Claims and Reality of New Museology: Case Studies in Canada, the United States and Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In my work, I like to go back to the source, and I love those moments when we come across historical documents that prefigure, spark or express ideas very similar to those we are developing now, with the sense of breaking new ground... Suddenly we’re not alone anymore. In fact, we’re in good company. This doctoral dissertation, originally published in 1988, could almost be considered a historical document today. I reread the opening sentence: a 1985 quote from Hugues de Varine on the museum as a perfect tool for social transformation. Decades have since gone by. New museology has become sociomuseology and various other kinds of community-oriented museologies: participative, collaborative, relational, engaged, even activist… And yet the question of the social role of museums is timelier than ever, discussed and debated at all levels of contemporary museum practice. (…) For several years now, new museology has, in its current adaptations, experienced a significant revival. In many countries, museums are exploring and practicing participatory museologies in collaboration with their communities. These approaches are part of a great and ongoing societal transformation: the creation of a true cultural democracy based on the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion. Against the backdrop of shifting cultural and power relations, many museums are developing innovative approaches not only to reflect these new realities, but to become agents of change, involved in the construction of new social imaginaries that engage a plurality of voices. How can museums do more to contribute to social and cultural justice, economic development, individual and collective well-being and a sustainable future? What real impact can they have on individuals and communities? Can they change the world? The questions that have concerned me for so long are as resonant now as they were four decades ago. I hope this text will be “good company” for today’s museum professionals. Andrea Hauenschild
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".