Museum Systems in Italy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MUSEUM SYSTEMS IN ITALY National Interest September 2013 Research conducted by the IULM University – Milan (Università di Lingue e Comunicazione) for Aspen Institute Italia This work presents the results of a study conducted by the IULM for Aspen Institute Italia between September 2012 and July 2013 on the subject of museum systems. The overall aim of the research undertaken was to assess the state of play as regards Italian museum systems by examining a number of case studies of such groupings considered significant by museum operators themselves. © Aspen Institute Italia 1. Introduction The integration of museums into “system-type” networks is an increasingly common organizational form adopted by museum operators with a view to reaping significant benefits, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, in a culture market that is becoming more and more demanding and challenging, especially for smaller operators (Pencarelli and Splendiani, 2011). A “museum system“ is a particular kind of “museum network“. While “museum network“ refers to a non-specific grouping of museums which, through various forms of interaction, seek to improve their activities and performance, use of the more restrictive term “museum system“ entails that the network has its own structure, well-defined rules and fixed objectives. The phenomenon, which emerged in the 1990s (Bagdadli, 2001), is assuming ever greater significance in Italy, thus necessitating a careful consideration of its working dynamics – such as the ways in which it engages participating museums, their visitors and the local area in which they are situated – as well as its effectiveness in terms of virtuous impacts on the local community in its broadest sense (Santagata, 2000; Valentino, 2003). The study was confined to local area-based systems, that is to say, networks of museums belonging to the same locality. It does not cover systems grouped on a thematic basis, comprising museums focused on the same subject matter, and excludes systems that are the product of top- down planning models, such as the so-called Poli museali (or museum consortiums). The decision to adopt systems that are local area-based in part stems from the assumption that the preservation and enhancement of the cultural heritage of a specific geographical area can contribute to the socio-economic development of the relevant locality (Centro Studi TCI, 2000). 2. Research methodology The research was conducted in several stages, over a period of around 10 months. Stage 1. Analysis of the literature on the subject This phase took place during the first two months of the project. The working group examined the existing body of learning on the subject of museum networks and systems with the aim of identifying the issues that run through the literature in this field. In particular, from a reading of essays, conference proceedings and research articles, the following areas of inquiry emerged (the relationships between which are illustrated in Figure 1 below): the forces driving the formation of museum systems; the purpose of collaboration between museums; the structure of museum systems; the results achieved through collaboration; and the factors which facilitate and impede the functioning of museum systems. © Aspen Institute Italia | National Interest | Museum systems in Italy 2 Figure 1. Research areas identified For each research area, questions were drawn up to be put to those heading up Italian museum systems. The set of questions was incorporated into a questionnaire, which then became the main data collection tool. Stage 2. Identification of the most research-worthy cases and possible subjects for interview The second phase of the project mainly occupied the first three months of work, although it also carried over into the next two months. It was conducted in two steps. Firstly, in order to identify an initial group of cases worthy of study, several experts in the field, academics and operatives were contacted, and sources examined during the previous stage were consulted. After putting together an initial list of cases of museum systems, in the second step those in charge of these systems were contacted, not just to gauge their willingness to be interviewed, but also to expand the list with further cases in line with a “snowball“ methodology (David and Morgan, 2008). In other words, museum system managers suggested the names of colleagues whose experience could be of potential interest to the research. Cases were added to the final list when the names suggested by museum system managers coincided. The cases chosen for study were therefore the following: 1. the Turin Museums Foundation (Torino Musei); 2. the Lecco Provincial Museum System (Sistema Museale della Provincia di Lecco); 3. the Mantua Provincial Museum System (Sistema Museale della Provincia di Mantova); 4. the Valtellina Museum System (Sistema Museale Valtellina); 5. the Rovigo Provincial Museum System (Sistema Museale Provinciale Polesine); 6. the Bergbaumuseum (a network of mining museums in the Province