CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CONVERGENCE PART III: AS ‘HERD’ FROM LAM PROFESSIONALS

MUSEUM MONDAYS

BY: KARA ISOZAKI & MAEGHAN JERRY

The summer edition of Museum Mondays will be a three-part series focusing on the convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs). Convergence has been a popular topic in Canada since the early 2000s. While the three fields have somewhat different histories, values, and methods, LAM institutions are all involved in collecting and preserving materials for the benefit and use of the public. Kara and Maeghan will bring their perspective as students of both Museum Studies and Archives & Records Management to publicly visible areas of overlap and interaction between LAMs.

For our final post we spoke to two professionals working in convergent institutions to learn more about the excitement and challenges they face. Dr. Amy Furness is the Rosamond Ivey Special Collections Archivist and Head of the Library & Archives at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO). She received her PhD from the Faculty of Information.  Dr. Brendan Edwards is the Head of the Library & Archives at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). He previously served as director of libraries at First Nations University of Canada and as special collections librarian at the University of Saskatchewan.

What motivated you to take a position in the library & archives of a major museum?

Dr. Furness: I had an academic background in art history and working at the AGO library was a dream job. The most compelling aspect of the work was getting to know the raw materials of art history - the evidence of the people, activities and communities that have played a role in the Toronto (and wider) art world - and realizing the potential of these collections to support the writing of histories. I’ve long been fascinated by artists’ studios and the work that happens there, and the puzzle of how to move archives out of that space into a research institution without losing the essential qualities of the material.

Dr. Edwards: I previously worked in a specialized academic institution with a similar collection size, budget, staff, and relationship to a larger institution. I was looking to branch out from the specialized subject area in which I was previously working. I wanted an opportunity to dabble and think more broadly. Working at the ROM, an internationally recognized and well-regarded museum, was an opportunity that I could hardly pass up.

Illustration of a sea lion and lioness from the ROM Library & Archives’ collection. They’re excited to be held in a converged institution. Source. 

Do you find that there is a difference between working in a library/archives that is part of a museum compared to one that is an independent institution?

Dr. Furness: This is a hard one because I've been at the AGO since the beginning of my career, with a short stint at the Archives of Ontario. In the early years of my job I was acutely aware of the way that different museum professionals - including curators, librarians and registrars - viewed collections. I was more of an archival purist then in terms of trying to implement my professional learning. It’s pretty usual that an archivist will need to adapt to the culture of their institution. I guess what is distinct about a museum setting is how complementary the wider institution can be to archival work.

Dr. Edwards: My ideas about libraries/archives/museums are constantly evolving. In an academic setting, the library/archive is a central part of the institution’s main goal of attracting and retaining students and faculty. At the ROM, the Library & Archives is not viewed as central to the museum’s primary goal of attracting visitors. We play a supporting role to the varying research goals of the museum, so our main audience are research staff, external researchers, and graduate students. Our collections reflect our audience. I rely very much on the recommendations and expertise of curators and staff for collection development. Since the value of a library/archives is not always intrinsically perceived or well understood, I have to do a lot more “salesmanship” than I would like.

Photo of AGO reading room. Source. 

What are the biggest challenges you see working in a combined library & archives department?

Dr. Furness: I see way more opportunities than challenges, but information systems pose an issue in the sense that a small department has a hard time supporting more than one specialized system to serve both the library and the archives. It's not easy to make the case for the resources that would be involved.

Dr. Edwards: Library and archives working together is not a big challenge. We have a shared interest in collecting, preserving, and providing access to information. Modern museums, for better or for worse, are as much (or more) business and spectacle as they are mere collections and information providers. This poses a challenge to the Library & Archives - to commodify our collections and services is a severe challenge.

Upon his death in 1940, amateur ornithologist James Henry Flemming donated his books and specimens to the ROM. His donation of books became the nucleus of the ROM Library’s rare book collections. Sources: left and right (modified).

What is the relationship between the library & archives’ collection and the museum’s collection?

Dr. Furness: To a large extent the museum's collection defines the scope of the Library & Archives collection. Much of the book collection exists to document and support research on the museum’s collections and exhibitions. The acquisition criteria for Special Collections are related to the wider representation of the artist's work in the AGO's collection.

The Library & Archives also has some distinct areas of specialization that are complementary to the art collection but unique to our department. The Library & Archives has greater breadth in terms of documenting the Canadian art world - there are far more artists represented in our book and file collections than the art collection.

We use the AGO's The Museum System software to support digitization and tracking of Library & Archives materials for exhibition and loan purposes. It's a secondary information system for us, but has growing importance.

Dr. Edwards: In theory, the library’s collections reflect the museum’s collections, since our primary mandate is to support staff research activities. However, as curators and research staff come and go, and new/bigger/better exhibitions are staged, the collection activities fluctuate. From an archives’ collection perspective, the material is 100% related to the museum’s collection, since all of the material is generated in-house, or by organizations or people directly tied to the ROM.

