Peter van Mensch

Towards a methodology of museology

(PhD thesis, University of Zagreb 1992)

 

International Committee for Museology

 

Founded in 1976 the International Committee for Museology (ICOFOM) has become the third largest international committee within the International Council of Museums (ICOM). The committee can be considered the main platform for international museological discussion. Members of the International Committee for Museology are as such members of the International Council of Museums. However, participation in ICOFOM activities is not limited to formal  membership of either ICOM or ICOFOM. Participation from outside these organisations is even sought after. So, in fact we are dealing with two populations within the committee: (1) the ICOFOM membership as a whole, and (2) the participants in ICOFOM activities. On the basis of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of both populations it will be attempted to define the professional context of the international museology discussion.

 

ICOFOM’s pre-history

 

Two strong personalities have put their stamp upon this committee as successive chairmen: Jan Jelinek and Vinos Sofka. Both have their personal and professional roots in Brno (Czechoslovakia), a town which, curiously enough, has continued to play a special role in the history of ICOFOM and museology from the early 1960s onwards.

 

In 1951 Jelinek (born 1926, graduated in anthropology at Brno university in 1949) was appointed curator at the Moravian Museum[1]. In 1958 he became director of the museum[2]. In this position he made great efforts to convert the once neglected provincial museum into a truly scientific as well as an educational institute[3]. He launched an extensive reconstruction programme of the museum premises and initiated new departments. For example, he established a scientific institute-cum-museum, Anthropos, based on multidisciplinary research of the Pleistocene period. The museum, in fact a department of the Moravian Museum, was opened in 1964 in a purpose built building. Physical and cultural anthropology, palaeontology and geology were integrated in order to obtain a better insight into the life of Pleistocene man (Jelinek 1969). According to Novotny there was no precedent for such a concept, which offered a complex approach to the period to be researched (Novotny 1986: vi).

 

Because of this innovative approach Jelinek very soon attracted attention not only within the field of palaeoanthropology but also from the international museum world. His first museological publications concerned the concept of Anthropos in which he explained the multidisciplinary approach[4]. Among those who became interested in Jelinek’s concept of a multidisciplinary museum was George-Henri Rivière, who visited the Moravian Museum in 1964. This visit contributed to the development of Rivière’s museological thinking, which eventually led to the concept of the ecomuseum. It was also Rivière who introduced Jelinek into ICOM, where soon after Rivière’s visit Jelinek was asked to become chairman of the International Committee of Regional Museums. In 1965 Jelinek was elected chairman of ICOM’s Advisory Committee, while in 1971 he became president of ICOM, a function he held for two terms of office, till 1977.

 

In the meantime, having been appointed director of the Moravian Museum, Jelinek was confronted with a lack of consensus among his curators about the policy of the museum. As the curators felt themselves scientific researchers rather than museum workers, Jelinek was forced to consider two basic questions: (a) what is the profile of the museum profession, and (b) what is the essence of scientific research within the museum context?[5] The importance of these questions prompted him to take two initiatives: to create a department of museology at the Moravian Museum and to (re)establish a chair in museology at the Jan E. Purkinje University (Brno). The department of museology, created in 1962, had a two-fold task. Firstly, it should provide a theoretical basis to the policy of the Moravian Museum itself, and secondly it should give advice to the smaller museums in the region. Having been elected a member of the Scientific Committee of the university, Jelinek succeeded in establishing a department of museology at the university too[6]. This department had to cater for the training of future curators. Established in 1963 this department was the first post-war university-based training opportunity in Europe[7]. Initially Jelinek himself directed the courses, but soon Zbynek Stransky (from Prague) became his assistant. In 1964 Stransky was given full responsibility for both the departments of museology of the museum and of the university[8].

 

As chairman of the Advisory Committee and subsequently as president of ICOM, Jan Jelinek discovered that the problems he had met in the museum were also found within ICOM. There was little rapport between the growing number of specialist committees. The discussions about establishing special committees on museums of literature and of Egyptology prompted Jelinek to propose the foundation of a committee on museology, which could serve as the “conscience “ of ICOM. The proposal met with approval from the Advisory Committee in June 1976, after which it was discussed by the Executive Council[9].

 

The task of the newly proposed committee was described in the document The establishment of a new international committee on museology: “Every branch of professional activity needs to be studied, developed and adapted to changing contemporary conditions – and not least that of museology. To pursue the aims of distributing knowledge of modern museological ideas and to help in different fields of museological development, this will be the programme of the ICOM International Committee for Museology”.[10]

 

The Executive Council decided to establish an ad hoc working group to meet before the next General Conference in order to define the work of the new committee. This meeting was held at Brno in March 1977[11]. At the 34^th session of the Advisory Committee (May 1977) the report of the ad hoc working group was approved and ICOFOM was accepted as a new international committee[12]. Its chairman was Jelinek, then retiring president of ICOM[13]. At that time the committee counted thirteen members[14].

 

First period, 1977-1982

 

It took some time for the committee’s administrative and scientific structure to take shape. [15] Most of the documents had a rather ad hoc character. The first constitutive document (Rules) was a brief, rough outline, defining the aims of the committee as:

 

1      to establish museology as a scientific discipline;

2      to study and to assist in the development of museums and the museum profession, to study their role in society, their activities and their functions;

3      to encourage critical analysis of the main trends of museology.[16]

 

The first triennial programme focussed on three points: (a) research in museums, (b) relations between governmental bodies, other sources of funding, and museums, and (c) relations between museums and other cultural institutions[17]. The first point became the theme of ICOFOM’s first annual meeting (Warsow 1978). It reflected Jelinek’s life-long interest: the identity of research typical for the museum[18]. Not surprisingly, the theme of ICOFOM’s second annual meeting (Torgiano 1979) referred to another topic typical for Jelinek: multi- and interdisciplinarity in museum work.

