Tag: mapping museums

Categories
Events

The UK Museums Boom (and what happened next)

The Mapping Museums project is coming to an end. Please join us for the closing lecture:  ‘The UK Museums Boom (and what happened next)’

Thursday 17th November 6pm

Clore Management Centre, Birkbeck, 27 Torrington Square, London WC1E 7JL (Map)

Chair: Isabel Wilson, Arts Council England

Speaker: Prof Fiona Candlin, Professor of Museology, Birkbeck

Respondent: Lisa Ollerhead, Director, Association of Independent Museums

With a drinks reception to follow

Places are free but please book here: Book Tickets

During the late-twentieth century there was a significant increase in the number of museums in the UK. Yet, apart from the highly polemic heritage debates of the 1980s and 1990s, the boom was not investigated in any detail. There was no firm information on its location or character, or indeed on what happened next.  The Mapping Museums project was devised to remedy that situation.

Over the last six years we have collected and analysed data on over 4,000 museums, and conducted detailed interviews with the founders of the new museums. In this lecture Prof Fiona Candlin, the project lead, will outline some of the things we learned.

Categories
Lab News

Two Years On: An Update

2 years spelled out in children's blocks

The Mapping Museums project is coming to the end of its second year. To mark the half way point of the research, this blog provides a brief update on some of the work so far.

Finalising the data
Early this year, Dr Jamie Larkin, the researcher, completed the main phase of data collection. We are continuing to make changes to the dataset as new museums open and existing museums close, and we’re still trying to hunt down some missing opening and closing dates, so it remains work in progress. Nonetheless, we now have information on almost 4,000 museums that have been open at some point between 1960 and the present day.

Evaluating the knowledge base

Alongside data gathering, we have designed a knowledge base that allows users to browse, search, and visualise the data in nuanced and precise ways, and which we described in our last blog (See: Managing Patchy Data). As part of the design process, Professor Alex Poulovassilis, the co-investigator on the project, and Nick Larsson, the Computer Science researcher and developer of the knowledge base, organised a series of trials to evaluate the knowledge base. These provided us with valuable feedback and we responded by making changes to how the material is presented and navigated.

We got enormously positive responses at the most recent user trial in Manchester in July. Having lived and breathed the research for the last two years it was very encouraging to hear Emma Chaplin, director of the Association for Independent Museums, call it the “museums equivalent to YouTube” and say that she could while away hours browsing the material; to know that staff from Arts Council England thought that it was “intuitive  to use”; and generally that the trial participants assessed it as a being a useful resource for them in their roles and for others in the sector.

Analysing and publishing the findings

Having finished the data collection and the main phase of developing the knowledge base, we have been able to start analysing the data. These initial analyses will be the basis of a series of articles, and over the summer, the team has been working on four publications:

  • ‘Mapping Museums and managing patchy data’ examines the reasons why data on the museum sector is so incoherent, how the project sought to remedy that situation, in part by building a system that acknowledges uncertain information.
  • ‘Where was the Museum Boom?’ looks at the massive expansion of museums in the late twentieth century and asks whether or not the boom took place across the UK, or if there were regional variations.
  • ‘Creating a Knowledge Base to research the history of UK independent museums: a Rapid Prototyping approach’, covers the computer science research that underpins the conceptualisation and construction of the knowledge base.
  • ‘Missing Museums’ deals with the recent history of museum surveys, considers the focus on professionalised museums, and asks what the sector looks like when we factor in unaccredited museums.

Brief versions of the first and second of these papers were also presented at conferences: Digital Humanities Congress at Sheffield University and Spatial Humanities at Lancaster University, both of which took place in September, and we hope that the full versions of all four articles will be published within the next academic year. We’ll let you know when that happens.

The process of analysing data has been greatly helped by having Dr Andrea Ballatore join the team early in 2018. Andrea is a Lecturer in GIS and Big Data Analytics in the Department of Geography at Birkbeck and he is leading the statistical analysis within the project. He has also made invaluable contribution to developing the knowledge base, particularly with respect to mapping the data.

The Mapping Museums Team

Categories
Research Process

Unknown Opening Dates – Museums

This is a picture of an 1830 Drawing Room, at the Geffrye Museum in London, which explores the home from 1600 Britain to the present day.
Drawing room, 1830, at the Geffrye Museum in London | Credit: KotomiCreations

Can you help us with opening and/or closing dates for the museums listed below?

The Mapping Museums research team have compiled data on around 4,000 UK museums, but we’re missing crucial information about the opening and closing dates of a few venues. We know that these venues existed, but sometimes have little more than a postcard or an old publicity flyer.

If you can help us, do please get in touch with the project director, Professor Fiona Candlin on f.candlin@bbk.ac.uk.

Name of museum Address line 1 Town or City Postcode Year opened Year closed
ABERGYNOLWYN VILLAGE MUSEUM 14 Water Street Abergynolwyn LL36 9YB 2007
AGRICULTURAL & RURAL MUSEUM Twycross Zoo CV9 3PX 1982
ASTON MAGNA BYGONES MUSEUM Aston Magna GL56 9QQ 1985
BENSON VETERAN CYCLE MUSEUM 61 Brook Street Wallingford OX10 6LH
BLACKED-OUT BRITAIN WAR MUSEUM 1 St. Mary’s Street Huntingdon PE29 3PE
BORRERAIG PARK MUSEUM Borreraig Dunvegan IV55 8ZX
BWLCH FARM MUSEUM Bynes Llanelli SA14 9ST
CARRON ROW FARM MUSEUM Titchfield PO15 1DZ
CHAPEL BECK GALLERY Guisborough TS14 6LS
COUNTRYSIDE COLLECTION Ferndown BH21 2EB 2006
DOLLAND AND AITCHISON MUSEUM 1323 Coventry Road Birmingham B25 8AW
DRUSILLAS MUSEUM Berwick Polegate BN26 5QS 1980-1984
DUKES WOOD OIL MUSEUM Kelham Hall Newark NG23 5QX Open
DYKE NOOK FARM MUSEUM Dyke Nook Appleby CA16 6NS
HAYWAIN FARM MUSEUM Field Farm Doncaster DN9 1Z
JOHN KING WORKSHOP MUSEUM Victoria Road Pinxton NG16 6LR
LAUNDRY & MANGLE MUSEUM Coggleshall CO6 1NT 2001
MULLAGHBAWN FOLK MUSEUM Tullymacrieve Newry BT35 0AA
NATIONAL GYPSY MUSEUM Trerife Farm Park Trerife Unknown 1994
OLD FORGE MUSEUM Sloe Lane Alfriston PN26 5UT 1994
UPPERLANDS HERITAGE MUSEUM The Green Maghera BT46 5RZ
WARSETTER FARM MUSEUM Isle of Sanday KW17 2BL
WEST GREEN HOUSE AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM Hartley Wintney RG27 8JB 1983
Categories
Research Process

One Year On: The Principal Investigator’s View

The Mapping Museums project has just reached its first birthday. One year in, and Dr Jamie Larkin, the researcher, has almost completed the data collection. We now have an extremely long list of museums that are or were open in the UK at some point in the last sixty years. My co-investigator Professor Alex Poulovassilis and the Computer Science researcher Nick Larson have made good inroads on designing a database that will allow us search and visualise that information in complex ways. For me, it has been a pleasure to collaborate with other academics rather than to work as a solitary scholar as is usually the case for those working within the arts and humanities, and the process of conducting the research has been both fascinating and demanding. In this post I’m going to outline the three issues that have most preoccupied me over the last twelve months. They concern the definition of museums, their classification, and the structure of the database.

 Challenge No. 1: Defining a museum

One of the central aims of the Mapping Museums project is to analyse the emergence of independent museums in the UK from 1960 until 2020. In order to accomplish this task, we have had to compile the list mentioned above, and to do that we have had to decide what counts as a museum. This has not been straightforward. While the Museum Association and the International Council for Museums both publish definitions of museums, there have been seven different definitions in use during the time period covered by our study. If we were going to use a definition, we would have to decide which one.

More importantly, the use of definitions of museums only became common in the early 1990s and was closely connected to the accreditation process. In consequence, professional definitions of museums are usually aspirational and prescriptive, and they set standards that cannot be matched by many small amateur and community museums. The Mapping Museum project has a strong focus on such grass roots museums, and if we used established definitions, then we would exclude the less professionalised venues from the outset. We needed to find a different way of deciding which venues would be included in our dataset, and thus my first challenge was: how could we identify a museum as such?

Challenge No. 2 Classification

One of our research questions concerns the possible correlations between the date on which a museum opens, its location, and its subject matter. I want to know whether there are historical trends in subject matter: whether museums of rural life tended to open in the 1970s, military museums in the 1980s, and food museums in the twenty-first century. Similarly, I want to consider the relationship between subject matter and place: it’s likely that fishing museums will be located on the coast, but are there other, less obvious, regional differences? Do local history museums cluster in parts of the UK that have been subject to gentrification, or the opposite – are they predominately found in areas of low economic growth? Do transport museums prevail in the West Midlands and personality museums in the East of Scotland? Or are there no noticeable trends?

In order to answer these questions, we need to categorise each museum according to its subject matter. The last time this happened was in the DOMUS survey that ran between 1994 and 1998. They used a relatively traditional classification system that was suitable for documenting conventional public-sector museums, but was much less useful with respect to small independent venues. Many museums, such as those of Witchcraft, Bakelite, Fairground Organs or Romany life, take non-academic subjects as their focus and they do not neatly fit into academic categories. DOMUS did have the category of ‘social history’, but if we used that for all small non-academic museums, it would be so extensive as to be meaningless, and besides, social history is a methodology rather than subject matter. My second challenge, then, has been to write a classification system that could encompass the diverse subject matter of small independent museums alongside that of the more traditional institutions.

Challenge No. 3: Designing a database

While it was undoubtedly a challenge to find criteria for identifying museums and to devise a new system for classifying them, both these tasks related to my areas of expertise, namely museums. The third major challenge was a long way outside of my comfort zone and concerned the database design. This task was utterly anxiety inducing because it is something I’d never done before and, admittedly, never even thought about, and yet, despite my inexperience, I recognised that it is an extremely important part of the project. Although Dr Larkin has been collecting data on museums, and I have been working on definitions and classifications, that labour will be of little use unless we can search and model it in such a way that it produces information. The design of the database has a direct impact on the possibility of my answering the research questions and on the production of knowledge more generally. It has therefore been imperative that I learn to think about and help develop its structure.

How I responded to these three challenges, and worked with other members of the research team to resolve them will be an ongoing theme in this blog and the subject of scholarly publications. Do keep a look out for more posts.

©Fiona Candlin October 2017

Categories
Research Process

Mapping Museums: Why bother?

Readers who have followed our blogs to date may have realised how much work, time, and money is involved in mapping museums across the UK. The team currently comprises of two professors, and two full time researchers, one in computer science and one collecting and analysing data. By the end of its four-year life span, the project will have cost over a million pounds. On a more personal note, I spent well over a year planning the project and writing a proposal and it now dominates a good part of my waking life, all of which begs the question: why bother? Why does this subject merit such personal, economic, and intellectual investment?

There are pragmatic reasons for the research. The lack of data and of historical research means that museum professionals and policy makers do not have a clear idea of when or where the independent museum sector emerged in the UK, or how it has changed. There is no long-term information on patterns of museums opening and closing, or of their subject matter. Museum professionals who have spent their working lives in a particular region, have been involved with the Area Museums Councils, or with a special interest group, may have a good grasp of the museums in their locale or remit, but their knowledge is not always documented or relayed. In consequence, younger staff charged with supporting museums or staff who are responsible for making decisions about funding may not always have a clear overview of the sector. By compiling a dataset of museums, and modelling trends, this project has the potential to inform museum policy and funding at a national level.

There are also historical reasons for mapping museums in the UK. The museums boom of the 1970s and 1980s (or possibly 1990s) is generally considered to be one of the most significant cultural phenomena of the late twentieth century and yet we know very little about it. Commentators of the time generally linked the rising number of museums to the conservative administration led by Margaret Thatcher, to the economic policy of the time, and to consequent de-industrialisation. This led to the wave of new museums being characterised as entrepreneurial, nostalgic, and often as politically reactionary, but there is very little evidence to substantiate those claims. It might be that many of the new museums were dedicated to rural life and were coterminous with the industrialisation of farming, or they may have focused on religion, or writers, or teddy bears. The Mapping Museums research will enable researchers to revisit the museums boom, and potentially to recast the museums of that period.

For me, though, the main point of the project is linked to who established independent museums and to the people still running them. Museums are generally discussed in relation to the national or public sector, while curation and other forms of museum work are understood to be specialised professional roles. And yet, in 1983 the Museums and Libraries Council commented that most of these new, small enterprises had ‘been set up in an initial wave of enthusiasm and volunteer effort’, and my initial research suggested that the vast majority were founded by private individuals, families, businesses, special interest and community groups. It is likely that amateurs drove the expansion of the museum sector. In identifying these venues and in documenting the work of the founders and volunteers, the Mapping Museums project will show how the recent history of museums was a grass-roots endeavour, or as Raphael Samuels put it, ‘the work of a thousand hands’.

©Fiona Candlin September 2017

 

 

Categories
Research Process

Getting Started: Compiling the Data

The Mapping Museums project aims to identify trends in the growth of independent museums from 1960 to 2020. In order to conduct our analysis we need to be able to interrogate longitudinal data for a number of museum variables, including years of opening and closure, size, and status change. At present, no such database exists that would allow us to do so. Ironically, for a sector committed to the preservation of cultural memory, documenting the institutions that participate in these activities is seemingly much less of a priority (see ‘Problems with the Data’ post). Thus, the first objective of the project was to create a functional database that catalogued all of the museums that have existed in the UK since 1960.

Before we began building this database we first considered the logistics of the process, namely the point during our timeframe when it would be best to begin to collect the data. Should we put together a snapshot of the nation’s museums as of 2016 (estimated at 2,500 at the outset of the project) and work backwards, or begin with a baseline of around 900 museums that existed in 1960 and work forwards? The former would give us a solid foundation but might require tortuous weaving back through name changes and amalgamations; the latter would give us fewer museums to start with, but might be easier as we attempted to record individual museum trajectories.

The solution was a compromise based on time and the availability of data. Between 1994 and 1999 the Museums and Galleries Commission ran a programme that produced the Digest of Museum Statistics (DOMUS). It involved annual reporting from museums that participated in the scheme in the form of  lengthy postal surveys. The information captured included address, registration status, visitor numbers and many other characteristics. While some limitations with the data have been highlighted in retrospective analyses (specifically by Sara Selwood in 2001), the baseline data that DOMUS provided was sufficient for our needs.

Using this as a starting point enabled us to begin with detailed information on nearly 2,000 museums. This snapshot of the museum sector in the late 1990s provided us with the flexibility to work both forwards and backwards in time. In particular, having records of museums at an interstitial stage of their development has been helpful in tracking (often frequent) changes of name, status, location and amalgamations.

The major problem with the DOMUS survey was accessing the data and formatting it for our use. After the project was wound up in 1999 the mass of information it had generated was deposited at the National Archives. However, given the complex nature of the data, there was no way of hosting a functional (i.e. searchable) version of the database. Consequently, it was archived as a succession of data sheets – in a way, flat-packed, with instructions as to how the sheets related to one another.

The first task was to reassemble DOMUS from its constituent parts. This meant trying to interpret what the multiple layers of documents deposited in the archive actually referred to. While the archival notes helped, there was still a great deal of deductive work to do.

Once we had identified the datasheet with the greatest number of museums to use as our foundation, the next step was to matchup associated data types held in auxiliary sheets into one single Excel master sheet. To do so we used the internal DOMUS numbers (present within each document) to connect the various data to create single cell data lines for each individual museum. We slowly re-built the dataset in this way.

In some instances the splitting of the data – while presumably logical from an archival perspective – was frustrating from a practical standpoint. A particularly exasperating example was that museum addresses were stored in a separate sheet from their museum, and had to be reconnected using a unique numerical reference termed ADDRID. While the process was relatively straight-forward, there was always a degree of anxiety concerning the integrity of the data during the transfers, and so regular quality checks were carried out during the work.

The next step was to clean-up the reassembled sheet. Firstly, we removed anything from the data that was not a single museum (e.g. references to overarching bodies such as Science Museum Group). Second, we reviewed the amassed data columns to assess their usefulness and determine what could be cut and what should be retained. Thus, old data codes, fax numbers and company numbers were deleted, while any information that could potentially be of use, like membership of Area Museum Councils, was retained. We also ensured that the column headings, written in concise programming terminology, reverted back to more intelligible wording.

This formatting helped shape the data into a usable form, but the final step was to put our own mark on it. Thus we devised specific project codes for the museums, which was useful for recording the source of the data and managing it effectively moving forwards. To tag the museums we decided on a formula that indicated the project name, the original data source, and the museum’s number in that data source (e.g. mm.DOMUS.001). Once our database is finalised, each entry will be ascribed a unique, standardised survey code.

Ultimately, the DOMUS data has acted as the bedrock of our database. It provided a starting point of 1848 museums and thus the majority of our entries have their basis as DOMUS records (which have been updated where applicable). One of our initial achievements is that the DOMUS data is now re-usable in some form, and this may be an output of the project at a later date.

A wider lesson from this process is the importance not only of collecting data, but ensuring that it is documented in a way that allows researchers to easily access it in the future. When our data comes to be archived in the course of time, the detailed notes that we have kept about this process – of which this blog will form a part – aim to provide a useful guide so that our methods and outputs can be clearly understood. Hopefully this will allow the history of the sector that we are helping build to be used, revisited, and revised for years to come.

© Jamie Larkin June 2017