Community Museum Governance: the (Re)Definition of Sectoral Representation and Policy Instruments in Ontario
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Community Museum Governance: The (Re)Definition of Sectoral Representation and Policy Instruments in Ontario Robin Nelson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Philosophy degree in Public Administration School of Political Studies Faculty of Social Science University of Ottawa © Robin Nelson, Ottawa, Canada, 2021 ii Nelson Abstract Research on museum policy often focuses on provincial or national museums, which are typically government agencies. These institutions are directly accountable to government and have an articulated role in an explicit federal or provincial museum policy. However, most Canadian museums are community museums – that is, nonprofit or municipal museums that collect and interpret locally relevant materials and have public programs targeting the community in which they are based. Community museums’ relationships with government(s) differ due to their legal structures (municipal, nonprofit), relatively small budgets, and limited number of staff. Within museum policy, community museums are distinct because they lack a direct relationship with a provincial or national government. Yet, in Canada, all levels of government are involved in their governance through regulatory and supportive activities. In particular, provincial governments have included community museums in museum policies, which tend to focus on professionalization, standards of operation, and simplifying access to resources. In other words, policies targeting community museums often subject them to norms, aiming to establish parameters and best practices for their operations. These actions seek to define and shape community museums, which raises the question: how are these policies (re)created, (re)assembled, and coordinated? Using archival research and interviews, this thesis documents community museum governance in Ontario, where provincial museum advisors and associations emerged as museum professionals embedded in policy development and implementation in the 1950s. Considering the advisors and associations’ service delivery and advocacy activities, actor-network theory (ANT) is used to discuss their work assembling and coordinating policy for Ontario’s community museums. Their work distinguishes community museum governance from the governance of national or provincial institutions because they define and establish norms, contribute to change in governance, and enact ongoing change as they (re)assemble resources for community museums. The advisors and associations have facilitated relationships between museums and actors related to museums’ work as educational institutions, sites of local action, tourism operators, agents of social change, and collecting institutions, resulting in multiple configurations of actors supporting and regulating museum activities. This thesis has found the advisors and associations historically worked for a museum community to address its needs, resulting in written policy and museums’ inclusion in government instruments. These established instruments have, to some extent, reduced the need for ongoing advocacy by targeting museums with a clear objective and normalizing museums’ participation in policy areas outside of culture. However, these instruments also reflect and reinforce historic inequities in community museum governance, privileging municipal museums with historic access to provincial support and, as a result, the capacity to advocate for their own interest through an association. Responding to growing government disinterest, the provincial museum association has refocused its efforts from defining a community in need to defining a sector that contributes to society and the economy through partnerships that can address diverse policy objectives. Keywords: community museums, policy translation, cultural policy, sociology of translation, subnational iii Nelson Acknowledgements I only completed my thesis because of the support and help I received. First and foremost, I would like to thank the research participants without whom the research would not have been possible. Members of the Ontario museum community were generous with their time and ideas. I would like to thank my friends and family for their patience. Jason, Riley, and Giles, in particular, made this process a little more bearable. I would like to acknowledge the support I received from my colleagues who helped keep me on track. The Thesez-Vous writing retreats gave me the motivation I needed to write. Chris provided some invaluable guidance and an ear when I needed. Most importantly, I would like to thank my committee for being an understanding and important resource. My advisor, Jonathan Paquette, was patient, wise, and a friend, ensuring I was able to write and submit during quarantimes. Jennifer Wallner and Christian Rouillard were great teachers that provided important advice. Eric Champagne and Stephen Boyle provided invaluable comments. Thank you. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my funders. This research was made possible due to funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council as well as the University of Ottawa. iv Nelson Table of Contents ABSTRACT II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III TABLE OF CONTENTS IV LIST OF TABLES VIII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IX INTRODUCTION 1 Community Museums in Canada: A Distinct Area of Study 1 Community Museum Governance: The Study of Cultural and Museum Policy 7 Dissertation Outline 10 CHAPTER ONE COMMUNITY MUSEUM AND POLICY: LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH PROBLEM 18 1.1 Introduction 18 1.2 Museum Policy: Defining the Object, Conceptualizing Change 22 1.2.1 Institutionalist Tales of Origins: Museum Policy as a Sub-Sectoral Policy 22 1.2.2 Shifting Discourses: Museum Policy and Museums as Policy Instruments 27 1.2.3 Networks: Museum Policy as a Social and Ideational Process 33 1.3 Community Museums: The Problem of Simplification 36 1.4 The Case Study: Ontario Museum Policy 38 1.5 Conclusion: Research Question 43 CHAPTER TWO MUSEUM POLICY AS TRANSLATION: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 45 2.1 Introduction 45 2.2 Policy Translation: Policy Through an ANT and Sociology of Translation Lens 46 2.2.1 Actor-Network Theory and the Sociology of Translation 46 2.2.2 Policy Translation 51 2.2.3 Policy Instrumentation: Agency within Structure 58 2.3 Conclusions: A Theoretical Framework 63 v Nelson CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH: THEORY INFORMED DESIGN 65 3.1 Introduction 65 3.2 Theory Informed Design 65 3.3 Methods and Data 69 3.3.1 Actors 69 3.3.2 Interviews 72 3.3.2.1 Interview Participants 72 3.3.2.2 Interview Procedures 74 3.3.3 Data Collection: Assembling Non-Human Actors and Intermediaries 75 3.3.4 Data Analysis and Writing 77 3.4 Conclusion: Limitations 80 CHAPTER FOUR THE EVOLUTION OF MUSEUM GOVERNANCE: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 81 4.1 Introduction 81 4.2 The Evolution of Museum Governance: From Museum to Heritage to Cultural Policy 83 4.2.1 Development and Encouragement: Development through Local Initiative, Encouragement through the OHS (1880s - 1953) 83 4.2.2 Unwritten and Enthusiastic: Unwritten Policies, Enthusiastic Governance (1953 – 1978) 84 4.2.2.1 1950s and 1960s 86 4.2.2.2 1970s 89 4.2.3 Quality and Accountability: Quality through Policy, Accountability with Standards (1978-1990) 99 4.2.4 Uncertainty and Disinterest: Uncertain Museum Communities, Disinterested Governments (1990 - ) 105 4.2.4.1 Museum Policy 106 4.2.4.2 Cultural Policy 114 4.3 Unpacking Museum Governance 119 4.3.1 Explaining Moments of Change 120 4.3.2 Governance as Ongoing Change 126 4.4 Conclusion: The Advantages and Problems of Simplification 130 CHAPTER FIVE THE WORK OF GOVERNING: TRANSLATION ACTIVITIES 133 5.1 Introduction 133 5.2 Translating Museum Governance: Constructing, Enacting, and Serving a Community 136 5.2.1 Representing the Community/Sector: Constructing a Shared Meaning 138 5.2.1.1 The Standards and Associated Tools: Actors Enrolling Persisting Definitions 142 5.2.1.2 From Community Need to Sectoral Accomplishment: Museums 2025 162 vi Nelson 5.2.2 Serving the Museum Community: Providing Responsive Assistance and Enacting Community 171 5.2.2.1 The Advisors and Regional Consultants: A Changing Advisory Role 173 5.2.2.2 The OMA and Regional Museum Networks: Training as a Community Building Role 188 5.2.2.3 The OHS: Capacity Building 198 5.3 Different Roles and Resulting Power Dynamics: Defining the Advisors and Associations through their Relationships 201 5.3.1 The Advisors’ Dual Identity: Empowered and Restricted through Provincial Definition 203 5.3.2 The Associations as Membership Organizations: Enabled and Restricted through Participation 212 5.4 Conclusion: A Hierarchy of Community Museums 223 CHAPTER SIX LEGITIMIZING SUPPORT: PROBLEMATIZATIONS IN MOBILIZED MUSEUM GOVERNANCE 226 6.1 Introduction 226 6.2 Legitimizing Museum Work and Rationalizing Support 228 6.2.1 Museums as Educational 230 6.2.2 Museums as Local Action 238 6.2.3 Museums as Tourist Assets 244 6.2.4 Museums as Agents of Social Change 251 6.2.5 Museums as Inherently Valuable 257 6.3 The Evolving Logic of Governance 262 6.3.1 Governance Across Actors 264 6.3.2 Governance Across Territory 269 6.3.3 Governance Across Time 279 6.4 Conclusion: Shifting Perspectives 289 CONCLUSION 294 Summary 295 Research Implications 301 A Complex Web of Action, A Weak Base of Support 302 Standards, Museums and Other Instruments 305 Power and Community Museums 308 Future Research 310 BIBLIOGRAPHY 312 Primary Sources 312 Acts and Regulations 312 Ontario 312 Other Government Publications 313 Canada 313 vii Nelson Ontario 314 Municipal