There’s a discussion bubbling under the surface at the moment about research, collections knowledge and expertise.
This broke through at the Museums Association conference last month, in a session that discussed how the loss of expertise in natural science collections had led to a lack of care for those collections in some institutions.
In this issue of Museums Journal, there are several articles that examine the plight of research in museums, the loss of curatorial expertise and the need for collections knowledge (see this month's comment section).
These articles make the point that research is vital and that collections knowledge is not a luxury.
Of course, we need all of the above. To write interesting and engaging text, to interpret, explain and engage, and to understand the world around us, we need to understand collections.
But there are lots of other things that we must also understand. We need to understand the public: who they are, why they come and why they don’t. We need to know about their interests, their learning styles, what stories they have and the connections that they make to collections.
And there shouldn’t be a conflict between that and collections knowledge. The collections versus the public debate has all the makings of a row. But it doesn’t need to be one. Pressure on resources can be divisive.
But the cuts are widespread and there is not much point in arguing over which specialism has fared worse than another. A little inter-disciplinary solidarity wouldn’t go amiss considering we are, as a sector, in this together.
Taking a public-centred approach to everything that museums do might help resolve any tensions. Publicly funded museums are a public service and should act accordingly.
If we are clear about purpose – to serve the public as a whole – then everything else should flow from that.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
This broke through at the Museums Association conference last month, in a session that discussed how the loss of expertise in natural science collections had led to a lack of care for those collections in some institutions.
In this issue of Museums Journal, there are several articles that examine the plight of research in museums, the loss of curatorial expertise and the need for collections knowledge (see this month's comment section).
These articles make the point that research is vital and that collections knowledge is not a luxury.
Of course, we need all of the above. To write interesting and engaging text, to interpret, explain and engage, and to understand the world around us, we need to understand collections.
But there are lots of other things that we must also understand. We need to understand the public: who they are, why they come and why they don’t. We need to know about their interests, their learning styles, what stories they have and the connections that they make to collections.
And there shouldn’t be a conflict between that and collections knowledge. The collections versus the public debate has all the makings of a row. But it doesn’t need to be one. Pressure on resources can be divisive.
But the cuts are widespread and there is not much point in arguing over which specialism has fared worse than another. A little inter-disciplinary solidarity wouldn’t go amiss considering we are, as a sector, in this together.
Taking a public-centred approach to everything that museums do might help resolve any tensions. Publicly funded museums are a public service and should act accordingly.
If we are clear about purpose – to serve the public as a whole – then everything else should flow from that.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal