Museums and quality, from the concept of the museum that carries out functions to the museum that provides services

Quality management Self-evaluation of the organisation Citizens/customers satisfaction Impact on society evaluation Key performance evaluation Good practices comparison (Benchmarking) Continuous improvement In professional environments, when quality assessment of museums is discussed, one immediately thinks of the honourableness of the directors and curators, the erudition and specialisation of knowledge, the diversity of the gathered material and study of the collections, the collections conservation methods and environmental control, the regularity and notoriety of the exhibitions and artists, the building’s architecture and site, the recreation of environments, the museographic equipment design. We admit that the roles and attributes listed above can contribute to the definition of a specificity of museological good practice within a hierarchised functional perspective (the museum functions) and for the classification of museums according to a scale, validated between peers, based on “installed” appreciation criteria, enforced from above downwards, according to the “prestige” of the products and of those who conceive them, but that say nothing about the effective satisfaction of the citizen/customers and the real impact on society. There is a lack of evaluation instruments that would give us a return of all that the museum is and represents in contemporary society, focused on being and on the relation with the other, in detriment of the ostentatious possession and of the doing in order to meet one’s duties. But it is only possible to evaluate something by measurement and comparison, on the basis of well defined criteria, from a common grid, implicating all of the actors in the self-evaluation, in the definition of the aims to fulfil and in the obtaining of results.

The Pedagogical Congresses of Portuguese Secondary Teaching : the participation of female teachers (1927-1928)

This paper was written within the context of the research project “The development of teacher’ associative organizations and unionism (1889-1990)” funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Foundation for Science and Technology). Five important congresses about secondary education were organized in Portugal between 1927 and 1931. These congresses served to claim the rights of teachers and the consolidation of the class, as well as to promote the discussion of scientific and pedagogical problems. In these congresses, the presence of female teachers was residual. However, the few teachers who participated had a significant contribution to the definition of secondary education during the following decades. Among other issues, it contributed to the discussion of female education and to analyze the importance of Biology and Physical Education in high schools. This paper presents the analysis of the minutes of the 1927s and 1928s Congresses. This analysis allowed the assessment of the important role played by a group of teachers to define, at the end of the first third of the 20th century, the future guidelines of Portuguese secondary education. It also reported that these teachers were pioneers who opened the way for the increasing number of teachers in secondary education during the 20th century.

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)

Desire for memory, desire for museums: the experience of the Memory Hotspots

Considering the principles of the National Museum Policy, created in 2003, the Brazilian Museums Institute – Ibram supports and encourages the development of museum practices and processes aimed at rewriting the history of social groups which were deprived of the right to narrate and exhibit their memories and their heritage. As effective action, in 2008, the Department of Museums and Cultural Centres (Demu/Iphan) – which gave rise to Ibram in January 2009 – started the Memory Hotspots Programme, with the main goal of fostering wide popular participation in matters related to social memory and museums. The Memory Hotspots Programme was inspired in and directly influenced by the Ministry of Culture/MinC, which created the National Programme for Culture, Education and Citizenship (Living Culture). The purpose of this Programme is to contribute to make society conquer spaces, exchange experiences and develop initiatives that foster culture and citizenship, in a proactive manner. The partnership struck between civil society and the state power gave rise to Culture Hotspots, inspired in the anthropological “do-in” concept, idealized by the then Minster Gilberto Gil.