One of our greatest challenges is drawing direct connections between our collections and the museum’s collections. We don’t have direct access to the curatorial or registration departments’ information management systems. Presently the museum is working towards migrating the various systems around the institution into one. We don’t know at this point to what extent our library catalogue information can be integrated or linked. We have our work cut out for us.


Thank you to Dr. Edwards and Dr. Furness for sharing your time and experience with us.

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CONVERGENCE PART II: HOPPING THE FENCE BETWEEN LAM FIELDS

MUSEUM MONDAYS

BY: KARA ISOZAKI & MAEGHAN JERRY

The summer edition of Museum Mondays will be a three-part series focusing on the convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs). Convergence has been a popular topic in Canada since the early 2000s. While the three fields have somewhat different histories, values, and methods, LAM institutions are all involved in collecting and preserving materials for the benefit and use of the public. Kara and Maeghan will bring their perspective as students of both Museum Studies and Archives & Records Management to publicly visible areas of overlap and interaction between LAMs.

Students at U of T’s Faculty of Information have the opportunity to become informed professionals in convergent theory and practice by taking courses across the LAM fields. As students in the combined archives and the museum program, we came to the iSchool seeking a convergent education. But what about students pursuing a degree in a single LAM field? What do they see as the role of convergence in their professional futures? To answer these questions, we spoke with two of our fellow students about their experiences taking a course in a LAM field outside of their program.

Heather is a student in the Master of Information program, concentrating in Archives and Records Management, who took Museums and Cultural Heritage: Context and Critical Issues, a first-year museum studies course.

Photo courtesy of Heather.

Bretton is a master’s student in Museum Studies who completed Archives Concepts and Issues, the introductory archival theory course.

Photo courtesy of Bretton.

Why did you choose to take a course in another LAM field? Were you hoping to get any particular benefits?

Heather: I am really interested in where archives and museums meet. My experience with archives before I came to the iSchool had been in places that had records but also had objects. I managed to get into the program without quite knowing the exact line between archives and museums, or at least the way it’s drawn here. So I wanted to take a few classes to learn about the other side, how you work with objects.

Bretton: I looked at the options in the MI [Master of Information] and saw this archival class and thought it would be of value. Going in, I didn’t know exactly what would be the takeaway from the class, but I think taking this particular course definitely set me up better, both professionally and academically, for the rest of our degree.

Examples of the diverse items in the Calgary Stampede Archives where Heather visited before moving to Toronto to do her MI. Source: left, centre, right.

Were you surprised by anything you learned?

Heather: Before this, I don’t think I was thinking critically about museums at all when I was visiting them. This course opened my eyes to what a museum can do to shape what you see and how something is presented.

Bretton: It was interesting to see a different perspective on the heritage industry and the information field, and to see not only how archives differ from museums but how they can benefit each other. What surprised me most was how defined the archivist’s role is on paper but in practice it’s so case-by-case. Because you can say it’s the archivist’s role to collect, preserve, and make available for use records of enduring value but then it’s like, “okay, great, what does that look like?”

This. This is what it looks like. Source.

What do you think is the biggest difference between archival theory and museology?

Heather: That’s a hard question. But I’d say that the main difference I noticed was that for museums there’s more about making meaning with the objects whereas the archives are more like, “here are the materials,” and then the visitor can take the meaning they want from them.

Bretton: The biggest difference I think has to do with access and presentation of the collections. I also find it very interesting as well in terms of doing research on the collection. The provenancial research for a museum collection is there but it’s maybe not as accessible as it is in terms of archival provenance. With that being said, I recognize that my bias in museums falls more toward the front-end interpretation side, so I see archival theory as being more in line with collections management theory.


Is there anything you learned that you think you’ll apply to your work as a professional in your field?

Heather: I’m still not certain how I would apply what I’ve learned to archives, but it will help. I would love to work in a position that involves archives and museum work, as an archivist in a museum or something like that. So I’m thinking about that in a future job sense. I think it’s one of those courses that I’ll keep coming back to even if I didn’t quite understand everything at the time.

Bretton: Absolutely. I’m working at the CBC this summer in their library and archives, so as a museum professional working in a library and archives - convergence is all around me.

Photo of Bretton at work.* Source.
(*not actually)

Any final comments?

Heather: I think my view of museums has definitely changed because, like I said, I wasn’t really thinking critically. Now I have a lot more context, even about the history of museums, to think about how and why they’re explaining things the way that they are. I see the differences between LAM institutions more than I did before.

Bretton: If I have one takeaway regarding convergence, it’s a great respect for the [LAM] institutions as they function independently and a big question mark as to what is responsible convergence. What will that look like? We’ve seen it all over the country: when things converge, something has to give. What has to give? Is that the right thing to give?

Thank you to Heather and Bretton for your enthusiastic responses to our questions.

Have you taken a course in another LAM field? Share your experience in the comments.

