Contents

Report on the preparations of the col.loquium

by Vinos Sofka

List of the contributors to the colloquium

-----

Rules of the organization of the colloquium

by Jan B Cuypers & Vinas Sofka

Cont-r ibutions
Basic .papers (BP) and Cornments

tel

j}urcaw~

10

G Ellis ~. Moscow; USA

10

Gluzinsld, Wojciech - Wro<::law, Poland

GOR:'<)Kshkoilr, Snua.shiv - JJombuy, India

24

36

Hodge" Jcohn - New South Wales,. J\ustraliu

58

Jahn f llse - Berlin r German Democratic Republic 71

van Mensch t Peter J A & pouw u Piet J M &
Schouten, Frans F J - Leideo f The Netherlands 81
Myles I Kwasi - AcCra, Ghana

97

Nair s S M - New Delhi, India 98

Russio f Waldis3 - Sao Paulo y Brazil

114

Stransky If Zbynek Z - Brno, Czechoslovakia

Summary and analysis of the papers

prepared for the symposium
Spielbauer Q Judith K - Oxford, USA

This issue

has been prepared

by the Interim Chairman of ICOF'(l\-i

with the assistance

of the Museum of National Antiquities
in Stockholm

126

133

133

To the participants
in the joint colloquium
~1ef::!:5~"!?]:.?,1},_-.?_~~~geo~_~X
__9:nd pr~feE_~.ional

_t_r_.a_i_n_i_D-'9:<..-

Report ali preparations of the colloquium

Dear colleague,
In OCtober 1982, onebe c'Ccasion of their annual meetings, the IeCM
for the Training of Personnel and the rem
International Co~nittee for Museology - rCOFOM agreed to hold a joint
collOCJ.uium in London '1983. By an exchange of telexes between the
meeting-places, Ottawa and Paris, the theme chosen was: "~1ethcdology of
museology and professional trai(ling ~ t<.
1 nternational COll'Jir:i ttee

The preparations for this event started irrunediately - and here

we present the result of the-work done up-to-now:

Of the 19 experts aske~ for collaboration in the colloquium,12 have

promised to contribute. ~1e, the organizers, have received then in the
first round 10 basic papers, and 6 cornments in the second one.
According to the rules we stat~~ for the organization of the
collcquiuffi , al.l material
- should be mailed before the meeting in London to all those who
announced to us their. interest in participating actively in ~he
cOll<XJui.um

should be

av~ilable

at the meeting in London for all those who decide

just to come" listE-m and take part in the discussions.

Follo\'I7ing these ruleS we have brought together all material we have

recei ved at this datE: in this Collc.quium Package. You will find here
under the na'TICS of the contributors their basic papers and their
cormnents on the other contributors 'papers. One of the" analysing
summaries .. has Zll:ready arrived and has been included in the Package,
too.

~\1e

ci str L)u1-.e all the papers in the wording in which they have

been sent to us, iue. without any editorial changeso Unfortunately,

because of lack of moneYt we have not been able to provide for the
linguistic checkin9 and the trans12tions into the other language of ICaL
As you can see! some papers and cannlents are missingQ They will be sent
to you as soon as "Ie have :received them, or you \.;il1 get them when
arriving in London. The text of the second
analysing summary" will
be also available therev
If

But now, we will let you be in peace. You have to read all the material
and prepare your interventions for London. We should appreciate very
mUCh, if you would put your ideas in writing and bring it with you to
London - where we are looking forward to meeting you soon!
July 1, 1983

Jan B Cuypers

Vinos Sofka
2

Contributors to the coUoquium

BURCAW f GEllis
Director of University of Idaho Museum, Chairman of
Museum Studies, Professor of museology and of anthropology
at the University of Idaho, Moscow - Idaho, USA
GLUZn~SIU

YJojciech

Curutor at the National MuseumI' Wroclaw - Poland

GC'J:RAKSHKAR , Sadashiv V

Director of the Prince of Wales l"'iuseum of WestEirn India T

Bombay - India
HODGEs J'ohn

Lecturer of rnuseology at the University of Sydney,

New South Wales - Australia
JAHN, rIse
Lecturer of museology at the Museum fur Naturkunde
of the Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Berlin - German Democratic Republic
van

Peter J A
Lecturer in museology at the Reinwardt Academie,
Leiden - The Netherlands
~NSCHr

MYLES, I<wasi

Secretary General of the Organization for Museums,

Monuments and Sites of Africa, Accra - Ghana
NAIR r S r-1

Director of the National Museum of Natural History,

New Delhi - India
Piet J 1'1
Director of the Reinwardt Academie,
Leiden - The Netherlands

POm~,

ROSSIO, Waldisa
Technical Assistant in the Cabinet of the Secretary
of the State of S. Paulo, Museu da Ind~stria,
Comercio e Tecnologia and Coordinator of the Training
Courses in museology EESP, Sao Paulo - Brazil
SCHOUTEN, F.r ans F J

Directat' adjoint of the Reiowardt l\cademie, lecturer in

mUSeUTII

didactics, Leiden - The Netherlands

STRh~SKt,

Zbynek Z
Director of the department of rnuseology at the
Moravske Muzeuffi and director of the department of
museology at the Faculty of philosophy at the
Jan Evangelista Purkyne University, Brno - Czechoslovakia

The t9anolysing compilotors and resumers

of the colloquium

CARRILLO, Rosario
Museologist and co11aborator at the Spanish museums,
Madrid .- Spain
SPIEIBAUt:R, Judith K

Instructor of museology and anthropology at

the Department of sociology and anthropologyv
rvliami University, Oxford _. Ohio, USA

Guidelines for the organization of the colloquium

project for the organization of the colloquium
METHODOLOGY OF MUSEOLOGY AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

- - - --------------,-------"

during the triennial Conference of IeOM in London, August 1983

organized jointly by the TeOM International Committees
for the Training ot Personnel
and for Museology
_ _ _ _ _w

As soon as the International Committee for Museology was

founded, voices were raised to assert that the field of interest
of this Committee and that of the International Committee for
the Training of Personnel were overlapping for the larger part.
Others affirmed that each Committee had its own specific calling.
In any case, a wish for close collaboration between the Committees
was unanimous.
Nonetheless, the move from wishes to realization has not
always been easy, particularly in so far as both Committees had
already set their own triennial programme which they were obliged
to fulfil.

The first possibility will therefore be the TeOM

General Conference in London.

During the week of 17 to 23 October 1982, the Committee for
the Training of Personnel met in a symposium in Ottawa to discuss
the theme of mid-career trainingl

from the 20th to the 23rd of

October, the Committee for Museology held a symposium in Paris

to discuss the systems of museology and interdisciplinarity.
The Chairman of the Committee for the Training of Personnel
sU9ges tel'! to the Execut i v(= Boa rel of the Commi t tee tha t

a joint

meeting be held with the Committee for Museology. Once approved,

the following message was sent by telex to Paris on the 19th of
October~

HDr Jan Jelinek, Chairman of the Committee for Museology:

Dear Chairman and Colleague

The Committee for Training of Personnel, from its meeting in

Canada, sends you its best wishes for the success of the meeting
of your Committee for

Museology~

We join you in your work, while

regretting that we cannot participate directly.

In spite of wishes for a close collaboration between our two
Committees, expressed by our own members as well as by yourself,

the commitments set by the triennial programme on the meetings

and their themes for the period 1981-1982 have made an additional
meeting impossible.
t'Je sU9gest that. a joint colloquium of two half-days be
organized at the IeOM General Conference in London next year.
Two themes seem appropriate:
- Methodology of museology and professional training
- The Treatise on Museology, rnuseological theories and the
future of the profession.
If you join us in this proposal, can you give us arr answer,

either by telex or by t.elephonebefore Friday morning of this

week in Ottawa? With many thanks in advance for your answer, and
counting on a strengthened future collaboration we send our best
wishes""
(signed) Jan B. Cuypers, Chairman, TeOM International Committee
for the Training pf Personnel
On the morning of October 23rd, the following message was
received in Ottawa:
"Mr. Jan Cuypers, Chairman of the Committee for the Training

of

Personnel~

We have received with pleasure your wishes for success, which

are reciprocal. We accept your proposal for a joint meeting in
London 19S3 on the first theme: Methodology of museology and
professional training. Because of the many problems which our
Committee must resolve, only one half-day meeting will be
possible. We are looking forward to our future collaboration."
(signed)

Vino~

Sofka, Interim Chairman of ICOFOM.

The result of the above is the organization of the colloquium.

2. .rL0..!:.5.c'~J rna t ter s reI ated t.?_the ~rgan i z_9-_!:.~.~_m_~J:.he co~ logu iufl!.

The time allotted for the colloquium has been reduced to the
strict minimum: one half-day. An extremely economical use of the

time allowed is essential and will have a determining influence

on the organization and the

proceedings~

The time available for preparing it is also very short.

It is indispensable that the theme of the colloquium be re-

stricted to only those aspects which are most important and

significant for the two Committees. The aim of the symposium is
to provide a valuable contribution to our common cause: the
improvement of the profession through the in depth theoretical
study of museolo9Y and of training.
6

The aims of our colloquium and the restrictions of time

impose a very strict planning. The following conditions appear
necessary~

a/ The basic texts will be written by the authors sufficiently

ahead of time

(see 3. below) and distributed to the registered

participants before the colloquium.

bl

distinction ,nust be drawn

active participants, and 3)

It

:cs

between~

1)

the authors, 2) other

participan~not

registered.

expected that the members of the two Committees as well

as other members of rCOM, who wish to participate actively in

the debate, register in advance as participants. Consequently,
the registered participants will receive the basic texts and
shall have the opportunity to study them before the meeting.
c/ The time available for the colloquium will be entirely devoted

to the discussion on the

ba~is

of interventions by the active

participants; these interventions must be written and submitted

to the Boaro of the colloquium at a time which will be set
later, but in any case before the opening of the colloquium.
The interventions will be classified by theme, and the time
for their presentation will be strictly limited.
d/ The languages of the colloquium, including the basic texts, are
the working languages of reOM, that is to say French and
EnSlish. In so far as possible, all the texts submitted by
the authors should be written in both languages.
3. ~!.~P~~~l-i~~~~~~rganizationof the colloquium
1)

In February the two Chairmen will ask 6 to 8 authors to

write basic t0XtS reflecting the ideas of each author on the

subject nMethodology of museology and training", on the basis of
the outline below

(see 4.). The texts should be 8 to 12 type-

written pages, with double spacing, or about 2,000 to 3,000 words.

Each text should be mailed by March 25th, 1983.

2) Each author of these basic texts will receive, as rapidly
as possible! a complete set of the texts of each of the other
authors.
Each author is then requested to write a second text which
will be the position the author takes on the subject in relation
to the points of view expressed by the other authors. This will
require a document of approximately 5 to 10 pages
maximum of 2,500 words)

(1,250 to a

to be mailed by May 25th.

3) The active participation in the colloquium will be

ensured by registration sent to the Chairman of one of the
organizing Committees at the latest June 10th.
Each registered participant will receive a complete file
before the meeting

(the papers mentioned in 1) and 2) above).

During the colloquium none of these texts will be read or

presented by their authors.
4) The active participants who wish to comment on one or
more of the bDSic texts, or add their point of view or other
proposals, are invited to do so on the following conditions:
a/ the text of the intervention should be entirely written.
The text should be at the maximum of 600 words

(numbered

bibliographical references can be added later).

bl

each text of the intervention should be submitted to the

Board of the colloquium {the place will be set later} at a

deadline which will be decided upon later; but which in any
case will be well before the beginning of the colloauium.
The texts will be, if necessary, communicated to the authors
of basic

texts~

These interventions will be filed by theme

(by the Board). Each intervention will be read by the author

(max. 5 minu tes) .
5) A general debate will follow, made of:

al

re~lies by

the authors of the basic texts

bl eventual replies by the interveners

cl

eventual observations and remarks by the observers.

6~

The colloquium will be concluded by reading an essay of

synthesis.
7)

Publication of All the texts is envisaged.

1I

I r~ i t i.~_1-P!: e r ~_Sl~i s i _!:~

The object of museology must be defined

of subject matter).

(object in the sense

It is not necessary that this definition be

considered as definitive, the author may simply aim to state

clearly what he means by museology so that there will be no doubt

in the mind of the reader. It is therefore not required to

develop the definition at any great length.
2} What is nature of museological knowledge?

Museological knowledge and museographical expertise cover

a very wide

field~

Should it all be considered as:

- scientific knowledge?

Or should one also make distinctions:

- philosophical knowledge
- pragmatic knowledge

- technical expertise
- manual skills? or others

3) Nus.~.?l<:?SL!:.~a~.~nO\Yledg~_is comprised of what different

fields? or- else:

~~h~t
~he

is the sy.~tem of mu?ology and how can one envisage

inter~iscipli~ary

relations between its

In the field of museological knowledge

differen~

fields?

(scientific knowledge):

should the following be included, or not?

should the following be at the same level, or at different levels:
- physical, chemical, and bic-chemical knowledge
- historic01 knowledge

(conservation)

(history of museums and museum deve-

lopment. fete. )
-

theoretical and philosophical museology (theory of museum

education, etc.)

sociology and psycholoqy (study of individual and

g~oup

visitor behaviour)

.- etc .
4) ~~ha_~.--:~.E. ~_t:.l2~.~bject~ ve~_ of museological knowledge?

A distinction wiil be made between:

resear~h

the objectives of museology and museological

the objectives of museoi.ogical teaching and training

The objectives of
S)

~1~~~gd s ._() f .E:~' eo1.?9 i cal

One must
-

museologic~l

diffe~entiate

knowledge determine its

metho~s.

v, n o~ 1 e9_9 e

between:

merho0s cf 111useclogy and lOuseological research

- ffluseolosical teaching and training methods.

What is the difference?
6 J\

~vje

tfv,:do 10'"

'I.."

:-':-~,:''':'''~;__ ~--=~~_L.

Does the above discussion lead us to suggesting a methodology

for museology'?

will there be only one methodology, or will there be several

different types of methodology?
And in what relation is this methodology to that of
professional training in museology?

Ellis G Burcewi' Moscow:- Idaho, USA

BASIC PAPER

I have long felt that the reOM International Committees for Museology and for the Training of Personnel should

be closely associated, if not actually merged.

Several rCOM mem-

bers are active in the areas of interest of both committees.

It

is especially gratifying r therefore, that a joint symposium was

planned.

I hope that future joint colloquia will be heIdi and

that both committees will move ahead with all possible speed in
the practical tasks of identifying

COmlTiOn

ground and inevitable

differences in regard to museum theory and training methods among

the countries 'of the world ~

{.ve have an immediate need for clari-

fying issues and exchanging information, and a need, as well, for

training accreditation, and more international cooperation in all
respects.

I agree with the formulators of the joint MuseologyMuseum Training Symposium

(Internation~l

Council of Museums [rCOM],

London r 1983) that the theme (see title) should be addressed in a

standardized fashion to facilitate understanding by the international
and intercultural participants.

That has been my guide.

As a re-

sult, this contribution is not organized as it otherwise might

have been.

For example, while I think of museum training as hav-

ing an extensive methodology, which, if the training is good and

thorough, is not likely to vary much from one training center or

country to another, I have never thought of

mus~ology--a

cal and even philosophical discipline--as hav'ing one.

theoreti-

Museography,

10

defined by IeOM as being the practical application of museologieal theory, consists, on the other hand, of a great number of
methods, whether or not these constitute a methodology {that is,
a system).

Quite possibly, the term hmuseology" as used in the

title or theme, is meant by the symposium organizers to embrace

both of: the ICQr-'i. definitions; that :is, both museology and museo-

graphy.
Before I turn to the development of the theme according to the proposed guidelines, I should like to refer to professional issues which have been presented in Museological Working
Papers,

journals in the socL:llist countries of eastern Europe, and

elsewhere.

These include whether or not there is one museology

or more than one; whether or not museology is or ought to be a

new social science in its own right; whether or not the science
of museology has a higher purpose and can exist apart from the
museum; and what, "the service of societyll really means.
If each political system or, worse! each political
unit, is to decree its own museology, it will hurt the museum
profession as a whole f making it diff ieult to understand ,,,,here
our

co~~on

ground lies.

It would be better for all of us, world-

wide, to accept that there is one general profession and one

general museology; with the provision that there are, in addition,
special applications or emphases to suit the subject matter of

the museum, and the different demands of different publics.

fact, I

In

think we can all agree to this immediately.

Our differences lie, I believe, in one main area,

the political philosophies that dominate our various societies.

The communist position is, as I understand it, that all agencies

and citizens of socialist countries must serve their societies
according to officially approved doctrine.

More specifically,

the museums of the socialist countries have. as their purpose furthering the Marxi.st-Leninist war Id vieY-i'.

They do this u in part I

through the means of the primary obligations of museums that we

all accept:

high professional standards in

collecti~g,

conserva-

tion, documentation, research, and the educational. and aesthetic

use of the collections for the pUblic

good~

Actually, one way of

signalling the different museum philosophies between East and West

(socialist countries versus capitalist countries, to put it simply)
is on the understanding of what "service of society"' should mean.

In socialist countries it means, to some degree, presenting and

encouraging the public to accept the official political and economic stance of the government: that is, as stated, the MarxistLeninist world view based on dialectical and historical materialism.
Most of the museums and museum professionals in the
world have other political views.

In vlestern countries .. Hservice

of society" means giving people what they want, consistent with

the

museum~Q

serious educational nature, not what government de-

cides the public should be given.

Western museums t ideally, assist

people voluntarily to arrive at their own fulfillment, their own

desired education.
i1y purpose is not to make a political statement but

only to suggest that there may be a serious split in the museum

profession along doctrinal lines and that international discussions

of what museology is, whether or not there is a science of museology, and whether or not the relating of humanity to material

12

reality transcends the museum, are fruitless.

I think that col-

leagues in many countries, East and West, will accept that I advocate international cooperation and exchange of ideas and information.

However, I do not see much hope for a consensus between

East and West on matters of definition and purpose beyond the

basic functioning of museums.
I would not be happy with the thought tqat we cannot
have one world-wide museum profession and one world-wide basic
museology. and therefore I feel that the discussions that are
taking place in journals and in international meetings are significant in spite of possible irreconcilable differences.

Most of

what is important, in my view, we hold in common.

I.

Define Museology

I agree to the reOM definition of museology and find

it useful.

Mus801ogy is the study of the museum institution, as

currentlY8 professionally understood; its history, evolution,

present status, and probable future development, as
unique responsibilities of the museum to society.

wel~

as the

These include

the museum~s role, its priorities, organization, attitudes toward

objects and

collecting~

and the fundamentals of procedure.

Museo-

logy defines what a professional, public museum is, why i t exists,

and how, generally, it

operates~

MuseograE~

is a useful compan-

ion term, covering all the practical matters, such as work activities ann techniques that pertain to museum functioning and documentation.
Recognizing the legitimacy of the question, One museo-

logy or many?, I can understand the reasonable position put forth

13

by some that we should have a tri-partite definition:

is a

that there

museologx, as defined above; specialized museologies

genera~

or sub-categories of museology (one for each museum field, each

kind of museum, and, perhaps, each political/cultural system that
makes sufficiently different demands on its museums); and applied
museolo9~ (museography),

again as defined above.

This scheme

attempts to accommodate the necessity for museums to function in

their cultural contexts whl1eparticipating as respected members
of an international profession and it also recognizes that one
simple definition of museology might not adequately encompass the
great variety of work and different conceptual systems that museums embrace

The encourag{ng thing about the tri-partite scheme

is that i t accepts museology as being museum science, in the

reOM

sense.
Museo!ogy, as most, of us use the term, does not apply
well to the work of private, commercial, or non-professional museums todaYF nor is it really applicable to museum work typical
of the

past~

to museum

Furthermore, i t cannot be applied with any certainty

~vork

of the future

Museology is a term that pertains

t.o the contemporary museum as defined by our professional museum

organi za,t.ions t <'lnd as described and promoted by museum journals

and at

1'lUSeUm

was created by, belongs t0

seum.

M:r apinion is that the term

conve:ntions.
7

museology

and is needed by the professional mu-

It should not be appropr.iated by those who want to pursue

materialist philosophy and who need a name for their new science.
Let them choose another name t such as "material science."

It will

create needless confusion for most of the world to continue to use

the term museology in the traditional sense--museum theory--, and

14

some of our colleagues in Eastern countries

to

use it in another

way--as a science that: relates humanity to material reality not

necessarily with a museum connection.

Let museology, as defined

by IeOM and as many museum professionals have used the term for
years, become more scientific--more intellectual, more efficient,
more systematic--while still serving as museum science.
II.

What is .,!-he Nature:. of Museological Knowledge?

It follows that in my view museological knowledge

is historical, philosophical, and pragmatic.

That is, museology

describes how museums came to be what they are today, prescribes

what museums ought to be in

r~gard

to society (ethics), and defines

the particular organizational and procedural structures and relationships which experience has shown will accomplish desired ends.
Fundamental museological knowledge will have wide application,

and specialized aspects will serve particular social; political,

and subject matter needs.

The practical application of museological knowledge

engenders a vast body of museographical expertise involving skills,
techniques p work rnethods, the use of other disciplines, crafts;
occupations i
Mliseography

III.

~'I!hat

and technology.
S(:1ys

is

Museology says what a museum is.

h01I1[ a museum works.

th~ ~s~

of Muse01.5.?..2X.?

The fields th,,:lt make up museology are history, philosophy, education {pedagogics)

and the social sciences, as well

as organizational theory; and others~

They are whatever fields

contribute to the professional definition ofrnuseology.

Beyond

15

these fields is the vast area--perhaps all the remaining fields

of knowledge to

greater or a lesser degree--on which museum

professionals draw to accomplish the proper work of museums.

IV.

What are

!~e.

Objectives of

~useolo~ical Kno~ledge?

The objectives of museological knowledge are simply

1) to accomplish good public service today (through museography,
the practical application of museology), and 2} to facilitate
the evolution of the museum for the better service of society in

the future.
Museum training is the teaching of museology and
museography of such kinds and in such ways as to achieve the ob-

jectives of museology.

Instructors in museum studies programs

need to be clear in their own minds as to museum professionalism

and then pass this on.
teaching

museology~

seum professionals.

It is difficult to conceive of non-museologists

and of non-museum professionals creating muThis, of course, refers to a serious flaw in

some museum training centers.

v~

What are the IvIetJ'iods of Museological Knowledge?

The methods of

study~

research, and exposition in

the service of mu~eo~g2Y must lie largely in the social. sciences

in order that we can understand individuals, human culture, and
our own particular societies.

In turn, the museum institution

must be defined on the basis of the intellectual use of tangible

objects to serve society aesthetically and educationally.

The

methods must also be those of historians and philosophers in order

to explain what has been, and to formulate what ought to be.

Prag-

matism is the basis for acquiring ~seograEhical knowledge.

16

Whatever works is right.

What works better is preferable.

Ex-

perience and evaluation are the means employed.

In training, pedagogical theory and techniques are

important, and the aim, beyond the practical end of producing
museum workers of whom the training school can be proud, is the
establishing and building of our museum profession.

VI.

Methodology

Is there a museological methodology?

not yet.

No; or at least

I see rnuseology as normative, like a religion or a pol-

itical philosophy.

It describes a desirable organization, its

justification, its sphere of activity, and hoped-for results.

Methodology enters in with
with museography..

~he

practical application: that is,

But here, many methods, borrowed from outside

the museum, are employed:

methods of the bookkeeper, the public

relations person, the designer, the educator, the craftsman, the

scientist, the information manager, the photographer, and many
others.
An essential aspect of museum training is the application of ffiuseological principles in the selection of techniques,
and their adaptation, combination, and evaluation for effective

and efficient public. service.

Clearly, the initial task of museum

training is to build in the student this museological base for

the making of sourld IDuseographical decisions.
Museology has attitudes, standards f motivations, purposes--but not a system of methodst not a

methodology~

17

COMMENTS

The principal issue presented to the colloquium by the

Ruthors of the basic papers is the definition of Hmuseology."

S. M. Nair sees museology as a body of knowledge but not

as a science or academic discipline.

Parenthetically, his long

discussion of museum training contained a remark in which I was

especially interested.

It was that the best students are not

attracted to museum work.

well as in India.

This is true in the United States as

It may be true everywhere.

If our museum train-

ing courses are for the mediocre, and the best museum jobs will
be filled in the future, as in the past, by people who have chosen

not to go through museum training programs,

re-evaluate our position.

think we need to

May I suggest that Dr. Nair's question

lIWho should be trained?1I be the subject of an early seminar by

the ICOM Committee for the Training of Personnel?

I commend John Hodge on his frankness.

His attitude

toward the task of international discussion is onB we might all

emulate.

I agree with his observation that articles written on

the European continent and pUbliShed in English are difficult to

understand.

I suggest that before writings are published in a

language that is not the author's own they be given a final edit-

ing, if possible, by a native speaker of that language.

I agree

with him t also, that authors should be careful in the use of terms
that are not

con~only

understood.

In the basic papers for this col-

loqUium I have encountered words that are not in common English

usage--semiotics, heteronomic, teleological

axiology, reprography,

18

gnoseological~

eidetical (in "eidetical reduction of tne phenom-

enological method (Husserl)1'), fenetic, fyletic,

and others.

I do not propose that our learned colleagues restrict their vocabularies, but in international forums,in which we have not yet
arrived at agreement on even the basic terms of our profession,

many of tho participants are not fluent in a working language.

Moreover, they may not be familiar with the Latin and Greek roots
that European languages draw on for scientific and philosophical
terms.

The selection of simple words for simple ideas is in order.

If an author feels that he or she must use a word that is not to

be found in a standard desk dictionary, that word ought to be defined.

We all violate this rUle, but some of us more than others.

I think our Dutch friends go too far.

Their definition

of museology is that it "encompasses the whole complex of theory

and praxis involving the caring for and the using of the cultural
and natural heritage."

But surely that is everything.

Is there

anything, tangible or intangible, which is not part of hmnanity's

cultural and natural heritage?

Does any reasonable person' want

to care for and use war, famine, mosquitoes, and the bubonic plague?
I

find no usefulness in saying that museums and museum work embrace

everything.

Dr. Gluzinski agrees with me that museology, however we

define it, is concerned with the contemporary professional museum,

not with that vague totality to which the name "museum" might be
applied.

He also would not loosen the ties between museology and

the museum as would loading spokespeople from socialist countries.

Z. Z. Strinsk is an articulate and enthusiastic supporter

of the idea that museology is or ought to be a new science in its

19

own right, and that the museum is but a manifestation or practical application of this science.

Over the years, he has provided

a valuable service in his continuing to insist that museology

ought to have a wider concern that the vast majority of museum
professionals have recognized.

He says that the museum is an ex-

pression of something and museology is the study of what this is.

To focus our attention solely on the museum is to limit museology
and to restrict ourselves to empirical knowledge and to pragmatism.

Thus far,

I think we would all agree.

Museological theory

must not be closely tied to the actual work of actual museums.

Museology is broader and deeper.
retical basis.

$'

It is the philosophical and theo-

'"

Stransky and I part company as he would pursue,

as I understand him, his phiiosophical interest beyond museum

work but retain the term " museology" to describe it.
...

...

Karl Schreineris, Stransky's, and others' intriguing analogies-~that

the hospital, the school, and the theater are but

practical appl:ications of medical science, pedagogy, and "theatrology!'--seem to pass over an essential point.

The signi'ficance

of all these studies and activity systems lies only in their practical application for the good of maD.

Museology. likewise, exists

for the good of man through practical application; specifically,

to make good museu:ms and. to make good museums better.

Whether or

not museology is to be regarded as a science has little importance

aside from materialist philosophy and! perhaps, political systems

based on such philosophy.

Certainly, museological theory should

embrace the researches. the perspectives, and the explanations of

theoreticians.

Museographys I have always maintained, must be

based on the best museology we can create.

But museology that

20

does not exist for or that goes beyond museums cannot be of

great interest to the museum profession or to people whose main
concern is furthering that profession.
I agree with colleagues who have said to me on different
occasions that it is a fictitious problem, created by people who
enjoy theorizing.

What really matters is using well-selected

objects in public education, and that can be done without inventing a new science to describe manls interest in material objects.
lIse Jahn and Waldisa Russia appear to accept the position I have attributed to Strinsk and Schreiner, but they agree
with me in a proposal I am about to make.
As I said earlier, the main issue is the definition of
"museology."

