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, 237252
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,
345). 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, 1679).
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
(19152001). 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, 501). 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., bachelormasterdoctorate),
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’: 23150). 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, 20118. 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, 1723. Lugano: Edizioni Charta.
Butler, S.R. 2000. The politics of exhibiting culture: Legacies and possibilities. Museum
Anthropology 23, no. 3: 7492.
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: 4857.
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: 1521.
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, 122.
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: 611.
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, 28390. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.
Lewis, G. 1983. The training of museum personnel in the United Kingdom. Museums Journal
83, no. 1: 6570.
Lorente, J.P. 2010. Los estudios de museologı́a en las universidades españolas. Revista de
Museologı́a 47: 7280.
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): 11229. 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: 5161.
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, 86102. 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: 16572.
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, 57. 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, 137. London: Blackwell.
Mayrand, P. 1985. La nouvelle muséologie affirmée. Museum 148, XXXVII, no. 4: 99200.
McClellan, A. 2007. Museum studies now. Art History 30, no. 4: 56670.
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), 515 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. 56: 507, 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: 79.
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: 6147, http://www.museoyterritorio.com/contenido.php?numero=4.
Shelton, A.A. 1992a. Constructing the global village. Museums Journal (August), 92, no. 8:
258.
Shelton, A.A. 1992b. The recontextualization of culture in UK museums. Anthropology Today
8, no. 5: 116.
Shelton, A.A. 2001. Unsettling the meaning: critical museology, art, and anthropological
discourse. In Academic anthropology and the museum, ed. M. Bouquet, 14261. Oxford and
New York: Berghahn Books.
Simpson, A. 2006. Integrating university museums into museum studies programs. Opuscula
Musealia 15: 8592.
Singleton, R.H. 1987. Museum training: Status and development. Museum International 39,
no. 4: 2204.
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: 12731.
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, 18451945, PhD diss.,
Department of Museum Studies, University of Leicester, 1984.
Teather, L. 1991. Museum studies. Reflecting on reflective practice. Museum Management and
Curatorship 10: 40317.
Teather, L. 2009. Mapping museologies: From Babel Tower to Borderlands. In Museology at
the beginning of the 3rd millennium, ed. J. Dolak, 7596. 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, 14157. 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, 1933. 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, 201. 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, 319. 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: 10330.
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.