The conversation

Gail Boyle is the senior curator (archaeology) at Bristol Museums, Galleries and Archives and the chairwoman of the Society of Museum Archeology







Jane Arthur is a museum and heritage consultant and a member of the Museums Association's ethics committee



Dear Jane: In an ideal world curators would want to make their  collections freely available to as many people as possible. But many are faced with difficult choices when trying to generate income. Many more  people are being denied free access through admission and exhibition  charges yet this seems to be more publicly accepted and, although criticised, not deemed unethical. Since it is unlikely that many museums would be able to balance their books without charging, should we assume that providing access to researchers on a fee-paying basis is taboo? Best wishes, Gail

Dear Gail: I agree that museums are facing difficult times, so it is all the more important for governing bodies to have thought through the implications of their decisions on access to collections, and that these are articulated to key stakeholders and the public. I would take issue with your point about entry charges, as the UK has a thriving independent sector where admissions are key to engaging people. If museums are considering charging researchers should they commit first to improving the quality of information publicly available? Best wishes, Jane

Dear Jane: It is true that many independent museums do sterling work and I’m sure most people would agree that a good experience is worth paying for. But researchers are often given access to study collections for free as opposed to general visitors who might have to pay. Curators should be striving to meet the needs of the widest possible audience and so improvements made to the quality of information will benefit everyone, not just researchers. A key issue is that not all museums are created equal in terms of staff resources or expertise. If a service can only be made available by applying charges, isn’t that better than no service at all? Best wishes, Gail

Dear Gail: The lack of specialist expertise is one of the biggest issues facing museums. Providing access without knowledge to back it up, and even mothballing collections, will lead to all audiences being short-changed. This will damage trust in museums. However, do venues have to employ specialists themselves? Isn’t this where creative thinking around partnerships with the academic sector, making use of special interest groups (both professional and amateur) and using social media, could reap dividends? Best wishes, Jane

Dear Jane: The diminution of specialist knowledge is a serious issue and many curators are already working creatively to minimise the impact. But I do not believe that this can be a substitute for the care of collections by experienced curators. The specialist knowledge that curators acquire enables them to synthesise meaning for all types of users, find points of personal resonance for the public and deliver all this in meaningful ways. If it’s worth investing in collections, isn’t it worth investing in the people who look after them? Best wishes, Gail

Dear Gail: I think we’re agreed that museums need curators who have the time and resources to develop knowledge of collections. It follows that museums need to explore ways to fund curatorial work, which may have to include charging for research. It would be useful to look at how museums manage research requests and how best to help researchers frame questions and engage in object-based research. Also, should researchers always provide access to their findings so that specialist knowledge is shared? In an ideal world I hope that would be the case. Best wishes, Jane