 

Jelinek was a practical man rather than a philosopher. The topics of the first triennial programme followed from his practical outlook. The theme of the third meeting (Mexico 1980), however, shifted the perspective to the ‘metamuseological’ level as it focussed on Systematics and systems in museology.  The triennial programme for 1980-1983 listed four topics to be discussed within the committee: (a) selection of museum objects and building of collections, (b) museology and its applications to different types of museums,  (c) museology and public relations, and (d) systems of museology[19]. Only the last theme was actually dealt with (Paris 1982).

 

In September 1979 the International Committee for Training of Museum Personnel met in Leicester. Vinos Sofka reported on behalf of ICOFOM about the committee’s first meeting in Warsaw. The reactions were mixed.  Surprisingly George-Henri Rivière reacted very negative. Another critic was Giljam Dusee, first director of the newly founded Reinwardt Academie (Amsterdam). Both speakers represented a considerable group of ICTOP members with doubts concerning content and ideological orientation of ICOFOM. Many ICTOP members felt uncomfortable with the number of Eastern European museologists in ICOFOM. This feeling was made explicit by Burcaw (ICTOP member) in his contribution to the joint ICOFOM-ICTOP meeting in 1983 (Burcaw 1983). Despite the doubts, and sometimes even hostilities, ICOFOM and ICTOP organised joint meetings in 1983 and 1984. Many voting members of ICOFOM are non-voting member of ICTOP and vice versa.

 

After 1979 Jelinek more or less lost control over the committee. This was partly due to a decreasing interest on his part. At the end of his career he wanted to concentrate on his scientific work (anthropology). Another problem was his delicate health, which forced him to set priorities. The main reason, however, was the lack of support from the Czech authorities. As result of his activities and opinions expressed in 1968, Jelinek was forced to resign from the position of director of the Moravian Museum. Having been elected president of ICOM he was allowed to continue his international activities. The end of the presidency was the end of his activities as simply no money was made available any longer.

 

The committee’s third annual meeting (Mexico 1980) ended in chaos. Only a few of the scheduled lectures actually took place, while Rivière tried to impose his own approach on the committee’s sessions[20]. Due to lack of a stimulating chairman the committee failed to meet in 1981. The meeting in 1982 (Paris) took again a rather chaotic turn. As in Mexico, Rivière tried to manipulate the meeting, which was chaired by Sofka since Jelinek was unable to attend[21]. The main problem was the status of ecomuseums and the so-called new museology within ICOFOM. As a kind of compromise it was decided to have two symposiums during the next meeting (London 1983): one in cooperation with ICTOP about the methodology of museology, and one about ecomuseums.

 

Second period, 1983-1989

 

At the 1983 annual meeting in London Sofka was elected chairman. Sofka (born 1929; graduated in law at Prague University in 1952) had worked from as deputy director of the Archaeological Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences at Brno from 1956 till 1968. He succeeded to escape the country in 1968. In Stockholm he worked successively as Head of the Exhibition Department, the Management and Administration Department, and the Museum Development Department of the Museum of National Antiquities[22]. Jelinek en Sofka had got to know each other in Brno, and Jelinek saw in Sofka the enthusiastic organiser the  committee needed.

 

During his two terms as chairman, Sofka developed a modus operandi which gradually became characteristic for ICOFOM and formed the basis of its unexpected success. It was based on three interconnected symposia and extensive publishing. The basic document is the ICOFOM aims & policy, which is the basis for the Long-term programme. For each triennial period, the long-term programme is translated into a Triennial programme. The ICOFOM aims & policy and the Long-term programme were discussed and finally accepted at the 1986 meeting in Buenos Aires.

 

The Long-term programme mentions the following means of achieving the objectives given by the ICOFOM aims & policy: symposia, lectures, workshops, publications and museological exhibitions. The core activity is the annual symposium, which is seen as a place for direct discussion and debate on museological questions. In addition lectures may be organised, offering the opportunity to benefit from the unique circumstances afforded by the host country and its institutions. In practice this idea resulted into seminars, i.e. sessions during which a group of invited speakers presented their ideas and experiences, followed by discussion.

 

 

A special activity mentioned in the Long-term programme is the ICOFOM Museology Workshop. In 1986 the first international workshop was organized in cooperation with the Nationales Museumsrat der DDR (see below). The Long-term programme also mentions the possibility to organize regional workshops providing the opportunity to meet locally to boost membership participation. Finally, the possibility of museological exhibitions is mentioned. These exhibitions could give an overview of relevant museological publications from all over the world. During the ICOM General Conferences in 1986 and 1989 such exhibitions have been organized, but without direct involvement of the committee.

 

At the end of the second period ICOFOM appeared to have succeeded in having acquired respectability as an international platform for theoretical discussion, while at the same time museology itself seems to have become recognized and accepted as an academic discipline. The many symposiums and seminars, as well as the publications resulting from those meetings produced much useful material on the three fields mentioned in the Rules. Even though the distribution of this material was limited, it wielded a stimulating influence. The invitations to ICOFOM key members to participate in a large number of meetings on the theory of museology organized by national and international organisations contributed to the spreading of the ideas that were developed within the committee. The amount of these meetings in 1988 prompted Sofka to speak about ‘the museology boom in 1988’ and ‘1988 as break-through-year of museology’ [23]. After ten years the committee seems to have reached a position in which its aims have acquired new impetus.

 

The meetings

 

The main activities of the committee are concentrated on the annual symposia. The theme of these symposia arises from the Long-term programme and is usually decided upon during the meeting in connection with the ICOM General Conference[24]. During the 1983 meeting a model was worked out to provide a structure for the successive symposia, based on the interrelationship society-object-museum[25]. Specific topics were to be chosen within these parameters. The model was followed during the triennial period 1983-1986, but abandoned in the next period (though retained in the triennial programme)[26]:

 

1984     (Leiden) Collecting today for tomorrow – highlighting the relationship between object and society

1985     (Zagreb) Originals and substitutes in museums – highlighting the relationship between object and museum

1986     (Buenos Aires) Museology and identity – highlighting the relationship between museum and society

1987     (Espoo) Museology and museums

1988     (Hyderabad) Museology and developing countries

1989     (Den Haag) Forecasting – a museological tool?

