Cultural Heritage Position paper - European research challenges: CNR, CNRS, CSIC Humanities & Social sciences Scientific perspectives

1 Cultural Heritage position paper - European research challenges: CNR, CNRS, CSIC Humanities & Social sciences Scientific perspectives Working group 4 Emanuel Demetrescu1, Emilio Cano2, Anne-Madeleine Goulet3 Michela Sara Barbot3, Filippo Calcerano1, Livio De Luca3 Jesus Garcia2, Tatiana Pedrazzi1, Thibault Saintenoy2 1CNR, 2CSIC, 3CNRS Ver. 25th November 2024 Introduction to the WG4 methodology The Working Group 4 on Cultural Heritage has developed this position paper through an intensive collaborative process combining structured meetings, asynchronous research, and extensive community engagement. Our approach was designed to ensure both depth of analysis and breadth of perspective in addressing the future challenges and opportunities for Cultural Heritage in Europe. Collaborative Framework and Methodology. The working group conducted five plenary sessions, each lasting approximately 90 minutes, complemented by extensive asynchronous work including bibliographic research and focused sub-group discussions on specific sub-topics requiring deeper examination. The level of interaction between members of the three Research Centres (CNR, CNRS, and CSIC) was particularly productive, characterized by rich exchanges of ideas and perspectives. A distinguishing feature of our approach was the significant involvement of the broader research community beyond the core group of nine members. Their valuable feedback, provided both in the initial phases and during advanced stages of development, substantially strengthened the paper's recommendations. This inclusive approach was particularly evident in Topic 1, which emerged from extensive consultation with the humanities community, capturing their concerns about the serious risks facing the Cultural Heritage sector, especially regarding its diminishing attractiveness to younger generations – a crucial issue for civic culture and the harmonious development of cultural heritage. Multidisciplinary Approach and Strategic Analysis. Our methodology was fundamentally multidisciplinary, focusing on identifying critical objectives for Cultural Heritage that have received insufficient attention in previous frameworks. This process began with a comprehensive review of existing position papers, trends, and recommendations considered by the European Community in the Cultural Heritage domain. We employed a systematic analytical framework using a matrix approach to 1) document and evaluate the importance of identified objectives; 2) analyse weaknesses and threats; 3) map opportunities and potentials; 4) define expected impacts; 5) establish clear priorities for action. “Be good ancestors”1. This position paper presents a bold vision designed for long-term impact, while ensuring meaningful benefits within the first five to ten years. Our recommendations are structured to support the European Commission in strengthening Cultural Heritage at the European level over the next 1 Krznaric, R. (2020). The Good Ancestor: A Radical Prescription for Long-Term Thinking. The Experiment LLC. 2 decade and beyond. The priorities identified are both ambitious and practical, aimed at creating sustainable, positive impacts on the sector. Our approach balances immediate needs with long-term strategic objectives, recognizing that Cultural Heritage requires both urgent attentions to current challenges and sustained investment in future capabilities. The recommendations presented here are designed to create a robust framework for Cultural Heritage preservation, development, and innovation that will benefit European society for generations to come. Importance of Cultural Heritage scientific area Cultural Heritage permeates every aspect of our contemporary society, manifesting itself in both physical spaces – our cities, monuments, and landscapes – intangible heritage like our culture and traditions, and virtual realms through digital representations and online cultural experiences. Far from being merely a collection of artifacts and traditions from the past, Cultural Heritage represents a living, dynamic framework that shapes our understanding of who we are and guides our path forward. It serves as a crucial compass in an era increasingly dominated by short-term thinking and rapid technological change. The importance of Cultural Heritage research has never been more critical than in our current historical moment. As we face the emergence of transformative technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual reality, the humanitiesbased approach inherent in Cultural Heritage studies provides essential perspectives that cannot be replicated by technological solutions alone. This approach encompasses: 1. Critical Thinking and Human-Centred Perspectives: The humanities tradition within Cultural Heritage research offers vital tools for developing and maintaining critical thinking skills. In an age of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making, this human-centred approach becomes increasingly crucial for understanding and shaping our relationship with emerging technologies. 2. Ethical Framework and Social Responsibility: Cultural Heritage research helps us understand our responsibilities towards nature, society, and future generations. It provides historical context for contemporary challenges and helps develop ethical frameworks for addressing them. This is particularly relevant as we grapple with questions of technological ethics and sustainable development. 