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