For this class, I have already identified the subjects I am interested in researching. That is the problem, I have too many ideas and need to narrow them down into topics that are researchable in the amount of time we are given. The two main subjects I want to look into are museum ethics (with a specific case study on California missions), and the history of arts management in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. I tried to find two projects to review that fall within the two realms of my interest, museum ethics and the history of arts management. The latter (which of course I am more interested in) was not represented in the projects from previous years, so I focused on museum ethics for this assignment. From the projects that have come out of the museum studies group I picked A, Chahta sia: Reevaluating the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act by Mattie Reynolds, and Cultural Representation in Museums: Where are We Now? by Stephanie Harris.
I chose to review A, Chahta sia: Reevaluating the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act by Mattie Reynolds, because one of my interests is museum ethics, particularly the California missions and the treatment of Native Americans. My main topic would be the presentation of history at the missions and how this has not changed to adapt to new perspectives and acknowledgement of history.
Though the main research question is not in the form of an actual question, from the introduction and explanation of the paper, one can find the point of the project clearly outlined: “This capstone project will seek to identify and analyze the pervasive issues that complicate completion of NAGPRA repatriations in order to provide tribal representatives and institutions with a better understanding of the Act. For further development, a brief examination of the possibility of future collaborations developing out of NAGPRA interactions will be presented. The conclusion of this paper will present a number of recommendations that may help to mitigate delays.” The question that can be surmised from this statement is: What are the basic problems and issues with NAGPRA, and what can be suggested that would create a better understanding of the law?
Reynolds looks to answer her question with many different research techniques. Up front she introduces basic statistics about NAGPRA and relevant museum facts. She discusses the history of archaeology and its relationship with the various Native American cultures in the United States. She specifically touches on the checkered past between the U.S. government and its historical treatment of Native Americans and mismanagement of the archaeological remains (particularly actual bodies) from early and current research. Reynolds analyzes the actual text of NAGPRA, and goes into specific issues that have complicated the act of reparations, many specific law suits are used to illustrate this point. Another section of the paper goes over the basic methods behind the law and the “shifting paradigms” of the modern museum. The capstone project ends with the author giving her suggestions and explaining how they may help.
Reynolds chose to do a capstone project. Because of the description of a capstone, the author did at least some of her research by taking classes relating to the subject of the paper. There was also a fair bit of research into the law itself and law suits surrounding it. It is clear from the bibliography that lots of information was found through online resources, websites, articles, and books. A literature review is mentioned in the paper itself, giving more information on the type of research done for the capstone. I am also planning to do a capstone project, so the research methods are of particular interest to me.
The other paper I chose to review was Cultural Representation in Museums: Where are We Now? by Stephanie Harris. This aligns with my interest in general museum presentation, but also delves into museum ethics and how to represent a range of cultures that are all important and need to be interpreted and presented.
This paper has a very clear point, “The purpose of this paper is to explore the selected theories that guide museum professionals in interpreting and displaying everyday cultural objects.” Though it is not stated as a question, the author is looking at how cultures different from our own are displayed and explained in museums.
The paper begins with two personal experiences that lead directly to the subject of the paper and describe how and why the author is interested in interpretation in museums. The background section of the project goes over the way history of various types of museums and their interpretation and display of art and artifacts. Specifically history museums, natural history museums, and art museums. Within these sections are lots of text heavy quotations. These serve as examples and points of explanation. The conclusion of the paper gives suggestions for how to fix the various problems pointed out in the bulk of the paper.
The reference list is more than two pages long, so it is clear that lots of research was done. It seems that very little online research, besides locating articles, was done. Most of the research seems to be from books and written sources.
While my own research interests do not completely align with the two papers I have read for this assignment, they have helped me immensely. They have shown me the basic structures of capstone and research projects, and how people have approached similar subjects (of museum ethics) in different ways.