3. Democratic Values and Social Cohesion: Understanding our cultural roots and shared heritage is fundamental to maintaining and strengthening democratic values. Cultural Heritage provides insights into the evolution of social structures and governance systems, offering valuable lessons for contemporary democratic societies. 4. Long-term Vision in a Short-term World: While many current decision-making processes focus on immediate results, Cultural Heritage research inherently promotes a long-term perspective. This temporal depth is crucial for making informed decisions about our collective future, particularly in areas like urban development, environmental protection, and technological innovation. 5. Transdisciplinary Bridge: Cultural Heritage research serves as a natural bridge between a wide range of disciplines, spanning both humanities and sciences - from archaeology to chemistry, from digital humanities to materials science, from conservation science to engineering, from social studies to physics and environmental sciences. This comprehensive transdisciplinary nature, integrating both STEM and humanities approaches, is particularly valuable in addressing complex contemporary challenges that require multiple perspectives and methodologies. The integration of scientific analysis, technological innovation, and humanistic understanding creates a uniquely powerful framework for cultural heritage research and preservation. 3 While the current European Framework Program (Horizon Europe) has recognized these aspects, there remains significant potential for strengthening Cultural Heritage research through deeper integration of humanities traditions with technological innovation, emphasis on long-term research perspectives, and enhanced focus on philosophical and critical thinking in technological development. The establishment of the European Research Infrastructure for Heritage Science (E-RIHS)2 and the future European Partnership on Resilient Cultural Heritage3 are very relevant initiatives in this field that will need to be complemented by other actions. Cultural Heritage research today stands at a unique intersection: it carries the depth of human experience and wisdom accumulated over millennia, while simultaneously offering fresh perspectives on emerging challenges. Through this lens, we can better grasp not only where we come from, but also understand what we are now and imagine where we might go – and more importantly, where we should go. This profound temporal perspective, spanning from ancient insights to future possibilities, makes Cultural Heritage an irreplaceable compass for navigating the complexities of contemporary society. Topic 1. Fostering Next-Generation Humanities Expertise for Sustainable Cultural Heritage Research Investment in humanities research and specialized training in Cultural Heritage domains represents a strategic priority for building sustainable research ecosystems. While basic research funding typically falls outside Framework Programme scope, developing strong humanities expertise is fundamental for generating the foundational knowledge that enables transdisciplinary research and innovation in Cultural Heritage. Weaknesses and Threats. The Cultural Heritage sector faces critical challenges in maintaining specialized expertise. Declining enrolment in humanities programs at universities, particularly in fields such as ancient history, epigraphy, archaeology, art history, and conservation, threatens the continuity of essential domain knowledge. Career uncertainty in specialized Cultural Heritage fields discourages talented students from pursuing these crucial disciplines, creating a dangerous gap in expertise. This trend risks undermining the entire Cultural Heritage research ecosystem, as specialized humanities knowledge forms the backbone of cultural heritage documentation and interpretation. Opportunities and Potentialities. Investing in humanities expertise presents significant opportunities for strengthening the entire Cultural Heritage sector. Strong humanities research creates the robust knowledge base essential for transdisciplinary approaches to research and innovation. Specialized researchers in fields such as archaeology, history, and conservation generate the primary data and interpretative frameworks that fuel technological applications and broader research initiatives. Impacts and Recommendations Impact 1: Enhanced Quality and Depth of Cultural Heritage Data. Strengthening humanities expertise ensures the creation of high-quality, well-documented primary data essential for digital applications and transdisciplinary research.  Priority Action: Develop specific support mechanisms for training programs in specialized Cultural Heritage disciplines, ensuring the continuation of fundamental domain expertise. Impact 2: Sustainable Knowledge Creation. Building a new generation of humanities experts ensures continuous production of foundational knowledge that supports the entire Cultural Heritage sector. 2 https://www.e-rihs.eu/ 3 https://assets.ctfassets.net/cdx728z92xkc/15Qci9Qixjzcus3xl7ytWb/8243c4911139ae0802b3c252ce154eec/e c_rtd_04_cultural-heritage.pdf 4  Priority Action: Create dedicated career development pathways for humanities specialists in Cultural Heritage, including opportunities for integration with digital and transdisciplinary projects. Impact 3: Strengthened Research Ecosystem A robust humanities research base enhances the quality and reliability of all Cultural Heritage initiatives, from basic research to technological and social innovation.  