A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums

A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums

Jason George, 2005Phone: (250) 704-8488

Email: [email protected]

ContentsPreface - About this Project iii

Abbreviations Used v

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 2

1 Terminology 3

1.1 Museum Accreditation Internationally 5

1.2 Museum Accreditation in Australia 7

1.3 Accreditation in Other Sectors 9

1.4 Summary 10

2 Role of Museums Australia 11

3 The Model 14

3.1 Characteristics 14

3.2 Aims and Outcomes 19

4 Draft Model Indicators 25

4.1 Scope of the Scheme 26

4.2 Kinds Or Categories Of Standards To Be Assessed 26

4.3 Level Of Standards To Be Assessed 27

Conclusion and Recommendations 29

Appendix A – Project Brief 32

Appendix B – Existing Models 36

Appendix C – Draft Model Indicators 41

Appendix D – Interview Questions 44

Bibliography 45

i

Preface - About this ProjectThe brief for this project was developed by Museums Australia. It specifies three research questions to be investigated (MA Standing Committee on Research June 2002):

1. What is the role of the peak professional association in the development and implementation of a national accreditation system?

2. What is the most appropriate model for a national accreditation system that can be applied at any level throughout the sector?

3. What are the standards which should be applied across the sector?

I was invited to undertake this research project in partial completion of the requirements for my Master of Cultural Heritage program at Deakin University.

I would like to thank Carol Scott, President of the Museums Australia National Council and Andrew Kenyon, Chair of the Research Standing Committee for making this project possible. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Margaret Birtley, for her guidance and everyone who participated in this project.

This research project was conducted in two parts.

The first part is a review of existing literature on and relating to accreditation schemes world-wide. The focus is on institutional accreditation in the museum sector, but accreditation and similar schemes in other sectors are also reviewed.

The second part of this project investigates the questions posed in the brief through interviews during 2003. Responses were obtained from twenty-three individuals representing sixteen museums, state branches of Museums Australia, or other museum and museum professional organisations.

These interviews were conducted under Ethics Committee clearance from Deakin University. They were conducted in person, or by email or telephone. Respondents named in this report gave permission for their names to be included. Respondents who requested anonymity are identified by a code number, which identifies only the respondent’s state or country and MA affiliation: this is to give the reader some indication of any potential bias. In all cases, responses were transcribed and the transcriptions returned to the interviewee for approval.

While the brief for this project provided a starting point for the interviews, respondents were permitted to freely discuss accreditation and the possibility of a national scheme for Australian museums.

iii

Finally, the characteristics, aims and outcomes, and standards of the scheme will be considered with the literature and interviews, and a preliminary model for an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector in Australia proposed.

iv

Abbreviations UsedAIM Achieving Improved Measurement

AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

AAM American Association of Museums

ATAA Australian Tourism Accreditation Association

AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency

AVCC Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee

CCHSA Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation

CMC Cultural Ministers Council

DCITA Australian Government Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts

HTSA History Trust of South Australia

ICR International Committee for Regional Museums, ICOM

ICOM International Council of Museums

ISO International Organisation for Standardization

IQA Institute of Quality Assurance

JCAHO Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organisations

MAGP Museums Accreditation and Grants Program, HTSA

MAP Museums Accreditation Program, MA(VIC)

MA Museums Australia

MA(VIC) Museums Australia (Victoria)

MLA Museums, Libraries and Archives Council

MGF NSW Museums and Galleries Foundation New South Wales (MGF)

NEAP Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program

NGC National Guideline Clearinghouse

NSW New South Wales, Australia

NZ New Zealand

NT Northern Territory, Australia

ON Ontario, Canada

PSBS Public Sector Benchmarking Service

QLD Queensland, Australia

v

SA South Australia, Australia

SAI Standards Australia International Ltd.

SAMA Southern African Museums Association

TAS Tasmania, Australia

TIS Technical Information Service, AAM

TQM Total Quality Management

VIC Victoria, Australia

WA Western Australia, Australia

vi

A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums Jason George

Executive SummaryFirst and foremost, all museums must stay true to their rôle as stewards of our heritage and continue to pursue the highest level of professional care for their collections.

This challenge has been successfully met by the establishment of accreditation or standards schemes. In Australia, schemes exist and are effective, but are also fragmented. There is clear interest in schemes in areas not currently served by one. And where schemes are active, there are definite advantages to a unified, higher level approach: more efficient sharing of resources and greater “clout” with stakeholders are a couple of examples.

Museums Australia was the only body specifically identified in this report for a major rôle in the scheme. While there are other possible candidates, reservations were stated by several respondents against central institutions, large museums, and government.

If MA takes responsibility for the scheme, it can proceed in several ways. How it proceeds will determine what resources MA will need to dedicate to the scheme. For example, MA could devolve responsibility for the scheme to its state branches or other state organisations and institutions. This idea was mentioned by several respondents. (Respondent 15.TAS) (Thomas Graham NSW) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Kate Walsh, SA)

The model scheme proposed in this report closely resembles existing schemes: one that is consultative in nature, voluntary, incentives led and as inclusive as possible.

The majority of respondents wanted to start, at least, at a basic level of standards. But there was interest in higher levels and exploring standards not addressed by most, or any other schemes.

This report makes the following recommendations for proceeding:

1. That the draft model indicators of the scheme be negotiated with all levels of museums, from regional to state and national; all levels of government, the operators of relevant professional development programs and other relevant sectors, such as tourism.

2. That MA establish a working group to research implementing the scheme. This group should be drawn from all possible stakeholders in the scheme, including, but not limited to: representatives from the museum sector and government at regional, state and national levels.

1


IntroductionIt is a good time to investigate a national accreditation system for museums in Australia. The current environment is ripe with opportunities as there is growing interest within the museum sector worldwide in ensuring that heritage collections are appropriately cared for.

In Australia, the University Museums Review Committee recommended, in 1996, that an accreditation scheme was a suitable strategy to pursue for university collections . (University Museums Review Committee 1996)

The 2002 Key Needs study conducted by Deakin University specifically identified a national accreditation system as the best tool to raise the standard of care for Australia’s heritage collections. (Deakin University, Faculty of Arts, Cultural Heritage Centre for Asia and the Pacific 2002)

Generally, there has also been growing interest in strategies to ensure that collections are cared for and well managed. While not explicitly mentioning accreditation, the scheme could support some of these strategies.

A 2003 update from the National Collections Advisory Forum noted that: “working cooperatively may have the benefit of maximising available resources and attracting greater government and private support for all”. (MA August 2003) An accreditation scheme, as will be suggested in section 3.2 of this report, could encourage this kind of cooperation.

The Distributed National Collections Program under the Australian Government Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) has acknowledged the distributed nature of Australia’s heritage collections, which are “held and stored by a vast range of organisations,” (DCITA I) and has also explored long term strategies for the sector.

Also under DCITA, the Cultural Ministers Council (CMC) recommended “a new national industry body to represent the shared interests of galleries, libraries archives and museums” and to develop “long term strategies” for Australia’s collections. (DCITA II) This has led to the establishment of the Collections Council of Australia (CCA) “to represent the shared interests of galleries, libraries, archives and museums”. (DCITA III)

Most recently, the Museums and Galleries Foundation New South Wales (MGF) (MGF NSW) completed a trial for a pilot accreditation scheme in that state. MGF NSW concluded that as a “standards program” the pilot was an “effective tool”. Recognising the difference between standards and accreditation schemes, MGF NSW suggests that there is “potential and value” for an accreditation system above and beyond their pilot. (MGF NSW June 2003. pp. 2-3)

Internationally, a new museum accreditation scheme has been introduced in New Zealand (NZ) by the National Services Te Paerangi division of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. (Te Papa National Services)

Also, the International Council of Museums’ (ICOM) International Committee for Regional Museums (ICR) recently explored museum quality and museum standards as a theme through 1999 – 2002. (Manneby, Prasch and Hoffman 2002)

2


All of this recent activity points to a growing interest in improving standards in museums and, specifically, in accreditation. Several reports have identified some kind of accreditation scheme as desirable. A desire for more coordination is also expressed.

At the present time, in the UK, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) is currently revising their Museum Registration Scheme for Museums and Galleries in the United Kingdom. (The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) In Ireland, An Chomhairle Oidhreachta or the Heritage Council is working on the first accreditation scheme for that country’s museum sector. (Ryan 2000)

Back in Australia, the pilot scheme in NSW has already been mentioned. The Museums Accreditation and Grants Program (MAGP) in South Australia (SA) has also been recently revised. (HTSA 2003)

This minor epidemic of activity around museum standards schemes, combined with the surge in interest in Australia in accreditation schemes and long term strategies for collections make this an opportune time to review what has been done, what is being done and coordinate future activity in this area.

1 TerminologyIf a national accreditation scheme for Australian museums is to be developed, it is important that it utilise a language readily understood by other sectors. Both the business sector and government, in particular, are important sources of funding to museums in Australia. So, I begin by defining some terminology.

This report will use the ICOM definition of a museum, referring both to individual institutions and the sector as a whole:

A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment. (...) (ICOM)

Within this broad definition, this report recognises that different cultural protocols may apply to different types of collections. For example, an indigenous community may exhibit its collection in a different way than the Powerhouse Museum because of certain cultural protocols.

When the topic of accreditation, in this case of training, was raised at the 2003 Museums Australia (MA) National Conference in Perth, it was indicated that there could be some confusion over the meaning of the term “accreditation”. The Macquarie Concise Dictionary defines “accredit” as “to certify as meeting official requirements.” (Macquarie Dictionary) In many countries, including Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA, accreditation has historically been associated with the education and healthcare sectors.

The term “standards scheme” has been associated with museum accreditation in NZ (Te Papa National Services) and New South Wales (NSW) (MGF NSW 2002). Internationally and officially, the term “standards” is usually associated with the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) (ISO I); in Australia, with Standards Australia International Ltd. (SAI) (SAI) This is how ISO defines a “standard”:

3


a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. (Technical Management Board)

A standards scheme does not inherently suggest regulation. Regardless, standards must be developed to inform both a standards scheme as well as an accreditation scheme.

A glance through ISO’s catalogue shows that standards are associated with many sectors. (ISO II)

The American Association of Museums (AAM) Museum Accreditation Program uses the term “quality assurance”. (Hart 2003) A good definition for quality, in this sense, comes from the Institute of Quality Assurance (IQA) in the UK:

Quality is not just about implementing a system or working towards a set standard. It is an attitude, a way of working, which not only improves businesses but the way people work and live. (IQA I)

This definition suggests that quality assurance is a method for establishing confidence that this “way of working” is in place. It also suggests more of an ongoing process.

Total Quality Management (TQM), a management approach, is considered to be one “way of thinking” that helps to achieve quality. (IQA II) This association with management approaches reflects the association of quality assurance with the business sector.

This usage is also confirmed by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC). In 1999, the AVCC was discussing auditing universities to confirm that internal quality assurance measures were working. (AVCC 1 September 1999) This has led to the establishment of Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) (AVCC) for this purpose.

Quality assurance, therefore, suggests a more internal mechanism than either accreditation or standards.

One final definition may be useful: an early draft of the proposal for this research refers to “benchmark indicators”. (MA Standing Committee on Research) These are associated with the process of benchmarking: improving practice by learning from other institutions. (Public Sector Benchmarking Service)

Any scheme can facilitate this exchange by also serving as a “clearinghouse” for best practice, such as the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) for the healthcare sector in the USA. (NGC) The NGC is sponsored, in part, by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) which develops guidelines used by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organisations (JCAHO). Careful observation of the scheme could be an opportunity to discover best practice within its sector.