 

At the invitation of the Nationales Museumsrat der DDR a museology workshop was organized. The workshop was held in Berlin and Alt-Schwerin (16-22 May, 1986). Fifteen experts from thirteen countries participated (on invitation), ten of them members of the board of ICOFOM[27]. The aim of the workshop was to finalize the study on the first theme of the publication Museological Working Papers: ‘Museology – science or just practical work?’. In addition papers gathered at ICOFOM meetings (and published as ICOFOM Study Series) were studied as well[28]. During the workshop is was concluded that there was no consensus as to the essence, intent nor appropriate direction of the discipline. An attempt was made to distinguish some main lines of thought. This work was used as the starting point of the analysis given in Chapter 4.[29]

 

After the first workshop no second one was organized. In order to provide for some structure to assess the work of the committee two seminars were organized: one in 1987 on ‘The need for museology’ and one in 1989 on ‘ICOFOM 1976-1989: assessment of achievements’. The papers that were presented at these seminars were published in Museological News, and were thus available to all members of the committee.

 

The publications

 

Although the discussions did not always lead to satisfactory results, the successive issues of ICOFOM Study Series from a tangible proof of the committee’s academic potential. The large number of papers serve as a sort of goldmine which can also be explored outside the context of the original symposiums. They are used in readers by different museum studies programmes, and many of the papers are translated and published in other languages.

 

 

The first issue of Museological News (MN) was published in May 1981. It was edited by the committee’s secretary and assistant-secretary André Desvallées and Gerard Turpin. After two issues the production of the bulletin was taken care of by Vinos Sofka. The size of the publication increased from 12 pages (MN 2) to 45 pages (MN 3), reaching a maximum of 287 pages in 1988 (MN 11). From its 9^th issue onwards Museological News was published annually instead of biannually. The bulletin served two purposes. The main purpose was to keep the committee’s membership informed about administrative matters. Gradually (from the 9^th issue onwards) papers referring to the topics of the meetings were included. Most op de papers presented at ICOFOM seminars were published in Museological News.

 

The main publication series of the committee was supposed to be Museological Working Papers (MuWoP). This ambitious initiative is well documented in a series of proposals, reports, etc. published in the journal itself and in Museological News[30]. At the meeting of the committee in 1978 an Editorial Board was formed[31]. The activities of this working group resulted in the publication of MuWoP 1 in 1980. The journal was intended to be an open forum focussing on the fundamental questions within the field of museology. The first issue raised the question that had been discussed within and without the committee for years: is museology a science? By a letter to the secretaries of all national and international committees of ICOM the international museum community was invited to contribute[32].

 

After two issues the publication of this journal was no longer possible due to lack of financial support. A lot of interesting material remained unpublished since it had been the intention to publish the final reports of all ICOFOM meetings in MuWoP. Consequently, papers started to be published in Museological News (hence its increase in size). The publication of MuWoP being interrupted, ICOFOM Study Series became the focal point of the publications programme. However, ISS had a limited circulation as it was only distributed among the contributors and the participants of the symposiums. The distribution of ISS illustrates the committee’s main dilemma. The scientific work of the committee was supposed to be based on the open forum idea. Everybody should be able to contribute to the conference themes, either in person or by writing. But, the main body of material was not widely distributed. This hampered the transfer of points of view from one symposium to the next. This is illustrated by the fact that only a very small number of authors refer to earlier ISS papers. The wider circulation of both MuWoP issues is shown by a more frequent mentioning.

 

 

	number of authors referring to other publications	number of titles mentioned	number of ICOFOM titles mentioned	number of non-ICOFOM titles mentioned	number of non-museological titles mentioned
1983-1	7	37	13	11	13
1983-2	3	9	0	6	3
1984	7	27	3	19	5
1985	8	20	2	13	5
1986	15	129	9	51	69
1987	17	83	18	47	18
1988	16	88	15	40	33
1989	15	119	13	69	37

 

Table 1.  References to other publications by contributors of ICOFOM symposia, 1983-1989.

 

ICOFOM and New Museology

 

The difficulties that arose during the Mexico 1980 and Paris 1982 meetings were caused by difference of opinion about the position of ecomuseums and new museology within the committee. A group of members, headed by Rivière, attempted to make new museology the focus of the committee’s policy.

 

During the 1983 meeting the Canadian ‘ecomuseologist’ Pierre Mayrand proposed the forming of a working group on ‘muséologie communautaire’[33]. The newly elected board decided ‘to establish only function-oriented working groups and not constitute any permanent working groups to deal with the different problems within the field of museological research’[34]. Moreover, the board considered that ‘in a situation, where the principal matters concerning museology, as such, are still being studied and discussed, and where the justification of museology – and consequently of ICOFOM – is even called into question, constituting working groups for detailed museological matters, and especially for different “museologies”, could cause not only a split in limited personnel resources but first of all interference in the committee’s work in its entirety’. Nevertheless, Mayrand was asked to establish a temporary working group to prepare a special session on ecomuseums and new museology during the 1984 meeting of ICOFOM which was to take place in Canada.

 

The 1984 meeting of ICOFOM did not take place in Canada[35]. Thus the temporary working group had nothing to prepare, nor did it take any other initiative regarding ICOFOM. Instead something else happened. Disappointed by the lack of response during the 1983 meeting in London and by the failure to organize the committee’s annual meeting in Canada[36], the Canadian museologists organized the First International Workshop for Ecomuseums and New Museology in Quebec (8-13 October 1984). At this meeting a policy statement was adopted, known as the Declaration of Quebec  (Mayrand 1986).

