The average member of the public, if there is such a thing, tends to view the juxtaposition of 'disposal' and 'museum' with suspicion, shock and scepticism, according to research published this month.
For a long time it has been an assumption among people who work in museums that the public would feel outraged and betrayed if museums began to get rid of their collections willy-nilly. Now public attitude research, commissioned by the Museums Association (MA) as part of its consultation on disposal, appears to confirm this.
Of course this disapproval doesn't always manifest itself in a public outcry. In the recent Bury case, where the council sold a Lowry to plug a hole in its finances, the MA, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, and assorted pundits, voiced their disapproval, but local protests were limited. There wasn't a noticeable outpouring of grief from the people who actually live in Bury.
Which is not to say they didn't care. Even if they didn't write angry letters to the local papers it's probable that there was an overall erosion of confidence in the institution, and possibly the sector as a whole, which museums can ill afford if they are to manage their collections in a responsible and sustainable way.
The MA research, which was carried out by FreshMinds, aimed to find out what the public really thinks about disposal. Focus groups with participants from a mix of backgrounds and ages were organised and the results are interesting. The overwhelming response to the idea of disposal was negative - participants associated the word with destruction and sale.
The report found that public understanding of disposal is limited and it is this that leads to a generally negative response. So reactions to the headline: 'Museum disposes of 1,000 items' ranged from 'Are they making a profit if they are selling?' to an assumption that the items would be 'binned' or 'burnt'.
Caitlin Griffiths, the MA's adviser on professional issues, says she isn't surprised by this. 'It's a knee-jerk reaction to a headline. But there is a huge amount of scope for museums to shape public opinion. We should see it as an opportunity to help people understand what museums do.'
And the research does show that attitudes tend to change once people are given some context for disposal - although even then it depends on the circumstances and the reasons given. Transfer between museums was deemed acceptable, as was any instance where the item would remain in the public domain. Destruction of items caused concern, and so did the idea of trading up.
Overall this is good news for museums because it means if they explain why they might be getting rid of stuff then the public is generally much happier with the idea. And what's more they are content to let museum professionals, as the 'experts', judge what should and shouldn't be in collections.
Griffiths says that transparency is the best way to get the public onboard. 'The key is letting the public know what's happening early, rather than when the job's done-and-dusted and it's too late.' For her the National Maritime Museum is a good example of how a transparent process can work well.
'They had an area of the website where people could get more information about the collection review, as well as an open forum for the public where they could quiz experts about their decisions.' She says that as long as museums have a clear idea of why they are proposing a collection review or rationalisation, and can explain that to the public, then they will be able to combat any negative associations.
The public attitude research is part of a wider discussion about disposal that has taken place over the past year. It was sparked off by the MA's Collections for the Future report, which recognised that disposal had to be tackled. It concluded: 'Making decisions about disposal is part of a museum's professional and ethical responsibility. Disposal is not risk free, but neither is unthinking retention.'
So last year the MA convened a steering group to guide the discussion, with a disposals forum running in tandem to share experience and best practice. Then between August and October last year there was a wide-ranging consultation about whether it was desirable, or necessary, to change the MA's ethical guidelines on disposal.
Enshrined in the current guidelines is a 'strong presumption' against disposal and the first question the consultation asked was if this should be changed. Nearly 100 organisations and individuals responded, and although opinions varied, Griffiths says there was a majority in favour of having a less restrictive principle in place.
'Clearly not everyone was in favour - one respondent likened asking curators if they believe in a strong presumption against disposal to asking Christians if they believe in Jesus - but there was general consensus that a more open approach to the subject was called for.'
One of the most contentious areas of debate is the idea of financially motivated sale. The majority of responses to the consultation were in favour of keeping the strong preference for free transfer or gift. Griffiths agrees but says that she thinks the new guidelines should at least acknowledge sale, and the circumstances where it might be appropriate.
What is almost certain is that the MA will adopt a less restrictive principle on disposal, although any changes to the ethical guidelines would have to go through the organisation's AGM in October this year. In the meantime, the MA is drawing together the results of all the work and devising a Disposals Toolkit that museums will be able to use to actively manage their collections.
Another piece of research that has informed the current debate is a study of acquisition and disposal in museums by Nick Merriman, the director of Manchester Museum. In five of the museums that he surveyed the average rate of acquisition to disposal was a startling 745 to one. Speaking at the MA conference last year he said: 'The inescapable conclusion is that museums are inherently unsustainable.'
Merriman says that disposal has to become a more significant tool in collections management and that there needs to be a review of the philosophy that underpins collecting and acquisition. According to him the profession has to learn to live with the fact that museums are never going to be fully representative. 'You can always find a gap between a gap - it's just an excuse to continue collecting.'
It would be wrong to assume that while this debate has rumbled on there has been no movement within collections. A number of museums have been quietly, diligently and ethically rationalising their collections for the past few years.
Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service began its rationalisation programme in 2001 on the back of a redevelopment and a Best Value review. Vanessa Trevelyan, the head of the service, says that when they started the process a member of staff said: 'It really makes you think - we've got quite a lot of rubbish in the cupboards'. Trevelyan's response was that they had to look at disposal as part of their collections management strategy.
According to her there was also concern from elected members that the service was holding onto stuff and that the 'cupboards were full'. 'We had to demonstrate the opposite - that were not holding on to stuff for the sake of it.' She advises that any disposal policy has to be watertight before rationalisation takes place: 'We looked to the MA code of ethics and put together a document on how and why to consider disposal.'
So far she admits it has been a slow process, with about 60 per cent of the collections reviewed, and it won't be completed until 2010. Although there hasn't been a vast number of deaccessions she says it has been worthwhile and recommends that other museums follow suit if circumstances allow.
Ros Westwood, the museums manager at Derbyshire County Council, agrees. She is currently overseeing a review of the museum service's collections. It is a potentially brave move considering that the county council was expelled from the MA and de-registered by the Museums and Galleries Commission in 1991 for selling paintings from the collection at Buxton Museum and Art Gallery - making disposal a very touchy subject indeed.
Westwood says they didn't enter into the new review lightly. They made sure that everyone from elected members to senior council officers knew what was happening. 'We worked closely with the MLA East Midlands and because of the past we got the MA involved - we wanted an ethical steer from them.'
It's a complicated picture because each of the venues is at a different stage. At Elvaston Castle they had to review the collection when the county council entered into a development deal for the site with commercial partners. Westwood says that in effect it meant that she was left with space for only 1,500 objects out of a collection of more than 12,000 ranging in size from caravans to bits of paper.
'We've tried to find better solutions than just having collections sitting in stores,' she says and adds this has meant transfer to other museums; sale at auction and in some cases, where the object was no longer viable, destruction. Her bottom line is: 'If we can't see a use for it, short or long term, if we can't care for it, then we're not keeping it.'
This sentiment is echoed in Nick Merriman's report. He concludes that it is no longer justifiable on intellectual, moral or resource grounds to continue to operate unsustainably. 'We must begin to be more honest and courageous about our responsibilities to the future by getting to grips with the problem today.'
To download the MA's public consultation document, click here (word)
Nick Merriman's research is available at www.cloreleadership.org/fellow%20Nick%20Merriman.htm
For a long time it has been an assumption among people who work in museums that the public would feel outraged and betrayed if museums began to get rid of their collections willy-nilly. Now public attitude research, commissioned by the Museums Association (MA) as part of its consultation on disposal, appears to confirm this.
Of course this disapproval doesn't always manifest itself in a public outcry. In the recent Bury case, where the council sold a Lowry to plug a hole in its finances, the MA, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, and assorted pundits, voiced their disapproval, but local protests were limited. There wasn't a noticeable outpouring of grief from the people who actually live in Bury.
Which is not to say they didn't care. Even if they didn't write angry letters to the local papers it's probable that there was an overall erosion of confidence in the institution, and possibly the sector as a whole, which museums can ill afford if they are to manage their collections in a responsible and sustainable way.
The MA research, which was carried out by FreshMinds, aimed to find out what the public really thinks about disposal. Focus groups with participants from a mix of backgrounds and ages were organised and the results are interesting. The overwhelming response to the idea of disposal was negative - participants associated the word with destruction and sale.
The report found that public understanding of disposal is limited and it is this that leads to a generally negative response. So reactions to the headline: 'Museum disposes of 1,000 items' ranged from 'Are they making a profit if they are selling?' to an assumption that the items would be 'binned' or 'burnt'.
Caitlin Griffiths, the MA's adviser on professional issues, says she isn't surprised by this. 'It's a knee-jerk reaction to a headline. But there is a huge amount of scope for museums to shape public opinion. We should see it as an opportunity to help people understand what museums do.'
And the research does show that attitudes tend to change once people are given some context for disposal - although even then it depends on the circumstances and the reasons given. Transfer between museums was deemed acceptable, as was any instance where the item would remain in the public domain. Destruction of items caused concern, and so did the idea of trading up.
Overall this is good news for museums because it means if they explain why they might be getting rid of stuff then the public is generally much happier with the idea. And what's more they are content to let museum professionals, as the 'experts', judge what should and shouldn't be in collections.
Griffiths says that transparency is the best way to get the public onboard. 'The key is letting the public know what's happening early, rather than when the job's done-and-dusted and it's too late.' For her the National Maritime Museum is a good example of how a transparent process can work well.
'They had an area of the website where people could get more information about the collection review, as well as an open forum for the public where they could quiz experts about their decisions.' She says that as long as museums have a clear idea of why they are proposing a collection review or rationalisation, and can explain that to the public, then they will be able to combat any negative associations.
The public attitude research is part of a wider discussion about disposal that has taken place over the past year. It was sparked off by the MA's Collections for the Future report, which recognised that disposal had to be tackled. It concluded: 'Making decisions about disposal is part of a museum's professional and ethical responsibility. Disposal is not risk free, but neither is unthinking retention.'
So last year the MA convened a steering group to guide the discussion, with a disposals forum running in tandem to share experience and best practice. Then between August and October last year there was a wide-ranging consultation about whether it was desirable, or necessary, to change the MA's ethical guidelines on disposal.
Enshrined in the current guidelines is a 'strong presumption' against disposal and the first question the consultation asked was if this should be changed. Nearly 100 organisations and individuals responded, and although opinions varied, Griffiths says there was a majority in favour of having a less restrictive principle in place.
'Clearly not everyone was in favour - one respondent likened asking curators if they believe in a strong presumption against disposal to asking Christians if they believe in Jesus - but there was general consensus that a more open approach to the subject was called for.'
One of the most contentious areas of debate is the idea of financially motivated sale. The majority of responses to the consultation were in favour of keeping the strong preference for free transfer or gift. Griffiths agrees but says that she thinks the new guidelines should at least acknowledge sale, and the circumstances where it might be appropriate.
What is almost certain is that the MA will adopt a less restrictive principle on disposal, although any changes to the ethical guidelines would have to go through the organisation's AGM in October this year. In the meantime, the MA is drawing together the results of all the work and devising a Disposals Toolkit that museums will be able to use to actively manage their collections.
Another piece of research that has informed the current debate is a study of acquisition and disposal in museums by Nick Merriman, the director of Manchester Museum. In five of the museums that he surveyed the average rate of acquisition to disposal was a startling 745 to one. Speaking at the MA conference last year he said: 'The inescapable conclusion is that museums are inherently unsustainable.'
Merriman says that disposal has to become a more significant tool in collections management and that there needs to be a review of the philosophy that underpins collecting and acquisition. According to him the profession has to learn to live with the fact that museums are never going to be fully representative. 'You can always find a gap between a gap - it's just an excuse to continue collecting.'
It would be wrong to assume that while this debate has rumbled on there has been no movement within collections. A number of museums have been quietly, diligently and ethically rationalising their collections for the past few years.
Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service began its rationalisation programme in 2001 on the back of a redevelopment and a Best Value review. Vanessa Trevelyan, the head of the service, says that when they started the process a member of staff said: 'It really makes you think - we've got quite a lot of rubbish in the cupboards'. Trevelyan's response was that they had to look at disposal as part of their collections management strategy.
According to her there was also concern from elected members that the service was holding onto stuff and that the 'cupboards were full'. 'We had to demonstrate the opposite - that were not holding on to stuff for the sake of it.' She advises that any disposal policy has to be watertight before rationalisation takes place: 'We looked to the MA code of ethics and put together a document on how and why to consider disposal.'
So far she admits it has been a slow process, with about 60 per cent of the collections reviewed, and it won't be completed until 2010. Although there hasn't been a vast number of deaccessions she says it has been worthwhile and recommends that other museums follow suit if circumstances allow.
Ros Westwood, the museums manager at Derbyshire County Council, agrees. She is currently overseeing a review of the museum service's collections. It is a potentially brave move considering that the county council was expelled from the MA and de-registered by the Museums and Galleries Commission in 1991 for selling paintings from the collection at Buxton Museum and Art Gallery - making disposal a very touchy subject indeed.
Westwood says they didn't enter into the new review lightly. They made sure that everyone from elected members to senior council officers knew what was happening. 'We worked closely with the MLA East Midlands and because of the past we got the MA involved - we wanted an ethical steer from them.'
It's a complicated picture because each of the venues is at a different stage. At Elvaston Castle they had to review the collection when the county council entered into a development deal for the site with commercial partners. Westwood says that in effect it meant that she was left with space for only 1,500 objects out of a collection of more than 12,000 ranging in size from caravans to bits of paper.
'We've tried to find better solutions than just having collections sitting in stores,' she says and adds this has meant transfer to other museums; sale at auction and in some cases, where the object was no longer viable, destruction. Her bottom line is: 'If we can't see a use for it, short or long term, if we can't care for it, then we're not keeping it.'
This sentiment is echoed in Nick Merriman's report. He concludes that it is no longer justifiable on intellectual, moral or resource grounds to continue to operate unsustainably. 'We must begin to be more honest and courageous about our responsibilities to the future by getting to grips with the problem today.'
To download the MA's public consultation document, click here (word)
Nick Merriman's research is available at www.cloreleadership.org/fellow%20Nick%20Merriman.htm