Benchmarking is also associated with the business sector, as illustrated by the UK example.

4


Within the museum sector, accreditation and standards are the most commonly used terms. And of these two, accreditation is the one most frequently used and the basis of schemes in Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA.

1.1 Museum Accreditation Internationally1.1.1 USAThe first museum accreditation scheme was introduced in the USA in 1971 by the AAM. (Mason 2002) In developing the scheme, they looked to other sectors, in particular the education sector. (Respondent 11.USA)

The AAM is the peak professional organisation for museum professionals in the USA. Similar to MA, it is a non-governmental body with both individual and institutional membership. Its Museum Accreditation Program is open to almost any collecting and exhibiting institution, even non-members. (AAM)

This accreditation scheme comprises three stages: self-assessment, peer review, and on-going self-regulation. (AAM 1997) This basic model is followed by most of the museum accreditation and standards schemes which follow. It is summarised, with the other schemes, in Appendix B – Existing Models.

The first stage, self-assessment, begins when a museum decides to enter the scheme. The museum has one year to complete this stage.

When a museum has completed the self-assessment stage to the AAM Accreditation Committee’s satisfaction, an on-site review is scheduled. The members of the Visiting Committee, which is formed for each review, are selected by the museum as well as the AAM.

In the process of reviewing a museum, the Visiting Committee is not authorised to offer advice. Their review is submitted, in writing, to the Accreditation Committee which then decides on the museum’s status. A museum has two years, after entering the scheme, to complete the entire process. Accreditation is granted on a pass or fail basis, but failure does not prevent a museum from eventually achieving accredited status.

After a museum has been accredited, it is expected to maintain “accreditable standards” (AAM 2000) through self-regulation. This is verified when a museum undergoes re-accreditation, which revisits the entire process again, every ten years.

After over 30 years, the Museum Accreditation Program is now the most mature institutional accreditation scheme specifically for museums. Its longevity could be considered a measure of its success.

The AAM scheme does not operate alone, however. It is supplemented by the Museum Assessment Program and Technical Information Service (TIS). The Assessment Program is more consultative than the Accreditation Program, and seems to help museums prepare for accreditation. TIS, on the other hand, acts as a clearinghouse for current professional standards. (Igoe 1994)

1.1.2 Canada

5


In Canada, a national museums accreditation scheme has been discussed for many years, (McAvity 1995) but the only schemes currently operating are regional. In Ontario (ON), standards for community museums were introduced in 1981 and the scheme is currently operated by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation within the provincial government. (Ministry of Culture, Government of Ontario)

This scheme is focused on community museums and local governments; which operate many of the museums in the scheme. (Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation October 1998) Most of these community museums depend on Community Museum Operating Grants from the provincial government which are only allocated to museums that meet the requirements.

Museums are assessed yearly, but only on 2 or 3 standards from the scheme, making it somewhat modular. (Carter) Standards already in place are only reviewed. Assessment is paper-based and does not involve site visits. Some of this paperwork is available electronically. Nevertheless, administration of the scheme appears very involved.

This scheme is also one of the few to examine research standards.

1.1.3 United KingdomThe next scheme was introduced in 1988, in the UK, by the Museums and Galleries

Commission. Compared with the AAM scheme, it had a more difficult beginning. (Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) The Registration scheme was introduced by the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is now the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA). (Museums and Galleries Commission 1988) It is a government body and not a professional organisation like MA. Participation in the scheme is free and appears to focus on regional museums. (Museums and Galleries Commission 1991)

The scheme is now administered in cooperation with the Area Museum Councils. (Resource 2002) This may suggest a model for MA and its state branches.

A recent review of Registration recommends that the scheme become more aspirational, inclusive and broad; addressing aspects of museum practice such as visitor experience. (Mason and Weeks 2002)

1.1.4 New ZealandThe most recent scheme has been introduced in NZ by the National Services Te

Paerangi division of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Participation in the scheme is free to museums, and it is open to museums, art galleries, historic places, whare taonga and science, interpretive and exhibition centres. (Te Papa National Services)

The standards informing this scheme represent “accepted standards of practice” and are organised into five modules. Uniquely, only one of these modules: “Governance, management and planning” is mandatory.

Once a museum selects what modules it wants to undertake, the scheme is similar to those already reviewed, involving self-assessment with peer-review. Perhaps because

6


of its relative newness, all the documentation for the scheme is available in paper as well as electronic form.

Unlike the other schemes, however, there is no pass or fail. This scheme is much more consultative, with even the peer-review visit seen as an opportunity to discuss museum practice with the reviewers. It is considered a “continuous quality improvement” scheme. (Respondent 14.NZ)

1.1.5 IrelandA new scheme is being developed in Ireland by An Chomhairle Oidhreachta/the

Heritage Council to address “grave problems” in the country’s regional museums. (Ryan 2000)

An Chomhairle Oidhreachta/the Heritage Council is a statutory body (An Chomhairle Oidhreachta / The Heritage Council), but has recognised that an independent body in the museum sector must eventually operate the scheme.

While the scheme resembles existing schemes, the definition of a museum used includes institutions which may not have collections, but exhibit the collections of others.

It also breaks the three stages associated with existing schemes into five: initial application to the scheme, preparation for accreditation, interim assessment, achievement of accreditation, and post-accreditation. This arrangement, however, is not significantly different from existing schemes.

1.1.6 Other international developmentsAt the international level, ICR has recently developed guidelines reflecting “good

museum work” internationally. (Manneby, Prasch and Hoffman 2002)

Museum accreditation schemes are also operating in South Africa (Barry 1983), Latvia, the Netherlands and Spain. Schemes are also being developed in Austria, Croatia, France, and Slovenia. (Manneby and Hadjinicolaou 1999)

1.2 Museum Accreditation in AustraliaAs in Canada, national accreditation has been discussed for a while in Australia. Although national accreditation schemes currently operate in other sectors, for example: tourism and ecotourism, museum accreditation schemes are restricted to a few states. (Australian Tourism Accreditation Association) (Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program) (Speirs 1996)

1.2.1 South AustraliaThe first museum accreditation scheme was introduced in 1982 by the History Trust

of South Australia (HTSA). MAGP is restricted to SA, and specifically to institutions focused on the history of the state. (Speirs 1992) Participation in the scheme is fully funded by the State.

Although roughly similar to other pass or fail schemes, once a museum enters this scheme, it is not necessary to complete it. The first stage involves registration in the

7


scheme. Registered museums are part of a network for sharing advice and working towards improving standards. (Murdoch 1995)

After passing a peer review, a museum achieves accreditation in this scheme and access to special funding which is only available to accredited museums in SA. (Speirs 1992) This is the only scheme which ties some sort of guaranteed funding to accreditation.

The standards of this scheme are closely aligned with those of the National Tourism Accreditation Program. Although, unlike the Museums Australia (Victoria) (MA(VIC)) scheme and the Victorian Tourism Operators Association (VTOA), membership in the tourism scheme is not automatic. (HTSA 2003. Section 2)

This scheme has been reviewed recently, partly because HTSA is finding it lacks the staff to adequately operate and monitor the scheme. (HTSA 1996)

1.2.2 Western AustraliaIn 1992, a museum accreditation scheme was explored for Western Australia (WA).

(Murphy March 1992) It was suggested that the scheme could expand on the Western Australian Museum’s Recognition scheme, which Murphy found was unclear and unable to keep abreast of current professional standards.

The report recognised that it is more desirable that an independent body operate the scheme, partly because of the “big brother” image of the Western Australian Museum. However, at the time the report was written MA did not exist, and Murphy judged the predecessor of MA (the Museums Association of Australia) to be incapable of operating the scheme either within the state or nationally. (Murphy. pp. 45-46)

The scheme suggested by Murphy resembles the AAM and Resource schemes. It would be tightly integrated with training and support from the Western Australian Museum’s Local Museums Programme. Museums that had already been recognised under the previous scheme would be given priority to participate in the new scheme.

The author also recommends a system of re-accreditation, but one that is less involved than the original accreditation process in order to reduce the administrative workload associated with the scheme.

The scheme was never implemented, and the author concludes that a national scheme would probably have more leverage.

Another report by Ian McShane in 2001 examined, in part, the feasibility of professional (individual) accreditation in the museum sector in that state. This report stressed the importance of “enhancing the professionalisation of museum workers” and suggested that the ideal for the sector would involve “institutional accreditation along with individual training”. (McShane October 2001. Recommendations 1 and 6)

Although its recommendations tend towards individual training, this report highlights several issues of concern to the development of an accreditation system, among them: a shortage of financial and human resources to implement an accreditation system (institutional or individual) by MA and the potential for on-line provision of training materials. (McShane. Recommendations 6, 11, 13 and 23) It also recommends

8


that professional accreditation is best pursued with national coordination. (McShane. Recommendations 22)

1.2.3 VictoriaThe next museum accreditation scheme in Australia was implemented in VIC in

1993. This scheme is now operated by MA(VIC). Compared with the HTSA scheme, it is a more inclusive scheme open to any institutions meeting their definition of a museum. For example, it is open to any museum, not just those that address state history. (MA(VIC) 2000) Participation in the scheme is funded by the museum sector and state government through Arts Victoria. (MA(VIC))

Of all the schemes reviewed, the Museums Accreditation Program (MAP) most closely resembles the AAM scheme. It promotes “recognised’ standards. It differs from the AAM scheme in that a review of an accredited museums status is scheduled every three years after it is first accredited, although this does not necessarily involve undergoing the complete process again. (MA(VIC) 2000)

MAP is unique among schemes in its close partnership with VTOA. Museums achieving accreditation under this scheme also meet nationally accredited standards in the tourism sector through the Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria. (Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria)

1.2.4 New South WalesThe latest development in museum accreditation in Australia is the scheme being

piloted in NSW by MGF NSW. MGF NSW is funded by the state government (MGF NSW) and is the only suitable organisation in that state capable of implementing the scheme.

Like the MA(VIC) scheme, it is highly inclusive. It is also open to public art galleries as well as museums. (Scrivener 2003) The scheme is described as “essential practice”. (Scrivener 2003)

In the 2003 pilot, the Regional Museums Officer of the Newcastle Regional Museum has taken on a leadership role and is working with individual museums to raise the level of professional practice in the region. (Scrivener 2003) It appears to be an individual and consultative scheme.

1.3 Accreditation in Other SectorsIt may be helpful to examine accreditation in other sectors.

The Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP) in Australia, for example, has a feature not seen in any museum accreditation scheme. It is a multi-tier scheme, explicitly recognising three levels of accreditation, with the highest level awarded to products that show particularly high standards or innovative practice. (Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program)

In VIC, the Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria operates a scheme of particular interest because of its close relationship with a museum accreditation scheme. Tourism accreditation there is completely integrated into MAP, which is operated by MA(VIC).

9


Negotiations between VTOA and MA(VIC) have resulted in a museum accreditation scheme which completely addresses the accreditable standards of another body in another sector. So, Museums seeking tourism accreditation go through MAP. (Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria)

Another example comes from Canada’s healthcare sector. The Achieving Improved Measurement (AIM) Accreditation Program is a model that is relevant to museums in Australia because it is a national scheme that applies to large and small institutions which may be significantly staffed by volunteers.