of Bolzano); 7. the Museums of Maremma (Musei di Maremma); 8. Carnia Museums (Carnia Musei); 9. the Sienese Museums Foundation (Musei Senesi); © Aspen Institute Italia | National Interest | Museum systems in Italy 3 10. the Ravenna Provincial Museum System (Sistema Museale della Provincia di Ravenna); 11. Piceno Museums (Musei Piceni); 12. the Umbrian Museum System (Sistema Museale dell’Umbria); and 13. the Castelli Romani e Prenestini Mountain Community Museum System (Sistema Museale Territoriale dei Castelli Romani e Prenestini). As made evident by the list and Figure 2 below, these cases “cover“ most of Italy’s central and northern regions, where the phenomenon of museum systems has so far emerged most strongly. Figure 2. The geographical coverage of the research (the figures indicate the number of cases studied within a given region) Stage 3. Data collection This phase took place in the fourth, fifth and sixth months of the research. Museum system managers were interviewed using the previously developed questionnaire in order to collect information directly from those in charge of running the cases under study. The questionnaire included “open” questions, where interviewees were free to respond in a manner and time that suited them best, and “closed“ multiple choice questions, where their opinions were to be expressed by rating on a scale of 1 to 5. The interviewees demonstrated great willingness to respond on all areas of research interest and to provide possible further sources of information. Hence, in addition to primary sources, secondary sources were also used to collect data, thereby enabling a greater understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon (Bailey, 1982). These additional sources included websites, publications by the museum systems, management reports, proceedings of conferences in which museum systems managers had taken part, and printed brochures. The data gathered was then tabulated. It is stressed that the closed questions were not used with the aim of developing quantitative indicators on which to base statistically reliable conclusions, but rather to prompt conversation with interviewees on topics of interest. © Aspen Institute Italia | National Interest | Museum systems in Italy 4 Stages 4 and 5. Analysis of the data and preparation of this report After all the data was collected, it was analyzed in the course of the seventh to ninth months of the study. The analysis produced a simple but comprehensive snapshot of the state of play of Italian museum systems with respect to the five areas of inquiry. Below we describe the case studies and present the results of the data analysis under the different areas of inquiry. As previously noted, the bar graphs represent the mean values of the responses to closed questions and have been prepared solely as a quick aid to interpreting the results that emerged from the more extensive conversations held with the heads of museum systems. 3. The case studies The museum systems identified are locally-based groupings. In other words, what the museums that join the systems studied have in common is the fact that they are located in the same geographical area. Only in one instance did the museums in question share a common thematic focus in addition to being in the same geographic area; this was the case of the mining museums system in the Province of Bolzano, which may arguably be considered a museum district (Sibilio Parri, 2004). It is considered important to draw attention to this point given that, though falling outside the scope of this research, significant examples exist of museum networks and systems that are linked exclusively on a thematic basis (as is the case with the Museums of Industry – or Musei d’Impresa – and Diocesan Museums). The case studies relate to museum systems developed largely at the provincial level, in addition to the municipal-level system in Turin, the inter-municipal Musei Piceni, the regional museum system in Umbria and two cases of networks developed within self-governing alpine communities (or comunità montane: Carnia and Castelli Romani e Prenestini). The cases studied by the working group varied widely in terms of how long they have existed and their size, as illustrated in Figure 3. In respect of the former, the cases studied ranged from recently-established systems (such as the Rovigo Provincial Museums) to systems that came into being as much as 25 years ago (such as Carnia Museums). In terms of their size, the group of cases includes both systems comprising a few museums (such as that in Turin, composed of four museums) and networks encompassing dozens of museums (such as that in Umbria, which incorporates over 100 museums). The sample of cases chosen therefore guaranteed a level of heterogeneity sufficient to ensure that the empirical data was as representative as possible of museum systems found throughout Italy (Eisenhardt, 1989). © Aspen Institute Italia | National Interest | Museum systems in Italy 5 Figure 3. Size and time in existence of the cases studied Below we describe each of the cases briefly, focusing on how they have developed.