Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chairman
Mr. Roy Friendship-Taylor M.Phil., MAAIS., AIFA
Tel. (01604) 870312
E-Mail: roy@friendship-taylor.freeserve.co.uk
Secretary
Dr Chris Cumberpatch
Tel. (0114) 2310051
E-Mail: cgc@ccumberpatch.freeserve.co.uk
June 2005
Understanding the future: museums and 21st century life
The value of museums
Summary
• We argue for investment in research and in the facilities required for effective research
which will enhance the value of collections and increase public understanding of the
significance of collections (specific proposals are made in the response to Question 4);
• We suggest that closer links between museums and the Higher and Further Educations
sectors would allow research to be focussed on existing and new collections of material
which are, at present, underused for research purposes, with appropriate changes to the
Research Assessment Exercise to bring British collections within the scope of university-
based research;
• We argue for a revised funding structure that will ensure that museums are not the first
targets of local authorities seeking to reduce their expenditure;
• We urge the establishment of effective career structures and better pay and conditions within
the museum sector as a way of attracting individuals from a wider range of social
backgrounds into the sector, bringing careers in museums into line with other public
services such as education and health;
• We suggest that the authors of the document have failed to appreciate the extent to which
museums (and archaeology generally) are already engaged with the public through a variety
of initiatives based upon formal educational structures and also less formally through clubs
for children and young people (notably the Young Archaeologists Clubs) and through the
close association between local history and archaeological societies and local and regional
museums;
• We draw attention to the diversity within the museum sector (mirroring the diversity within
the heritage sector as a whole) and suggest that this should be seen as a source of strength,
rather than a drawback, as it appears to be viewed by the DCMS.
Understanding the future: museums and 21st century life
The value of museums
Introduction
RESCUE – The British Archaeological Trust welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the
debate over the future of museums and the development of their role in the 21st century. Our
comments in this response to the document are intended to be a positive contribution to the debate
even where these are critical of present and past national and local government policies towards
museums.
We particularly pleased to note Ms Jowell’s statement that scholarship and research are
central to the role of museums in the 21st century (page 3). We also welcome Estelle Morris’
acknowledgement of the fact that museums lie at the heart of our cultural heritage (page 5). We
look forward to seeing these statements followed up by positive support for museums at times of
crisis, support which has rarely been forthcoming from the DCMS in the past few years.
Before addressing the questions posed in the annex to the document we believe that it is
important to engage in some discussion of the content of the document in general.
As RESCUE is an organisation primarily concerned with archaeology, the comments in this
contribution will deal specifically with that subject, although some of our observations may also be
applicable in other areas. RESCUE is concerned that archaeology, which constitutes an important
part of the museums sector, is under-represented in the document, as evidenced by the limited
inclusion of archaeological projects amongst the case studies selected to illustrate the document.
This, we feel, reflects the generally low priority given to archaeology by the DCMS generally, a
point that we have made elsewhere, notably in our response to the Minister’s essay Better places to
live. We look forward to a more inclusive approach to the issues raised once the consultation
exercise is complete.
With reference to the issue of diversity within the museum sector (which is raised a number
of times in the document), we would point out that museums, which often incorporate art galleries,
are institutions with an unusually wide remit. It is perhaps time that the DCMS recognised that
diversity (which the Department appears to read purely as ‘fragmentation’) is a characteristic of the
heritage sector in general and that there are good practical and historical reasons for this diversity.
In the case of local and regional museums their collections may cover palaeontology, archaeology
(including Egyptology), anthropology, technology, social and economic history, political history,
natural history, fine art and other areas within their collections and exhibitions.
A distinct group of museums are devoted to single subjects (military history, transport or
social history for example) and these are equally a significant part of the part of the sector, offering
a different but equally valuable experience to the visitor and a range of specialised resources to the
student or researcher.
Collections of national and international importance are held both in our major national
museums and also in the more specialised regional museums (such as the Potteries Museum in
Stoke-on-Trent).
There is no reason to suppose that this diversity within individual institutions and between
different institutions is not a valued part of museums in general. RESCUE would suggest that many
visitors enjoy the wide range of material housed in our museums and value the different parts for
different reasons and perhaps differently at different times in their lives. Given this, it is inevitable
that there will be a variety of concerns and issues raised within the museum sector and the onus is
on the DCMS to come to terms with this rather than seeing it as purely as a problem.
This high degree of diversity in all areas of the museum sector requires a flexible response
from government and an acknowledgement that there may be no single policy that will cover all
museums or all aspects of individual museums. Ministers and civil servants must understand the
nature of the museum sector before attempting to impose policies and practices upon it and must
ensure that proposals take the existence of diversity into account.
In terms of the care of collections the responsibilities of museums are also wide and
encompass the management and curation of diverse types of material, the provision of research
facilities and of services to the education sector. RESCUE suggests that diversity should be seen as
a source of strength in that it enables the museum sector to reach out to a wide variety of
constituencies within the population at large and to provide facilities which appeal broadly within
society.
The following discussion deals with general points drawn from each section of the
document in turn before turning to the questions posed in the annex. We deal first with the issues
discussed in the introduction.
Museums can provide a tolerant space where difficult contemporary issues can be explored in safety and in
the spirit of debate (Paragraph 10)
Archaeology is a discipline which deals with the realities of human interaction through
trade, migration and inter-cultural and inter-communal contact as well as with the myths and
legends that human beings create around issues of nationalism, sectarianism and group identity.
Archaeology emerged from the 18th century Enlightenment and, at its best, embodies many of the
principles of this philosophical movement, combining these constructively with aspects of critical
social theory developed during the later 19th and 20th centuries. This having been said, archaeology
is a social practice and, like other disciplines, has been implicated in a number of shameful passages
in recent human history including the creation of explicitly racist, imperialistic and class-biased
accounts of the past. Through the often painful process of facing up to this heritage, the modern
discipline of archaeology has developed a high degree of self-consciousness and an ability to
engage in auto-critique that should, we believe, be reflected in museum practice, particularly in
respect of public presentation. There is a place in contemporary museums for the presentation of
disruptive and unsettling displays and educational initiatives which challenge established
perspectives on human society, religion, ethnicity and sectarianism and we suggest that such
initiatives should be encouraged as a way of challenging entrenched and divisive social, political
and religious attitudes. As will be emphasised elsewhere in this document, such initiatives require
the support of high quality research input. The potential for undertaking such research has been
badly damaged by recent local and national government policy in respect of museum funding and
structure. RESCUE makes a number of suggestions as to ways in which this trend can be reversed
in the discussion which follows this introduction.
RESCUE acknowledges the need for museums to respond appropriately in terms of their
role in society (see paragraphs 11 - 14) as society itself changes, but would point out the dangers
inherent in institutions such as museums attempting to follow social trends rather than using their
broad geographical and chronological perspective to comment on such changes from an informed
and critical perspective. This should not conflict with positive and innovative schemes such as that
outlined in Box 1 but ought to allow museums to work free of any suspicion that they are being
forced to respond to the perceived ‘needs’ of a ‘market’ or of ‘customers’. Such a ‘market-led’
orientation is wholly inappropriate for museums but appears to have been fostered in recent years
by the requirement to generate income and increase visitor numbers in order to fulfil goals set by
managers and marketers whose principle area of interest is not always that which many users of
museums would see as their primary role.
As an aside RESCUE notes that archaeology has contributed in a major way to collaborative
outreach projects designed to foster social inclusion, one example being the ‘I dig Moston’ project
in Greater Manchester; http://www.idigmoston.co.uk/).
Q1: How should museums develop and utilise their collections to serve the concerns and interests
of the whole of the population most effectively?
RESCUE asserts that the archaeological collections which constitute a substantial part of the
holdings of many of our museums represent a uniquely valuable cultural asset, held by a diverse
range of institutions on behalf of the population and society at large. We believe that high-quality
research, undertaken by knowledgeable and experienced scholars from both the professional and
amateur sectors should be at the heart of any policy or policies which seek to serve the interests of
the wider society. It is such research which underlies the interpretations upon which presentation to
the public is based. In recent years the scholarly basis of the work undertaken within our museums
has been degraded by cost-cutting in terms of staff numbers and working hours and by the failure to
invest in adequate facilities for research, conservation and the curation of collections. RESCUE
argues that the move away from research and the increased emphasis on the presentation of
traditional and stereotypical accounts of past human life and experience fails to do justice either the
richness of the collections or to the requirements of a significant part of the audience. RESCUE
suggests the following steps to address these issues:
• Programmes of staff training and professional development with the emphasis on research
and scholarship, possibly undertaken in co-operation with the university sector and with
independent researchers from the emerging commercial archaeological sector;
• Closer liaison with higher educational funding bodies to encourage the use of existing
museum collections in post-graduate and post-doctoral research programmes, tied into a
reform of the University Research Assessment Exercise to replace the focus on foreign
research with a one more equally balanced between the possibilities offered by home and
overseas research;
• The creation of usable and adequate research space within museums to allow the potential of
existing and growing collections to be realised. It should perhaps become a requirement that
the creation of new museums and the extensive refurbishment of existing museums (such as
is currently being undertaken with Lottery funding) should include both storage and
research space; to date many opportunities to do this has been missed, to the future
detriment of the institutions involved;
• Development of travelling exhibitions suitable for installation both in other museums but
also in other public institutions (art galleries, concert halls, community centres etc) based
upon the results of recent excavations and surveys undertaken under the PPG 15 / 16 regime
(and equivalents in other parts of the UK). Such exhibitions might in part be funded by the
private sector through an extension of the planning rules covered by PPG 15 and 16 (see the
following section for more on this)
Should this include releasing parts of their collections to others, including outside the museum?
RESCUE would welcome the opportunity for parts of collections to be made available to
researchers within the university sector (as outlined below) for the purposes of academic study.
While safeguards designed to protect the integrity of collections will always be necessary, there are
many collections which are of great potential value to post-graduate and doctoral students as well as
to many highly competent researchers based in the amateur/voluntary and professional sectors of
archaeology. The outcome of such study would benefit not only the academic world but also
visitors who would be able to benefit from contemporary interpretations based upon the latest
research techniques and theoretical perspectives. As facilities in many museums are entirely
unsuited for the types of study required to unlock the information contained within collections,
release to universities and similar institutions is essential in order for this to take place.
There may be considerable scope for loans from collections to institutions and organisations
outside museums, notably in the form of travelling exhibitions, as outlined above. Most museums
now maintain loan and teaching collections and there may well be some potential to expand this,
but it must be understood that a proportion of museum collections are unique and relatively fragile.
In the absence of in-house conservation staff and facilities, such loan policies must be carefully
judged and closely and effectively monitored in order to maintain the quality and integrity of
collections.
Q2. How can the sector ensure that the opportunities offered by ICT, electronic access and
digitisation are fully utilised for the benefit of users and to reach out to non-users?
The use of digital and other new technologies certainly offers the opportunity for much
larger audiences to view the collections held in museums. Such technologies are to be welcomed as
a valuable tool for broadening access to the collections held in museums, but they are not equally
applicable to all collections. Documentary and text-based collections, where the principal interest
might be the content of the documents are certainly highly suitable for dissemination in this manner
(as the example of the British Library clearly demonstrates), but archaeological material is generally
less suitable for such treatment. On-line catalogues, amply illustrated are certainly a valuable
research and educational tool and should be made available as widely as possible, but for the
purpose of both serious study and a full appreciation of the materiality of archaeological collections,
there is no substitute for the study of the real objects and for this adequate research facilities are
required within museums.
Q4: How can a strong research culture be built and sustained, as well as quality measured across
the museums sector?
RESCUE advocates the following steps to rebuild and sustain a strong research culture:
Q5: How could stronger links be created between the Higher and Further Education sectors and
museums?
As noted elsewhere in this document, the current structure of archaeological research
funding within universities places the emphasis upon work undertaken abroad. While this is
valuable and appropriate in many instances, it is entirely unreasonable that work undertaken using
British data, including collections held in British museums is not accorded parity in terms of
academic research rating exercises. This must be tackled at the highest level within academic
management and administration and existing funding should be redirected as appropriate.
At a more detailed level it is clear that there are research areas which are being identified
through the English Heritage funded Regional Research Framework programmes and it might be
useful if these could be reviewed with the aim of identifying specific areas where research is
currently lacking and programmes drawn up which would be designed to address these areas
specifically. As noted above, it is essential that appropriate facilities are made available within
museums for the necessary work to be carried out and that the temporary transfer of archives to
educational establishments be facilitated. It ought to be possible (as noted above) to create research
positions in museums in partnership with universities so that individuals can undertake work on
museum collections as a way of gaining post-graduate qualifications (M.Phil. / PhD) and at the
same time contributing directly to the enhancement of collections held by museums and facilitating
the communication of research outcomes with the communities served by those museums.
