Dear  Museum colleages,

On behalf of the Museums & Galleries Commission (MGC) we are undertaking a
survey of the status of research and scholarship in museums in the United
Kingdom today.  We have sent out a questionnaire to a selected sample of UK
museums for our formal survey, but I would like to canvas opinion in the
wider museum community,  though I know it is a topic that has been touched
on in other discussions in various ways.

Research has always been acknowledged as a key function of museums. However
there is a feeling now, in the UK as least, that research and scholarship
no longer occupy the pivotal position they used to have. A review of
fundamental principles is timely in response to current financial and
political pressures and changes in the way museums are run. We need to
assess to what extent research and scholarship are still active and
relevant concepts.

The results of our survey will inform the MGC, the Government, education
bodies and museums themselves.  The main output from the study will be a
report describing the results in full.  In addition, preliminary findings
will be presented in a paper given at the Museums Association 104th Annual
Conference on 22 September 1998

I would be grateful to anyone who would like to respond to any of the
following questions.

Do the objectives of your museum/service (e.g. as expressed in a mission
statement or forward plan) include provision for research and scholarship?
If not, why not?

Does your museum charge fees for research services

Do you feel that research in museums has changed over the past 20 years?
If so, in what ways?

Many curators here feel they have to concentrate on visitor services,
outreach, marketing, etc to the detriment of collections research due to
political, ideological and financial pressures. Are curators in other
countries feeling the same pressures?

What kinds of research should have priority in museums in the future?
Collections based, or service-based?

Is scholarship for is own sake viable or should it always be a means to an
end?

One issue that has arisen in our discussions of the nature of research is
the difference between the taxonomic approach  vs. the hermeneutic, i.e.
the “list makers“ vs the "interpreters".  Is this a valid distinction? Is
one kind more scholarly than the other?  Are different approaches subject
specific?

What impact does the use of short-term contract staff for specific projects
have on institutional knowlege, and curatorial training?

How can we evaluate the  results of museum research, much if which is not
subject to peer review? If lack of research results in silly or misleading
displays, how can this be demonstrated?

Any contributions to this discussion will be gratefully received, on or off
list. Thanks.

Ann Gunn, University of St. Andrews

Ann V. Gunn
University of St. Andrews