Geoffrey Lewis in MuWoP 2 clearly stated a triparti te

scheme, to some version of which most of the authors of this symposium would subscribe.

He gave it as;

1) general museology,

2) special museology, 3) applied museology (museography).

This

seems to accommodate most viewpoints, but fails to be completely

satisfactory,

I think, in two respects:

It does not spec{fically

state that "general museology--the theory on which museum practice

is based" belongs to the museum and should not, as some would
have it, stand alone as a separate science for which the museum

is only ODe practical application.

(His position on this point

is clear, however, as he goes on to endorse fully the ICOM and

Unesco classifi.cations.)

Under "special museology--the partiCUlar

theory developed for the application of different disciplines within

the museum context" he does not include the second component that
Jahn. R~ssio, and I propose:

the application of the special re-

quirements imposed by the social, economic, political, and

21

philosophical contexts in which museums find themselves.

This

second component of special museology recognizes such realities

as political mission. economic and staffing limitations, problems
associated with private. non-professional governance (an important
factor in the United States), and others.
question "one museology or many?"

It also answers th~

Colleagues in various countries

have said that one museology cannot have universal application;

that, as a specific example, the museology of developed countries
is not entirely satisfactory in black Africa--an "African museo-

logy" is needed there according to at leRst one of our African

colleagues.
Let me propose that we adopt Lewis' museological system

as amended:
Museology consists of

PROPOSAL I

~x.~aI.M<

____

(a) General

museolog~--rnuseum theory

(b) SEecial

museolo~--particular applications

and

limitations according to the museum's

type. and its societal context
(0) !E.P.lied ~useolon--museum practice; museography.

Let us seize on this basis for agreement and build on it.

The remaining point is not as easy to deal with.

then. is general museology?

What,

The question may be the main bone of

contention among theorists in the museum profession today.

of

~nd

standards for museum

and encyclopedias, ethics t

logs,

translations~

training~

international

Methods

dictionaries

international exchange, journals,

meet~

illicit traffic in artifacts> the establishing

of a true profession--all these matters and more are topics for

discussion and collaboration but they are not controversial to any

22

significant degree.

That museum work is a special kind of occu-

pation which has a philosophical basis and a body of accumulated

attitudes and methods is also not in question.
What is in question is this:

Will there be or should

there be a new social science. which some tiheoreticians are al-

ready calling "museology,lI that would be concerned with the relation of man to three-dimensional objects and the remainder of
the natural world ("material reality"), of which science the museum would be but a manifestation or practical application in the
service of society?

This science of museology would take the

place of general museology as defined above and would not be based

in or limited to the museum.

Museology would no longer be museum

science.

Or, might the museum, and general museology, its theoretical and philosophical base, evolve into a social instrument that
will embrace an expa.nded concept of man in relation to objects?
I see the museum and museology as necessarily tied together.
Theory and its application may grow at different rates.
past, the museum raced ahead.

needs to catch up.

the

In some locations and among some

museum workers the opposite may now be true.

does not have to mean divorce.

In

But growing apart

It may mean only that one partner

I am suggesting that the museum can and ought

to evolve to take advantage of advances in theory and that any

materialist philosophy that goes beyond the collecting of objects

for manls benefit should be regarded only as philosophy, not as
museology.
PROPOSAL II

My second

proposal~

then, is that we understand by

Hgeneral museologyH museum science; nothing more.

23

BAsrc PAPER

Woiciech Gluzinski, Wtodaw -..:.. Poland

1~

on museology are sensible only if-they aim Qt

Conideration~

perfeotion of this field of

th~

stat~Q ~t ff~ir;

implies two
at1nat1on,

Qnd~

ology~

po~s1b16:

are

departur~

of

the~r@tio~l

uotion~use

/1/ museology in its present state as relabbr~

a~

museologioal

RM/ 1 and /2/ museology in the

take as a result of modifloat1cH'J.3

~hould

and @ne @f de-

two meaninge ot the

o~naequently~

- the real mU8801ogy

~lons

one of

in th@ varied body of literature known

tlect~d

1t

knowledge~ Th~ir s~n8iblenese

investigations - th@

bSUi~d

sh~pe

on the oonolu-

pOBtula~ed

museQlog,

labbre PM/o In aooordance with this distinction, thG anewers to

the questions pos@d in the
oo11oqu1'1.u.ll~

/1/ and

muae~l@g;y

Qn~wers

s~rv1ng

~ble

to
2$

should refer

kno~

wh&t it

Tempor~rily

baa1s

wl~t

1~

I shall

and /2/1 a f1@ld of

s~lt

a~par.&\t\!ly

in

~@r

to

W\u.il.'H)logy ....s

the seo0nd

defined in

on~~

in @rder to be

museology should be lik6, on@ haa first

re&lity~

underBt~nd by muse~logy

knowledg~

las defined in /1/

being oreated 3nd manifesting 1t-

permanently on the one hGl1d in

~xpr~8s~d

for the organization of the

as de:t1ned In /2/ with th0 first gr'QUP o:f

~~ ~

to postulate

~Project

mu.seol()g1o~l d18(U~UrSe

in museologlcal literature, and on

th~

as

other in the

praoticrU museum aotivity" The question arr1s\5!s here about the

11m!ts of that

diso(n!:r~e

as well as about the I1m1ts 0: OO'useum

practioe appropriate to the mus@oloBioal knowledge proper.

24

J~

hith~rto ~xi$ting

The

survey of' the

lit"rature~

from

mus~um work~

dlaoourB~~

muaeologioal

Qoienti~io

m~ans, a1ma~

historioal,

ita me-

~useum work~

~H.u~~um~

tog@ther with its teoh-

~nd

teleological lalong with axio-

logioal/oomponents in the broad meaning of those

activity of museums,

Th~

kinds of

and organizational bases,

leg~l

word~, th~

nical, pragm&tio, soientifio,

4~

to teohnical, organizational, and

aot1vi ty of

in other

.!ll

deals with praotioally

subjeot of RM disoourse as the totality of

or~

B~en ~rcm

Ag a result of thiB, one has to view the general

~dminiatrativ~@

thods,

$a

~a

the

&n~lys13

terms~

of museum work demon-

etrat@s, is not homogenQus, it splits olearly into various

sectorG whose problema may be subordinated to as many variOU8
apeoialistio di30ip11nes, not to mention
employed in

res~arQh

~ol~noes

traditionally

work Qf museums on account o:t the oharaoter

ot their holdings ..
5~

Th~

dift~rentiation

in the

of the activities of museume is refleoted

diff~rentigtion of

appropriate speoialist1c
of many rather than one
mua~olog1oal

at all

~f diaooura~.

and it refers not to

r~ther

aolplines Ifor that

One should, then, speak

Due to thl@ multiplioity?

to many auch objeota

r~ason

of knowledge but only of

do~s

d1sclpl1nes~

know16dget as represented by RM

oohesiY~,

its own but

RM diaoourae into various languages of

d1Boours~,

objeot of

b~long1ng

1s not

knowledg~

of

to other d1-

we spoke in point J not of RM objeat

general objact of RM disooursel and

not create a logically ooherent

its own methodology either; it

system~

employ~

liM does not

hav~

m0thods of other 01a01-

plinp.s.

6$

On~

has to

ti~10

s~y~

theretore t that RM is not a

disoipline but an

aggregat~

of

s~lf-ootR1n~d

1nform~tion

Bcien-.

drawn from
25

various diso:1.plint'lls and loos~ly p1~oed toge,ther /from the logi-

oai potnt of vi@w! by superior aims of

aupposed to

6~rveQ

Although

thi~

mus~um

teleological

aotivity it is
prineipl~

etfe-

unites the differentiated s@ctors of aotivity into

ctiv~ly

Oll~ .

pragmatio whalet still it cannot se~re a similar union of mus~o

logienl knowledge in
pred1o&;t~g

logioa1~

aamant10

belon.slng to lsnguagea of

/ther~

v~'1ous

is

variety oZ

disciplin@s! ~ and

taotual terms ..

70

Th1~

do~~

not mean that RMie not G 8oi0Dt1fio knowledge; on

the oontrarY9 it

w1th elemeuts of $oient1f10

i~ 1mpregna~ed

cognition of both theoretical and praotioal kind,

case of teleologioal and axiologioal
o~

museH.JlDl2l, also w1 th

~~nQe,

8@ liY oannot be
~g $c1~nQes

or

~ore

l;ys~

.1 1;;

9Q

oon~idered

as an

iR~erd1so1pli~ary

of this kind, taking

whioh~

the

.fornu:~l $en~~ ..

Th~

basio 8sotor @f th@

me~t~tionl
~~t~rial

8oieDoe either

border position

betwe@~

@f "their re2ul'ts and

OWlJ. thEH:)rltHJ

two

Qllfd.-

which do not be-

disoip11nes~ Thi2~ ho~ever,

aotudd~r

~otivity

~coumul~t1on, el~borat1onr

oannot be

as

of

tbeory ~

mu~eum~

is

~iilIHtoiiUly

th~

di&gno~1s

in

soientific

and ev1deuQe ot mU8eum objeots

or typologioal

diagnoliis~

in th@

for the reasons giv@n in the preosding points,

"be dif:.floul't to

olassific~tory

lHlIe

for the oreation of their

~o.uld

full

con~idered ~~ S01@DO~

other dilloip11nes ~ mak<fS

of liM

of the activity

am has been shown in points' and 6.

long to &ny of the other

~a1d

1n the

elewer3;ts of philoliophical oogn1 tien .. In

$pite of gIl that RH oannot be

struotural

oo~ponents

~d,

together with

la

~eleotiQnJ

8oient1.f10 delilcription with, aooompanying doou-

which together oreates knowledge 300Ut individual

SQUrOe86 It does not,

however~

oonstitute a part gf

museolog1caJ. knQwled8"e but belongs to p&a.rtioular scientifio 0.126

sQ1plines as it is obtained with the help 9f their diagnostio

methods, and on the
witn

8ouroe~

of museum
dered

attitud@ of

xQlizat1on~

dual~

~o them~

Henoe, the diaoour&e

and .onographio studies oannot be oonsi-

mu~eu~s

by

me~n9

be~we~n

the

and & Bimilar attitude of particu~hat so1enge~

oona1Bts in the taot

/1/ form gene-

of investigation of lnd1vidualB, and /2/

classifioatory or typological sygtems on s@ts of individ~clde

duals while museUMS /1/

ot the

their research results aDd deals

of knowledge proper

o~t&logue8

soieno~~

ore~te

or

& museolQg1oal disoourse. The differenoe

~s

r~s~~oh

lar

ba~is

afor~

mentioned

into approprlat0

about individuals on the basis

generalization~~
olaBme~

of

and /2/ qusl1ry lndivi-

adop~ed

ayatems. If researoh

aotivity of a muaeum is developed to a aegree as to go beyond,

or blur the
3

d1~!erenoes

of suoh a museum with a soientifio

~ymbios1a

doe~ n~t modi~y el~her

in it$elf
m~jority

oea~ing

given above, then we may speak

~ mu~@um/,

iDst1tute~

the auaeum's essence la

of museums do not measure

to b@

&b~ut

~p ~o

euoh &

8ymbiQ~i8

whioh

gre~t

without

or the essence of the soientifio lnutl-

tute Imost of them, including the lead1u& ones, exist

indep~n

dentlY/. Therefore, if one invest1gate$ the museum in wh&t is

undeniably essential and peouliar to

th~ o~~@s

@f

~QeXiBtenoe&

Although it is

resultg of a pure1y mugeologio&l

a r@vig1on gf $peoifio

one should pa8s over

it~

oonoe1vabl~

re.~aroh

21stem&t1~atjons

or

oan

that the

~Qmet1mes

entail

&ener~li~at1oD$,

gtl11 one mU$t gay that au scienoes beoome more theoretioal,

~uoh pQ~~1b11itiea ~eem

10$ Fro. among four types of

answers 1D
"How

th~ f1r~t

1~ 1t?~

or "How

to diminish.
ques~1on~ ~8wered

by knowledge,

RM

plaoe faotograpucal questions of the typa

W~ 1t?~

!desor;pt1ve funotion/, and praoti-

cal question3 of the type "How to SO' in order to aChieve this

or that?" Ipractical funotion/. However, 1a

answ~ra

to questions

of: 'th3 :first 'type RM refer8 to desoriptive predloatelli o:t apprQpri~te di~oiplines,

while in answers to

/theJ! do .not

b~lgng

to the languages of b9.sio &H>ienOE9Im/, or to

th~ ::;:'f'li\~ar~h r~t1\lults

o:! relevant

:from them that RM gets

~lao

typ~

~Ho~

phi o~~l [i".nd praot:i!3al

~oriptiw@

Humeologic&l

1~6e

th~

quel$t1~ua

queBti(m~

de~1ng

the Qotivity'of

prof~ssionQ~

qualifies EM

of

mo~l~dge

as a de-

&p~oifi@

field of

with a

mU8eums~

training whose aim

~8

to prepare for

its main obJect of d1$oourse - Just

3~

point J/ - museum activity, or, in other

totality @f
RM,

to expla.na't@ry

It iii

will it be?" The prevQlel1ce of l'aotogra-

. wu~eum work has naturally

fIM

an&w~rs

praotioal kncwledge

~0tivity, i~e.

~~

Sllpe~iIl:\11$tiO' d1soiplin~s.

WWhy is i,t so and SIC)'?" as well as to prognostic quefi-

tionc"\ of the typs

1i~

of the seoond

it either refers to the utilitarian norms &Dd appreolat1oDS

t1P~

the

quest1~n&

wards~

worKo Having the same objeot of d1scouree

~us~um

training is

mu~eol@gioal

bailie F.M kn@wledgt1 which

meQ.Iu?t

ba~ed

tha.t

;1,',"

on the

~xpQsitioD

o~e0

Thia~ how~ver,

annot be

While EM

@ert~i~ method~

Imo~tly

~~id

of

~he ~ethQd~~

adoptedl tor oognitive

O1n.ly in2truct~ about theMe m.~thods

generally

di8ocur~~~

~pgkin~~ sp~oifig

@! the

are identic81.

~1ms~

employ~

the tr&in1ne

1st time} also pra@tloally/;

l't iit.liJO in"tru.ots about "teobn1,osl metLQds of

in RI

sharei with. it' the mul ti-

p11city of obJe@ts @f oognition which in both

tiv~ly &n~l~$ed

the

mUi~H!i'um work~

whert.3S tor 1tmelf it

oogni-

&pp11e~J

didaoticw@thadg /als@ usually

adop't@!aJ ~

It

m~y

b@ generally

8~d

that the disoQUTSe ot museQlogioal

'tra.inin& and lUll d1iioourSifl refleot th~ .ame reality of the

oX

mua~uaa

and thus are analogous in rtlation to each

oept tor the

f~ot

01 "Ii ty

other~

that the first refleQtion ham above 311

ezd128

tinge while 'the seoond one

41301;10

12

first of all cop!tive in

the

deY~lopment

~Dd

thus lnd1reotly intluenoes the perfeotlon of the aot1vityJ s

pr~x1s

whioh in ita turn finds its

the oycle is

It

of liM knowledge enriohes the

mu.~t

b"

trQinlnc~s

refleotlo~

r~p~ated. Th~ ~ollowing

diagram

oontent

in RK discourse and

illustrate~

however, stated tha't thes!! relations

the

h&v~ b~en

rea-

lized ~o far in a very limited, one CQuld even say superfioial

~&y

whioh is undoubtedly an expression Qf the weakness of the

pre~@nt d~y mus~ology~

12. Xt must be $tres80d that the development of RM knowledge is naturally dependent on

d1goipllnee with _hieh it is

speo~aliat!Q

(HUl.D.ected lor oould be oonneoted/ on the ground of

lat@d to partioular seotor2 of

problem
~o

11~~

not

o~ly

~he

Qotivity of

th~

musetlm~~

issues re-

And the

in wheth@r and to what @xtent RM 1& willing

use their aohlevementg but

al~@

in

whe~er

it can

&m~imilate

tiQns Ito whioh I do Dot oount philosophioal retleotign wbioh

1deologio~t r~~her th~

ohMraot~r1et10

of it

gnosiologloal in charaoterl whioh

oOD~1derably

limit

i~

.ar~

the~e p02~ibilit1e3~

They mak~ it ~~pos91ble 'to see in these aohieJbents thoie element&

whioh are really

i~port~nt ,tor

museum proolems or to aet before

appropriate discipline. unequ1vooally .formulated resea"oh

There are no

~ pure ti

i~HHHHi!l0

qwat1ona, the oopi t1 vel:; fertile qUI8QtionB

29

re~ult

theore~ioal

from definite

A't oannot be s&id

~f mod~rn

~ha~ ~

aa8uooption8 oulye

ehows any real

or Syoh realms

1ntere2~

thought as 800iology oX oulture, semiot1os &long with

s@miotics of oulture, or for the maderA methodologioal trends

!:tuoh M~ 't.he struotural.' or symtemilt10 appro30h. .All ~f th-sm, ho~
aeem to open tor muaeology very

6ver~

1)6

In ocnnezion
th~

problem

for

th~

~f

the relations

ShO~D

liM development 1a an

d~velopment

~h@

of

prospeots.

graphioally, in point 11

e~tremely

important issue

praxis of the aotivity of mUQeums.

it oannot resolve 1tself, as it oten happena, into

nQwev~rt

barren

~ith

prQmisi~~

~nalys@a

of RM

struo~ure

from different

of view, or 't@ drawing up mI defin1 'tiona in

pr~gmat10

pointe

pr(:!!dominantly ar-

bitrary manner. but should aim at making museology

separate

or relatively separate so1ent1t10 disoiplinee

ot view ot

140 EM oonsiders the aotivity of museums trom the point

narrow praotioality: on the on6 hand the superior aim5 of the

o~

otiv1ty

lO$ophy of

princip~l

:rh1~

in

~Q

but as heteronom1e aims and on

di!~erent

~1mg

oonoeptiona/, and on the

and means of aotivity are being

m~m~er~

in breakage into pr20tioally

t~leologio~l

procedures. These

and

praotioal
dr~wn

up.

t~ohn1oal
Qn~lytical

olosed sequenoem

undoubtedly

portant iS2ues for the work of mU8euas but their

basis of

adopte~ ~s

in a highly

~eparated,

~re

th~

other~

cons1der~d

word~

in the broad meaning of the

called phi-

are

aotiv:i'liY ia being examined :first of all 1n i t2

~$pect~,

of

m~geumsl

systems of valuee /henoe, ditferent

va~1aus

m~thQds

muaeuma are being formulated /by the

e~tr~mely

tr~atment

,im-

is

/1/ an expresB10n of a meohan1at10 conoeption of the aotivity of

mU8eum~
th~

/museum as

a toolj, and /2/

it diverts attention from

problems of museum's 0saenoe and sense whose study and ex-

plan~tion

should be the main task of museology@

30

15$ The word

"muaeum~

oan

haw~

different meanings;

/1/ the building where a speo1f10 aot1vity takea plaoe, sometimes

with

Qonspiouou~

arohiteoture,

~nd

providftQ with

slgn-uoard

lleMua@umu ;

/2/

~n

&gsignm~nt~

institution with a speoifio function and

~~t~bli8h~d

on the

str~ngth

of & legal

organized in

d~ed,

gome way, historioally and 8001ally oQndi t1oned.;

/)/ a funotional aggregate made up of ooncrete aotivit1@8 ot

$pecially trained people, applied to objeots of a speoial
kind with the help ot proper means, teohnioal

appll~oes

and

methods; Qot1vities aiming at /a/ the preserV&tioD of these

~he1r

objeots in

present physioal state, and Ib/ their proper

~oo1al l$oi~nt1fic,

/4/ a

~ystem

@f speoifio aot1ons and 1nteraotions t culturMl

h~viourQ,

15/

~ ~peQifio

tation6
~th6r
~s

Q@ding

l~o~ivlt1esl

1~

~d90n

units

uni~,

but

other~

internal

vle~e1"s/;

in the semiotio 3SDse Qf th@ word,

defined on the one hand by

the

~l~o

by

1~s

ohain~

of oonno-

position in the system of

/U~ Eoo/~

~haptart

oonsiders museum in the

gen~e

of the word, espeo1al1y the third

ot the firat

one~

in definitions of muse.. , otten together with meaning

they

r~presentp

however, a trend of

Q.

thx~e

M@an1ng /2/ is

Investigations on museum puo110 are remotely rel&ted to

14/~

be~

it follows trom the oharaQter1zations given in the pre-

meaning~

u~ed

oultural

meaniu&

~hose

16. EM,

mostly external

internal reaotions o:f the

1'l'J~g$

eto~1 u~11izationo

eduoational, oultural,

/J/~

m~&ning

narrow soo101oi1Qal

empirioism .. Equally remote .ohoa of meanln& /5/ 4io"uu1 in the

oeptiQn~ o~ oonneot1~

muselm with various

sy.tem~

O@rJ-

/ot so1enoe t
31

education, cultural

aot1v1ty~

propapnda, etc .. / in order to de-

tine ita purpose. Tneee are, however, arbitrary

arguably teleologioal in

11&

ohar~oter~

@aaenoe, however, 18 not based on teohn1oal or 1nstitu-

KU8~um'a

tioDQl aspeat@ and oertainly not on

i~

in

aaslgnment~~

th~ f1r~t

plaoe a matter of

Bpa~1al

obJeotllit, gpeolal hwaan

behavioura~ m\Ui~um

bu~

wluoh in a $ystem ot

~anln~8

<culture repre sent all 'things that make up

ones /buildin&!

nUllieUID.,

&

1 .. e

museum

produotfi IOQlleotioD.li,

'XJ,10iill tiona l' (Hl.'talogues! .. All thi8 is marked 01 some specific

meaning whioh we shall 0211

tU11t~~

&11

tho~e

remove thi& faotor and the museum will

L@t

exi~t

although everything

min

U~

In this

$pecl~

faotor N /museum sensei .. This faotor

elements into a speoial oultural unit - the mu-

~eum..

plac~&

~M

cQn~ext,

import &nd,

notion~l

t~at

oeas~

makes up its substanoe reaa1na in

meaQing /5/ of the word "museum"

togethe~

to

aqu1r~8

with aeaning /4/, should beoome the

oategory of m,seologY0 Mugeum 1s after all one of

the knots Qt 5loo1ol 8tction .nd interaotion in the tangle ot htuDan

b0h&\v10~~
vizgtien~

18. Th@re

ar~

in wbioh aDd onll in which "K faotor- Qttalns objeoti-

L$t us burst this tangle and we d@stroy mUSeum0

two

1ntr~u3eum

bthaviours whose

un1~n

is thoroughly

1mpr~gn~t~d ~1th ~M f~otor"l ~ymbo11zatio~1 beh~v1our

"tr~~1;~ thing~

(i,f

repre.snta't1cns of

valuE.t~1

/which

and oommun1oat1onal

'beblfhv:1.0r;,U' Iwh1@h transmi t&6 1b(H~0 valu~s/0 Both of them gr~ connedt~d

and

to

wh@le net of

~motiQnal

oQ~otat1gns:

oognit1ve,

2xiolcg1c~1~

which will mate it possible to define aoourateJ.,y

and fill with aontent the

St

far empty

n~t1on

of "M faotor"e All

other be'hQvlours have only .instrullental fu.not1ona and

or

les~

W"@

more

olearly marked with 'M faotor M acoording to their rela-

tion to the above behav1oursj'the faotor, on the other hand,

manifeat~

itself 41tferentlyaooord1ng

to the kind ot

beh&v1our~

32

We shall oall theu@ manifestations museologloal phenomeua.

~y.:.jst\(lated IDl!lieoJ.oQ
190 The analysis

to

~epar&te

:f~l~

@~

th@ notion

~Museum"

made it possible for us

thoae meanings whioh would be OOBU1tively fertile

f'1eld&l.~

PM a..nd whioh open before 1. t broad rese&roh

~bla~

formul~te

us to

~oleDtlfl0

~rom

o~ mu~eology.as

di~o1pllne~

20 .. First of all
n~ture,

the ba$io parameters

It en-

~e

must limi-t.PM to what i8 essentially of museum

and in whioh "H taotQr N Qsserts

it what

1~

1tself~

unoonneoted to it, namaly

and to exoept

whole &rea of

~e

scientific and eduoatlonal work, organizational and teohnioal

~otiyiti$o.

It w111 be -n@oessary to consign them to appropriate

~p~~iali8tio

d1so1pllnes RM has been penetratin& tor a long

time in ae2roh tor right

2i~

iolut1on8~

e~~1tated

by th@ eoonomy of time

oneselt in

$ome~1ng

~16 Q~peot

Qf reality which would be

Such division 13 aimply ne-

~nd

effort, for: why engage

in whioh somebody elae 1a more oompetent?

th~

knowledge is the NM fQctor" manl!esting

in

gen~r&l m~aning

and~
~~

Qth~r,

on the

the

on~

QS~

~~@log1o~1

22~

itsel~

on the @ne hand

of a Qultural unit - the mueeum Igee 15 /5//.

in

mus~olog1Qal

phenomena

I~ee

18/e

Thu~,

hand, the area ot PM knowledge would be the area of

on the other, the area of speolt10 oultural beha-

~~nge, and~

viours

formal obJeot of PM

~co@rdAn~e

in

lith point /8/, it 18 in

th~m

that mu-

ph@nQwena beooae manifest.

The duality oharaoter1zed aoove would divide PM into two seotiona joined
/~I

togeth~r

by oommon object of knowledg@.

theol"t!tioal mtU'seoloQ "hose exact researoh obJeot "ould be

the museum as a speo1tLo oultural unit /po1nt

fbi

namely~

pr~ot!oal

l' 1,//;

muaeology wlse exaot objeot of rese&roh .uuld be

33

~useum

the

n&Vi(Hlrti Ip~1:nt
r~uHJlts

2J.The

gener~

.tatement~,

Byatem~tizQtionl

statementml would oonstitute a basis

tion

ot

par~1oul&r

whose results, in their turn,

oZ

ph@UOaen&,

serve

wo~ld

by nM faotor M, both intramu8eum and on the point

b~t~een ~~

~B

tr@nd~

o~

juno-

museum and the pub110.

Theor~tioal mU8~ology

stic

expl~at1on

l;formulat1o~

for pra4ot1Q&\.1 regulation and mod1f1oa.tion of' behav:t,ours

b&~1a

mark~d

24s

15 /4/1 ~

"the invagtigat1QDS of prw.o't1oal wuae@loQ

indtv1du~

3Jil,

01 apeolf10 Qultural b@-

of theore'tloQl illlu&eolo&y )'IcleliMi t10112 oJ: D&l!lIio no-

tional oategorieg,
t~r

818~e.

underatood as a

would oonatitute

of numerous gpeo1ali-

OD~

of general semiotios Isemlotios of oulturel and ae

auoh would be b&sed on the metnoda of semiotio jstructuxQlist1cl

research

~~

king about

haa been pointed out in point /5/ where we

objeot

~~e theory~

a theor)' of museum as a oultural unit, museum

or~&t~

theory~

tal-

ohains and semantic systemso Its task

oonnot~tion

would b@ -to

~ere

museum oollp.ot1on theomy, and museum visual meg-

Uoreover, the adopted method would make' it possible

to 0'@f1ne the dif:t'erenoe betwE'I!en tb.e museum fiUld prlvate-oolleotr~h1p ~s

well

ship

~f

e~rli@r

~ith

nc1ent colleoting

ti~n

of

the

v~1ous

ship of

to

~2

r~oonatruot

histori0

ae~ma

to be an

middle igss,

~n~ mgder~

b3roque~

h&d

lordly oolleotlons and

middle-olaso -learned"

th~ ~ame

senae

Th@ mere teohnical

o~ coll~otors~

&8

&$

Qnalogi~e.and

O~e

would have

temple and church

g~11er1ea

o"ltur~

by the colleotor-

times.

oo11~ot1ons

the modern

museum history

unw&rr~nted id~ntifioa

repr~sent6d

to sho~ f1rat that Huoh cultural units

tre~sUr1~Qf

~ygtem~ ~~ oolleoto~

periods~ Startin~

semiotic systems

~tiQu1ty,

semiotio

of

Ren~1sg~noe

and

of 17th and 18th

unit -

th~

o~

museum.

psycholos1cal interpretations

motivations do not entitle us to suoh a oonolu34

slon..

