 I'm Dan Miles. I'm in the capacity building team in Historic England and with the government agency for the historic environment. Just very quickly, capacity building team basically means that we work to support the sector, the historic environment sector, with a big onus on supporting the planning system, supporting commercial contract archaeology and the way that the archaeology and the building environment is managed. A capacity building team, I deal with research frameworks, another colleague deals with guidance, another colleague, another part of the team deals with the training and alone does access to information. So it's like a whole package of support that we're trying to do for the sector. So that's just a very quick intro to where I'm coming from and why we're doing this. So I'm going to do a very quick introduction to research frameworks because that is the idea that's the bit I'm involved in. Drivers for Change, introduce a model and there's digital resources that we're creating and then just talk about some of the issues and some of the things. And hopefully, I'm going to hopefully ask some questions and we can hopefully get some answers in the discussion like how to sustain, maintain communities and things. So research frameworks, I don't know if everyone's aware of them but the model that's created in the mid-90s by Adrian Olivia in England is the one we use. It basically are a number of geographical and thematical, so we have regional research frameworks, we have other ones like period, mesolithic or even things like the pottery. And basically they're made up of three main areas. One is a synthesis, one is a resource assessment, what do we know, what's the current understanding in a region in the Roman period, for example. Then the next two sections is research agenda, the questions we want to ask, the gaps in our knowledge and a strategy of how we're going to achieve them. So these are the sort of various different ones. So you've got maritime ones, ceramic, mesolithic and then the regional research frameworks and these are the ones that are really used and supported in the planning system. So why are we tampering with a model, why are we changing it? Well the model is sort of developed in the mid-90s, things have changed. Part of my role was basically to look at this whole area and say where are we going, what are we doing. So I started off writing a strategy, then we had a project done by a consultancy partake reviewing research frameworks, the use, the whole area of that and out of that came another strand which was looking at the involvement of community research. In England, I know in a lot of other parts of Europe it doesn't happen that there's a large amount of research interventions, archaeological interventions undertaken by community groups, a large amount of work undertaken, a large amount of research generated. We're trying to see how that can be brought into the systems. So basically on the research frameworks, these are the main areas we looked at. One, they're monographic publications. Some of these are 350 pages, long, huge. No connectivity and cohesion, so you have regional ones but none of them talk to each other. They're all created separately, out like that. It's like having completely separate states. We're in a digital world now, things are moved on. Out of date, as soon as you publish them, it takes two years to publish it and it's out of date. The whole reason for using these is that you're basing the evidence for making decisions and planning so you're making it already on information that is already out of date. They're non-inclusive. At the time they were generated using through research networks, academic, commercial, local authority, but there is a lack of community engagement in the process and we've moved on a lot since then. Last year we had a research report undertaken by Worcestershire Archives and Library Service looking at the potential value of community research for enhancing historic environment records. These are the sites and monuments that evidence we have and the other one is the research frameworks. Is the research that's undertaken, does it have value? Could we actually use some of the research, some of the stuff that comes out to actually support our systems? Could we actually embrace some of the research because at the moment it hasn't really been used as much as commercial archeology work. We found, I've moved on slightly more, on the community. There is a vast amount of research being undertaken from community groups but it hasn't really had any engagement with the processes in terms of the professional side of things, i.e. the management of the historic environment. So there is that gap and the gap of understanding and gap of knowledge. So from all this work, there are lots of recommendations, like all these things you have hundreds of recommendations, but the three that I've been concentrating now here is one, removing research frameworks from the paper to a web-based system, trying to host new research frameworks. Improving the coordination in their more inclusive development, i.e. engaging with other groups, other people who do research actively participating in the creation of these, and then that's, for example, even into the societies. So it's the idea if you have a regional research framework, but actually potentially you're building on the strength of local knowledge, so we're sort of tapping in the bottom up as well. So the new model, next steps. So it's a strange one, I spent ages trying to work with all this out, how to try to explain to people. There's the online tech bit, and then there's the actual creation of the content, but the content, i.e. the research framework, and in that content, it's the process of creating that content. So being more inclusive in case you're all people. So it's sort of the two strands. And this is an important one, it's not just creating another website, it's not just creating something