 

The Declaration of Quebec expressed ‘the will to establish an organizational basis for joint reflection and experiments’. ICOM was requested to accept the creation of a special international committee on ecomuseums. The creation of an international Federation for New Museology was also proposed. The first request was rejected by ICOM[37]. At the second international meeting of this group (Lisbon 1985) the Movement International de Muséologie Nouvelle (MINOM) was founded, an organization that was eventually accepted by ICOM as affiliated organization[38].

 

The discussion about Mayrand’s proposal during the 1983 meeting and the creation of MINOM threatened the newly found stability of the committee (Sofka 1989: 70). The issue was not only the creation of a new working group. Much more was at stake, as André Desvallées explained later: ‘… the question was complicated by the problems of language, or even more of mentality, and the French found themselves supported by the French Canadians, the Belgians, the Spanish and more generally what one would call the “Latins”, and facing perhaps even against … I let you make the substraction. Is it a problem of civilization? Or a political problem? In any case, I believe that it is a problem of language. The Anglophones did not understand, or rather, misunderstood the Francophones …” [39]. Nevertheless, key persons of the new museology and ecomuseum movement, like André Desvallées and Mathilde Bellaigue, stayed loyal to ICOFOM where they held important positions (as vice-chairman and secretary respectively). Besides, many founding members of MINOM remained members of ICOFOM. Throughout the years new museology and ecomuseums kept a dominant position on the agenda of the committee. For example, all French authors contributing to the Buenos Aires 1986 symposium belonged to the new museology movement[40]. Special meetings on ecomuseums were organized in connection with the Leiden 1984 and Zagreb 1985 conferences.

 

Although new museology was often discussed within ICOFOM it was always considered as one possible approach rather than the main perspective. Each symposium was seen as an open forum, with a free exchange of ideas. Conclusions were never considered as final statements (Sofka 1989: 65)[41]. Besides matters concerning the aims and policy of the committee, ICOFOM never published ‘official’ statements, not even about the definition of museology. All contributions were taken seriously and were included in analyses and summaries. As chairman Sofka wrote: ‘The decisive contribution of the committee lies in its collecting function: it brings museum workers and museum researchers together, and by providing an international forum for discussion and a place for publication of ideas and opinions about museology, it leads to systematic studies and deepening museological questions’ (Sofka 1989: 65). His approach was much appreciated by the participants and certainly encouraged participation[42].

 

Membership

 

In August 1989 the number of ICOFOM members totalled 606, coming from 73 different countries[43]. At the same time the total number of ICOM members was 8583, distributed over 116 different countries[44]. The overall pattern of ICOFOM membership follows from ICOM membership. On the whole ICOFOM membership comprises 7 % of the ICOM members. Latin America as a whole far exceeds this figure, but some countries show an even stronger involvement.. While an average of 23 % of the Latin American ICOM members is member of ICOFOM, in Brazil 40 % is.

 

	ICOM	ICOFOM	ICOFOM/ICOM
Africa	2%	4%	14%
Latin America	7%	21%	21%
North America	16%	19%	8%
Arab States	1%	1%	9%
Asia	11%	7%	4%
East Europe	4%	3%	5%
West Europe	57%	45%	5%
Oceania	2%	1%	5%
total	100%	100%	7%

 

Table 2.  Regional distribution of ICOM and ICOFOM membership (1989)

 

The membership profile shows a dominance of Europe and the so-called developed world within ICOM: about 61 % of the (active) membership is European, while on the whole 86 % belong to the developed world[45]. In view of the specific role of the (former) European socialist countries in the development of a theory of museology (see Chapters 4-8) it is useful to distinguish between the (former) socialist and the capitalist parts of the developed world. Following the traditional three-fold division of the world, ICOM counts 7072 members (82 %) from the so-called First World, 324 members (4 %) from the Second World, and 1187 (4 %) from the Third World[46].  The overall pattern of ICOM follows from ICOM membership with a few notable exceptions. The committee is on the whole less European based. “Only” 45 % of its active members comes from Europe. However, like ICOM, a majority of the members comes from the developed world (71 %).

 

The limited number of members from East Europe is mainly due to the limited admittance to the national ICOM committees because of control by the national governments and currency regulations (E.Zell, pers.com.). In many countries, especially in the Third World, national ICOM committees seem to apply their own set of criteria as to admittance (V.Sofka, pers.com.). To what extent these limitations influence the number of members cannot be estimated, but is not to be neglected.

 

ICOM membership grew from 6036 active members in 1984 to 8583 in 1989, a growth factor of 1.4[47]. Between 1984 en 1986 the recruitment of members attained a level heretofore unequalled. The “new generation” represents almost 40 % of the total membership. The evolution of ICOM’s individual membership has been stable between 1986 and 1989. During Spring 1989 a new influx of members could be welcomed[48]. No research has been done as to the motives of museum workers to become member of ICOM and especially for expressing their wish to be considered as member of ICOFOM. According to the rules of ICOM it is possible to join more than one international committee. Each ICOM member can, however, be registered as voting member by one committee only. The right to vote thus may reflect the member’s main interest. At the same time the voting members give shape to the core of the committee. On the whole 41 % of the ICOFOM members is voting member. The general geographical distribution of the voting members is remarkably similar to the membership in general. Within the voting community Europe takes half the votes.

