Download
1 / 14
140 likes | 260 Views
The Nottingham Natural History Peer Review 2004. Nottingham City Museums & Galleries. Natural History Peer Review 2004. What is a Peer Review? 2009 MLA Toolkit ‘Light Touch Peer Review’
E N D
The Nottingham Natural History Peer Review 2004 Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • What is a Peer Review? • 2009 MLA Toolkit ‘Light Touch Peer Review’ • A peer review allows a team of people who understand the pressures and challenges of running museums, libraries and archives to review practices of your service in a challenging but supportive way. This process allows a constructive discussion of your strengths and weakness and provides recommendations of how improvements can be made.’ Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • Why was a review needed at Wollaton Hall? • Conservation Plan – collections assessment • 1st Phase of development for Wollaton Hall – Interpretation Strategy • To inform future work on the collection • A natural follow on from the collections audit • To inform the Disaster Plan • Funding identified Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • Creating a Brief • Background information • Defining the link between the collections, the hall and the surrounding park • Defining the collections into groups • Collections Significance • Collections Strengths & Weaknesses – documentation, degree of duplication, physical condition, storage environment and materials, degree of completeness • Evidence of demand – enquiries, display/loan requests, % time spent on display • Not covered – Biological recording Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 Object Groupings: Mineralogy & Petrology Botany Palaeontology Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 Object Groupings: Mammalogy & Ornithology Entomology Invertebrates Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 Object Groupings: Fish & Reptiles Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • Selection of Reviewers • The Natural History Museum • 3 price options offered - mid range selected • 7 staff, on site for 3 days • Keepers, Registrar, Conservator and Service Manger in attendance • Follow up meeting with Service Manager post report Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • The Natural History Museum Report • The study Recommends: • The matrix scores should not be taken out of context • Biological specimens are not duplicates • Better documentation of ‘use’ of collections • The association between the collections, hall and park should be retained • Most of the stores are poor – environmental controls, pests, storage furniture, rationalisation required, Vapona removal Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • The Natural History Museum Report • The study Recommends: • Mounted fish, birds and mammal specimens should be the focus of new public displays • Earth Sciences well curated Life Sciences poorer – possible NHM input • Relatively little material is suitable for disposal • Specimens without data are of little value • Modest expansion suggested • Interpretation Policy required to promote the value of the collection – What stories can they tell? Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • The Natural History Museum Report • Development of the collection: • Palaeontology – Good example of a provincial museum collection, regional research collection • Mineralogy – Some disposal, regional study collection • Botany – Some regional and some of national importance, no collecting until storage improved • Entomology – Some of regional and some of national importance, re-housing a priority • Vertebrates – Very fine collection of taxidermy which should be displayed, egg and hornbill skulls of significance • Invertebrates – Haphazard collecting requires more local and regional representation Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • The Natural History Museum Report • Anticipated Collection Expansion: • Think about quality, focus, relevance and housing any new collections • Palaeontology: Some gap filling, one new cabinet in next 5 years • Mineralogy: 10% disposal to balance any gap filling • Botany: Re-housing, 2-3 new cupboards in next 5 years • Entomology: Major re-housing project 26 cubic meters required • Vertebrates: More material on display • Invertebrates: Some re-housing, modest gap filling Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • Outcomes of the Peer Review • Higher profile for the collections • Interpretation Policy amended • Old display areas retained and added to with the ‘Natural Connections’ Gallery and park interpretation gallery in the Wollaton Courtyard • Basic storage improvements • Curatorial focus on areas highlighted by the report • Greater focus on public events linked to the collections Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
Natural History Peer Review 2004 • Outstanding Issues • Storage fragmentation • Office relocation • Reduction in resources Nottingham City Museums & Galleries