Paragraph 52: The heritage sector generally suffers from serious problems of career structure and
progression and this is particularly acute in archaeology, inside and outside museums. Wages are
low (amongst the lowest in any field of graduate employment), terms and conditions are poor and
the individuals who enter the profession with a strong vocational commitment regularly find this
commitment exploited. RESCUE has argued this case in greater detail in our response to Better
places to live and, while the survival of local authority standards of remuneration and employment
rights in the museum sector means that it is somewhat better off than is commercial archaeology,
these standards are under constant attack and, as described elsewhere in this document, can be
entirely removed when museums are transferred from the public to the trust sector.
Box 11 and paragraph 59: While RESCUE welcomes moves to make employment in the museum
sector more inclusive and representative of the overall profile of contemporary British society, we
are sceptical of the need for more middle and senior managers, unless these individuals have a
strong research background and a commitment to the sector based upon a commitment to research,
the enhancement of collections and the presentation of collections backed by the most thorough
research. Management is only truly effective when it is based upon a strong background in the
relevant field of endeavour; as an activity in its own right it has little or nothing to offer, being
essentially parasitic on those who are actually able to deliver tangible results within a specific field.
RESCUE will view with extreme scepticism moves which seek to introduce additional tiers of
management into a field which requires investment in research ability and scholarship and not in
management.
Q6: How can the sector achieve the right balance of pre- and post-entry training to build skills for
the range of their workforce?
RESCUE has no specific views on this subject, beyond those covered elsewhere in this
document.
Q7: What initiatives and targets would increase mobility, training and career progression for all
types of museum professionals?
An improvement in collaboration between the museum sector and the Higher and Further
Education sectors might be structured so as to allow museum staff to engage in collaborative
research projects based upon the collections held by the museums within which they are working.
The possibility of being able to base a post-graduate qualification or post-doctoral research upon a
particular collection (or a group of related collections held in the same or different institutions)
would yield benefits for the museums whose displays, websites and publications would be
enhanced by the results of the research and for the educational institution through its research
ranking. For the individual undertaking the research the gaining of a qualification and the
authorship of resulting publications would have benefits in terms of their research profile and status
within the profession. Research is, in addition to its inherent benefits in terms of qualification, is
also a valuable experience in terms of enhancing an individual’s self-confidence and ability to
undertake largely self-directed work towards a specific and defined goal. The nature of
archaeological research in particular means that it involves the gaining of familiarity with diverse
areas of practical and academic work.
Q 9: Would structural changes better support museums and provide effective means of ensuring a
national strategy for museums?
A change in the way that museums, and particularly local and regional museums, are funded
is essential if these institutions, which serve the interests of local people and local communities as
well as the wider society, are not to be destroyed by the actions of local authorities who view them
as a financial burden and are frequently either wilfully ignorant of, or blind to, their wider
importance and significance. RESCUE has heard, albeit anecdotally, of councillors who are
anxious to close museums and galleries for reasons more closely connected to their own personal
prejudices against ‘culture’ than for the professed reasons of lack of money and the need for cuts to
budgets. While RESCUE does not believe that such attitudes are general, they certainly seem to
have played a part in some recent decisions to close museums and dispose of collections. The
commonly expressed reasons for closures, staff redundancies and reductions in opening hours are
financial and RESCUE believes that it is essential that the burden (as it is seen) of maintaining these
unique cultural assets is removed from local authorities who have so clearly demonstrated their
inability to either understand or appreciate the value of what the hold in trust for the nation. The
creation of a funding agency or council, while it would inevitably bring with it its own share of
problems and challenges, would perhaps be a step forward (depending on the precise arrangements
and the levels of funding) in tackling this most pressing of problems. RESCUE regards it as
essential, irrespective of the precise arrangements put in place, that funding is structured so that an
adequate proportion is directed towards the provision of adequate storage space, conservation and
research facilities within museums. There is a danger that these core functions will be overlooked
in favour of the higher profile ‘front of house’ facilities.
Q 10: How best do we combine more coherent and efficient delivery of museum services with a
service that is responsive to the needs of local communities and users?