This scheme is operated by the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation (CCHSA), an independent, not-for-profit organisation. (CCHSA) Accreditation in the healthcare sector is very mature, having been introduced in the USA in 1917. AIM is a descendant of that scheme. (CCHSA. History of CCHSA)

Fees apply to institutions participating in this scheme, similar to the AAM scheme for museums. Unlike existing museum accreditation schemes, however, institutions are permitted to develop their own indicators to measure how well they are meeting each standard. Perhaps this is because of the nature of the sector, because the standards are much less specific than “maintaining x degrees temperature in your storage facility.”

The scheme is supported by a custom software package which helps the institution complete their self-assessment.

1.4 SummaryThe characteristics of the eleven museum accreditation schemes reviewed are

summarised in Appendix B – Existing Models. Most of the schemes are either under development or currently operating. Only three of the schemes are not active in some way: the two WA schemes and the ICR scheme, which is more of a suggested model for potential schemes.

The summary also illustrates commonalities between the schemes reviewed.

The majority (nine) of the schemes are, are to be or were consultative in character. This means that there is significant dialogue between the accrediting body and museums throughout the accreditation process. In contrast, museums are not expected to seek advice through the AAM scheme.

Eight are operated by a body which represents the sector to some extent in the given region or country. In most cases the body is independent from government, although some are arms-length (HTSA) or funded by government (MGF NSW, MA(VIC)). Only one scheme is directly operated by government. Only two are operated by museums.

The majority of schemes (eight) are also voluntary; museums in the given region or country are not required to participate in accreditation. Only the schemes in SA and ON, Canada are mandatory, and then only in the context of funding. Museums in SA must participate in the HTSA scheme in order to access special grants. Museums in ON must participate in the scheme in order to receive funding from the provincial government.

10


Most (seven) of the schemes also follow the same operating format involving: self-assessment, interim review, and peer review components with a site visit. Three of the schemes generally follow this format but not completely, or there is insufficient data on them. The scheme in ON, Canada is unusual in that it has been designed specifically so that reviews can be conducted by government employees who are not necessarily museum professionals, or peers.

The self-assessment stage of these schemes usually involves questionnaire(s) to be completed by the museum. The interim review stage usually involves the submission of the completed questionnaire(s) and supporting documentation to the accrediting body. At this stage, museums are advised to review their application or proceed to the peer review stage. Finally, the peer review stage is commonly accomplished by a site visit.

So, the kind of scheme that is most common in the museum sector, and would be most familiar to museums is operated by an independent body within the sector, consultative, voluntary and comprises self-assessment, interim review, and peer review stages.

2 Role of Museums AustraliaThe scheme requires that some party develop and operate it. MA could take any of three roles in an accreditation scheme, or all of them: developing, owning, or operating the scheme. By commissioning this research project, MA has already had a role in developing the scheme.

Once the scheme is developed, MA could own the scheme but leave operation to its state branches or other suitable parties such as HTSA or MGF NSW. Alternatively, MA could hand over the scheme to the Federal or state governments and operate the scheme through its state branches, or not.

Finally, MA could retain control of the scheme and operate it wholly through its state branches or the national council. Most of the museum accreditation schemes reviewed above follow this model with the scheme owned and operated by the sector. The exceptions would be:

• in ON, Canada, where the scheme is owned and operated by the provincial government

• in SA, where the scheme is owned and operated by HTSA, a government agency

• in Ireland, where the scheme is being developed by a statutory body, although the intention is to hand over the scheme to the sector

Of the schemes owned and operated by the sector, the majority are operated by the peak professional organisation for the sector in a country or state or an associated institution, such as a national museum.

The brief for this project also stresses “the importance of developing a system that is ‘owned’ by the sector”. (MA Standing Committee on Research) It also expresses the preference that the scheme be operated by a professional body and not an associated

11


institution. (MA Standing Committee on Research)

Interviews with individuals within the sector reinforce these preferences. Smaller institutions and institutions in rural areas could consider the scheme domineering if implemented by an associated institution, particularly a national or larger museum. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA) Such institutions are usually located in a national or state capital, and some parts of Australia have expressed a sensitivity to being told what to do by the national or a state capital. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) These feelings could also be exacerbated if the controlling institutions did not participate in the scheme themselves. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

Nor did any interviews suggest that government should operate the scheme. One respondent explicitly stated that government should not operate the scheme. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) Another respondent indicated concerns, similar to those above, over control of the sector (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) and it was also noted, by another respondent, that governments can be subject to policy vagaries that may not suit the sector. (Respondent 11.USA)

If the government were to operate the scheme, the new CCA body is the most likely candidate because one its terms of reference is to “promote benchmarks and standards for the care and management of collections” Although, because it is responsible for libraries and archives only it may be limited from addressing the entire museum sector. While it is described as an independent body, at least over the short term the government will be operating it at arms-length. (DCITA III)

On the other hand, there was a suggestion that the scheme at least needs some government support to have the capacity to survive. (Respondent 1.WA(MA)) It was also advised that if it were backed up with legislation then it would be more effective, sustainable and credible. (Respondent 9.CAN) At least, endorsement by a government body would be important. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA))

Elaborating on capacity issues, whomever operates the scheme will need to be able to bear the financial and other costs associated with it. The scheme will require the development of documentation, even allowing for existing resources. (Respondent 14.NZ) More so, depending on how inclusive the scheme is. HTSA’s experience has shown that it is difficult to provide documentation and paperwork that is appropriate to all the kinds of collecting institutions in SA’s heritage sector. (Kate Walsh, SA) This concern was repeated in NSW. (Thomas Graham, NSW)

This capacity needs to be in place beforehand, so the scheme can easily manage a rush of initial subscriptions. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) It also needs the capacity to grow, and if necessary, change over time. (Respondent 16.VIC)

As the scheme progresses, the burden is not likely to decrease. Experience from two schemes indicate huge ongoing financial, resource and personnel demands. (Respondent 11.USA) (Respondent 1.WA(MA) In one instance, the scheme is subsidised by other programs. (Respondent 11.USA) In another, the scheme still required tremendous resources despite a relatively small subscription. (Respondent 1.WA(MA))

Furthermore, if the body responsible for the scheme is significantly supported by

12


government – as is likely to be the case in Australia – one respondent points out that capacity will fluctuate with different policies and governments. (Respondent 9.CAN)

While the demands associated with the scheme could be substantially carried by museums (by fees to the scheme (AAM 1997)), the sector , or government, they will need to be carefully assessed: the scheme preceding Registration in the UK failed, in part, because the costs were unable to be met . (Thompson 1982) To get an idea of the possible price of the scheme we can look to the scheme under development in Ireland: this scheme is estimated to cost €91,000, which includes publications and printing, orientation programmes and advisory consultations. This figure is based on an initial take-up of 30-40 museums in the first year. (An Chomhairle Oidhreachta / The Heritage Council 2002)

Having sufficient capacity in place will also likely result in a more sustainable scheme.

Thomas Graham, NSW, also advises that whoever operates the scheme, as well as the scheme itself, must command the respect and trust of the sector. (Thomas Graham, NSW) The importance of trust was echoed by three other respondents. (Respondent 11.USA) (Respondent 16.VIC) (Respondent 2.NSW) They must be prepared to support the scheme long enough and the scheme must be sufficiently sustainable to allow time for trust to develop. Experience with one scheme suggests that this could take 30 years. (Respondent 11.USA)

There is also a danger, experienced in the United States, that inexperienced personnel may apply the standards of the scheme unevenly, thereby damaging the credibility of the scheme. (Norman 1982) For this reason, the body must be able to provide qualified assessors (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)), with broad experience and authority. (Respondent 2.NSW)

Finally, the scheme will require significant, further coordination with stakeholders in individual states. For this reason, the body that implements it must have national scope and authority.

It was pointed out that: each state and territory will have different requirements for the scheme (Respondent 2.NSW) and its own subtleties to be addressed by it. (Thomas Graham, NSW) Varied stakeholders will be involved. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) Concern was also expressed that existing schemes in individual states will complicate a national scheme. (Susan Reynolds, VIC)

While it was advised that a national scheme should simply supersede all existing schemes and schemes in development (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)), at the least, whoever develops the scheme will need the authority to negotiate and achieve resolutions to these issues at a national level.

MA is the only independent body representing the sector at the national level. It represents both individuals and institutions, and works with other professional organisations and government at all levels. It also has branches in every state and territory and mechanisms to negotiate the development of the scheme, for example: Standing Committees or Special Interest Groups.

Interviews with individuals within the sector indicate a preference that a body similar to MA and in some instances, specifically MA, take full responsibility for the

13


scheme. Although, on a cautionary note, Anna Malgorzewicz, Northern Territory (NT) (MA) recalled recent crises in certain self-regulated sectors, citing the collapse of Enron in the United States. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

If MA accepts full responsibility for the scheme, there are a couple of questions that need to be answered:

• does MA have the capacity to develop, implement and operate the scheme over the long term, and

• does it have the respect of the sector?

The extent to which the sector trusts MA may be difficult to quantify, although Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA), cautions that if MA is not, ultimately, responsible for this scheme, then MA’s credibility could be damaged. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) On the other hand, MA’s capacity to commit to the scheme may be more easily quantified. Not only will MA need to assess its capacity at its national office, but also, in each state and territory.

3 The ModelIn developing this model, I have divided the investigation into two parts:

1. a general consideration of what kind of scheme it could be (this chapter), including characteristics and aims and outcomes, and

2. the specific standards or draft model indicators that could be addressed by the scheme (section 4).

3.1 CharacteristicsThe brief for this project specifies several requirements for the scheme; it must:

1. be flexible enough so that it can be applied at any level throughout the sector,

2. emphasise opportunity for institutional and professional development and not competitive grading,

3. not be “too onerous in its implementation”, especially for museums staffed by volunteers, and

4. be “incentives led rather than penalties driven.” (MA Standing Committee on Research)

Additionally, the following issues were mentioned by respondents:

5. transparency,

6. alienation of smaller or regional museums, and

7. inclusivity.

14


3.1.1 Be flexible enough so that it can be applied at any level throughout the sectorAn important issue for the scheme will be settling on a level of standards that can be applied at any level throughout the sector, with or without modification.