.25 . .

museQlogy would be baaed on the one htimd on the re8ultli

:Pr~()tlo~l

of

theoretio~l mU2~ology

and, on the other, on

~he result~

and

methods of sooiology @! oulture in wh10h there is no oontradic-

26

tion

~2

the

~r:hua

sh~'p~d,

diso1plin~

jadopted

of the

w~11 a~

also shows interest for

mua~olQgy

based on the

~d

ag

l~tter

&b801ut~ly

would not be an

me~oda/~

separat~ness
ob~eots

of

semio~10

method$&

independent

ita 1ndep@ndenoe would be

of the

~Qrm~l

res~aroh ~hich

r~lat1ve

obj@ot of knowledge
do not belong to

any research trend of semiotlo3 or sooiology of oulture, it

would bet however p & disoipline devoid of the shortoomings we
were

t~lk1ng ~bout

in paragraph II, and extremely

fertile for the aotivity of museums. It

mus~

importan~

and

be noted that no

soience in the realm of oulture soienoes ig or oan be an absolutely

21~

1ndependen~

Everythi~g

disoipline*

which 1s outside

th~

sphere of

re8~aroh

of

theor~t1c~1

and praotio&l wumeolo&y /se@ point 20/ oonstitutes the outfit

far museum funotioning lin the sense of /1/-/J/ of point 15/,
and thus

b~l~ngs

knowl~dg~~

to

profe88ional~

Hence, the whole set of

though not to museolog1oal,

probl~mB

should be widely

dealt with in professional teaching and training of museWll wor]n~:ra f

~nd

o&t1on o

taught by expert&! in partioular

~~nerQl

hi~~r 9t~g~

and 2p0cial didactic

of traln1ns

t~e ~in

t1~lda

m~thod&.

wi in the app11-

Of oourse, on a

subJect. should

os

theoret1oal

~nd prQot1c~1 mU6@ology~

35

Sadashiv Gorabhkarg Bombay -India,

8ASIC?APER

In a.ttempting to define ttMuseology", the UNESCO Regional

Seminar at Rio de Janeiro in 1958 sta.ted p nMuseology is the
branch of knowledge concerned with the

s~udy

of the purposes

and organisat.:i on of museums" ~ and stated further that

nt-iuseography

is the body of techniques related to museologyLl ..

Our reference today is to both these aspects f the one

deali.ng with the basic philosophy of the very existence of

museums and the other

direc~ly

contributing to their

successful existence in the nature of efficient handling of

various activities by a band of specially trained

If the definition quoted above is

analysed~

personnel~

it is

suggestive of a method or approach in organising what we

tocay understand by that institution called "museums", in
all its connotationS6

By inference, museologyis a

discipline baving been based on a system or methodology

like any other scientific

discipline~

Being concitioned by their very nature, museums have

long ago ceased to linger

on the speculative horizon of

rito be or not to bet' ~ but have established their value for a

need based society as organisations directly contributing to

such areas as education 9 cOlOmunity centres and above all in

preserving the cultural relics of human civilisation for the
benefit of humanity itself..
the need of a museum has
the brink of uncertainty.

Conversely, the time to justify

el~psed

Xn

long ago&

We are no more on

fact, if at all, we are ata

36

stage when we ought to consider aspects of 'special museology'

within the broader framework of tgeneral museologyf.

In this

context then it is necessary to clarify that methodology of

museology is

t he

discipline concerning the very purpose and

organisation of such
aX't~

an actiVity and the techniques adopted

mere tools in the achievement of such an

objective~

The

realisation of this objective lies in the conceptualisation

of a communication system t research for preservation of exnibits
albeit revolving round the basic function of museums viz.,
collecting of source materiale

The methodology of museolog;y is

imbibed in the ideal management of these three basic activities

of a museum"
And yet within

~he

boundries this prime-facie cohesive

discipline, the nature of functions performed is so diverse

that each of such function

a discipline in itself.

~an

be considered and in fact

This not only applies to the

is~

~cope

of

a museumts collection, be i1; Art, Archaeology Natural Sciences

or any other SUbject, but it also applies to such different

functions as education,

pre$en~ation

Even within such a broad he$ding as

arts, costumes, crafts and so onQ

and even public

glArt!l~

relations~

included decorative

The department of paintings

can include 011 paintings g lithographs and even illuminated

manuscripts~

It may vary in geographical circumference or time

scale; for instance i t may be national or it may be regional

and it may cover either the ancient or the modern period.

There

is no mandatory system and the nature of scope may vary from

museum to museum.

One can ,roceed to make such infinite djvisions

37

all of which !lave been discussed from time to time..

To make

a more pertinent observation, the very nature of various

committees~

almost 19 of them under the reOM is an indication

of the diversiried but overlapping fields for which we have

adopted a consolidated term 'museology'o

Oue may legitimately raise an issue over the existence or
tne need of COherent methodology of museology in the face of

such diversity$

In the following chart we have attempted a

visual summary, by no means definitive, to briefly explain

our thesis :

_ _:_::COl~....:t.--..riO~_~- -:--------:-1
Archaeology

Art

Natural Hist ..

L~__-'--_ _

Science!
Technology

-----T--------'

[~~~:ation
r -1-'---'----r"1---...,------rr-ft

Research

Presentation

Education

Exhibition

-1
Outreach

L,-,-----T"I-~-----~
Public Relations for effectiveness
Indeed all the activities are directed towards a common target

'the

community~ ..

QI! ita

in conformity with the prevalent concept, even the

functions a Curator may have 10 perform haev been aptly

38

.uHlicated by Singletons

Academic knowledge necessary for research;

(b)

Concern for physical care of objects;

(c)

Concern for aesthetic and educational values;

Concern for presentation of exhibits each demanding
different treatment;

(e)

Concern for the visitor - once again each with a different

background and a different

n8ed~

In large museums where a fleet of experts is available to

man every cannon, the question of the Sectional Curators
involving in such

diver~ity

of functions seldom arises.

On the

contrary today it is more of an interaction between such

sectional heads as curators, educationists t and designers.,

Such

a facility is not available to many a smaller museum Curators

even in developed countries and hardly available to Curators in
developine

countries~

individ~al~ ViZe1

In the latter case very often

~nly

one

the Curator is called upon to perform various

fl1~ctions..

While underlining this situation we wish to emphasise that

all these disciplines 9 otherwise independent, gain a different
connotation in the process of museum development and hence are
grouped as museologicale

The methodology of museolo8Y thus

collectively synthesises the methodology of these disciplines

towards pecific needs of museums.

It is at this point that we envilage the linkage between
Museology and the training of personnel on whom the responsibili ty

39

of running and developing these institutions devolves.

The

l1e'terogenous nature of duties a Curator is called upon to

perform in itself suggests "the involvement 01' a single individual

in a series of disciplines and necessarily antic ipates a

sympathetic understanding of all these at a stage higher than

mere awarBness.

At institutions where there are specialists

to man these various divisions, it is obligatory for all of them

to have an appreciation of the other persons view

point~

Indeed

we accept a presupposition that each such individual is an expert

in his own branch of knowledgee

The coordinator of all activities

in the Museum, to our thinking, is necessarily the Curator whose

responsibility it is to inspire interaction amongst his colleagues
in -t he furtherance of the objectives of his Museum, which, as we

have earlier
and

mentioned~

revolve round

collection~

preservation

co.~munication8

The other point of linkage between training of pe'rsonnel

vis-a-vis Museological attitude bears a direct ratio to the degree
of acceptance of the Museum's potential as an instrument of

informal education and consequently its ability to communicate

the message to the cross

s~ction

of society which visits

it~

t-Tust as the objective of our conceptualisation may differ from

gallery to gallery and exhibition to exhibition, even the

object ive of the visit to the Museum changes from one vis it or to

another..

The Curatorial sUll in striking an effective balance

to cater to their needs is often put to a rigorous testo

m~nagerial

The

skill of the Curator would then depend on his own

orientation indeed the bese results 'being achieved by those wi t.h

40

professional museological orientation preferably

a~

preentry

level",

Traigjng of

~ersonnel

Being a product of a. Museology Dept existing since 1952

at University level it is quite likely that my inferences may
reflect on tbis background.

But in a

~ay

it may provide a case

study for pertinent discussions.

Two types

or

training programmes are running simultaneously

today at many places$

The first is in the form of in-service

or mid-professional training and the second is in the form of

a University gradu~tion/diploma course designed as pre-entry

qualificationb
If we accept that there is a coherence in the methodology
of museology then we must admit that the profession shall

increasingly feel the need of personnel who will have realised

this before

joining~he

be on pre-entry

profession and hence the emphasis should

training~

As a corollary we will also have to

admit that there should be coherence even in the training

imparted i@es the subject-content of such coursese

Being conscio'Us to the latter fact the ICOM had earlier

identified nine topics dealing with Introduction to Museology,

Organization, Architecture, Collections, Research, Care and

Treatment, Presentation, Public and Educational work in Museum,

for

a common syllabus o
In India, where from one University Dept of Museology in

1952 it has proll ferated to 'six in 1982, there is a ma.rked

di versi ty in the syllabus of t he various departments..

In

4l

Appendix-I is a brief resume of these six courses (prepared at

the time of a workshop conducted by the University Grants
Commission on the Teaching and Research in Museology in India
in 1979)"

The American Association of

Museums~

in 1976, formulated

the basis of a common syllabus to serve as guide lines for

Universities which intended to start such courses.
The major constraints which are commonly experienced in

the

l~nning

of courses at University level are

(a) Wide disparity in the syllabii;

(b) Little or no experience of practical Museum work of

the faculty members;

(0) Insistence by some Universities which grant a Masters

in Museology to equate it with a Master 1 s degree in

the core subject;
(d) Non-attachm~nt to any Museum for practical work.

The pitfalls of such handicaps are too well known for

Museum professionals to need elaboration hereo

at one stage there

W$S $ll

In India where

emphasis on making Museology a

compulsory requirement for entry into the

profession~

such a

disparity in the sylLabii made any objective assessment

difficult ..

There have been

~any

arguments for and against the need

of practical experieroe for t he teaching faoul ty, the main

argument against oeiqg that one can have a better understanding

of

museum problems altd range of possible a.pproaches to work by

42

not attaching oneself with a single institution6

We are, however,

:tnclined to El.gree with -the AAM Committee 6 s observation that

students, who graduate from courses without reference to or

without an available museum and taught by teachers with no

Museum experience, are unaware that they often lack proper

tre.ining"

Indeed, this shortcoming as well as tha.t of non-

attachment to a Museum

C~n

always be overcome by inviting Museum

personnel for extension-lectures and a compulsory internstdp at

a major museum, at least of a

semester's

duration~

I have

chosen to append here the views I expressed at the University

Grants Commission's workshop concerning the compelling need of
internship during training programmes (Appendix-II) ..

~~o

should be

Tr~ined

The issue has direct bearing on the two constraints at the

professional level ViZl,
(a) Limited employment potentional
(0) Comparatively low salary scales ..
These two constraints have always acted as ceterrents in
attracting highly qualified or highly com.petent people to the

profession.

It is quite pertinent that the basic minimum

qualification for Curatorial job is a master's

subject~

degr~e

in the core

To undergo a further two years training in Museology

afte r Master ~ s degree , with no job certainty, is thus a difficult

proposition.

This, aspect

ne~ds

serious consideration ..

Middle-leyel and technical RTsonnet

The museum today undertakeja large numbor of activities

.43

such as conservation, presentation and education all of which

require museum orientation.
they be trained and what

The question is at what level should

~hould

be the natura of their training.

Take for instance the education staff6

Very few Teachers

Training Colleges make use of museums as media of instruction

even to train the trainee teachers..

In larger cities whe re

commuting is a problem, schools situated away from the Museum

seldom can take advantage of the educational programmes offered

by 'the Museum..

It is here that the Education staff have to devise

various outreach programmes and also combine them with evaluation

systems..

This is possible only if the Museumts education staff

is SUitably trained even in museological aspects to appreciate

the potential of the

materi~l

they haveo

Today, even in the

designing of galleries an interaction is sought between them and

the designers.

There is thus a need to devise suitable training

procedures even for the middle level personnel whereby they can
realise

t~e

value of their material and appreciate the needs of

the community whic h uses them ..

~Yio.nt

We will have to address ourself to the specific problems of:

("a)

Uniformity of sylltibu8

(b)

Involvement of thEt professional community in accaptine tbe

need of pre-entry training

(el

Devising a system for mid professional training

(d)

Pursuading the teaching Universities to accept the

recommendations of this

body~

44

APPENDIX-I
msro:.tOOy

~,..

1~

COURSES IN INDIA
-

Departmew.t o:t Jrllaeology, Faculty fIIf Pue Arts, M. S.. Ua1vers1ty sf

~NdaJ

Admissiom:

Baroda.

The minimum

qualificatio~

for admiQaion to the Post-Graduate

SUbjects like aac1ent Indian history &\d cul ture/arehat'lology; h'ietory

Q;f'

art; history; anthropology; :tine arts; botaay; geoiocy; zoolffgy; chemistry,

who have c<mpleted five years of servioe are eligible to apply for

exemption of ome year.

Seatsl

12 stueellts every year.

Nature of traiaiDg

~d

reetoratiom, photography 9 etc.

examination:

Besides, there is compulsory field-work

Each student haa t@ aubmi. t a dissertatioll OB. an app!'Cved sUbject

~ati8factory

dissertation and passing of written and practical examination

alad viy~voce qualifies a caadidate for the award of tbe Post-Graduate

J.!1;weum:

The DepartJlleJlt has established close collaboration with the

do their practical \'tOrk 1. the

Addrees:

Department of

1&.1seum~

!6uaell1og1~

Faculty of F1a@ Arts, :MOl So University

45

20)

Department of B.laeology, Bharat Kala :BhswWl, Banaras Hudu

!l!!~!.Y.l V &ruQs1.,
Admi6aion~

subject..

Maaterls degree in Arts, Science or any other

Preference 1s, bowever, given to candidates having Master's

degrtH!l in AJacient Iltdimt. History and Archaeology or History of Art ..

Nature ot traiaing and examinationa

ill1to two parts,.

The

divided

Part I oomprises four courses: (1) History a:&d

Ph.ilo30phy of Mu8~um.e (11)

Range of' Muaeum ootiv:t ties; (iii) Doc'U1.Il.M.tatiorA

~d preaentatioD, of objects; and (lv) Care ot'

pbctogra.phy.

train1.~ ~B

lUUS8um.

objects and museum

Part II alec comprises four courees~ (1) A SuITey of Iadie.n

Pa.inti~t Deorative Arts 1nol~d1ng Textiles i~ lJlUSeums~ eU) A 8uney

@f Illdi8.\ll archajological msterial l.noludiJag sculptures in the museums;

(11i) IateI'liship, and preparation ot projects in lharat Kala lba.wsn; mld

(1v) Dissertation on em approved subject..

:aharat Kala

:ahavan~

Addr6SS~

3'l'

The course la.ye special stress

0.

practic~l

aspect

DESpartment ot Museology, Bharat Kala Bhav8ft, .Bs.maras

Departme:at of Museum Studies ~ Birla Imsti tute of '1'echJlo18gy and

ScielV; 0..L Alaai.

in other disciplines with appropriate subjects ..

Persons from the professional aress wo have experience in th e fie lds

46

related to the }'):t"O.t'esa1onal

CQ,lraes

TJJB.Y' be given credit for suoh COW:'liH~S

- Mus eum PlaMing and Orgsni~at1()n

- Pt'Of0a~donal Skills &: Techniques I

- Restrictod Elective
Second Semester

- Exhibits and Presentat10a

- Professional Sk111s &; Tecbni.ques II
=

Restricted Elective

Third Semester

- Museum Education and

Ext~sion

Services

- Professional Skills &: Techniques III

- Professional Elective
... Free Elective

_. Theais/Seminar (or) Practice School'i'

provid~el

too-iIi ti 00 for practical training ..

Addressf

Department of Museum Studies!, Biral Institute ot

Technol~gy and SCj.enc$, :Pilau! (Rajasthan) ..

Ce.tre of Advanced Studies in Indolo&,y end ~.uileology, Biral Museum

(aff!!1ated to "the Bhopal t!.aiversitY)t Bhopal~

Adwieaion: M.A~ d~gl'je in Ancient Indian History and Culture and/or

47

practical field training in

will

1 t;;

b~

excawat1~ns,

explorations and muaeum techniques

compulsory ..

Prehiatorio 9 Proto-historic and Hieto:r1cal Archaeol@gy

A viva-voce teat will also be takel1&

Mu8eum~

Address:

5"

The olMses

8a

well sa the practical trainin& are held at

Centre of Advanced Studies in lndology a:a.d Museology,

University r&laeum ot SCience and. Cultureg General.Educat1\l1'1xt Centre,

.!.lif5~_Mua11rn_U:ni!~~it;r, Ali~ax:h:.

SDY one of the following subjects!- Zo@logYf Boten.Y1

(Indian), A..""Cha$ology~ Antbropology

@I"

Chem1et%y~

History

~e Arts"

Natur-e of training and examination:

Un.der the scheme of vocational

together with some theoretical kaQwledge in the

aubject~

The following two papers are compulsoqt

Part I - Museum histor,y end administration;

Part II... Display

tSClmiq\l6S<>

48

Out of the tolloW1:tig four papers

tm.y

tWOt

B.

student will have t. opt tor

pertaining to his special intenst or field of study

Paper III - Taxonoll\V;

Paper IV

- Art and Arch! tecture ;

Paper V

- Chemical preservation;

Paper YI

Preservation of cultural

objects~

Museum: 'me training will be imparted at the U1\iverai ty ~geuw of

SCience and Oul turet Aligam Mu.'31im University, Aligarh.
6..

.Q!8f'tment of_l'4weologJ:,z Calc~tta Uni.v~r8i tl, Cal~utta

The Department of MUeeology, University of Calcutta started its work

aince 1959 aQd since then more than 10 batches ot students obtained their
diplomas from thi2 Departmento
The t1ni"fersi t1' or Calcutta has accepted and :introduced

8Jl1

M.S .. /M.Sc.

:1<.. 6 .. Mast@r's Degree Cours~ with effect from the examination, 1972 . .

A&. duch,

the last batch of students appeared a.t the M'uaeology oxamination, has been

considered as candidates for the Master's Degree course.

At the

S1:WfJ

time,

admission into the Diploma Course in MUseology bas been stopped eince theno
The revised regulations and SyllabUS (given below) tor the Diploma

Course in Museology as published by

alao

cont1nu~

t~e

Oalcutta University, 1972, will

as R@gulatione and syllabua fpr the said

Master~8

Course,

excepting the thesis.

Any bach@lor of arte (BoA.) or Bachelor of Scieno~ (B~se.) or graduate ot

My

PNt~8iona1

be admitted to the

thsu two

y~a.rs

or other courses ot Calcutta or my other recognised Un1versi ty

CO'U.I'3e prcl'r1d~d ~t

he hoo pX'O$ecuted fC4:" not less

a regular course ot study in the aubjects offered by him in

the Diploma Oourseco . Mx:f graduatt of' this or any other Un1versi ty, engaged in

49

actiTG museum service for a continuous period of not 1 ess than three years
in any

recogni~ed

Museum in India or out91de

be @xempted

trom

the$~

regulations and permitted to appear for the oxamination as may he approved

by the Syndicate on the reoollUllendations or proper MUseum author! tieilq

Duration of Course

years

Two

Natul'e of training and examination:

Each candidatepreaenting for

examination shall be required to take up a special SUbject l:md submit a theai3

on a:ny Museum SUbject, done under the

person approved by the

guidanc~

of a teacher Qr such other

Syndicate~

Three general papers on (1) 1IIJaeum Organisation and Administration;

(2)

MusElllm

Education and History

P:reserrati<lln are compulsory.

0'

Muaeums; and (:~) Cw.servation and

Similar1Jr thesis is alao compulsory"

papers the students have choice of choosing one ot tb!l :following

tw~

For optional
groUpSi-

Group A

ArchaeologY' and History

Arts and Crafts

Anthropology

9roURl!
Geology and Geography

Xoology Bot8.Y.lj'
Mus~u.m. ~

The Aeuto3u Mwea of Ind1WR Art is attach\9d to the Department

and provides all tbe 1'oo1lities

Md~2S2

tor practical work..

The Department ot t&1eeology" Centenary Bul1dingt Calcutta

tm.iversi ty, Calcutta.

50

CO-oRDINATXml BETW!SN PRIVATE :rdJSEUMS AND THE MUSroroGICAL

,qg~ES.11:LJ1ml~~ITtES

(Paper suomi tted at the University Grants Colll!l1isaio:o! Iii

Workshop on Training ot M!J$eun1 Personnel in India )

It may bo desirable to set forth our objectives as

A~

Co-operation during

t~

B~

Co-operation for the purpOse of finding placoment84

training programme ..

objectives ot such a participation would be to provide rac11ities of

as p033ible - specialised training in a particular field of

chOic.e.~

all the existing courses all Over the world"

A. The existing courses should incorporate in the

internship of 6 to 10

syllabus~

compulsory

months~

Bo The participating museum should

mak~

arrangemeu.t to provide the

requiet te training to auch interns in pre-determined aral of

museum

wonq

and

Th$ situation as it exists

tod~

prcnride tor compu1Bo17 internship..

programmes..
museUlVS..

is that none of

tm

e:det:1r.lg courses

In the U.. S.. A" where teaching of museum

All that is attempted in our country is a tour to

This can

nev~r

provide

l!W.

in-depth study ot museuws"

6~l:l

a :few

Moreover~

I do not know how far the existing r!1UseoloU courseS a.re drawing upon the
r0~ouroes

of local

muaeums~

Absence of such a provision

depri~es

the

exiBting courses .o! a. certain degree of objectivity..

51

Today there is a controversy amongst 1I1Uaewn professionals on the

neceasi ty and nature of professional training but there is u:nanlM1 ty on

one lsaue and that is of internship"

This is eVident from the reports of

five major centre.e in the U9S,.l1. viz .. ;

1)

Universi ty of Michigan ~eum Practice :P1:'ogN.mme..

2)

George Wal:iliington Un!verai ty' B Master of Art in Teooh:i.ng (M., A. '1'. )

in MU$eum

3)

Education~

Univarsity ot Minneetoa, Department of Art H1ator,y - Muaeology

Degree Programme.,

4)

Toledo Museum of Art~ Educational Fellowship@

5)

The Rocke:feller Foundation Fdbwship in Museum EducAtion at the

Metropolitan Museum and the Institute of Fine Jlrts 9 New York"

'1\he first step towards cooperation batween muaeology courses and

muaeume may be establishing close relationship tor an affective internship

progl'~e~

Having accepted this in pr1nciple the next queotion

cp~rate

this scheme and

w~t

training is

v~uld

be how to

implied~

First of all lat me enumerate the kind. of training that I visualise.

It will inc ]utle&

1) General Museum administration.

11)

ii:i.)
iV)

v)
vi}

vii)
viiI)

Regi~trat1cn

and

Documentation~

Gf:ueral supervision of staff.-

Security - all

aspect$~

Pu.olic relations and publicity.

Reorganisation and/or &Xbibitione.
Publications 0
Educational a.ctivi ties ..

52

Th@ approach of this internship

progr~

..

smuld be "general as I havt

intern ccuues to the Prince of Wales Museum we may entrust him. vrl.tb. the
liating and classifying one particular
d\)ll1g

and

SO

thG

~ollection

.." "tfJ:/l be telttiles"

In

intern will b\t gradually led to underatand the methodology

involve~t

for

obta1~ing

positive reaultsa

But a vi tel question that arises is about payment to the intun"

~lf.!
Ul:!0:

a practical view point - that the heet museum would be maJdng full

of the intern ~ s services 1'the host museum should ps.y the intern at least

to ena.ble him to li,ve decently at the place of work, if it ia away 'from the

her~

too

~uch inter~s

can best be utilised in sm&11er regional museums for

'lthi16 1 t is ec ep ted that

nlt

in tarn should get general tra:i..l1ing, ye t

closely of:fer1ng him an area of his ch()tcee

Conversely, the hoet-museum

53

some of th(9 interw'J may be disillusioned 'by the etate of some ot our
M'us;euffi8<\l

!tilt tmn I am. tempted to Quote

Charl~ Sa'WY~r

of the MicbJ.gtW

He maintains,

Univer81ty~

elm my view musel.1:lD8, large and 5mal.l i rttmain highly individual and

sUbjective institutions

larg~ly

in:flueneed by the partioular

perspecti'ft!.H't at their Directors, Trustees or

something of & shock for graduate students,

this t but

O.O~

bene;fector3~

&8

Is is

interns, to discover

it is part of their learning proCess

1~

bee')m.ing muaeum protessionals'lt"

V~ile

replying the questionnaire I emphasised this point ot internship

for the museology students*

While doWg eo I was conscious of' the f~t

that such a prGposi tion is workable only it our museums are willlr.tg to

participate.

And if mora museuWJil are willing, I do not understand how

the administrative
Th~

other

aap~ct

trained personnel..
a1 tuation

SlS

~et

ot co-operation that I think of is the

It mt.\Y be fUtile exercise to make a. post

it exists"

poseibilities of
accept trained

up 1$ likely to inf'luence such partic1patioJ:l4

If' th e

~ e~feotiv0

p~ple~

CO!l1!llCn.

aim of this

workah~p

plac~ment
~ortem

of

of the

is to c ons1d er

museology training it mB De deeireable

to

The questionnaire circulated earlier included

SCHlie pertinent questions ou this

1fHilUele

Then was

reference to m

earHer d1.rective of the Government of India haued in February 1966 ..

Per:ilon &1 ly, I

t~el

the issue can be aettbd by mutual Mceptaroe thml by

coercio:n.
There 1s Mother Erlde Yl:t' to this problsll!I..

!!'u~t((.fad

of etoppiDg grants,

G-ovt. may consider making grants to those museums \\ho intend to havE'! their

etatf train$d at one of the 6X:!.,ting wee@logy oentres/O

54

Finally I wish to make reference to a pertinent observation..

Hl~tori2U~

it is ;felt, em work without making

pi!:I'son. who makes museum

a$

'&'I..W@U!t\

as his

base~

An Art

but a

hie base has to essentially be a feura-tor II :in aU

lts cannotationa, and not merely

8iQ

art

Hist.rian~

55

COMh(ENTS
Observatio:nlS on the papan of the t'ollow1,ng oolleagues
1~

1.

GQ Ellis Burcaw
Wojclech Gluzinski
Peter J ~.A* Van Mensch
Piat J .. 1it" 1?ouw
]T8nS P~J~ Schout~n
3.. M. Nair
Waldiaa Russia
Zbyn.ek z. Stransky
1186 Jahn

8~

John Hodge

1..

It saelIlS that by md large we all aeree tha.t Museology is

2~

3.
4..

5..
6~

G.

acientii'ic t a:ld

therefore a theoretical and empirical discipline incorporating tacetQ of

all such disciplines that are Qoncomi tta..l'1t to the turtherence ot its aims ..
23>

If so then I beg to differ with the pE;!l"uoxical vi$wpoint oJ: George Ellis

Burcaw that training in J4useology 9 but not museology itself, can have a.
methodology..

Fact 1s that unless we agree that Mu.s601ogy is a scientific

discipline e.."ld hence will have 1 ts own methodology, we C8llUot foresefl a

Muaeolog;Y'~

40

This seems a logioal concluaion

If I con succeed in avoiding verbosity, I

try to explain the

methodology of muaeology as tlThs application of MU3eologicaJ. (and indeed

rouaeogruphics,1;) principles in oond1 tioning the activities of a museum

all their connotationsg trom the point of view of the accepted philosophj
for

th~

foundation of MUseums both as oommunity cantrea and mediae of

inatI"'.:lc tion/educe.tion'~.
5$

\Vhile the opinion exists that tra:ining in museology should adopt i belf

to these aspeatsj but what is! requiNd

tOd~

is the conol'stisat1on of

basic eyllab\W tor such courses and an insistence on 1ta

a.pplicat1on~

56

The diversification ot: basic eyllabu3 md thtl pro11:feration of

courses m8 cause 8$tloua dialooe.tion of the

:1 tsel:f.

