In response to Kersti Krug's review of Dr. Robert Janes' book "Museums
and the Paradox of Change", I would remind her that I was not
providing a book review(as she has) but only an enthusiastic defense to a
rather strong and confusing criticism by one of our listserve members of the
announcement of the work on museum-l. To this fact, I remain true that
the work is an important one for the museum field for the reasons that Kersti K
rug has raised and more.
I would however add that depicting Dr. Janes' as a villain in the
piece is also not productive to our understanding of the change in
museums. I too know several who left or chose to leave the Glenbow and I
know Dr. Janes. I can assure you that he was victimized as were they
by the process. I have never known a Director to grieve quite so much
as this one which explains his motivation to analyze museum management
and to write a book to it. Indeed, the Dark Side of museum management
is reflected in this text. It may be hard quite yet to evaluate the
success of the Glenbow experiment but I do know those who are still in the
organization who are testimony to the potential of the "Shamrock"
organization and to Learning Organization principles being enacted by
Janes' and others.
It is fair to say that the discourse does need a companion piece from
a reengineered employee or one left by the organization.
There were mistakes made at the Glenbow, there were mistakes made by
Dr. Janes and there are maybe failings in the work, one of which is
the lack of the voices of those who have left (but how do you suggest
he in this book could have included their tales?). Please note however
that of the staff who are included the comments are not all positive
nor are the comments of all of the outside critics, i.e. Julian
Spalding of Glasgow. That is the essence of the Glenbow experiment or
any management experiment.
Dr. Janes' management museum analysis and coverage of the management field
is comprehensive. One area, however, that I would philosophically disagree
with him, and probably most museum Director's in Canada, is the degree
to which we would willingly accept the reduction of government funding.
I also think that we must continually discuss and re-negotiate the
meaning of museums and that there must be more of such discussion
within the structural and process changes in the museums. In addition,
I find the view that there "are too many museums" one which is
slightly culturally arrogant, even if held by organizations like the Canadian
Museums Association.
I personally am interested in the human resources questions across the
cultural/heritage sector and view some of the museum management
realities as requiring a professional balance in favour of the many
who are in employment change situations. That is my life's work! The
Learning Individual and the need for career planning and a continuous
learning profile for the permanently employed, the temporarily employed, the
employment challenged, the freelancer and consultant.
Nevertheless,Dr.Janes' dedication to the discussion and analysis of museum
management in moments in crisis cannot but be admired. His work is deserving
of concern and serious reading, if not full acceptance.
As one who has watched other museums downsize drastically in Canada,
I read Dr. Janes' work as a self-conscious and reflexive discussion where
little or no writing existed. It is not an apologia nor is it the work
of a hero. The fact that he is writing from the viewpoint of Director
is the only way that he can write it. We are not looking for
objectivity here, as Dr. Ames , UBC Museum Director, in his intro. states.
It is up to us to approach the text with questions and with
counterarguments and with other comparisons. But, thank goodness,
Janes has at least started the discussion. We had better continue it!
Lynne Teather,
Museum Studies Program,
Univ. of Toronto.
[log in to unmask]
|
