Posts on ratios of staff to objects have lead to the following, rambling
thoughts:
 
The ratio of conservators to objects does, I think, vary from subject area to
subject area.  Perhaps it _is_ possible to say how many conservator-hours
are needed for works of art on paper rarely consulted, or stable geological
specimens, or mammals subject to 1,000 visitors per day handling ...
 
The ration of curators/interpreters/educators to objects (taking the sets/
fragments problems into account) seems to me to be class-based.  If the
rich made it/used it, then it needs a lot of curation, if it was used by
the servants or made by the poor, then it doesn't.  Or rather, it does,
but the funding just isn't there.
 
Or to put it another way: should the monetary value placed on an object
be an indicator of the ammount of curatorial time it deserves?
What other mechanisism are used to determine which objects are more
equal than others?
 
Linda Tanaka said that visitor numbers were not as important to her question
as the staff-object ratios.  The staff-supporting population ratio is perhaps
as important as staff-object.
 
Finally: how many museums can say how many objects they have?  With fine
art, it's easy: you look at each painting or sketch and count one, two, ...
With archaeology you look at a thousand tesserae and say 'is that one or
a thousand?'  Then, you may have no complete listing of your objects.....
 
And what if you _know_ you don't have the material culture of a particular
group - so you have a curator out there collecting - 1 staff member to no
objects!
 
--
Patricia Reynolds
Keeper of Social History, Buckinghamshire County Museum / Freelance Curator
 
16 Gibsons Green
Heelands
Milton Keynes
MK13 7NH
ENGLAND
 
[log in to unmask]