 

	members	voting member	vm/m
Africa	4%	10 ( 4%)	45%
Latin America	21%	51 (21%)	41%
North America	19%	39 (16%)	35%
Arab States	1%	4 ( 2%)	67%
Asia	7%	20 ( 8%)	50%
East Europe	3%	9 ( 4%)	50%
West Europe	45%	111 (45%)	41%
Oceania	1%	4 ( 2%)	44%
First World	68%	160 (65%)	39%
Second World	3%	9 ( 4%)	50%
Third World	29%	79 (32%)	45%
total	100%	248 (100%)	41%

 

Table 3. Comparison of regional distribution of ICOM members and ICOFOM members (1989)

 

In view of the history of the committee it is useful to compare the membership profiles of 1983 and 1989. In December 1983 ICOFOM counted 113 members from 40 countries. Numerically the First World dominated in both 1983 and 1989. In Latin and North America a comparatively high growth factor is found. The increase of members from Africa and East Europe stayed behind. Throughout the years France remained one of the most important countries as to membership. The high number of members from Brazil and Argentina in 1989 may be influenced by the ICOM General Conference held in that part of the world (Buenos Aires 1986).

 

	1983	1989	growth
Africa	7 ( 6%)	22 ( 4%)	3.1 x
Latin America	13 (11%)	125 (21%)	9.6 x
North America	15 (13%)	113 (19%)	7.5 x
Arab States	1 ( 1%)	6 ( 1%)	6.0 x
Asia	8 ( 7%)	40 ( 7%)	5.0 x
East Europe	8 ( 7%)	18 ( 3%)	2.3 x
West Europe	59 (52%)	273 (45%)	4.6 x
Oceania	2 ( 2%)	9 ( 1%)	4.5 x
Europe total	67 (59%)	291 (48%)	4.3 x
First World	78 (69%)	411 (68%)	5.3 x
Second World	8 ( 7%)	18 ( 3%)	2.3 x)
Third World	27 (24 %)	177 (29 %)	6.6 x
total	113 (100%)	606 (100%)	4.2 x

 

Table 4. Regional distribution of ICOFOM membership in 1983 as compared to 1989.

 

Participation

 

The policy of the ICOFOM board has always been to encourage as many people as possible to contribute to the symposia. The working method of the committee is based on the assumption that the world-wide interest in the symposium topics would be greater than the possibilities for ICOFOM members to travel. Therefore all members are encouraged to contribute to the discussions by writing, and to participate “in spirit” when physical participation is not possible. Writing presupposes an active involvement; being present at a meeting cannot always be described as a contribution to the development of the discipline (though it might be very instructive for the participant). The policy has proved to be a valid approach during the past period as is shown in table 5. While the number of contributors is rising, a larger number of them is unable to attend the meetings in person. During ICOM General Conferences (1983, 1986, 1989) there generally seems to be a larger number of authors present.

 

	number of authors	number of authors present at meetings
1983-1	21	16 (76%)
1983-2	15	13 (87%)
1984	22	13 (59%)
1985	32	15 (47%)
1986	48	24 (50%)
1987	43	20 (46%)
1988	49	20 (41%)
1989	43	22 (51%)

 

Table 5. Number of contributors present at the symposium to which they contributed in writing, 1983-1989.

 

During the 1977-1989 period 149 different museologists contributed to the committee’s symposia and MuWoP in writing. The 149 authors represented 39 different countries. Again a clear eurocentricity is reflected in the figures: more than half of the contributors is European. There is a clear dominance of western thinking: 60 % of the authors is from West Europe, North America, Israel, Australia and New Zealand. This dominance, however, is not as high as could be expected from the membership profile. The interest in the committee’s work from East European museologists is stronger than their ability to joint its membership (3 % membership, 15 % participation)., which is an interesting circumstance in view of the recent political developments in this part of the world. If a solution can be found for the financial problems, a growing number of East European members might be expected.

 

	membership 1983	participation 1978-1982	membership 1989	participation 1983-1989
Africa	6	0	4	5
Latin America	11	5	21	17
North America	13	20	19	17
Arab States	1	2	1	1
Asia	7	2	7	10
East Europe	7	34	3	13
West Europe	52	32	45	38
Oceania	2	5	1	3
First World	69	60	68	54
Second World	7	36	3	13
Third World	24	4	29	33

 

Table 6. Number of contributors as compared to membership (in %), 1977-1989.

 

When we compare membership profile and participation we see that the degree of involvement of museologists from Africa, Latin America and Asia has increased more than their membership. North American museologists seem to be less inclined to participate. The share of East European museologists in the activities of the committee dropped in proportion with the decrease in membership. It should, however, be noticed that the absolute number of authors did not decrease, but while the number of contributors from other parts of the world has increased, the number of East European authors has remained fairly stationary.

 

The share of museologists from Third World countries has increased quite suddenly in 1986 and had remained rather high ever since. The increase in 1986 is the result of the conference in Buenos Aires, which attracted new members and new participants. Although the majority of this group of new participants have become regular contributors to the committee’s symposia, participation remained restricted to two countries only: Argentina and Brazil. The 1988 symposium held in India, again attracted a group of new participants. This time only participants from the host country itself. The participation of some of these new contributors in 1989 might indicate a lasting involvement of Indian museologists in ICOFOM activities.

 

ICOFOM’s Long-term programme intends to provide a structure for continuity and a step-by-step development of museology as academic discipline. However, the ‘demographics’ of the committee clearly show some limiting conditions. From 1983 till 1989 the number of members grew from 113 to 606. ‘Only’ 46 % of the 1983 members were still member in 1989. In other words, 54 % of the members of 1983 left the committee in the following six years. The same phenomenon can be observed in participation. There is a growing number of contributors, but a lack of continuity. Usually about half the contributors are new, i.e. contributing for the first time, many of them being ‘one-time contributors’.  Apparently these participants were only interested in the theme, or were encouraged to write on the theme by the local organisers.

 

The average degree of participation, i.e. the number of symposia the author took part in, during the first period (1977-1982) was 1.6; the degree of participation during the second period (1983-1989) was 2.1. In the first period 66 % of the authors participated only once, in the second period 56 %. Only very few authors contributed to all symposia: only one in the first period (Razgon) and three in the second (Schreiner, Sofka and Stransky)[49]. At the end of the second period a new generation of regular contributors seems to announce itself. It is no coincidence that many of these new authors are from Latin America (Argentina and Brazil). This reflects the increased involvement of this continent in ICOFOM matters.

