Discursive Dynamics in Heritage Interpretation: A Study on Negotiating Narratives in Panam Nagar, Bangladesh
Keywords:
Heritage Interpretation, Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD), Panam Nagar, Narrative Negotiation, Participatory Heritage PracticesAbstract
In the field of heritage studies, interpretation transcends the simple presentation of information; rather, it involves an intricate discourse with history and personal and collective memory. This paper delves into the discursive dynamics of heritage interpretation at Panam Nagar, a site emblematic of Bangladesh's layered history and community identities. This site was once a bustling town during the colonial era, but now stands as a silent witness to the passage of time and changing socio-political landscapes. The study employs critical discourse analysis to unravel the complexities in the negotiation of narratives within this heritage site. Central to this study is the exploration of the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) and its implications in shaping public understanding of Panam Nagar. The paper critically assesses how dominant narratives are constructed, maintained, and occasionally challenged within the heritage space. It particularly focuses on the interplay between colonial legacies and national identity narratives, uncovering the often subtle processes of inclusion, exclusion, and emphasis in heritage storytelling. The study further investigates the audience's reception of these narratives, identifying gaps between the intended interpretation and public perception. This is achieved through visitor surveys and analysis of their interaction with the interpretative materials present at the site. The paper proposes a framework for more inclusive and participatory heritage interpretation practices, emphasizing the need to integrate diverse narratives, especially those marginalized in the current discourse. This approach contributes to a richer understanding of the site's past and fosters a more inclusive dialogue about heritage and identity in contemporary Bangladesh.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
IJSBSS abides by the standards on publications ethics based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For further details on ethical misconduct, please visit:
- Code of Conduct for Journal Editors
- Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers
Manuscripts submitted for consideration should adhere to the conditions below:
Originality: Submitted manuscripts should not have been published in other languages except in the form of an abstract, a conference handbook, an academic thesis, or that substantial parts of the manuscript have already been published or submitted elsewhere without declaration. Data and materials are authentic and not have been falsified or fabricated.
Plagiarism: Using and presenting ideas from other authors without acknowledgement or giving credit to the original works.
Recycling: Using one’s own published works without quoting from the original.
1. Duties of Editors
Publication decision
Based on the outcome of peer-review and the relevancy and the significance of the research topic, editors are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted should be published. Editors hold full authority to reject/accept a paper and must comply with the policy guidelines provided by the publisher and fulfill the responsibilities bestowed upon with integrity.
Peer review
The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript and comments from peer review must not be used in the editors’ own research without the written consent of the author.
Fair play
The editors will ensure that all manuscripts will be evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial members must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Editors should refuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Declaration of Competing Interests
Editor ought to ensure the equality and coherence of the peer review between the sponsored supplements and other manuscripts. In addition, the sponsored supplements must be in conformity with academic value orientation instead of commercial interests. It should disclose perspicuously whether there is a process of peer review.
Vigilance over the Published Record
The editor should work to safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct (research, publication, reviewer and editorial), in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
2. Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decision
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript should notify the editors and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents, and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments, and provide constructive feedback to assist the authors in improving their work.
Acknowledgement of Source
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call to the editors' attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper.
3. Conflicts of Interest
A statement on conflict of interest must be included in the manuscript if authors receive any support that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4. Authorship and Collaboration
Name of authors listed in a paper should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the report. Only those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the work must be acknowledged or listed as contributors. It is the duty of the corresponding author to ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper. All co-authors must approve the final version of the paper and agree to the version of the paper before submission.
5. Open Access Policy
We publishes fully open access journals. Articles are freely available for anyone to copy, share, and adapt provided the original work and source is properly cited in accordance to publication ethics and best practices of scholarly publishing.
6. Publication Charges
The Journal does not levy any processing or publication charges on authors.