that's online, it's actually the three approaches we're trying to change. So one is the managing research framework, so the whole way, how do we update them, how do we keep them alive, how are we more inclusive. Actually by doing that you're structuring the content, so you're moving from book to web, and then also it's the process of engaging people, and promoting what we're trying to do in these areas, certainly in the regional ones, the establishment of research communities. And we'll talk about that afterwards. So Historic Indian are funding three projects, three regional projects to update the content, and recreate the research frameworks in those three regions. And another project is the actual tech bit, the wiki-based platform, but they're being managed together as a whole thing. So for example we have workshops between the three project teams and the people who are developing it, and trying to solve it as a sort of a programme of work. So these are the three research frameworks we're looking at, the North East, the North West of England, which is also a straight way, you have that sort of the contact, you have the border contact. This is why we need to move across those statutory borders, and then the East of England. And the other one is the online platform, which is at the end taken by Alamod Research Limited, so there they actually create that side of things. So those are the two strands. So this is what sort of the main bit of talking about it today is the key areas. The platform one thing, the content, and then building the research community. So I'm not going to go too much on the platform, but each research framework is an individual research framework. It needs to be managed by its own research community, its own set of things. So that's one of the principles, you can't just put everything on the whole across the platform. But then all three have to be searchable and accessible across. So it's sort of having managed individually, but then cross-searched across it. And it's based on the wiki idea. It's up to everyone how they look at this, but the idea of the wiki is you can add content, you can change things. That's the whole point. Rather than we're not saying it should be open to everyone to do anything they want to do, this has to be managed by those groups. It's the control of those community groups to do and see how it is. I banned the wiki word at one point because everyone got very nervous, but I think we're moving forward. So basically we want to change this lovely book, which is very nice. 300% to a dynamic wiki based resource. Actually we want to do all three. So it can cross-search against I'm interested in the Roman period. I'm interested in a certain element. What research questions do you have across a pipeline between the North East and North West, between counties? I will be able to search across that. But the actual platform is going to be expandable because there are, I think probably actively about 35, 40 research frameworks out there. And there's absolutely no reason why we can't put them all up there and then do the same thing. There's some differences we'll talk about and why we need to change how we produce these. But in terms of the website or the platform is expandable and we can look at it in that. So I'm not worried about the tech side. It is easy. Everyone does websites, everyone does wiki. It's easy, there's no problem. But it's more the idea of this culture change for a lot of people who use them and a lot of people who create the content. Because we're going from the monograph, the academic monograph, to a web publication, a book, to a wiki. And then this is also something to make us, for everyone to be able to cross-search about things we need to think about, structuring the text. So rather than having just a text on the Roman period in a certain area, we have to think about how we can look at that, how can we structure it slightly. But the thing is, is that this is not being done by the techie people. This is going to be done by the people creating the content. So that's the change as well. So in terms of this side of things, which is the culture change, is structuring the text, tagging keywords, and thinking about the relevance of questions. What we found is that all the regional frameworks all had very, very similar questions. In fact, you know, half of them were identical. So you're thinking about, you know, do we need to have a set of 60 questions that are all the same? Can we not think about doing it slightly differently? So I'm just going to run a couple of things. We're looking at structuring, you know, synthesis of the text with control terminologies. So on the left-hand side, you've got a chapter of Roman. Someone's written a Roman army, Roman roads, whatever. We need to make sure that those texts are indexed or tagged with the correct terminologies that are generated by the fish, which is the sort of looks that we control to Sorai and the vocabulary in the UK. Make sure that those vocabularies have been used because then we can cross-search. It's all easy. Looking at the research questions, just having this idea of having a question. I mean, we've got a workshop next week about it. We haven't quite worked out how this is going. But it's, you know, you have a question, what is it relevant? Is it relevant to this area, to this county, this town, this region? Is it a national relevance? Because each of the research frameworks, the projects are being managed differently. Each of them look at what are the priorities for these regions. But if the priority for the region is the same, we have one question easier to think across. But then also associating it with other things like guidance. How can I answer the question, what scientific techniques can help me? Other resources, bibliographies. So just making it a bit more connected. Just as an example here. So how is the development of a feature in the forts related? It's Roman defence, sediment and