Simulating Silence

  1. Home
  2. Teach
  3. University
  4. Pathways
  5. Professional Practice

Learning Pathway

Professional Practice

For teachers, museum professionals, and heritage practitioners navigating contested heritage (2–3 hours)

Overview

Duration: 2–3 hours  ·  Format: Self-guided professional development or workshop

Ideal for: History and humanities teachers, museum and heritage professionals, archivists, cultural sector workers, curriculum developers

Prerequisites: Professional experience in education, heritage, or cultural sectors

Who This Pathway Is For

This pathway addresses the practical challenges faced by professionals who must navigate between scholarly accuracy, institutional constraints, community sensitivities, and political pressures when dealing with contested heritage.

The Hashima case study illustrates a specific pattern: how institutional processes — rather than overt censorship — can shape, constrain, or obstruct critical interpretation. This pattern operates across professional contexts, from heritage sites where curatorial decisions are influenced by government stakeholders, to classrooms where the teaching of contested history is shaped by curriculum frameworks, departmental expectations, and parental sensitivities.

If you work in any of the following settings, this case study offers both analytical frameworks and practical reflection on the tensions inherent in interpreting contested heritage:

Teachers

Secondary and university educators teaching contested history, heritage studies, or media literacy — particularly where curriculum, departmental, or institutional pressures shape how sensitive topics can be addressed in the classroom.

Museum & Heritage Professionals

Curators, heritage interpreters, archivists, and cultural sector workers navigating between scholarly evidence, institutional governance, community expectations, and political sensitivities at contested heritage sites.

Recommended Sequence

Part 1: The Case (45–60 minutes)

Understand the specific situation:

Part 2: Analytical Frameworks (45–60 minutes)

Develop conceptual tools for analysis:

Part 3: Professional Reflection (30–45 minutes)

Apply insights to your own practice:

Key Concepts

The following concepts help professionals recognise and name the mechanisms through which contested heritage interpretation is shaped, constrained, or obstructed. While each concept emerged from the Hashima case study, all have wider applicability across educational and heritage settings.

Soft Gatekeeping

The control of contested interpretation through indirect mechanisms: endless review cycles, requests for "balance," concerns about "appropriateness," and procedural delays that accomplish restriction without explicit refusal.

Heritage: review committees, stakeholder consultations · Education: departmental sensitivities, parental complaints procedures

Temporal Drag

The strategic use of delay as a governance mechanism. Projects involving contested content face extended timelines that effectively prevent release or delivery, even without formal rejection.

Heritage: perpetual review cycles · Education: timetable pressures, postponed curriculum changes

The Balance Trap

Institutional pressure to present "both sides" of empirically asymmetric debates — where documented evidence overwhelmingly supports one interpretation but institutional norms demand equal treatment of a revisionist counter-narrative. In heritage contexts, this often takes the form of requests for "balance" that effectively neutralise critical interpretation. In educational settings, it manifests as the expectation that teachers present contested history as an unresolved debate between equally valid positions, even when the evidentiary basis is not equal.

Heritage: "present both perspectives" directives · Education: "teach the controversy" expectations

Authorised Heritage Discourse

Laurajane Smith's concept describes how certain voices, narratives, and forms of expertise are legitimated within heritage and educational practice while others are marginalised. Professionals operate within — and sometimes against — these discursive frameworks, whether they take the form of UNESCO listing criteria, national curriculum specifications, or departmental reading lists.

Heritage: UNESCO criteria, curatorial authority · Education: exam specifications, approved textbook lists

The Archive of Obstruction

Documentation of institutional interactions becomes evidence of how heritage governance and educational decision-making operate. Correspondence, meeting notes, and procedural records reveal patterns that are often invisible in final outputs. This reframing transforms professional frustration into analytical resource.

Heritage: stakeholder correspondence · Education: curriculum review records, moderation decisions

Curriculum Gatekeeping

How exam specifications, approved resource lists, and inspection frameworks shape which contested histories can be taught and how. What is absent from a specification is as significant as what is present — a curricular silence that mirrors the heritage sector's authorised narratives about which histories merit interpretation.

Primarily educational, but parallels heritage listing and interpretation policies

Discussion Prompts

Choose the set that matches your professional context, or work through both to identify shared patterns.

  1. Curriculum constraints: Are there topics in your subject area where the exam specification or curriculum framework shapes how contested history can be taught — not just whether it appears? What narratives does your curriculum authorise, and which does it marginalise through omission?
  2. The balance expectation: Have you experienced pressure — from leadership, parents, or inspection frameworks — to present "both sides" of a historical question where the evidence is asymmetric? How did you navigate this? What are the risks of resisting versus complying?
  3. Departmental dynamics: Are there informal constraints within your department or school that shape how contested heritage is taught? These might include shared resource banks that embed particular interpretations, or assumptions about what students can "handle."
  4. Student responses: How do students respond when taught that heritage interpretation is contested and political, rather than neutral and factual? What does this reveal about the assumptions they bring from other learning contexts?
  5. Professional risk: What are the professional consequences of teaching contested heritage critically? How do you weigh scholarly integrity against institutional expectations? What support structures exist — or are missing — for teachers doing this work?
  1. Recognition: Have you encountered soft gatekeeping in your own institutional context? What forms did it take? How was it justified?
  2. Navigation: What strategies have you found effective for advancing critical interpretation within institutional constraints? What has not worked?
  3. Documentation: Do you maintain records of institutional decision-making around contested content? How might such documentation serve analytical or advocacy purposes?
  4. Coalition: Who are potential allies within and outside your institution for advancing more critical heritage interpretation? What resources or support would enable this work?
  5. Ethics: Where do you draw the line between institutional loyalty and scholarly or professional integrity? How do you manage these tensions?

Practical Takeaways

For All Practitioners

For Teachers Specifically

For Heritage Professionals Specifically

Further Resources

For deeper engagement with heritage governance and professional practice:

Workshop Applications

This pathway can be adapted for professional development workshops in both educational and heritage settings:

Contact the project team if you're interested in workshop facilitation support.

Professional Feedback Welcome

If you're a teacher or heritage professional engaging with this resource, your feedback is especially valuable for understanding how these materials serve practitioners.

Share Feedback →

Your email is optional. Privacy Notice