1

Part I The Museological Background Chapter One The Question of Museology

Any excursion into museum studies research seems at first to produce a hazy vision of the study of museums. The words, as well as the concepts, of 'museography', 'museology' and 'museum studies' are underdeveloped in the collective memories of museum workers. Indications are that a poll of museum workers would lead to contradictory definitions or outright dismissal of the application of the terms which are viewed as jargonistic or academic to the practice of museum work.3 Many other terms which seem to encode the meaning of museum activities - 'collections management', 'museum education', 'exhibition' - are used imprecisely, sometimes in overlapping and contradictory ways, characteristics which usually signal confused thought. A recent publication identifies 1200 English words used in museum work for what would seem to be approximately 100 basic concepts; a review of museum literature over the past 100 years would compound this problem as older words exist together with newer terms.4 For example, the list of terms 'records', 'record-keeping', 'registration', 'cataloguing', 'documentation' and finally 'collections management' - approximately represents the progression of reference applied to the action of keeping a record about the objects or specimens in collections; all of these terms can be encountered in present day usage by museum workers.

2
To base the explanation of this disorder on the recent date of museum thought will not suffice; the word museology is at least 100 years old while the concept of a theory of museums can be traced as far back as the sixteenth century, at least, as part of the evolution of the 'modern' museum. One of the earliest times the suffix 'ology' was added to museum was by J. Graeser in the periodical Zeitschrift fur Museologie und Antiquitatenkunde in 1885, in which he wrote, If thirty or even twenty years ago anyone had talked or written about museology as a science, many people would have reacted with a compassionate or contemptuous smile. Today, this is, of course, different.3 Although the last sentence would be overconfident even more than a century later, the fact that the rest of this quote could be repeated accurately underlines one of the major problems in museology - the failure to develop and disseminate, for critical reaction by theorists and practitioners alike, the premises of museum work. The cultural tradition of museum work has only been partially established as can be illustrated by a brief study of three weaknesses: the contradictory beliefs about museums in the occupational mythology; the chaotic state of museum literature; and the underdeveloped state of the museum profession. The texture of museum tradition is ambiguity and paradox. Without a museological framework, inaccuracies grow into myths about museums and museum work while myths become dogmas. For example, references are constantly made in popular writings on museums to a museum past; the picture is often generalized, distorted or self-serving in its tendency to cast the early museum into the unworthy role of the 'cabinet of curiosities', the 'musty, dusty, unappealing place of a small group identified as an elite, the upper classes or the niggardly collector, academician or keeper/curator. Without the benefit of accurate information on which to build a historical perspective of the strengths and weaknesses of museum theory and practice, it becomes easy to use the

3
museum past to confirm: a view of relative progress in museums which culminates in a particular thesis being postulated such as the importance of new educational technique, exhibit effectiveness or even a new national museums policy. An extreme example of the use of a myth for a contemporary problem can be found in a section of the 1980 questionnaire issued by the National Museums Corporation of Canada sent to Corporation personnel and to all members of the Canadian Museums Association across Canada. One question read: Museums should concern themselves only with the traditional functions; collection, conservation, research and dissemination. They should not be concerned with the relevance of their activities to specific societal trends and/or problems.4 In this example the authors mistakenly assume that the so-called traditional functions of museums were developed without relevancy in the past. It is significant to note that there was no overwhelming criticism of this belief by museum people. Yet, the idea that museum activities have been isolated from social events in the past is difficult to justify given the perceived significance of museums in the past with regard to such well documented events as the founding of national museums, the role of museums in political events such as the French Revolution, the use of museums to upgrade industrial products and the use of museums by totalitarian regimes to name only a few cases. Caution should be exercised when trying to judge what is 'relevant' in another age. It can be misleading to reduce the complex evolution of museums and museology to simple pictures to underpin contemporary problems; the museum past like the museum present is far more complex than we have been led to believe by popular myth. The museological base of museum thought is also dramatically evident in the state of museum literature. Although a common reaction of museology students, and for that matter museum workers, is to assume that there is a shortage of museum literature, the opposite is true. The information about different facets of museums is growing rapidly as

