Preservation without Representation: Making CLG Programs Vehicles for Inclusive Leadership, Historic Preservation, and Engagement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of this paper — addressing the lack of diversity and inclusion in CLGs — is very important. Moreover, there is next to no scholarship on the topic of CLGs, regardless of context. This paper very much should be published to address a significant knowledge gap in the historic preservation field.
The author(s) does a good job in explaining how the members of CLGs perceive issues of diversity and inclusion as well as how training was administered to help address deficits in these areas. The author(s), however, should spend some time explaining how systemic racism manifests in the CLG program — namely this program’s reliance on promulgating NR criteria and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to local governments. Social justice issues often manifest when local governments — following “best” practice at the national level — insist on “objective” written documentation of historical significance and deprecate oral history. Additionally, problems with historical integrity of vernacular resources that are often associated with minority communities is an issue as well. In other words, the issue that the paper should address is how to get more buy-in from people of color in CLG programs when the criteria used by such programs appears to unfairly discriminate against their heritage in comparison to the dominant built heritage and historical narratives of white people.
Lastly, it would be good to provide some context for CLGs. What other kinds of municipal programs are also focusing on the need for diversity training? For instance, planning, parks and rec, economic development, etc.? Are there effective models that CLGs could use in tandem with the method(s) the author has already utilized?
There are some other, smaller points that the author(s) should address:
- Clarify how little scholarship there is on CLGs in general, much less a specific focus on diversity in CLGs
- Are there any studies/surveys that could be referenced for the lack of diversity in CLG programs, even if this might be gray literature? (Again, I’m not aware of such literature published in scholarly outlets.)
- I would suggest moving the research questions on p. 3, lines 83 to 85, earlier in in the introduction.
- The recommendation for colleges and universities to support some kind of preservation certificate program for planners does not seem to make sense given that preservation orthodoxy is based on white supremacy. If a commission were to more closely follow National Park Service guidelines for preservation planning, would this have a potentially negative relationship in increasing diversity in CLGs? (Explain.) For instance, in Minner et al. (2015), an explicit and narrow focus on traditional cultural resource survey methodologies by a local government alienated minority groups.
- One of the major activities of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) is to provide training to staff and volunteers of preservation commissions. Given this role in context with this article, some explanation is warranted, including whether or not the NAPC specifically focuses on diversity training for preservation commissions.
- P1, Line 33: Define “diversity” (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, class)
- Typo on P2, line 56: “historical” not “historial"
References
Minner, J., Holleran, M., Roberts, A. R., & Conrad, J. (2015). Capturing volunteered historical information: Lessons from development of a local government crowdsourcing tool. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 4(1), 19–41.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
I must first say I am immensely grateful for the comments and suggestions. I have addressed them in the text in the following ways:
- The author(s), however, should spend some time explaining how systemic racism manifests in the CLG program — namely this program’s reliance on promulgating NR criteria and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to local governments.
I have allocated considerable space in this version explaining and citing scholars who have critiqued the NR criteria, specifically its role in perpetuating the marginalization of African American historic sites. Starting on page 6, line 224, I created a subsection called DEI and Historic preservation. In this section, I not only define DEI but also contend with areas of preservation in which systemic racism thrives including its designation programs.
I do, however, depart from the reviewer in that the fundamental argument of the article is not to argue for Black buy-in but rather to facilitate Black reclaiming of access to civic space and resources--CLG events, activities, and funding. The argument is not for African Americans to join white organizations but to correct the notion that these spaces inherently belong to whites.
2) Other municipal programs?
I spent less time comparing to other municipal programs though they are mentioned on page 5 ( describing how CLGs and other boards are studied in public admin literature) and 16 (examining how a local government in San Antonio sees its role).
3) Lack of literature on CLGs.
lines 183- 222 is a literature review focusing on the lack of literature on CLGs and diversity (DEI)
4) Are there any studies/surveys that could be referenced for the lack of diversity in CLG programs
No. I reference only state plans and annual reports.
5) I would suggest moving the research questions on p. 3, lines 83 to 85, earlier in the introduction.
Relocated to lines 41-44 on page 1
6) SYSTEMIC RACISM QUESTION ABOUT NR STANDARDS
The standards are addressed as noted above, however, in my discussion on training, I note the curricular reforms required before the certificate program (which will also require compensating leaders of color for training and instruction) would begin don't replicate current systems. lines 533-581
7) NAPC work on diversity
I include information on the lack of NAPC sponsored training available currently. lines 561-567
8)P1, Line 33: Define “diversity” (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, class)
See DEI section on Preservation where all terms are defined there as well as in the description of the training offered during the Gonzales workshop. starting at line 224.
9) Typo on P2, line 56: “historical” not “historial"
typo corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
"Preservation Without Representation" is an excellent article, but there are a few very important missing pieces that need to be filled. The largest missing piece is that there is no literature review section addressing who else has done similar studies to this. A literature review is needed in order to situate this paper in relation to existing knowledge, which is currently lacking. Sources to consider for previous publications on community engagement and inclusion in historic preservation are the following:
B. Stiefel and J. Wells. (2018) Human-Centered Built Environment Heritage Preservation: Theory and Evidence-Based Practice. New York: Routledge.
K. Melcher, B. Stiefel, and K. Faurest (2017) Community-Built: Art, Construction, Preservation, and Place. New York: Routledge.
Various papers by Jeremy C. Wells on community engagement and inclusion in historic preservation. Though these are not African American-specific, they can provide some context on previous studies. These papers can be downloaded for free at, https://heritagestudies.org/index.php/balancing/
Also, consider investigating articles published in the journal Preservation Education & Research, Future Anterior, and Forum Journal.
Regarding BIPOC the author completely forgets/ignores Tribal Historic Preservation Offices and their association with CLGs. While there are none in Texas, it is worth mentioning that this exists. See https://www.achp.gov/native-american-information-papers for sources. It would also be worth contacting The National Association for the Preservation of African-American History & Culture to inquire if previous examples related to African American communities for community engagement and inclusion in historic preservation have occurred, https://www.blackpreservation.org/. The author should also consider networking with NAPAAHC too.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2:
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Below find my responses to your review.
Point #1--Needs lit review on community engagement and inclusion in historic preservation
A section on participation (as it relates to leadership) including literature is on line 273-300 and 533 --where there is a subsection on training and participation in the Discussion. Note that the conclusion now includes three subsections to make it easier to digest which also discuss various dimensions of engagement with a focus on representativeness (not diverse) leadership.
POINT #2 -- MENTION AND TALK TO/ABOUT The National Association for the Preservation of African-American History & Culture AND tribal HPOs
A discussion on BIPOC groups is included throughout the Discussion and DEI sections. I include them to illustrate efforts that are working around DEI which are led by BIPOC groups. Further, I address the Tribal HPOs when explaining their relationship to the national CLG program (they do not distribute to subunits like other state CLG programs). lines 165-169. However, I did not reference that National Association of Preservation of African American history and culture because of their inactivity in the CLG sphere. My focus for this paper was not a survey of BIPOC groups about their engagement with CLGs (though that is a future goal). Instead, I wanted to create a discussion around opportunities fr CLG specific reform possible on the local level.
Thank you.
