I find the comments of Kristen Harbeson and David Haberstitch, regarding
the "unconquerable rift" between academic and museum historians, have
struck some sort of nerve.  Though I tend to lurk around the edges of
Museum-L (and gain a great deal from it), as someone whose training and
experience straddle both fields, I would like to add my penny's worth to
the conversation (it might not be worth two cents).

        First, this "rift" is nothing new.  After receiving my undergraduate
degree in 1972, I went off to attend a museum training program.  Several of
my professors scoffed that it was just "vocational" training, not a real
academic program.  It wasn't too long after that, however, that I had the
pleasure of having them come to me to ask for more details about the
program I attended.  I had a job in history; their more "academic" students
were doing something else, usually at the bottom of the corporate ladder.

        I don't think this attitude is limited to academics however.  It probably
wouldn't be impossible (or maybe even difficult) to find individuals in the
museum field who look down upon "mere" academics as people who spend most
of their time in an ivory tower uncovering arcane facts of the past and
putting them into books that only a few people (if that many) will ever
read.  Museum folks, on the other hand (in this version of the "rift")
enlighten the masses which is really the important job. Right?

        I think the "rift" Kristen talked about is the fundamental difference
between the "increase and diffusion" of knowledge (or whatever that phrase
is in the Smithsonian's charter).  Some people emphasize the first and some
the second.  I wish I had a solution (simple or otherwise) how to join the
two.  Academics certainly haven't found the answer.  We continually debate
the relative merits of research and teaching, usually to the benefit of the
former and the denegration of the latter.

        It may be that the "increase" side of this equation is the easier to
quantify and is, therefore, more real and "scientific."  You can certainly
list the number of articles, books, or papers relating to a particular
topic or by a particular author.  That looks particularly good on resumes
and grant applications. "Diffusion," on the other hand, is harder to submit
to such quantification.  Yes, you can count noses, but how do you know what
real difference you have made?

        Yet, it seems to me that these two efforts should not be seen apart from
one another.  As David Haberstitch noted, maybe this is just each side
trying to justify its own career choice to itself and the rest of the
world.  Perhaps the best thing we can do is begin with ourselves and
recognize the valuable contributions made by folks on the "other side of
the fence."

        Let me close with a personal note to Kristen.  If your advisors are
telling you that museums are not a serious subject of study, get new
advisors.  The study of museums, their founding, and development
contributes significantly to our understanding of economic, social, and
cultural history.

        Thanks for your patience.

                                Mike Cahall

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).