Priority Action: Establish programs that bridge traditional humanities research with STEM disciplines, creating new opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration. Impact 4: Long-term Sector Sustainability. Investment in humanities expertise ensures the long-term sustainability of Cultural Heritage research and preservation efforts.  Priority Action: Develop incentive structures that recognize and reward the crucial role of humanities expertise in supporting broader Cultural Heritage initiatives. While basic research funding may lie outside the Framework Programme's direct scope, supporting the development of humanities expertise represents a crucial investment in the sector's future. The success of transdisciplinary approaches, including digital initiatives, in Cultural Heritage fundamentally depends on the availability of skilled humanities researchers who can provide essential domain knowledge and interpretative frameworks. References: Benardou, A., et al. (2017). Digital Humanities Research Needs and Practices in Cultural Heritage Institutions. Geser, G., & Selhofer, H. (2014). D2.1 Stakeholder Involvement in the Preparation of the Strategic Research Agenda. Simons, G. F. (2018). The Role of Humanities in Digital Cultural Heritage. European Science Foundation (2019). The Futures of Humanities Research and Training in Europe. Topic 2: Transdisciplinary as a catalyst to include high quality and sectorized research Trans-disciplinarity represents a fundamental paradigm shift in research methodology, transcending the traditional boundaries of disciplinary specialization. Unlike multi-disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, which operate within disciplinary frameworks, transdisciplinary approaches create new intellectual spaces where diverse methodologies converge to address complex challenges in cultural heritage preservation and valorisation (Niculescu, 1994). Weaknesses and Threats: Current research frameworks predominantly favour discipline-specific approaches, creating artificial barriers to integrated knowledge production. The academic career structure, with its siloed evaluation metrics, fails to adequately recognize and reward transdisciplinary efforts. This systemic bias particularly affects early-career researchers, potentially discouraging innovative transdisciplinary approaches crucial for cultural heritage research. Opportunities and Potentialities: The cultural heritage domain presents unique opportunities for pioneering transdisciplinary methodologies. As highlighted by Majorana's epistemological perspective, complex scientific challenges require the development of common languages and formalisms across disciplines. The European Research Area (ERA) can establish global leadership in this domain by fostering integrated approaches that unite social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, architecture, and computer science. Impacts 1. Enhanced Scientific Integration: Breaking down barriers between scientific domains will facilitate comprehensive approaches to cultural heritage preservation and study. 5 2. Next-Generation Expertise: Development of a new generation of researchers equipped with transdisciplinary competencies, as predicted in the "100 Jobs of the Future" report (Deakin University & Ford, 2019). 3. Improved Collaborative Processes: More effective trans-disciplinary cooperation leading to innovative solutions in heritage science. 4. Career Development: Creation of new professional pathways aligned with future workforce needs in cultural heritage. Priority Actions  Educational Reform: a) Establish international PhD and postdoctoral programs specifically designed for transdisciplinary research b) Create new doctoral qualifications that explicitly recognize multi-competency profiles combining social sciences, engineering, architecture, and computer science  Policy Development: a) Implement specific policies to promote and fairly evaluate transdisciplinary research careers b) Develop metrics that appropriately value trans-disciplinary contributions c) Create incentives for research institutions to support transdisciplinary projects  Knowledge Sharing: a) Identify and promote success stories in transdisciplinary cultural heritage research b) Create platforms for sharing methodologies and best practices across disciplines c) Support mobility programs utilizing European research infrastructure  Funding Framework Adaptation: a) Shift from fragmented, discipline-specific calls to centralized cross-cutting topics b) Prioritize projects that demonstrate genuine transdisciplinary integration c) Provide dedicated funding streams for transdisciplinary initiatives The path toward trans-disciplinarity is not merely an option but a necessity for advancing cultural heritage science and consolidating ERA's scientific leadership. As demonstrated by contemporary workplace trends and future job forecasts (Deakin University & Ford Motor Company 2019), the ability to integrate diverse disciplinary perspectives will become increasingly crucial. By fostering transdisciplinary approaches, the European research framework can create more resilient, innovative, and comprehensive solutions to cultural heritage challenges while preparing the next generation of researchers for the evolving demands of their field. References Niculescu, B. (1994). The Transdisciplinary Evolution of Learning. In “Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity”. State University of New York Press. Majorana, E. (1942). Il valore delle leggi statistiche nella fisica e nelle scienze sociali. Scientia 71: 58-66. Deakin University & Ford Motor Company (2019). “100 Jobs of the Future”, https://100jobsofthefuture.com/. Topic 3: Culture-based climate action (cultural heritage - especially built heritage - is pivotal to support green transition) Cultural heritage is under threat from climate change at an unprecedented speed and scale and the world is in dire need of solutions to leverage the potential of cultural heritage for climate action and thus of research providing solid support for enabling the change. Weaknesses and Threats: Culture-based climate action is still not sufficiently recognized at national European and global level, lacking funding and political leverage, and requiring high skills and a transdisciplinary approach to be implemented. Opportunities and potentialities: Harnessing the power of diverse cultural values and ways of knowing, education and storytelling, art and craft, tangible and intangible heritage, and design and creativity can guide and scale the 6 action to tackle climate crisis, fostering disciplinary cross-fertilisation, acting as a beacon for other sectors like the architecture engineering and construction industry and providing an added value of knowledge to support adaptation and mitigation strategies (EUOMC 2022, Potts 2021, JPICH-CC 2020). Impacts and Recommendations: Impact 1: Improve built heritage governance for conservation purposes integrating adaptation and mitigation strategies.  Priority Action: Support methodological research on energy and environmental improvement interventions avoiding maladaptation; interoperability, knowledge sharing and capacity building; joint adaptation and mitigation research within a sufficiency perspective; boost research infrastructure role to support the consolidation of an interdisciplinary research community and technological transfer. Impact 2: "capture the hearts and minds” of Europeans exploiting the potential of social and cultural driver offered by heritage.  Priority Action: Support built heritage beacon research to accelerate transition in the construction sector; leverage the heritage sense of belonging to mobilize the society; boost research on sustainable tourism and culture-based climate awareness; Envision the future of culture and creativity sector in a century of climate emergency for a better link between the performing arts and sustainability at the crossroads of artistic and ecological commitment encouraging research into contemporary creation especially in the opera sector. Impact 3: Unlock potential of built heritage for climate action.  Priority Action: Support the technological stress test that built heritage interventions provides to accelerate technological transfer in the construction sector; leverage the power of traditional knowledge to support urban and construction sector climate action; support cross-fertilisation potential of culture-based climate action. References EU OMC group. 2022. Strengthening Cultural Heritage Resilience for Climate Change: Where the European Green Deal Meets Cultural Heritage. LU: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/44688. Global ABC, and UN Environment Programme, dirs. 2024. Thematic Session - Unlocking Potential of the Heritage and Existing Built Environment. https://youtu.be/Lx93W7uBmu8?si=IdjQufz-Adiex-KU. JPICH. 2020. ‘Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda 2020 : Final Version of the Updated JPI CH SRIA Published’. https://www.heritageresearch-hub.eu/strategic-research-and-innovation-agenda-2020-sria/. Potts, Andrew. 2021. European Cultural Heritage Green Paper. The Hague & Brussels: Europa Nostra. UNESCO. 2023. ‘Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage (11/2023)’. https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/204421. Topic 4. Reconciliate the real cultural heritage object with its digital twin/replica The ancient Romans anticipated a sophisticated understanding of heritage preservation through their practice of “in tutelam”, where foundations were established to ensure the perpetual care of public monuments4. This historical example invites us to reflect deeply on the relationship between preservation 4 Epigraphic evidence shows how in tutelam was applied across different scales of cultural heritage: from major investments like 100,000 sesterces for a library's maintenance and 20,000 sesterces for temple preservation, to 7 and valorisation in our digital age, as we face the challenge of reconciling physical cultural heritage with its digital representations. This challenge extends to bridging the gap between the physical heritage object and its evolving digital counterpart, which integrates the idea of a digital continuum following an object’s entire life cycle, from research and conservation to public dissemination, and from the physical object to its digital representation. In the extraordinary context of European culture, where "image culture" has historically carried considerable weight, this relationship between physical heritage objects and their digital counterparts presents both challenges and opportunities. Heritage science's inherently polyphonic nature, gathering multiple disciplines around the study of material and immaterial heritage objects, makes this reconciliation particularly crucial. Heritage objects are not merely research subjects but active generators of knowledge, placing the study of both the objects and the sciences studying them at the centre of our attention. Experience has shown that digital reproductions do not replace, but actually enhance, the need of the public to access the original physical assets, creating new challenges for its