The consultation included online surveys and a Q&A session at the UMG conference.  Issues such as the scope of UK University Museum ‘collections’ data; terms of use for this kind of data; and potential features and audiences for new search-services are covered.

The findings should be of interest across the University Museum sector and can be found and commented on at: http://contextualwrappers2.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/consultation-findings/.

Friday 6th to Sunday 8th July 2012

Excavating Time will consider the processes by which the past might be accessed, preserved, represented, interpreted or ‘fabricated’ through distinctive interactions between visual and verbal media.  The organisers are keen to encourage proposals for papers or panels from UMG members.

For more information see the attached summary document.  Excavating Time CFP

A report on the day is now available within the case studies section of this website.

Download this report as a pdf –  UMG NCCPE Event report, Feb 2012

An interest in issues around how university museums demonstrate their successes and their value brought around fifty people together in Newcastle for an engaging and thought provoking day at the Great North Museum this week.  Discussions were both wide-ranging and deep, so this is an attempt to summarise the key themes of the day, with apologies for any over-simplifications or omissions:

Paul Manners of the NCCPE provided an extremely useful keynote, outlining the differences between evaluation and impact, and how we might move use the former as evidence of the latter.  Evaluation is important for measuring what we did and how well we did it.  It might be undertaken for a number of reasons: for internal communication; as a means of learning from mistakes or successes; for reporting to funders; and as a tool for advocacy.  The results of evaluation might be presented differently, depending on the intended audience.  For example, an internal report might include a ‘warts and all’ analysis including the things that went less well; whereas a report to funders or external stakeholders might present the data in a more purely positive light.

Impact is different from evaluation in that it implies a requirement to account for the success of the activity as a whole.  Put another way, it’s the difference between ‘outputs’ (eg how many holiday activities did the museum run, and how many children came?); and ‘outcomes’ (ie what difference did we actually make to those children?).  The current concern with impact in the museum sector is perhaps an indication of the realisation that a ‘bums on seats’ (or ‘visitors through the door’) method of accounting for our activities is no longer sufficient.  We need to gain a more sophisticated understanding of the transformative potential of museum experiences.  Only then will we really be able to make the case for continued funding, from whichever source, in an increasingly difficult economic climate.

There are a number of different models that can be used to assess impact.  For example, the Generic Learning Outcomes framework, developed by the MLA several years ago, was an attempt to map the impact of museum visiting on visitors.  The Arts Council have defined their goals as excellence, reach, engagement, diversity and innovation, while other organisations have developed their own frameworks (eg the BBC, the New Economics Foundation, local authorities), all of which might have some relevance for museums.  So there is no shortage of models which museums could use to measure their impact, depending on where their priorities lie.

In the context of today’s discussion, much of the emphasis was on the Research Excellence Framework (REF), used to assess the activities of the Higher Education sector, and therefore of particular interest to those in university museums.  As well as the ‘excellence’ of an institution’s research outputs, the REF is concerned with the ‘impact’ of that research.  In other words, there is a requirement to demonstrate that research has been ‘effectively shared’ with audiences beyond academia, and this accounts for 20% of an institution’s overall score.

The day’s discussions therefore ranged between impact in general and ‘impact’ in REF-able terms.  As Paul Manners indicated, the concept of measuring impact was not universally welcomed by academics when it was introduced a few years ago.  It was seen as an attempt to measure the un-measurable and to impose a market culture on universities, and was fiercely resisted by many.  However, the general feeling within today’s gathering was that university museums ought to be in a good position to help their institutions demonstrate impact, since they provide an interface between academia and the wider public, and should therefore have a role in making new ideas available to audiences beyond Higher Education.  It was generally agreed that the REF might offer university museums the opportunity to reposition themselves at the centre of their host institutions’ activity.

At first glance, it looks quite straightforward.  Find an academic in your institution who has written an interesting (and REF-able) article or book: turn it into an exhibition.  Result: impact.  In reality, however, it’s a little trickier.  On the one hand, it’s not always easy to account for the passage of ideas from an article to an exhibition, since there are many other factors at play.  Secondly, a great academic paper does not necessarily translate well into an interesting and engaging exhibition which anyone will actually want to see.  Thirdly (and perhaps most frustratingly), lots of interesting work in museums is done by people (curators, artists in residence etc) who are not academic staff, hence their work is not ‘REF’-able’, and can’t be counted.

There is work to be done, then, on making university museums more easily able to demonstrate impact in terms of the REF.  We need to gather good case studies which show clear evidence of linkages between university research and public outcomes.  We need to value the very particular skills that museum staff often have in making complex ideas accessible to non-specialist audiences, and we need to stop thinking of exhibitions as the only vehicle for the dissemination of ideas (what about podcasts, websites, blogs, wikis etc? – all of which could be ‘curated’).  Above all we need to develop a vision for the role that university museums might play, in order to position ourselves strategically for the forthcoming REF and for the one after that.

