Several object research methodologies have been proposed over the years. These methodologies are much more focussed than the structures developed throughout this thesis, but they provide an important touchstone for the development of object and collection-based research. Their focussed nature concentrates on a single object. Therefore, they are not subject to the differentiation of approaches between collection management and exhibition research used when applying the research principles developed in this thesis. This thesis began as a proposal to develop a collection-based research methodology. As the research interviews began though, it quickly became apparent that the many separate demands on research did not leave much room for one concise methodology. A new approach needed to be found.
One of the most widely discussed object methodologies was developed by Jules Prown and published in 1982. Prown came from an art history background and although his method was developed surrounding artworks, it was designed to apply to all material culture object research. He advocated the use of objects as a source of primary data and not just as things (p.1). Prown’s methodology ran from description, through deduction, to speculation. Description focusses on reading the object and its materials
77
at that particular moment in time (p.7). This moment also informs the “particular encounter between an object with its history and an individual with his history [which] shapes the deductions” (p.9). The deduction stage involves handling and interacting physically with the object where possible. Prown suggests that to understand the material culture of an object, all preconceptions must first be removed. This must continue until the researcher reaches speculation when the field is opened up to creative imagination (p.10). Speculation allows new questions to be raised and then investigated. Prown’s method puts emphasis on interpreting objects by experiencing them. Although a fascinating model, it is time consuming, very object focussed and would be difficult to achieve on a large scale in museum collections.
Susan Pearce contributed immensely to literature on material culture in museums. In one of her edited volumes (1994) she included a methodology developed by R. Elliot et al. (1994). This article again put material culture research into a three step process. Like Prown, it begins with observable data, then comparative data, supplementary data and then conclusions. Each of these steps, except the conclusions, requires an ordered approach looking at material, construction, function, provenance and then value. Each of these approaches are supplied with a checklist of questions. Elliot’s methodology is highly structured. It is the extent to which order and structure control these methodologies that make them appear impractical when working in a pressured environment with time and resource constraints. Although Elliot created quite a different and more rational approach than Prown, both methodologies leave little room for the realities and coping mechanisms, such as opportunistic research, found in the survey of current practice.
Philip Jones (2008) concentrated on objects which were capable of bridging Australian Aboriginal and colonial worlds and interrogating them to discover a new history of cultural encounters in the liminal space between the two. He did not detail a method, but his fresh approach to interrogation of dominant narratives through material culture research helped inspire this thesis. Jones took an ontological approach to
78
researching his objects. He explores their histories looking for the factors that made them different from other similar objects. He then allows each of his objects to build new theories of engagement around these aspects which make them different.
Object biography frameworks are another aspect that informed the development of this thesis. Kirsten Wehner and Martha Sear (2010) describe how they used a Kopytoffian cultural biography model in the development of the Australian Journeys exhibition at the Australian National Museum. Although never explaining exactly how the object biographies were approached, these object focussed narratives were then used in an effort to allow the individual objects to play centre stage in their own stories. All objects considered for the exhibition had cultural biographies developed by their relevant curators. These cultural biographies were then used to help make the final object choices. Robert Hicks (2001) also takes a similar approach in his discussion of material culture research into scientific measuring instruments. He gives an example of the areas of research required to build the object biography. Materials, design, production, use, meaning, social context and relationship to other instruments and methods are all listed (p.188). This method appears more usable in a busy museum environment where sections can be completed with as much or as little depth as desired.
After gathering a snapshot of current practice based on The Suter Art Gallery and Nelson Provincial Museum, it appears that a more holistic approach to structuring collection-based research is needed. This is started by developing a definition for research and continues with a set of research principles and processes. The principles bring together the structure and processes of research. It does not just create principles, but also suggests a means of implementing them. The principles are created in a graduated way. Institutions can implement the research framework in parts over time and it remains applicable with varying levels of research depth and expertise.
79