land use. So these are sort of the areas that you can search across. It's relevant in Cumbria and Northumberland. It's not relevant, for example, in Sussex. It might not be a question or a priority in that area. So it doesn't need to be tagged with that area. And then feature the forts. And then these are the other resources. So the architectural data service, the digital library. That's where you find all the reports and the grey literature. Some of those may have information on Roman forts in Cumbria and Northumberland and things like that. And guidance documents, introduction to heritage assets, for example. But this is the interesting one, this is mead. Five minutes, thank you. It's fine. This is where it needs to be done as with the teams. So as I say, each regional framework has been created by a project team that having workshops to do it. So all this information needs to be done at that stage, not by people at Landwood or other people in the room here who deal with data standards. It's not their job. It's the job that people create it and thinking about it. Because otherwise you have all these workshops, fantastic questions. And then you've got another month of work trying to index everything. And it's just going to be a nightmare. So it's the way of moving forward. It's a slightly different attitude to it. It'll be interesting to see how it goes. So all that other stuff is easy. I feel in control. I'm in control of the terminology. I'm in control of the structure. I'm in control of building the website. I haven't got a problem. The concern is the community. Because this whole question of how do we, we can build the resources, but how do we keep things going? How do we create a community that will take these on and be part of it? So it's the way we're trying, because of the running all the projects together, is creating the collaborative space. This resource, the research framework online. But through a collaborative process, i.e. through each of the project teams and all their researchers in their regions. So, in many ways, is creating regional research communities. They've already been doing that. We've done this a lot, but we haven't always engaged with everyone. And we certainly haven't engaged with community groups and local societies. But it's that idea of having collective research priorities. We're pretty good at that. So it's then having those, making decisions on those, but then actually getting people to use them and keep things going. Updating the website. Using a wiki like it should be used. So I've just done an example to finish off really. One of the projects is the Northwest, the research framework. They've been working really hard. Pardon me. Partnership project, three project leaders on it. Algea, which is the local authority area for the Northwest. CBA, which is the Council of British Archaeology. They present the community groups in that region. And you've got Salford University, the academic partner. So it's actually a really, really good example of having three project leaders, sort of the team being built around those different aspects. They've also got a very strong, what's the thing? The strong background in this. They've been working a lot of projects crossing different areas. Certainly a lot of industrial heritage and industrial specialists in society. So they've got a good pedigree and background. So they're doing the engagement. Already established networks. This is really important. We're not creating things anew. It's already happening. They're working on different things. Groups that have been created by heritage lottery funding. Other groups are CBA groups. They're building it up. But inviting them to the thematic workshops, the period workshops, being much more open and transparent about it. This is what we're doing in Covency. It's actually going out and trying to be involved in other people's projects and groups and societies and conferences. Very important. The community groups side of things. They are partners in these projects. A lot of the local societies are going to be invited. But we're trying to move away from this active community conference. You have a conference. Lots of people there. They watch. They say it. Everyone enjoys it. It's a massive conference attendance to actually look at what are your research interests? What are the research questions that you'd like to do? When you do your research and you do your excavations, why? Can we build on those? Can we build that upwards? I think that's going to be really interesting. Building bridges is the theme of the conference. Add that in somewhere. I think this is where it's going to be very interesting. How we can build on those local research agendas and go upwards towards regional questions. This is the last slide. This is a thing that we're trying to cover by those different projects. But this is something I think this is not just for my era of research frameworks. It's not just for archaeology. It's much broader. It's this idea that how do you maintain anything outside of a project environment? Whether it's a museum, whether it's an IT project, whatever it is, you have that dedicated time, money, resource. It's easy. You have your gold, your milestones, you bang it out. Soon as it stops, what happens? I've been involved in museum projects. Exactly the same thing. Huge community of people involved. Finished a project. We go on to the next one. We're not interested in boat building. We're now interested in something else. All those people who've done that is very, very difficult. I've stolen this. Maintain the momentum from David Knight who's here. He's running another East Midlands research framework project. They've started this. I really like that. Maintain the momentum. How do you maintain the momentum out of it? We can build the research spaces but building a community that sustains them is the question. I'm hoping everyone's going to give me loads of answers in the discussion. Thank you.