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CONVERGENCE PART I: EXHIBITIONS IN LIBRARIES & ARCHIVES

MUSEUM MONDAYS

BY: KARA ISOZAKI & MAEGHAN JERRY

The summer edition of Museum Mondays will be a three-part series focusing on the convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs). Convergence has been a popular topic in Canada since the early 2000s. While the three fields have somewhat different histories, values, and methods, LAM institutions are all involved in collecting and preserving materials for the benefit and use of the public. Kara and Maeghan will bring their perspective as students of both Museum Studies and Archives & Records Management to publicly visible areas of overlap and interaction between LAMs. 

One of the most visible overlaps between libraries, archives, and museums is the use of exhibitions to display and promote library and archival holdings. There are numerous examples of archives and libraries in Toronto that put on regular exhibitions, and we chose to visit three to check out how different institutions were exhibiting their holdings: Vice & Virtue at the Toronto Reference Library (TRL), Struggle & Story: Canada in Print at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, and From Streets to Playgrounds: Representing Children in Early 20th Century Toronto at the City of Toronto Archives. 

Gallery spaces (left to right): Toronto Reference Library, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, and City of Toronto Archives. Photo by Kara Isozaki.

Maeghan: All of these exhibitions featured primarily print materials, and yet they all made things really dynamic.

Kara: Yeah, all three institutions had objects on the walls and in cases, propped up or laying flat. The TRL and Archives mounted reproductions by sticking them directly to the walls and nailing them on like public notices.

M: Those two institutions were really creative in the layouts of the wall mounts, mixing different sizes to create visual interest. Also, the Archives showed rotating photographs on screens which added movement to the exhibition.

K: I think that using reproductions made it easier to create the diverse wall layouts. Fisher’s exhibition was different because nearly all the objects on display were originals. I wonder if they were able to do that because the display area is light controlled.

M: Yeah, I think the whole building is climate controlled as well because part of the collection is housed in open shelving. Fisher also brought in artifacts to add to their display cases, which we didn’t really see in the other exhibitions. 

Wall display at the City of Toronto Archives. Photo by Kara Isozaki.

K: I noticed each exhibition took a different interpretive approach.

M: Yeah, it ended up being a spectrum, where TRL had what would be the most museum-like interpretation and Fisher was more like an essay in exhibition form, and then the Archives fell in between.

K: I found the TRL was more accessible because it had a clear theme with subsections. They used a mix of section panels, object labels, and infographics to give you multiple ways to access the information.

M: The Archives was pretty good in terms of having clear sections, but it lacked an overall story or theme. It seemed like the sections were focused on the records and creators represented in their collection rather than on the topic presented in the title.

K: Yeah, that might be because the content is based on the results of a research project and what information the Archives has about the records. The Archives might know more about the records creators than the people affected by the creation of playgrounds.

M: That’s very true, but would a visitor who doesn’t have a background in archival work know and recognize that? It wasn’t a bad exhibit overall, it was just that it seemed to lack a core theme. They should have named it something different. That might have provided a better connection between the sections.

K: The Fisher, on the other hand, took a really different approach. Their exhibition was way more text-heavy than the other two. They chose to present their information through object labels instead of section panels. It diverged the most from the museum interpretive techniques we learned.

M: The amount of information and text format felt more like an exhibition catalogue than a label. The catalogue was actually placed in a more prominent location than the introductory panel.

Case display with text-heavy labels at the Fisher Rare Book Library. Photo by Kara Isozaki.

K: I suspect the different interpretive approaches reflect the institutions’ different ideas about their audiences. With the Fisher, I think they’re writing for a more academic audience since they’re part of the university.

M: I agree. I imagine that they do get tourists, but they probably come to see the grandeur of the space itself, and the exhibition just acts as an example of what’s inside all the books on the shelves.

K: The TRL probably has the most diverse audience, since the building has been designed to be a community space, with a comic book store and coffee shop also on the first floor. The exhibition definitely felt like it was designed for an audience of the general public. Everything was really accessible.

M: The Archives was also aimed at the general public, but I think most of the visitors are people who are coming to the archive for other purposes, like research.

Case display at Toronto Reference Library. Photo by Kara Isozaki.

K: So what did we learn?

M: It seems to me that the institutions are picking up on display methods faster than they’re picking up on interpretive methods. We saw a lot of really great material displayed in creative and engaging ways, but the institutions differed in the ways that they presented associated information.

K: That’s true, but we are judging these exhibitions from a museological perspective, which comes with a lot of assumptions and history that these other institutions may not operate on.

M: But I think it’s fair to do that because all of the institutions we visited advertised their exhibitions as exhibitions with themes and in dedicated gallery areas. We didn’t just stumble across a “recent acquisitions” shelf.

K: Either way, I thought they were effective overall. We enjoyed visiting each of them and I feel like I learned something from each one.

Have you visited these exhibitions or others in libraries or archives? What did you think? Let us know in the comments!