Values-Led Design Cards: Building Ethically Engaged Archaeology and Heritage Experiences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is a compelling account of an programme which brings values led design thinking to the archaeological process. This is important for the sustainable development of archaeological practice which is currently under pressure and not sufficiently resourced. The pressure to develop a tool-kit is very strong in many community focussed archaeological projects so it is particularly useful to see an evaluation of such an approach.

The reflective and honest style of the research is important, but its possible that the strength and the importance of the paper is somewhat obscured by the author’s admirable determination to provide a full evaluation. It may be worth highlighting the successes of the approach more clearly both in introduction and conclusion.

The paper assumes a basic understanding of the nature of heritage and the place of archaeological practice within that. It also assumes familiarity with design (through use of terms such as phygital) This may be a reasonable assumption, but since Sustainability has a wide readership it may be worth a paragraph in the introduction laying out these basics for a reader who may be interested in how the paper fits in the wider remit of the journal. An introductory paragraph explaining that the paper will draw on the two disciplines, each of which have been grappling with sustainability would help

Author Response

We are very grateful for your valuable feedback. Please see the attachment with our responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a bold and original approach to archaeological heritage. The methodological and analytical parts are innovative, elaborate and comprehensible, nevertheless, the theoretical engagement with the subject is limited to the introduction. It is the only major criticism of the presented paper. The reader is somewhat left without any further ideas of how the results will affect the discipline. Given the potential of the study, it would be really interesting to connect the discussion and conclusions to a broader theoretical background in critical heritage studies, critical museum studies and/or public archaeology. 

One minor remark: I would strongly recommend avoiding generalizations like "European context" in reference to the developments in heritage thinking. It feels somehow inappropriate given the obvious differences in heritage practice in i.e. The Netherlands and Balkans, or Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. Maybe more precise information (exact references to countries/background information on participants?) would provide a solution?

Author Response

We are grateful for your valuable feedback. Please see the attachment with our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf