Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service holds a large collection of an architect's watercolours given by his widow about 40 ago. Recently one of her children, now an elderly lady, asked if she could have three works which had sentimental value to her.
After consideration, I refused this request on the grounds that: one, the role of the museum was to keep its collections in trust in perpetuity for the benefit of the public; two, the original donor had wished to give the collection to the museum, presumably because she wanted it kept intact.
If she had wanted her children to have the works she would have done so. The museum's relationship is with the donor. Maintaining that trust, even after her death, is important.
On the other hand, we have recently considered favourably a man's request for the return of his father's second world war medals. The medals are not significant to the history of the regiment and therefore of minimal public interest, but are of considerable personal value to the man's family.
The main problem we faced was in determining whom they could be returned to, given that the man's widow had not considered it appropriate to leave the medals to her son who was now requesting their return. We returned the medals to the widow's executor who could then decide who should have them.
Vanessa Trevelyan, head of Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service, Norfolk County Council
Occasionally museums are faced with a familiar decision: should they respond differently to donors who request the return of objects with personal resonance? To compare, say, the Victoria Cross of a war hero with a flat iron and suggest that one should be returned and the other not oversimplifies this type of decision. Thinking in broad terms can help you to approach an ethical discussion.
Asking some general questions will help you to explore the claim from a variety of perspectives beyond the interests of the museum collection: who would benefit the most? How would the public react to your decision?
It is also appropriate to consider more practical limitations that will determine what resources you can dedicate to caring for and making the object accessible to the public.
If we want to balance our responsibility 'as guardians of the long-term public interest in museums' (code of ethics, 6.1) with developing 'constructive relationships with the people who contributed to collections' (7.0), then we cannot dismiss such claims merely on the grounds of ownership.
Whatever course of action decided on must include an effort to maintain the museum's relationship with its donor. In a climate of dwindling funds, private donors are vitally important to the future of our public collections.
Rebecca Jacobs, professional development and ethics coordinator, Museums Association
Details of past debates are at www.museumsassociation.org/debate
After consideration, I refused this request on the grounds that: one, the role of the museum was to keep its collections in trust in perpetuity for the benefit of the public; two, the original donor had wished to give the collection to the museum, presumably because she wanted it kept intact.
If she had wanted her children to have the works she would have done so. The museum's relationship is with the donor. Maintaining that trust, even after her death, is important.
On the other hand, we have recently considered favourably a man's request for the return of his father's second world war medals. The medals are not significant to the history of the regiment and therefore of minimal public interest, but are of considerable personal value to the man's family.
The main problem we faced was in determining whom they could be returned to, given that the man's widow had not considered it appropriate to leave the medals to her son who was now requesting their return. We returned the medals to the widow's executor who could then decide who should have them.
Vanessa Trevelyan, head of Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service, Norfolk County Council
Occasionally museums are faced with a familiar decision: should they respond differently to donors who request the return of objects with personal resonance? To compare, say, the Victoria Cross of a war hero with a flat iron and suggest that one should be returned and the other not oversimplifies this type of decision. Thinking in broad terms can help you to approach an ethical discussion.
Asking some general questions will help you to explore the claim from a variety of perspectives beyond the interests of the museum collection: who would benefit the most? How would the public react to your decision?
It is also appropriate to consider more practical limitations that will determine what resources you can dedicate to caring for and making the object accessible to the public.
If we want to balance our responsibility 'as guardians of the long-term public interest in museums' (code of ethics, 6.1) with developing 'constructive relationships with the people who contributed to collections' (7.0), then we cannot dismiss such claims merely on the grounds of ownership.
Whatever course of action decided on must include an effort to maintain the museum's relationship with its donor. In a climate of dwindling funds, private donors are vitally important to the future of our public collections.
Rebecca Jacobs, professional development and ethics coordinator, Museums Association
Details of past debates are at www.museumsassociation.org/debate
