Field sources

Having adopted an exploratory approach to the research fieldwork, qualitative as opposed to quantitative data seemed most appropriate. The present research aimed at gathering opinions and impressions in order to establish current conceptual perceptions as well as the current status of museums and collections within British institutions of higher education. Therefore the goal of the fieldwork was to collect first-hand information. By employing flexible research tools the research programme involved continuous assessment and reformulation.

In conjunction with the bibliographic sources, the present research began its field programme with the identification of a main case study (St Andrews). Initial information was gathered through conversations and exploratory visits. Subsequently, the i) preliminary survey (pilot study) was followed by a series of ii) interviews and corresponding study visits. From these study visits, a further comparative iii) case study (Liverpool) emerged. Further contacts and institutional examples were gained throughout the duration of the fieldwork, enabling the collection and interpretation of additional information through two- way correspondence.

Gathering initial information

To begin, information concerning ‘university heritage’ as well as university museums and collections was gathered from bibliographic sources. Contact with academics in the field of university museums and collections as well as heritage management provided me with new perspectives and ideas to consider.

Exploratory visits (November 2004- September 2006)

Exploratory visits (Table 2.1) offered a preliminary indication of what procedures would and should be put into place before beginning formal study visits. In some cases, (Manchester, University College London) prearrangements enabled a guided visit of the collections as well as an opportunity for informal dialogue with museum staff. Additionally, for comparative purposes, opportunities were taken to visit several museums and collections outside the UK, while attending international conferences in Finland, Mexico and Sweden.42

University Museum/Collection/Gallery 2004 2005 2006 Birmingham Lapworth Museum, Barber Institute of Fine Arts 13 February

Cambridge Fitzwilliam Museum 15 November

Liverpool University Art Gallery 28 March

Manchester Manchester Museum, Whitworth Art Gallery 30 March 15 March

Newcastle Hatton Gallery, Museum of Antiquities, Shefton

Museum of Greek Art and Archaeology September07

Oxford Ashmolean Museum, (Oxford Story), - Pitt Rivers 08 December 08 February

UCL Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology 07 April

UOL Courtauld Institute Galleries 08 April

Table 2.1 – Time-table of exploratory interviews

i. Preliminary survey (June – November 2005)

Though surveys of British university museums and collections were completed and accessible at the beginning of the present research (Arnold-Forster 1989, 1993, 1999, Arnold-Forster & Weeks 1999, 2000, 2001, Drysdale 1990, Northern Ireland Museums Council 2002), lists of lesser known ‘heritage’ collections did not exist. Objects and items of university heritage could only be traced through individuals within institutions; such as departmental lecturers, special collections librarians and porters. At the international level, UMAC maintains an online database of university museums and collections, developed at Macquarie University, Australia, and later expanded and hosted by Humboldt University in 42 Museums and collections visited during the period between September 2005 and October 2006 included the

Gustavianum, Museum of Evolution, Botanical Garden (Uppsala, Sweden), the Helsinki University Museum Arppeanum (Helsinki, Finland), Universum- Museo de las Ciencias, Museo de San Ildefonso (Mexico City, Mexico).

Berlin.43 _{In addition, the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, maintains a} separate international online database of university museums and collections.44 These databases provided a closer look at ‘heritage’, but illustrated the terminological and conceptual inconsistencies surrounding the idea. As the present research aimed to explore and collect qualitative data rather than provide a census of information, an initial pilot study in the form of a survey was designed and distributed within the UK.45

Organising an initial pilot study involved outlining the scope of the project and retrieving basic yet focused information from across the university museum and collection sector in the form of a survey. The survey consisted of both factual questions and questions concerning subjective experiences in both a closed and open-ended format. Seeking information regarding the university’s awareness of institutional heritage, questions pertained to objects and display as well as the general access and use of collections. Utilising the gazetteer found inUniversity Museums in the United Kingdom: A National Resource for the 21st _Century (2004), 34 university museums and collections were selected for preliminary survey based on their location and type and size of their collections.

Survey recipients

When directing survey correspondence, care was taken to address named individuals within museum and collections units rather than simply to send survey materials to unspecified university staff and/or departments.46 _Some contacts were gained through the initial information-gathering exercise and exploratory interviews, with the remaining contacts found within the Museums

43 See http://publicus.culture.hu-berlin.de/umac/database.html, accessed 09 November 2006. 44 See http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/mus/index.htm, accessed 09 November 2006.

