of a public historian? The Public Historian, 3(1), 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halbwachs, M. in (Ed. & Trans.). Coser, L. (1992). On collective memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine, 14, 6.Google Scholar
  16. Hurley, A. (2016). Chasing the frontiers of digital technology: Public history meets the digital divide. The Public Historian, 38(1), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keightley, E. (2008). Engaging with memory. In M. Pickering (Ed.), Research methods for cultural studies (pp. 175–192). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Manning, M. quoted in Tomlinson, T. (2017, Spring). From the hills of Harlan. Wake Forest Magazine.Google Scholar
  19. Meringolo, D. (2012). Museums, monuments and national parks: Toward a new genealogy of public history. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, E., Little, E., & High, S. (2017). Going public: The art of participatory practice. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pickering, M. (2008). Research methods for cultural studies (p. 2008). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Star, S. L. (1979). Strategic heresy as scientific method: Feminism and the psychology of consciousness.Google Scholar
  23. Tomlinson, T. (2017). From the Hills of Harlan. Wake Forest Magazine.Google Scholar
  24. Tuan, Y. (2001). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Waterton, E., & Smith, L. (2010). The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1–2), 4–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Salem State UniversityDepartment of HistorySalemUSA

Personalised recommendations