At the same time, museums – including university museums – ought to be prepared to demonstrate their impact on and benefit to, society more generally.  In other words, while undoubtedly important, the REF is not the only game we are playing.  Eric Cross of Newcastle University outlined the way in which the redevelopment of the Great North Museum from a number of smaller institutions was spurred on by the University’s concern for greater impact in terms of the local and regional economy, public engagement, income generation and so on.  A number of other speakers also presented case studies of projects which offered really excellent outcomes for a variety of audiences.  We need to remember that universities are concerned with other agendas including enhancing the student experience, which might mean a concern for scores in the National Student Survey as well as the REF.

In summary, it seems to me that we all need to get better at evaluation, which means setting the right objectives in the first place, measuring the right things, and asking the right questions of ourselves.  We need to present the data, both as individual institutions, and as a sector, so as to demonstrate the remarkable achievements that university museums make.  (In fact we might need to juggle the same data to present evidence of different kinds of impact to different funding bodies or stakeholders).  Only with all of this in place will we be in a position to provide evidence of impact whether for the REF or against criteria set by other funders, and thus ensure that we are really worth what we cost, not merely worthwhile.

Zoë Hendon, Head of Museum & Collections
Museum of Domestic Design & Architecture
Middlesex University

Feb 2012

This seminar is being organised by the Association of Art Historians.  It will focus in the morning on three collaborative papers, where curators and academics will reflect on their experience of using collections as teaching resources. The day will conclude with a round table discussion, with curators, academics and students participating. Registration will begin at 10.00am and the day will conclude at 4pm.

With the increase in funding initiatives aimed at encouraging knowledge transfer and collaboration, the event is aimed primarily at education and museum professionals, but will be of equal benefit to students of various disciplines, and is meant to be practical above all. It aims to explore questions such as;

• What are the benefits/limitations/problems of using collections as teaching resources?
• In an age of digital media, how do collections retain their relevance to teaching practice?
• How do galleries/ museums balance the problems of preserving fragile and unique objects, while making them available to academics and students?

We are hoping to attract an audience of both curators and academics and the afternoon session will aim to be as interactive as possible in order to assist colleagues in developing collaborative partnerships.

Speakers include:

• Helen Armstrong (University of Durham Museums)
• Layla Bloom (Stanley & Audrey Burton Gallery, University of Leeds)
• Dr Andrea Fredericksen (Curator, UCL Art Collections)
• Dr Nicholas Grindle (UCL CALT)
• Marie-Thérèse Mayne (Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle upon Tyne)
• Helen Stalker (Whitworth Art Gallery, University of Manchester)
• Dr Ben Thomas (University of Kent)
• Dr Chris Whitehead (Newcastle University)

Organised by the Museums and Exhibitions Group of the AAH, this seminar is the latest in a series promoting collaboration between academics and museums, exploring different modes of working and how they can be of mutual benefit.

For more information including how to book see the website of the Association of Art Historians.

June 21 -22 2012

Heritage Impact 2012 is the sixth international symposium on socio-economic impact and strategies for change in cultural heritage to be organised by the CUBIST Research Group, part of the University of Brighton Business School. The symposium aims to bring together speakers from across Europe and further afield to consider the impact of heritage sites on society and the economy.

Heritage sites are facing an unprecedented threat. The long-term erosion of funding sources coupled with the current economic climate has the potential to change the heritage landscape.  The concept of the ‘Big Society’ places an increasing reliance on the ‘community’ for funding, either through traditional fundraising or innovative crowd funding campaigns.  But these threats are coupled with new avenues of engagement with the community.  Communication through various social media channels, mobile applications and other digital means has the potential to enlarge the so-called community to become a potentially global audience.  Increased access to digital heritage resources is one a number of mechanisms leading to the democratisation of heritage.

Heritage sites are coming under increasing pressure from funders to measure their benefit to society, to add value to their offerings and to increase self-sustainability.  All this comes at a time when resources for assessing impact are under threat and the scope of impact becomes ever more diverse.  And yet, as ever, there is little evidence for the impact of heritage on the community and society. Heritage Impact 2012 aims to bring all this information together coherently in one place.

The symposium will explore the processes that influence impact at heritage sites.  Assessing the value of cultural heritage and determining its impact on society and the economy, is crucial for the future of the heritage sector.  As the heritage community begins to understand the processes that influence impact, the sector will be in a better position to influence positive future outcomes. Furthermore, if the heritage community can provide evidence of why certain strategies are successful, this information can be put to direct use by heritage sites to exploit their assets most effectively and influence decisions at a policy level.

The organising committee invites both practitioners and academics to submit papers that explore the following complementary themes:

• Measuring impact
• Changing impacts through strategy, marketing and policy
• Heritage as a regeneration tool
• Sustainability issues for heritage
• Community heritage and the ‘Big Society’
• Community engagement in a digital world

Detailed information can be downloaded here:

Detailed information on call for papers

We are now able to circulate details of the UMG Annual Conference to be held at the Great North Museum (GNM).  GMN opened in 2009  following a £26 million redevelopment project incorporating collections from the Hancock Museum and Newcastle University’s Museum of Antiquities, the Shefton Museum and the Hatton Gallery (http://www.twmuseums.org.uk/greatnorthmuseum/about/).

