At 00:07 8/03/96 -0500, you wrote:

>Your questionnaire is both too broad and too vague to gather the data you say
>you are interested in--that is, your questions wander far from the subject of
>evolution in natural history museums, and it is hard to tell what the
>questions are asking for--a term paper?--because some would require very
>extensive answers.  Suggest that you rework your research question (narrow it
>down, get a focus) and rework your questionnaire before spewing it out on the
>museum list.  Thanks.

Thank you for your message, but the brief comments attached to my mailing
were not intended to be a questionnaire, merely an indication of the topics
I was interested in, so that people could decide whether or not they wanted
to answer. If you're interested, the full questionnaire is below.
________________________________________

I have been researching the content of three major exhibitions at the
Australian Museum, here in Sydney, looking at the way the style of
presentation has changed and why it has changed. If you have time, I'd be
most appreciative if you could find some time to answer the following
questions, which have arisen during the course of my research.

If you feel that any of your colleagues would be interested in answering
them, please feel free to pass them on.
________________________________________

1. Dioramas

Natural history museums have traditionally made extensive use of dioramas,
murals and similar material to present their specimens, but in recent years
many museums have tended to avoid these styles of presentation.

Why do you think this is?

________________________________________

2. Realism

In the case of extinct species, such 'realistic' reconstructions as dioramas
must in part be a product of educated guesswork. One argument for avoiding
them is that the public may interpret such 'realistic' or dramatic
reconstructions as highly factual and thus embodying completely reliable
knowledge. They may not appreciate the extent to which such represenations
are tentative and - like all scientific knowledge - subject to constant
revision.

Have similar concerns played any part in your museum's decisions about
exhibition styles? Have your recent exhibitions tended to avoid dioramas and
similar reconstructions?

________________________________________

3. Personalities and institutions

Another way of explaining the final appearance of an exhibition is in terms
of the individuals concerned and their personal tastes, preferences and
theoretical positions. An alternative explanation would invoke institutional
structures (such as the need to increase audiences, budgetary constraints,
avoiding controversy, etc) as being decisive.

Which do you think is more important in your museum? Or does a combination
of the two best explain the final shape an exhibition? If the latter is the
case, how are the two reconciled (i.e. is there a project team or some other
formal structure for making these decisions)?

________________________________________

4. Entertainment vs. education

Museums have usually seen their role as educational, but most museums (both
private and public) are increasingly becoming involved in generating revenue
to pay for their curatorial and scientifc work. Museums are in some senses
in competition with institutions such as theme parks: both because they are
competing for the public's leisure time (and money), but also because
scientific subjects (like dinosaurs) are a popular subject for commercial
entertainment.

Have such commercial concerns affected the way that your museum presents its
displays, or the way it advertises and promotes new exhibitions?

________________________________________

5. Controversy

Evolution is a controversial subject in two senses. It is the focus of
anti-scientific attacks from creationists and similar groups, but also
different models and mechanisms of evolution are the subject of much debate
within the scientific community. Given the high degree of public interest in
topics such as mass extinction and the scientific debates surrounding them,
there are obviously good reasons for museums to explore these controversies.

However, some people in the scientific community are concerned that public
debate over the *details* of evolution may be mistaken by the public for
disputes over the *fact* of evolution. Since most science museums see
themselves as advocates for science they are anxious to avoid 'giving
comfort' to people they regard as antagonistic to science, yet controversy
is a vital part of the day to day business of science and should be part of
a museum's content.

Have such concerns played any part in your museum's discussions of
exhibition content? If so, how have they been resolved. And if not, do you
think they should be a part of future discussions?
________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. Please add any
comments or information you feel are relevant, but are not covered by my
questions. If the text of any recent exhibition (which you feel would help
illustrate your answers) is readily available in an electronic form that
could be e-mailed to me I would be most grateful to have a copy.

NOTE: I have no plans to publish my research at the moment, but if that
situation changes I'll forward a copy of the final paper to you, so that you
check that you've been accurately quoted, before I submit it for publication.

It will NOT be published without you having a chance to check it first.
________________________________________

Many thanks once again. I look forward to reading your reply.
_____________________________
Jim Endersby
Publications Section
The University of New South Wales,
Sydney 2052, Australia