Media coverage of recent, high-profile cases might suggest that any major disposal is likely to prove fiercely unpopular. In fact, the public are rarely consulted about museum acquisition and disposal in a way that allows for more nuanced responses and informed debate.
Our experience at University College London has been that many people are concerned enough to give these issues serious thought, and that the act of consultation itself can begin a deeper conversation.
As the third university to open in England, UCL pioneered work in many subject areas. From the early 19th century, collections were developed to support teaching and research in disciplines ranging from art to zoology. It now has more than 27,000 staff and students from 140 countries, as well as almost a million objects and specimens.
We wanted to make sure this growth was strategic, sustainable, and supported by our key audiences: UCL staff and students. With this in mind, we commissioned an online survey, designed to test the opinions of staff and students on the purpose and value of university museums and collections, and to explore attitudes to acquisition and disposal.
We had feared that the subject of the survey might seem peripheral to a general audience, or that people might be reluctant to comment without expert knowledge.
But we received more than 1,600 responses, from a cross-section of staff and students, many of who added extensive and thoughtful comments. These comments indicate an openness to debate subjects until recently considered taboo within the profession.
The results showed that 94 per cent of respondents wanted UCL to maintain its existing collections. Respondents saw the primary role of the collections as supporting teaching and research, with public engagement and profile-raising regarded as important but subsidiary roles.
There was broad support for a policy of active acquisition to keep the collections relevant to the university's work, yet this was tempered with pragmatism, and a desire to behave ethically. The majority were against UCL acquiring material similar to that housed in neighbouring museums, or things that were particularly costly to keep.
Respondents were adamant that UCL should behave ethically, especially when acquiring objects taken from other cultures; museum objects, they said, have many types of value and should not be regarded just as commodities.
Attitudes towards disposal were more ambivalent, respondents recognising that it is a complex issue. The survey outlined several scenarios and asked whether disposal would be appropriate "always", "most of the time", "sometimes", "rarely" or "never".
There was strong support for disposal when objects could not be safely housed or ethical practice demanded return to communities of origin, and a concern that, where possible, objects disposed of should remain within the public domain.
When it came to scenarios involving sales, the majority were against the sale of collections to support unrelated university projects. However, in scenarios where sales were made to support housing collections in more suitable locations, or to support new acquisitions, "sometimes" was by far the most common response.
The survey also asked respondents to consider several destinations for disposals, including other universities and museums, specialist societies, individuals, and educational and other-public service institutions.
In each case, respondents were asked whether transfer or sale would be acceptable. While transfer within the public domain was seen as the most popular method of disposal, the majority of respondents thought sale was potentially acceptable in most cases - a result we found surprising.
The survey has given us confidence and food for thought. It has helped us clarify our purpose and priorities, and has reassured us that the collections are held to be important, and that museum staff are trusted.
Having feared initially that any discussion of disposal would be fraught, we have found the process liberating. Many of our colleagues want to be involved in further discussions. We have embarked on a major review to assess the use and care of our collections and identify areas for acquisition and disposal.
We also want to find ways of talking with wider audiences about these questions, and are planning an interactive exhibition of items for disposal, in which visitors can propose suitable homes and uses, or argue for retention and reuse within UCL.
As one respondent wrote: "It is important to be open with the community you are serving. Not an easy job, but worthwhile."
Sally MacDonald is director and Jayne Dunn is geology collections manager at UCL Museums and Collections. The survey was designed in collaboration with consultants FreshMinds, which undertook the analysis. The full report can be downloaded at www.ucl.ac.uk/museums
Our experience at University College London has been that many people are concerned enough to give these issues serious thought, and that the act of consultation itself can begin a deeper conversation.
As the third university to open in England, UCL pioneered work in many subject areas. From the early 19th century, collections were developed to support teaching and research in disciplines ranging from art to zoology. It now has more than 27,000 staff and students from 140 countries, as well as almost a million objects and specimens.
We wanted to make sure this growth was strategic, sustainable, and supported by our key audiences: UCL staff and students. With this in mind, we commissioned an online survey, designed to test the opinions of staff and students on the purpose and value of university museums and collections, and to explore attitudes to acquisition and disposal.
We had feared that the subject of the survey might seem peripheral to a general audience, or that people might be reluctant to comment without expert knowledge.
But we received more than 1,600 responses, from a cross-section of staff and students, many of who added extensive and thoughtful comments. These comments indicate an openness to debate subjects until recently considered taboo within the profession.
The results showed that 94 per cent of respondents wanted UCL to maintain its existing collections. Respondents saw the primary role of the collections as supporting teaching and research, with public engagement and profile-raising regarded as important but subsidiary roles.
There was broad support for a policy of active acquisition to keep the collections relevant to the university's work, yet this was tempered with pragmatism, and a desire to behave ethically. The majority were against UCL acquiring material similar to that housed in neighbouring museums, or things that were particularly costly to keep.
Respondents were adamant that UCL should behave ethically, especially when acquiring objects taken from other cultures; museum objects, they said, have many types of value and should not be regarded just as commodities.
Attitudes towards disposal were more ambivalent, respondents recognising that it is a complex issue. The survey outlined several scenarios and asked whether disposal would be appropriate "always", "most of the time", "sometimes", "rarely" or "never".
There was strong support for disposal when objects could not be safely housed or ethical practice demanded return to communities of origin, and a concern that, where possible, objects disposed of should remain within the public domain.
When it came to scenarios involving sales, the majority were against the sale of collections to support unrelated university projects. However, in scenarios where sales were made to support housing collections in more suitable locations, or to support new acquisitions, "sometimes" was by far the most common response.
The survey also asked respondents to consider several destinations for disposals, including other universities and museums, specialist societies, individuals, and educational and other-public service institutions.
In each case, respondents were asked whether transfer or sale would be acceptable. While transfer within the public domain was seen as the most popular method of disposal, the majority of respondents thought sale was potentially acceptable in most cases - a result we found surprising.
The survey has given us confidence and food for thought. It has helped us clarify our purpose and priorities, and has reassured us that the collections are held to be important, and that museum staff are trusted.
Having feared initially that any discussion of disposal would be fraught, we have found the process liberating. Many of our colleagues want to be involved in further discussions. We have embarked on a major review to assess the use and care of our collections and identify areas for acquisition and disposal.
We also want to find ways of talking with wider audiences about these questions, and are planning an interactive exhibition of items for disposal, in which visitors can propose suitable homes and uses, or argue for retention and reuse within UCL.
As one respondent wrote: "It is important to be open with the community you are serving. Not an easy job, but worthwhile."
Sally MacDonald is director and Jayne Dunn is geology collections manager at UCL Museums and Collections. The survey was designed in collaboration with consultants FreshMinds, which undertook the analysis. The full report can be downloaded at www.ucl.ac.uk/museums