We are delighted that the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement, who are lead experts in this field, have agreed to co-host this event with us. Full details of the programme are attached.

UMG NCCPE event programme

The event is aimed at any museum staff and academics who are interested in learning more about research impact and its evaluation, particularly in public contexts such as museums. The programme has bee designed to cater for people with all levels of experience of evaluation, from complete beginners to fairly expert.  Please forward this information to any colleagues or networks who may be interested in this event.

1. Directions to the Great North Museum

http://www.twmuseums.org.uk/greatnorthmuseum/makingavisit/

2. Accommodation

For delegates wishing to stay overnight Accommodation at the 4 * Sandman Signature Hotel (http://www.sandmansignature.co.uk/find-hotels/newcastle/) is available on 6^th February 2012 at the special discounted rate of £75 including breakfast. To book at this special rate please contact 0191 229 2600 and quote ‘UMG/NCCPE Event: Impact and Evaluation: Learning Together’.

3. Event Booking

To book please use the following link to an online booking system:

https://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/nccpe/impactandevaluation/

4. Case Study Taster Session

As part of the UMG joint conference with NCCPE we will be holding a case study taster session, which is an opportunity for delegates to present and share a project they have developed and/or worked on with a small number of people in a round table discussion (of around 6-8 people).  We would like to invite applications, particularly from UMG and UMIS members and from academics with relevant experience of working with museums, interested in presenting a short informal case study of evaluation in practice.

Expression of interest to participate Case Study umg-nccpe event

Contact Kate Arnold-Forster ( k.arnold-forster@reading.ac.uk ) or Lisa Adlington of NCCPE (Lisa.Adlington@uwe.ac.uk)

Case Study Taster Session
As part of the UMG joint conference with NCCPE we will be holding a case study taster session, which is an opportunity for delegates to present and share a project they have developed and/or worked on with a small number of people in a round table discussion (of around 6-8 people). We would like to invite applications, particularly from UMG and UMIS members, interested in presenting a short informal case study of evaluation in practice.

For more information, please download this Expression of Interest document.
Expression of interest – Case Study UMG-NCCPE event

The Kelvin Gallery, The Hunterian, University of Glasgow

This year’s University Museums in Scotland (UMIS) conference aims to explore the current and potentially changing relationship between universities and museum and gallery services; and to clarify emerging challenges and future strategic directions. In addition to a focus on the dynamic situation of university museums in Scotland, the programme will also draw on the current experience of colleagues from counterpart institutions elsewhere.

Scottish university museum and gallery services need to remain core business to their parent organisation and main funding source. In the brave new world of REF (Research Excellence Framework), university objectives are beginning to shift from what were once diverse agendas towards a greater focus on research excellence and the impact of public engagement activities. University museum and gallery services may need to align themselves with this changing strategy and demonstrate their impact more explicitly in terms of research and teaching engagement, through enhancing the student learning experience and by creating a distinctive cultural strand to the university’s global identity. However, whilst our institutions are expected to be dynamic and innovative in their programmes, they are also being asked to make deep cuts in their infrastructure. How do they balance this contradiction and continue to develop their role as a core university service?

For more information on the programme and bokoing instructions  go to  http://www.umis.ac.uk/conference2011/new_rules.htm

I am posting to seek advice/guidance on the handling of controversial materials in university museums.

Within the Theatre Collection, the Live Art Archives contain a certain amount of ‘controversial’ material, such as footage of performances which may include nudity and self-harm (I use this term loosely as the artists do not view it as this in the context of their work).

We are currently working on a project to make the video material from the National Review of Live Art archive which is part of the Live Art Archives available online – permissions allowing. As a result we are refining and developing  our access policy so that we are quite clear what material we are allowed  to put online under UK legislation, but also within the University regulations and other guidelines which we should adhere to.

For the material which we do make available online from the National Review, ‘controversial performances’ or not, we intend to have an over 18 log in (we abide by this age restriction/accompanying etc with visitors in person), however, because of the strong feelings surrounding censorship of this type of art, we are having to tread very carefully to ensure that we maximise the research potential of the online resource, deliver the best outcomes of the project to the funders (AHRC) and also maintain our good relationships with the artists involved, in addition to upholding the reputation of the University of Bristol.  Therefore – I’m currently trying to gather as much information as possible around the law and other institutions’ policies and experiences in similar situations.

Any advice you can offer would be very much appreciated. As you can imagine, it’s a bit of a minefield ….. I get the impression that although other institutions are also beginning to tackle this issue no one has actually solved it yet, but I may be wrong – please let me know!

Please email me at bex.carrington@bristol.ac.uk (obviously posting to the list too if you wish).

I have already trawled through other guidance such as our own uni ethics policy, BBC/iplayer, Youtube, BBFC, plus the MA, MLA and CILIP, plus all the jolly interesting reading (!) around the Obscene Publications Act, Video Recordings Act etc.

Many thanks

Best wishes

Bex