45 An examined and reformulated survey later served as a guide in preparing interview scripts for study visits. See survey and distribution timetable (Appendix A1 & A2).

and Galleries Yearbookand individual university websites.47 _{Where no contact} name was provided the correspondence was directed to the ‘Museum Curator’. Focus was placed on gaining a response from museum/collections marketing posts within the universities in order to help establish where these posts existed. Due to the diverse nature of university museums and collections, managerial and organisational diversity prevented surveys being addressed to and completed by similar or even equivalent post holders within each institution. The variance of recipients reflects the present state of the university museum sector; incongruent in management and organisation.48

0 5 10 15 20 Number of Recipients Museum Positions

Survey Distribution: Breakdownof Recipients

Curator Director Head Manager Marketing

Figure 2.1 – Breakdown of survey recipients by museum position Survey respondents

In total, 21 responses were gained, amounting to a 61% return. A noticeable shift of positions held by respondents reinforced presumptions concerning university museum management and organisational incongruity.49 _{As an example, a survey} sent to the curator of Durham’s Old Fulling Mill Museum of Archaeology was subsequently passed on to the Director of Heritage Collections within the 47 See Museums Association (2006).

48 See Survey: position of recipients (Appendix A4). 49 See Survey: position of respondents (Appendix A5).

university’s library. Whilst this did and does not in any way discount the validity of the preliminary study, it highlighted the difficulties of navigating institutional hierarchy and organisational staffing structures. In terms of heritage, locating responsible or knowledgeable members of staff within university museums and collections proved very difficult. These difficulties were taken into account in preparation for the study visits and future correspondence.

Survey Distribution: Breakdown of Respondents

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Museum Positions Number of Respondents Administrator Curator Director Head Manager Marketing Museum Assistant Museum Studies Lecturer

Figure 2.2- Breakdown of survey respondents by museum position

An analysis of the data collected from the preliminary survey provided the information necessary to formulate interview scripts for the subsequent study visits and helped clarify weak points. Weaknesses appeared where conceptual and terminological inconsistencies appeared in the questions, particularly when addressing ‘heritage’. The surveys also facilitated in the study visit selection process, as they provided first-hand information concerning university heritage, museums and collections. Whilst additional clarification from some respondents was necessary, other museums and collections proved less relevant to the study and were not selected.

Selecting universities for study visits (autumn 2005)

Various criteria were used to select universities as potential sites for study visits and inclusion in the focused study. To begin, geographic consideration limited the university museums and collections to those within Britain, and then further reduced to those within England and Scotland. Next, museums and collections were filtered in accordance with the gazetteer found in University Museums in the United Kingdom: A National Resource for the 21st _{Century (2004). The} gazetteer compiles those university museums and collections

that are supported by either the AHRB Core Funding Scheme and, or have attracted AHRB Project Fund Awards.50 _{In addition, the} list includes university museums and collections that are Registered and Designated by MLAC (UMG 2004: 38).

The exclusion of those collections that are not included in the Core Funding Scheme or Registered and Designated offered the study clearer boundaries.

From these institutions, criteria related to museum and collections typology, size and age came into consideration. A balanced representation of museum and collection disciplines seemed optimal, given the diverse nature of the university museum field. Therefore similar museums and collections were chosen to provide comparative study. The museum and collection typology included: fine arts, history of science, natural history, ‘universal’51_{and university collections.}

50 On 1 April 2005 the Art and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) was replaced by the Art and Humanities Research Council.

51 ‘Universal’ is understood as a large-scale museum which houses collections covering multiple disciplines including art, ethnography, archaeology, natural history, etc.

Type University Museum/Collection

Edinburgh Fine Art Collections Fine Art Collections

Liverpool University Art Gallery52

Cambridge Whipple Museum of the History of Science

History of Science

Oxford Museum of the History of Science Cambridge Sedgwick Museum of Earth

Sciences

Oxford University Museum of Natural History

Natural History

St Andrews Bell Pettigrew Museum Aberdeen Marischal Museum Cambridge Fitzwilliam Museum

Glasgow Hunterian Museum Manchester Manchester Museum ‘Universal’

Oxford Ashmolean Museum Birmingham University Collections University Collections (centralized

management unit) St Andrews Museum Collections Unit Liverpool Victoria Building project University History

St Andrews MUSA project, Gateway Galleries

Table 2. 2- Museum and collection types included in study

The University of Birmingham was included to provide the St Andrews case study with an organisational comparison, having a centralised management unit for the university’s range of collections.

Criteria regarding institutional size and age provided the study with a more even distribution of targeted study sites. Though publicly inaccessible departmental teaching collections were excluded from the study, subject-specific collections ranged from those found within St Andrews’ departmentally-housed Bell Pettigrew Museum of natural history to those kept within the expansive Oxford University Museum of Natural History.

52 The Liverpool University Art Gallery is the only art gallery included in the study as its collections’ remit includes university historical objects and is managed alongside the ‘heritage collection’. The Gateway Galleries in St Andrews are not classified as art galleries in the more strict sense. Further discussion of the University of Liverpool and the University of St Andrews is found in Chapter 9.

ii. Study visits (January – November 2006)

The majority of site visits and interviews took place between January 2006 and November 2006. In total, nine universities were targeted as study sites, with 17 museums and collections held by these universities selected for focused consideration.53 _{Investigation of these museums and collections was carried out} through on-site qualitative interviews,54 _{or ‘focused interviews’ (Frankfort-} Nachmias & Nachmias 1996), observational visits to museums and collections, analysis of internal documentation (e.g. annual reports, forward plans, staff organizational charts, marketing material and other documentation) and informal discussions and correspondence.

Figure 2.3 – Map of the United Kingdom showing universities visited (2006)

53 See interviews/study visits timetable (Appendix A5).

54All interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed. Transcriptions were then examined and approved by respondents. See example interview transcript (Appendix A7).

Study Visits: Distribution by Type

3 Collections 10 Museums 2 Projects 2 Galleries

Figure 2. 4- University museums and collections targeted as study visits: by type iii. Case studies (September 2004 – September 2007)

The present research programme was inspired by an awareness of a project initiative at the University of St Andrews. The University’s Museums Collection Unit was developing a project to increase public access to university heritage, and was interested in gaining information on the current state of heritage in other British universities. Such information might facilitate the development of the Museum of the University of St Andrews (MUSA) project. Unlike any university museum in Britain to date, MUSA aimed to act as a ‘showcase’ of the university’s history, employing inter-disciplinary collections from across the university in a centralised display and interpretation space. Early in the research it became evident that the situation and intentions of the University of St Andrews Museum Collections Unit were possibly unique within Britain and the study began an exploration into university museums and collections in relation to heritage.

Similar to the approach taken to museums and collections targeted for study visits, research of case-study museums and collections was ‘exploratory’ (Yin 1994); carried out through on-site qualitative interviews, observational visits to museums and collections, analysis of internal documentation (e.g. annual reports, forward plans, staff organisational charts, marketing material and other documentation) and informal discussions and correspondence.

During the period of the preliminary survey analysis a secondary case study surfaced at the University of Liverpool. Plans outlining a proposed museum development – similar to the development being planned in St Andrews – appeared in the University of Liverpool’s 2004 Annual Report. An exploratory visit took place in March 2005 with a subsequent study visit in March 2006. At that time the University of Liverpool became a secondary, comparative case study.

Additional studies (September 2006-September 2007)

During the period of study visits a variety of additional contacts, museum and project information surfaced as a result of explorative questioning and correspondence with various university and museum networks. The present research took these new developments into consideration in the form of supplementary information. These additional studies included continental comparisons as well as the University of Leeds Centre for Heritage Research,55 The University of Newcastle56 _{and an interesting comparison from outside the} original geographic remit; the National University of Singapore.57

Follow-up correspondence

Follow-up correspondence was conducted between the dates of each visit until September 2007. This included further clarification of topics addressed during 55 The University of Leeds runs an informal and entirely voluntary Centre for Heritage Research concerned in part with University collections policies. The Centre aims to provide a platform for historical and heritage research and

interpretation on material culture, museum collections and documentary heritage in the university well as the city and local region.

56 The Great North Museum project led by the University of Newcastle aims to bring together the main collections relating to Hadrian’s Wall, currently housed in the University’s Museum of Antiquities, the Shefton Museum of Greek Art and Archaeology, and the Hancock Museum’s natural history collections into a single extended Hancock building. This project will also embrace the Hatton Gallery of Fine Art in its management and staffing structures, opening in 2009 as one of the major elements of Newcastle Gateshead's Culture 10 programme.

57 The Museum of the National University of Singapore Centre For the Arts celebrated the University’s centennial with an exhibition The NUS Story: One Hundred Years of Heritage. A commemorative publication resulted from the exhibition which highlighted the University’s history and showcased everyday campus life.

the study visit, exchange of further documentation and updates on the situation of the collection or museum.