management and conservation (such as mass tourism). Hence, the conservation of the actual objects, monuments and sites should remain a priority. The integration of diverse disciplinary perspectives into semantically enriched digital environments highlights the potential of creating new ecosystems of knowledge (De Luca L., 2024), where material and digital dimensions converge to foster deeper insights into heritage objects. Weaknesses and Threats: Current research frameworks face several critical challenges. Disciplinary and sectoral silos persist, limiting vital interaction between professional, academic, and institutional sectors in heritage science. The focus on technological aspects, particularly digital tools, has deepened divisions between disciplines, sectors, and generations of researchers. Additionally, the lack of interoperable systems for unifying multi-disciplinary observations has made it difficult to bridge the gap between digital tools and the material objects they represent, risking fragmentation of both the data and the insights derived from it. EU project calls tend to disperse efforts across many themes, often prioritizing methods and technologies over real-world experiences. Most critically, the emphasis on technological/methodological abstraction has distanced researchers from the materiality and centrality of heritage objects themselves. The strong focus in the last years on the digital aspects have left aside challenges related to the real artifacts. Research and innovation remain crucial—perhaps more than ever—in areas such as developing non-destructive analytical techniques tailored to cultural heritage needs, creating more efficient and sustainable conservation treatments and protocols, and establishing evidence-based policies and management systems that balance conservation with access and use of heritage. Opportunities and Potentialities: The digital era offers unprecedented research opportunities at the intersection of materiality, research protocols, and knowledge formalization. A new ontology of "digital twins" can be constructed from a historical perspective, with research projects that consider the concepts of reproduction and reproducibility, the value of copying, and the notion of authenticity in a diachronic perspective. In connection with semantic-rich heritage digital twins, the development of digital replicas (Demetrescu et Alii 2020) - as pioneered by creative industries in cinema and gaming - offers powerful opportunities for aesthetic and immersive experiences of ancient landscapes, objects, and architecture. These hyper realistic visual substitutes can effectively document states of preservation and sensitize audiences to degradation processes, serving as "ambassadors" that draw public and institutional attention to preservation needs rather than eclipsing the physical objects they represent. Taking inspiration from historical models like the Roman in tutelam, we can explore innovative approaches where digital assets generate added value that supports physical heritage preservation. For instance, creating dynamic digital representations of heritage objects that evolve alongside their physical counterparts enables continuous documentation and contextualization of the object’s transformations over time. These representations act as “receivers” of multidimensional flows, including scientific studies, public smaller endowments like 1,000-2,000 sesterces for statues and professional colleges' cultural activities. These foundations would generate yearly returns specifically dedicated to the preservation of these cultural objects. 8 interpretations, and applications in diverse contexts. In this way, the digital counterpart becomes a new locus where the construction of patrimonial value has materialized, fostering a deeper understanding of the interplay between material heritage and society. This approach not only addresses the challenge of ensuring that such resources are accessible, economically sustainable, and meaningful for diverse audiences, but also opens the door to new economic models. On a societal level, the digital realm supports innovative processes of patrimonialization by engaging diverse stakeholders and highlighting the evolving relationship between heritage objects and their communities. Scientifically, it provides a rich environment for studying the interplay between material objects and societal narratives, enabling researchers to examine how heritage is interpreted, valued, and transformed over time. The creation of new digital-born heritage objects has the potential to shape innovative processes of patrimonialization. These strategies can redefine public engagement with heritage while supporting more sustainable approaches to its preservation and dissemination. The rich cultural heritage of countries like Italy, France, and Spain provides unique opportunities to interconnect heritage objects, researchers, and knowledge within transnational networks, further enhancing the potential for collaborative value creation in the heritage domain. Impacts and Recommendations: Impact 1: Enhanced Object-Centred Research Methodology. Shifting research methodology to centre real heritage objects while leveraging digital assets enables more comprehensive multidisciplinary and multisectoral long-term studies. This approach also emphasizes the need to create dynamic and interoperable systems that link material heritage with its digital representation across various stages of its life cycle, ensuring continuity in documentation and interpretation.  