The development of museum studies in universities: from technical training to critical museology

This art icle was downloaded by: [ J. Pedro Lorent e] On: 08 August 2012, At : 09: 04 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Museum Management and Curatorship Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion informat ion: ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ rmmc20 The development of museum studies in universities: from technical training to critical museology Jesús-Pedro Lorent e a a Depart ment of Art Hist ory, Universit y of Saragossa, Saragossa, Spain Version of record first published: 07 Aug 2012 To cite this article: Jesús-Pedro Lorent e (2012): The development of museum st udies in universit ies: from t echnical t raining t o crit ical museology, Museum Management and Curat orship, 27:3, 237-252 To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 09647775.2012.701995 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- andcondit ions This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem and, or cost s or dam ages what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial. Museum Management and Curatorship Vol. 27, No. 3, August 2012, 237
252 The development of museum studies in universities: from technical training to critical museology Jesús-Pedro Lorente* Department of Art History, University of Saragossa, Saragossa, Spain Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 (Received 18 April 2011; final version received 9 November 2011) Since the pioneering examples of the early twentieth century, museum studies has largely developed through practical-oriented courses aimed at training specialists intending to follow professional careers within museums. This has slowly changed and museology has become part of graduate and postgraduate curriculum, both at the masters and doctoral levels. Some universities have chairs in museology, or even departments of museum studies, while the number of dedicated books and journals in the field, published by university presses, has expanded enormously over the past decade. Universities have also become major sponsors of conferences, seminars, and related scientific meetings on museology, signaling a major shift. It is, therefore, not surprising that university-based academics have become the leading theorists of critical museology: an international movement that advocates a postmodern rupture with linear narratives of authority formerly prevailing in museums. This new direction in museum theory is also renewing museum practice and it should be expected that it might expose museums even more to external views and voices. Keywords: critical museology; new muselogy; museum studies; museum training; history of museology Introduction When establishing to what extent an area of knowledge has become a scientific discipline, indicators such as the existence of bibliographies and specialized journals, or the development of specific professional associations, are commonly used. Recognition within university programs and curricula must also be taken into account. Museology is no exception, and these three factors should be considered together as interrelated catalysts for its development. We count numerous and prestigious professional societies and their respective publications, beginning in 1889 with the Museum Association. It continues to be very active in the UK, organizing conferences and other events, as well as publishing books and journals. Included among these is the Museums Journal, founded in 1901. Drawing from this precedent, other national associations were formed, some of which have also been in operation for a long time, such as the American Association of Museums founded in 1906, the Deutsches MuseumsBunde founded in 1917, and the Association Générale des Conservateurs des Collections Publiques de France founded in 1922. Many of these professional groups have produced specialized journals, including the International *Email: jpl@unizar.es ISSN 0964-7775 print/ISSN 1872-9185 online # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.701995 http://www.tandfonline.com Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 238 J.-P. Lorente Office of Museums created in 1926 by the League of Nations
publishing the journal Mouseion. Or later, there is the International Council of Museums (ICOM) established in 1947, associated to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which publishes the quarterly Museum International, as well as books and other types of bibliographies on museology
both in print and on line.1 The status of museology in centers of higher education is rather different, because its development is a more recent achievement. The education provided for this speciality has always been focused primarily on the technical training of future professionals for museum work. For course materials, some basic considerations on terminology, theory, and the history of museums were part of the curricula, but they were usually seen as an introduction before students went on to study practical questions related to conservation, documentation, didactics, and other museum tasks. It is not surprising that for a long-time museology was considered to be an applied science and not a discipline. The academic context has gradually consolidated higher studies on museology at all levels, mostly for postgraduate students, but also including other levels, ranging from elective courses in certain university degrees to doctorate courses and doctoral theses. It is no longer solely a subject offered to potential professionals at museums, as many universities now teach and carry out research on museums and museology. At present, the number of professors and university researchers who study museums and teach pupils how to study them has grown exponentially worldwide. When the International Committee for the Training of Personnel (ICTOP) was created within the ICOM in 1968, one of its first tasks was to publish a World Directory of Museology Courses, an endeavor still feasible at the time because there were still so few courses offered. However, although until 2007 there was a long directory of courses worldwide announced at the official website of the ICTOP, this type of listing has become a rarity nowadays, because keeping the information updated on this area is practically impossible due to constant syllabus changes.2 Certainly, with the reform introduced after the adaptation to the European Higher Education Area resulting from the Bologna Process,3 the choice of studies on museology at European and worldwide universities has expanded and diversified more than ever. Nonetheless, in most countries, with some exceptions such as Brazil, museology is not yet officially recognized in universities as an autonomous career or scientific area per se, although the number of experts with this profile being promoted to lecturers or professors has grown. Are they to be regarded as part of the community of museum professionals? Indeed they are, but only if we consider the area in a broader sense, opening museums to critical thinking which draws on and feeds museum practice. This is the aim of the so-called ‘critical museology’ movement, very often developed by museologists from universities. First attempts at taking museum training to universities The training of museum professionals has traditionally taken place at museums, but in order to ensure homogeneous standards of education, different official institutions have undertaken this task. Many instances can be considered as precursors of this initiative, although they were not university courses yet. A pioneering initiative was Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 Museum Management and Curatorship 239 the Escuela Superior de Diplomática, founded in 1856 by the Spanish Government.4 The École du Louvre established in 1882 in France offered museographical courses in Paris after 1929, and its first chair was established in 1941. In the USA, the early precedents go back to 1908, when Sarah Yorke Stevenson started a curatorial course at the Pennsylvania Museum and School of Art (Ripley 1969, 51), and to 1909 with the founding of the Newark Museum Association by John Cotton Dana at the Newark Museum in New Jersey. It was there where he also implemented regular training courses in museum work each year from 1925 to 1942 (Anastasiades 1999, 34
5). More relevant here is the teaching of exhibition techniques started in 1910 by Professor Homer R. Dill in the Natural History Museum of Iowa University, as the antecedent of the museum studies program offered at present (Genoways 1996, 8). A second example is the courses on ‘Museum Work and Museum Problems’ given from 1922 to 1953 by Professor Paul J. Sachs at the Fogg Museum at Harvard (Alexander 1979, 239). Both instances are of particular interest, since they were given at university museums and can, therefore, be considered as an early university endorsement of this type of study. Soon, other American campuses followed suit, offering some training
often sporadic
for museum workers, including Wellesley College (Massachusetts), Washington State University, the University of Rochester (New York), Syracuse University (New York), and Princeton University (New Jersey). Most of the training was discontinued by the World War II (Malt 1987, 167
9). At that time, some universities in other countries were also leading the way; yet hardly anything is known about their teaching programs or even about the professors in charge. There have been exceptional landmarks, such as the first chair of museology established in 1922 by Masaryk University in Brno (Czechoslovakia) for the director of the Moraviam Museum, Jaroslav Helfert (Maroevic and Edson 1998, 93). Another instance was the honorary chair created in 1930 by the University of Halle (Germany) for Alois J. Schardt (Frickhofen 1889
Los Alamos, USA, 1955) called Museumskunde und Kunstsgeschichte
museum work and history of art
terminated by the Nazis in 1933 (Hüneke 1992, 286). In Argentina, courses on museums make their debut in 1923 at the Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras of the Universidad Nacional of Buenos Aires, followed since 1938 by other precedents at Rio de Janeiro University (Teather 1991, 403). After the World War II, museology was definitively established within universities, especially in Central and Eastern European countries. In the 1950s, the German Democratic Republic founded the Zentrale Fachstelle für Museen in East Berlin, and the Fachschule für Musologen in Leipzig. Moreover, in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the universities of Brno and Zagreb became the two main cradles where the discipline of museology nurtured a thesaurus of terms universally agreed upon today.5 In Czechoslovakian museological culture, the two personalities credited as founders in the post-war years are the above mentioned Jaroslav Helfert (Malacky, 1883
Potstejn, 1972), who re-established Brno Museology chair from 1946 to 1948, and Jirı́ Neustupny (Pilsen, 1905
Prague, 1981), the creator of a Centre for Museology Studies at the National Museum in Prague. Among the founding figures of the ‘Brno School,’6 those with greater impact were probably Jan Jelı́nek (Brno, 1926, 2004) and Zbynek Z. Stransky (Kutná Hora, 1926). Jelı́nek established in Brno the Department of Museology at the Masaryk University
called Jan E. Purkyne at that moment
in 1963. He was also president of ICOM from 1971 to 1977, as well as the founder and president of International Committe for Museology (ICOFOM) in 1976. Stransky, Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 240 J.-P. Lorente creator of the Department of Museology at the Museum of Moravia of Brno in the 1960s, founded the International Summer Seminars of Purkinje/Masaryk University of Brno in 1986
accredited by UNESCO and operating from 1987 to 1998. He was also a professor of Museology from 1995. With regard to the University of Zagreb, students of art history or archaeology could study museology there as early as 1946. The pioneering figure is Antun Bauer (Vukovar, 1911
Zagreb, 2000), founder of museological postgraduate studies at this University in 1966. He also founded the Centre of Museum Documentation in Zagreb, which he managed until 1976. Among those who continued the work of Professor Bauer, we should point out two influential individuals. First, Ivo Maroevic (Stari Grad, 1937
Zagreb, 2007), director of museological postgraduate studies at the University of Zagreb from 1975 to 1983, professor of museology in Zagreb from 1984 to 2001, and also a lecturer at the University of Victoria (Canada) from 1985 to 1990. Another outstanding museologist in this University would be Tomislav Sola (Zagreb, 1948), leader of the Centre of Museum Documentation in Zagreb from 1981 to 1988, and director of the museology postgraduate courses of the University of Zagreb since 1995. The introduction of studies, research centers, and chairs of museology has taken a little longer in other countries. There have been some remarkable exceptions, such as the University of the Museo Social Argentino, where a degree in museology was created in 1959 (Chacón 2009). This was no doubt a role model for other university enterprises born throughout the rest of Latin America and in Spain. The same happened in India at Maharajah Sayarijao University in Baroda, where a Department of Museology was founded in 1952 (Bedekar 1995). By that time, Great Britain still did not have any other courses than those offered for practical training by the Museum Association. The question of whether it was best to train museum professionals in museums or in universities was subject to much debate, and there were still few experts supporting the latter according to Raymond H. Singleton7 (1915
2001). He is a relevant figure because, in 1966, he founded the Department of Museum Studies at the University of Leicester (UK). The following year he was the founding chair of ICOM’s ICTOP, which he presided over for six years. Significantly, he chose the name ‘museum studies’ instead of ‘museology,’ because he detested the endless debates on the theory of museology which his colleagues at central and eastern European universities were engaged in. His priority was to provide practical training to graduates from any discipline who wished to work in a museum (Lewis 1983). Ironically, only a few years later, the University of Leicester became one of the most prestigious in the UK and almost anywhere in the world in this area, not only for its MA in Museum Studies, but also for other postgraduate studies including many doctoral theses on museology-related subjects. The fact is that the label ‘museum studies’ became fashionable in the English-speaking world. It was soon adopted by the University of Toronto for the Master in Museology created in 1969, which was renamed Museum Studies in the 1970s. This new denomination also prevailed in 1975 at the University of Sidney and, in 1976, the term Museum Studies was also used by George Washington University in the federal capital of the USA and many other cases (Papageorge 1978, Simpson 2006). However, the term ‘museology’ was favored in continental Europe by institutions such as the Università Museum Management and Curatorship 241 Internazionale dell’Arte, a private center founded in Florence in 1968 specializing in studies on museums, conservation, and art critique. Another prominent case was the renowned Cours de muséologie générale contemporaine,8 delivered from 1971 to 1982 on Saturday mornings at the Université de Paris I by Georges-Henri Rivière (Paris, 1897
Louvenciennes, 1985). This course had many foreign students because UNESCO supported it. In the last quarter of the century, one of the main museology strongholds was the University of Amsterdam, which received many international students because of the policy of scholarships implemented by the Dutch authorities
allowing people from developing countries to study at the Faculty of Arts, known as the Reinwartdt Academie9 since 1992. Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 New museology and its (indirect) links to university work The duality of museum studies/museology10 corresponded to contrasting ways of conceiving these studies in different cultures, and both lines continued to progress in a disconnected manner while opposing museum training-oriented courses to museological academic discourses. As opposed to the latter, the renovation movement called Nouvelle Muséologie (New Museology) is usually seen as a trend led by activists
people of action who were professionally involved in the creation and improvement of museums. This was indeed the personal attitude of its greatest exponent, the abovementioned Georges-Henri Rivière. He was an influential figure who had been the director of ICOM from 1945 to 1965 and had many disciples, especially Hugues de Varine-Bohan (born in 1935 and still very active at present as a consultant) who succeeded him as director of the ICOM from 1965 to 1974. We must not omit, however, the theoretical work carried out by Rivière, who sponsored the universal agreement on a series of terminological definitions within the ICOM, and thereby provided a common, international vocabulary to refer to ‘museum,’ ‘museology,’ and ‘museography.’ It should also be noted that, with respect to the last two words, Rivière’s ideas drew on the contributions by Jelı́nek (Hernández 2006, 58). At least indirectly, the early museology developed in the academic context of Brno University served as the grounds for the French Nouvelle Muséologie. This new trend arose from the movement of sociocultural reform which followed the May revolution in 1968 in France, a period at the height of the nouvelle vague, nouveau roman, nouvelle histoire, and other similar trends whose definition is rarely clear. According to a recent ICOM handbook,11 the New Museology was a current of thought principally concerned with exploring the social role of museums, along with new styles of expression and communication. In fact, as an excellent biography of Rivière (Gorgus 2003) notes, the innovation consisted mainly of a nouvelle muséographie. More than an articulated theoretical corpus, its main output was the spectacular change introduced in exhibition systems, as well as a social bias which prioritized the attention given to the communities in the French heartland that were becoming depopulated due to the crisis in farming, mining, and heavy industry. There, a new model of museum was tested, the ecomusée, which was characterized as a triple novelty because its location encompassed a whole territory instead of a building, In addition, instead of curating a collection, the ecomusée would deal with a broad legacy of material and intangible culture. Above all, it had Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 242 J.-P. Lorente to be self-managed by the local community as a whole, not by a team of professionals. Much has been written on the internationalization of this phenomenon, especially in French-speaking countries such as Nigeria and Canada, or in Latin America where it was combined with the model of ‘museos comunitarios,’ and promoted in Mexico by Felipe Lacouture from the Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia. It is only fair to acknowledge the prominent role played in this movement’s theoretical formulation and worldwide spread by the International Movement for a New Museology (MINOM) founded in Lisbon in 1985 as a subcommittee of the ICOM. Activists such as Matilde Bellaigue, André Desvallées, and Pierre Mayrand led it;12 but they also had an indirect influence in academic circles, because the birth of the ‘new museology’ coincided with the peak in museology studies worldwide in the 1980s. Those enrolled in museum studies courses at that time would mainly be educated as neomuseologists because it was the latest trend. We were not given any information about previous museological developments
following the manuals of Georges-Henri Rivière or their equivalent in each country.13 In the UK, however, university professors and researchers were more reluctant to be nominally identified with this trend. Perhaps, this was due to the angry criticisms articulated by the members of the MINOM about the book The New Museology (Vergo 1989). They had accused Peter Vergo, a professor at the University of Essex, and the other authors, many of whom where university lecturers, of having incorrectly adopted that label and translated it into English with a different meaning from its original in French or Portuguese.14 Portuguese has become the other common language regarding bibliography and neomuseological studies, with an even higher number of courses than those produced in French by university centers in France, Belgium, or Canada
where the level of identification by some sympathetic professors has not reached academic officialdom. In contrast, there are many university institutions both in Brazil and Portugal where New Museology has made a deep impact, especially at the Universidade Lusófona of Lisbon. Here, there is a ‘Mestrado em Museologia,’15 particularly sensitive to neomuseological influences and asking museums to pay more attention to social matters. There is also a Centre of Studies of Sociomuseology, which since 1993 has been publishing the journal Cadernos de Sociomuseologia. If we were to find an internationally, significant academic figure in the ranks of acknowledged neomuseologists, this person might well be Dutch professor Peter van Mensch (born in Gouda in 1947). He has been a lecturer in museology at the Reinwartdt Academy of Amsterdam and Leiden since 1982, and director of studies on museology at the University of Leiden since 1987 until his retirement in 2011. In many ways, he is a pivotal case, because he completed his doctoral thesis in Zagreb (van Mensch 1992),16 and his research and teaching have been one of the few links between Central and Eastern European pioneering museologists and the supporters of ‘new museology.’ Van Mensch prefers to identify himself with the former, but with a sense of diplomacy he perhaps learned when he was president of the ICOFOM from 1989 to 1993, he has often expressed his open-mindedness regarding other trends, including ‘critical museology.’ Museum Management and Curatorship 243 Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 Critical museology, a theoretical and practical trend born at universities How new is ‘new museology’? Its champions created an upheaval in the discipline with great impact on museological practice; but another theoretical framework emerged in the wake of postmodernity. Emulating critical anthropology, critical archaeology, critical history of art, critical pedagogy, or other similar nomenclatures, the term ‘critical museology’ is becoming equally widespread, particularly in Englishspeaking countries. Moreover, the increasing number of university scholars carrying out research on museums has been especially receptive to these critical theories and terminologies. According to the doctoral thesis by Lynne Teather,17 the term ‘critical museology’ was claimed by one lecturer from the Reinwartdt Academy at a 1982 ICTOP meeting in Ottawa (Theather 1984, 24), but more in a literal sense.18 At that time, Teather vindicated the use of that terminology by building on the ‘critical theory’ of Adorno, Habermas, Benjamin, Marcuse, and others. Later on, as her position evolved, she has moved away from the use of critical museology, preferring to include critical elements within a broad museological discourse (Teather 1984, 2009). Nevertheless, many authors are using this term, sometimes mixed with others as ‘reflexive museology’ or ‘participative museology.’ In Spanish, Óscar Navarro, a most salient vindicator of the term ‘museologı́a crı́tica,’ recently coined a definition based on philosophical principles established by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. According to Navarro, a lecturer at the National University of Costa Rica, critical museology is a theory proposing that traditional museology and its basic principles (e.g., museality) are a product of the society in which they are created, and thus are defined by the historical, political, and economic context in which museologists are immersed (Navarro Rojas and Tsagaraki 2010, 50
1). Indeed, this is not too different from how ‘new museology’ has been understood in English
since users of this expression had often not been aware of the original nouvelle muséologie. In fact, a broad all-encompassing perspective could be promoted in the future, for there are many things in common between ‘new museologists’ and ‘critical museologists.’ Both groups have emphasized the social aspect of museums, but the favorite topic of the former has traditionally been the ecomuseum, perhaps because among the militants of the MINOM, specialists in museums of ethnology or history have always been in the majority
leaving art museums with scarce consideration as already pointed out some time ago by professor Bal (1996, 202). Conversely, art historians are in a majority amongst critical museologists, and are especially numerous in North America,19 e.g., Carol Duncan, Allan Wallach, Jo-Anne Berelowitz, and Maurice Berger.20 It is fair to acknowledge alongside them the names of other colleagues in other disciplines such as anthropology,21 including Americans Ivan Karp and Steven Lavine, Canadian Butler (2000), the British Mary Bouquet and Anthony Alan Shelton who, for many years, has been one of the most enthusiastic European supporters of ‘critical museology’ (Shelton 1992a, 1992b, 2001). He has done so both as a museum professional and as a scholar, teaching at the University of Sussex where he created an MA on Critical Museology, and at the University of Coimbra. He now directs the Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia (Canada). Professor Shelton will soon publish a book entitled Towards a critical museology, where he explains in detail this concept. Also forthcoming is another book by collective Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 244 J.-P. Lorente authors with the title Post critical museology: Theory and practice in the art museum (Routledge). Nevertheless, the shifts in terminology reported here could be linked to differences in professional spheres or even in terms of cultural boundaries. While new museologists were mainly activists following a strong leadership, critical museologists are particularly abundant in universities, with rather loose general links. While ‘new museology’ originated in the French-speaking world and its areas of influence, ‘critical museology’ developed in the postmodern, Anglo Saxon culture. There, special consideration has been given to what and who is represented in museums, and how,22 pointing to issues of class, gender, or multiculturalism
including some practical effects such as the return of materials to indigenous populations. In the Spanish-speaking world (traditionally linked to the French area of cultural influence according to Gómez Martı́nez 2006), this tendency has not yet prevailed. The number of supporters is growing, however, with an important milestone being the international symposium on critical museology organized by the Museo del Patrimonio Municipal de Málaga in June 2011 (Sauret and Lorente 2011). Nevertheless, there are surprisingly few publications from Spain using the expression ‘museologı́a crı́tica’ (Lorente and Almazán 2003; Santacana and Hernández 2006). This may be due to the fact that museological studies are not yet so common in Latin American universities. There are very few professors of this speciality, and there are not many courses or masters in that discipline, not to mention specialized university journals. There are, of course, plenty of Latin American essays on current issues typical of critical museologists, including the representation of minorities or peripheral cultures, the exhibition and return of indigenous materials, anticolonialist subversion, the challenge of meta-narratives or prevailing discourses, postmodern self-reflexivity, and interactive museography. But just as Molière’s Bourgeois Gentleman spoke in prose without realizing it, there may be authors who, when contributing to these causes, may not be aware of their militancy in a global renovation of the theory and practice of museums known by those terms. Yet, some distant precedents could be traced 23 and, especially in the last few years, some personal voices are beginning to vindicate critical museology in Regional Committe of ICOFOM in Latin America and the Caribbean (ICOFOM-LAM) (Navarro Rojas 2006, 2007). In any case, the theoretical renewal I advocate must not only affect scholars writing papers on museums
it must also be the source of inspiration for new museological practices. Instead of presenting things and discourses univocally and impersonally, with the patronizing approach one would use when addressing immature persons in need of indoctrination with simple axioms, museums must learn to channel the issues and questions arising in each discipline. In the field of anthropology, the key is multiculturalism or, even better, inter-culturalism. In other words, no culture should be presented as superior in an evolutionist narration, rather parallels and contrasts between different worlds must be presented (Cameron 1995; MacDonald and Fyfe 1996). This also inspired many science museums, where guest curators some of whom are artists, have been asked to prepare exhibitions and art installations intended to make people think24 and to question the orthodox discourse which was the background of many curators. Above all, social interactivity is being promoted. Instead of individually isolating each visitor in the handling of any given technological resource, visitors are expected to interact with other visitors. Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 Museum Management and Curatorship 245 Questioning museum orthodoxy is mainly affecting art and archaeology museums thanks to the critical discourse of so many artists who have used museum spaces to question the authority of museums;25 although perhaps the first milestone in this conceptual reconsideration within the historical-artistic field may have been the opening of the Musée d’Orsay in 1986. This meant a break from the canon established by modernity by recovering from oblivion ‘pompier’ painting and sculpture (the official style that the French Academy promoted during the mid- to late nineteenth century that ridiculed conservative middle class taste which still revered classical subjects in art), and presenting them in the large warehouse of the old railway station, along with works by Delacroix, Courbet, Monet, Degas, and so on. Similar confrontations have introduced a breath of fresh air in the last few decades among museums of contemporary art. This was accomplished by challenging the modernist model of museography based on white walls and artificial lighting
the white cube
thanks to the postmodern trend of breaking away from chronological ordering (which revealed a teleological perception of the history of art) and favoring more original displays.26 However, the renewal of art historians’ discourse has not only affected ontological reconsiderations, but also the very performance of the public task. In the past, a typical lecture or conference on the history of art used to take place in a dark classroom where the audience could hear the voice of the lecturer placed behind the projector while conveying his revelations as a deus ex machina. Now the speaker and those listening no longer look together at the screen, since the lecturer usually controls a power point presentation from a computer placed on a table and the audience can see the lecturer while he or she talks about the image. Thus, the speaker is forced to show his or her face when making comments, which are a personal, subjective contribution. New technologies are not always used this way at museums, however, where some devices can overawe visitors without making it clear that the presentation they are watching is, after all, a subjective point of view whose reliability depends on those providing it and they should, therefore, be identified. In order to emphasize this, a fundamental plea of critical museology is that explanations, labels, and panels at museums and exhibitions should bear the names of their authors, in order to put an end to traditional and anonymous, institutional discourse. Moreover, museums should also be open to other voices. A good example is the audio guide ‘Voices’ of New York’s MoMA,’ featuring not only a welcome introduction by the director of the museum but also many other people talking about their favorite pieces
from art critics to service workers. Also remarkable are some ‘Listening Points’ at Tate Britain, where one can pick up the headphones to listen to the interpretation of some works made by citizens. Similarly, the Tate Modern has ‘The Bigger Picture’ project, whereby some of the works of its collections are presented with the official identification labels plus supplementary texts signed by the musician Brian Eno, the writer A.S. Byatt and others. Even more striking is the case of the Vancouver Museum, where the galleries explaining the way of life in the 1950s encourage visitors to stick their own comments and narratives on the wall (Lorente 2011, 122). Final considerations: current challenges and uncertainties Museology is well established in many universities today, with professors and research teams specializing in the history of museums, conservation, surveys, Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 246 J.-P. Lorente educational activities, the use of new technologies, and other topics about which there is an impressive body of papers, books, and contributions to national and international conferences. There are an increasing number of university researchers and professors specializing in museology, whose contributions at all levels are underpinning it from many perspectives, including the history of museology.27 These scholars can seldom combine their university work with a post at museums, a handicap which has repercussions for the degree of specialization and experimentation with their contributions. This can often be alleviated by recruiting external professionals as guest lecturers at universities, and thus universities are becoming genuine forums where professionals from museums and from universities interact and work. Nevertheless, we live in critical times and a growing number of universities are now switching from various levels of museology training to more general degrees, such as ‘heritage management.’ While in the 1980s museum studies witnessed a Belle Époque, we now seem to be going through the Golden Age of ‘Heritology’ (Mairesse 2006). This is not necessarily bad from the point of view of critical museologists, since they advocate a broader consideration of museums, including their social context, the intermingling of cultural paradigms, and the study of intangible and natural heritage. Perhaps, the moment is ripe for building interdisciplinary collaborations with other academic disciplines to contribute to critical studies on museums and critical discourses in museums. This would be a proof of maturity after all of the vicissitudes summarized in this paper regarding the development of various museological currents in universities
from empirical training and pioneering with Central and East European theorists, to the influence of new museology, and the appearance of critical museology. In any case, the recognition of this discipline at universities is just one of the indicators noted at the beginning of this article. In order to ascertain whether museology is now a world- recognized discipline, two other issues should be discussed: the expansion of the associations of museum professionals and the growth of specialized publications such as Museum Management and Curatorship. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Lynne Teather and Anthony Shelton, who reviewed this essay and offered their valuable advice and comments. I am very much indebted to them. Notes 1. Museology as a discipline has been the object of lengthy discussions in ICOM, in particular the ICOFOM, which published the journals Museological News and Museological Working Papers, and above all because they publish (now online) the collection of books ICOFOM Study Series. There are also publications by the national committees of each country and of larger geographical areas, such as the International Council of Museums Latin America & Caribbean Alliance (ICOM-LAC), which also has a sub-committee. The ICOFOM Regional Subcommittee for Latin American and Caribbean Countries’ website (http://www.icofom-lam.org) features interesting information on this matter, in particular the documents resulting from the workshop conducted in March 2008 at the Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (Brasil), within the Postgraduate Program in Museology and Heritage. The topic Museologı́a como Campo Museum Management and Curatorship 247 2. Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Disciplinario was discussed and the theoretical publications made by the ICOFOM LAM from 1992 to 2006 were analyzed. Not only because of the growing choice of studies on museology at universities worldwide, but also because they often refer to degree studies that may or may not commence each year, depending on the number of students enrolled or other circumstances. In fact, there are no updated editions of the directories that used to be published in the 1990s, which were comprehensive with regard to the USA, Canada, UK, and Australia (e.g., Danilov 1994; Woodhead and Standsfield 1994; or Edson 1995; Glaser and Zenetou 1996). They are not republished even in digital format. My own recollections about higher studies on museology have been recently published (Lorente 2010). According to the official website ‘The Bologna Process’ is named after the Bologna Declaration, which was signed in the Italian city of Bologna on 19 June 1999 by ministers in charge of higher education from 29 European countries. Recently, the Process unites 47 countries
all party to the European Cultural Convention
and committed to the goals of the European Higher Education Area. An important characteristic of the Bologna Process
and key to its success
is that it also involves the European Commission, Council of Europe and the European Centre for Higher Education/Centre Europé en pour l’Enseignement Supé rieur (UNESCO-CEPES), as well as representatives of higher education institutions, students, staff, employers, and quality assurance agencies (http:// www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna). The goal is a common structure of comparable degrees organized in the three cycles (e.g., bachelor
master
doctorate), allowing easier international flow of trainees in order to work in museums or study museums. The Escuela Superior de Diplomática was founded in Madrid to train archivists, librarians and other professionals in charge of national heritage (cf. Pasamar and Peiró 1996), but was eliminated in 1900. It has nothing to do with the current Escuela Diplomática devoted to the training of future ambassadors. Their discussions and contributions have been well condensed by German and Spanish museologists (Flügel and Vogt 1995; Hernández 2006), but some primary sources are also available in English (Stránsky 1993, 1995; Maroevic 2000). We must necessarily omit many others, such as Vinos Sofka (born in 1929), who was also linked to the Chair of Museology of the Masaryk University of Brno, but managed to flee the country after the repression of 1968 and settled in Sweden. He continued his career and was the president of the ICOFOM from 1982 to 1989. According to him, the advantage of having the learning material at hand in the workplace was greater than the inevitable drawbacks involved with training for a specific job in any given museum without having a general knowledge of the profession. He was instrumental in laying out the recommendations on courses for museum training passed by the ICOM in 1971 (a Basic Syllabus reformed in 1979); proposing a study program including the history and function of museums, organization and management, architecture and equipment, acquisitions and documentation of collections, research organization, conservation of materials, exposition of exhibits, public relations and services to the public, cultural and educative services, and publicity (Singleton 1987). His teachings for this course were assembled by some disciples for a posthumous book (Rivière 1989). Originally founded by the City Hall of Leiden in 1976, with Giljam Dusee as its first director, this teaching institution was given that name in honor of the botanist and museologist Caspar Reinwardt. According to the Key Concepts of Museology at the official website of ICOM, ‘museology is the ‘‘study of the museum’’ (or museum studies), and not its practice, which is museography.’ ICOM publications thus use Museology and Museum Studies as synonymous, but some authors consider them as two different concepts (MacLeod 2001; McClellan 2007). ‘Referring to pioneers who had published innovative texts since 1970, this current of thought emphasized the social role of museums and its interdisciplinary character, along with its new styles of expression and communication. New museology was particularly interested in new types of museums, conceived in contrast to the classical model in which 248 J.-P. Lorente 12. 13. Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. collections are the center of interest. These new museums are ecomuseums, social museums, scientific and cultural centers. Generally speaking, most of the new proposals aimed at using the local heritage to promote local development.’ (Mairesse and Desvallées 2010, 55). After the first articles launching ‘new museology’ (Mayrand, 1985) it took them some time to produce a corpus of texts, mainly in French or Portuguese and, eventualy, they produced a reader, in two volumes (Desvallées 1992, 1994). In Spain, in any case, the list of the main pioneers of museology studies at universities coincides with that of our first essayists on ‘new museology’: Luis Alonso Fernández, Iñaki Dı́az Balerdi, Francisca Hernández, etc. Ironically, it was later demonstrated that the use of the English term ‘new museology’ had previous antecedents which go back to 1958, since it had been used by North Americans G. Mills and R. Grove in a book coordinated by S. De Borghegyi (Alonso Fernández 1999, 79). This is merely anecdotal, because that unknown antecedent did not have any presence in later bibliographies and, of course, it did not correspond to the meaning that 30 years later was to be conveyed in the two main languages at MINOM (the only institution within the ICOM whose initials do not correspond to an English name, but come from French and Portuguese) Nonetheless, the champions of the nouvelle muséologie in all probability were suspicious of the book by Peter Vergo for good reason. Their criticisms should not be reduced to a mere reaction against Anglo-Saxon culture and university academics, because the book only quoted publications in English, with no references to the contributions of the neomuseologists of MINOM in the introduction or in the bibliography. There is a lot of research on new museology among the theses presented there, and it is worth mentioning the work by Mercedes Stoffel: ‘Um núcleo documental para o estudo do MINOM’
a thesis for the Masters in Museology supervised by Mario Caneva M. Moutinho in June 2005. His PhD thesis can be downloaded free of charge at http://www.muuseum.ee/en/erialane_ areng/museoloogiaalane_ki/p_van_mensch_towar. Other influential publications by the same author include six relevant articles (van Mensch 1989, 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004; Whitehead 2009). Her 1984 PhD thesis, the first submitted at Leicester University’s Department of Museum Studies, can be downloaded free of charge from www.utoronto.ca/mouseia/course2/ LTThesisJan.html Apparently, around 1979, a curious form of organizing study visits to museums became established at the Reinwartdt Academy. This was unlike what is generally the case in other museology courses, which try to arrange a guided tour hosted by professionals from the museum discussed. Students were instead induced to form a critical, personal view after visiting a museum as members of the general public. Hence the name ‘critical museology,’ which had little impact on posterity and did not have much repercussion even in Amsterdam. Some of the most prominent pioneers were also French, like Maurice Besset, who was one the first in his country to assert his preference for the label ‘critical museology’ (Besset 1992). Probably influenced by the critical history of art, whose main leaders are authors such as Carol Duncan, Stephen F. Eisenman, and Linda Nochlin. However, Professor Donald Preziosi of the University of California-Los Angeles, who could be considered another militant of this group, curiously chose the circumlocution critical museum studies in a monumental compilation of texts on museology (Preziosi and Farago 2004, 475). Other readers have not even mentioned critical museology in any way (Carbonell 2004; Marstine 2006). A differentiating feature between new museology and critical museology could be that the former attracted most of its adepts from ethnologists interested in ‘musealizing’ some human territory and habitat close to them in time and space, representative of a rural and industrial recent past. ‘Critical museology’ gathers mainly anthropologists, sociologists, and historians particularly interested in the relationship of the Western world with other remote cultures. Therefore, a good part of their endeavor has focused on demanding the Museum Management and Curatorship 249 22. 23. 24. 25. Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 26. 27. return of museum collections to indigenous peoples, the (re)presentation of civilizations from the Third World, and banning any form of colonial dominance within museums. An attitude nicknamed ‘representational critique’ (in MacDonald 2006, 6. For more recent considerations on these and other practices see Barrett 2010). Argentinean curator and theoretician, Jorge Glusberg, referred to critical museology when explaining his concept of ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ museums: According to him, the participation and building of cold museums involves a transformation of social relations and agents in a specific community. Critical museology, he added, cannot disregard other factors beyond the strict consideration of the description of museums or production centers (Glusberg 1980). Hence the term ‘reflexive museum’ (suggested in Welsh 2005). A landmark was set in 1992 when artist Fred Wilson curated his touring exhibition ‘Mining the Museum’ (Corrin 1994). This followed by many other artists who have stirred museographical/museological thinking (Belda Navarro and Marı́n Torres 2004; Bernier 2002). Presently, many museums, in the manner of the Museum für Moderne Kunst of Frankfurt, London’s Tate Modern or Artium in Vitoria, display their collection seeking original parallels between works from different periods or by different authors. For example, the seminars on the history of museology organized every year by the Institut d’Histoire de l’Art et de Muséologie at the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland. Notes on contributor Jesús-Pedro Lorente is a Professor of Art History at the University of Saragossa (Spain), where he is the Academic Coordinator of the MA in Museum Communication and Education. He leads several research projects related to museums, public art and art criticism, as Head of the research team ‘Observatorio Aragonés de Arte en la Esfera Pública,’ (http://www.unizar.es/ oaaep). His most recent book is The Museums of Contemporary Art: Notion and Development (Ashgate Press, 2011
also available in French and Spanish editions). References Alexander, E.P. 1979. Museums in motion. An introduction to the history and function of museums (esp. Chapter 13: ‘The Museum Profession’: 231
50). Nashville: American Association for State and Local History. Alonso Fernández, L. 1999. Introducción a la nueva museologı́a. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Anastasiades, S. 1999. John Cotton Dana and the Mission of the Newark Museum, 1909
1929. Thesis for the Masters Degree in Museum Professions, Seton Hall University. Bal, M. 1996. The discourse of the museum. In Thinking about exhibitions, ed. R. Greenberg, B.W. Ferguson, and S. Nairne, 201
18. London and New York: Routledge. Barrett, J. 2010. The museum and the public sphere. Hoboken, NJ: John Willey and Sons. Bedekar, V.H. 1995. New museology for India. New Delhi: National Museum Institute of History of Art, Conservation and Museology. Belda Navarro, C. and M.T. Marı́n Torres, eds. 2004. La Museologı́a y la Historia del Arte. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia-Fundación CajaMurcia. Bernier, C. 2002. L’art au musée. De l’oeuvre à l’institution. Paris, Budapest and Turin: L’Harmattan. Besset, M. 1992. Opere, spazi, sguardi. In Museo d’arte e architettura, ed. M. Kahn Rossi and M. Franciolli, 17
23. Lugano: Edizioni Charta. Butler, S.R. 2000. The politics of exhibiting culture: Legacies and possibilities. Museum Anthropology 23, no. 3: 74
92. Cameron, D.F. 1995. The pilgrim and the shrine. The icon and the oracle. A perspective on museology for tomorrow. Museum Management and Curatorship 14, no. 1: 48
57. Carbonell, B.M., ed. 2004. Museum studies. An anthology of contexts. Malden, Oxford and Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 250 J.-P. Lorente Chacón, E.N. 2009. Museologı́a, cincuenta años de estudios académicos en Argentina. Revista de Museologı́a 46: 15
21. Corrin, L.G. 1994. Mining the museum. Artists look at museums, museums look at themselves. In Mining the museum: An installation by Fred Wilson, ed. L.G. Corrin, 1
22. New York: The New Press. Danilov, V. 1994. Museum careers and training: A professional guide. Westport: Greenwood Press. Desvallées, A., ed. 1992. Vagues: une anthologie de la nouvelle muséologie, vol. 1. Paris: Édition W.M.N.E.S. Desvallées, A., ed. 1994. Vagues: une anthologie de la nouvelle muséologie, vol. 2. Paris: Édition W.M.N.E.S. Edson, G. 1995. International directory of museum training. London and New York: Routledge. Flügel, K. and A. Vogt, eds. 1995. Museologie als Wissenschaft und Beruf in der modernen Welt. Weimar/Leipzig: VDG Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften- Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur. Genoways, H.H. 1996. Museum studies programs are not prepared for the Ph.D. Curator 39, no. 1: 6
11. Glaser, J., and A. Zenetou. 1996. Museums: A place to work. Planning museum careers. Oxford and New York: Routledge. Glusberg, J. 1980. Cool museums and hot museums: Toward a museological criticism. Buenos Aires: Centro de Arte y Comunicación. Gómez Martı́nez, J. 2006. Dos museologı́as. Las tradiciones anglosajona y mediterránea: diferencias y contactos. Gijón: Trea. Gorgus, N. 2003. Le magicien des vitrines. Le muséologe Georges-Henri Rivière. Paris: Éditions de la MSH. Hernández, F. 2006. Planteamientos teóricos de la museologı́a. Gijón: Trea. Hüneke, A. 1992. Im Takt bleiben oder taktieren?