4
are theoretical writings to the point of frustration for those attempting to keep abreast of both the theoretical and practical developments in the field of study. There are now several publications, which act as surveys and bibliographies for the field.5 The bulk of museological material is in the form of articles in periodicals while books represent a small portion of the available information. David Smurthwaite in his work Museum Information Survey (1971) suggested there were 115 serials devoted to museums (34 in the English speaking world); the number would now be much higher as publications in regional museums associations and special museum interest groups have increased in many countries.6 However, only a small percentage represent periodicals where new ideas about museums and activities are articulated and discussion engaged; in even fewer works is research about museums from a critical theoretical or applied perspective addressed. A few of the more significant journals are: The Museums Journal (1901-) published by the Museums Association, Museum News (1924) published by the American Association of Museums, Curator (1956) published by the American Museum of Natural History, Museum (1946) published by UNESCO. Written material is often anecdotal and aphoristic, particularistic and repetitive. Articles are general, even superficial; perhaps a description of visits to museums, a depiction of a new educational programme, or a new technique in display or preservation, and so on. As Dr. A.B. Meyer, the German museologist, warned in 1892, it is the habit of museums to "do too much in the way of experiment and too little in utilizing the experience of others" and he pointed out that the average museum person seldom "publishes his own experiences for the good of other workers in the same field...".7 Little has altered in the museum field in this case. Even so, written material is often anecdotal and aphoristic, particularistic and repetitive. Articles are general, even superficial: perhaps, a description of visits to museums, a depiction of a 'new' educational programme, or a new technique in display or preservation,

5
and so on. Cycles are evident as topics dealt with in earlier periods are returned to approximately every ten, twenty, or thirty years depending on the topic. A warning can be found in the introduction of the Bibliography of the Canadian Museums Association: Periodical articles pre-dating 1970 have been omitted...museum periodicals tend to deal with topics on a somewhat regular cycle, (therefore) it was felt that the 'historical' trends were sufficiently represented through this practice.8 The general treatment of topics plus the cyclical return to subjects contributes to the repetitious or superficial aspects of museum periodical literature, a trait that often misleads researchers who tire of the same arguments and stop their searches, missing the more significant museological treatises, texts or pronouncements. The literature is also diffuse; there are so many types of museums, and subjects that museums cover, that many museological topics are found in the publications of the many subject disciplines of museums. Research thus becomes a difficult task requiring strong library reference and searching skills to sort out the various materials. This dependence on library work led G. Stansfield to produce Sources of Museological Literature9 and P. Woodhead to prepare Museum Studies. A Guide to Library Resources in Leicester University 10, although similar aides are not available on other campuses. As Stansfield states, "locating articles on particular aspects of museology can be a tedious and timeconsuming process...".11 It should not be surprising, then, that this rigour is not often fulfilled. The seriousness of the problem of museum literature is illustrated by the fact that in North America from 1861 to 1981 there have been approximately eighty-one Ph.D. theses relating to museological subjects in twelve different discipline areas: forty-one in Education alone, nine in Fine Arts and Art History, eight in History and so on. In Britain, there have been ten theses (two D.Phil., eight M.A. or M.Ed.) on museum-related topics of which eight are education topics, one on architecture, and one on medical museums (See Appendix 1). Few of these works have referred to earlier research theses, or museum literature; they

6
often lack an awareness of unique museum forces and are written from the sometimes unbalanced viewpoint of their discipline. Advisors and examiners from discipline areas in which the theses were written seem unaware of the museum literature or phenomena increasing confusions and compromising the accuracy of some of these works. Even so, few university museum courses have acquired some or all of these theses to use as a critical base for further research to prevent the continuance of the problems of re-inventing the wheel. Despite these failings, the existence of the various sources of museum material suggests a cultural tradition, if not a well-defined 'body of knowledge', although: the literature is strung out over years, across countries and through disciplines, unknown by most practitioners and theorists. An examination of the state of the professionalization of museum work further highlights the problems of the cultural tradition of museology. As Dorothy Mariner has pointed out in her definitive work on professionalizing the museum worker, there are six critical factors that sociologists have agreed upon for the evaluation of the professional credibility of an occupation.12 The first of these is "a cultural tradition which is the basis of knowledge and/or expertise of the occupation." Despite the establishment of museums associations, ethics documents and training programmes, discussions about the museum profession continually return to the viability of a subject of museology or museum studies and its 'body of knowledge'. The cultural tradition of museum work has as yet to be studied, at least by this generation of museum workers; hence, discussions about "the basis of knowledge" of the occupation have a hollow ring failing to get beyond a syllabus or curriculum outline, or discussions of the mechanism for testing or accrediting. As A.J. Duggan suggested in 1969:

7
Curatorship still lacks a professional ritual, a defined cannon of knowledge and skills, and it derives no sense of assurance from a purely professional licensing authority with disciplinary powers....13 Nor does the picture become clearer if we accept that the cultural tradition, this 'body of knowledge', is equivalent to the concept of museology for it, too, is unclear. To date, the discussion of museology has been diffuse, predominately European, and less than cohesive. Endnotes:

1.Jiri Neustupny has recently written, "It is the common experience of those connected with the organization of museum work that museum personnel deny in practice the usefulness of museology. Personal experience sometimes supplemented to the experience of one's predecessors is elevated to the role of a theoretical model," in "Museology as an Academic Discipline," MuWop, I (1980), 28. An example would be the statement of a museum worker, (a member of an ICOM Committee and employed in a large Canadian museum) who at the Canadian Museums Association Annual Conference in Ottawa on May 1981 stated "museology or museography, whatever, I'm not into the jargon." 2. Dictionarium Museologicum. Museological Word Index, 3rd ed. (Budapest, 1948). This is a publication of the ICOM-CIDOC Working Group on Terminology. 3.J. Graeser, Zeitschrift fur Museologie und Antiquitatenkude (1885) as cited in Evzen Schneider, "The Way of Museums: An Exhibition at the Moravian Museum, Brno," Museum 29 (1977), p. 183. 4. Issues and Options. National Museums of Canada (Ottawa, 1980), p. 4. 5. There are several examples such as the Canadian Museums Association; An extensive listing of published material on the subjects of museology, museography and museum and art gallery administration (Ottawa, 1976-); Selected Bibliography of Museological Literature (Bratsilava, 1969-); ICOM International Museological Bibliography (Prague, 1969-): Jane Clapp, Museum Publications (1962); Stephan A. Borhegyi et. al., Bibliography of museums and museum work. 1900-1960 (Milwaukee, 1960): Supplementary volume (1961); F.L. Rath and M.R. O'Connell, Guide to Historic Preservation, Historical Agencies, and Museum Practices, A Selective Bibliography (Cooperstown, 1970); F.L. Rath and M.R. O'Connell, A Bibliography on Historical Organization Practices. Vol. 1, Historic Preservation (Nashville, 1975), Vol. 2, Conservation of Collections (Nashville, 1977), Vol. 3, Interpretation (Nashville, 1978), Vol. 4, Documentation of Collections (Nashville, 1979), Vol. 5, Administration (Nashville, 1980). There are, in addition, several older bibliographies and indexes, which are referred to later in the text and bibliography. 6. D.K. Smurthwaite, Museum Information Survey (Leicester, 1971), p. 5.

8
7. A.B. Meyer, "Zweiter Bericht Uber einige neue Einrichtigungunen des koniglischen zoolischen und anthropologischen-ethnographisch Museums in Dresden, 1892-1893," Abhandl. und Berichte D. Zool. Anth.-Ethnog. Museums, Dresden, 1892-1893, No. 1 (Dresden, 1894), pp. 1-28. 8. "Preface," Bibliography of the Canadian Museums Association (Ottawa, 1976). 9. G. Stansfield, Sources of Museological Literature (London, 1976). (Lecturer in the Department of Museum Studies, University of Leicester.) 10 P. Woodhead, Museum Studies. A Guide to Library Resources in Leicester University (Leicester, 1978). (Reference Librarian at the Library of the University of Leicester.) Similar guides modeled on these have been produced at the University of Toronto for the Masters of Museum Studies programme. 11. Stansfield, Sources, p. 1. 12.Mariner, "Professionalizing the Museum Worker," Museum News 52 (April 1974), 14 and The Museum: A Social Context for Art (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stanford, 1969). See also Chapter Seven. 13. A.J. Duggan, "Training professional museum curators," Museums Journal 69 (June 1969), 134.

This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.