Muzea uniwersyteckie: dokąd teraz? Cofnąć się, aby dalej skoczyć

Podobnie jak uniwersytety, również ich muzea i ogólnie wszystkie muzea stoją przed kryzysem tożsamości, a celem tego artykułu jest określenie kluczowych elementów tego procesu. Sugeruje się, że zbiory nie odgrywają już podstawowej roli głównego źródła z powodu rozwoju badań i metod nauczania. W konsekwencji muzea uniwersyteckie tracą swą tradycyjną rolę strażnika zbiorów i stają wobec pytania, jak najlepiej przystosować się do nowych wyzwań i wymagań. Muzea uniwersyteckie muszą rozważyć, czy chcą działać, jak dawniej, jako archiwiści dla materialnych dowodów badań uczelni i dydaktyki, czy też skierują się ku roli bardziej nastawianej na społeczność odbiorców. To zakłada, że będą musiały przedefiniować swą tożsamość jako „muzeum na uniwersytecie” na korzyść pośrednika między uniwersytetem a – społeczeństwem, przyczyniając się do publicznej dyskusji na tematy naukowe i ich konsekwencji dla społeczeństwa szeroko pojętego.

University museums: where to from now? Reculer pour mieux sauter

“The importance and value of your collections has been convincingly demonstrated; time has now come to formulate ambitions and draw up a strategy for the next 30 years”. Such were the encouraging, challenging and thought provoking words of António Nóvoa, Rector of the University of Lisbon, during the closing session of the UNIVERSEUM Meeting in Lisbon (July 2007). University museums and collections function on the triple point between the academic world, the museum world and society at large. These three elements – universities, the way they position themselves in society and how they perform and organise research and teaching (and the role therein of collections); the world of museums, to which university museums and collections belong ever since the Ashmolean Museum was established as the first official museum at the University of Oxford in 1683 with its triple mission: teaching, research and public display; and the society to which we belong – make out the three mayor elements determining and affecting the life and functioning of university museums. These worlds are in a process of transition, if not in a state of crisis. These transitions have a severe impact on what is expected from university museums and by consequence on their traditional roles: collections, research and teaching and public. Finally, the scope and range of what is generally understood as ‘academic heritage’ is broadening whilst university museums themselves are in a process of transition and re-orientation.

Over the past decade, university museums and collections have witnessed an unprecedented attention. This is illustrated by the establishment of a growing number of advocacy groups, each with their own activities, conferences, workshops and publications, both at the national and the international level; at the latter level, UMAC and UNIVERSEUM are of particular significance. The Council of Europe adopted two important documents concerning university collections. The first document (1998–1375, Document 8111) focuses on the vulnerable position of ‘incidental collections’and recommends member countries to establish legislation and a general scheme to give assistance ‘[...]. when there is a demonstrated need for this’. The second document was a Recommendation, unanimously adopted by member-states (REC13–2005), addressing governments and university administrations on their responsibility regarding the governance and management of university heritage5; ‘heritage of universities’ is understood to encompass all tangible and intangible heritage related to higher education institutions.

These activities definitely contributed to a wider awareness and recognition of the scope and importance of the academic heritage. Simultaneously, those that are responsible for u-museums and collections become increasingly aware that they need to find answers on a range of questions related to the future of the basic missions of u-museums: care for collections, collection-based research and teaching and public display. These questions need to be dealt with taking into account the transitions within the professional world in which university museums perform their activities.

The aim of this paper is to identify these elements and to discuss the processes of change and adaptation to new requirements they are facing, leading to often purposely bleak, provocative and simplified, but essentially realistic assessments of their effects, as well as the possible consequences thereof for university museums and collections. I finally accept the challenge put forward by António Nóvoa, to point out some challenges and ambitions both universities and their museums may wish to develop.

“The importance and value of your collections has been convincingly demonstrated; time has now come to formulate ambitions and draw up a strategy for the next 30 years”. Such were the encouraging, challenging and thought provoking words of António Nóvoa, Rector of the University of Lisbon, during the closing session of the UNIVERSEUM Meeting in Lisbon (July 2007). University museums and collections function on the triple point between the academic world, the museum world and society at large. These three elements – universities, the way they position themselves in society and how they perform and organise research and teaching (and the role therein of collections); the world of museums, to which university museums and collections belong ever since the Ashmolean Museum was established as the first official museum at the University of Oxford in 1683 with its triple mission: teaching, research and public display; and the society to which we belong – make out the three mayor elements determining and affecting the life and functioning of university museums. These worlds are in a process of transition, if not in a state of crisis. These transitions have a severe impact on what is expected from university museums and by consequence on their traditional roles: collections, research and teaching and public. Finally, the scope and range of what is generally understood as ‘academic heritage’ is broadening whilst university museums themselves are in a process of transition and re-orientation. 

Over the past decade, university museums and collections have witnessed an unprecedented attention. This is illustrated by the establishment of a growing number of advocacy groups, each with their own activities, conferences, workshops and publications, both at the national and the international level; at the latter level, UMAC and UNIVERSEUM are of particular significance. The Council of Europe adopted two important documents concerning university collections. The first document (1998–1375, Document 8111) focuses on the vulnerable position of ‘incidental collections’and recommends member countries to establish legislation and a general scheme to give assistance ‘[...]. when there is a demonstrated need for this’. The second document was a Recommendation, unanimously adopted by member-states (REC13–2005), addressing governments and university administrations on their responsibility regarding the governance and management of university heritage5; ‘heritage of universities’ is understood to encompass all tangible and intangible heritage related to higher education institutions.

These activities definitely contributed to a wider awareness and recognition of the scope and importance of the academic heritage. Simultaneously, those that are responsible for u-museums and collections become increasingly aware that they need to find answers on a range of questions related to the future of the basic missions of u-museums: care for collections, collection-based research and teaching and public display. These questions need to be dealt with taking into account the transitions within the professional world in which university museums perform their activities.

The aim of this paper is to identify these elements and to discuss the processes of change and adaptation to new requirements they are facing, leading to often purposely bleak, provocative and simplified, but essentially realistic assessments of their effects, as well as the possible consequences thereof for university museums and collections. I finally accept the challenge put forward by António Nóvoa, to point out some challenges and ambitions both universities and their museums may wish to develop.