Alois J. Schardt. In Avantgarde un Publikum, ed. H. Junge, 283
90. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag. Lewis, G. 1983. The training of museum personnel in the United Kingdom. Museums Journal 83, no. 1: 65
70. Lorente, J.P. 2010. Los estudios de museologı́a en las universidades españolas. Revista de Museologı́a 47: 72
80. Lorente, J.P. 2011. El multiculturalismo como piedra de toque en Canadá: los museos de Vancouver a la luz de la museologı́a crı́tica, HerMus: Heritage & Museography, no. 6 (enero-febrero 2011): 112
29. http://revistahermus.blogspot.com Lorente, J.P., and D. Almazán. 2003. Museologı́a crı́tica y arte contemporáneo. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. MacDonald, S. 2006. A companion to museum studies. Malden, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell. MacDonald, S. and G. Fyfe, eds. 1996. Theorizing museums: Representing identity and diversity in a changing world. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. MacLeod, S. 2001. Making museum studies: Training, education, research and practice. Museum Management and Curatorship 19, no. 1: 51
61. Mairesse, F. 2006. L’histoire de la muséologie est-elle finie?¿Ha terminado la historia de la museologı́a? In Museology
a field of knowledge. museology and history [Museologı́a: Un campo del conocimiento. Museologı́a e Historia], ed. H.K. Viereg, M. Risnicoff de Gorgas, R. Schiller, and M. Troncoso, 86
102. Munich/Alta Gracia/Córdoba: ICOFOM Study Series 35. Mairesse, F. and A. Desvallées, eds. 2010. Key concepts of museology. Paris: Armand Colin-ICOM-ICOFOM. Malt, C. 1987. Museology and museum studies programs in the United States: Part one. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship 6: 165
72. Maroevic, I. 2000. Museology as a field of knowledge. In Comité international de l’ICOM pour la muséologie  ICOM International Committee for Museology ed. T. Scheiner, Cahiers d’étude/Study Series, vol. 8, 5
7. Groninga: ICOM-ICOM. Maroevic, I., and G. Edson. 1998. Introduction to museology: The European approach. Munich: Verlag Dr. Christian Müller-Straten. Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 Museum Management and Curatorship 251 Marstine, J. 2006. Introduction. In New museum theory and practice: An introduction, ed. J. Marstine, 1
37. London: Blackwell. Mayrand, P. 1985. La nouvelle muséologie affirmée. Museum 148, XXXVII, no. 4: 99
200. McClellan, A. 2007. Museum studies now. Art History 30, no. 4: 566
70. Navarro Rojas, O. 2006. Museos y museologı́a: Apuntes para una museologı́a crı́tica. In XXIX Congreso Anual del ICOFOM/XV Congreso Regional del ICOFOM-LAM: Museologı́a e Historia: un campo de conocimiento, Córdoba-Alta Gracia (Argentina), 5
15 October 2006. http://www.icofom-lam.org/files/museos_y_museologia_critica_-_copia_2.pdf Navarro Rojas, O. 2007. Museologı́a y capacitación: los retos de la enseñanza museológica vistos desde la museologı́a crı́tica: 3. http://www.icofom-lam.org/files/museologia_y_capacitacion_2.pdf Navarro Rojas, O. and C. Tsagaraki. 2010. Museos en la crisis: una visión desde la museologı́a crı́tica. In Museos.es, vols. 5
6: 50
7, Madrid: Spanish Ministry of Culture. http://www. mcu.es/museos/MC/MES/Revistas/Rev05-06/DossierMonograficoRev05-06.html Papageorge, M. 1978. A world view of museum studies. Museum News, 57, November/ December: 7
9. Pasamar, G., and I. Peiró. 1996. La Escuela Superior de Diplomática: Los archiveros en la historiografı́a española contemporánea. Madrid: ANABAD. Preziosi, D. and C. Farago, eds., 2004. Grasping the world. The idea of the museum. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Press. Ripley, S.D. 1969. The sacred grove. Essays on museums. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Rivière, G.-H. 1989. La muséologie selon Georges Henri Rivière. Cours de Muséologie. Textes et témoignages. Paris: Dunod-Bordas. Santacana, J., and F.X. Hernández Cardona. 2006. Museologı́a Crı́tica. Gijón: Trea. Sauret, T., and Lorente, J.P. (eds.) (2011). Dossier temático: museologı́a crı́itica. Museo y Territorio, 4: 6
147, http://www.museoyterritorio.com/contenido.php?numero=4. Shelton, A.A. 1992a. Constructing the global village. Museums Journal (August), 92, no. 8: 25
8. Shelton, A.A. 1992b. The recontextualization of culture in UK museums. Anthropology Today 8, no. 5: 11
6. Shelton, A.A. 2001. Unsettling the meaning: critical museology, art, and anthropological discourse. In Academic anthropology and the museum, ed. M. Bouquet, 142
61. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books. Simpson, A. 2006. Integrating university museums into museum studies programs. Opuscula Musealia 15: 85
92. Singleton, R.H. 1987. Museum training: Status and development. Museum International 39, no. 4: 220
4. Stránsky, Z.Z. 1993. The Department of Museology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University of Brno and the questions of defining a profile of the museology curriculum. ISS 22: 127
31. Stránsky, Z.Z. 1995. Introduction to the study of museology for the students of the International Summer School of Museology-ISSOM. Brno: ISSOM. Theather, L. 1984. Museology and its traditions. The British experience, 1845
1945, PhD diss., Department of Museum Studies, University of Leicester, 1984. Teather, L. 1991. Museum studies. Reflecting on reflective practice. Museum Management and Curatorship 10: 403
17. Teather, L. 2009. Mapping museologies: From Babel Tower to Borderlands. In Museology at the beginning of the 3rd millennium, ed. J. Dolak, 75
96. Brno: Technické Muzeum v Brne. van Mensch, P., ed. 1989. Professionalizing the muses: The museum profession in motion. Amsterdam: AHA Books. van Mensch, P. 1990. Methodological museology; or, towards a theory of museum practice. In Objects of knowledge, ed. S. Pearce, 141
57. London/Atlantic Highlands: The Atholone Press. van Mensch, P. 1992. Towards a methodology of museology. Zagreb: University of Zagreb. van Mensch, P. 1996. Museological research. In Museological research [ICOFOM Symposium, Québec, Sept. 1992] ICOFOM Study Series 21, ed. P. van Mensch, 19
33. Amsterdam: Reinwardt Academie. 252 J.-P. Lorente Downloaded by [J. Pedro Lorente] at 09:04 08 August 2012 van Mensch, P. 2000. Museology as a profession. In Comité international de l’ICOM pour la muséologie  ICOM International Committee for Museology, Cahiers d’étude/Study Series 8, ed. T. Scheiner, 20
1. Groninga: ICOM-ICOFOM. van Mensch, P. 2004. Museology and management: Enemies or friends? Current tendencies in theoretical museology and museum management in Europe. In Museum management in the 21st century, ed. E. Mizushima, 3
19. Tokyo: Museum Management Academy. Vergo, P., ed. 1989. The new museology. London: Reaktion Books. Welsh, P.H. 2005. Re-configuring museums. Museum Management and Curatorship 20: 103
30. Whitehead, C. 2009. Museums and the construction of disciplines. Art and archaeology in nineteenth-century Britain. London: Duckworth. Woodhead, P., and G. Stansfield. 1994. Keyguide to information sources in museum studies, 2nd ed. London: Mansell.