 

	museum studies programmes	museums	museum-related organizations	government
Africa	1	4	1	2
Latin America	6	9	3	4
North America	6	12	1	0
Arab States	0	0	0	0
Asia	7	8	0	1
East Europe	8	9	4	2
West Europe	10	32	8	1
Oceania	2	2	0	0
total	40	76	17	10

 

Table 7. Professional background of contributors to ICOFOM symposia 1977-1989, at the time of their contribution.

 

Table 7 gives a rough indication of the professional backgrounds of the contributors. Those who were employed outside the museum field have not been included. On the whole they have made one contribution only, sometimes by special request. Close on half of the contributors worked in museums, one fourth was full-time of part-time engaged in museum studies programmes.

 

	members			contributors
	female	male		female	male
Africa	4	96		0	100
Latin America	74	26		73	27
North America	49	51		35	65
Arab States	17	83		0	100
Asia	30	70		21	79
East Europe6	6	94		22	78
West Europe	51	49		29	71
Oceania	22	78		40	60
total	49	51		36	64

 

Table 8. Male-female ration of ICOFOM members and contributors to ICOFOM symposia, 1977-1989 (in %).

 

Roughly one third of the contributors was female, while about half of the membership is female. However, the male-female ration differs per continent. The profile of the membership of the committee follows the general pattern found in ICOM[50]. Latin America is characterized by a majority of women in the profession. The degree of their participation in ICOFOM symposia equals the share in membership. West Europe and North America have a balanced male-female ration in the membership. The discrepancy between membership and participation in these regions remains to be explained. There is, however, an interesting parallel between the share of women in the publishing activities of the committee and their participation in other activities. For example, one third of the board members during the 1977-1989 period is female. Also one third of the so-called nuclear group (see below) is female.

 

For only 30 %  of the contributors one of the official conference languages was their native tongue (English 17 % + French 13 %). For 10 % of the contributors, coming from former colonies,  English or French was their second language, or perhaps even the first. For 60 % of the authors the situation was different. They had their texts translated by professional translators (usually not familiar with museological terminology) or made the translation themselves. This caused criticism among native speakers, complaining about the quality of the texts (Burcaw 1983: 18; Hodge 1983: 59; De Varine 1986: 72). In accordance with the preference expressed by the majority of non-native-speakers English has been designated the leading language. This is in agreement with the language preferences within ICOM membership. In 1989 the language preferences of new members of ICOM were: 73 % English, 21 % French, 6 % Spanish. The position of Spanish as official language within ICOM has much been discussed[51]. In ICOFOM too the number of Spanish speaking members & contributors is growing and they seem to feel the need to publish in their own language[52]. From 1991 onwards a Spanish-Portugese edition of Museological News is published by the regional working group (ICOFOM-LAM).

 

ICOFOM’s nuclear family

 

It is difficult to define a criterion to find the most influential ICOFOM members. Board membership might be considered as one. The board of the committee plays an important role as ‘brain trust’. It is no coincidence that many of the board members belong to the most active participants. From a quantitative point of view the board does not reflect the membership. From the outset there has been a lack of balance. The most ‘dramatic’ difference between the composition of the board and that of the membership concerns East Europe. Three of the thirteen board members elected in 1986 were East European, while only 3 % of the membership belongs to that part of the world. The increase of Latin American membership is not reflected in the composition of the board. The 1986 board consisted of only one Latin American member. The majority of the board members (7) was West European.  When we compare the composition of the four boards of the period 1977-1989 we see a gradual shift from a predominantly socialist and French speaking board to a West European and English speaking board.

 

Apart from board membership participation in ICOM activities can be used as criterion for involvement. A (rather arbitrary) system is developed in order to find listing-criteria:

• participation in writing: number of symposia concerned (max. 8 points);
• participation in the actual annual conference: number of conferences concerned (max. 7 points);
• special duties during symposia, such as discussion leader or summarizer (2 points);
• participation in special ICOFOM meetings (3 points)
• board membership: chairman (3 points), office holder (2 points), member (1 point), re-election 1 point extra;
• representation outside ICOFOM (1 point).

The maximum score is 25. On the basis of this calculation a group of twelve ICOFOM members can be indicated as ICOFOM’s nuclear group, i.e. the group of most active and most committed members in the period 1983-1989:

 

Sofka (Sweden)                25

Van Mensch (Netherlands)   23

Bellaigue (France)              22

Sola (Yugoslavia)               22

Spielbauer (USA)              20

Desvallées (France)            19

Schreiner (GDR)               19

Stransky (Czechoslovakia)   16

Carrillo (Spain)                 15

Morral (Spain)                 14

Grote (FRG)                    13

Kaplan (USA)                  12

 

With ten Europeans (seven from West and three from East Europe) this nuclear group reflects the eurocentricity of the museology discourse (see Chapter 2).

 

Concluding remarks

 

The history of ICOFOM reflects the history of museology as academic discipline. During the 1970s museology started to break away from the subject-matter disciplines. The same emancipation process is visible in the comparison of ICOFOM’s first and third triennial programme. Whereas the first symposium topics highlight the role of subject-matter research in museums, the third series of topics follows from a more museological point of view, based on the interrelationship of three basic parameters: object, museum and society. During the second triennial period the profiling of the committee as international forum of the museology discourse revealed a fundamental difference in approach between two schools of thought, represented by museologists from France and Canada (Quebec) on the one hand, and museologists from Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic on the other. The decision to focus on a cognitive orientation in museology as advocated by the East European museologists as opposed to a programme orientation as advocated by the French and Canadian museologists (see Chapter 5) led to the foundation of the International Movement for a New Museology in 1985.

 

The interest of East European museologists in the work of the committee and the main orientation chosen at the end of the second triennial period is still reflected in the composition of the nuclear group, the composition of the board, and the difference between participation and membership. As to participation and board membership East European museologists are far over-represented. During the 1983-1989 period the participation of East European museologists in ICOFOM activities stagnated. In the same period participation of museologists from other parts of the world increased. The Buenos Aires 1986 conference marked a growing interest in the committee’s activities by museologists from Third World countries, especially Latin America. As a consequence the main perspective shifted from a discussion about the academic prerequisites to a discussion about the social relevance of museums and museology. To some extend this brought about a renewed interest in the programme orientation of museology at the cost of an in-depth study of the structure of museology as a science.

 

Reviewing museological literature, especially Museological Working Papers Lynne Teather concluded that one of the drawbacks to the development of museology is the fact that the contributors to ICOFOM themes have had a very different exposure to museological backgrounds (Teather 1983). Some authors have been at the forefront of museological theorizing for many years, while others have come to the questions more recently and are unfamiliar with the previous writings of the theorists. In view of the importance attached to museological theory in East Europe it I not surprising that East European museologists have played an important role within the committee. In MuWoP 2 Burcaw mentioned his concern about the influence of socialist museologists within ICOFOM[53]. In particular he saw a  strong Czech influence (attributed to Stransky) on the choice of the topics and even in the choice of the journal’s name. While his obvious fear of a socialist dominace of the museology discourse may be exaggerated, his observation that “the representatives of socialist countries had no trouble coming to grips with the theme [Is museology a science?] … while the contributors from western countries tended to ramble, avoid the questions, or answer it at a superficial level”, makes sense. In general there appears to be a lack of understanding among the participants of the committee’s scientific aims and a reluctance to pursue a discourse on a high abstraction level.

 

The publication of Museological Working Papers was supposed to be a new beginning for the committee’s scientific work. Both pre-MuWoP symposia and the publication of their proceedings remained isolated endeavours. They are forgotten and/or neglected. One of the reasons might be the fact that most of those who were involved in those symposia (like Jelinek, Klausewitz, Kiau and Razgon) ended their participation in ICOFOM activities at the end of the first period (1983).

 

The continuing role – inside as well as outside ICOFOM – of both MuWoP publications as sources of reference despite the untimely ending of this publication series, is due to two facts: a better distribution of the journal and the regular participation of many of the authors in post MuWoP conferences. Because of the editorial procedure (a request was send to all international committees) a relatively large number of papers was presented by authors that were not active in ICOFOM. Although their contribution usually did not lead to a regular participation, the procedure draw attention to the committee’s work. Moreover, the publication was announced and reviewed in many museum journals. MuWoP also marked the first participation-in-writing of a group of  “young”  museologists that had become interested in the committee. Some of them gradually became key-members of the committee. These factors might explain the fact that in later ICOFOM symposia contributors tended to refer to MuWoP rather than more recent ICOFOM publications.

 

ICOFOM Study Series had a limited distribution. It is distributed among the participants of the discussion only. Although the issues usually provide for a discussion section, there was no concluding analysis or statement which could function as starting point for new conferences. In other words: there was no continuity in the discussion. Each conference produced new building stones, but there was no strategy to build a house. Moreover, there was a lack of continuity as to participation. There was no structure to introduce new participants to the ongoing discussion. This was one of the reasons why each symposium showed a similar pattern of opinions as to the theory of museology. In the comments and analyses this divergence was objectively described and common elements were traced, but no synthesis was achieved.

 

In 1968 Neustupny made the following observation:

 

“it is interesting to observe that many authors of museological publications have little or no knowledge of museological literature. It seems that they are so deeply immersed in their own reflections that they are not interested in ideas and suggestions of others. Articles and books on museology are often confined to their author’s own ideas and other publications are not taken into account, despite the fact that they may correct, or improve upon, the author’s conclusions. Although many books and articles on museology have already been written, they are rarely referred to. This is true both of publications appearing in individual countries and of books that reach international reading public. References to museological publications printed in other languages are almost nonexistent. An author my be concerned with general museological problems common to a number of countries or to the whole world, but he confines himself to his won opinions or at the best refers to several books or articles written in his own language. Such cases prove that international cooperation among museologists is far from satisfactory. Language barriers are understandable but they are hardly justifiable if the publication is written in a principle world language. This situation does a great damage to museology and many museological publications lose much of their value and usefulness and with them loses also museology as discipline” (Neustupny 1968: 14-15).

 

It is sad to conclude  that after more than twenty years this observation is still valid. The language barrier should not be underestimated. The impact of MuWoP was partly also due to the fact that is was bilingual. Papers published in ISS were predominantly English. In the summaries, analyses, but especially in the comments French papers are seldom referred to. Moreover, as the majority of contributions is not written in the mother tongue of the author, the accessibility of the texts is sometimes hampered by the quality of the translation.

 

Whatever the cause, the lack of knowledge of museological literature is an important drawback in the development of museology. However, in addition Gluzinski’s observation is relevant:

 

“The character of museological production is of this kind that museology does not develop gradually as other positive sciences, but in the way resembling the development of the past philosophy … As a philosophical system is a unity closed in its totality, so are museological conceptions. Systems did not criticise other systems in detail because they did not need it since they accepted their own assumptions and deduced own theorems from them. A similar method has been accepted in constructing museological conceptions: there are always assumptions but as a rule there is not any criticism. Although other museologists’ theorems and views are sometimes referred to, but only those are chosen which suit a particular conception. These views do not undergo any criticism; neither the theorems included in them are checked nor the methods by means of which they have been obtained” (Gluzinski 1987: 118).

 

In fact, despite the huge number of papers, the museology discourse is not really a discourse.Points of view as such are seldom analysed or criticized. Comments with a polemic character are rare.

 

As result of its limited circulation ISS has seldom been reviewed outside ICOFOM, main exception being Möbius who reviewed MuWoP 1 & 2 and ISS 8 in Museumskunde (Möbius 1986). Writing about the Zagreb 1985 conference Möbius criticized the overlaps, the absence of cohesion and consistency throughout both volumes, in short, the absence of a philosophical-theoretical discourse. These comments are partly unjust since the site hut of a contractor is not the same as the house he is building. The basic papers are to be seen as raw material. But, Möbius is right in observing that a systematic and historical analysis of the attitude to, and the use of copies is lacking. This remark echoes a conclusion by Stransky that the museological discipline lacks historical awareness. Another observation by Möbius is also characteristic for papers that are presented at ICOFOM symposia: little reference is made to ideas of other scientists, especially those outside the field of museology. For example, in the case of the Zagreb 1985 symposium on copies it is rather strange that no reference was made to Walter Benjamin’s famous work on reproductions.

 

Despite the apparent lack of discourse, the working method that was introduced by Sofka generated a rich harvest of views concerning the cognitive orientation of museology (i.e. the object of knowledge), the programme orientation (i.e. the purpose of knowledge), the structure of the discipline, and many other aspects of the identity of museology as a science. It has never been the aim of the committee to decide between different views. A planned systematic study of the diversity of approaches did not get off the ground. The results of an early attempt to analyse this diversity (in 1986) were not published. Following chapters give a detailed inventory and analysis of the different concepts that can be found throughout the ICOFOM publications, using these publications in the way they were meant to be used: as a rich resource of museological thinking.

 

 

 

---------------------

References

 

Auer, H. ed. (1989) Museologie; neue Wege – neue Ziele. Bericht über ein internationales Symposium, veranstaltet von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs und der Schweiz vom 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee (Munich).

 

Burcaw, G.E. (1983) ‘Basic paper’, in: V. Sofka ed., Methodology of museology and professional training. ICOFOM Study Series 1 (Stockholm) 10-17.

 

Gluzinski, W. (1987) ‘Remarks on the condition of museology in the light of its relation to developmental phenomena’, in: V.Sofka ed., Museology and museums. ICOFOM Study Series 12 (Stockholm 1987) 109-119.

 

Grammp, H.D. et al. (1988) Museologie und Museum. Kolloquium vom 17. bis 19. Mai 1988 in Berlin, veranstaltet vom Museum für Deutsche Geschichte Berlin und vom Staatlichen Historischen Museums Moskau. Beiträge und Mitteilungen des Museums für Deutsche Geschichte 15 (Berlin).

 

Herbst,W. & K.G.Levykin eds. (1988) Museologie. Theoretische Grundlagen und Methodik der Arbeit in Geschichtsmuseen (Berlin).

 

Hodge, J. (1983)  ‘Basic paper’, in: V. Sofka ed., Methodology of museology and professional training. ICOFOM Study Series 1 (Stockholm) 58-70.

 

Jelinek, J. (1964) ‘The Moravian Museum’, Museum 17 (1): 50-53.

 

Jelinek. J. (1969) ‘The Anthropos Institute, Moravian Museum, Brno’, Museum 22 (1): 1-4.

 

Jelinek, J. (1970) ‘Collections and research’, in: Museum and research. Papers from the Eighth General Conference of ICOM, Cologne-Munich 29.7 – 9.8.1968 (Munich) 45-50.

 

Mayrand, P. (1986) ‘The new museology proclaimed’, Museum (148): 200-201.

 

Mensch, P. van (1989) ‘ICOFOM 1977-1983 and 1983-1989: some tendencies’, Museological News (12): 43-48.

 

Möbius, H. (1986) ‘Berichte zur neueren Museumsliteratur 1’, Museumskunde 51 (2): 104-114.

 

Neustupny, J. (1968) Museum and research (Prague).

 

Novotny, V.V. (1986) ‘Introduction’, in: V.V.Novotny & A.Mizerova eds., Fossil man, new facts – new ideas. Papers in honour of Jan Jelinek’s life anniversary (Brno) v-ix.

 

Pernicka, R.M. (1985) ’Proces realizace a zkvalitnovani postgradualniho studia muzeologie na filozoficke fakulte UJEP v Brne’, Muzeologicke sesity – Supplementum 3: 71-84.

 

Schneider, E. (1985) ‘Specificke vzdelavani muzejnich pracovniku a jeho usoustavneni v CSR’, Muzeologicke sesity – Supplementum 3: 85-126.

 

Sofka, V. (1983) ‘ICOFOM policy 1983’, Museological News (4): 30-47.

 

Sofka, V. (1989) ‘ICOM and ICOFOM, Wegbereiter der heutigen Museologie’, in H.Auer ed., Museologie; neue Wege – neue Ziele. Bericht über ein internationals Symposium, veranstaltet von den ICOM-Nationalkomitees der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreichs und der Schweiz vom 11. bis 14. Mai 1988 am Bodensee (Munich) 62-78.

 

Sofka, V. (1992) ‘ICOFOM: ten years of international search for the foundations of museology’, Papers in Museology 1/Acta Universitatis Umensis 108 (Umea) 20-49.

 

Stransky, Z.Z. (1982) ‘Die Herausbildung der Museologie in der Tschechoslowakei’, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Museumswesen (17): 1-26.

 

Stransky, Z.Z. (1989) ‘ICOFOM 1977-1988)’, Museological News (12) : 83-87.

 

Stransky, Z.Z. (1990) ‘Museologieausbildung in Brno/CSFR’, Neue Museumskunde 33 (4): 292-299.

 

Varine, H. de (1986) ‘Observations’, in : V.Sofka ed., Museology and identity. ICOFOM Study Series 11 (Stockholm 1986) 71-72.