Territory Stories

Review of the Museum and Art Gallery services : a report to the Department of Community Development, Sport & Cultural Affairs

Details:

Title

Review of the Museum and Art Gallery services : a report to the Department of Community Development, Sport & Cultural Affairs

Other title

MAGNT Review December 2004 Morgan; Internal review of MAGNT. Final report March 2004

Creator

Morgan, Gary

Collection

E-Publications; E-Books; PublicationNT

Date

2004-12

Description

"This Review has looked at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory’s outputs relative to benchmark museum and art gallery activities and outputs around Australia and relative to international trends in museum practice. This Review has also considered possible service outcomes set against three funding scenarios." - Executive summary

Notes

This review was commissioned by Risk Management Services of the Department of the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, on behalf of the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. The review was put to Tender in October 2004, with the Tender awarded in November 2004. - Introduction; Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).

Table of contents

Executive summary -- Part A: Introduction - Background -- Outputs of this review. Part B: Outputs of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory - A comparison of the MAGNT outputs in activities of collection development and management, public programs and research relative to those of other state museums and galleries - A discussion of the MAGNT outputs relative to national and international trends in museums and galleries - A consideration of the scientific focus of the MAGNT in terms of a) its management and outcomes relative to other museums and b) its contribution to Northern Territory economic activity and Government programs - A comparison of per square metre exhibition costs at the MAGNT relative to other institutions - A comparison of the acquisition budget of the MAGNT relative to other institutions. Part C: Possible budget scenarios - A discussion of three budget scenarios for the MAGNT with their consequent service outcomes. Part D: Summary of recommendations. Part E: Sources and acknowledgements. Part F: Appendices 1-8

Language

English

Subject

Museums -- Northern Territory -- Public opinion; Museums -- Evaluation; Public relations -- Museums -- Northern Territory

Publisher name

Northern Territory Government

Place of publication

Darwin

Format

xviii, 124 pages ; 30 cm.

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Northern Territory Government

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/265558

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/457997

Related items

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/458000; https://hdl.handle.net/10070/457995

Page content

MAGNT Review December 2004 Morgan 50 favourably with university outputs on a per staff member basis. This is an admittedly rough guide to research achievement but it is of some use. There are few other measures that have been used for such comparisons. Box 17 tabulates the publication output of science staff at the MAGNT against the outputs of several other Australian natural science museums. The Australian Museum has the reputation of being the most productive natural science research museum in this country and has the largest science staff. The Natural History Museum London is included for comparison. As a measure of scholarly output the Consultant has attempted to compare publications in refereed or similarly robust professional publications. Several years are tabulated for the MAGNT set against the eight research staff. (Note: research associates are excluded). This may be seen as a type of productivity ratio. Where a paper has two or more staff as authors, it is assigned as a publication to each of the authors (in accord with Travers et al, 2003). The figures must be read recognising that there is a degree of arbitrariness in this assessment and different museums report their publication output in somewhat different ways. Box 17. Comparison of scientific publication output (average number of refereed research articles per research staff member) at several large Australian natural science museums and the Natural History Museum (London) MAGNT1 WAM2 MV2 AM2 NHM3 UK Us3 Refereed scientific publications 2000/01: 2.00 2001/02: 2.13 2002/03: 2.13 2003/04: 1.00 2003/04: 2.77 2002/03: 2.21 2000/01:2.14 2000: 2.73 2000: 1.13 WAM: Western Australian Museum NHM: Natural History Museum (London) MV: Museum Victoria AM: Australian Museum UK Us: UK universities average Sources: 1. Inhouse records of the MAGNT (based on eight research staff including the Assistant Director) 2. Annual reports 3. Travers et al (2003) The Australian Museum figures are based on an assumption that about half of the museums science staff are active researchers (the remainder being technical staff). From Box 17, it can be seen that the MAGNT performs at a level roughly comparable to or perhaps somewhat lower than other large natural science museums in terms of published scientific scholarship. The average publication rate dropped in 2003/04 but in preceding years was at a level only slightly below that at the Natural History Museum for 2000. The NHM is one of the top four natural science museums in the world and by the standards of Australian museums, extremely well resourced for its research activities. Box 17 does not include consideration of publications by research associates as calculating a productivity ratio would not be valid unless one averaged publications across all associates. Nonetheless, output by associates is an important part of the scientific productivity of museums. In 2003/04, staff of the MAGNT produced eight scientific publications, the lowest number for some time. In the same year, associates