Abstract

The proliferation of titles for types of museum has resulted in an adjectival explosion in recent years (with museums being engaging, relevant, professional, adaptive, community, national, universal, local, independent, people’s, children’s, scientific, natural history, labour, virtual, symbolic, connected, trust and charitable, amongst many other labels). This paper argues that the adoption of an organizational focus on bureaucratic features such as hierarchical authority, centralisation of power, functional specialisation and research processes can show commonalities in the understandings and challenges linked to museum function. The emphasis on museums as a specific institutional and organizational form allows for the identification and explanation of similarities and differences in their operational existence that extends beyond their particular individual natures. This also implies that the bureaucratic nature of museums has implications for researchers as they are organizations that reflect gender and power dynamics on a micro-level within the research process.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.