Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey
on Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding
Research (2016-2018)

March 2019

International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage
in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)

1

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

Table of Contents

page
Preface・・・・・

3

Background and outline of the Literature Survey

・・・・・

4

Objectives and methodology of the report

・・・・・

6

1. Achievements

・・・・・

7

2. Challenges

・・・・・

9

3. Future orientations

・・・・・

12

・・・・・

15

Feedback from experts and its analysis

Conclusion: Future direction of the Literature Survey

2

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

Preface
In 2015, the International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-PacificRegion (IRCI) commenced the planning of the ‘Literature Survey on Intangible Cultural Heritage(ICH) Safeguarding Research in the Asia-Pacific Countries’ (Literature Survey). It was officiallyformed in the following year as a three-year programme (FY 2016-2018) under the ‘Mapping
Studies on the Safeguarding of ICH’ (FY 2013-2019) project. As the Literature Survey concludes
at the end of FY 2018 (March 2019), we have reviewed the programme and created this report
entitled ‘Report on the IRCI Literature Survey on Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding
Research (2016-2018)’.
To create this report, we requested an assessment of the Literature Survey from threeexperts: Ms Noriko Aikawa-Faure, Dr Janet Blake, and Dr Hanhee Hahm. We greatly appreciate
their expertise, which they kindly shared with us. We would like to take their feedback into accountfor use in future projects. The contents of the feedback from the three experts are reviewed in thisreport.
We would also like to express our sincere gratitude for the support and contributions fromresearchers from 31 countries and 1 region, who have been involved with this programme thus
far and shared with us their sources of knowledge and time. The IRCI was established to instigate
and coordinate research on ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region as a way of promoting
UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted in 2003
(hereafter “the 2003 Convention”). Concurrently, we are always acquiring beneficial knowledge
and insights from local researchers. Through these collaborative works, we hope that a mutual
relationship between researchers and the IRCI can be further developed in the future.
Acknowledgement, of course, goes to the Intangible Cultural Heritage Partnership Program
for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage by the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs.
Without its support, the Literature Survey would not have materialised.
I hope that this report, published online on our website (https://www.irci.jp), will contributeto the future of ICH safeguarding research in the Asia-Pacific region and promote a wider
understanding of the IRCI’s activities.

March 2019
Wataru Iwamoto
Director-General, IRCI3

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

Background and Outline of the Literature Survey
The ‘Literature Survey on Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) Safeguarding Research in the
Asia-Pacific Countries’ programme has had the objectives of conducting a survey of
publications such as books, journal articles, and reports in addition to mapping research
institutes, researchers, and activities specialised in the domain of ICH safeguarding in the
countries concerned. This was carried out in accordance with the IRCI’s purpose to instigate
and coordinate research into practices and methodologies that safeguard endangered ICH
elements present in the Asia-Pacific region.
The programme was initiated during the discussion of the International Experts Meetingfor the ‘Mapping Research on the Safeguarding of ICH in the Asia-Pacific Region’ project,held on 26-27 January 2015 in Kuala Lumpur. It was subsequently carried out within theframework of the ‘Mapping Studies on the Safeguarding of ICH’ (FY 2013-2019) project, until
being officially formed into a separate three-year programme entitled ‘Literature Survey on
ICH Safeguarding Research in the Asia-Pacific Countries’ in FY 2016.
The Guidelines 1 was developed as the Survey’s methodologies and for collecting
information on researchers, research institutes, and research activities carried out locally asa result of reflection on experts’ opinions and updated following two meetings: the 2015 IRCI
Experts Meeting on the Mapping Project for ICH Safeguarding in Asia and the Pacific heldon 8-9 December 2015 in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and the 2016 IRCI Experts Meeting on the
Mapping Project for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-PacificRegion held on 18-19 November 2016 in Sakai, Japan. Following the former meeting, areport entitled ‘Proceedings of 2015 IRCI Experts Meeting on Mapping Project for Intangible
Cultural Heritage (ICH) Safeguarding in Asia and Pacific’ was published. Following the latter,a report entitled ‘Proceedings of 2016 IRCI Experts Meeting on the Mapping Project for the
Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region’ was published.2
Since 2015, the Literature Survey has been conducted in a total of 31 countries and 1
region (French Polynesia). Through the programme, the IRCI has developed contacts and

1

The Guidelines provides general information about the Survey and templates fordata collection.
2

These publications can be accessed and downloaded from the IRCI website(https://www.irci.jp/report_publication/).

4

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

established close relationships with researchers and experts in the field of ICH in therespective countries and region. The countries and the region surveyed in the programme
are as follows:
FY 2014: (preliminary survey)
FY 2015 (18 countries): AUSTRALIA, BANGLADESH, CAMBODIA, CHINA, FIJI, INDIA,
IRAN, JAPAN, KAZAKHSTAN, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, MALAYSIA, MYANMAR,REPUBLIC OF KOREA, TAJIKISTAN, THAILAND, UZBEKISTAN, and VIET NAM.
FY 2016 (6 countries): MONGOLIA, NEPAL, NEW ZEALAND, PALAU, SRI LANKA,VANUATU.
(Plus five countries already surveyed in FY 2015): CAMBODIA, IRAN, JAPAN,
MALAYSIA, and MYANMAR.
FY 2017 (5 countries and 1 region): BRUNEI DARUSSALAM, COOK ISLANDS,PHILIPPINES, SAMOA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, and the region of FRENCHPOLYNESIA.
FY 2018 (2 countries): INDONESIA and SINGAPORE.
Information collected by the Survey is provided to the public through the IRCI Research
Database (https://www.irci.jp/ichdb/) which was published in 2014 under the otherprogrammes of the Mapping Project: Research Data Collection on ICH Safeguarding in the
Asia-Pacific Region and Optimisation of Its Use (FY 2016-2019). As of March 2019, the data
entries stored in the Research Database number at 2,534. This collection of research data isinterdependent with the Literature Survey; however, its outcomes are not taken into accountin the writing of this report.
Finally, a plan exists to integrate the Literature Survey and the Research Data
Collection into a new programme titled ‘Sustainable Research Data Collection for ICH
Safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific Region’ (2019-2021). This is further detailed in theConclusion of this report.

5

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

Objectives and methodology of the report
The ‘Report on the IRCI Literature Survey on ICH Safeguarding Research’ intends toreview how the ‘Literature Survey on ICH Safeguarding Research’ (Literature Survey)
programme has been carried out and identify areas of achievement and improvement. This
report will be published on the IRCI website to be shared publicly.
The IRCI has received feedback on key questions from three experts. The following is
the template for the topics raised.
1. Introduction✓Why the Literature Survey is important for the safeguarding of ICH.
✓The relevance of the programme to the IRCI’s activities.
✓How the reviewers were involved in this programme.
2. Appraisal/Analysis✓What be accomplished/learnt/benefited.
✓What activities should be undertaken as the following step in order to promoteconnecting the researchers in the region and enhancing research on ICH
safeguarding in the region.
3. Conclusions✓Challenges.
✓General comments.
The three experts are as follows;✓Ms Noriko Aikawa-Faure (Advisory Body member of IRCI and UNESCO facilitator for
Intangible Cultural Heritage),✓Dr Janet Blake (Associate Professor of Law at University of Shahid Beheshti),✓Dr Hanhee Hahm (Professor of Anthropology at Chonbuk National University).
These experts have many years of experience in the field of ICH safeguarding , aswell as expert knowledge on ICH safeguarding as an area of academic study. They havebeen involved with the Literature Survey since its beginning and have closely followed theprogramme’s development.
Feedback from the experts was reviewed by the IRCI and examined focusing on thefollowing items: 1. Achievements, 2. Challenges, and 3. Future orientations. For the
purpose of this report, the IRCI faithfully quotes as much as possible from the original
points written in the experts’ feedback, without interpreting any ideas.

6

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

Feedback from experts
1. Achievements
Through establishing contacts with qualified researchers, the Survey has covered 31
countries and 1 region (French Polynesia) from the Asia-Pacific region. Regardless of theirratification of the 2003 Convention, almost of all Asia-Pacific countries have been thesubjects of the Literature Survey. One of the experts has noted that the survey has thepotential to support the IRCI’s work in initiating cooperation among interested institutions of
the region and that,‘The fact that three non-Party countries at the time of reporting (Thailand, New
Zealand and Australia) were surveyed is a positive point, since it allows for somecomparison of experiences between Parties and non-Parties; the cases of New
Zealand and Australia they present countries where much ICH-related research isdriven by the presence of important Indigenous communities and well-developed
legal structures for protecting Indigenous heritage (especially in New Zealand)
independent of the 2003 Convention.’

It is further acknowledged that,‘The Survey achieved a certain degree of accomplishment, satisfied its objectives
and performance indicators’,

whilst another expert points out that,‘In spite of hasty implementation, the quantity of collected information is... more thansatisfactory.’

It is noted that the Survey was accomplished satisfactorily in terms of quantity, however thequality of the output is questioned. For example,‘A large amount of the research surveyed did not respond well to the main question
being asked in the Survey.’

However, this is pointed out as,‘A paradoxical strength of the Survey in that, this fact that is anecdotally understoodby many researchers in the field has been shown through a mapping of theresearch.’

This suggests that the safeguarding of ICH is a relatively new field for academic study andonly scant research data existed prior to it. However, we learnt through conducting theSurvey that several studies involving ICH elements have been conducted by researchers,

7

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

although not directly concerning its safeguarding. The presence of these latent researchers
indicates a potential opportunity for the development of ICH safeguarding research. On thewhole, the Survey reinforced the idea, as clearly indicated by an expert that,‘We remain in need of further identify the gaps and weaknesses in current researchand strengths of current research, as well as to recommend ways in which research
into safeguarding ICH can be more focused and undertaken with more appropriate
methodologies.’

While continuing discussion is certainly required to clarify appropriate methodologies, it isalso acknowledged that the Survey has returned some important conclusions, such as that,‘The Survey should inform researchers in the Asia-Pacific region to undertake studies
that are more targeted towards the methods and impacts of safeguarding and, inparticular, methodologies that allow for truly participative involvement by local andcommunity-based persons.’

As for the Survey’s methodologies, the participative involvement of local communities in thesafeguarding of ICH is referred to as one of the major, urgent challenges for the
implementation of the 2003 Convention. A number of the projects surveyed demonstrateattempts to involve communities, although the levels of involvement vary. What researchmeans to the communities is noted,‘Research studies can themselves be a powerful form of both awareness-raising andalso a form of capacity-building (among communities and the wider local society)whereby they can be trained to identify, inventory and manage their ICH elements.’

In respect to community involvement in the safeguarding of ICH, the Survey favourably
contributed to the demonstration of a necessity to,‘... further develop different ways in which researchers can engage with community
members in conducting research should be explored further (and localised), and alocal and/or indigenous cadre of “community researchers” needs to be built up.’8

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

2. Challenges
Implementing the Survey has been challenging, especially in the beginning stage, when theSurvey showed relatively slow progress. This is suggested as,‘... largely due to the insufficiency of awareness raising activities of IRCI... and once
activities of IRCI is known both in and outside Japan, it would be easy to find partner
institutions and collaborating researchers and network of cooperation can beestablished.’

This is a noteworthy view for the IRCI, as we have been making efforts to designcollaborative projects with researchers and institutions interested in the advancement of
ICH safeguarding research since the IRCI’s establishment in 2011. However, it is possiblethat the causes of the lack of progress in the promotion of collaborative works are more
complicated than they first appear. The experts unanimously recognise a significant part ofthe cause as,‘... researchers in many countries may not be fully exposed to the topics of the notionof ICH as understood in the 2003 Convention as well as its safeguarding that has
been a new conception all of which hinder the possibility of useful and targeted
research into safeguarding.’

Misconception or lack of understanding of the 2003 Convention’s notion and ICH
safeguarding were briefly mentioned in the previous section. It is further pointed out
that,‘Unfortunately, a disjunction between research and implementation (throughsafeguarding activities) exists such that the focus has hitherto been mostly on thecontent of ICH and not on the implementation of safeguarding policies/measures.’

As also mentioned above, some countries have existing collections of ICH research infields such as anthropology (ethnography), archaeology, arts, folklore, history, andlinguistics, which have been published prior to the adoption of the 2003 Convention,‘A large amount of research covered in the Survey is not within its framework and is
descriptive (ethnographic) in character, mostly of ICH elements, and accordingly
does not respond well to the main question of ICH safeguarding being asked in theSurvey.’Perspective on ICH safeguarding is largely lacking in the research, even though the role ofthe IRCI in this Survey has not been to research ICH elements per se, but rather toresearch safeguarding approaches and their impacts on ICH. Thus, having an overview of9

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

the research on ICH safeguarding conducted in the Asia-Pacific region is extremely
challenging. Further, more external factors are precisely analysed,‘The research outcomes are often published in the local languages and not
distributed either widely or internationally, the great diversity among the countries
surveyed (covering a wide geographical spread) and, in some cases, the internal
challenges caused by lack of political stability and even natural disasters have all
made it difficult to gather data in some countries... moreover, in other cases, a lack of
responsiveness from researchers has proved to be a major stumbling block.’

We have analysed the causes of the lack of progress in implementing the works, yet wemust be mindful of the IRCI’s position in this situation and should carefully examine what anexpert points out as,‘Ambiguity in the Survey’s scope and objectives has been a major difficulty faced by
the surveyors.’‘There is a need to develop theoretical approaches towards ICH safeguarding.’

This is certainly related the necessity for the creation of appropriate methodologies for theSurvey, as already mentioned in the previous section.
As a solution, more detailed guidelines for conducting the Survey are requested andsuggested to include,‘A few examples of research explaining approaches for the safeguarding of ICH’
‘Analysis of threat and viability taking into account environmental evolution andsustainable development’‘Analysis of the degree of community participation in the evaluation and monitoring ofsafeguarding measures’To address the need for the clarification of appropriate methodologies and development ofguidelines, further consideration is required on how to deal with the collections ofpublications on the subject which do not focus of the safeguarding of ICH. One expert
notes that,‘...(the Survey’s findings) urge a better understanding of the role of existing historicalas well as general anthropological and ethnographic studies pre-dating the 2003
Convention. This includes studies from previous centuries, which are mostly
descriptive in character and possibly not even “scientific’’’.

The Survey’s scope and objectives should be constantly clarified, updated, and reflected in

10

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

the Guidelines. Hence, the IRCI continues its efforts to establish and ensure the sharing ofa more detailed concept of ICH safeguarding with the surveyors and researchers in AsiaPacific countries. Apropos, it is noted that,‘More time for information gathering for surveyors should be needed to allow
dialogues between the surveyors and the IRCI in order that the IRCI could monitor
closely the process of the Survey.’

Being at the core of the notion of ICH safeguarding in the 2003 Convention, again theimportance of participative involvement by local communities can be highlighted. It is
explained as,‘ICH elements must be allowed to adapt new ingredients (within reason) to answer
external needs of society and, in particular, the community in the implementation ofsafeguarding activities which has been a key concept of the 2003 Convention.’

The expert accordingly emphasises concern about the lack of community involvement,(which comprises the bottom-up approach),‘There is a tendency for research still to be conducted on a top-down model, in
which scientific experts take the lead and community members are mostly passiveinterviewees.’

To tackle these commonly voiced challenges concerning community involvement, she adds
that,
‘The lack of financing for studies on community-based ICH research which is also a
key driver of research agendas called for further consideration from policy-makers
who can develop research in this area’.

Furthermore, the expert suggests ideas to ensure community involvement/participation,‘Audio and visual digitization of ICH elements, especially when done by practitioners
and community members, possibly with the collaboration of external experts, provide
an effective tool for the safeguarding ICH which needs more research focus of which
is on the process more than the product.’‘The need for digitalization of research results and for better dissemination of digital
research data, for example through multimedia channels, needs to be consideredfurther to make them available to ICH communities (while respecting any customarynorms relating to secrecy and access).’‘The evaluation and monitoring of the safeguarding measures whereby making them11

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

carry a close examination and assessment of the long-term impacts of safeguarding
actions as well as research studies.’

3. Future orientations
We have conducted the Literature Survey and have stored a total of 2,534 items ofliterature in the IRCI Research Database as of March 2019. Regarding the management of
this database, one expert notes,‘The collected data need to be reviewed to improve its accuracy and regularly
updated to make the database viable.’

The IRCI is willing to continuously work on the development of the database within the‘Research Data Collection on ICH Safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific Region and
Optimisation of its Use’ (FY 2016-2019) programme and its succeeding programme. This
programme is being launched in FY2020, and is explained in more detail in the Conclusion.
In parallel with the database’s development, we are eager to continue creating literature
surveys/analyses and systematically collecting up-to-date information. To carry this activity
out more effectively in the future, one expert advises,‘The Survey should be continued in partnership with a specialised institution (rather
than researchers individually).’

To respond to this expectation, we are continuing survey works under the new programmein partnership with institutions. We elaborate on this later. With regard to the core issue ofthe research and the researchers lack perspective on implementing ICH safeguarding
policies/measures because they mostly focus on the content of ICH, it is expected that,‘One important goal of the Survey should be to shift the research agenda towards thequestion of the disjunction between research and implementation throughsafeguarding activities.’‘There is a need for more systematic documentation not only of elements
themselves, but also of how they change over time and the relationship of this tosafeguarding.’‘IRCI could consider a follow-up to identify some of the scant but valuable research
conducted in languages that are not easily accessible to the international researchcommunity.’

Referring to the ‘valuable research’ mentioned in the last quotation, specific topics are

12

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

suggested,‘Exploration of methodological approaches (such as cultural mapping in Pacificregion countries)’‘The linkages between ICH research and/or safeguarding with policy-making’‘The impacts of safeguarding on elements and their communities’‘Ways of involving community members more deeply in all stages of research’

For the highlighted research to be of value to the research community and allow a betteroverview of the nature of research being conducted around the Asia-Pacific region, one
expert advises that,‘As a first step, the IRCI to produce a publication containing information on thesestudies/publications with abstracts... as a next step, it could consider translating andpublishing some of its key articles in English.’

While we would consider this option, the IRCI is working on the project in close
collaboration with partner institutions in participating countries to digitise locally-archived
materials. This is explained further in the Conclusion. Moreover, we need to further analyse
the idea of ‘community’ that is specified in,‘A better understanding of the central role to be played in safeguarding bycommunity-based organizations and NGOs, as well as by independent researchers
and the private sector, should be promoted.’‘The issue of funding community-based research requires much more consideration.’

Thus, to thoroughly carry out investigation into the ideas of community and safeguarding, it
is further observed that,‘There is a need for better coordination between different research organisations,such as museums, libraries, universities, scientific institutions, and NGOs.’‘More inter-disciplinary approach to research into that matter (e.g. between folklorists
and cultural anthropologists, between cultural and environmental experts, between
legal and non-legal experts) that can feed into a poorly covered area of research in
the field of policy- and law-making areas of government and the setting of future
strategies.’

We are grateful to the three experts for their reviews and useful insights, which benefit our
future initiatives. We have received their additional opinions and suggestions from broader

13

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

perspective. Even though these are not concerned directly with the Survey, it should bequoted here as follows,‘In parallel with the Literature Survey, the IRCI could launch a new project to promoteand coordinate research into the contribution of ICH to the sustainable developmentin Asia-Pacific region’ (the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable development is the principal
pillar of the UNESCO culture programme) ... and the collected results of the research
could be entered into IRCI database for further diffusion.’‘To enhance the research on the safeguarding of ICH, it would be productive andrewarding for IRCI to formulate short-term and long-term plans to ensure theimplementation of the Overall Results Framework (ORF) in the Asia-Pacific region.’3

The above demonstrates that we have received various opinions, some of whichemphasize the issue of community involvement in safeguarding activities and the research
process for the implementation of the 2003 Convention. The current status of ICH researchand safeguarding, as well as the challenges they face, are presented. This indicates that itis necessary to deepen discussion on the issue among researchers and to grasp further the
essence of these challenges. Indeed, the IRCI is determined to pursue the promotion ofthese activities. The Literature Survey’s future direction and its substantial part in thecollection of data/information will be explained in the Conclusion of this report.

3

ORF was approved at the 7th General Assembly of the States Parties to the 2003

Convention (7. GA/item 9).

14

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

Conclusion: Future direction of the Literature Survey
As the ‘Literature Survey on ICH Safeguarding Research in the Asia-Pacific Countries’
programme concludes at the end of FY 2018 (March 2019), this report reviews the
programme in order to identify areas of achievement and improvement, and further
investigate the Literature Survey’s future direction and its data/information collection. It isnecessary that the feedback we have received from the three experts is incorporated indesigning the programme that will succeed the Literature Survey. In addition, prior to theexperts’ assessments, the IRCI’s work plan for FY 2019 was approved at the 7th IRCI
Governing Board Meeting on 26 September 2018. Their suggestions shall be taken into
consideration and referred to in the new programme’s development. The new programme isdescribed in the section below (please also refer to Figure 1 at the end of this section).
New Programme: ‘Sustainable Research Data Collection for ICH Safeguarding in the
Asia-Pacific Region’ (FY 2019-2021)
The upcoming programme, which will succeed the Literature Survey,4 is focusing on theactivities mainly for the collection of literature information and the development of the IRCI
Research Database. It will continue serving as a platform for sharing information related toresearch on ICH safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific region through the collection of
information for the database.
Whereas the Literature Survey was mostly implemented effectively in cooperation
with individual researchers in various countries, we are willing to further develop ourcollaboration strategy. With this, we aim to collect information systematically and even more
readily with the help of specialised organisations in the subject countries. The collaboratingorganisations, are assumed to be the research institutes of universities or museums in
Asia-Pacific countries. For the programme’s first year (FY 2019), around six partners who
have worked with the IRCI on past projects will be identified. Accordingly, the newprogramme will provide further dialogue among partner institutions, researchers, and the
IRCI to identify the gaps, weaknesses, and strengths of current research. This will promote
the concept of ICH and its safeguarding among the institutions. Consequently, it can be
expected that more information closely related to ICH safeguarding will be obtained,

4

The ‘Research Data Collection on ICH Safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific Region and

Optimisation of Its Use’ (FY 2016-2019) programme is also going to be integrated into
the new programme after its completion in FY 2020.

15

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

allowing the Research Database to be continually updated.
This strategic development of collaborations with partner institutions aims to ensure
the strengthening of the concept of ICH and its safeguarding, facilitate effective
communication among institutions, and contribute to the enhancement of the network ofconnections. Thus, in the upcoming years, the IRCI develops this research data collection
scheme.
It is important to note that the creation of guidelines and methodologies to shareamong the institutions is necessary to ensure that this cooperative work becomes
established and is carried on in the future. Through this work, the IRCI hopes that a cadreof cooperative partner institutions will be created to further encourage research studies andactivities relating to ICH and its safeguarding.
As mentioned above, another focus for the new program is the development of the
IRCI Research Database. For this, we are focusing on the improvement of its contents andusability. In particular, to improve the substantiality of the contents, we are going to attemptadding locally-archived materials through collaboration with partner institutions.

16

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
Activity I. Promoting Research for ICH Safeguarding
International
Experts Meeting

International
Conference★ Literature Survey on ICH Safeguarding Research in
Asia-Pacific Countries (2016-2018)

FY 2019

FY 2020

Mapping Project☆ Research Data Collection on ICH Safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific Region
and Optimisation of its Use (2016-2019)NEW
PROGRAMME

IRCI
Researchers
Forum★☆Sustainable research datacollection for ICH safeguarding in the
Asia-Pacific Region (2019-2021)

IRCI Researchers
Forum
Multi-disciplinary Study on ICH’s
Contribution to Sustainable Development- Focusing on Education

Activity II. Research on ICH Safeguarding and Disaster Risk Management
Preliminary Research on ICH
Safeguarding and Disaster Risk
Management

Asia-PacificRegionalWorkshopStudy of Emergency Protection of ICH in Conflict Affected Countries in Asia
Figure 1: the new programme entitled ‘Sustainable Research Data Collection for ICH
Safeguarding in the Asia-Pacific Region’ in the IRCI’s framework of activities.

17

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey

Report on the IRCI Literature Survey on
Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding
Research (2016-2018)
March 2019c International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage○
in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI)_________________________________________________________
Published by IRCI: International Research Centre for
Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region
2 Cho Mozusekiun-cho, Sakai-ku, Sakai City, Osaka 590-0802 Japan
E-mail: irci@irci.jp
Website: https://www.irci.jp18