Priority Action: Develop frameworks that place physical heritage objects at the core of research initiatives while integrating digital technologies as complementary tools that generate tangible benefits for heritage access, understanding and preservation. Impact 2: Sustainable Access and Conservation of Material Heritage Assets. Advanced technologies designed to meet the specific needs of studying and conserving cultural heritage materials will enhance our understanding of these objects, their interactions with both natural and human environments, and enable more sustainable management and conservation practices. Priority Actions: Support the development of techniques, materials, and protocols specifically suited to the requirements of cultural heritage assets, with a strong emphasis on sustainability. Impact 3: Advanced Digital and Material Integration. Exploring the fusion between reality, virtuality (e.g., mixed reality, metaverse), and intelligence (human, collective, artificial) helps redefine the relationship between material objects, digital data, and knowledge.  Priority Action: Develop sustainable models where digital twin creation and exploitation contribute to the preservation and enhancement of physical heritage, potentially including innovative funding mechanisms inspired by the aforementioned “in tutelam” ancient practice. Impact 4: Expanded Transnational Networks. Leveraging Europe's rich cultural heritage creates opportunities for broader interconnection between heritage objects, researchers, and knowledge.  Priority Action: Establish transnational networks that facilitate the sharing of digital heritage resources and good conservation and management practices for physical assets, exploring new valorisation models that benefit both digital and physical heritage preservation. 9 Impact 5: Scaled Preservation Models. Historical evidence from Roman preservation practices demonstrates the effectiveness of scaled investment approaches adapted to different types of cultural heritage.  Priority Action: Develop flexible funding and preservation frameworks that can be calibrated to the specific needs of different heritage categories - from major architectural complexes to smaller artifacts - ensuring appropriate allocation of digital resources and valorisation efforts. These frameworks should consider both the scale of the heritage object and its maintenance requirements, like how Roman societies successfully managed preservation across various scales of cultural patrimony. Impact 6: Ensuring Long-term Digital Heritage Preservation. Digital documentation and representations of cultural heritage must be recognized as cultural heritage in their own right, particularly when they constitute the only surviving record of lost heritage. This recognition demands dedicated preservation strategies and infrastructure.  Priority Action: Integrate long-term digital preservation costs into initial digitization project budgets, while establishing specialized repositories and storage solutions specifically designed for cultural heritage data, following models like Zenodo but tailored for heritage needs. Such infrastructure must incorporate standards and protocols for data migration and format preservation specific to cultural heritage digital assets, alongside redundant storage systems for irreplaceable digital records of lost monuments and artifacts. The system should ensure simplified accessibility while maintaining robust preservation protocols, with comprehensive digital preservation plans required as part of funding applications for digitization projects. This approach recognizes that in many cases, such as with the Bamiyan Buddhas or the Temple of Palmira, digital records now constitute the primary surviving heritage artifact, making their preservation as fundamental as that of physical objects. References: Example of epigraphic source for “In Tutelam” (tuitionem): CIL 02, 05489 = ILER 02045 = IRAlmeria 00043 = HEp 2003/04, 00009 = AE 2015, +00610 = AE 2016, +00749 De Luca L., A digital ecosystem for the multidisciplinary study of Notre-Dame de Paris, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Volume 65, 2024, Pages 206-209, ISSN 1296-2074, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2023.09.011. Demetrescu, Emanuel, Enzo d’Annibale, Daniele Ferdani, e Bruno Fanini. 2020. «Digital replica of cultural landscapes: An experimental reality-based workflow to create realistic, interactive open world experiences». Journal of Cultural Heritage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.07.018. Addison, A. C. (2002). Virtual Heritage: Technology in the Service of Culture. White, A., & Ch'ng, E. (2020). Digital heritage profile in China's museums: An evaluation of digital technology adoption in cultural heritage institutions. Kuny, T. (1997). A Digital Dark Ages? Challenges in the Preservation of Electronic Information Ramsholt, K. (2009). Digitization: Threat or Benefit to Conservation? Topic 5. Targeting adoption of Open Science practices in Cultural Heritage The adoption of Open Science practices in Cultural Heritage research represents a transformative approach to knowledge creation and sharing, fundamentally changing how research outputs are produced, disseminated, and preserved. This paradigm shift is fundamental for maximizing the societal impact of publicly funded research while ensuring the long-term preservation and accessibility of cultural heritage data through time. Weaknesses and Threats: Current research evaluation systems predominantly favour traditional publication metrics over open data contributions, creating a systemic disincentive for