While museum funding should be guaranteed by central government, the actual management
of local and regional museums should remain local and regional in order that those close to the
communities served were making decisions relating to specific museums. Having said this, it is
important that broader issues are not neglected and, in terms of archaeological collections, some
involvement of regionally based members of the English Heritage inspectorate and of local
archaeological curators drawn from the collecting areas of the individual museum should certainly
be considered. The role of commercial archaeological contractors is more problematic; in many
areas these organisations are aware of, and responsive to, local issues and regional aspects of the
archaeology. The larger, national contractors however have less investment in specific areas and in
many cases also act as consultants to large national and multi-national firms. It is less clear that it
would be appropriate to involve such bodies in the management of museums. RESCUE suggests
that this is an area in which there are a significant number of issues to be considered and resolved
before final conclusions can be arrived at. RESCUE notes, and appreciates the content of paragraph
75, although is sceptical of the value of European experience, given that, in archaeology at least,
Britain has a unique structure with no close parallels in Europe, notably in terms of the involvement
of the amateur/voluntary sector in archaeology generally and in museums in particular. RESCUE
would like to see an expansion of this sector and does not believe that the adoption of a European
model would necessarily facilitate this. European countries have some very fine museums, but also
some extremely poor ones and it would be unwise to adopt a European model uncritically.
RESCUE is also profoundly sceptical of the value of Trust status when applied to museums.
The example of Sheffield, cited in paragraph 74, is not one which inspires any great confidence.
While it is true that the former Sheffield City Museum has attracted a significant sum in lottery
funding, the degree of consultation on the form of the new facilities was entirely inadequate and has
led to the views of many people who might be regarded as having a stake in the new museum being
ignored, with the result that what is emerging from the process fails to address many important
issues. RESCUE is aware that there is considerable disquiet amongst staff in other museums who
see management enthusiasm for Trust status as being unrelated to the potential quality of service
offered. There is also concern regarding the revised conditions of employment that may apply
should Trust status be granted. Given the existing problems of recruiting from sections of the
population not traditionally involved in the museum sector (as outlined in Section 3), RESCUE
would advocate a very cautious approach to this model as a way forward.
Q11: How can partnerships within the museums sector and with other sectors be better embedded?
The potential benefit of partnerships between the Higher and Further Education sector and
museums in terms of facilitating research using museum collections have been outlined above, as
have some of the changes to existing structures required. RESCUE would support the
implementation of such schemes and notes that given the dispersed and complementary nature of
many museum collections, a variety of institutions might be involved in a single scheme. This
should be regarded as a positive aspect of such initiatives rather than as a drawback.
Q12: What systems or methods should be used to assess quality and success in the museums sector?
There are dangers in using simple indices such as visitor numbers and demographic profiles
in assessing the success of a museum as an institution and RESCUE would wish to see the
development of more sophisticated methods of measuring quality and success. Issues to be
considered might include the following;
RESCUE notes that the criteria used in local authority Best Value assessments have not
generally been appropriate to museums or to archaeology generally. To date the experience of the
application of such measures is of schemes that have led to closures, staff redundancies and
reductions in access and opening times under the guise of ‘Best Value’; Orwellian phraseology at
its most potent. RESCUE would oppose any extension of such schemes within the heritage sector.
Q 13. What would need to happen to make international strategic alliances possible between
museums?
RESCUE notes that the structures underlying the funding and legal basis of museums differs
in Britain and many European countries and also in countries outside Europe. These different
institutional arrangements often also involve rather different conceptions of the function, purpose
and remit of museums, to the extent that British archaeological teams working abroad have
sometimes found collaboration to be difficult (see, for example, Cumberpatch 1998, Cumberpatch
and Thorpe 2003). While international collaboration is to be welcomed and encouraged, the
existence of cultural and institutional differences needs to be acknowledged in order that
negotiations can be undertaken on a realistic basis.
Bibliography
Cumberpatch, C.G 1998 Approaches to the archaeology of Beirut. National Museum News 7,
18-21.
Cumberpatch, C.G. and Thorpe, R. 2003 Encountering the ancestors: some reflections on
archaeology in the Middle East. Paper presented at the 2003 CHAT Conference, University of
Bristol
Griffin, J.D. 2001 The Don Pottery 1801 – 1893 Doncaster Museum Service
Griffin, J.D. 2005 The Leeds Pottery 1770 – 1881 Leeds Arts Collections Fund