The new professional: underdog or expert? New Museology in the 21th century

For a long time, museum’s form and function were impregnated with social exclusion, only accessible for a prosperous and educated minority. It held the monopoly on the past and therefore in a way on the present and the future. However times have changed and different perspectives on museum practices have been taken. In 1989 the British Peter Vergo mentioned as quoted below, a number of possible museologies, including a ‘new’, and therefore presumably an ‘old’ type of museology: “At the simplest level I would define it, as a state of widespread dissatisfaction with the ‘old’ museology, both within and outside the museum profession; and though the reader may object that such a definition is not merely negative, but circular, I would retort that what is wrong with the ‘old’ museology is that it is too much about museum methods, and too little about purposes of museums; that museology has in the past only frequently been seen, if it has been seen at all, as a theoretical and humanistic discipline.” (Vergo, 1989)

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)

The Baltic Museology School : its role in the professional education system

Due to various reasons museum employees from the Baltic States rarely use the chance to study museology abroad. Therefore the State Authority on Museums of Latvia in collaboration with ICOM-Latvia decided to ―deliver‖ this knowledge, by inviting internationally acknowledged lectors from different countries to widen the scope of takers of this opportunity. Estonian and Lithuanian colleagues are also joining in the project, which is included in the cooperation programme of the Ministries of Culture of the Baltic States.

Methodology for assessing the appropriateness of Continuing Professional Development for pharmacy professionals’ revalidation

From April 2010, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) will be responsible for the statutory regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in Great Britain (GB).[1] All statutorily regulated health professionals will need to periodically demonstrate their fitness-to-practise through a process of revalidation.[2] One option being considered in GB is that continuing professional development (CPD) records will form a part of the evidence submitted for revalidation, similar to the system in New Zealand.[3] At present, pharmacy professionals must make a minimum of nine CPD entries per annum from 1 March 2009 using the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) CPD framework. Our aim was to explore the applicability of new revalidation standards within the current CPD framework. We also wanted to review the content of CPD portfolios to assess strengths and qualities and identify any information gaps for the purpose of revalidation.

Participation of future pharmacists in a professional development certificate scheme; the paradox of personal identity

The white paper ‘Pharmacy in England’ advocates establishing a new pharmacy regulator, building leadership and integrating undergraduate education.[1] Students must morph into competent pharmacists with the skills, expertise and confidence to lead the profession to 2020 and beyond.[2] One way individuals are encouraged to ‘professionalise’ is through participation in personal/professional development schemes. The British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association (BPSA) and the College of Pharmacy Practice have operated a professional development certificate (PDC) scheme since 2001. The scheme rewards students with a joint certificate for evidence of participation in five accredited activities in one academic year. Although the scheme is relevant to development of students, less than 2% of BPSA members take part annually. We wanted to understand the reasons for the low uptake. Our primary objectives were to examine the portrayal of the scheme and to investigate what it signifies to individuals. We describe our attempts to apply social marketing techniques[3] to the PDC, and we use ‘logical levels of change’[4] to highlight a paradox with personal identity.

Biosecurity in agriculture: an economic analysis of coexistence of professional and hobby production

One component of biosecurity is protection against invasive alien species, which are one of the most important threats worldwide to native biodiversity and economic profitability in various sectors, including agriculture. However, agricultural producers are not homogeneous. They may have different objectives and priorities, use different technologies, and occupy heterogeneous parcels of land. If the producers differ in terms of their attitude towards invasive pests and the damages they cause, there are probably external effects in the form of pest spread impacts and subsequent damages caused. We study such impacts in the case of two producer types: profit-seeking professional producers and utility-seeking hobby producers. We show that the hobby producer, having first set a breeding ground for the pest, under-invests in pest control. We also discuss potential policy instruments to correct this market failure and highlight the importance of considering different stakeholders and their heterogeneous incentives when designing policies to control invasive alien species.

Managing invasive alien species with professional and hobby farmers: insights from ecological-economic modelling

Biosecurity is a great challenge to policy-makers globally. Biosecurity policies aim to either prevent invasions before they occur or to eradicate and/or effectively manage the invasive species and diseases once an invasion has occurred. Such policies have traditionally been directed towards professional producers in natural resource based sectors, including agriculture. Given the wide scope of issues threatened by invasive species and diseases, it is important to account for several types of stakeholders that are involved. We investigate the problem of an invasive insect pest feeding on an agricultural crop with heterogeneous producers: profit-oriented professional farmers and utility-oriented hobby farmers. We start from an ecological-economic model conceptually similar to the one developed by Eiswerth and Johnson [Eiswerth, M.E. and Johnson, W.S., 2002. Managing nonindigenous invasive species: insights from dynamic analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 23, 319-342.] and extend it in three ways. First, we make explicit the relationship between the invaded state carrying capacity and farmers' planting decisions. Second, we add another producer type into the framework and hence account for the existence of both professional and hobby fanners. Third, we provide a theoretical contribution by discussing two alternative types of equilibria. We also apply the model to an empirical case to extract a number of stylised facts and in particular to assess: a) under which circumstances the invasion is likely to be not controllable; and b) how extending control policies to hobby farmers could affect both types of producers. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.