6~

~thOdology

of

mus~ology

I feel this aapect needs muoh dlrleper oonsideration, eventually..

I am disinclined to agree wi th

:or~

Burcaw to enter into any hypothetical

discussion which m83 vertically split Museological aims into 'eastern'

"weaternrt and so

Otto

The reasons are faY:' too obvious for MY elaboration.

Afterall s flbaeum is a media to "convey a message" and a Curator' is

wi thin his rights to decide his

f1

a iltl3" - whatever that be"

57

John Hodge, New South Wales - Australia

BASIC PAPER

The publication of MUWOP No.1 was timely for several reasons

but most importan.tly it demonstrated clearly diverse opinions from
within the museum community.

At a time when some museums seem to

be changing not only their relationship to their society but also

their organisational structure, 'without any obvious foundations, it
is vital that the concept of museolo~y be examined and debated.

In

this way we can hopefully arrive at a sound basis for museology in

order to justify a

~museum profession~

as distinct from an aggregation

of disciplinary professions.
Villy Toft Jensen has capably compared and contrasted the
concepts of museology as applied science and as an independent
science, the latter being divided into two categories - a sociological approach and a

'meta~theoretical'

approach.

The article

by James swa~ger demonstrates a point of view about museology and

muselli~S

in general which is widely held by museum staffs, part-

icularly in natural science

~useums

and I suspect in art,

archaeo~

logical, historical-and other museums as well.

Some of the MuWoP No.1 papers, ego those of Hubendick &
Lemieux seem to sidestep the issue entirely while Scala epitomises'
the statement by Lewis that ~Museum thinking today is still

introspective . R

Neustupn~

also emphasised the point that the

development of museology should be more

thinking u

TBuruta is

proposed systems of
ulum.

gui~ty

museolog~

independent of 'Imusewn

of this kind of thinking in his

which reads somewhat like a curric-

However he recognizes the need for the social science approach

and sees museology as an independent science which is intermediate,

or the result of interactionfJetween the scientific disciplines
and the

so~ial

sciences.

stransky puts forward the view that there is a museum theory

which ha~ been developing for iome years.

to which he refers e.g.

Unfortunately the works

Quicch~erg, Schlosser, but

in

particular

58

Mal inQwski (1970) and Ennenbach, are not included in a bibliography

and we have no means of knowing what the source

docum~nts

how he sees their making a contribution to museum theory.

are or
However

he points out that museum theory has not reached a satisfactory

standard 'fronl the metatheoretical(?) viewpoint'.
tends to equate museum theory with museology.

Stransky also

This brings up another

problem which seems to beset our investigations with regard to

ffiuseology.
~useum

Any discussions regarding what is rnuseologYf museography,

theorY3 museum science l

invariably get bogged down in semantics.

This is not uncommon in other disciplines and as an example we may

look at the work of Bloom & Krathwohl - the Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives:

the Cognitive & Affective Domainsq

Bloom and Krathwohl

provided an hierarchical classification of terms such as

'understanding~, ~synthesise

etc.

educationists are conversing with

~knowledge',

Cwith examples) so that when

~ach

other, there "would be no

doubt about what was meant when cettain terms were used.

There is

little point at thi.s stage of trying to agree on the meaning or

definition of such terms as museolegYt museum theory etc. for it is

obvious that the terms mean

differ~nt

It is my suggestion that

auth~~s

things to different people.

use whatever terms they find

i::ct"lyenient or appropriate PROVIDED that they are defined at the

beginning of any journal article ox paper and that the meaning is
~inta~ned

throughout the paper or article.

It is also obvious that

some writings suffer badly in their translation from the original

tongue into languages such as EnglDh.

I particularly find the

writings of our colleagues in the ~cialist countries difficult to

understand.

I would stress most strongly tle sentiments e%pressed by Lewis

t,,,ho says ~

"We should have no furth~r cause to debat.e whether

59

museology is a subject in its own right;

rather we should urgently

lay the theoretical framework on which it and the museum movement

as a whole can develop.
Josef Benes (MuWoP 2, p.ll; tells us that the
rtt.heory & methodics of museums, studies the
development of mnseological thinking and practice,
formulates the objectives, methods and means and
ways of work with material documents in their
entire hierarchy of activities....
The purpose
of this theory is to offer the required theoretical
basis to all activities . . . Its basic principles
have general validity and they form the system of

general museology."
And in the same article (p.12) says that the basic features
of ffiuseology as a science
a theoretically well founded approach to the
objectives, means and forms of museillU activities
in a complex way.~.l1

i5

He speaks as if this theory already exists!

his concept of this theory is.

We need to know what

Judith Spielbauer calls for a

resd>lution of the questions of "why" and

'~hown.

She points out

that the comments by Anna Gregorova which are to some extent

ref lected in the \ri tings of Stransky could give us a new 'lead to

the direction in which our research should be heading.

As a contribution to the foundations of museology as a science,

I would like to see the proposal of stransky for a "Fundamenta

Museologica

tl

given the support necessary t.o see it

published~

This

is conceived as a\ series of volumes each devoted. to the pUblished

work of authors who have contributed to the forma"ti.on of museology.

Each volume is to contain extracts of original text (and its English

translation) with a critical commentary, an estimate of the

~uthor~s

contribution to museology and a bibliography.

Stranskyr s

project has been submitted to ICOFOr-l but no action appears t.o have

been taken.
60

Finally in regard 'to the papers in Nos. 1 & 2 of Museolog-

ieal working Papers let me urge our museologists to take particular note of Spielbauer's {No,,2 pp. 79-80) comments in relation to
System Theory and systems in Systematics_

In addition the comments

by Burcaw (No.2 pp.33-4) relating to the discussion of future

t.opics are shared by many of us who are subject to the problems of
translat.ion.

What we need is someone to outline a theory in finite terms

which we all

understand~

Its philosophy, its statement of pro-

positions used as principles of explanation for phenomena, etc.

needs to be clearly stated with concrete examples so that there is
no misunderstanding of what is meant.

Only then will we be able

to have progressive discussion.

Methodology of muse-ology and training_
1.

Museology is the Science which deals with the propensity of

man to collect natural and man-made objects for various purposes

an.d the relationship of this tendency to societal and cultural
well-being and progression.

Expressed in other terms one 'could

say that. man has an innate tendency to collect

objecbL

~-Jhe\:~her

man'~made

this activity can be utilized for the benefit of

society and if so, how p is the subject of museology.

expOl. nded by some that

circular and tells

and natural

liS

~.

"museology

nothing.

The definition

is ""hi';tt museologists do" is

Museologist cannot be defined until

museology is.
The museum is one manifestation of

museology'~

One could argue

thatlibraries f archives, zoological and botanical gardens are also

manifestations of museology.

perhaps shops which sell "antiques"

are anot.her ~

In view of the rapid technological development which has

resulted in enormous quantities Qf man-made objects and to some
61

extent the destruction-of natural objects, and coupled with the

mass production and the transitory nature of many objects;

the

enormous costs of conservation and preservation and the lack of

space and personnel, it may be that there will have to be devised
new techniques for the museums of the future.

As Burcaw (MuWoP 2,

p.(4) said:

The basis and orientation of collecting and all

activity, lies in behaviour! in ideas p in
sensations, in relationships, in "mentifacts~~ the
objects .. being the fixtures of realitYt .. not
reality itself."
2.

Museological knowledge then is the knowledge of why man collects,

for what'purpose(s} and hoW' can this knowledge and the results of
this knowledge benefit society as a whole, a section of society or
the individual.

Naturally one can subdivide this knowledge into

various categories.
A recent definition of science (Macquarie r 1982) is

a . the

systematic study of man and his environment based on the deductions

and inferences which can be made, and the general laws which can

be fornmlated l

from reproducible observations and measurements of

events and parameters within the

obt.airled"

universe. b. t.he knowledge so

i<

Geoffrey Lewis l tripartite division into General, Special &

Appl.i.ed museology (l\lUWOP 2, p" 74) seems to me to be a logical

hierarchical classification of the subject.

Naturally the totality

of museological knowledge includes philosophy, history; pragmatism

and technique but General museology - the theory on which museum
practice is based - must form the basis of all the rest.

The br.ief

for this paper asks the question t how can one envisage the inter

disciplinary relations between the different fields of museology

ego between conservation f history of the museum movement, museum

education, visitor behaviour, etc" and are they all of equal

importance.
62

As an example let us look at the concept of a museum's

policy.

If the policy of a museum was to collect, preserve,

exhibit and interpret the natural history of a specific area, then

~ts

departments of zoology; Botany, Geology,

ation etc. would have to be directed to that

Education~
museum~s

Conserv-

policy.

It

would be unjustifiable to work on collections of man-made objects

unless they specifically contributed to the knowledge of the
natural history of the prescribed area.

However~one

accepts,that

to ignore the effects of. natural communities outside the defined

area would be foolish (even for an island environment>.

Thus in

the same way all activities of museum work need to be justified in

relation to overall museological .theory.

However it must be

emphasized that that theory has still to be clearly defined and

debated.

One of the objectives of museology and museological research

must be to postulate this theory and to test it.

Museology should

not only justify the existence of museums but determine the nature

of museums and the directions t.hey must ::take in order to improve

and progress in this relationship to their. community (society) both
now and in the future.

Another objective of museology should be

to integrate the various disciplines within museums into a cohesive

whole \-fith a common basis.

The major advantage of courses in

museum studies particularly those which are not

single discipline as an

exten~ion

is the ability to stand

outsi~e

attached , to a

or application of that discipline,

the museum institution (or one

particular museum) and try to take an objective view of museology

itself.

This can only be aCCQmplished if there is a basic theory

on which to base this view.

ltany writers have pointed out that the

museum itself cannot form the subject matter of museology and that
the development of rnuseology has been too introspecti.ve and influenced
by specialist curators.

The

system whereby specialists are appointed

63

to curatorial positions 'on the basis of scholarship in their

discipline and where these specialists progress to directorial and
trustee positions without any training in museology tends to deny
the existence or necessity for museology.

This

then leads one to

believe that internship training within a museum will perpetuate

the exii,ting situatiou

However this does not deny the value (in

rouseological teaching) of gaining practical experience in the museum

situation.

An analogy would be the training of medical practition-

ers who had learnt the theories and facts but who then started
practice without ever having had supervised training on living
patients!
Therefore museological teaching and training must be based on

the. t.heory of museology AND on the practical application of t.hat

theory.

Museological method and research will doubtless make use

of methods already developed in the sciences

(including pure science,

applied science and social science~).

The methods of teaching and

training will be more closely aligned with those of current

educational theory and practice including teaching theory (? a
social science).

One would expect the ulearning by

doing~

philosophy to form an important part of such teaching/training.

Some museum administrators
nece8~ityfor

are currently questioning the

curators as we traditionally understand the term.

One

could argue that in order to play a more meaningful role in society

at

mUSe'iJTH could have the usual cutatorial tasks of accessioning I

:i~ecord

keeping; production of catalogues, etc. done by clerical

staff with minimal t.raining in a particular discipline and that

research could be accomplished on a contract basis or by researchers
in other institutions with a

res~~ting

concentration on display

work and with an administrator in charge.

Without a proper

museological basis for such an ar9ument there cannot be a museum

professioTIo

Perhaps museology as a science is an unattainable ideal

64

and that museums \'1i11 always react somewhat haphazardly to the

vagaxiBs of societal change, their reaction dependant on politics,
ideologies, economics and public whim.

COJ-AMENTS

Z.z. stransky:
If I interpret this paper correctly, Stransky is making
the point that so far, museology has been concerned with
empirical knowledge but that we should be pursuing the
theoretical knowledge that lies behind it.

Also it should

be possible to distinguish a philosophical knowledge on

which the theoretical knowledge is based.
He points out a distinction between training and teachiog
saying that if museology remains on the empirical level
i t results in training and not teaching.

He mentions a

"failure to differentiate between the two approaches

caused a lot of misunderstanding and contradiction
in the past theoretical experiments and educational
practice." (p.4)
I

would like to know what the theoretical experiments are

that he alludes to.

r donDt disagree with the concepts expressed but I feel we

are not getting anywhere.

There are still no theoretical

propositions being put forward.

H.

Gluzinski~

In the preliminary remarks I find that paragraph 2 does

not agree ,yi~h the statements in para. 1.

He states that

museological discourse (current literature) refers to real

museology {RM) while practical museology refers to
modifications based on conclusions of theoretical investigations (PM).

I would say that the literature essentially

reflects practical museum activity.

I found this paper of great interest though I must also

confess that much of it eludes me.

Part of the problem

is one of semantics and the understanding of particular

terms.

What exactly does point 15/5/ mean?

~arbitrary

What does

assignments, arguably teleological in

character' mean?

Does Gluzinski's uM factor" equate

with Stransky1s "MusealityU?

'Semiotics of culture'

appears to be one of the current preoccupations of some

Anthropologists

I confess I do not understand it.

If

we are to have a m.eaningful (or productive> dialogue on

the subject of museological theory it will. be necessary

to define terms clearly and succinctly with unambiguous
examples so that members of our committees

(Museology

and Training) who all have different qualifications:

natural history, anthropology, archaeology, fine and
decQrative arts, history, education, architecture I
understand precisely what is being discussed.

etc'

Quite

often a term as understood in one discipline can have an

entirely different meaning in another discipline.

Perhaps

we need our own jargon but this must be approached with

great caution.
Notwithstanding the previous statements, this paper is
a start in attempting to define the problems we face.

would like to see point 19 expanded by Gluzinski so that

the broad research fields that he mentions are outlined.
rIse Jahn:

This paper conveys the idea that museology is the relationship between collecting, conserving and using museum
collections.
in 2.

1 do not agree with the statements expressed

Are all sciences founded on philosophical and

empirical knowledge?

Why is conservation (3. page 2) the

"ruling principle of selection"?

There can be several

examples showing that deterioration of objects in storage

is not the same as deterioration in an exhibition.
The first example given bears no relation to museum
education

theo~y

as I understand it.

The second example

infers that collection theory is dependant on the requirements of different disciplines.

starting from the wrong premise.

the "system of museologytl

believe that this is

I do not understand

(page 4).

What is it supposed

to contribute?
I do not think Jahn has shown that museology is a science
in its own rigl1l:..

If the aim of museological resea.rch

is to determine the relationships between the generally

accepted museun obligations of collection, conservation

and education, how will this provide a foundation for
research that will provide us with a means for understanding museums ana what directions they should take?

67

~.~.

van Mensch et al:

These authors apparently do not consider the selection
of the parts of the natural and cultural heritage (to be
cared for, researched and communicated) to be a part of
museology (page 2).

Surely this is fundamental?

Is the concept of museology adopted by these authors too

broad in scope?

"There is an independent scientific

discipline interpreting the relation between man and his

environment .. ~(Page 2).
ecology.

This is true but it is called

Are we being asked to believe that ecology is

part of museology?
This paper, however, describes an interesting approach to
the concept of museologyo

I must confess that I do not

understand it completely and the use of such terms as

semantics, syntaxis, pragmatics, semiotics, etc. with
new definitions leads to confusion.

In defence of this

it is poinbed out that general phraseology in museology

is still to be worked out.

At the moment some of our

translations result in a iltower of Babel" situation.

have no idea of what the " e idetical reduction of the

phenomenological methOd" might bel though the concept of

'terminology of peroeption' is something which might

assist in the communioation of museological meaning.

Can

I repeat my request for clear, unambiguous 1 concrete

(as opposed to abstraot} examples.

S.M. Nair.
I

cannot agree with this museum centred approach to

museology.

Museology cannot be a science in its own

right if it must be "applied to an academic discipline

such as Art, Archaeolggy, History " (Page 3).

This

paper states what is the Wstatus quai, the existing

situation.

It does nothing to help us arrive at a

theory of museology.

Perhaps this is due to the authorls

understanding of Museplogy being equivalent to Museum

Studies.

s.

I believe it is time to redefine museology.

Gorakshkar:
Again 't.his concept is one of museum centred museology and
a dependance on particular disciplines.

It outlines the
68

situation in India with some reference to the United

states.
It should be noted that where courses are set
up at Universities or similar Tertiary Institutions
which deal solely with museum studies, there is a
erable similarity in their respective syllabi.

consid~

The wide

disparity in courses in India and in America is due to

several factors.

It would appear that most courses in

the U.S.A. are combined with courses in a particular

discipline as it would seem to be the case in at least

one of ,the Indian programmes.

In Europe, Austral ia,

Canada and some other countries it is felt that the

basic study in the discipline should be completed before

training in museum studies begins.

It would also appear

that the Indian programmes are designed for different

end products.

Surely.there should be some co-operation

between the ICOM National Committee: the various museums

and the Universitie's to sort out the particular problems.
Obviously there are different levels of museological
training required.

Compared with say the medical pro-

fession where doctors require one kind of training

nurses

a different (but related) kind, and pathology, x-ray,

physiotherapists etc. training which is different again.
Not all of these different kinds of training
in a University.

tak~

place

of course a University will insist on

equality of standards as far as its Masters degrees are

concerned.

If the museum studies course it is running is

not of generally accepted Masters status then it should

be called something else or not run by a degree granting
institution.

Ellis Burcaw:
This author and professor of museum studies in the U.S.
would appear to
museology ~

ta~e

BUrCa\ol

a centre position in regards to

calls museology

Ita

theoretical and

even philosophical discipline", and agrees with the reOM

definition.

But I would ask him if definitions may not

need redefinition or that their definition may evolve

over a period of time.

'Museum~

For example reOM's definition of

has undergone many changes over the years and

the definition of museology is not that old.

69

I would also ask him, if he holds that most of the world

uses the term museology in what he calls the traditional
sense .. museum theory . what exactly is that theory and
how can it "facilitate the evolution of the museum for
the better service of society in future"

(Page 7).

Do

the majority of museum people have the same view as Burcaw

does.

It would seem that there are several interpretations

of what rnuseology is when one sees that different museums

in the same country have quite opposing views on such
things as museum education, ethics, acquisition policy,
etc. etc.

I agree that each political system should not

"decree its own museology" but I also believe that we

cannot advance in isolation.

Let someone propose a

theory of museology in the sense of it being a science

and let us all test that theory to the best of our ability.

Even if it does not work we will not have toiled in vain.

Let us have more dialogue and critical evaluation of
respective points of view.

w.

Russia:
I am afraid that I did not have time to translate this
paper as my knowledge of French is rather limited.

70

Use John, Berlin - German 'Democratic Republic

l~

Uuseology is -

in my opinion -

BASIC PAPER

the systematiaed knowledge

of forming, conservation, malting available and use of museum

objects and. collections, and of the :factors which determine the

theo~y

of the

E9..CG9A.?.--.9 formation i prcD2!-yation and utili:..~_ation

(i .. e ..

2 .. 'L'herofore mU5001ogioal knowledgo concern:) the

the relatiofl3 among them either specifically.or

and between these processes and other social

~encrally,

phenornop~

such as science, arts; educational systems etc .. )

and ~he met~odical-teclmolo~~alrules and ope~~tions (inclo
manual and mental skills)

to understand and master the museum working-processes in

particular and

j.n

its correlations <-

The whole of museolosical lcnowledge has scientific character

and is

like all sciences - fOlUlded on philosophioal and

empiTical knowJ.edge.

It

cannot be mero pragmatic l,nowledge ~ because this would

include only individual 0xpeTiences and poants of view 2 mlich

aanriot be generalised.
j':.~~

;';.lOon UD ~ :Crom. working programs methodionl. rules ura

abstraoted) know1edse will have already reaohed a scientific

o'Cuge and cannot be considered pragmatic",
3$

l.:u~eological

scientific knowledge is comprised of all fieldo,

whi.ch lead to an 1ncrense in the cosn1 tion of the caus al

finill laws on the

proco~H;CS

of formlltion, preservation

~d

~nu

utilization of museum objects and collections& It includea:

71

I~

The history of forming, conserving, arranging and using

museum collections ..
II ~ The actual demands and usages of colleoting, preparing
und making available, of preserving and reconstructing
information, oontained in and on museal objeots and
collections, for the purpone of scientific

r~search

or

other cultural. activition such as exhibitions ..

III", lIthe methodical-"tecbnological operations to fulfil the

afore mentioned needs and to master them.

:l'herefore muscology must comprise such elements of physical,

chswical j

bio-chemical, biological and technical icnowledge

which ere relevant to the museum processes 1 together \vi th

relevant Glements of historical, philosophical, educational or

other l:novlledge of social sciences ..

Becnu3c

~nc!yption

information

VIi tll.in

(the uapect of preserving

object~

rund

and on musewn objects) is the ruling principle

of oelection, the aim of museum collection and the limiting

factor of its usage, the knowledge of certain laws of physical,

chemical. and other natural sciences must be equally releva'r1t

as some laws of social sciences. They must be interrelated in

o:rderto find ~ecifi,q...1!l}lseolog:1:oa.l "laws" and to confirm thOe

theoretical

and

methodical bases of the relations among the

processes of forming, preserv1ng and using of museum collectionu,

and to find the rules and programs need

to master these

processos in practical musewn work.

'i.1huH -

:fOl:'

instance - the natural ca.uses (laws of nature)

of destruotion of oertain objeots are the same in

store-ro~m

or i.n an exhibj_tion, therefore the principles and methods

o~

conservation relatinG to powers of nature must be equal,

but the tacrJlology may be different, because the manner 01

72

u~lng

museum objects and the social oauses of destruction

axe different ..
To Give.a

sJ?eci~l

example:

A theory Ol museum

education and o presentation collections

must includs also the aspects of conservation as one of the

oDiei' principle3 of:

mUB6um

work .. Therefore investiga"l;ion of

vtsitor behaviour fJ1ust be connected with the study of

ffobject-behaviour~t

and the condl tions of environment of both,

which presuppose not only psychological knowledge but also

cartain knowledge about laws of naturae This

is the field. of museological

specific "theory of

integrate~

knowledge

knowledge and the basis for the

~_'9:P!.. etl:ucation" ~

This branch of museological knowledge can envisage Uinterdisciplinary~i

research together with branches of sociology or

pedagogy

OI'

of

psychology or even medecina 1 as well as with branches

climntology~

restauration sciences etc",

pr _8:D.g:t!l.e~..cxuml>lel
II

t:r.eol~Y

at' :f'ormo.tion collections must include

SOI.:IS

aspects of

the dif'Lerent disciplines which neod museum collections for rooccl'ch

or education", '.eherafore it is necossary to compare the aims end

damwIns of special programs

(f~i~

\"Ii th info:twG.tions availaba.e in

taxonomic or palaeo-ecologic)

t~aditional

arranged collect101We

If there ere discrepancies between applied old methods end new

scientific demands; perhaps it becomes neoessa.ry to :formulate a .

muueolocicu1 rcneurch problem to develop some new methods end technolo(;ie~')

v/hich possibly must be solved by inte:cdisciplinary renoVo.rcJ

betv/ecn conservators and chemists or ingeneers. But when the problem

is solv ed, one may a.cetract now rules and integrate them in Illusoologicsl working nnd teaching programs.
73

A sketch of the

s~.tem

of

museo~~

and its interdisciplinary

reletiou3 (only examples):

:';cientiJ::tc
disciplines

l!lo rm a t.i.o !1__ of !!1~~~--E21J.~s:tions

,,---/
,t

~.

Principles of collectine, dating,

:iJeleotins,
prepurins, preserv1ng,~~hemistry
rcons.tructing
<-..}Industry

and urtu, ..-;1110h

are workinG with

cOr:1pnrative cnd
historical methods

Climatology
Ph~rsiCCll~ .
c h e 1:1 i c ~.:tJ_ till d
biologlcal
br8.ncheu

Consarvatio~.9~_~seum

collections

-------

~-->

Principles and history of

{---~

'E-->

p~e~erving

methods

Preparation
Hef;tauration
Storing, arraneing

~--)

Prj.nu~J>les

?c::::;carch
for

:::ienOIJination$
Identification,
all3.~5i:rication

Aims of ec.ucation

'f--:> Archi tecture.

f--) Design

t;clc~~~.~Y~~~~~~~.9! colle~t~2~~

d.isciplinc~

f-}300iu1 aims of
educetion,
~-,...).
exhibition

of' invcntorize

IdontifyinG'
Determination

Oa-caloguing .
Exchenr;e of collections.
liistory of co:Ll.cctione

Industry branche:.:;

Science of
~-~ In:f!hrmotien,
~_..;> Dokumen"t ~t i

on ,

( __).AJ:chi tectu:.re

of rooms, cUGte
(--) Histo:ry of
;:; cience WId.

Arts
VariOUD

disciplines, ~--~
also such e.o
ag::ci culture 1 ~---)
foreatry,

<--->

GeolOGY und

{--~)

min1:r:g

~--..,)

I'rincir,le3 of re~o(lrch,publication,-_) PedagoGY,

Exhibition nctivities
~-->Educntional
3~"~ tam J

(forms and methods)

Euseum education.
Public relation

(-->:Psychology J
.f--~A:cchi tecturc,
~-->])esir;nI
'E'"-7~~ociology -

74

4., The objectives of:

cl~rificat1on

~eo1.C!gicul

researcll and museology arc tho

of causal and final relations among the proceuses

u~e

and factors of formoti.on, conservation, arrangement und

of museum collections, by employing logical and dialectical,

historical and experimental, statistical and

tecr~ical

methods.

'1.'11e i'oTir.ulation. of a specific rosea.rch problem determines tho

mcthods emu px'ograms o.lBO 01' museological research.

All kinds of research are necessary, basic research as well

un e.pplied research, and all lmown intermediate types ..

The objectives of'

museolpg~cal teach~.pd

trainin..a are the

instruction of how to understand, study and master these

procosses of formation, oonservation, utilization and una of
mU~:'lCum

objects a..'1d

collections~

TDic should be done oriented

mugeolo~ical

in eeneral and in po..rticulo.x.,

towards immodiate practice und

research .. Therefore teachine proGrams must ul:.:;o

conta.in elements of other dlsciplil1ls such as history ,of

science, art and ecluca:t;ion, preparation and restauration
p8d.ag0l3Y and.

or

psychology, scielw8 of information and menucement)

climatology and architecture etc., that is, relevant knowledge

end 1wthods of these u.1sciplines J that are already well proof od,

and which could be applioable to clarify museum

proce~ses

..

Teoching uct1vities need reproduceable p proofed and

relative f:Lrm knowledge about 'the processes of fOTrJe..tlon,

conservation, utilization and use of museal collections, and

the fee tors which d%ermine them in detail and in total J and
also about the h,istory of them4l If there are unsolved problenw 1

teachin[) ilc;tivitieu nhould utimulate museologicnl research in

particular

ficldo~

75

5 .. 'the .!fleth_o~p.. 9f_~se.o1:0fl.;cal

J:.~seElroh

should correspond to

the npeci:fic research problem and !l.1m", 'rhus methods of histo-

rical research in the study of historical and archival aourcen

are necessa:ty (for instance: history of collections or
to:rs)~

001100-

Besides experimental methods in the study of conser-

vation or behaviou.:-c problems, statistica.l and/or comparative

methods for studying the different conditions and use of

museum collections by dirferent disciplines or utilisers etc_

,TG

needed .. Like othe research problems it would also be

opportune for museological research, that researchers should

be specialized in solving pnly certain groups of museological
problems, such as the presentation of collections, or reuseuo
education, or cataloguing objects, or preserving and restaurating of special sroups of collections etco
Cortain specific problem of museological knowledge would uete:rwinc tho mothods ffiumot;hocJ.ics of" research ..
Ii~U:.H3_0J-9L::j.9.1

trulnirus- und teaching methods must comprise all

the possible methodo spocif'ied by tho dif:fe:rent branches

to be t;".;l.u::.:;ht bu.t in a cenornlized :torm, through principleD,

:.l.n.dependent of the professional specialisliltion

ski.lls etc""

of students in their furtheT career ..

Lut ist

filUSt

be distinGuished between the

~u,sepl.9gice.l

course

of iDGtruot:Lon, which should conta:tn chiefly the branches of

museolo.EY. derived frol:i the obj ect of museology( a.s defir.ed i.n 1) J

on the one

side~

and a student's additional courses on the

other aide . . If' a student haa to vis! t a supplementory course

of

~oc101ogy

or any other inc1ependen"t disoipline, then 01..'

course he will otudy the rolevant methods.

76

c~

Conc~usi9~:

The aim

o~

musaological research as well as

of' teaching mus't be to elucidate the general relationship

among the singuiar

proces~es

of formation, conservation,

utilization and use of museum collections, und its relations

to research Vlork in other disciplines, to educational ~. . ork
c..nu other social phenomena, and ftnnlly to the institution
lt

mus S um " and the museum system of a country"

'1'llis aim will determine the logical structure of teaching

programse They must not contain unrelated transmission of

single isolated

brrolches~

Therefore only onermethodoloEY

01' museological research, and teaching) but var1.ous single

methods, exist9
'J.'he whole of museological knowledge can be didactically

systematised in a various manner. Thus it is possible

to teach primarily the general principles of the above

r.1Ontioned

proce~wes

and relations. And then the spec.!.t'ic

conuitionu und differonces of various groups of c911ections

o~itn

be t aUGht in comparative Illanner., But in E;very case

the question is only one museological lmowledge and ther'ci'orc

gnlLo_ne
G~ytainly

nH3t~_o_~ol~gY_.Qf.. ~use'2..1p--IDL.

a methodology is influenced by philosophical

systenm .. Tbus the ulOthodoloGY of museology Vlill be d.ii':-'e:rcnt

corxesponding to the philooophical view of the authors

77

COMMENTS

The 8 basic papers on the Colloquium subject that I have

received ~ shlY,'1 an instructive overall view of' Museology and are
moat ~:.>urely representative of the Global 8m te of' the dis cllssi on"
t:ore 'chun half' of the authors (Burcuw, Gluzinsky, Nair, Eod~
und Gol'akshar) :f:ollow the I com de i'ini ti on nnd CfH'lSider, ~.tus eoloGY
nn u It:}cience or the Museumu .. They cleo...r.ly have dif:ficulties in
treatin~ the problem from another view point und find it thcrefor~
difficult to answer the proposed questions (see proposed developoent
of the theme from the 20Q2~83) in U de:finitive way~
But many of these authors have applied teaching prograos lor
sevcr~l yeurs; their advantaGes and disadvantages have been ad- .
eq,uately charncterized by Goraknhar, when he writes about the
Il\','ide aispari ty of the sylla.bi H 0.1' tl the marked diversi ty of the
5;)' Ilnbus of' the vari ous departements!l.. This is qui te rie;h t l
But also the nine topics identified by reOM ca.nnot hinder the
individualization of the diferent sections, and may not help
to find a single - or better: a logical~
system .. The problemo resultinG :from these
nnd ore clearly pointed out b-y: Nair t \~hen
i::.> not a subj act dealing wi th un.y one sat

an \'Jell by

9l:!1~insN.

The none io shoun by

construGted - teaching
points of' view nrc obvioun
he writes that nr,'7useolo;:;y
or body of koO\vledge U ,
in his presontu tion of' Ureal museolo~i!..,

.Burca~

who admits navsr to have thOli[}h.t

~b~ut

a theoretical basis of MuneoloeY~ though - I suggest he ho;'/ever has one~ Moreover~ he minunderstands the position of
the socia.list authors, whon he beleives that they pretend to
id anti fY H the ory" wi th U ideolo(,.-yH or upoli ti cal phi los ophS'~t ~

10 all these Wuseology conceptions that originate from the

institution MUGeum~ I cannot find any heuristic value for a
theoretical scientific de:finition of' f,1useoloe;Y a.nd its position
amonc othor disciplines, or even vinualize an international
understanding that could lead to its further development.
I therefore find it unpromisin~ to discuss
these

conceptions extensively and to evaluate individual

aspects~

lIevertheless one must agree wi th l.!gd~, who uclaims for a fini te

terminologyH$ It is therefore necessary to appeal to the Ene;liDh
speaking i~useologists and to the members of both Teom corumi ttees

to support more strongly the efforts of the Hungarian colle8Ges

78

to pu.blish a multilingual terminological diGtionEll..~ of' MuseolobY ..

In general, i ~ is necessary to point out that the existing
HICOM-conceptions H on Museoloe;y and museological teaching consider
the diverse specific pro~essions, in so fnr as they are useful
or e~fective within the institution Museum j only as an acummulation
of independent fields of knowlec1136 or skill, that C oopero.te in
inte~nal museum work~ and that must be managed~ Therefore, a
future MuoooloCist must learn a little 01 each; thus the impression
is awoken that the only unifYing factor is institutional
colleageship.
In reality, special professions ( as zoology~ paleontology,
archaaology~ history or art history, or even designing w modelling~
pBdagogy, taxidermy, restoration etc .. ) e.c~ulre ~ sI2ecific
aspects when they deal with ~useum collections and exhibitions,
i"ef) with objects that must be preserved and cared for .. These
specific relations, the establishment o~ their rules, is the
goal of a museological theory; in my opinion t this is neither
identical with tlr11useology" as a whole ~ nor wi th philosop~ or
u'::eltanschauung" .. It contains to a greater degree j the ~
that allow to clarify and foresee the the relationships (or
connections) between phenomenae and processes, both: social
and pnysica1
A museological theory offers more than only
an empirical basis; it offers a scientiic basis for the ~ndi
vidual practical museum work proC6sse8~ and is therefore also
a basis for all the branches of an uapplied museolcgyH a
9

Among the ubasic papers u I have seeng> especially those of'

F .. van ~~~nschL._~ouw/ ScP..o ute.n (Netherlands)ll Waldisla Russ:i;,o (Bra7,11)
and Z .. S~.6na~" (CSSR) givo furthering stimuli which I feel
should be thoroughly dicussad~ - Also gJq~~ns~~ (Poland) gives
a new startinG point in his Hpoctulated Mus601oe;yH, where he
tries to d;~fin6 an uM !actoru I be*v6 thisHM factor U will be

the same idea. which leads us to constitute the specific musBological

branches,,"

:aut"

it should be more clearly and precisels determined.

than occurs in his ubasia paper". It would be also necessary to

find out whether his conception includes si~tlar concepts as
StranslQ' with his umusealityn or~ in his basic paper~ Hmuseum
phenomenoll (p,,5) .. I fully agree with all the points in Stransky's
paper 1I "especially wi th what he wri tas in points 5 and 6 on
Llethodoloe;y (tltho system of museolcgy must be reflected .... in the
zystem of teachinG process") ~ Whon r wrote in my basic paper tha t
there can exist only ~ ur.lethodoloe,y of r,lnseologyu ~ I had in
79

(!lind lithe .9.0n~~!tt.~ of tes:ching" Ccit. StranslQ); not Hpedagogical

methods U in the teaching process ll , which must be of course
varied in regard of the level of learning proc6ss6S s
I agree that a further discussion most be concentrated on
the Ilderivations of specific methods of' the branches of' museologsl! (c1 t" ~ans!Q2,-

I also agree with almost all the points emitted by Waldisia

;Russia i.n rala tioD to the prine! pIes of a System of Museology ..
However the Table shows some contradictions on the mai;n conoepts,
, f.i ~ the separation of ttTh60rie museoloe;ique tt from the branches
menti oned under HMuseologie. appli quea u .. Besides 1 . I do not under-stand \'!ha t, is m.eant by "la me thode de 1 ~interdisciplinari ten?
I imagine it does ~~ mean that there would no nead fer a system
to derive specific methods for individual branches any more?

I re~ard the most important-contributions to the discussion

to be the basic paper submitted by the nnl~es f~Qm the Net~_~
lan.da.a,. Their exposi tion on Utheoreticar~ and " g eneral museol ogy u

as well as the graphic presentation of the system~ oonstitute

a basis for a scientific fundamentation of Museology, and for
the creation of adequate teachin~ systematics at university level;
the authors do chi.s in consequently systematizing the present

knowlede;e involved in both theoretiical and general museology ..

I find it very importent f and agree fu11l with the state~ent
that the central aspect in a museological conception is

Uthe

preservation of the eultural nad natural heritage U ,. It is not

onl,'y Hthe starting point of all museological aetivi tias H

'1

but

the jotning thread of' all special professions in a Museum ..

Based on u a systematic a.pproach of all the objects" as Hthe
star tine point for the activi ties" 4>,," at the au thaI'S arrived at
acceptable conclusions on the relationship between museum activities
and theLr< classi.ficatioD* I propose the :follvnlng additional points:
1) tiD the Hfenetic. (phaenetic) system (a) and the Ufiletlc (phyletic)
systecr" (b) a third category (c) should be added 'Q.ased on the
~ep~rva~ion apJ?6ct, that would inte~rata the physical-obemical
characteristics of the objects5 2) the Hspeciul museologyu is insufficiently cbaracterized (po3);
it should include the social etc~ context~and above all it
should be a symarn~~y~ discipline!

I do not agree with the use of the term uMuseology in e. wide sense,
aimed at the

comEl~~

cul tural und natural herl tage tt

because there

are multiple overlapping with other established discipliness

80

Peter J A van Mensch & PI.t J M Pouw & Frans F J Schouten,

lsiden - The Netherlands
BASIC P.APER

As Stransky and Jahn have amply demonstrated

(a.o. in MuWop

1 and 2)9 the leOM definition of museology (with the

institution of the museum as the object of study) is hardly
satisfactory. In the Sovjet Union. Tjechoslowakia and the
DDR a new and more usefuT view on museology has developed.

An outstanding example of this approach is the definition

of Schreiner:
"Die Museologie 1st die WissenschaEt vom komplexen Prozess
der Sammlung, Bewahrung, Erschliessung, Erforschung und
Au~stellung

usw. XOlllmunikation Bolcher mobiler authen"t:ischer

Objekte, welchc als

Prim~rquellen

langdauernd die Entwlcklung

von Natur und Gesellschaft belegen und der

Erkenntnisermittlu~g,

Erkenntnis\Fermittlung sowle Erlelmisverml ttlung dienen k5rmen."

eK.

Schreiner~

Einf~hrun8

in die Museologi~Neubrandenbur.1982).

Schreiner explicitly excludes monumental inmovBbles as an

object of study in museologyo

In a speech at the ICOFOM meeting in Paris (October 1982).

Sola advocated a wider approach of museology. We want to
adhere to his opinion and define museology as follows:
"Museology encompasses the whole complex of theory and praxis
involving the caring for and tbe using of che cultur.al and natural

her.itage."

81

In

mo~e

concrete terms t

involved: cars i

there are three functions

research and communication

within the context of the given social and historical

conditions. Central in this conception of museology
1s the preservation of the cultural and natural

heritage. This is the starting point of all

IDuseological activities. The word heritage Is used
in its widest sense:
"Works of

art~

monuments and sites which are of

outstanding universal
of

hjstory~

traditionst

art or

value from the point of view

science~

but also the oral

the musical and ethnographic heritage.

indeed the lawsF customs and ways of life which

express the essence of ethnic or national temperament.

(International

thesauru~

of cultural development.

UNESCO, Paris. 1980).

In both cases (t.i. museology in a narrow sense,
concerned with artifacts and

naturalia~

and 1n_8 wide

sense. aimed at the complete cultural and natural

heritage) there 1s an independant scientific discipline

interpreting the relation between man and his envirorrment

the posJ.tion of man in space and

time~

specifically

the influence of the cultural and natural heritage on

the cultural identity of persons and groups.
Museology in this sense takes a holistic view on

man~

which takes the various approaches from the specific

scientjric fields (anthroplogy, socIal and natural
history ~

It 1 s t () r y of arts

etc. ) into con sid eo rat ion.

A key position in museology is taken in by the object

as the bearer of information. When we speak of an object
we mean a phenomenon with distinct features (artifacts,
naturaliSt monuments, music, dance f

theatre~

film.

literature, crafts and skills, etc.).

82

e~~ral mus!olog~ is concerned with the fundamental

issues of care, research and communication of

these phenomena and the institutional framework
within which this is realised. General museology

also studies the social and historical conditions

and theiv impact on the three main functions we
mentioned earlier.
~}ied

museolasr (museography) concerns itself with

putting the scientific principles into practise f and

is aided in this by a great number of auxiliary

disciplines (see annex).

ipecial

~useology

correlates general museology to the

particular scientific disciplines.

Historical museolosy puts the subject matter into a

historical perspective.
~heor~tical

museology

The philosophical foundation for museology is

formulated by the part of museology we call
theoretical museology.

It is particularly concerned

with the semiotics of the object.

By this

term we

mean to indicate that the object hAS three dimensions

or fields of interpretation,

converging on the

object~

We define these three dimensions with the following

lmguistic terms:
-

semantics (value,

meaning)

- syntaxis (order, interrelatedness)

-

pragmatics (usage, effect on people)

The object always shows these three dimensions which

on the one hand are clearly distjnct

and~on

the

other~

themselves interrelated. These provide the structural

theoretical framework with which the object is

museologic~11y

can not

approached. Of course this approach

be seen apart from the specific scientific

dlscipJjnes concerned with tIle various objects. neither

con i t be seen apart from the social context, though

It may be distinguished from it. In our opinion, a

fundamental distinction cnn be made between

83

theoretical museological frame of thought and the contribution of the various scientific disciplines. We
find i t very important that museology creates

frame-

work in which the contribution of other disciplines

is tested for museological relevance and museological
object clarification. The question which arises is:
does theoretical museology have its own

methodology~

apart from the individual methodologies of the specific

sclenti~

fields and auxiliary sciences (in as fsr as

they Can indeed avail of their own methodQlogy)?

In answering this question. first of all we have to
obs~rve

that it is noL

the use of

separate methodology

which brings a certain field of interest into the realm

of science, but that it is realised by disposing of a
particular field of investigation and a fitting terminology, leading to a systematical knowledge of a
certain aspect of reality. In that sense, museology
is

science~

A proper methodology docs not automatically spring

from the object of knowledge of museology.

In relation

to theoretical museology,we note that there is a

general methodology of theoretical and scientific

ref~ection.

In the case of museology,

the phenomeno-

logical method could provide a useful methodological

frame of thought, necessary for an adequate interpretation of the essence of the cultural and natural
heritage.

Every object holds a large amount of information.

These bits of information are not all equally important
for the interpretation, but it is not possible to make
out in advance which bit of information is relevant
and which is noto This depends on which answers are

required. First of all. we must strive for an unprejudiced reading and unrterstnnding of information.

84

In doing

SO~

it is necessary to apply the eidetical

reduction of the phenomenological method (Husserl).

In scientific

contem~lation

we must aspire to objec-

tivity and discern and describe the object uncoloured

by theoretical and traditional filters. It must be

recogniscd~ however 9 that an observation and a description can never be free of theory or ideology (Popper).
Every observation requires a verbal representation
out of which this object and its communication become
possible.

Ideas and notions bring Drder in a chaos of

impressions~

but at the same time they ensnare the

observer. Hence the importance of the evolution of

a

tthingt-language

cons~tlng

of a terminology of

perception with an authentic, verifyable signification,

purged as much as possible of the individual subjective
judgement.
The general phrasology in museology 1s still to be
developed. Comprehensively speaking, the following
categories of information are involved:
(a) object information, that is the information which
can be read directly from the object e
(b)

documentation~

(c) context information as a source of indirect

Information.

Elaborating on material objects l object information

concern$~

(1) the

composition~

(2) the

construction~

the

material~

the technique 9

(3) the morphologYt subdivided into

- spatial shape
surface structure

- colour
-

colour patterns

(if present) text.

images

85

This inventory of object information is what we call

the syntaxis. On the basis of the information, we are
able to evolve classification systems, which we can
subdivide into:
(a) fenetic systems; based on the comparison of object
information, apart from chronology and geography,
(b) fyletic systems, based on relationships,

generally with a chronological dimension.

Classification systems such as these can not be designed
without bearing a relation to the specific scientific
area i.nvolved. However, the systematical and unprejudiced
study of the objects, which has been (or is still to be)
developed in museology, may lead to new insight.
In behalf of the interpretation, a first analysis of
the information is nece~sary. In an analogy with iconography, the following set of meanings can be distinguished:
(1) primary meaning
(a) functional meaning
(b) expressive meaning (emotional value)
(2) secondary meaning

Ca) symbolical meaning

(b) metaphysical meaning
This is the semantic dimension of the object.
The third dimension in semiotics is the pragmatic one.
This lead us to review the relations between the object
and its user or its observer; and consequently the
interpretation of the objects as a bear~r of information.
Firstly, this concerns the reconstruction of the life

history of an object. The reconstruction takes place on the

basis of a scientific model in which it is indicated
how f in the course of historyv information has been

added or has been lost.

86

SUIrnnari~j.ng,

the following factors are of importance:

(1) the genesis, the process in which idea and raw

material are being forged into a form (in its
widest sense)
{2} the usage, in which we recognize:
(a)

first use (generally according to the intentions

of the maker)
(b) re-use
(3)

the

~tooth

and

(largely unidentical with the first use)

of timet. in which we recognize:

(a) endogenic factors

(b) 0xogenic factors

(4) the conservation, restoration

The influence of the above. mentioned factors can be at
least partly experimentally investigated ('experimental
museology~) .
The objects and the documentation provide us with an
insight into the context(s)

in which the objects

have functioned and have had their meaning. We-can

describe the life history of the object as the passing
through of a series of contexts. Each context can be
regarded as a system in which each object can be both

functionally and spatially placed. Here, system theory

can be of use. A useful phrasology is proposed by a.o.
M.B. Schiffer in

his Behavioral

archelogy~

(New York n 1976). In this conception, human behavior 1s

regarded as the de terming variable.

Taking the object as the point of departure, it is also
possible to adopt the phrasology of ecology. For instance,
we may make a distinction between:
(a) a synecological approach (from the context) and
(b} an auto-ecological approach (from the object)

87

Through the proposed analysis and interpretation it is

possible to gain more insight into human societies in

the past and in the present, here and elsewhere. It

should be noted that a collection of objects can
itself be regarded as an object~ Therefore this also
applies -mutatis mutandis- to collections and the
institutionalised form they have obtained (like museums).

In this connection

we tend to resort to a sociological

8.pproach~

These reflections on the object as the bearer of information and the discoverYf analysis, categorizing and

interpretation of information are all part of the

domain of theoret.ical museology. We considered a rather
comprehensive discussion important because a systematic
approach of the objects, is the starting point for the

activities in the field of general museology. namely care,

research and communication of the cultural and natural
heritage
mus~~

.Ge!H?!'a.1

Objects or collections of objects can be treated in

two W<:1Ys:

(a)

8S

an object of

stlentific research (as described

above)~

(b) as a medium for the communication of knowledge.

These usages have different consequences for the

management of objects. In each case

agBin~

we have to

decide which information must absolutely be preserved

and which information can be given

up~

out of necessity.

in the proce8s of preserving. Both usages gometimes

make contradictory demands on management. In regard to

the objects as

whole, but also in regard to certain

categories of object information, we have a choice

between:

(1) actual preservation (material preservation in a

broad sense) and

(2) functional preservation.

88

thBt~

Besides

there is a choice betveen:

(a) in situ preservation and

(b) ex situ preservation~
The choices one makes partly follow from the foregoi~g,
but are also fuspired by the demands and desires of the
society in which the objects function at that moment.

An impor.tant field of attention in museology is the

communication of and through objects. The presentation

of aD object in the communication process may be done
(1)

by

a closed concept q in which one interpretation

is more or less compulsory by placing the objects

in a singlE scope. On the one hand the paradigms of

the specific scientific discipline involved may be

used;> on the ot.hex hana. we may use those of nluseology

(as a reflection of society).
(2) by an open concept, in which we are not forced
into any interpretation and the observer may
come to an understanding of the object~ and the
information it bears, in an open confrontatione
The ways of presentation can be classified as;
(a) cognitIve. communicating knowledge
ib)

affective, communicating emotional and esthetic values.

These two approaches are in fact complementaryp but

they are uften seen as contradicting (for instance

when art. 1.5. involvcu )

There 1a some tension between

the conviction that an object is .s historical document end the conviLtion that an object of art has an
autoDom us esthetical valuer apart from whichever
conte~t.

These views on(certain) objects have

far-reaching consequences for both care and

preiten ta tion.,

In accordan~e with the various ways of presentation

as dacribed above, we can avail of s great number of

techniques. The arranging of presentations and exhibitions belongs to the dumain of applied museology,

89

just as
doeB~

preservation~

restoration g

registration, etc.

These activities are mostly of a

practicel nature

and find practical support (but also a theoretical

perspect1ve) with a wIde spectrum of auxiliary disciplines. The applicBtion of techniques derived from these
auxiliary disciplines must however always take place
within a museological framework. Museology therefore
covers the whole area from philosophical knowledge to
manual skills. Any degree of practical handling of the
objects has to be related to the (theoretical) view of
the meaning of the object as a source of knowledge.
Each decision regarding for instance, registration
and conservation has consequences for the preservation
and the uncovering of certain information held by the
object. Every such decision is historically determined
Bnd the source value of. an object has been influenced
to a considerable e~tent by decisions taken in the
f

past.
Traj~in~

and methodoloar
The professional training of the museologist(within
the framework of the definition of rnuseology we mentioned

earlier) must at all times take place in the framework

provided by general and theoretical museo!ogy and the

methodology developed in those fields.

A well-trained

museologlst has familiarIsed himself both with

th~

institutionalised form in which care, research

and communication takes placet and with the relation

between these functions and the social pn~

context. Historical ffiuseology too, must be

~conom1c81

part of

every museological tra1ning f to show the development

of the cultural institutions in charge of the care,
research and communication of the cultural and

natural heritage In relation to social development.

90

We distinguish three kinds of

professional training of museologists.All three of
these

wo~k

from a common general and theoretical

museological framework:
(a) the training of scientists who are concerned with
one of the specific
the~efore

special

scientific

fields and who

link up with general museology through

museology~

(b) the training of museologi&tsin the field of general

and theoretical museology,

(c) the training of museologists in the field of

applied museology.
Allthough the general framework is common t

ther~

are

differences in the main points. From these different

centres of gravity,

the concrete realisation of the

various museological sub-&sclplines and auxiliary

sciences are seen in different perspectives.
In this discourse we have relied on a broad definition

of museology. As a consequence, museological training

should be founded on a broad basise In practie_
however, there is a division in training possibilities:
museum training, archive and libary training, etc. In
view of the aim of this discussion paper, we will now
concentrate on museum training.
Thetr,~in:Ln.g

of museologists mentioned by (a) usually

takes place at universities. The museological knowledge

is primarily aimed at the function of care
(particul~rly

the administrative management), the

function of research

and derived from

that~

the

function of collecting. The communicative function and

the technical component of the care,

as well as the operational functions will mostly be
carried out by others. In any case. the
museologist will hsve to be confronted
functions durin~ his training.

with these

to be abl~ to function

91

well later on in his special capacity in the museum.

For example, he must elso he able to apply the general

principles of the

recognition~

analysis and interpretation

of the object as the bearer of information to the

preservation and communication.
The training of museologists in the field of general

and theoretical museology (0) has a broader foundation

then those in the field of applied museology (e).
The latter are the museolog1cal special1sts i

the

former are the generalists. Both kinds of museologists

have the theoretical and general museology as their

frame of

reference~

The integration of theory and

practise is of centr.al

i~portance

and relatively little attention is

in this traintng

given to the

specific scientific areas which are part of special

museology~

Characteristic of the generalist 1s his all-round

knowledge and his skill in applying this knowledge to
the

ope~ation81

managing and communicative functions.

The training may take place on an academic level or

on the level of higher vocational training and is

concerned with general managing functions in the
cultural sector and similar functions in museums.

In the field of applied museology, specialists are

being trained in one of the main functions in
particular~

Specialization comes through one or more

auxiliary sciences, which can even be studied outside

the institution. Possible functions for $pecialists

are f.i.: educational executlve

public relations

officer, organisational expert, officer

preservation and

chemistry~

i~

charge of

designer of exhibitions,

etc~

92

SimilarlYj there is professional training for

archives and

librariea~

and also in regard to the

sciences of music o theatre, film and so on~ there

are training programs which offer the opportunity
to specialize into a museological directiono

The interprtation of these trainings on the basis

of a museological theory and methodology seems to
U3

to be a meaningful

end~avour.

the strict

distinctia~

librar1es 9

theatres~

between

especially since

museums~

archives,

etc. are fading and everywhere

in the world we see the rise of cultural centres

and Jcentres polyvalentes'o In the footsteps of

museology itself! museological training must
react alertly to this developmento

93

i'"
a

.
to

,....t.o ....

~_

....'"
t:<#

lno".90'.

~---

01

.. "

01 ....
;:l

t:!

!I.'-

i1
I

I
1

_J
. !

I
J
t
I
!

,I

i1

~_~"_"'~l~

I
1

....

..

II'>

..."

..'"

94

COMMENTS

Mo~t IHl.tho.f'~ plead t'm' the oevOl.opmcnt of ei mothodology of

museology and for the applicatil,r\ 01.' this methodology in
museological training. However no concrete suggestion is
made wh~t this methodology should be like.
Much attention instead is paid to the concrete of mua801ogy
as a science. In the conference papers the discussion in
i',{uWop 1&.2 is wore or 1 ass repeated. Burcaw, Nair a.nd Hodge
tLd"ocatc a pragmitt it: .<lpprol;ich, others are moro theoretically
orientated.
We pJcRdcd for a fundamental theoreticRl approach in which
tbe object as basrer 01 information plays a centrul role.

Two I'loti.ol1s are

~mpQ:rtl;)int;

1) the term ohject is used in a broad

2) museolo,vy :;houlc! not be
(as dofined by lCOM).

ccnt~red

sens~,

on the

in~titution

museum

Perhaps our concept oX MtHHwJ ogy should not DO called museology

as Burcaw statQd. During the ICOFOM-meeting in Paris Sol~ proposed <'haritology", while in hi;.:! paper. for the London conference
l)urcaw suggel:te-d "il1at~l'iul :>cicl1ce".
Anyway, we think the concept of musBo!ogy as the science of
museums 1s a "uead end ~treet". New institutional forms are
developed (cultural centre, science centre, visitor centre, ecomuseum). Museo]ogy should also ombrace these new developments
as well a5 future ones,
We a~re~ with Schreiner, cit~d by Russio, that like pcdagoKY
is not the science of schoolS, museology should not be the
science of museums, We ~gree with Hodge th~t libraries,
srchives, zoologic.s,l and botanical gardens are 111so "ma.ul.fc$-

tattons of museology".
Jahn, Stransky and Gluzioski concontrate on objects, like we do~
But their museology only deals with objects in a museum context.
We would like to bro~den the concept of object as SUbject matter
ot museology. since in our opinion there is no essenti31 museological difference between ~rtefacts, monuments, documents, landscapes, even musical pleces, wovieM. dances, and 80 on.
The l1lus801ogic:1 d 1 ff~roncer! 9.re only in degre~.
As stated in DUF paper (and above) the object as beRrer of informntion plays Q central role in our concept of ~useology.

The process ot collecting (Jlodge)ls tua small a base for developing

a llliuscological theory, Care, research and communicatiol1 are the
central itews D~ museological consideration Bnd are the baue of
a..ny collect lrlg ::i\.cU vi ty,
l~ our paper ye have tried to give a rough outline of a muaeological
m~tbodology, containing Q systematic approach to objects (and collections), a system ot methods of describing. analysing and interpreting as a basis tor conservation, rosearcb and education.

Our starting point is a phcnoIDBnological approach, supplemented by

a structural concept of the function of the object in various con-

texts.

95

A~l

authora agree tb*t professional museological training and

teaching can only start with a theory of wuseology and the

practical application ot this theory. The interdisciplinary
chaI"mcter of l!mseology is emphasized by all oj[ them.
In many museological courses a theoretical museological framework is missing; if museology remains on a empirical level, it
resul ts in preferring rather the tl'l:lining hn'el to the teacbing
one (Stransky). Every museological teaching and training programme aho\.:td be bused on ~ gC'nerul and theoretical museology.
which uaderlie~ a methodology of museology.
In o~r paper one can find a d~u1t of such a methodology, which
8hould be further developed. The broad view on museology is
thoreby our starting. point.

A pragmat1c~1 appro~ch of museum training can be found in the

papers at Nair, Gorashknr, Dureaw und Russia. Tho Indian authors
make a digt1nctiu~ between the curatorial training and the ~ld
profesa1onal trai.n1ng. compal'~hlo with our ll'lcHlels c.) and c).
Attention should be paid to Gors8hkar's plead by "the professional
community to accept. tho need of pre-entry training". Jahn and
Russio do not differentiate in training levels; we a~ree with
Russio's comments on the education, which should be given by
"un ca.dre de professeurs mUlt.irrl"ofesaiouel et interdisc!plinall'o
oriente vel'S et par Is muscalogie" in a democratic sphere.
In museological tr~ining pedagogical theory and mothods are important (Burcaw, Hodge), as well a~ the methods specified by
the different branches (Jahn). In our opinion a specific methodology ot museology should be developed.
Practical training should take place in museums and related
CUltural inslitutiona. A close cooperation between training institutions and one or more museums or cultural institutions is
necessary, like medical faculties are directly joined to teaching
hospitals. It is also the task of the training institution to
transfer the theoretical and methodological principles of museology to the personnel of the related museum. In this way t.here
cannot arise a difference between theory and pr~u~ticc for th.e
student in the practical training 8ituation.

96

Kwasi Myles, Accra .- Ghana

BASIC PAPER

The object of Nuseology is to study the 'Various techniques

and practices involved in presenting one museum subject in such a
way as to make it meani~ul to ita audience~

an

inter-disciplina~y nature.

Thia has to be of

with the emphasis on the main sUbject

which should preferably have formed tho major 8tudy of the student
bofore undertaking muscologicBl studies$
2"

~"IjrNl'.......13 7"?!iE
"""1''''
.........

One

i'iiATUHE
KNOHLf,DGE1'
_ _ OF ~lU.:.lEOLOGICAL
__
",' ........
..
~ _ _ _ _

~~3ume6

t~e

that

_
~

trninoe hUB ulready atudied his

This muyv tor example. be art. zoology or archneolo~y;

epecinl SUbject"

and that his museological study should include basic theoretical and
practical

knowledga~

as well as technical expertiBe and manual skil13

and any other relevant skills that he can

3~

acquire~

EU:iC0LOGIGJ\L Ki:!O'tlLEDOE 1;3 GOHPilISED OF WIAT _=

DIFFERE;~T
Fli:LOS?
_
..
l

~useologicnl

,;-

.. . -

l'

other related subjects 5uch.os

develC"lpment~

a way as to

...

knowledga 18 understood to comprise one 1 a

main subject already studied to a

and museum

'QJ

enabl~

hi~h

level. and then the study of

conBervation~

the theory of

l:lUS6Um

the history of museums

education etc., in such

one to practise ona's oubject

a~

an effective

curator.
4..

'J!iA'I' ARE T.lE OBJZC1'IV.c::S 01" HU3i::OLO':;lCAL KHO'v/LEOOE1

_
~

.......

_ " ' ...

"'

'l

;, ... _

II . . .

Though it is accepted that tnere should be a distinction

between the objectives of museology and museologicD.l research, and
that of museolDsical teaching Bad training9 it is envisaged that
care will ba taken not to treat theMe at too theoretical a

levsl~

nor prs3s the distinctions to the point of losing their pnBctical

V'alu e ..

Tho difference between methods of mU!leology And musealogical

resea~ch 10 that the forme~ appe~rs to be 0 general exercise, whil~t
the lntter is moro specialised and m&y be more theoretical~
3imilarly~

mU3eologlcal teaching scemS' to be more of an abstract

endeavour than training which will include practical exercisco

6.. ~:::.r;lC:)uLOG'l
~~_'tl~~

The above discu55ion lands one to suggest perhaps two main

methode of muueology; Ona th~t may be purely en academic exeroise,
and the other which ld:tll~ in addition to the study or theoretico.l
principleu, include prnctical elementa~ To my mind, the latter i5
relevant to profo~Bionul training in mU5801ogy~

97

SM Nair, New Delhi:- india

THB.SCOPE

BASIC PAPER

OF.MUSEQL~

can be defined as the Dclence or the

body of knowledge that deale with all aspects of museum
wcrk@ This simple deflnitlon~ however, does not nece8 aarily indicate the complex nature of the ttOrk 1nvolved
~Mu8eology'

in the organization and administration of museums of

different

typea~

To gain a broader perspective of the

scope of this Bubject we may examine the different areas

of muaeolog1cal knowledge that 1s required for the
effective functioning "-.r a museum.. The basic fundm.mentals
of museum work involve managerial skills in dealing with
collections and exhibi-te, docame!1tatiorJ. p displa.y of'
exh:1bits~ educational programming\l' r'eaaarch~ use of audiovisual aids and other ~ommunication devlces p pu.bllcity~
publications, library services, c~re and conservation of
objects g ma.intenance, securl ty and administration. ' All
these call for various kinds of specialised knowledge
and technical exp6rtiBe~

Except for the basic philosophy and purpose of

Museums the areas of Muesological knowledge and ita

application widely vary for different types of

muaeums~

To illustrate this point let us compare an art museum

with aNa. tural History MUBeum 1n terms of the exhibi te

they

US&.

In an art museum the exhibits eomprise of

works of ar.t which are not created by the museum staff ..

In a Natural History Museum, however, wost of the exhibits'

are to be prepared by the mUSatlm9 The prepar~tion

98

processes require expertise in such diverse areas as

modellingf taxidermy, diorama

making~

preservation etc o

Each of these areas ar~ again specializations in their

own rlght_
Take for example, mode11ing as a'process

for exhibit. development in Natural History Museumso

Thia involves the use of many media such as wax, plas-

ter of p&ris t latex,

synthetic

rubbera~

paper mache 9

polyester resins and fibre glass Q8 well as many tech-

niques such as vacuum forming process f:or casting

leaves~

preparation of miniature or enlarged

fore-ground work in dioramas and' so on@

models~

Other proce-

sses of exhibit development alao involve different

methods and technique8~ Similarly if one considers
various types of museume such as those dealing with
Archaeology~

History, Science and Technology, Anthropology, Planetaria, Personalia museums p Childrene

Museums etc. one can easily see the diverse nature of
museum work involved in each caae~

So much tor the diversity of the nature of

museum work~ Now let ua look at the categories of
professionals employed :tn museums.. These include
Directors, Curators p Administrative staff, Documentation staff, P~e8ervation ata~tf Bducation 8taf~~

Technical personnel such ae artists, modellers, tax1dermiate, field collectorB~ deaignars 9 audio-visual
experts, librarians, security per6onnel~ etc. all of
vhom deal with different are2S of specialization ..

This is the complex picture of museum work

yhich we are trying to comprehend within the term
tMu6so1ogyt" Obviously,. therefore, Muaeology is not
a subject dealing with anyone set or body of knowledge

99

that can be

brough~w1thin

the frame work of a single

academic discipline such as Physics, Chemistry or

B101ogy~
There ia yet another dimension to the field
ot

Muaeo1ogy~ narnely~

of this

aubject~

the inter-disciplinary nature

The areas of museum work that one

. attempts to cover under the term Muaeology is dependant on many difrerent areas of apeclal1zation~
MUB0UM

field

organization must draw upon knowledge from the

o~

architecture, visual and creative arts, design

and graphics; Museum education shouJ.d draw upon human

psychology, educational technologYt extension education;
Preservation and Conservation of objects should draw
upon chemistrYf phyaice,- b101ogy~ toxlcology~ climatology; Administra'tion should draw upon personnel management, accountancy~ career management etc. just. to
mention a fev examples.

Added to the above complexity, Muaeology cannot

stand in isolation without being applied to a definite
academic discipline such as Art, Archa601ogy, History,
Natural or pure Sciences, Technology etc~ because the
~pplication of Museology in a museum baa to be in'relation to any of these subjects that are covered by the
collectiona~ exhibits and scope of the MU6eum~
A
Mus601ogiat ~ho doeenot have a basic background in any

one or more of the disciplines covered by the museum

therefore does not have a ~~CU8 ~~~nd1 in the profeasion~
This 18 true for all categories of museum staff. A
curator must hava basic academic qualifications in hie

field of curatorship; a modoller must have basic

training in modelling or sculpture or a relevant field
of applied art~ a conservator must have a background in
properties of mater1als~ chemistry or biologyo

100

Where then do we place Muaeology a8 an independant

discipline?

The answer ia that Muaeology ia not a pure

academic d18cipline~ but consists of a body of knowledge

applicable to chosen areas of museum work~ The question

whether Muaeological knowledge should include philosophical

knowledge pragmatic knowledge, technical expertise, manual
skills or any other specialised knowledge in one or more of
j

the multifarious funqtiona of a museum has no simple answer.

At beat it can be said that it should include a bit of all
at a basic level plus a comprehensive knowledge of a
particular field of oneta specific area of work& We may
take this approach as the stand point from where we will
examine all other questions related to the methodology of

Museology and 'the training of museum personnel.

lWSEUM TRAINING

Museum training programmes are ot re1atively recent

origin. In the past, the only kind of ttrainlng~ available

to those entering the

waa

the job training'

achieved through guidance received from seniors or through
actual experienc6c The development of 'Museum studiesprogramme or 'Muaeology courseso today offers an opportunity for formal training in Muaeology. Moat of the
pro~eaaion

~on

existing programmes, allover the vorld~ offer training in

general Muaeology, barring a few exceptions. These can be

considered as curatorial training (Curator, meaning here

as a managerial cadre dealing with general administrative,
organizational &; educational functions of a museum). This
category ot training has ita value, particularly tor pre-

paring personnel for general curatorial functions in

museumse

These courSes are not intended to proviae

101

indepth training to qualify the trainees for specific areas

of speci~11zationB in museums such as conservation, exhibit
preparation f education or diaplay~ This aspect requires to
be examined further and will be dealt with later&

Let us now deal with the general curatorial training.

While no one can deny the fact that proper training

1s essential for this category of museum personnel, it

becomes necessary to examine the type of training that

should be possessed by an individual who aspires to get
into the profession.

To make an analysis of this we will

have to pose a number of questions and seek their anawerae

Who should be trained? Who should train? What should be
the content ot training? What should be the duration of
training? What must be the facilities available in a
training department?

What should the training lead to?

What are the employment opportunities?

I shall try to enumerate Bcme of theBe questions
with a view to prOViding a broad basic outline ~or a
successful discussion on the problema related to 'the
training or museum personnel that we are deliberating at
thi~ Colloquium ..
(1) ~Q. ~J!2!:\1g be ~n:a1.!1~?

Museums have often tailed to attract the beat

and the moat promising academic graduates on their ataff&
Colleg~

and University

teaching~ re8earch~

tries, government departments

etc~

jobs in indus-

ofter formidable

competition to the museum in practical considerations

such as salaries and opportunities for advancement.

As,

against this baokground, we have to cone1dar the question

102

of attracting qualified young people to undergo ~raining

in Muae.ology.. Most responsible museum. jobs reqUire at
least a Master's degree in a specific 8ubject~ This
means that a person ow'ho undergoes training in Muaeology
after obtaintng a Master's degree in his field of study
stands a better chance for getting a suitable placement~
The question here ia~ how many of the bright young men
and women vith a good Maater~B degree would like to
spend nnother 2 yeara or eo to undergo a training in

Muaeology to enter into an apparently unattra.ctive

professi.on.. Incentives such as fellowships or scholarships or immediate job guarantees, unfortunately, are
scarce in the fie1d.

Many bright students atter comp-

letion ot their Maeter~B degrees show a natural preference either to get into a teaohing profession or enter
into the field of research to obtain a Do~torate degree&
Museums need curatorial staff with adequate knowledge of
anyone academic discipline, for which a Master's degree
is often considered essential. This therefore is a
problem with which we have to live, which often accounts

for the fact that those who turn to museum studies are
not always the first grade~ but those who take it on
second or third preference e The problem of attracting
bright young men and woman into the museum profession
can only be solved by offering enough incentives and
opportunities for bright careers in the museum field8
(11) !Lh.L~Jl5U!lU.ra1n'l

Th1a is an equally important aspect which cannot

be ignored by the agencies offering training programmea.
The teaching personnel of the muaeology courses should

be well trained and experienced;

~xpar1ence

of museum

103

work will no doubt be a great asset for the trainer but

in the case of those who have had no actual museum

experience i t should be possible for them to get

acq~a1n

ted with museum problema through 1ntern6hlps~ study

visits to museums and through the k1ndof awareness that
could be obtained by a creative constructive analysis

and study of museum management.

An analysis of the curriculum contents of the

existing courses provides a wide range of diversity. No
doubt, emphasis ot training could vary depending upon

whether the training is for museums of Art, History,

Naturai Science or Science and Technology. But the
baSic aspects of training dealing with museum organisation and administration which include collection and
preparation of specimens and exhibits, presentation and
and educational activities are fundamental
issues for any training programmeQ It is possible to
devise a more or ~eBs uniform curriculum content in
these aspects 0'% museo.logy which should form the basic
diBplay~

requirement of the syllabus for all such training

programme8~

Curatorial etaf! in museums have to shoulder

administrative and organizational responsibilities,
exercise supervision over technical personnel, evolve
and evaluate presGntat10n strategies and contribute to
the educational out-putB including research~ They
would thuG require general training in all areas of
museum work and specialization in those aspects that
are reqUired for a partioular kind of museum.

104

Many of the activities liko exhibit fabrication,

de8igning~ conservation etco may not actually be done by
the Curator while he works in a museum but knowledge on
all these aspects will be necessary for him to understand,
appreciate and evaluate or guide the technical personnel
actually involved in these areas of work. The training in
all theae areas should not merely be theoretic~lt but based
on actual practical experience. This should be supplemen-

ted by a suitable period of Intern8h1p~ preferably, in a

museum that has an adequate technical infra-structure.

(iv) What ar~ the basic

.:Qfl@rtmenP;

requ1rem~A~s

of a MyeeQlogy

The whole question of training and the effectivenesa of it will be governed by the tools that are used for
imparting the training.. A. Department of Museology with
no facilities for providing actual museum situations

ca.nnot be expected to provide successful training. I t is

very essential to have ~he courBe run in collaboration
with a museum 1~ it is outside of a muSeum BO that a
practical reality could be brought in. Apart from this,
a department ahouid have other basic facilities such as a
Laboratory~

Workshop, Photography Studio, display areae~

a teaching collection, a well equipped library and provision for arranging for apprenticeships in collaboration

with other museums where the trainees could be sent

depending upon their areae of specialisation. The basic
infrastructure in terms o~ facilities and teaching
personnel 18 therefore an-important requirement for any

training programme,
(v) what cshoul.9," :tpe training l~a..d to~

Museum training is basically a professional or

vocational training.

It 18 not necessary that the

training should lead to glamouroUB

degreee~

It is

105

immaterial whether you otfer a certificate, a -diploma, a

MaaterUs Degree or a Doctorate 90 tar as the content of
training 1s given adequate attention to. The tendency
of some ot the Museum Studies departments to offer high
degrees or Doctorates in Museology provides an unrealiatic situation capable of mis-leading the trainees
who are normally bound to expect returns in terms of the
degrees they possess which would only lead them to frustration~
Museology ia not a 6ubject that can offer many
potential areas of research that could lead to doctoral
theBea~
A doctoral study could be pursued in a subject
like History, Archaeology
Natural Sciences on a
problem which may have a significant bearing on museum
work~
Unfortunately, such areas are rather rare and it
ia un-realistic to otfer a doctorate degree in Museology

or

for research on pure academic Bubjects.

(vi) $mylQXOOent Qpuortunlt!ea:

The museum training programmes cannot afford to
become ivory towers without taking into consideration
the market of their products and what the _profession
,
actually requ1res e The question of placement of trainees
1s a very important ~actoro General courses offered by
universities in the fieldS of humanities and sciences
normally are not bothered or concerned about placement

They can afford to do 80 because

the areas of employment available for them are vast and

of their graduates.

not comparable to a restr1.cted profession such as that

of muaeUm8$ It is, tharefore t necessary that there

should be close liaBon between the training centres and
the profession so that they are able to know each other's

requirements and

re8pons1b11it1ea~

106

Where does a degree or diploma in Museology stand

with regard to the recruitment rules prescribed by various
museums for different categories of placements? Should
1';luaeology be an essential. qualification for entry to the
museum profession? What are the practical problema
involved and where doea the solution lie? How does
experience of museum work compare with. training in Muaeology when it comea to the question of recruitment rules?
Ho~ do we evaluate the level of the existing courses

which give degreaB~ diplomas etc~ and find out the difference in their standards or equivalance? These are many
questions we have to try to answer.

Museum6 need a much larger number of technical

personnel compared with the fewer number of curatorial
staff requ.ired" The ul'timate success of exhibi t presentation and act1v~tiea in a museum depends largely on the
akill~ ingenuity and experience of the middle level
technical personnel such as modellers~ artlats i taxidermists~ photographers~ carpenters, preservation'
apecialiat8~ education staff etco
No separate training
facilities are available for these categories o~ museum
per8onne~

barring Bome isolated

exceptiona~

There 1s an urgent necessity to consider establishing specialized training facilities in auch areas
like Conservation, Exhibit preparation, DeSign and
1)18pl&y~ TaxidermYiI museum educe..tion atop
These special-

ities have much to contribute to the effective functioning of a museum,.

107

It is obvious fro~ what has been said before that

there cannot be only one methodology for Muaeology, but
there will have to be different methodologies for professional training in MU8eology~ Considering the basic
requirements o museums there should at least be two levels

of training - (1) for general mueeology aimed at preparing

personnel for managerial/curatorial responsibilities and
(2) specialized tr~ining in different technical areas of

museum work ..
For both the above categories of training, the

tra.inees should possess basic education relevant to the

area of 'training aa a pre-requisite subject knowledgeArt~ Archaeology'~

History, Natural Sciences for general

mus eum training;
knowledge of Chemistry for Conservation; Applied Art for exhibit fabrication~ fine arts or
architecture for DeSign and Display atc~
If Muasology, as th0 term means, deale with all
aspects of museum work~ the methodology of museology
should be Buch as to take care of tha varied professional
requirements of mU8auma~ This can be done only by
recogniz:i.ng the importance of each area of museum work
and by finding ~ays and means of developing appropriate

methodologies of

trainlng~

loa

COMMENTS

g0nera1~

expreesd in
opinion on
mua~

be

ou

th~

~h00ry

of

of view
~wo

of museo1ogy and
The

~ha~ ~heory~

phi~~sopby mue~

~he

'~earning

be .mphasia.d &s a

par~

mus~um ~raining$

I do
of

PO~D~8

~h~ fac~ tha~ ~useo1ogioa1 ~raining

prac~ioa1 app~ioa~ion

of

~h8

There oan be no

~hia paper~

ba6~d

by doing'

with

agr~Q

work~ng

no~

in a

in Mueso1oyo
2~~~@d

~gree wi~h ~he

mU6@um 04n repAac~

~hat

forma1

experience
~r~in~g

Dxparienoe in a museum is norma11y

to Borne

~p~oifia

&reaa of work 6

not provide knowledge on 811

mu~~ograp~&

view

Moreovert

aep~o~B

axperiGno~

Thie doee

o mueeology and

wi11 have v&lue

onl,y i:f' :11: hd boen Bound in 'terms of. ideu mue'eum

situetion$.

Wrong kind '0

~xp.~ienc8

18 otten

d1ticu~t

"to ba undonel!1

109

l.e't~1:'

f,l,

Ja-L...

.~ohou1;en",

the

a1=

required G

w~~h

wh~oh

But

vi~w ~hat

i~

iobjso~

Muaeoiogy~

moat of wba1=
~raLning

i~

~e

informa1=ion@

MU~$o1ogy

wou1d
oar$~

said

abou~

in Mueeology i6

difieu1~ ~o

of museum work 8uoh aa

eduoa'tion&1

W~ .?r.:a.n8

'Leiq,enQ

agr~e

~ev6~~

1'.;\11'91; .r,Mfi lQuW

X~.~!!!oht

agre$ with the

of

~orm6 par~

4e~

with every

pr$~erva1;ionf

oommunioa~ion St00

HQWST0r,

aepee~

diep1ay

eubjeo~

know1edg~ (suoh'as A1~~~ Arohaeo~ogy, Zoology etc)

tha1;

~8

an eaeentia1

~ muS~um

pur~

work

wi.~

pr$-requi~i~$

have

aoad~m1e ~rain~ngc

for

app~ieation

~o

be acquired

No

doub~~ wi~hou~

know~edg$t ~he &pp1~eation Q~ Mueao~ogy

ineffiaien~

of

and

know~~dge

inoomp1et~$

in Bubject

But the

reAa~ed ~o

~hrough

suoh

becemes

6cqui8i~ion

the

oo~leotlone

.need. not be within 'the aoopg o museum 'training ..

Mr$ atranaky in
f~c~

that the

obj~c~ive

hi~

paper emphas iee6 the

of Mus&o1ogy is not the

a;t't~:blm6n1; of 1!H::ien'ti-f'ic or phi.l.oeophical. k:o.owl.edge

110

app1.ic e:tion 0

<t

:t.'tiM

"tha:t: -teaching of M'Ua~o.lou) say/of coneerva't ion

d~oumentationJdigp1ayeto

&

in

m
'.e
<!of
-'~ e.xper.A.snoe
.!I
proVIB.J.,on
LJ,n:'e!,o
... OIf,!\..4

1:

d.~sir'0d

regard

t;rG~;tning r~qu1red

~o

tb~ory

OW' i l l

without

any

A>.
no;o.
proY id"'h
e " e

for mueeum.

jobs"

This

many muaeUQ training programmsBo

111

fundamen"titW. /&spec:"!::
{k$t'

o~

th0 faet,cbjecta
and
1'-

hie1~Y*

of

eoi0no6 and

educa1:ion 'through

~~h1bi~8 oommunic&~e

teohno~ogy preaen~ed

eooi~1i~t oountri~e provid~ ~he

in mU6eUmd

eame know1edge as

educ~tionro peop~0 ~8 ~oo muoh of an o~r simp1ification

This may be

il'Ul.

id4!le..'t ~

bU1;

how far ie

i.t

achieved

112

Sadaahlii:v Gorakahkar If :Bombay

~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-~~~Q_~-~~~~~~

113

8ASICPAPER

Wedelisa Russio, Sao Paulo - Brazil

Dans Ie vrai "forum pour la discussion aux

niveaux theorique at methodologique"

(I)

dans lequel sUest

constituc .t:~UHOJ;:f 11 a reste bien clair que la plus srande

partie des etudes aC'c.uelles concernuntes

donnent la

configur~tion

de science

oUr

a la
au

Huseologie,lui

moins~

de disci -

pline scientifique independente.

Comme l i a souligne

Mr. Ie Dr. Vinas SOFKA,

redacteur en chef, dans son "resume liminaire" au numero 2

de la revue, liinterdisciplinarite

n~

ete

per9u

com

me un developpement poursuivi de la reflexion sur la museolo

gie" .

(2)

Je veux eclaircir que dansce cadre de

ference jc placerai mon travails dont je pense

r~fl&xion

et~e

re-

plus une

qufuDe m6moire de base: una r~flixion qulattend au

dialogue et ~ 1a critique, sans lesque11es ellerester~ ferp-

Ree

en soi mcmc r sans la possibilite de s' etaler. et de sten

richir,ou~

aussi, faire sa revision.

D~abord,

;:::1=

lflfobjet de 1a museoloqie est

fait museal ou fait rnuseologique

<> e .

Le fait museal cst

Ie rapport profond entre l'hornm.e, sujet connaissant i et

jet~

partie de la realite

Ie

l~ob

laquelle lhonuue appartient egal

ment at sur laquelle i1 a Ie pouvoir

d~agir*"

(3}

Ce rapport

comporte plusieurs niveaux de conscience at suppose, dfabord

et au sens etymologique
(AD + P-1IRARE)..

au

terme, que l'homme ADMIRE

l'objet

(4)

Loin d'approfondir ce concept preliminairc,

neccssaire au theme central de ce travail (Methodologie

de la
114

Museologie et la formation professionnelle} i1 est convenable

souvenir que d'autres sciences, en raisant lfusage de methodes

specifiques,

realite"

s~occupent,

(par

exemple~

au

elles aussi,

la

Philosophie~

rapport "l'homme I

la Psychologie,etc.) et,
(16Antropologie
.

Ie,

p~r exemple)~

Cultur~l

Cependant, seulement la Museologie s'occupc

de ce rapport en existant dans un contexte i'musealise fl

d~ns

la

l'enceinte traditionelle du musee, soit dans

soit

l~enceinte

du

musee du site, eu dans l'ecomusee, pour nommer seulement quel ques uns des nombreuses "enceintes U
racterise comme Ie fait museal

ou

S6

verifie Ie rapport ca

II faut encore souvenir que Ie fait museal,

Ie rapport
co~~

IGhomme( l'objet

dans 1 8 enceinte du musee, suppose,

condiction prealable, une

re-vision,

monde et qu 'iI at encore, comme des

a)

une

'~premissesII

re-lecture du
f~nda:mentales

l ' HOr-1t4E of un projet inacheve v un constant

devenir, un etra dans Ie monde, doue de sensibilite et de rai -

son, 'de memoire et dtimagination, capable d'agir at creer;

b)

l ' OBJET, contingent, en existant

"iei ct

maintenant"t dans une espace-temporelle, document (DOCERE)

b~moin

{TESTIMONIUM}

et

d'une realite susceptible detre per9ue

(et,donc q modifiee); dans cette cathegorie 11 faut inclure les

objets originaux, las copies etlas reproductions valables et

les modeles;
c)
sant dans un

I1ENCEINTE MUsfE, un processus en se fai

on~inu~,

dans la realite de lOhomme et du social.

La musee est, par consequence, la condiction dans laquel1e

fait museal se realise et est
caracteres, 11 (Ie musee) est

per9u~

ie

Dans ce cadre et avec ces

l'objet de notre investigation p~r

ce que, comme nos enseigne SCHREINER. (1981)

en tant quQinstitution t n g est ni tout

n~

ftl e rnusee l'!li meme,

partie d'une discipline

scientifique, mais une baseinstitutionelle necessaire.La Beien

l1.5

ce

:medicale

}:), $ est

pas la science des hopi tau% de meme

que

la pedagogie n'est pas la science des ecoles, par consequent u

In museologie no peut pcs ~tre la science des mus~es."

.e2=

(6)

NATURE DE LA CONNAISSANCE 1'1USEOLOGIQUE

~lis

suivi des

la discussion ce concept de

l~OBJET

DE LA

~ruSEOLOGIE,

dans lesquel1es i1 est assis t on peut

"premissesl~

e~

sayer l ' identificat.ion e t l a Nl\TURE DE LA CONNAISSA,NCE lmSEOLO -

Lo, question placee est 'bien claire puisque 'son enoncia-

GIQDE.

tion" a mon avis q renferroe en soil implicites, quelques defini -

a la solution du probleme pose~ Ainsi,

reference a la ~conna:i:s~sance museolog_tR~lf
et

tions de base necessaires

la question fal t

au savoir-faire" ,...- cOest

a dire a

la technique -llmuseographi -

doit etre considere

les indagations -

comme:

",- et a.Iors, suivent

"connaissance scientifique? Ou faut-il

distinryucr: connaissance philosophique; connaissance pragmatiquei

te

savoir- faire technique; d(~xt.cri

manuelle?

ou autre. '

Sans do atc, en raison de considerer la relation,

Ie rappoX't "1' honune/l 0 obj

sciences de laesprit, 51

~t",

la Museologie. s I inseri t

e~tre

les

'on tient en compte la division tripar-

tie des sciences (logique' et mathematicmes; de la nature; de 1 'es

.0

prit)

{7}

et

et 8 plus nett'ment, une science de I 1 homne

de la

societe.

DU

Ie nature merne de.son objet, la Museologie

suppose nne preala.l:>le cor: :,~issance nodale de base" attachee

a la

Sociologie, 2. 1.:Antropolc1ie (surtout la Culturelle) et la Philo

sophie (les relations ave: la Philosophie ont

ete ,deja

etudiec's

et exposees de fa9Qn prof~nde et brillante par GREGOROVA (1981) .(8)

Sans mip:iser Ie ralsonnement philosophique et

dialcctique~c~est

sa totalite, mais

a dirE~.

egale~'lt

de la Museologie est
pur enpi.riquc

lit refH.ixion critique sur Ie reel dans

rle~3

sans

l'approprie~

literee dfune phase

la connaissance

dWedification

du

pour sa 'onstituer en connaiSSi111Ce scientifique 116

(11 faut adrnettre qu '.on a jamais laisse une certaine i.nquietude

diordre philosophique, surtout parce qu'on essaye de construirc

une sorte de Jl.1etamuseologie I une reflexion. critique sur la

t1USGO

logie eile meme.)

La connaissance museologique s'occupe de la rea

lite et de l'histoire en y comprennant une connnissance pas eeul

rnent rationnelle et systematique mais aussl pratique, dans laquelle
la pratique et la raison 5e construisent dans un processus d' interdepcndence, reciprocitc, connexicn et coherence~

Pas eemuseographie (savoir-faire ~ technique ,p:r.a

tique) sans fondement museologique {rationnel f scientifique)i
~useologie

la

rendrait inutile exercice mentale stelle ne trouvait

d'application pratiqueb
Ainsi

la Huseologie constitue une branche

0#

~pe-

cifique de 1a connaissancc scientifiquQ (logique,rationnel, sys b;;r.1atique)

que ne dispense pas de sa pratique,pour laquelle sont

elaborees des techniques et procedes, d'instruments operationnels

de travail bases sur l'anterieure connaissance scientifiquei une
connaissancc scientifiquc que se renouvelle et rajeunit au moyen

de 1a prati.que

vecue,

et de

l~activite

l~empirique,

iei compris comme

l~experiencc

consciente que, lors de 1a vision et de 1a re -

-vision et de la lecture ou re-lecture du monde, du reel, du natu

reI, aide. la construction et Ie processus du culturel,du conceptual,
de l'historique.

= 3

(10)

ggI~~~ Q~ ~~ ~~g~2~~gJ.~

(DIFFERENTES OOHAINES DE LA CONNAISSANCE t-!USr.;O!.OGIQUE)

En considerant la l\1uscologie comme une sci.ence

en construction, son systemc est,

a mon

avis, une question ouvcrtc.

Cepenclant 1 11 me semble aussi raisonnable prcpo

scr

a la

discussion Ie tableuu suivant,ou on a fait l'esquissc

117

:.!. ~':.,::._~.t":.....!U':'-.n ....!:...10:__~:~~.L!:....~._l:._"..i.~ .1.~:

l' cn'!cr.iU Ie r.lc 1:1 connilbsl:\nct' t?\\,:lcol()ryl~uc, tocJ.c:ncl'l C~>

1,(:1; dif :'crt'nt:~ t1om111I'le:1 t\C

rn;:;:.7
cm; ou
l:1T.;:CU

SQUS -

OOl:J\1tlt

~-,-

}~UStOt.oGlt C~loo"!:lW.t

f..

'---r:l::selon 1ll

f::

~~~

T'YeoU>-

Clue}'

THEon!E l~lJSmLOCI(')U;;
IlISTOI;?Z DES llUSftS
1.0HIIiIS'l'RATION WJSOWCI-

(H.tl.
(M.M.

2.1 2

lI'l

0:....

~.

3!'{

-Le fQlt I"lu:.od

-1. I eneei nti!! et

i
;:'

F.:TUDI1ZtS

;:;1i5'.~

~ ~

g:g.g ...

:l B~;i ~T1SSUS,

~(!::;

",?n hbl:.oJ.re
QUE
-I.'action l':lusee ~l
"
...1' ..... e~~
on I0,:.
gan!sation
- lJelon 14 brenche de con-Le tcxte t1\Jsea1l'
nl'1iSDOInce el; d'ac:Uvltee
~Le hit dans son
.
U'Ain' (et subdivisIons)
textc
SCIENCES Cet !ubdlvidons)
-Ltlr:st.aut1onH~n
- . r1lelon 111. ftetllode (monoceinte eu fait "~
gro.phiques, etc)
rel! te/posslb1ulon l's!'llea qeO<jraHque
lHe

n[~

11

~1)1

~-'illlO ~

~~~ c..o
... IIIa r.hl1
'" 0 '"

~Q~ ~~;:

':11U<l1IoD II

~ "
;r III fV

8111>

~g~ Ii!l ~g
C::

c:r+C\

;l::l
""
~ fI

(l

'C~ ~

f::(;

"1o.Q

Tapine-rie.

l~

0\1

3.1-LA CURATELLE

~ro

S~OLOOUIQUC:

3.2-LA CO::StRV1I.TION
t::I
;..,
f4

HUSt:OLO::;:tOUJ.:

12~
J<..:!'-

Re~~~Tche

l:',JSC;OLOCIOUE

\It

I {;.onS~l:"VIl.t1.on; Secutrite, Cl1m&t,

Lun1cn.......

,SemologlQ d0l:jet
OOCl:l'~p,ntat1on a 1a comunjcatlon

(dialectlque

"'I

.....
~

o;l

-L~~e/l'ohjet,re~

11te

(plBnlfic~tion mUieale)

LICIQlJt

~
'~~""'!f
.... '1:1
I"
i~
~
.~

:-:
92,.. b ~
"'.:l n

r1'

~Utopi"~
..

plan
pos::;lble

I '"

~;l ..

~U! l1u3ce en tant.

q ue

~o

Dt<'

t:1.)":1
In:J
"1
tl Co

..

a,~

l'Y-V1 " tr,

~~

.:1

C::'"

1't:1,

'it

X'IQ".

m......
I

rt

fJ,I

(n

11l

0.

((l

\-0'-

til

(Jl

I-'

I-'-

I,Q

to

r--

::.i

....

I-'
(!l

r--

..0

tf
......

l-'
p.

()

1-'

::1
::1
III
l"""
t.1

.....

l-'
l

::s

('1"

ro

{')

PJ
~

z ....!
&~!
0 i:
:s III

I-'-

l-'

,.....
P.l

loA-

CIl ..

coCJ)

lli ~

J::

...

19

::s
((l

::s

IT
I'i

ro

!-'

I'D

en

P.

en

$1f

::s(')
ro

ar::
til

g\

tn

(l)
(fi

Ii

rt

I:Il

o
atn
I

0.

~
l:U

I-'-

(')

:;J

l~

(J)
iJ)

OJ

~P.l

0..

Ii

s:::

Hi

III

OJ

IT

....

-.0

::s

t'U

....
t'D

~
S

(D

::l

r'I'

OJ
.....

0..

t-',..
H,

{Il

rt

0.

~~

ro

IT

(I)

fIl

0..

1-'-

n,

t1

....

{J)
{Il

c.~

(tj\

tD

't'!

rt'

HI

::s
((l

(01

CD

Ii

ro

...

::J

IT
t1

(l)

r:

til

.:3

:s(1)

('l)

.....

11

IT>

l-'
t.Q

n-

J:
<n

ro

ttl

(l)

.0
.(1)

C
tot

t1

::1

!/)

m o

l-'

l-'

rl"

0.
!b

en

'tl
Ii

(0

:5

tll
.......

Ul

I-'

I-'HI
HI

(1)\

I-'-

..Q

C
l'V

Ui

_.g

~.______

:s

,;::

ro,
o

~~

"

ttj

::1

::i

acop,

Q.

tn

l-'

(l)

1'1 III
\'"
l'J .....
:l
n F'l

11)

CD

PI

:: in

,e-

((l

\.Q

},..!

ro

0' li

-aIII

PJ

'tl
PJ

0-

.;r"IlI"'~'"
-~'O::

-!.i:\ cOMcienc:e
3 5- U: [> ROO'!' Mt1SJ;:e>--

tanto que pro(;CSSUS

l'hor.-T.'c, l'objet.
l'enceint:c

~ealc)

c~,g ~

preservation <!e
1 'o~;et
-Le hU l".uselll M

tnl:rod. 1 1f'< l'lelltr.uraHon

Tec~niquell d'upos1Uon

:l

-L!;\ hit nuseal t

:tl ~
~.g g.:;~
l'1denUte f1fl l'cb" Ih
"
.. 0
1et
- ~ ~ ~ III 'g:;1
-Le fait r..US'!a.l: lil. ~.; ~;:~......

Pocum~n

tnt10n de ge.~on nu:eolog1que -

.~~ ).4-L'ACTlon EOOCATI

rnuseolog1que

') l3

l-'

rl'

:;j

les

x~ :1 .3-LA C01M1ICll.TI0lf
~o

(1),

(1)

(Il

o.t:H1i~ I ~ g ~
,;ult:unl
~ n g ~~
- : > 0 ~1 ;l
~~~ :2. 2-Sclon l~ c:ontl'lt l-lUuol<lgfesl dl1 don Honde 7- -Lc
fait l":U5eal
~ t1 :;l Q.'tl
~
CJ
~~
lloc:1al
del> pays ~ developpes I {perspec:t:!
?an!l oon contexte'::J.~ ~ ~'::' I S " " ~ machines hid-us.
"
(te:cpore1. ll\l1lall ve~ (annG09 SO)-(plospecUvE)s a!'.
-l-:lnsUtUtiOnal:
W'Q. ~ 111 :;~R
:;,g tdela
l\nes eo)
1 eneelnte
~ ~ III >( --::1;:
t:i 0 objets d'llrc:hl~
~
-Les pol1Uques c:ul~ .... ~ ~-g 06
IlJ 0 te~ture, etc.
t\lrele!l
::r 0 \II ~ .... :1
~~

a.1.3

::>3
hI I

....P.l ,...11 .... $ll

m rt
~
iJl
n
.... :;101 ....o

~t!~ _1'h~1;111eRent
t"o tll":l Orfevrcrl<il
::J - :T " i
'1:l1b 0 l- ,,~gt!nter e
~';"o~ 1e bo1l
"" \lI ~ h papier
1-1
.... 0 1
h
1
0
(l il
~ P o~Ol]ra u Q
...... ~ 1 illlager1e ..
.. i~ outils et equ1ernen'tll ~ roc~

"0
~

l:l

)0 n,Q CIl "'-biltar

<CIS:.. ......
v

~,~ ~IO 10 l)
~
.... O:TI:I

., rtl-'>'j

. . .;

tol'< r.:r Ceramlg\le

o-J Po III I:'" Vcrr~l:1 c
)lC;; ~M

'$

o
......

0.
......

QUEI,0.lJES C1lTH~
COrlIr.S [I' OD.1'tTS

:)l:;CIJ>LIt:r::S lIUi:I LI1ITU!S ,

1eo: :~Lr::m::-rl\I
t

m,_~,

l.J. .l.

"'ie des 'IIlusees

..
(texte t1useol091

~l:iCIPAI~r.S

o.:JS'l'

~~USEOt.oG1<:t,;e

~:USmLO{aQtm

DOlIAItlt::

Ct.tr\fl tru<;tion.

(l)
(1

rt

....
HI
(II

VI

m
)1l

o
o

::s

t::l

ro-

g.

trA

fIl

ro
'::sro"" ...

1-'-

u.

:;1

(l)

rt

\1l

(l)

p"

rl'

(i)

P\-

C/l

OJ
CD

(tl

l!l

t-'
~

...

til

c;

I'J)

(tl\

10

plus prochain des sy.stemes exposes pal" Klausevri tz

tandis qu1avec

dla~tres

et

Sofka (11)

derivattons.)

Une simple.... analyse du table,au ci'joint ser 5

de

montrer qucllcs sont les branches et les doma-ines de la connais -

sance museologique et quelles

sc~t

les disciplines complementaires

et au}(lliair.es (et on peut 1e derr..ontr~r pour chague domaine spec~i

cifis:ue)

Si ces sciences sont !iuxiliaires..

res

Q\l

,compleF.lentai

nous ne pouvo} les placer au ~eme niveau des differentes

roaines de la connaissance

00-

musr)clO'Jiqu,~

0:1. pe'.lt meme distinguer entre SCIENCES Cm-1PLE -

f1ENTAIRES OBl,IGATOIRES (par E!xemple: la physique i la chimle i

biologie, 1a

climatolog~,e

de conservution'

pourla

plei~e

connaissance des sciences

et SCIENCES CQr.1PLEr-1ENTAJ:m:::S PACULTATlVES

TIONELLES ~ ou encore ( plus S5I:l?lel,vz:ut

la

uAUXILIlHRBS~!;

au OP-

C ~ est 1e cas,

par c}:emple F de la stati.stiquG aans in rec:1e::eche prealable pqur

la t}.'heorie Huseolcgique: 811e peu;: ::nrichir avec certaines donnees

ces domaines
lument

muscologiques~

nec&ss~i=e ~

m2i3 el~e ~~ent pas essenciella, abs

leur

ldns:J..,

dev~lcppem~nt
er;.CO::C8

at

connaissa~ce.

en l'):'HI.ant des excmples: 1a conais

On :2eut
dire Ie

m~me

dOautrea

~ciences, ~el_es

tout, la Psychologic Soc1nlG)

avec la

que)

Museologi~.

~t

que Ia Psychologie (sur'-

la 30cioJogie et leurs rapports

differents Ittypes" de

Ltexplication que les

connaissancc sont places

a differents

chm~ps

la definition du

niveaux est fondament:ale

de connaissnnce museolo0ique (museolo

r

gie comrne science) et amene

d i impor.ta.ntcs consequences dans Ie

terrain de l ' ens:.,ei.gnelnent museol_ogiq.s

(museologie en tant que

connaiszance scientifique au discipline

a ensei.gner

et:

a apprcn-

ere) et, done, de la formation professionnelle .

:=.

4 --

LEn OHJEC'I'IPB DE Ll\

CmJNl\I~):3J1J"lCg

MUSBOLOGIQUE

L'objcctif ~c 1a rnuscologie et de la recllcrchc

museologiquc cst la connai:::wancc claire ct pen;?ante du FAIT

~,m~Ei\L

(rapport profond entre l'honune et l'ohjct) at de 1'1 condition,

de l ' ENCEIN'l'E dans lequcl i l ' so realise (musee)

danG un contC}:t~,

une vision espatielle et temporelle et des perspectives et pros pectivcs do l'holmne et de la societe.

(Vot r

1 et 2.)

L'ense:'.gncment et 1a formation museologiques vi

sent 3 la cr5ation des cirlres d'investigateurs
del:> travai lleu.!"s

scientifi~ues

1 t exe) 'cice de la profession rnuseale dans un .con

profc~

textc de science (museol(gqucs), en outre que foxmer des

seurs aptes
COlT'JTIC

01 t

Ie

transmettx( {" [<:lire pCi.fiSer ll

e' c

ICCROt-VRornc " ...

un travilil on pasne-temps d' amateurs <5

claircis, est dcvenu dev(ir et travail professionnel.

trap de qualites sont derandees

a des

amateur~

,II

telle connaissancc.

professeur. (ntH DE GUICflEN, de 1

ce qui autrefoiG a

ce trtlvail

ct

a un
{12}

De nos" j

our.~~

bon museologuc pour laisscr

Et,dans cc cas

(for~ation

e
-i
11 e: conn11.1.S;;'lnCe
.
t 'l.'l.quc
f'
- e... t re exerccc
...
prox0ss_onne
sc ien
a
e t ' expe

rimentec}, je sera.i.s

d~a(

:ord avec 1

scIon laquel1e

la

lseologie peut 3treparfaitcment definie

COIrJr.e

la theorie

at

"

la

1
l!\C

d~finition du Dr..

.hodologie du;ravail du musee.

Neustnpny,

fI

(13)

Dans ". ';\ctivitc scientifiquc; Theoric {connai!> -

sanca} au A,ction (praxi: I exerci.ce profe ssionnel)

la methode cst auss.l dc':,i"'ie OU en trail' do

defini 1 'objet,

l~etre, Sloit

cllc r:ctho

de-chemin-a-sui vrc I' soi ~ Ie procede pour fi:'ire quelgue cho-s e .

120

:=

5 :::

~~THODE

LA

DE LA CONNAISSANCE MUSEOLOGIQUE

Defini l'objetde la museologie et la nature Je

la connaissanGc museologique (Voir 1. et 2)11 11 faut intcrrogcr

quelle est la methode que lui rende possible I'articulation logi.que, systematique des connaissances' universelles et necessaires
sans laquelle elle ne serait p en soi, une science .
Amon avis,'cette methode est Itinterdiscipli
n~ritc: Ie traitcment interdisciplinairc g systematique et intcrac-

tif entre len oiffcrcnts

en

so~,

et

infor~matives

et des

t~r.rains

diff~rentcs

de la connaissance rnuseolo0iquc,

branches de connaissanccs sous-jaccntes

de la connaissance museologique
Cette interdisciplinarite permot la.constante

interaction, Ie processus qui

l~investigation

an\ene

vers un chemin propre

pour

et l'opcration du raisonnement, uinsi que de l'ac

t.ion museologigue, considerees comma un tout systematisc

(connaiE.

sunce du FAIT MUSEAL et realisation de liACTION t1USEOLOGIQUE dans

un seul et un m&mc processus)

~insif la science museologique

a la

methode de

Itinterdisciplinarite; !'enseigncment et la formation seront,par

cons~quent,

intcrdisciplinaires at interdiscipllnaire

vail dans les mun:ees ~

(C~pendant,

exclu~ion,

comm~

fin!

un

te

aux mmH~es ne fai t

au contraire, exige la presence du museologue, de-

p~ofessionnel

avec une formation specifiquc

domaine de la science IDuseologique

En cnvisageant

(profes~ion,

10

1a connaissance scientifiQue,
scienti.

office) commc des differents stadc5 d 'unc soulc!

opcT.ntlon ct (;;ctivit6 -

Ie travail hurnain sur un terrilin, un coma!;

ne etenuu -- on peut conelure

Ie methode rclati Ycment
n~ent

dan~

~).

l'enseignc!i1ent qu 1 clle entralne et l'exercice de llilction

fique

~ra

je crois qu $ 11. ne sera jamais

excessif zouligner que la multiprofisEtionali

pas

sera Ie

a 1.:1

In coherence ct

IJlt;!~coloyia

~n

to .

at profession: l' interdiR.~iplinari

liunite dtune nen

tant que 5cienc0.,

r::-nr:(~i9~

121

Cela fait iVident que la raison et la pratique

~useologique~,

ciproci te

orientees

sur. un processus d'interdependencc, r

connexion logi\'iue et

If

coh~re.nce~

che scientifiauo 1 i

In formation at

d' etre, eux aussi,

un

PCl.'"Jf',cttEmt ala. rcche!..

l~exercice

professionnel

syst:emc~

Les consequences deord~e pratique sont extrcmcment bcn~f1qu0s au niveau de Ilinstitution (mus~e), de la profcs-

$1on (cnsci0ncmcnt I

formation) at de In science museologigue.

Au niveau du mus5c

parco gue, en 6tant leENCEIH

TE. la condition at Ie contcxte-prochain du fait museal at, au me

me temps

If

~i:n~t.J tuti?n

savoir mllseologique

au,.

avec priori te; on fait l' exercice du

(profession du museologue), la

methode in -

terdisciplinairc :
a) au

pr6~lable,

nels~

suppose In presence de plusieurs

prof6ssion-

formes dans les differentes disciplines qui orientcnt

les ohjectifs de cha~uc musee;

b)

SUPPO!'sO 1 6 action de "cntalysc" au museclosuc, pus encyclor.

diquc c pas omniscient, Mols sGrement 1e professionnel nptc

coorGonner les differentes actions resultantes des diffe-

rentes doma:f.nes de conna-tssance representees par Ia

vari~tc

des p:r.-ofet:;siormels en travaillant au musee; et,. done, les

echanges: Iss relations conncxes et reciproques at la coherenee du travail museologique;

c) suppose 1a possibilite des mouvements d'analyse et de syn thes~;l~exi$tence

au muses et

SOl1-

de theses et d'antitheses, ce gui donne

cadre professionnel une vision vivante"

dialectiquc! historique et critiqueq- lncluslvement dan~ co

qui concerne au musee, en soi,

50S

professionnels ct leur:.:;

roles p
d) en b:riszmt des Vi510113 fragmenb.~S I

stereotypecs ou antissy!?

tcr:tati(p.H~f::;:I' C ~ cst ponnihle une action plus d~'nami'1ue pas

122

;:;nppose une st.xuctu:re fonctioDcl1e et une relation inter -

e)

. professionnel en condition de faeili ter l' emergence du r':l;;

en tant que fait

port uL'homme/ l'objet"

!'I1useolog!.q~,dont

Ie musec est 1 i agent crunmututif

:; 6.2 _.

a}

Au nivcau
----.
suppose un cadre de

de l'enseiqnement:
,
"'--._---

..rofesscu~

tcrdisciplinaire oriente vcrs et

b}

rnultiprofessioDnel et in ~ar

la museologie;

suppose. aussi, un cadre de disciples egalcment interdisci

plinaire f , c test
d~autres

c}

a dire,

avec une formation anb~rieure dans

disciplines;

l ' existence d ~ aIT'bes les deux cad:r.es int.erdisciplinaires n

mene pas, de fa90n mecanique,

~a

a un

resultat, mais evidement

facilite l'emergence d'une cnseignement et des institu -

tions d I cnseignernent plus democratiques, clans lesquelles Ie

rapport

ul'eleve/le professeur ll

ne configure jrunais une r~

lation de domination et d W author! b~ iroposee u en fa.isant pos'-

si.ble un dialogue effet.ff, un climat dfhumilite, de respect

et confiancc recipro(iueS 1 de liberte f dans lequcl' l ' educa -

tion,

la science et l'howne ont 1a possibilite de croitre

Au niveau de la science rnuseologique:

..
.

6~3 ~

a)

11 met en place 1a "fertilisation

pennutatio~ effective des

craisie", en raison de'la

idees au dela des frontieres des

e~pcriencc

specialisntiono, en facilitant una vision et une

inter actives des differentes branches scientifiques.

f~it

pas seulement enrichir 1e champs de la museologie puis-

qu'il n'equi.vaut

mais

Ce qui

l'assemblage, au pur co~nt d'informations,

~ l~addition

ordonnie,

s~l~ctive.

connexe et

syste~ati

see de nouvelles donnees scientlfiques;

b}

i1 fait. possible l;cmergcncc d'inquietudes styrnulantcG de In

recherche vcrs

U;l

nouvcnu ct plus large horizon I

du

mCIT.c U

1a simple formulation de douteG, parfois inadmissibles dans

un con,t.exte aca01fmiqne monolithique unJdiscipli.naire f 1c-

qual peut, inclusivement, etrejuge le responsable de la

non reali-sation scicntifique de

maintes d'inquictucles ~a

lutaircs et prowettouscSi
c)

11 pern1ct. 1a creation d'un esprit de receptivite

la cri
r~a

tique sans lequel la science at Ie scientifique ne sa

lisent. jamais ..

a la

Et ,

scientifique
._--_._.. dm' musee
~-~

fin, au niveau .~u, professionnel et

lWinterdisciplinarite

roents donnent de viabilite

cessit~ dSune

et ses :entraine-

une plus grande conscience de la ne

r6flixion critique continue et constanta sur la mu-

seologie,r aIle merna .. at sur Ie role du museologue comme travail ~

leur social

NOTES ET REFERENCES:

~,,-

_i8:':~

"'_

-~t

C""'i ... ;-.;,::.,=

l~

ICOJli, Pr.ogramme trienal pour 1981/83, 38.

2.

SOFKAfVinos (19Bl)

1 t int)rdiscipl:i.naritc_ en'museolo-

30

HUSSIO,Haldisa (1981)

4.

FREIRE? Paulo (1978)

.l\v.~~_~~!~'9.ra:l:".E.~a}~2~rdad~. o~tro.s escl".i1;.9.~.. 3e
tion t

5.

edi-

s50 Paulo, Ed. Paz e Te:ra, p.S3

Cette conception est vivcment ilfluenc5e par les iaSes de Pau

10 FREIRE. concernant ~ lSeduca~ion et i

transferees

a la

l'alfabetisation,ici

connaissance d' monde et, alors, du contexte.

6.

SCHRBINER,J<1aus (19tH)

7.

COnnISTER, Roland C1974}

Enciclopedia Filosofica

Petrcpolis

Ed, Vozes, p. 142

124

8.

GREGOROVA, Anna

(19Bl)

10.

A cc sujet e voir CORBISIER,op.cit., recit sur LOGOS E

PI~XIS.

p. 1670
11 ~

ll"

ce sujet, voir I{LAUSEWITZ, Welgang

~~U'~';OrcF

n9 .1 i

&

SOFKA T , Vines

(1980):

respectivemen't P.:tges 11 et 12/13; Section: Pro-

vocations
museoloqiGues,
1979\.
...........-.-.* .."
124

DE G'(n:CHEN~

(1980)

Ga<!l

MU~~U~fadc~uadog a abrigar co~e9oe~~

Sao Paulo, Bresil.

aout 1979,
jet
13.

r~us5e

a1

'"
Volume 1: colection

Texte de la conference oonnee Ie 17

0uvertuLe des activites culturelles du Pro

de liIndustrio (Museu da IndGstria) de

tmUSTOPNYr. Jiri

S~o P~ulo

(1900)

La museo~.o('def science eu seulement travailJratl;:me d~

n9 1., p. 28/29"

125

Zbynik Z StranskY, Smo - Czechoslovakia

BASIC PAPER

1 .. In genera1. f we may start with the :following idea: to identify a thing means to find the method necessary tor its under3tanding ..

the methodological aspect of musGology is to be the subject of our intere~t, we should first define the scope of
our interest f i~s* the object of muaeolo~' in the sense of

I~

subject mat.tt1:r.''ll

Museology h.as not yet been el.aborated so deeply in order

that we can define directly this object Ithe problem of' defining the object of discipline is encountered in a number
of much more advanced branch.8/~ Therefore we must content
ourselves with the phenomenon that could be called the J;,end
2,.-[ knowJ...~9g~, Dr the ~denc4! o:f knowl.dge ..
It can be said intuitively that in the centre of the tendency of knowledge there is the ~~~lLhen~meno~ - both in the
object form Ibuildings 9 objects~ facilities~ workers/ and in
the form of activities Ikeeping o~ collections, preservation,
displaying, DrganizatiDn of visits/& Considerations on the
object of museology are mostly within the scope o~ this intuitive approacha This is also re~lected in many assertions
that museum is t.he Object of' museology ..

I must say that such

~n

external approach is quite obvious

and its analogy may be found ala 0 in other branches of so ien-

such an approach makes us remain only in the level of empirical knowledge~ We learn individual ~acts, we are
C8G However~

able perhaps to classify

tham~

but the real essence remains

unident tried ..
Th:iscan be

dOClXm~H1.ted

by

f!l

concrete example: The theatre phe-

nomenon is manifested both in the object form /buildings, faailitie5~ actors/ and in the form of activity Iproper acting
of actors/~ May theatroloBYJ however, be 8@tisfied with the

126

only on these objective facts?

~h~ M"~.'_~~~ G~ ,~ t~t~~1i.\~~ tt$ a~fti.1 fiil~iti~an8e must
be looked for by means of this phenomenal aspect, in the phenomenon t and alae behind the phenomenon~
tendency

o~

knowledge

~Dcu8ed

This is our case~ We cannot be satisfied Dn~ with external

understanding Df the phenomeoDn$ Our tendency of knowledge
must be directed deeper~ ige$ to its aubstance~ We should realize that what oocan be seen as a museum phenomenon ol is the
expression and meniestationof a certain need g the interest
shown by man$ As certain specific relation of man to the reality is objectified in the theatre, a similar situation exists
also in the museum afsirs - it is an expression of something.
There~ors

the object o~ our tendency of knowledge should not

only be what is perceived as the reality o museum af~airs,
but also those things that ere proper motivation 9 that stimulate the origin and rorming o~ this real~tY$

2. From the tendency of knowledge there ollow8 the nature of

muaeologic31 knowledge.

Firstly:

if museology is to be a

then tre museological knowledge must be s scientific knowledgep Knowledge

cannot be confused with practical activity, with individual
operations taking place in mUBeums~ This is a methodological
requirement which~ howev8r~ does not overlook or eliminate
the real relation between theory and practice.
science~

SecDndly: scientific knDwledge is developed in several 1evalSe The it~itiel level is represented by ~~Rirical knowledge
which t however, is not identical with sensuous knowledge because it includes certain rational operations pointing to
processing of sensuous data: clsssification. generalization.
This empirical thinking based Dn individual facts results ih
the empirical system of notions$ Only 'through tnis system or
in the relation to it we can gain access to the level of
~~~q~eticQ} k~1.~~q~ It is the purpose of theoretical think-

ing to create

oertsin notional picture that combines and

lV.

explains the heterogeneous metters brought by the empirical

l~Ydl. ~t,r~ugh 'hl~ 1~v~1 W~ ~~" wd~k th~~Y~h \0 rln~ Muah
relations omens tho notions in the empirioal level thut can-

not be directly ascertained@ Thererore only On this level

the scientific knowledge attains the required quality. 1his
is well documented by the pres~nt state of science, when
~he~~ is the basic form o~ ita dev~l~pment. From this theoret ic a1 or Be it'H1t ific level the ph ilq.oQl1ie 81 );nowleds~
should be distinguished 'pointing to stitla higher synthetici-

ty and explication of assence$

3e

I~

museolcgy is to become a scientific discipline, then its

knowledge cannot be only on the empirical level - whicnis
characteristic of the past prod~ction - but it must attain
a theoretical or rather a philosophical level. Its ~
theoretica~ sys~~m is of prime importance for its existence
as a science .. Here we are -in my opinion - on1:y at the beginning ..
Together with this empirical and theoretical approach we
should realize that our objective is not the attainment o
scienti~ic or philosophical knowledge, but that these learning efforts have a very Dncrete~_~nd,p:actic81 goal. We want
to change th6! mureum mali'\Y t.hx-ough this kn::>wledge <> In other

words, we want to
ice ..

-In our case the

~PQl~ ~i~~ fe~~k ~~twen

theory and pract-

feedback can be re81ized only by lhe snnlic8\-

~::t.~q"aU~noY!J.._?2B,.qto

the means and operations that

realizGthat specific museum relation between man and reality ~ But the erea of these m~ans and 0k!1r:at i on!?, is not t.he ore.tiesl1y @~plicabla only by th~ mussolog1cal level end its 80lution calls for the application or gnoseolDgical or methodological contribution o~ Dther scienti~ia and technical brari-

chase For example, preservation of museum objects, construction of depository eQuipment~ reprographyt choice of material for exhibition facilities require the application o~ a

128

bread not ionel acape crt' non-museum character and s imul tan6~uei~ tna ~~~lie~ti6ft c~ dS61a!ve ~D1G 8~ mue801og1cal
knowledge ..

Therefore in museologicBl comprehension we should differerit iat e between proper ihQ.,9.J:..~tj~J.... aEmroa9.h /th e oret ic~l muse 0logyl and ft~olie8\;.i~..rfll!2.h/museogrsphy/
$

A failure to differentiate between the two approaches ~aused

s lot of Misunderstanding and contradiction in the past theoretical expe~iment5 and educational practice~

The usa of extraneous . notions or methods in the ~ield o

museologic~l knowle~g8 cannot lead to a conclusion that the
subject of mussological knowledge is apprehensible only by
involving a number of ~cientific disciplines. It is not decisive if I can include other branches in that ~ield,but
whether I arrivG through museological knowledge at such notions that cannot be mediated by other disciplines~
Thats why its own notional cgn\ribution is the major factor
of' mus~olO'g:y "'8 e~{istence.. This requires that its comprehension reaches B really scientiic, theDretical level. If it is
only on the level of empirical knowledge, than an impression
will prevail that problems of museum reality can 'be solved
ful~y by me~na o~ the existing brancheB and techniques.
But also an the purely theoretical level of knowledge museology can expediently employ all sorts of stimuli from other
~oi~ntifio br8nchea~

Th18 folloWI from

it~

own mpeoific po-

sition in the ~ystem of sciencese However, if the knowledge

rom a 8pe~ific discipline is applied to the museum area 00&0 pedagogy~ psychology, sociology or cybernetics - it does
not mean that these branches can cover in notional respect
the specificity of our t.endency of knowledge. Their contribution depends en how ~ar they can extend the museological
knowledge~ Th~refore for their own application the museolo-

gyitself is of prime importanoe and so is it~ theoretical

lsv-el<3 Only through museology I can exploit the knOWledge snd

129

methods from other branches in the interest o~ a museum phenomenon and to prevent
whiQh has ~eQ.n,~~ been lereg1 GXW
perienc~ in the practice - the procedures to be used in museum affairs in tendencies or applied branches. Such procedures are inconsistent with the essence of museum a~airs
and thus with their social mission as wellq
M

Therefore the internal system of muse~logy must reflect its

notional levels, but at the same time it should express also
such relations into which the subsystem can get in the relation to higher systems.

4. Therefore the Objectives of museology and museological research should be found in the field of museum phenomenon both in its objectifying ~orms and in the expression of whst
is being mediated, i.e. just in that specific relation between man and reality which differentiates in it museum
aspe~~from the non-museum ones, namely because the museum
aspec~mean something to him, are integral part o~ his human,
cultural pro~ile.
The objectives of museological teaching and \raining fall in
the same area. but in this csse no scientific knowledge is

eoncerned;

it means to oope with tha knowledge' referring

to that area and with themothods enabling to acquire the

knowledge. The mission of teaching and training is to in~

struct the students how to work in IDuseological respect and
to transrorm the museum reality in intentions of museological knowledge.

However, museological teaching and training are conditioned

by the state or standard of

museology~ I~

muaeology remains

only on the empirical level, it results in preferring rather

the training level to the teaching one. This m~ be well documented by a number of teaching programmes. In such a case
students may acquire partial knowledge and experience, hut
they are not ready for independent creative work in this particular field. Even though the teaching programme is elahora-

130

ted on the theoretical bases

~ti ~r thu r,~~~ thHtt itln m~H)t

or

mUBeology~

we should be aws-

i'~rHH~~l.Ul\ ,flHH~H. rlil1 t tfhllfl,~iIlU

tlll} pN~atiQa thl'ough eduG4,\tion i6 not. t.hfl acope at' knowlodgo

acquired by studonts. but especially mastering of mothods

that can lead us to

knowledge~

b'rom this standpoint tho qrtt,hod [)!.2si.9,Q.:J."",~8Mct of' muslplop;t

seems to be not only ths key factDr for th. standard of mu-

seological thinking, but also ror teaching in museology.

5~ I~

the ~9ncept of__~etho~~logy_~~~D~etvfl9_as.~he lb~~~r~~i

,!llly~substr~.P.~.Aated ...sYfite~.oJ mEi.th.Rds~ iOie. as the theory o~

methods, than we must

pect or museologyo

a~

this is

30

far a very feeble as-

The methodological basis of museology is formed by the selected philosophical and methodological principles. The proper
llstem... of'. methods,1) i .. e. the me~'tt.odi,9
01"_ brancl1 consists
o~ general and special methods or techniqueso Among them the
di:rerent ist ion of' spec; i~al

methDds~

is

or

prime importance ..

These methods are directly related to the proper object. of

knowledge in the particular branch .. In museology the definition nf methodic
is missing~ in particular the derivation of
specific methods o this branch .. Thi9 is the major'shortcoming of the present atate~ but it i$ - in my opinion - also
the key :for moving forward the process of comprehension in
museology~

As to the methodic

of musGologicBl teaching it cannot be

idfJnt iied with the museological methodology <II ''che methods

used in the teaching process are peds80gical ~ethods~ We must

differentiate between the con~~~~t~~cqinB - it has a
real museologioal orientation ... and the method _of teaching.
for elaboration of the methOdic
o~
museological teaching by ~he International Committee for
A lot has bean done

Training of Personnel and by those authers who have tried

to evaluate the past experience t'rom museologlcal teaching ..
For the matter itself it is v.ery important a8 it follows

131

from the confrontation that is being done - that the methodic

of musGo1oglcal teaohing 1s formed in reiatlon to
proper forming of' museolo&y and especially its methodological bas is ..

If museological teaching is to carry out its mission and become 8 tool for qualitative changes in the level o~ the entire profile of' museum work

~.

and I am conf'ident it is t.he

main task of the teaching process - then its own pedagogical

methodic
must be integrated with wuseology in the entire
scientific 'profile~ ConsequentlYg also the gnoseological contribution and language of muaeology should be reflected in
the contents of teaching process, mastering of individual
methods must become instrumental ~n controlling the museological thinking and its applic&tion, and the system of museology must b~ re~1getad, to a certain extent, in the system
of teaching process - both in terms of the proper system and
its relative entirety.
6~

Thus it is in the interest of proper rouseology and its teaching to direct our attention on the solution ~ its methodological basis, i.e~ to attempt a theoretical 8ubstant~ation
and de~inition of the system of methods inherent to this
branch<ll
In the pedagDgical respect we are interested in the system
of' methods, i .. e in the proper rna'thod ic
of' museologic a1
teschinga The methodological basis for the above methodic
is formed by tha m~thodology o~ th~ contemporary p~dagogyo
Teachers of muse~lDgJ should become t'amiliar with that methodology and in this cont.ext t}1ey should selsc t. the opt imum.
$

methoda for this specific teaching objective, in a close relation to museolosy as it has been reasoned&

132

Judith KSpielbauer, Oxford - Ohio, USA

SUMMARY

SUM:Y.ARY AND ANALYSIS OF THE PAPERS PREPARED FOR THE SYMPOSIUM

ON METHODOLOGY Of MUSEOLOGY AND THE TRAINING OF PERSONNEL

INTRODUCTION

To the authors I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to read
your papers and comments.

Although I approached the analysis of these papers with

some trepidation, ! have found the 'experience to be highly informati ve and one that
has allowed the consoHdation of several ideas of my own.
presented in

the papers and the potential for

The quality of the dialogue

the wider discussions during this

symposium are an important part of a continuing process.

Since we all come to these

discussions with a set of preconceived notions through which we interpret what we

read, to those of you whom I have unintentionally misinterpreted, I express my regret,
and I anticipate being cor"reeted in the succeeding discussions.

To Mrs. Russio I

sincerely apologize for not having been able to obtain an English translation of her
paper and thus must rely on the comments of

others~

In reading the papers and comments, it soon becomes apparent that there are both

areas of difference and of agree men t.

form

of

this discussion

The initial outline that established the basic

has advantageously

provided

the authors the latitude to

concentrate on the areas of their own interest while maintaining a basic congruity of
structure.

Thus, taken together, we are presented with a series of comp[imentary

papers that provides us with a broad perspective on the methodology of museology 1 the
training of personnel and the relationship between the two.

As such, I feel that tl;le

most constructive approach to summar~' and analysis is to continue the basic format

and respond to the original topics proposed: The Object of Museology.

What Is the

133

Nature of tv'iuseologicai Knowledge?

Fields?

Museological Knowledge Is Comprised of What

Or 1 What Is the System of

Museology and

Interdisciplinary Relations Between its Different Fields?

Methods

What Are the Objectives of.

Knowledge,

and~

Museological

Knowledge?

Methocology?

These questions continue a debate that has been going on for sometime

of.

Museological

How Can One Envisage the

based on a perceived fundamental dichotomy in the definition of museology.

finally,

(do not

come to this task of summary analysis as an advocate of either position but see this
paper as a opportunity to continue the clarification of concepts and perhaps to provide
some points of compromise.

As such: 1 have taken the liberty of injecting a few of my

own views into this discussion. I wiH not repeat at length sections from the papers you
have already received, assuming that they can best stand on their own g but will
concentrate on the areas of diHerence and similarity in order to establish a base for

our continued discussion.

WHAT IS THE OBJECT OF MUSEOLOGY?

In beginning with a definitIon as to the subject matter the basic differences

appear immediate!y. between those who would limit the concept of museology to an
institutional/cultural context base and those who would extend the meaning of the
term,

establishing the

human/object

!l;Jman!objecr

relationship

here

to

relationship
represent

the

as

primary.

broader

I lise

the

phrase

nOfl-institution-centered

perspective, and because objects, no matter how broadly defined, can have no meaning
for us outside human cognHion. These positions have been most clearly stated by Hodge
and Burcaw I even though nei ther of them are probably as absolute as their words would
imply.

Burcaw states that "Museo!ogy is the study of the museum institution as

134

currently, professionally understood " and then goes on to describe the attributes
of this study, extending the definition from the intemal structure of the institution to
include the fuU range of relationships between the institution and its socio-cultural
setting.

In his C0rJ,ments on the papers, he reinforces the theoretical and philosophical

attributes of museology ~

Hodge, on the other hand, begins with the human/object

relaticnship as basic to the concept of museology and states that liThe museum is one
manifestation of museology" implying a wider application of the term and including
non-museum institutiona! forms. It has been a common response to statements such as
these to infer an either/or situation, as if there existed an absolute separation between

them.

As you read the papers, however t 1 think you wHl agree that the difference is

best described as a continuum with a predominantly pragmatic institutional approach at

one end and a more generalized human/object relationship approach at the other. The
institutional orientation does not separate the museum from its fullest cultural context
any more than the human/object relationship excludes the museum from a role In this

wider perspective. The museum remains a fundamental variable in this continuum with
variation based on the extent to which the institution is considered paramount.

The

question resulting from the end positions on this continuum, and many of us would
generaUy fall somewhere in th! middle, is whether the study of or interest in the
human/object relationship outside the museum institution is a vaHd concern for the
discipline labeled museology.

tv ost of our currently expressed positions are essentially

differences in degree r-3.ther tha) in kind. A final consensus, if one is indeed necessary,
wiH result from a clearer under .tanding of the behavioral aspects of the human/object

relatiom>hip as reflected in the museum institution, whether these relationships extend

beyond the

institution~ and

to \ hat extent each individual cultural context produces ,a

series of relationships unique tr itself. as opposed to those relationships that might be

the result of human uni vers.slit.

We must keep in mind that the museum is not yet a

135

uni versa! human institution 1 but is the result of the interplaY of a. specific set of
historical and cultural variables.

The role that museology will play in extending and

developing the museum institution as an effective soda! instrument in all cultural

societies will depend

00

the extent to which it understands both the museum concept

and the w:der human experience.

It will be only after we have established the

parameters of the external and non-institutionally-based relationships that we will be

able to determine their usefulness to the fuller understanding of the museum institution

as it currently exists. With most of the authors recognizing the role of cultural context
and including in their definitions a philosophical dimension and a role for culturally

prescribed values v the differences between authors lies predominantly in the degree to
which they emphasize one over the other and the extent to which these aspects are
related directly to the museum institution.

Fortunately agreement exists on the primary functions of the museum as being the
proper care, use and development of. collections for current and future society.

As

well$ there is a consensus as to the highly varied and complex nature of actual museum
actIvities.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF MUSEOlOGlCAL KNOWLEDGE?

It is . apparent

from

knowledge are contingent

011

the

discussions that

the

parameters of

museological

the initial definition of museology. It is generally agreed

that this knowledge is broadly

~nc1usive~

encompassing both the practical and the

theoretical and with no dispute as to the necessity of utilizing other established

disciplines to facilitate the museum's appropriate functions.

As with the definition of

museology, the difficulties appear at the conceptual level of theory and in establishing

136

the role and relevance of different theoretical approaches and 1 therefore J the kinds
and forms of knowledge included in the discipline.

Let me digress for a moment to

emphasize the general agreement by the authors as to the strong relationship between.
theory and prcC1ke. It is important here not to confuse theory with philosophy in the
casual use of terms.

Theory is the source of order within which the mass of empirical

data from and of the museum is transformed into acceptable practice.

~ently

understood direction, rationale and substantiation for what occurs in actual

fact and is the basis for continued action.

base even

Theory is the

Theory does not exist without an empirical

though theory, itself ~ is symbolic in nature.

Likewise t in human and

consequently in museum experience, understanding and response do not exist without

some form of theoretical structure.

In the disclJssions on the nature of museologica!

knowledge we are again talking on two IeveJs.

Hodge and Stransky state dearly and

others imply that there is as yet no firm theoretical structure to museology. While it
may not be fu11y elucidated to the satisfaction of all concerned, there is theory behind
that which is being done within the museum itself.

In each situation occurring within

the museum, the theoretical constructs that one holds mentally form the basis for
action.

Theory does exist in the sense of its use in individual

empirical museum world.

l~derstanding

of the

Even the most pragmatic approach to museums can not deny

the existence of this theoretical level. On a second level , however, and here StrAnsky
and Hodge are correct, there does

~ot.

appear to be a fully formula ted 1 cohesl ve en tHy

that is available to the profession as a whole, and separat.e from what we all carry in
our heads.

To use an analogy

Kaplants (1964) discussion

investigation.

of

a~

further clarification, let me refer you to Abraham

log1c-ln~use

and

reconstructed

Lcgk-ln-use is essentially what one actually

logic

in

scientific

uses in research and

reconstructed logic is the verbal or written description of what one thinks that one
did.

They are not necessarily the same. Theory-in-use is what we all use and exists

137

thrOIJghout the pmfesson.

Reconst:"ucted theor>-' is the stated reflection of in-use

theory which then becomes the basis for further investigation. In our discussions here,
it is this second level of

stated~

written and accepted theory that forms the basis for

our differences. In separating current museologicaJ discourse and literature from a still
non-existing theoretical ideal, Gluzinski is stating this same relationship and is making
us aware of the Importance of recognizing the difference between what is and what we
would want to be.

tt appears from the papers that the terms General, Special and Applied have a
useful place in classifying the different attributes of ffiuseological knowledge, by
categorizing

museum acti vity ~ museum forms and museum theory

into uni ts, thus

creating a framework for recognizing diversity, and establishing the interplay among
associated disciplines.
In his comments on the initial papers, Burcaw proposes a modification of this
organization by including the impact of unique cultural contexts on museums as part of
special ffiUseology.

I find in the papers no disagreement with this addition and 1 would

refer you aU to an additional discussion of this tripartite scheme in the Report from
the 3rd Meeting of the
Czechoslovakia.
forth

the

reOM

International Committee for

Museology, Bmo

1979~

While stating his preference for an institutional base, Burcaw sets

two options for

differences apparent in

the

a definition of

general museology

that

reflects

the

perceived parameters of museological knowledge and

concommltandy museologkal theory. Instead of limiting ourselves to one or the other I

would like to sugges1;, for your consideration, a fourth level be added to the existing
system.

With this addition, we wilt be able to ac('ommodate both alternatives. This

fourth dimension would be concerned with the broadt:r ramifications of a human/object

relationship both internal and cxterna! to the museum, leaving General Museology with
a designation of museum based theory for the appro1lriate accumulation, care and use

138

of objects in meeting present and fl,rture human needs6 AHowing such a compromise, and
it is just a compromise, would recognize the two current perspectives, eliminate the

constant channeling of effort into continuous debate on definition, permit. those

involved

the human/object relationship

in

to demonstrate the relevance of

their

approach to the understanding of the human experience, as well as, to the museum
institution r and provide a place for considering questions as to the essence of museums.

If such a new level is accepted, especially since it already exists, the next question
would be a descripti ve label.

Several have already been suggested or implied in the

papers~ as by van Mensch et al. with Theoretical Museology, Gluzinski with Postulated

Museology and Burcaw with Material Science.

I do not suggest one here, but I would

like to point out a subtle taxonomic implication that we should at least be aware of. If
the term used is a form of museoJogy as General, Special and Applied are, we are
saying that this fourth level shares attributes in common with the other forms. To give
a fourth level a name without the use of the term museology, such as Material

Sdence~

would imply that a much greater' difference exists between this level and the other
three. It would not, however, prevent those museologists interested in a wider approach
from working towards their goals of a broader understanding and perspective. With this
fourth level, the introduction of Semiotics, as suggested by GluZlnski and van Mensch
et aL could be incorporated into the general theoretical construct. This would reverse J
however, the relationship suggested, that of theoretical museology being part of
semiology t and associate semiology with theoretical museology in much the same way as
chemistry
education.

assoda.ted with conservation or as pedagogy is associated with museum

is

would anticipate that

in

the future,

as

research

progresses,

the

distinctions between these current orientations will become blurred as data and theory
are incorporated into the discipline. The museum institution is still, after alI, a shared
reality.

139

MUSEOlOGICAL KNOWLEDGE IS COMPRISED OF WHAT FIELDS?

AND WHAT IS THE'

SYSTEM OF MUSEOLOGY AND HOW CAN ONE ENVISAGE THE INTERDISCIPLINARY

RElAnONS BETWEEN ITS DIFfERENT FIELDS?

The authors' views on the fields of museolog.ical knowledge and the order and
interrelationship of their different aspects are consistent with the general recognition
of the wide and varied activities of the museum institution.

Accepting both the

theoretical and the practical dimensions in the coordination of information within and
for the museum, the authors subscribe to the basic idea that whatever contributes to a
more effective functioning of the museum is acceptable.

A correlative concept is that

this information is or should be incorporated on the basis of the theoretical framework

of museo!ogy. Jann and van Mensch et al. provide us with schemes that illustrate some
of the 'laded possibilities.

The specific application of information, its form and its

relevance depends all the particular situation.

Certain disciplines are relevant to the

practical aspects of the museum acti vities while others relate to theory formation and
general understanding.

Whether this combination constitutes a cohesive whole depends

on the degree to which museological theory is seen as the directing force for

of the

various kinds and forms foiJnd among museums and their related activities.

WHAT ARE. THE OBJECTIVES OF MUSEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE?

After all the different perspecti yes presented on the subject matter and nature of
museological knowledge, there is an interesting consensus as to the objectives of this

140

knowledge as well as the objectives of professional

training.

The objectives of

museological knowledge are essentiaHy to increase knowledge and understanding of the

museum phenomena through the development of a theoretical structure that can be
translated into effective museum practice.

While each of the authors have a different

way of expressing these objectives and emphasize one aspect over another depending
on where they stand on my hypothesized continuum, and with the possible exception of

van Mensch et al. who look for "insight into human societies," the objectives have a
strong museum orientation and anticipate the future of the museum phenomena as an
increasingly effective social instrument.

In like manner, consensus exists as to the

primary objective of museotogical teaching and training.

While Stransky points out a

worthwhile distinction between training and teaching as one between the practical and
the theoretical, in either case the museum as a functioning socio-cultural institution is
at the core. Thus, the training of professional museologists involves both the practical
or museographical aspects and the theoretical or museologicaJ aspects of the totali ty
of museologicaI knowledge.

METHODS OF MUSEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

Three points of consensus can be derived from the papers concerning the methods
of museological knowledge and the distinction between research and teaching. Initially,
it is recognized that the methods of both research and teaching are derived from

different sources. The methods of museological research, not restricted by a partiCular

definition of museology, lie generally within a broad understanding of science, wi ~h
some suggestions as to specific sources by GluzHlski in semiotics and the sociology of
culture, and van Mensch et al. within semiotics and the phenomenological method. Jahn

141

makes an important comment in stating that the methods used in any research project
are dependent on the specific requirements of the research problem and its ultimate
aim or goaL

This will be the case whether the research is within an established

discipline as part of the museum structure or is part of the search for a theoretica I
base for museoJogy in general.

In this regard, it becomes evident that museological

research need not have 1 nor should it attempt to have, a series of methods, or for that
matter I techl1iques, unique to itself, since the lack of such uniqueness does not negate
its independence as a discipline.

What is important is that the methods used are

logically cohesi ve, lend credence to the final results, and allow for replication.

It is

the uniqueness of the configuration formed by the data base, the problem structure and
aim t and the methods chosen, that gives independence to a discipline, not anyone
element taken alone.

In the teaching and/or training of museum professionals, the methods chosen come
predominantly from the field of education or pedagogy and are didactic in nature.
These are not contingent on the subject matter but operate in the dimension of

effective learning situations.

The second point is that while methods differ between research and teaching, the
training

of

museum

professionals

is

dosely

associated

with

both

museological knowledge and the methods through which it is developed.

training

programs, as

viewed by the authors,

museographical knowledge with

should

some accommodation

to

the body

of

The content of

be both museological and

the

future

direction

of

individuals or specific museum positions as reflected in the great variety of museum

acti vities.
The third point, which is a further extension of the second, is the concern by the
authors about the potential and relevance of proper training to the future development
of museologkal knowledge and, concommitantly, the museum. GJUZiflSki has diagrammed

142

this reciprocal relationship and uses a term that I think reflects the hopes of aU of us,
that of continued enrichment. This process will not be possible, however, if we at any
point remove the mechanisms of dissemination.

The new knowledge and insight of

trained museoIogists will then remain essentially individualistic and only at a much
slower rate seep into the mainstream of museological knowledge.

We all understand,

only too well, the difficulties of information exchange at an international level, as

pointed out by Hooge and Burcaw.
While agreement in genera! is a pleasant interlude, the problems still remain as to

the specifics of the methods to be used.

Preference for certain methods and their

concommltant implications lies in our individual perspectives as to the form and intent
of museologicaJ knowledge. In like manner the form and intent of professional training
is a reflection of the real needs of the museum institution in all Its varied forms. Most
wit! support the need for both a theoretical and a practical aspect to training with
some combInation of classroom and museum experience.

Nair and Gorakshkar have

elucidated for us many of the current questions surrounding the structure and impact
of training programs.
I would like to add here a small note of caution and to point out a potential
limiting

factor

in

professional training.

the

happy

relationship

between

museological

knowledge

~nd

AUow me to refer to Kaplan (p. 29) again who warns that, "The

price of training is always a certain 'trained incapacity': the more we know how to do
something, the harder it is to learn to do it differently " The museum, as well as
the sodo-cuitur'aJ milieu in which it exists, is not a static entity. It is a dynamic
phenomenon that is always seeking a better or more effective fit with its Jarger
context, which itself is in a state of flux.

Along with training for the museum of

today, we must teach an openness to future change and an awareness of the necessity

of adaptability. If training is to be vital to the profession, this training should not be

143

stifling to future potential growth.

We can not seek final or absolute solutions, only

currently relevant ones, or else we risk the possibility of always being "behind the
times" and always slightly out of step with the changing needs and expectations of

society.

METHODOLOGY

A reference again to definition wiU, I think, help to clarify the difference.s that

appear in the conceptualizations of methodology amongst the authors, and explain the
different responses to the question of one or many methodologies.
apparent in the papers.

Two definitions are

One, primarily colloquial, considers methodology to be a

particular collection or configuration of methods relevant to a specific discipline,

subject matter, or problem.

The other, following a more technical or traditionally

scientific definition, approaches methodology as the logical structure that supports the
organization of data and
investigation.

theory within a discipline and directs its process of

To quote Kaplan (p. 18) once again, methodology is

description, the explanation, and the justification--of methods, not

II

the

. the
methods

themsel ves."
With this in mind, we can see
that those taking a method approach will find
that
.
.
the great variety of museum thought and activity necessitates the formulation of
different methodologies, one pertaining to each locus of acti vity.

Those viewing.

methodology as logic-based principles tend to establish one primary methodology for

the theoretical realm of museology and allow a variety of methods to suffice for the.
wide range of museum activity.

In this case, when museum theory is the basis for

practice and is the mechanism for ordering internal and external relationships between

both the sodo-cultural. context' and the' different incorporated disciplines, then one
methodology serves the totality of museologica! knowledge.

IN SUMMARY

The papers prepared for this symposium demonstrate clearly that while museology
is not yet the ideal we all stri ve for, it is certai nly ali ve, well and growing. This is the
case because of, not in spite of, our differences.

Each author, on the basis of his or

her own starting position has logically peveloped the theme of this symposium and, as
SUCh, has added insight to the current body of museological knowledge.

Time has not

perml tted the fuU discussion of aU the sped f ic points of interest in each paper, so I
leave that to our following discussions. Differences, discussions and debates are good

for museology, since absolute agreement leads only to stagnation and the lack of
self.;'examination stifles growth. Each time we are forced to respond to new ideas, we
.further clarify our own positions.
continued difference.
than simple consensus.

In this we will find areas of agreement and areas of

What we should be striving for is mutual understanding rather

To this

end~

the papers of this symposium are a credit to

museoiogical debate and are a significant step in a continuing process i which hopefully
will have no ultimate end.

145

REFERENCES

Papers prepared for the joint symposium of the International Committee for the
Training of Personnel and the International" Committee for M~eoJogy on the
.

..

Methodology of Museology and the Training of Personnel, London, 1983.

Papers by:

G. Ellis Burcaw
Sadashiv

~akshkar

Wojdech Gluzinski

John Hodge
Use 3aho

s.

M. Nair

Waldisa RUssia

Zbynek Z. Stransky
Peter van Mensch, Piet Pouw and Frans Schouten

Comments by:

G. Ellis Burcaw
Sadashl v Gorakshkar

s.

M. Nair

Peter van Mensch, Piet Pouw and Frans SChouten

Kaplan, Abraham.

The Conduct

of

Inquiry; Methodology for Behavioral Scien~e.

Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco. 1964.