On the one hand, one respondent suggests that all museums should be able to meet the standards of the scheme from the outset. (Respondent 9.CAN) On the other hand, one respondent commented that some museums may never be able to meet the standards of the scheme. (Respondent 11.USA) Another respondent suggested that museums that could not participate might be reserved for special attention at a later date. (Respondent 16.VIC)

The preference indicated in the interviews, however, seems to be that the scheme should not sacrifice a certain level of standards. Thomas Graham, NSW recommended that the level of standards of the scheme should be consistent. (Thomas Graham, NSW) Another respondent suggested that less might be expected of certain institutions, but the level of standards should not change. (Respondent 4.VIC(MA))

Flexibility might be achieved in other ways. A multi-tiered scheme could endorse either several levels of standards, for example: from minimal to highest; or have a modular format. An example of the former is the NEAP scheme. An example of the latter is the NZ scheme: institutions are required to take a core module, but all other modules are optional. One respondent specifically favoured this approach. (Respondent 2.NSW)

A multi-tiered scheme could even use “star” ratings similar to that used in the hospitality industry. One respondent suggested that such an approach might borrow some of the respect and credibility of the star ratings used for hotels. (Thomas Graham, NSW) Or, at least, it could grade accreditation. (Susan Reynolds, VIC) Another respondent clearly did not want to go as far as a star rating for individual museums. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

Many respondents favoured some kind of multi-tiered format. One respondent suggested getting institutions into the scheme at a basic level and then providing multiple levels of standards. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) Two respondents recommended targeting certain institutions with an achievable level of standards, and later expanding to a level of standards addressing institutions with greater resources. (Respondent 2.NSW) (Thomas Graham, NSW)

One respondent specifically suggested that institutions should be allowed to pick and choose “policies” that suit that institution and their community. That respondent still agreed that there should be required standards. (Respondent 1.WA(MA))

The scheme would not need to begin with all modules in place. It could become more flexible over time. One currently active scheme started with “achievable” standards and is now looking at introducing additional levels of accreditation. (Respondent 14.NZ) Several respondents suggested that the scheme might take a similar approach, either starting at essential standards (Thomas Graham, NSW), or with a key module. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))

If a multi-tiered approach is taken, one respondent advised that the different levels be formalised so that institutions have goals to aim for. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))

15


Alternatively, the scheme could promote a certain level of standards but remain sufficiently flexible to apply to any institution in the sector. One respondent suggested that it address overarching principles and not be a straitjacket for institutions. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) Obviously, a more general scheme would be more flexible than a more specific one.

3.1.2 Emphasise opportunity for institutional and professional development and not competitive grading

There are two distinct kinds of schemes currently operating in the museum sector.

The first type of scheme, of which the Museum Accreditation Program in the U.S.A. is an example, could be described as a pass/fail scheme. Museums are expected to substantially meet the standards of the scheme when they enter the program. It is not intended to be a consultative program; this function is filled by the Museum Assessment Program.

The second type, which includes most other schemes, is more consultative. Museums entering the program may not meet set standards, but are expected to do so when they complete the program. For example: the quality assurance system for Australian universities proposed by the AVCC stresses helping institutions meet their stated aims and objectives, not rating institutions. (AVCC 1999) Another scheme, this one in the museum sector outside Australia, is similar and described as a “continuous quality improvement” scheme. (Respondent 14.NZ)

One respondent suggested that a strictly pass/fail scheme could be seen as insurmountable by some museums and block them from participating. (Respondent 14.NZ)

There was also an assumption that the scheme should be more consultative. For example, it was suggested that museums that do not or cannot participate in the scheme should not be excluded from any development opportunities offered by it, for example: training. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) Expanding on this, it was also recommended that there should not be any stigma attached to museums using the scheme in this way. (Respondent 16.VIC) Museums could be working towards the standards advanced by the scheme without formally participating in it.

3.1.3 Not be “too onerous in its implementation”, especially for museums staffed by volunteers

One of the factors that will affect the burden associated with the scheme will be the level of standards that institutions are required to aspire to. It has already been suggested, in section 3.2.1, that the scheme should abide by a certain level of standards regardless of the potential difficulty, on the part of some institutions, in meeting those standards.

Other factors will include: the amount of paperwork and reporting required by the scheme and financial costs. There are a couple of solutions to an excessive workload.

First, as has already been suggested, the scheme could be modular. This would have

16


the added benefit of making the scheme more flexible, without sacrificing standards. Thomas Graham, NSW suggested that museums could start with an essential module addressing collections care and then pick-up additional modules as they can.

Second, as in the AIM scheme in Canada, some form of software reporting could be used. Going further, reporting could be done solely over the web. With more and more people using computers and the Internet, this could almost be expected; at least within a few years.

There will also be costs associated with operating and participation in the scheme. The AAM scheme, for example, requires that a museum have at least one paid, full-time museum professional on staff, an annual operating budget of at least US$ 25,000, and have accessioned at least 80% of its collection. (AAM 1999 I) These criteria would probably exclude a majority of museums in Australia.

The Victoria (VIC) and American schemes are funded, at least in part, by administration fees charged to participating museums. The AVCC quality assurance scheme is funded by a combination of annual subscriptions (based on institution size) and a fee for conducting each audit. (AVCC 1999) One respondent suggested that some small institutions could not afford any fee. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA))

Several respondents, however, indicated that many museums probably could pay some administration fee: especially if there were real benefits to participants. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) One respondent suggested that fees would make institutions more accountable. (Thomas Graham, NSW ) Another respondent recommended that fees must be scaled to the capacity of the institution. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

Even if financial requirements or administration fees are not specified in the scheme, there are likely to be costs involved in meeting standards, for example upgrading facilities.

One respondent suggested that while larger institutions may be able to pay into the scheme, local governments will likely need to subsidise participation for smaller institutions. They will need to be sold on the possible benefits of better collecting institutions, for example: increased tourism. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) Several respondents agreed that funding would be required from some level of government. (Respondent 1.WA(MA)) (Respondent 4.VIC(MA)) (Thomas Graham, NSW) (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) One respondent mentioned the possibility that funding could be provided through state and local tourism agencies. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA))

3.1.4 Be “incentives led rather than penalties driven”There are no examples of penalty driven schemes in the museum sector although the closest thing was tried in Victoria: a mandatory scheme. It was unable to find sufficient support and now, the Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria has moved to an incentives led scheme, offering training and marketing benefits to participants in the scheme. (Tourism Victoria June 2003) Interview responses indicate a clear preference for an incentives led scheme for Australian museums. Only one respondent suggested a need for both “carrots” and “sticks”. (Respondent 1.WA(MA))

17


An incentive would be to tie funding to the scheme. For example, HTSA provides additional funding to institutions that participate in its scheme. While in ON, institutions are required to participate in its scheme in order to receive any funding from the provincial government.

On the one hand, one respondent pointed out that access to funding is a “powerful incentive”. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) On the other hand, several respondents were less certain about using funding as an incentive. One respondent commented that it may be considered draconian. (Thomas Graham, NSW ) Two respondents plainly did not want funding tied to the scheme seeing potential for increased tension and conflict between institutions. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA))

Another option for providing an incentive was suggested by a respondent who recommended that funding be available to participants strictly for projects addressing accreditation, for example: upgrading facilities. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)

Perhaps the best incentive will be clearly communicating the benefits of participation in the scheme. These will first need to be identified, but as an example: accredited institutions might receive preferential treatment from donors and funding bodies and increased visitation. So, funding could still provide an incentive, but not directly through the scheme.

3.1.5 TransparencyOne veteran of a well-established scheme advised that it is important that the scheme be transparent. (Respondent 11.USA) If so, some form of reporting to the sector and perhaps, to the public, would be useful. The quality assurance system proposed for Australian universities considered active reporting of audit results to the public and media essential. (AVCC 1999)

3.1.6 Alienation of smaller or regional museumsOf distinct concern to several respondents was the risk that the scheme would alienate smaller or regional museums. In WA, it was suggested that accreditation would isolate institutions in that state, separating participating institutions from those without the capacity or desire to participate in the scheme. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) One respondent commented that accreditation could be a “scary notion” to some institutions. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA))

Several respondents cited a sensitivity among regional institutions to being told what to do by a central authority. In Queensland (QLD), the central authority would be both Brisbane and Canberra. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) Another respondent suggested that accreditation was perceived as being imposed by larger, possibly national institutions. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA )) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) Accreditation is seen as a “big stick” . (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)

So, there is clearly a need to sort out preconceived ideas about accreditation. (Respondent 5.VIC(MA))

18


One respondent recommended that smaller and regional museums might be assured if the larger institutions also participated in the scheme. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) They could be role models. (Respondent 1.WA(MA)) Another respondent suggested that this “paranoia” might be combated merely by ensuring all levels of institutions are represented in the genesis of the scheme. (Thomas Graham, NSW)

An alternative suggested by one respondent is to make the scheme flexible enough so that institutions and states could exercise some degree of control over it. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA))

3.1.7 InclusivityA final recommendation made by several respondents was that the scheme be highly inclusive of the types of institutions that it addresses. This is significant because other schemes operating in the sector are generally more restrictive. (Kate Walsh, SA) (Respondent 5.VIC(MA))

No respondents indicated that the scheme should exclude any particular type of collecting institution, although Judy Kean, QLD suggested that heritage sites are already well protected by legislation and the Burra Charter.

3.2 Aims and OutcomesThe brief for this project identifies several desired aims and outcomes; the scheme should:

1. provide a mechanism to reflect the diversity of the sector,

2. provide statistics for lobbying and advocacy on behalf of the sector,

3. provide value to external agencies,

4. facilitate linkage with other schemes,

5. identify “basic standards at which all museums must function in order to be effective and efficient”,

6. continually improve standards through regular review,

7. measure the performance of the sector and identify problem issues,

8. provide a starting point for professional development programs, and

9. build networks within the sector.

(MA Standing Committee on Research)

Respondents also suggested:

10. national aims and outcomes that may not be possible with regional schemes

It should be noted that many of the recommendations in this section are “wishful thinking”. While some of the respondents have experience with schemes and are able to identify definite outcomes from their schemes, respondents without this experience can

19


only be expected to identify desired aims and outcomes.

3.2.1 Provide a mechanism to reflect the diversity of the sectorRespondents were most interested in how the scheme could reflect the sector rather than specific institutions. A significant number of respondents cited recognition of the sector as an important outcome, using words such as: legitimise (Respondent 6.VIC), visibility (Kate Walsh, SA), respect (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)), and understanding. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) It was twice commented that recognition was important for MA as well as the sector. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA))

Encouraging people to recognise museum work as important, in private sector business (Respondent 6.VIC) and within the museum sector (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)), was also cited as a concern.

One respondent, working with an existing scheme, stated that the scheme had made the sector in their region self-promoting. (Respondent 11.USA)

Experience with accreditation in Universities in Australia has suggested that the credibility of the scheme and consequently, how favourably it reflects the sector, depends on the participation of the majority of institutions in the sector. (AVCC 1999)

3.2.2 Provide statistics for lobbying and advocacy on behalf of the sectorOne respondent identified this outcome indirectly: noting that their participation in an existing scheme has significantly helped their bargaining position with stakeholders. They suggested that participation in the scheme facilitated communication with stakeholders and other sectors who were already accustomed to accreditation, and what accredited status indicated, for example: private sector business and government. (Respondent 6.VIC)

Another respondent recognised that different stakeholders have different expectations of the museum sector, and the scheme could provide an opportunity to negotiate these with them. (Respondent 1.WA(MA))

While not mentioning data collection specifically, one respondent suggested that the scheme could help to establish credentials that would be recognised outside the sector. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

3.2.3 Provide value to external agenciesCollecting institutions and the sector in general work with many different kinds of external agencies. These agencies may be public or private. They could include donors, funding bodies, or departments of different levels of government. According to respondents, the scheme could have value to all of these agencies.

Every external agency the sector works with has its own needs. The scheme could provide a guarantee to donors that their donations will be properly cared for. It could provide statistics to funding bodies to assure them that funds were being used

20


appropriately. As a major source of funding for many museums, the scheme could provide a similar function for government.

One respondent suggested that carefully selected benchmarks, that are recognised and understood by government, could indicate that the sector is working for the public good. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) Two respondents specifically identified government as possibly benefiting from the scheme. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) (Respondent 14.NZ) The Commonwealth government has, in fact, expressed a need for a mechanism to assess practice within the museum sector. (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories 1990) The scheme could provide this mechanism.

One respondent suggested that the scheme could have value to the public and donors (Respondent 6.VIC), another specifically identified funding bodies (Respondent 2.NSW), while two other respondents identified other sectors in general. (Respondent 16.VIC ) (Thomas Graham, NSW) Special value to both external agencies and the sector might be provided through statistics and benchmarks that help government, other sectors, and stakeholders perceive the value in collecting institutions. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA))

3.2.4 Facilitate linkage with other schemesThis aspiration suggests that institutions participating in a museum accreditation scheme would meet standards in another scheme and several respondents indicated that this would be desirable. All of the schemes currently operating in Australia are working with similar schemes in the tourism sector in some way.

Although other schemes address things important to collecting institutions, none completely address the areas important to museums such as preventative conservation. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) But, there is an opportunity for other schemes to fill certain gaps. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))

There is an opportunity here to conserve resources between schemes which share commonalities, for example: marketing is similar in both the museum and tourism sectors. (Respondent 7.VIC(MA)) (Respondent 8.VIC(MA)) (Respondent 9.CAN)) One respondent has identified significant overlap in training and materials between schemes in different sectors in Australia. (Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) In such a case, schemes might share components.

One respondent cautioned that a single sector not be given undue influence over the scheme. As this respondent pointed out, tourists are not the only visitors to museums. Alternatively, Judy Kean, QLD suggested that due to the importance of tourism in her state, closely aligning the scheme with that sector could be particularly helpful. Mark Whitmore, ACT also found that participating in tourism sector initiatives has been beneficial to institutions in his state. Two other respondents also expressed value in the tourism sector. (Respondent 2.NSW) (Respondent 13.NSW(MA))

The scheme could also incorporate wholesale other schemes such those addressing occupational health and safety. Mark Whitmore, ACT stated that some institutions in his state have benefited from participation in the management training scheme for Commonwealth institutions offered by the Commonwealth, for example. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))

21


The scheme will also likely need to address other local, regional and government legislation or schemes. (O’Donnell 1996)

Several respondents commented that, at least, the scheme could learn from sectors more experienced with accreditation. (Respondent 16.VIC) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) (Respondent 15.Tasmania (TAS)) (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) Thomas Graham, NSW suggested that some sectors may ignore the museum sector because it is not currently regulating standards at the national level. (Thomas Graham, NSW)

A couple of respondents indicated that other sectors may be interested in borrowing the scheme once it is established. One respondent suggested that state governments might be interested in using the scheme to learn about the sector, (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA) while another respondent remarked that their scheme was already being used by government to evaluate institutions. (Respondent 14.NZ)

3.2.5 Identify “basic standards at which all museums must function in order to be effective and efficient”

While the scheme in ON, Canada was developed in a vacuum (Respondent 9.CAN), this is not the case in Australia where standards and guidelines for museums already exist. Nevertheless, many respondents see the scheme as an opportunity to formalise standards in the sector. (Respondent 15.TAS) (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

One respondent suggests that a basic level of best practice needs to be negotiated with all stakeholders in the sector, including collecting institutions and government. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA))

Two respondents cited a need for “clear” national standards. (Respondent 2.NSW) One of these respondents cited the importance of providing user-friendly documentation defining minimum or basic best practice. (Respondent 14.NZ)

3.2.6 Continually improve standards through regular reviewMost respondents indicated a desire for more than a static level of accreditation standards. The preference is for a system of continuous improvement. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) In other words, an aspirational scheme. One respondent suggested that most institutions would want to go beyond a basic level of standards in any case. (Respondent 9.CAN)

Most schemes review accredited institutions at set intervals, and the schemes themselves are reviewed regularly and standards frequently revised. An example would be the UK scheme which was identified as a good model to follow by one respondent. (Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) The American scheme has also steadily raised standards through a process of regular review. (Respondent 11.USA) Another scheme in the museum sector is described as a process of “continuous quality improvement”.

22


(Respondent 14.NZ) One respondent suggested that this review process would be “fundamental” to the scheme. (Respondent 15.TAS)

Other respondents emphasised the importance of a long term commitment to the scheme. (Thomas Graham, NSW) One respondent suggested that the scheme should encourage a cultural shift towards sustainable best practice. (Respondent 16.VIC)

Several respondents were more cautionary; one suggested that the scheme not keep “moving the goal posts”. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) Another respondent stated that while raising standards was important, the aim should not be to equalise institutions. (Susan Reynolds, VIC) It was suggested that a multi-tier scheme would provide the opportunity for some institutions to achieve a comfortable level of standards and others to continually raise standards. (Respondent 14.NZ)

3.2.7 Measure the performance of the sector and identify problem issuesSeveral respondents see the scheme as a tool for learning more about the sector. One way this could be accomplished is by learning about and tracking institutions participating in it.

One respondent would like to better understand why professionals move around so much. (Susan Reynolds, VIC) Two respondents mentioned using data gathered through the scheme to facilitate comparisons between different institutions. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) (Respondent 15.TAS) Note that this does not suggest a formal competitive grading of institutions. Instead, I believe most respondents would like to learn more about the sector in order to be more proactive.

For example: four respondents would like the scheme to help identify either common objectives within the sector or issues facing the sector, such as: where collections are most at risk. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Susan Reynolds, VIC) (Respondent 16.VIC)

One respondent stated that the scheme in which they have participated has been useful to them in just this way; providing direction for their institution. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA))

Three respondents envision the scheme as a more general tool to focus on specific themes within the sector, for example: interpretation. (Respondent 2.NSW) (Kate Walsh, SA) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) This aim could effectively be accomplished with a modular format: the scheme could emphasise a particular module for a period of time in order to address a theme.

3.2.8 Provide a starting point for professional development programsWhile the standards promoted by an institutional scheme will, by nature, focus more on institutions than individuals, they could also address professional development programs. At the basic level, the scheme could define the standards which these programs train individuals to aspire to in their practice.

23


One active scheme initially focused on professionalising practice in this manner. (Respondent 11.USA) Three respondents recommended that the scheme inform (Respondent 15.TAS ) (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) or formally endorse (Respondent 2.NSW) individual training programs, workshops, and TAFE courses. One respondent suggested that the scheme could address the quality of existing training. (Thomas Graham, NSW)

A few respondents suggested that the scheme could act as a sort of clearing house for best practice: gathering, identifying, and disseminating best practice throughout the sector. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Respondent 11.USA ) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) More respondents suggested that the scheme could encourage institutions to learn from one another. (Respondent 9.VIC(MA)) (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) (Respondent 16.VIC) (Respondent 14.NZ)

More specifically, one respondent suggested that the scheme could encourage institutions to improve their practice by learning from one another. (Thomas Graham, NSW) Two respondents suggested that it could draw professionals to institutions that are in need of them. (Thomas Graham, NSW ) (Respondent 7.VIC(MA ))

Two respondent see the scheme providing more active mechanisms for professional development, specifically: resources and support to help institutions improve. (Kate Walsh, SA) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))

More common is the view that the scheme build on existing mechanisms for professional development. One common suggestion was to link to resources both within the sector (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) and in other sectors. (Respondent 16.VIC) Another suggestion is to formalise access to existing mechanisms (Thomas Graham, NSW ) (Respondent 5.VIC(MA )) and build a “structured development program” around them. (Respondent 1.WA(MA)

One respondent commented that many of the resources that could support the scheme are already active in Australia. (Respondent 5.VIC(MA))

3.2.9 Build networks within the sectorA desirable outcome oft mentioned by respondents but not specified in the brief is that the scheme encourage museums to work together and generally unify the sector. Several respondents talked of building the museum community; with institutions, professionals, and volunteers. (Respondent 16.VIC) (Respondent 14.NZ) (Kate Walsh, SA) (Respondent 13.NSW(MA))

One respondent discussed opening pathways between museums. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) And another recommended that the scheme would be a “good way’ to get a variety of institutions to work together. (Susan Reynolds, VIC)

Mark Whitmore, ACT stated that some institutions, particularly regional ones, can still feel isolated and the kind of networking opportunities that could be offered by a national scheme would be valuable. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)

The experience of the SA and pilot NSW schemes suggest that the scheme could indeed be an opportunity to encourage cooperation between museums. (National Museum

24


of Australia 1996) The VIC scheme shows that there is also an opportunity to connect with other sectors, such as tourism.

3.2.10 National aims and outcomes that may not be possible with regional schemesMost respondents, when interviewed about a national accreditation scheme for Australian museums, were receptive to the possibility. About half cited several reasons for this position.

One respondent hopes that the scheme could facilitate communication within the sector by providing a common language in the form of a nationally agreed-upon set of standards. (Respondent 7.VIC(MA)) This would, conceivably, work on several levels: loans between institutions might be assisted if both institutions were assured that the loan would be properly cared for. Also, professionals moving from one institution to another in a different state would know what to expect.

Three respondents suggested that a national scheme would help all institutions see their value to the nation. (Respondent 1.WA(MA)) Two of these respondents mentioned the distributed national collection. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))

One respondent felt that it was important that the sector reflect a more unified image to other sectors and that a national scheme would be a good way to accomplish this. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA))

Another respondent suggested that a national scheme would be more appealing to larger institutions than a state or regional scheme. (Respondent 12.VIC(MA))

This leads into several statements that a national scheme would simply be an improvement over any number of schemes at a lower level. Three respondents suggested that a national scheme would be better recognised by other sectors (Respondent 4.VIC(MA )) (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) and internationally. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) Of these respondents, one saw more benefit in general coming from a national scheme. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA))

Considering the place of a national scheme in the midst of at least two active schemes, one respondent recommended two alternatives: first, that the national scheme replace all existing schemes; and second, that a national scheme could be adopted just by those states without a scheme. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) Another option could see active schemes gradually superseded by a national scheme.

4 Draft Model IndicatorsIn developing the draft model indicators for the scheme, three aspects can be considered:

1. scope of the scheme itself; what types of institutions will it address?

2. kinds or categories of standards to be assessed

3. level of standards to be assessed

Before examining the standards to be assessed in detail, it is important to remember

25


that the scheme will not be starting with a “clean slate”. In Australia, there are already two active accreditation schemes in the museum sector with another under development and, as the brief for this project states, a new scheme must recognise work that already meets targets. In addition, it must “work in an integrated way” with these existing schemes. (MA Standing Committee on Research)

It was also pointed out in an interview that museums in each state will be affected by different legislation and special situations that will affect practice and, by association, standards. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

So, clearly, the scheme will need to be flexible to adapt to the unique situation in each state. It was advised that it avoid “nitpicking” and only assess broad principles of practice. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) Adopting this attitude would hopefully provide room to accommodate the situation in each state.

In Australia, there is already a wealth of material to inform the scheme. There are currently nationally agreed-upon standards in the areas of collections management, conservation and preservation. These were developed in response to the 1998 Heritage Collections Council report. (Heritage Collections Council 1998) Some revision may be needed to reflect current practice and the requirements of the scheme.

If the scheme were to use some or all of these materials, their continued availability needs to be assured. Most respondents commented on the value of these materials but one expressed concern about the ongoing availability of some. (Thomas Graham, NSW)

4.1 Scope Of The SchemeOne of the characteristics of the AAM scheme is that it is inclusive of different kinds of collecting institutions. This has also been one of its criticisms. (Nicholson 1981) Some recent and upcoming schemes, as noted above, are even more inclusive, but such a highly inclusive scheme requires additional documentation and expertise to address the variety of collecting institutions. (Glickberg 1981)

The administrative workload associated with schemes has been noted with concern in the UK (Museums and Galleries Commission 1991), and a more inclusive scheme implies an even heavier burden for the body operating it.

On the one hand, one respondent specifically recommended that the scheme not spread itself too thinly given limited resources. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) Two respondents recommended setting strict boundaries for the scheme from the start. (Respondent 16.VIC) (Respondent 2.NSW)

On the other hand, the brief for this project requests a model “applicable across the sector”.

One way to set boundaries for the scheme, yet still address the entire sector would be to start at a level of standards common to all kinds of collecting institutions and then grow through time, possibly in a modular format, to eventually address the unique needs of all collecting institutions.

26


Another suggestion from one respondent is to develop the scheme around museums, but assist other types of collecting institutions with specific needs to develop their own schemes. (Respondent 11.USA)

4.2 Kinds Or Categories Of Standards To Be AssessedAs noted above, the scheme will need to work with existing ones in Australia. There are three existing schemes in Australia and they are summarised in Appendix B – Existing Models.

The standards common to the three existing schemes fall into the following categories: management and governance, conservation, collections management, public programs, and visitor services.

The standards of the HTSA scheme are described in a handbook and are perhaps the most wide-ranging. (HTSA 2003. Section 2) In addition to standards in the above areas, this scheme also has staff, marketing, community relations, research and site components.

The MA(VIC) scheme also has marketing and site components, while the MGF NSW scheme shares only public programs and visitor services standards with the other two schemes.

The obvious way to ensure that the schemes work together is to limit the standards assessed by the new scheme to those common to all three existing schemes. Of course, standards in other areas could be introduced at a later date.

Where interviews have suggested standards not common to the existing schemes, individual schemes can be examined for suggestions. Schemes from outside Australia can also be reviewed for relevant standards.

In addition to the draft model indicators provided in this report, there may be value in negotiating a tourism component with the Australian Tourism Accreditation Association (ATAA), similar to what MA(VIC) has done with MAP. This would address some of the aims and outcomes expected from the scheme.

See Appendix C – Draft Model Indicators for the indicators recommended by this report.

4.3 Level Of Standards To Be AssessedThe level of standards that museums are examined against is very important and

could be critical for the success of the scheme. Support for the scheme and early adoption could depend on setting the bar at an appropriate level. (Respondent 12.VIC(MA)) In other words, the level of standards should encourage participation while still addressing good practice. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

Considering the existing schemes in Australia, the common level of standards can be described as minimum.

Only the MA(VIC) scheme describes its level of standards as “professional”. For one respondent, however, “professional” and “best”, were both levels that were

27


considered out of reach for some museums and that might discourage participation in the scheme. (Kate Walsh, SA) Another respondent stressed the importance of setting a level of standards that are within reach of most museums. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))

Besides “minimum”, the MGF NSW scheme also describes itself with “essential” standards. This may be a better choice; one respondent noted that minimum could be considered a negative term. (Respondent 11.USA) “Essential” also suggests standards which are not only basic, but necessary and was identified by another respondent as a good term for the scheme. (Respondent 5.VIC(MA))

One favoured more progressive terminology, such as: “higher standards” (Respondent 11.USA) The interviews (section 3.1.1) suggest that higher levels of standards could be presented over time, perhaps in a multi-tiered scheme.

Whatever the terminology, it is evident from the interviews (section 3.1.1) that the scheme should be clear about the level of standards expected from institutions.

28


Conclusion and Recommendations While conducting the interviews for this project, a national accreditation scheme for Australian museums was presented only as a possibility. This possibility was met with support from respondents across the board. One respondent was strongly in favour of the a scheme, at least for her state. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))

Assuming the scheme was a possibility, this project then set out to answer three questions:

1. What is the role of the peak professional association in the development and implementation of a national accreditation system?

2. What is the most appropriate model for a national accreditation system that can be applied at any level throughout the sector?

3. What are the standards which should be applied across the sector?

For the first question, while MA was assumed to be the peak professional association in Australia, the interviews were conducted in a way to allow respondents to suggest any organisation or institution to develop and/or implement the scheme. In the interviews, respondents were asked only about the kind of organisation for this role and MA was not specifically mentioned.

With this in mind, MA was the only body specifically identified to have a major rôle in the scheme. While there are other possible candidates, reservations were stated by several respondents against central institutions, large museums, and government.

Of the twenty respondents in Australia, six specifically targeted MA for a major part in the scheme. Two other respondents suggested a national, non-government organisation representing the sector. Still, these figures should be taken with a grain of salt given that thirteen of the respondents represent the state branches of MA.

If MA takes responsibility for the scheme, it can proceed in several ways. How it will proceeds will determine what resources MA will need to dedicate to the scheme. For example, MA could devolve responsibility for the scheme to its state branches or other state organisations and institutions. This idea was mentioned by several respondents. (Respondent 15.TAS) (Thomas Graham NSW) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Kate Walsh, SA)

Two respondents suggested that if MA proceeds with the scheme, it should invite all stakeholders (including those representing existing schemes) to participate in a working group that would negotiate further developments. (Kate Walsh, SA) (Thomas Graham, NSW)

The second question, exploring the model, was investigated by asking respondents about how the scheme might operate, its aims and expected outcomes. The result is a model that closely resembles existing schemes: one that is consultative in nature, voluntary, incentives led and as inclusive as possible.

29


The basic format common to most other schemes, involving some form of self-assessment, interim review of documentation and peer review through a site visit was discussed in the interviews. But no significant deviation from this format was suggested. Several respondents, however, suggested that the scheme be modular or multi-tiered. Currently, only the schemes in ON, Canada and NZ are modular and could provide models for the scheme.

For the third question, because there is already documentation describing standards for museums in Australia such as Caring for Our Culture: National guidelines for museums, galleries and keeping places, interviews focused on what material could inform the standards, how they could be assessed and at what level.

A national scheme could likely rely on existing material to inform its standards. All of the respondents were familiar with Caring for Our Culture, as well as other guides such as significance. It is worth noting that both HTSA and MGF NSW relied on existing materials to develop their schemes. (HTSA 2003. Section) (MGF NSW June 2003. Appendices. p. 1)

The majority of respondents wanted to start, at least, at a basic level of standards. But there was interest in higher levels and exploring standards not addressed by most, or any other schemes.

As one respondent noted, the selection of individuals reviewing applications to the scheme will be critical. (Respondent 2.NSW) They will need to be impartial, but familiar with each museum’s situation and regional and state regulations. One respondent was particularly concerned that each museum be assessed with consideration to its the local community and culture. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) Good assessors will be able to consistently uphold defined standards while still remaining flexible.

Finally, the scheme will also need to consider the standards assessed by the existing schemes if it is to work with them in an integrated way. One possibility is to begin with standards common to all three existing schemes.

In conclusion, this report makes the following recommendations for proceeding:

1. That the draft model indicators of the scheme be negotiated with all levels of museums, from regional to state and national; all levels of government, the operators of relevant professional development programs and other relevant sectors, such as tourism.

2. That MA establish a working group to research implementing the scheme. This group should be drawn from all possible stakeholders in the scheme, including, but not limited to: representatives from the museum sector and government at regional, state and national levels.

And the following, general recommendations for the scheme:

1. That the scheme consider a modular or multi-tiered format.

30


2. That the scheme be consultative in character.3. That funding for the scheme be sought from all levels of

government and other sectors.4. That the benefits of the scheme be clearly identified and

communicated as incentives to encourage museums to participate.

5. That the scheme strive to be transparent.6. That larger and state museums be encouraged to participate in

the scheme.7. That the scheme be as inclusive as possible of different kinds of

collecting institutions but focus initially on museums.8. That the scheme be actively used in advertising and

communication with other sectors.9. That the scheme encourage museums to continually improve

practice; that it be asiprational in character.10. That the scheme retain records and data with an aim to learning

more about the sector.11. That the scheme act to find, identify, and disseminate best

practice.12. That the scheme focus more on existing mechanisms for

professional development than developing new ones.13. That the scheme act to facilitate communication between

participating museums.

31


Appendix A – Project BriefA NATIONAL ACCREDITATION SCHEME FOR AUSTRALIAN MUSEUMS

JUNE 2002 (amended 21 Jan 2003)MUSEUMS AUSTRALIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

1.0 BACKGROUNDMuseum accreditation schemes are not new to Australia. In different forms, systems have operated in South Australia (through HTSA), through the MAP scheme (Museums Australia, Victoria), and in Queensland (Museums Australia, Queensland). Plans are also underway to implement a system to be offered through MGF NSW.

Through discussions with the Regional Outreach Officers (ROOS), MGF NSW and the History Trust of South Australia (HTSA), a consensus has been reached to develop a national approach to museum accreditation brokered through Museums Australia in collaboration with the key stakeholders. Three teleconferences have informed the development of this draft brief. It is proposed that the study will be undertaken as a project of the Museums Australia Research Standing Committee in association with a Steering Committee including MGF NSW, HTSA and ROOS.

1.1 Value of accreditation systemsThe existing accreditation schemes have highlighted many positive outcomes as well as identifying some of the challenging issues associated with them.

Among the many positive outcomes of accreditation are:

• an opportunity for the sector to be proactive in identifying basic standards at which all museums must function in order to be effective and efficient and which provide a shared perspective on the care of material cultural heritage;

• opportunities for linkage and partnership with local government and tourism accreditation schemes;

• a basis on which professional development programs can be built;

• a mechanism by which the diversity of the sector can be reflected;

• as a diagnostic tool enabling the sector to measure its performance and identify problem issues;

• providing a database of museum statistics for lobbying and advocacy to government and other funding bodies.

1.2 IssuesThese same schemes also illustrate a range of important issues which need to be kept in mind:

• the ways in which external agencies can use accreditation systems;

• related to this first point, is the importance of developing a system that accentuates accreditation as an opportunity for institutional development and

32


professionalism rather than competitive grading.

• the need for accreditation to be conducted by an objective, bona fide professional body rather than by an associated institution;

• the need to ensure that any system adopted is not too onerous in its implementation for any museum but especially volunteer museums;

• the importance of developing a system that is “owned” by the sector;

• the usefulness of a system which is continuously improving standards through regular review (the UK model).

2.0 THE STUDYFirst and foremost, this study is about developing a national model for institutional accreditation that can be applied at any level throughout the sector.

Research questions:

2.1 What is the role of the peak professional association in the development and implementation of a national accreditation system?

2.2 What is the most appropriate model for a national accreditation system that can be applied at any level throughout the sector?

2.3 What are the standards which should be applied across the sector?

3.0 THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUDYA two stage process for the study is recommended:

• Stage 1 – (a) literature review; Review existing literature in the field including recent publications such as Museum Methods (edition 2), Caring for our Culture, Significance, recollections, Tourism with Integrity, Service Efforts and Accomplishments NSW, Keeping Culture.

• Stage 2 – (b) develop a model for implementation based on an examination of existing Australian models including those of the History Trust of South Australia, Museums Australia in Victoria and Queensland and the proposed system in development through the Museums and Galleries Foundation of New South Wales; as well as existing international models including those based in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and the USA; Interview key personnel including Kate Walsh (HTSA), Helen Rayment and Maggie Solly (MAVIC), Judy Kean (MAQ), Elizabeth Hof (MAWA), Peter Scrivener (MGFNSW). (b) develop a set of model indicators based on the outcomes of the literature search and interviews with key personnel.

4.0 PROPOSED METHODOLOGY and TIMEFRAME

33


Stage 1 Stage 2

March 2003 Literature review

April 2003 Stakeholder interviewsReview existing models

May 2003 Develop modelDevelop draft indicators

June 2003 Prepare draft report for submission to Steering Committee

July 2003 Final report to Council

5.0 OUTCOMESA national model for accreditation will:

• Involve consultation with key stakeholders;

• Work in an integrated way with existing accreditation schemes;

• Recognise work that already meets accreditation targets;

• Be incentives led rather than penalties driven;

• Be applicable across the sector with relevance for both the volunteer and the professional staffed sector; and

• Provide standards within which participating museums and galleries are encouraged to improve their practice.

6.0 ETHICSMuseums Australia recognises that research undertaken with human subjects requires the permission of university Ethics Committees and that the researcher will adhere to the guidelines for ethical research in the institution where the research is located.

7.0 HONORARIAMuseums Australia will provide a small honorarium of $500 to the researcher to defray any expenses incurred in the process of undertaking the research.

8.0 STEERING COMMITTEEThe study will be overseen by a Steering Committee whose membership will comprise the Chair of the Research Standing Committee, the Chair of the Regional, Local and Specialist Standing Committee, the Chair of the Regional Outreach Officers Forum, the Regional Officer/Museums and Galleries Foundation of New South Wales and the President, Museums Australia. The Steering Committee will meet at three key points in

34


the study:

• to brief the researcher on the project;

• to review the outcomes of the literature review and stakeholder interviews with the researcher; and

• to comment on the draft report proposing the model and key indicators.

35

Appendix B – Existing ModelsIn this section I have summarised the schemes discussed in this paper. Please note that any omissions here do not necessarily indicate that the scheme is lacking.

Table 1 – Summary of SchemesName of Program

CountryAuthorityStatusAdministering body

Type of body

Accreditation

U.S.A.NationalActiveAmerican Association of MuseumsIndependent

Standards for Community MuseumsCanadaRegional (ON.)ActiveMinistry of Citizenship, Culture and RecreationGovernment

Registration

U.K.NationalActiveMLA

Independent

Standards Scheme

New ZealandNationalActiveTe Papa National Services

National museum

I.C.O.M. I.C.R. Guidelines

InternationalInternationalProposalI.C.O.M. I.C.R.Professional organisation

Standards and Accreditation

IrelandNationalIn DevelopmentUltimately, to be formedUltimately, independent

Museums Accreditation and Grants

AustraliaRegional (S.A.)ActiveHistory Trust of S.A.Independent

Recognised Museums

AustraliaRegional (W.A.)DiscontinuedW.A. MuseumState museum

Accreditation Scheme

AustraliaRegional (W.A.)ProposalUltimately, to be formedUltimately, independent

Museum Accreditation Program

AustraliaRegional (VIC.)ActiveM.A. (VIC.)Independent

Recognising Essential Practice

AustraliaRegional (N.S.W.)In DevelopmentM.G.F.N.S.W.Independent

36

Table 2 – Summary of Schemes: CharacteristicsName of Program

CountryParticipationApplication fee?Membership fee?Self-assessment component?Interim review component?Peer review component?Site visit?Consultative?

Accreditation

U.S.A.VoluntaryYesYesYes

Yes

YesYesNo

Standards for Community MuseumsCanadaMandatoryNoNoYes

Yes

NoYesYes

Registration

U.K.VoluntaryNoNoYes

Yes

YesUnknownYes

Standards Scheme

New ZealandVoluntaryNoNoYes

Yes

YesYesYes

I.C.O.M. I.C.R. GuidelinesInternationalVoluntaryUnspecifiedUnspecifiedYesUnspecified

UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified

Standards and AccreditationIrelandVoluntaryNoNoYesYesYesYesYes

Museums Accreditation and GrantsAustraliaVoluntaryNoNoYesYesYesYesYes

Recognised Museums

AustraliaUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownYesUnknownYes


AustraliaUnknownUnknownUnknownYesYesYesYesYes

Museum Accreditation ProgramAustraliaVoluntaryYesYesYesYesYesYesYes

Recognising Essential PracticeAustraliaVoluntaryNoNoYesYesYesYesYes

37

Table 3 – Summary of Schemes: Stated Aims and OutcomesName of Program

CountryStated aims:

State outcomes and benefits:

Accreditation

U.S.A.Set standardsA

Raise standardsB

SustainabilityC

Financial toolD

GuidanceE

SustainabilityF

StatusG

FundingH

SupportI

AccountabilityJ

Standards for Community MuseumsCanadaMeet recognised standardsRaise standardsK

Funding

Registration

U.K.

Funding

Standards Scheme

New ZealandRaise standardsSustainabilityPromote bi-culturalism

GuidanceSustainability


InternationalImprove museum qualityL


IrelandRaise standards

GuidanceSupport

Museums Accreditation and GrantsAustraliaSet standardsFinancial toolNetworking

StatusFunding

Recognised Museums

AustraliaSustainability

Status


AustraliaRaise standards

Raise standardsSustainabilitySupport

Museum Accreditation ProgramAustraliaImprove museum qualitySustainability

Raise standardsSustainabilityStatus

Recognising Essential PracticeAustralia

GuidanceStatus

38

Notes to Table 3:A Statements included: set standards, and self-regulation.B Statements included: raise standards, build the profession, meet professional standards, and focus planning and training.C Statements included: public confidence, and sustainability.D Statements included: tool for donors, and govern access to grants.E Statements included: identify priorities, planning, guidance, and sense of purpose.F Statements included: sustainability, long-term solutions, and public confidence.G Statements included: recognition, status, and credibility.H Statements included: funding, and leverage.I Statements included: structure for training and advice, access to information and training, support, and networking.J Statements included: accountability, and benchmarking.K Statements included: raise standards, higher standards, better collections care, and improvement.L Statements included: improve museum quality, and innovation.

39

Table 4 – Summary of Schemes: Indicators A Statements included: professional, recognised, accepted, and generally accepted.Name of Program

CountryStated level of standards:

Modules:

Accreditation

U.S.A.AccreditableProfessional AAspiring

Management/governanceVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programs

Standards for Community MuseumsCanadaMinimum

Management/governancePreventative conservationVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programsResearchSite

Registration

U.K.Minimum

Management/governancePreventative conservationVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programsResearch

Standards Scheme

New ZealandProfessionalMinimum

Management/governancePreventative conservationVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programsCommunity relations


InternationalGood

Management/governancePreventative conservationVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programsMarketing


Ireland

AspiringManagement/governancePreventative conservationVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programsCommunity relations

Museums Accreditation and GrantsAustraliaMinimum

Management/governancePreventative conservationCollection managementPublic programsMarketingCommunity relationsResearchSite

Recognised Museums

Australia

Management/governance


Australia

Management/governancePreventative conservationVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programsCommunity relationsResearchSite

Museum Accreditation ProgramAustraliaProfessional

AspiringManagement/governancePreventative conservationVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programsMarketing

Recognising Essential PracticeAustraliaMinimumEssential

Management/governancePreventative conservationVisitor servicesCollection managementPublic programs

40

Appendix C – Draft Model IndicatorsI would like to acknowledge the following key resources in developing the draft model indicators:

MAGP, HTSA: History Trust of South Australia, 2003. Section 2.

Accreditation Kit – Museum Accreditation Program, MA(VIC) 2000.

MGF NSW, June 2003. Accreditation Trial Report – Appendices.

1. Management and governanceThe museum should:

• be properly established as an incorporated body, for example: a not-for-profit organisation or a charitable trust or foundation.

• have written the following documentation and be abiding by it in day-to-day operations:

o constitution,

o provisions in the event of the museum’s closure or dissolution,

o mission statement,

o strategic plan,

o disaster plan, and

o procedures regarding workers.

• have an appropriate management structure in place, such as a democratically elected committee that meets regularly, works to agendas, and records minutes of meetings.

• be publicly accountable.

• address relevant legal, financial and compliance requirements in its area.

• abide by relevant professional Codes of Ethics.

• review all policies and documentation regularly.

2. ConservationThe museum should:

• maintain storage and display environments to the best possible standards to ensure the long-term preservation of the collection, including: pests, lighting levels, temperature and relative humidity levels.

• have a regular regime for monitoring conditions in storage and display areas and take prompt action when required.

41

• have a regular regime for cleaning storage and display areas.

• rotate objects on display regularly and inspect for signs of damage or deterioration.

• ensure museum workers know how to safely handle objects.

• ensure any preservation or conservation work is in line with good practice and recorded on the object’s catalogue record.

• record the location and movement of objects on catalogue records, including objects on loan.

• keep basic emergency supplies on hand per the disaster plan.

3. Collections managementThe museum should:

• ensure that it has legal title to all objects in the collection and maintain appropriate records.

• have written policies on:

o donations, and

o deaccessioning and disposal of objects.

• have a cataloguing system that includes all significant information about the objects, including: history, significance, background information and description, donor details.

• assign a unique number to each object and record it in the cataloguing system and on the object.

• have all objects in the collection catalogued or a plan in place for cataloguing work.

• ensure all documentation and records are safely stored and backed-up offsite

• review records and conduct an inventory of the collection annually.

• keep and record objects not part of the collection, for example props, separately from the collection

• be proactive regarding legal and ethical issues affecting the collection

• review all policies and documentation regularly

4. Public programsThe museum should:

• plan a selection of displays and programs, using a variety of means and formats, for example: labels and guided tours, text and audio.

42

• display objects in a meaningful way and with appropriate interpretation.

• explain the significance of objects on display.

• try to incorporate diverse perspectives in interpretative material, including: different genders, communities and eras.

• ensure interpretative material is based on sound research, is factually accurate, and well presented.

• indicate doubt and controversy where it exists, and identify facsimiles and reproductions of objects.

• acknowledge and respect the Indigenous people and consult with local Indigenous people or organisations when appropriate.

• regularly review and evaluate its displays and programs.

5. Visitor ServicesThe museum should:

• have written policies for all significant issues affecting visitors, such as: financial transactions and handling complaints and ensures museum workers are familiar with them.

• clearly state admission and other fees and policies affecting visitors.

• ensure all visitors are welcomed and enquiries are handled courteously.

• provide some facilities or programs for children and people with disabilities.

• provide a safe and clean environment for visitors, including toilet facilities or directions to the nearest facilities.

• carry public risk insurance and have a written policy for managing claims.

• review all policies and documentation regularly.

43

Appendix D – Interview Questions1. What does accreditation mean to you? your organisation?

2. What do you perceive to be the benefits of an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector?

3. What do you think of using accreditation for the museum sector as an opportunity to promote collaboration and communication with other sectors, such as tourism? government?

4. What kind of organisation, for example: local, state or national; governmental or non-governmental, do you think is best suited to devise an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector? should the same organisation implement it? why?

5. How could an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector in Australia be funded?

6. What kinds of collecting institutions does your organisation or scheme include, for example: art galleries? historic sites? science centres? zoos?

7. Do you think that an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector would be beneficial to all different kinds of collecting institutions? if so, how?

8. How do you envision a national institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector working with existing schemes?

9. What do you think should be the primary goal(s) of an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector in Australia? could these change? if so, how?

10. Could existing resources inform the standards for an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector in Australia?

11. What level of standards should be encouraged by an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector in Australia?

12. Does your organisation currently use and/or recommend the use of the following publications: Museum Methods, Caring for our Culture, Tourism with Integrity, significance and reCollections? if so, to what extent?

13. Is there anyone else you think I should speak to?

14. Is there anything else?

44

Bibliography

An Chomhairle Oidhreachta / The Heritage Council 2002, A Policy Framework for The Irish Museum Sector.

An Chomhairle Oidhreachta / The Heritage Council, About Us Section, http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/about/index.html, accessed 30 August 2003.

AAM, Reference Library – What is a Museum, http://www.aam-us.org/resources/reference_library/1whatis.cfm, accessed 30 August 2003.

AAM 2000, A Closer Look: The Accreditation Visiting Committee Handbook, Washington, D.C., AAM.

AAM 1999 I, The Museum Accreditation Self-Study, Washington, DC., AAM.

AAM 1999 II, Museum Accreditation: A Higher Standard, The Benefits of Accreditation, Washington, DC., AAM.

AAM 1999 III, Accreditation Commission Expectations, Washington, DC., AAM.

AAM 1997, A Higher Standard: The Museum Accreditation Handbook, Washington, D.C., AAM.

Australian Tourism Accreditation Association, National Tourism Accreditation Program, http://www.tourismaccreditation.com.au/, accessed 12 October 2004.

AVCC, History and Corporate Mission, http://www.avcc.edu.au/about_avcc/history_corp_mission/, accessed 12 October 2004.

AVCC 1 September 1999, Proposed Australian University Quality Assurance System, http://www.avcc.edu.au/policies_activities/quality_assurance/policy/Audit_Prop99.htm.

Barry, T. H., E.M. Shaw and R. Summers 1983, ‘Accreditation After 12 Years’, Southern African Museums Association Bulletin, 15/8. Cape Town, SAMA, pp. 357-368.

Boyd, Willard L. 1991, ‘Museum Accountability: Laws, Rules, Ethics, and Accreditation’, Curator, 34/3. Washington, D.C., American Museum of Natural History, pp. 165-77.

CCHSA, Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation, http://www.cchsa.ca/, accessed 30 August 2003.

CCHSA, History of CCHSA, http://www.cchsa.ca/site/pt_link.php?query=History&plain=1, accessed 30 August 2003.

45

Carter, Dr. John C., Ministry of Culture/Ontario Museum Association – Museum Standard Workshops: Conservation, Governance and Finance Standards, Powerpoint presentation, unpublished.

Commission on Museums for a New Century 1984, Museums for a New Century, Washington, D.C., AAM, pp. 73-75.

Deakin University, Faculty of Arts, Cultural Heritage Centre for Asia and the Pacific 2002, A Study into the Key Needs of Collecting Institutions in the Heritage Sector, Geelong, Deakin University.

DCITA I, Distributed National Collections Program. http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_2-3_464-4_10002,00.html, accessed 12 March 2004.

DCITA II, Cultural Ministers Council – Communique, http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_1-4_117861,00.html, accessed 12 March 2004.

DCITA III, Collections Council of Australia, http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_2-3_478-4_119338,00.html, accessed 12 October 2004.

Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment Tourism and Territories 1990, What Value Heritage? A perspective on the Museums Review and the Performance of Museums, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Freeman, Kirsten 1995, ‘Setting Standards in Britain and Victoria - an overview of museum accreditation’, Museum National, 3/3. North Fitzroy, VIC, MA, pp. 15-16.

Glickberg, Randi R. 1981, ‘Historic Sites and Accreditation’, Museum News, 60/2. Washington, D.C., AAM, pp. 42-49.

Hart, Julie 2003,. A Higher Standard: The United States Museum Accreditation Program, Powerpoint presentation, unpublished.

Heritage Collections Council 2001, significance: a guide to assessing the significance of cultural heritage objects and collections, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Heritage Collections Council 2000, Be Prepared, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Heritage Collections Council 1998, National Conservation and Preservation Policy and Strategy, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Heritage Collections Council 1998, ReCollections: Caring for Collections Across Australia, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Heritage Collections Working Group 1993, Heritage Collections in Australia: a plan for a new partnership.

HTSA 2003, Handbook for Registered and Accredited Museums, Skanz Pty Ltd.

46

HTSA 1996, Report: Museums Accreditation and Grants Program Review, unpublished.

ICOM, Definition, http://icom.museum/definition.html, accessed 28 February 2005.

ISO I, ISO - International Organisation for Standardization, http://www.iso.ch/, accessed 23 August 2003.

ISO II, List of ICS Fields, http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList, accessed 30 August 2003.

IQA I, Institute of Quality Assurance – IQA, http://www.iqa.org/, accessed August 30 2003.

IQA II, Total quality management fact sheet, http://www.iqa.org/information/d2-4.shtml, accessed August 30 2003.

Igoe, Kim 1994, ‘Setting museum standards: the United States experience’, Museum International, 46/3. Paris, UNESCO, pp. 57-59.

McAvity, John G. 1995, ‘Guns, Museums and Accreditation’, Muse, 13/1. Ottawa, CMA, p. 2.

McShane, Ian October 2001, Training for the Museum Profession in Western Australia: A Report to Museums Australia (Western Australia), draft.

Macquarie Dictionary, The Macquarie Concise Dictionary: accredit, http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/, accessed 23 August 2003.

Mason, Timothy and Jane Weeks 2002, From Australia to Zanzibar: Museum Standards Schemes Overseas, A research project for Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, London, Resource.

Manneby, Hans, Hartmut Prasch and Rainer Hoffman (eds.) 2002, Guidelines to Improve Museum Quality and Standards, proceedings of an ICR Project 1999 – 2002, ICR.

Manneby, Hans and Teti Hadjinicolaou (eds.) 1999, Museum Accreditation: A Quality Proof for Museums. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Committee for Regional Museums, Athens 1999, ICR in cooperation with the National Committee of ICOM Greece.

Ministry of Culture, Government of Ontario, Standards for Community Museums in Ontario, revised edition: August 2000.

MA August 2003, ‘National Collections Advisory Forum update’, Museum National, August 2003, ACT, p. 8.

MA 1998, Caring for Our Culture: National guidelines for museums, galleries and keeping places.

47

MA Standing Committee on Research June 2002, A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums, revised January 2003.

MA(VIC) 2000, Accreditation Kit, Melbourne, MA(VIC).

MA(VIC), Museums Accreditation Program, http://www.mavic.asn.au/map/, accessed 12 October 2004.

Murdoch, Judith 1995, Report on Future Directions of the History Trust of South Australia in Meeting the Needs of Community Museums and Historical Societies in South Australia, unpublished.

Murphy, Sarah Thérèse March 1992, An Accreditation Scheme for Museums in Western Australia, report (MC5365) submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Letters, Material Culture Unit, James Cook University of North Queensland.

Museums and Galleries Commission 1991, Local Authorities and Museums: Report by a Working Party 1991, London, HMSO.

Museums and Galleries Commission 1988, Report 1987-88 specially featuring independent Museums, London, HMSO, pp. 41-43.

MGF NSW June 2003, Accreditation Trial Report.

MGF NSW 2002, Recognising Essential Practice: Piloting an accreditation scheme for museums and galleries in NSW, Draft Minimum Standards.

MGF NSW, about mgf, http://www.mgfnsw.org.au/about/[001]about_us.php, accessed 30 August 2003.

The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, Standards & Registration, http://www.resource.gov.uk/action/registration/00reg.asp, accessed March 14 2004.

NGC, NGC - National Guideline Clearinghouse, http://www.guideline.gov/, accessed August 30 2003.

National Museum of Australia 1996, Creating Heritage Partnerships: a Selection of Papers from the Creating Heritage Partnerships Conference, 21 - 23 August 1995, Canberra, Australia, Canberra, National Museum of Australia.

Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program 1996, Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program, second edition, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Nicholson, Thomas D. 1981, ‘Why Museum Accreditation Doesn't Work’, Museum News, 60/1, Washington, D.C., AAM, pp. 5-10.

Norman, Joy Youmans 1982, ‘Reaccreditation: How It Works and How It's Working’, Museum News, 60/6. Washington, D.C., AAM, pp. 63-68.

48

O'Donnell, Susannah Cassedy 1996, “AAM Accreditation: Celebrating 25 Years”, Museum News, 75/3. Washington, D.C., AAM, pp. 42-43 and 59-62.

Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation October 1998, Changing Times: Municipal Restructuring and Heritage, Bulletin 6.

Public Sector Benchmarking Service, What is Benchmarking? http://www.benchmarking.gov.uk/about_bench/whatisit.asp, accessed August 30 2003.

Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries 2002, Museum Registration Scheme, London, Resource.

Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries 2001, The Mark of Success: Resource Reviews Designation and Makes a Case for Archives and Libraries, London, Resource.

Ryan, Louise 2000, The Introduction of a Standards and Accreditation Scheme for Irish Museums, a report prepared for The Heritage Council by Louise Ryan © An Chomhairle Oidhreachta / The Heritage Council 1999.

Scrivener, Peter June 2003, ‘Recognising Essential Practice – the Trial of an Accreditation Scheme for NSW’, Newsbrief, June 2003 volume 5 issue 3, MGF NSW.

Speirs, Geoff 1996, ‘Standards for Museums in Australia?’, Museum National, 4/4. North Fitzroy, VIC, MA, p. 28.

Speirs, Geoff 1992, ‘Ten Years On: The Museums Accreditation and Grants Program’, Community History, 2/1. Adelaide, HTSA, pp. 2-4.

Speirs, Geoff 1985, ‘Ploughshares into Money: the Museums Accreditation and Grants Programme’, The Local Museum, 6/2. Adelaide, South Australian Museum, pp. 2-6.

Standards Australia, Standards Australia Front Page, http://www.standards.org.au/, accessed 23 August 2003.

Starr, Kenneth 1982, ‘In Defense of Accreditation: A Response to Thomas D. Nicholson’, Museum News, 60/3, Washington, D.C., AAM, pp. 5-6, 9-11, 13, 15-18 and 20-21.

Technical Management Board 1996, ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996, Standardization and related activities -- General vocabulary, Seventh Edition, ISO.

Te Papa National Services, New Zealand Museums Standards Scheme Ngā Kaupapa Whaimana a Ngā Whare Taonga o Aotearoa, Wellington, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

49

Thompson, John 1982, ‘The Accreditation Scheme of the Museums Association 1974 - 82: A Review’, Museums Journal, 82/2. London, Museums Association, pp. 67-69.

Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria, Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria Inc., http://www.tourismaccreditationvic.com.au/, accessed 12 October 2004.

Tourism Victoria. June 2003, ‘New industry accreditation policy focuses on incentives’, Tourism Victoria Newsletter, June 2003.

University Museums Review Committee 1996, Cinderella Collections: University Museums & Collections in Australia, Canberra, AVCC.

Wallace, Lynda 1995, ‘A Standards Scheme for Museums’, New Zealand Museums Journal: Selected Conference Papers 1992 - 1994, 25/1. Palmerston North, N.Z., Museum Studies, Massey University, pp. 60-63.

Weber, Jean 1986, ‘Accreditation and Small Museums’, Museum News, 65/2. Washington, D.C., AAM, pp. 13-17.

50

A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums

Documents

Transcript of A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums