SSRN Id4241212

ed
v iew
Locating and Designing Participatory Conservation in the Museum:
re
an analysis of Chinese practices.
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4241212
ABSTRACT
ed
With rich cultural heritage resources, there are increasing expectations and demands
about engaging the public with conservation in China. This thesis intends to
iew
demonstrate the participatory conservation practices that can be enlightening for
museum visitors.
This paper focuses on the cases of Chinese practices at the Shaanxi History
v
Museum and the Hainan Museum. It explores the aims, design and location of the
re
conservation labs in each setting, and seeks to unpack the physical, intellectual and
authority boundaries in this engagement space. The research builds upon the
analyses of semi-structured interviews with professionals, individual observations of

er
the two case study spaces, and a wide ranging literature review covering
pe
participation, museum space, museology and conservation.
The thesis concludes that participatory conservation provides great opportunity and
insights to meet audiences’ curiosity. This is achieved by opening the professional

ot
intellectual space to the public and inspiring people’s critical thinking together with
their passion to care about cultural heritage. The thesis evidences how both Chinese
tn
and European museums care about the visiting experience of audiences and
conservation outreach. However, it argues how Chinese museums might be seen to

rin
give attention to the security of objects – in terms of having more original work in
areas open to the public. Whereas, in contrast, European museums there is a focus
ep
on communicating, interpreting and sharing the process of engaging audiences.

Pr
ed
v iew
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
ed
Introduction
iew
The existing literature around museology and the theory of conservation has
explored the relationship between space, practice and society. Research advances
v
have altered concepts about the role of contemporary museums and conservation.
re
Similarly, several conferences (see ‘Catch-22’, 2009; University of York, 2014) have
discussed and framed the concept of the public face of conservation and how to
engage audiences with conservation in different spaces. More recently, cooperation

er
and communication have occurred between European countries and China (ICON,
pe
2018). Terms central to this paper, ‘boundaries’, ‘communicating’ and
‘understanding’, are key touchstones in the vocabulary of contemporary museology,
in addition to conservation principles and practices.

ot
Research Context
tn
A review of the current literature shows that engagement between conservation and
the public has proven successful in the UK and USA (via a visual conservation lab,
workshops and tour guides). This has been acknowledged in various initiatives, e.g.
rin
the conservation exhibition at the British Museum (Morris, 2008; Drago, 2011). The
conservation galleries at the Ashmolean Museum (Koutromanou, 2015) and more

ep
successful examples are detailed in books by Williams (2013) and Owczarek (2017).
However, there are fewer sources from museum studies or conservation studies to
Pr
explain how participatory conservation might work and benefit the disciplines that
have prompted the development. Furthermore, there has been scant literature about
engaging conservation over the past 100 years (Caple, 2019). Only two anthologies
ed
of articles have been published (see Williams, 2013 and Owczarek, 2017).
Within the relevant research is a MPhil dissertation (Koutromanou, 2015). Its focus is
iew
assessing the impact of a conservation engagement event (conservation display) on
audiences in a museum. It makes a valuable contribution on the comparison of four
cases, collecting and evaluating the outcomes of visiting experiences. However, that
v
research only refers the cases in the UK context, concentrating on the response from
visitors, and does not mention the professionals’ perspective or explore the
re
engagement space. Given this, there is a literature gap about the relation between
the public and professionals in this scenario, specifically in respect of unpacking the
er
boundaries. This would seem to be the essential part to understand the
contemporary conservation role in society, since it may challenge and enhance the
pe
current nature of conservation. Hence, beyond the mere conservation performance,
moving a conservation lab into a museum’s exhibition space, the following crucial
question should be considered: where are the boundaries between professions and
ot
audiences in the conservation display? Specifically, the boundaries refer to three

tn
parts: the physical space; intellectual space and the range of sharing authority.
Aim and objective of this thesis

rin
This research seeks to unpack the public conservation space in the Chinese
museum context. Since most of the existing literature is from western cultures, this
ep
thesis endeavours to contribute more insights and knowledge for visible conservation
space to framework the Chinese participatory conservation design and location in
the museology context. To achieve this, it addresses the aim to further advance our
Pr
recognition, ethics, and the manner of conservation.
Methodological approach
ed
The purpose of this thesis is to analyse and clarify the boundaries of professionals
and audiences. This is done to explore the physical and intellectual boundaries in
iew
addition to how authority is shared with the public and to what levels. To do this, two
cases (Shaanxi History Museum and Hainan Museum) are the research samples to
find unique materials and first-hand viewpoints. As such, I decided to approach the
v
research using the following qualitative methods:
re
 Observing the physical space of conservation display in each museum
 Semi-structured interviews with conservators involved with the conservation
display in the public spaces of each museum

er
According to Bell (2010, p. 8) the case study approach can be “particularly
pe
appropriate for individual research because it provides an opportunity for one aspect
of a problem to be studied in some depth”. Whilst it could be argued that quantitative
research should be considered in this research through surveying audiences, due to

ot
the practical limitations of time and a word count, the chosen focus has been on
qualitative research.
tn
Semi-structured interviews
rin
A face-to-face semi-structured interview was conducted with a participant in the
Shaanxi History Museum. The interviewee was a member of staff in the conservation
department, who has been involved in designing and managing the conservation
ep
display and is a senior conservator (Xuan Lu). The interview lasted for 45 minutes.
Pr
The second interview was also a face-to-face semi-structured interview with a
ed
conservator (Chunlei Bao) from the conservation department at the Hainan Museum,
who has responsibility for the space. This was a 30-minute interview.
iew
The third interview was with senior conservator Peichen Zhang from the Shanghai
Museum, who currently is working to a timetable to build a public conservation lab.
This was a 15-minute interview.
v
The reason for choosing semi-structured interviews is that the participants are
re
professionals as well as the author’s peers. Furthermore, they have rich experience
in the realm of conservation display. Bloomberg and Volpe (2016, p.154) considered
that interviews provide ‘‘rich description’’. In addition, this process provided more
er
professional steps to connect with my research and allowed respondents more
pe
freedom to share their experience, insights and lessons.
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
Theoretical context
ed
iew
To address the thesis topic, it is necessary to broadly draw on literature across
disciplines including sociology, museum studies, conservation studies, science
v
studies and anthropology. This will enable building the wider picture of conservation
re
display and engaging conservation. This chapter has three threads from which
theory and insights might be woven. Firstly, it is necessary to understand where

er
these places are (museum space as public area where create knowledge).
Secondly, understanding who these spaces are for (museum space engages
pe
audience) is required. Finally, this work seeks to understand the purpose of the
spaces (exploring the principle of conservation and conservation outreach). This is to
demonstrate it to be a vital and emerging topic for both conservation studies and
ot
museum studies.
tn
Understanding public and space
It is stated by Szczepanowska (2013) that a museum is a physical space for

rin
collections and archaeological specimens, and that the architecture layout organizes
spatial relationships among galleries, objects and visitors. All these affect the visit
experience (Tzortzi, 2015) and the curator’s vision (Hooper-Greenhill,1990).

ep
Museum architecture makes art accessible and understandable, which is considered
a critical tool (Los, 2002), since it offers congregant spaces in a community, to make
Pr
the space more sensitive, which forms a specific welcome for visitors (Gurian, 2005).
Museums are a “permanent institution in the service of society […] open to public
ed
[…]’’ (ICOM, 2007), and are like public institutions (Anderson, 2004). There can be
multiple meanings of ‘public’ in the context of museums, such as individuals visiting
the physical space or an online site (Barrett, 2010). In Habermas’ (1989) theory, the
iew
Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere stated that public discourse forms the
public sphere, and is often used with public space; this theory has been used in
museum studies (Barrett, 2010). Specifically, a museum is an important space for
v
discussing, constructing and contesting ideas (Ashley, 2015) and a place for public
re
discourse (Barrett, 2010).
The specific forms of architectural space concern social or public life (Barrett, 2010).
er
McClellan (2008) argues that a museum’s space is not a physical space but the
idealism of the museum. Referring to Auge’s (2000) argument, if the place is not
pe
concerned with identity and defined as relational or historical, it is a non-place. In
fact, the museum creates a social space where people interact and learn public
interaction (Bradburne, 1999). Lefebvre (1991, p.26) states that ‘‘(social) space is a
ot
(social) product’’; in the context of museums, the architecture of the museum is a

tn
social product (Macleod, 2005), and a social term (Bradburne, 1999). The
characteristic of a museum’s space is considered as constituting, reproducing and
reinforcing the social inequalities in the context of culture and sociology (Sandell,
rin
2005).
In the book chapter entitled “‘Museum, Heritage and Indigenous Voice: Decolonizing
ep
Engagement, the ‘Engagement Zone’”, Onicul (2015, p.73) defined and
conceptualised the museum space as the concept of ‘engagement zones’, which is a

Pr
physical and conceptual space where participants can interact in an unpredictable
process to share, debate and cooperate. The zones are temporal, flexible and
movable, depending on the individual participants who are involved, as are the
ed
parameters of the space. In the participating area, power fluctuations are constantly
being sought. Furthermore, consensus and exchange are not predetermined or
static, but within the scope of interaction, there may be conflicts, compromises and
iew
consensus. Participants constantly discuss the rules of exchange in addition to
challenging and debating both power and authority (Onicul, 2015). Cultural concepts,
such as professional knowledge, customary boundaries and hierarchies, are
v
questioned and negotiated, and can change the role and status of individuals in the
re
region. In addition, the zones are described as ‘semi-private and semi-public’, it is
the ‘in-between’ spaces (Bhabha, 1994, p.2), the space where ‘on stage and off
er
stage’ (Shryock, 2004) culture can be discussed and shared. As such, the
boundaries between professionals and the public are blurred, leading to a so-called
pe
temporary boundary crossing. In addition, Onciul (2015) stated that the boundary
between internal and external personnel is blurred, and a temporary boundary
crossing is enabled, with some participants having described the sense of risk
ot
caused by withdrawing from traditional roles and crossing the boundaries of these
areas.
tn
Understanding space and engagement

rin
A significant relationship shift has occurred between museums and audiences. It
used to be a simple relationship, with the museum as the uncontested authority that
would explore the value of collections for society. However, participation in museums
ep
is democratising museum experiences, leading to cultural and social changes within
the industry, and more socially inclusive opportunities. As such, it will facilitate
Pr
understanding the specific museum engagement of conservation display, by
rethinking the framework, cooperation and participation of museum practice.
10
From these benefits, the diversity of audiences and voices is likely to be greater,
ed
thereby improving the relevance of the museum and fulfilling its social
responsibilities (Fleming, 2013). This transfer means that currently the public will
express their own thoughts, thus contributing to museum activities (Lang & Reeve,
iew
2007). For instance, museum professionals have increasingly accepted that the
external participant was involved in the museum exhibition development when there
was a shift from only exhibiting objects to organizing public participation (Parry,
v
2007; Lynch, 2011).
re
How the public will be considered, treated and engaged in museum contexts is
discussed in the book The Participatory Museum. Simon (2010) summarises the
er
models of participation in museums as contributory, collaborative, co-creative and
host. Furthermore, Simon (2010) claims that the relevance and accessibility of an
pe
institution can be improved by participation via audiences having individual support
when visiting a museum, together with the exhibitions, programme and design
approach being informed and stimulated through contact with the public. Coghlan
ot
(2018) supports Simon’s (2010) argument, claiming that the application of

tn
participation and democratization in museums mean they share the authority and
power with public. This is not only by leaving comments but it acknowledges the
benefits from participation and enables the museum to transcend the words in its
rin
mission statement, thus subverting the typical power relationship to become more
democratic in practice and more relevant to a democratic society. Coghlan (2018)

ep
further argues that there are two approaches to democratising museums. These are,
visitors owning the power to give a voice in interpretation and being involving in the
Pr
aspect of political processes.
11
Specific literature on museum practices shows that there are cases of a studio in a
ed
museum (Wood, 2005), a museum theatre (Hughes, Jackson & Kidd, 2007), a
science centre (Bandelli, Konijn & Willems, 2009) and this paper’s theme of having a
conservation lab in a museum (Brook, 2011). Morgan’s (2011) research on moving a
iew
university research lab into a museum and opening the accessibility to the public,
aims to encourage audiences to understand scientific research. It focuses on the
changes in the laboratory through this relocation, that is, the transformation of its
v
social and physical structure. The laboratory in the museum not only represents,
re
displays and explains a special type of space in the laboratory, but also aims to
create space for dialogue and discussion between researchers and visitors.
er
Significantly, Morgan (2011) identified that there is a boundary between science
activity in a private lab and a public one in a museum. This is because not everything
pe
undertaken by scientists is visible or shared with the public. This highlighted that it
can not only promote the transition from a public understanding of science to a public
understanding of research (now a popular argument in science museums and many

ot
academic works), but it may also promote a ‘critical understanding of research

tn
politics’ (Morgan, 2011, p.268). The conclusion by Morgan (2011, p.269) was that ‘it
will not eliminate cognitive distance by such limiting engagement with audience in
the open space (science lab) in museum context’. In that research and analysing the
rin
example that exhibiting is like a ‘photographic approach’, the display is bounded,
glass-covered, to be viewed (never touched)’ (Jenkins, 1994). Furthermore, the key

ep
issue is to find a balance between establishing an unrestricted space to reduce the
distance between professionals and the public, together with opening a private
Pr
space for public viewing and public debate, in addition to ensuring that the
environment is suitable for legal, production and powerful knowledge production. The
12
key solution is to balance, then to establish a less restricted space to reduce the
ed
boundary between professionals and the public and to set a space for the public to
observe and debate, ensuring that the space meets the legal requirements for
generating knowledge (Morgan, 2011).
iew
Understanding the public face of conservation
After discussing and understanding the relation between the public, space and
v
engagement, next this work will set the concept of conservation in this context to
re
unpack the theme in terms of the concept’s complexity. The definition of
conservation has been to keep the stabilisation of the object or specimen (ICOM,
2006) as a museum’s function (ICOM, 2007). In addition, the argument from Sully
er
(2007) is that conservation is a complicated and continuous approach to define the
pe
heritage and a key aspect of a museum is defining and sustaining culture (Cane,
2009). In terms of conservation practices, it has been stated that there is ‘technical
investigation, preservation and conservation-restoration for cultural property’ (ICOM-

ot
CC, 1984). Furthermore, ‘Conservation is the means by which the true nature of an
object is preserved.’ (UKIC, 1983, p.2). However, Bracker and Richmond (2009)
tn
argued that the definition of what conservation is may not have consensus, because
of the diverse materials and object styles from the diversity of contexts attributed to
rin
the theory of conservation. In addition, the conservation approach is not only to bring
the materials of objects to the next generation, but is also a complicated techno-
cultural practice with a powerful and retroactive influence on the objects and theme
ep
(Hölling, 2017).
However, it is argued by Lithgow (2015) that nowadays, conservation is not only

Pr
about heritage but also concentrates on how people obtain benefit during the
13
process. There is a scientific paradigm of conservation in a model that embraces the
ed
interests of people (Lithgow, 2015, p.57). ‘Conservation in an era of participation’
(Marçal, 2017, p.97). It has broadly involved a huge range of community participants
(Pearlstein, 2017), who need to be understood by the public and policymakers not
iew
just as a fixed entity, but as a method of creating culture (Brook, 2011).
Lithgow (2015) draws several conclusions that the key messages communicated to
v
the public are the full significance of heritage with the conservation scientific analysis
and research. Given this, it is considered to both utilize conventional science and to
re
cooperate across disciplines to illustrate how conservation science can benefit the
public and create a communicative environment. Cross-disciplinary expertise

er
benefits conservation (Williams, 2013). More specifically, the conservation impact
and provision to the public are not only the subject and discipline but also the
pe
interpretation of conservation to engage the cultural heritage with the public.
The needs of participatory conservation have increased (see example in Clavir,

ot
2009; Marçal & Macedo, 2017), to involve the participants’ views within the process
(Sully, 2007). Conservators have realised that communicating with the public is
tn
important (Jones, 2002). For example, Drago (2011) stated that for the British
Museum, the public conservation programme is a way to convey messages to the

rin
public, such as unpacking information about objects, preserving the cultural heritage
for the future, building cooperation with colleagues across disciplines and providing
access to better understand objects.

ep
Conservation is considered a social process (Eastop, 2009; Pye, 2009; Avrami,
2009). Two papers highlight the social value of conservation (Jones & Holden, 2008;
Pr
Avrami, 2009). The Demos Report by Jones and Holden (2008), applied the
14
argument that the practice and principle of conservation are both to culture, heritage
ed
and social well-being. The significance of material culture is defined and maintained
by the contemporary values from conservation (Saunders, 2014). The relation
between conservation and society is re-evaluated, concerned about its position in
iew
imparting and inheriting cultural value, and it is necessary to process discourse
beyond the profession (Bracker & Richmond, 2009).
v
There are numerous important values in conservation decision-making (Avrami,
Randall and De la Torre, 2000; De La Torre, 2002; Sully, 2013). Several articles
re
have sought to improve the participatory decision-making process with the
conservation of objects, public art or installations (Clavir, 2002; Wharton, 2008;

er
Henderson & Nakamoto, 2016). Szczepanowska (2013) argued that there is a strict
conservation design process before undertaking any conservation treatment for

pe
objects, and the cultural significance and stakeholder opinions affect the
conservation decision-making.
ot
Jones (2002) claimed that more effort is required focusing on what conservation can
add to the understanding of objects. More broadly, Lithgow believed that

tn
conservation science should put people at its heart to enable ‘cultures to care for
culture’ (2015, p.62), attracting audiences’ hearts and minds, so they can be inspired
rin
to care about heritage. Furthermore, conservation has the ‘potential to define why
and how communities care for their heritage' and to ‘create social capital' (Williams
2013, ix).
ep
Pr
Physical boundaries
15
ed
The previous chapter has identified the key contexts of public and space; space and
iew
engagement; public face of conservation. From this we can see the role that
concepts such as boundaries between professionals and audience have in this
discussion. With these thoughts in mind, and equipped with these ways of
v
approaching conservation spaces critically, the following three chapters now
re
highlight types of ‘boundaries’ that might be seen to exists in two Chinese case study
museums. Our first discussion here focuses on types of physical boundary.

er
As part of museum exhibition space, the conservation lab is special in design and
management. It is set up as an experimental space for generating knowledge, with

pe
opaque walls being replaced by transparent ones, and expanding the object space of
the laboratory to accommodate those who conduct, display, explain, and focus on
the work. Finally, a signpost space was created where visitors can discuss and
ot
interact. Based on my observations at two museums in China, the overall structures
and designed space are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

tn
rin
ep
Pr
16
ed
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of conservation
iew
display space in Shaanxi History Museum
(photo produced by author).
v
re
er
Figure 2 Schematic diagram of conservation
display space in Hainan Museum (photo
pe
produced by author).
In my research observations, the bright, purpose-designed and purpose-built
facilitated space aims to be a conservation outreach programme, designed in a

ot
people-centred way. The audiences have free access to observe the conserving
scientific activity and conserving-restoring work in the transparent studio, by looking,

tn
observing, glancing and even recording as they wish, though the glass wall (Fig 3).
rin
ep
Pr
Figure 3 A physical transparent wall separates the workplace and audience area (photos produced by Shaanxi
History Museum).
17
In addition, the digital interaction equipment provides comprehensive details of the
ed
conserving activities as conservators work in groups or individually (see Fig 4).
Although audiences are not allowed full access to physically touch or enter the
working area, the camera controlled access that audiences have means they can
iew
observe closely by zooming the cameras to look every corner and detail of the
objects. For instance, how paint is touched up can be clearly seen. It is suggested
that glass walls are used to control the environmental conditions, thereby preserving
v
delicate objects, such as paper, lacquer and silk. Similarly, with the British Museum,
re
conservators had to select un-sensitive material objects when engaging audience
conservation in an exposed exhibition area environment (Drago, 2011), due to the
glass half wall in the exhibition hall.

er
pe
ot
tn
Figure 4 The digital observation interaction area for audiences (photo by author).
The design of physical boundaries has great influence on visitors’ experiences. To

rin
both keep objects safe and provide a great visiting experience, balancing the positive
and negative of using a transparent wall will have impacted on the space. For
ep
example, both the Shaanxi History Museum and Hainan Museum used the top-
ground glass wall as the barrier. This method probably does not attract audiences as
Pr
much as possible, due to blocking the communication opportunity, although It does
avoid unpredictable events during the visible conservation activities. However, in
18
European contexts, preliminary information about visitors’ experience, from a report
ed
on the open research laboratory at the British Museum in 2008 (Drago, 2011), states
there is a setting designed for discussion that is over a glass counter, which allows
people to observe, interact and ask questions directly to a conservator. It is designed
iew
to strengthen the space for communication and discussion.
The Shaanxi History Museum has digital communication equipment to meet the aims
v
of providing a channel for talking and communicating. However, this does mean
offering access to the public that will potentially disturb how the conservation studio
re
operates. If audiences can access and enter the area freely, this is likely to bring
some disruption. er
‘Xuan Lu stated that previously there was a walkie-talkie to directly talk to
pe
conservators inside the glass room, but this function was stopped because
the conservator felt that it was interfering with the work.’

ot
Interestingly, at the British Museum (Drago, 2011), the conservator’s response to the
outcome of communicating with the public was that the environment was too noisy
tn
for them to talk; a quieter space for communicating and discussing is preferred.
The displacement of conservation space and social responsibility to museum

rin
settings will need to consider how to redefine a space’s function to achieve the
redesign and further advancement. A so-called performance space was referred to

ep
by Xuan Lu. In fact, the aims of the conservation outreach space are not as an
exhibition, live show or display. Rather, the design purpose at the Shaanxi History
museum was stated by Xuan Lu as follows:

Pr
19
‘At the beginning of the design, such a space was not designed and defined
ed
as an exhibition to bring some flavour to the audience, but to demonstrate the
real, general and common working state, that is, conservators do not want to
show off their skills on purpose.’
iew
Interestingly, there is a concern from Ashley-Smith (2006) that conservation
practices have high standards with handling skills and offer fewer opportunities to
v
maintain and learn. This leads to the scenario where there is a loss of appreciation
by museum managers and conservators in European contexts.
re
Lewenstein and Bonney (2004) suggested that human activity and display processes
are difficult in a museum environment. In fact, the Shaanxi History Museum

er
conservation lab was designed to highlight the significance in the process of
pe
conservation and restoration more than the value of the museum objects. A content
board in the conservation lab demonstrates the difference between pre- and post-
restorations (Shaanxi History Museum, 2014). This is to help audiences understand

ot
what conservation is and how it relates to cultural heritage.
The Hainan Museum has similar aims, concept and design to the Shaanxi History
tn
Museum. Space has been designed as a working area, open for public observation.
It has been relocated in a behind-the-screen working area for the public. Then
rin
audiences have access to look through the glass wall and find details of the
conservation and objects from the content board. In the interview with Chunlei Bao,
ep
he stated:
‘The exhibition hall area is 400 square meters. The area displays the live
Pr
conservation with the shipwreck in the transparent conservation studio, and
20
there is a monthly demonstration showing the process of changing the water
ed
to conserve shipwreck.’
v iew
re
Figure 5 There is a physical transparent wall with a no entry sign that distinguishes the area of
workplace and audience area (photo by author).

er
Morgan (2008, p.38) argued that professionalization and amateurisation are not
merely historical processes, but also ones that happen in everyday practices to
pe
demarcate specific identities. Having permission to connect to the museum’s private
space, the public would understand the difference between public and private, but
this is not due to the transparent glass dividing the line. For example, in the Hainan
ot
Museum (Figure 5), the working area is locked with a no-entry sign on the glass wall,
which reminds audiences about their access rights and indicates the different
tn
professional and public spaces.
Even if the public have full access to be involved with conservation activity, they
rin
retain the individual perspective and do not across the boundary. For instance, in the
Shaanxi History Museum activities, audiences had full access to enter the space,
ep
whilst conservators arranged the conserving activity and education programme. In
the interview, Xuan Lu stated:

Pr
‘There is gradually an open conservation lab activity each season for
education purposes. By using replicas instead, we let the audience use the
21
entire space, experience the restoration work, and feel the professional
ed
working environment.’
That is only a taster game. There are similar activities at the Hainan Museum. It is
iew
argued that it seems to be less interactive and more thought-provoking and
enjoyable. The difference is that audiences are not allowed to access the real
conserving area, instead they undertake specific activities in other areas. Chunlei
v
Bao stated:
re
‘The target audience for this exhibition area is the local youth and student
groups, during the summer holiday period. Conservation related experience

er
activities will be carried out in another area of the museum.’
pe
This present work argues that such a special space is considered the best one for
conservation education. However, summer camp activity may not make good use of
this open exhibition space. It is likely to create numerous unpredictable

ot
misunderstanding matters in the engagement activities.
As discussed in this section, the key findings of my research have revealed that the
tn
public has access to look at the working area or be involved in a designed activity of
conservation in the working area. This is advantageous in facilitating the public to

rin
understand conservation. The physical lines in the space are easily identified and
unpacked but knowledge lines are more blurred.

ep
Pr
22
ed
Intellectual boundaries
v iew
The knowledge boundary is an abstract line to divide groups in a spatial and material
re
process. In Morgan’s (2008) social research on identifying the boundaries between
amateurs and professionals in museum contexts, it was concluded that the boundary
is not only abstract lines that divide people or activities but the lines are ‘thick’ and
er
heterogeneous. In addition, Morgan states ‘Putting research and researchers on
display inside a museum means rethinking and reorganising the laboratory’s material
pe
and social architecture’ (Morgan, 2011, p.270). In fact, in a museum context, it is
considered that the boundaries are the intellectual access to both the museum
ot
objects and the conservation practice. In the interview, Chunlei Bao, stated:
‘The public understanding of conservation, increased intellectual access to

tn
conservation sparking more interesting in it within the museum community
group in recent years.’

rin
When the knowledge boundaries are likely to be considered as generating people’s
curiosity, this can be utilized to continue attracting audiences outside of the museum
ep
community, which is considered the mystery of conservation.
The conservation and restoration of museum objects is currently of great appeal to

Pr
audiences, in terms of the mystery of objects, methods of conservation and the
23
equipment. Research into both the Chinese and European museum contexts
ed
(Koutromanou, 2015; Drago, 2011) shows that curiosity is the major effective
element to encourage audiences, generate attention and engage the public. More
specifically, when what was mysterious is used to attract audiences and is
iew
unpacked, it can enable museums to keep attracting audiences to care about
conservation. Instead, what the space really aims to provide to the public requires
further consideration.
v
To reduce misunderstandings and encourage curiosity in public areas, museums
re
need to take the opportunity to build close connections with audiences. Direct
communication is likely to improve the cooperation and understanding of this

er
situation. Xuan Lu described the methods used at Shaanxi History Museum:
pe
‘To organise the public’s communication time, the conservators working inside
come out to answer and resolve the cognitive differences in knowledge and
needs in terms of audiences’ knowledge.’

ot
Similar issues have occurred in European countries. There is an internal problem
that conservators may have challenges in communicating with the public (Brooks,
tn
2008).
Lowenthal (1998) stated that conservation is a sort of tool to sharpen the values
rin
which are embedded in heritage. Arguably, there is similarity in the process of
showing conservation processes and contributing value to museum objects.

ep
Returning to the fundamental duty of a museum, generally it endeavours to attract
and allow audiences from all stages of life to be involved in the space and gain the
Pr
engagement. This, understandably, can result in different levels of incomprehension
24
during the design and establishing a visible conservation studio for the public. Such
ed
incomprehension could come from the public, but also from professional teams.
Xuan Lu stated that: ‘not everyone supports the project to open the conservation
iew
space to public, even some experts are against it.’
However, as conservation ethics, theory and practices have advanced over
hundreds of years, it should no longer be behind-the-scenes. Conservators being
v
isolated cannot meet the needs of the significant museum boom in China.
re
Xuan Lu stated: ‘conservators have the responsibility to provide education and share
the knowledge found in heritage objects to many audiences from across society,
er
because that is also the museum’s responsibility.’
In terms of authenticity, this is likely to widen the knowledge gap between

pe
professionals and the public. A museums objects’ authenticity is a general matter for
visitors and professionals. These worries may influence conservation outreach
activities. Due to audiences’ different backgrounds, the intellectual gap seems to

ot
increase. During my observation in the Hainan Museum, I found some audiences
have doubts about the authenticity of the museum objects, and are confused about
tn
what is real. They may question the authenticity of the conservation space. In
Koutromanou’s (2015) audience research, issues about objects remain the most
rin
concerning and interesting. Furthermore, in respect of how to define what
authenticity is when undertaking conservation work in the open space, Xuan Lu

ep
stated that:
‘At the beginning of the space design, the purpose was to enhance the
Pr
interest of the audience during the visit, and to ensure that the conservators
showed real and common work.’
25
He further argued that: ‘if the conservators stay in this public space for a long time, it
ed
will greatly affect their mentality, and even may cause their work to become a
performance without consciousness.’
iew
There seem to be a couple of barriers in the process of bridging the knowledge gap
between professionals and the public. Koutromanou (2015, p.174) believes that the
‘Intellectual access was also linked to issues of transparency and was thought to be
v
the responsibility of the conservators and the museum to facilitate it among visitors’.
Museum professionals and conservators have undertaken much work on how to
re
make topics clear and understandable for audiences visiting exhibitions.
Recently, digital equipment has been considered probably the most effective and
er
direct in terms of interactive, learning and thinking tools in a museum context. In the
pe
Hainan Museum, there is a feature called ‘match the 3D model’ to play in relation to
the ceramics undergoing restoration via a digital interactive screen (See Figure 6).
The middle showcase demonstrates the restored objects and can be considered as
ot
the conservation achievement display.

tn
rin
ep
Pr
Figure 6 The digital game and physical display for audiences to interact with restoration (photo by
author).
26
Arguably, the display probably just shows aspects of common knowledge, such as
ed
how to play with a jigsaw. Unfortunately, it is not able to reach the point whereby it
would help audiences to understand what conservation is or how professionals make
the objects for a museum. This could be exacerbated in that it might cause confusion
iew
for audiences, as the conservation may appear simple or straightforward but this
does not reveal the complicated decision-making processes or scientific processes
of analysing materials and the ethical issues related to objects. The argument from
v
Apollo (2018) on European cases, is that in a visible conservation lab, it is difficult to
re
obtain any reward when watching the conserving process passively rather than
interacting with conservators. As such, it is essential to bridge the cooperation and

er
communication between professionals and the publics.
There appears, in conclusion, to be a value and aims for the activities that are
pe
designed to provide intellectual access to an unknown space, which can be
considered enjoyable. The space is designed to provide the knowledge content to
satisfy the public’s curiosity, to encourage audiences to think critically, to generate a

ot
passion to conserve the heritage environment, culture and objects. In fact, the
tn
methods may be less effective when the focus is on providing more knowledge and
creating the opportunity of contributing ideas or publishing individual voices’ power of
being engaged in the process of conservation outreach.

rin
ep
Pr
27
ed
Boundaries of authority
v iew
Having discussed the physical and intellectual aspects of the connections and
re
boundaries between professionals and audiences, this work now turns to the more
political, dynamic and contested aspect of the authority provided to the public that is
shared and engaged with.

er
Many museums around the world have realized that the power of sharing authority is
pe
when it can meet the needs of an institution and society. It is considered the key to
meeting museum goals, providing public good and responding to relevant social
issues (Duclos-Orsello, 2013). In terms of participatory conservation, this is likely to

ot
be considered as sharing the uncontested professionals’ power and authorities with
the public in the process of relocating a conservation studio.

tn
Pye & Sully (2007) discuss the perspective of democratic conservation, which has
engaged the public to define heritage, and how to conserve it. The demands and
rin
outcomes seem to meet the development needs of a contemporary museum. The
example from the Shaanxi History Museum, illustrates that Xuan Lu intends to cross
ep
the authority boundaries, to bring power, knowledge and human resources into
conservation.
Pr
‘To arrange the highly skilled conservators from behind the scenes to the
front, one of the purposes is to attract audiences. The other is to find experts
28
outside of the museum, hoping that external professionals can provide
ed
concrete help and even participate in work or projects.’ (Xuan Lu)
As early as in 2013, there was a temporary visible conservation lab exhibition at the
iew
Shaanxi History Museum, named the ‘High-skilled Heritage Doctor’. It has framed a
model of ‘conservation observers’, with multidisciplinary people engaged to
undertake the work, to observe and provide knowledge to support the conservation
v
(Shaanxi History Museum, 2014). These people were not museum staff or
conservation experts but people with background knowledge including chemistry and
re
physics.
The exhibition is to meet the public’s right to know about how conservators protect
er
cultural heritage, represent the responsibility of a museum to share the knowledge
pe
and authority, and raise stakeholders’ social attention to heritage conservation
(Shaanxi History Museum, 2014). Koutromanou (2015, p196) concluded that
‘Encouraging the involvement of people with different stakes and views on how
ot
conservation should be carried out can potentially reshape and enrich our
understanding and experience of objects and their multiple meanings’.

tn
Furthermore, providing the authority and power to involve large audiences
cooperating with museum professionals could mean the general boundary between
rin
professionals and the public will become blurred. In some cases, there may not be
any boundary. The term ‘amateur-experts’ has been used by Waterton (2003) to
ep
describe this hybrid of identities who can cross the intellectual boundary and the
partial authority boundary, but not the physical one. In the interview, conservator
Xuan Lu, stated that:

Pr
29
‘There was a case when a carpenter saw that there was a wooden
ed
conservation in the visible conservation studio. He believed that the protection
and restoration of the traditional Chinese furniture displayed at that time did
not conform to his understanding and knowledge system, and he told the staff
iew
about the various problems of the work, trying to express own opinion.’
In such a situation it may not be clear what professionals should do. The carpenter
v
can be considered an ‘amateur-expert’ from outside the museum. His knowledge
and voice cross the museum authority boundaries, with professionals being
re
challenged to answer a member of the public’s confusion or even protest. Thus, it is
worth considering how the museum should undertake to resolve this matter and turn
er
it into a driving force that can promote the protection of cultural heritage. Arguably,
given the aims of the visible conservation lab in Shaanxi History Museum (2014), the
pe
‘supervisor’ of cultural heritage is the public. As such, involving the power of the
public about who can supervise the objects under conservation, means audiences
are able to judge and point out errors. However, it is argued by Fan (2014) that the
ot
community (the public) do not have opportunities to be involved in the decision-

tn
making for cultural conservation because of the power from government.
In some cases, balancing cooperation between professionals and the public may be
rin
key to advancing the development of conservation outreach. As knowledge and
authority power are likely to be an unpredictable scenario, in my interview about the
Chinese context, Xuan Lu argued that:

ep
‘There is a key step in the restoration of ancient Chinese paintings and
calligraphy – to uncover the heart of painting. This work cannot be done with
Pr
professional gloves, because the work will be disturbed by the gloves.
30
Professional conservators usually undertake the process without gloves.
ed
However, when the work was displayed in front of the public, the public
believed that the work was unprofessional and the conservators should wear
gloves.’
iew
Interestingly, it will never be possible to observe the process of ‘uncovering the heart
of a painting’. Due to the public’s misunderstanding, the museum omits the process
v
or finishes it behind the screen. The public represent the non-professional comments
which means ‘people’s right to impose their views is proportional to their
re
involvement’ (Muñoz Viñas 2005, p.161), arguing that professionals cannot abandon
the authority due to encouraging more audiences into a museum. As such, there is
er
an oversharing of the voice of authority. Museums need to show professionalism
including the responsibility of telling the truth to the public, since to do otherwise
pe
could mean that the solution would be considered as not being in line with the duty of
professional work.
ot
Nevertheless, it is a challenge to meet all the needs of audiences. Not everything
that conservators do is visible or shared with the public. Generally, there is a

tn
boundary drawn between the conservator in the private conservation lab and
audiences in the museum’s public space. More significantly, even in a private space
rin
the conservation activity might not be visible, for example, thinking, planning,
analysing, evaluating or using specific materials during the conserving process.

ep
A museum may intend to share authority to attract audiences, however, crossing the
boundary is an objective phenomenon, arising when the authority is shared with the
public. Xuan Lu stated:

Pr
31
‘Our visible conservation lab is just to bring the behind-the-screen space to
ed
the front, to show the real working area and process. We did not intend to give
the audience more authority to communicate in this public space, but the fact
is that lots of people want to ask questions and create their own thoughts and
iew
even challenge the professionals.’
The more open time and details, the more criticism and challenge there might be.
v
Both the previous examples from the Shaanxi History Museum directly impacted and
challenged the confidence, knowledge system, and professional barriers that
re
museums and heritage conservation experts originally possessed. However, that
situation did not occur at the Hainan Museum. In the interview with Chunlei Bao, he
er
did not think the audience had any thoughts or challenges that would affect the
professionals’ work.
pe
The basis of the situation entails showing research settings, research tools,
researchers, and providing opportunities to discuss the work and motivations of

ot
researchers. However, it does not necessarily mean that a level of power and
expertise between the museum and researchers and visitors is reached. In the
tn
museum, visitors are still positioned as laypeople and recipients, not as knowledge
producers (Morgan, 2011). Furthermore, the aim of conservation display does not
rin
eliminate the knowledge distance that exists between professionals and the public; it
does not aim to transform audiences into professionals. ‘Conservation cannot afford
to model itself as a self-evident valuable activity that needs no justification. We need

ep
to demonstrate our role in preserving culturally significant artefacts and bringing the
knowledge obtained through that process into the public domain' (Brooks, 2013, p.5).
Pr
32
The key findings detailed in this discussion are that an interactive, social and
ed
knowledge space can offer audiences a voice, power and opportunities to challenge
the authorities. However, it could be considered inspiring for conservators to rethink
the role of identity, to improve the professionalism and confidence in their skills.
v iew
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
33
Conclusion
ed
iew
This thesis has discussed the positioning and design of open conservation
laboratories in Chinese museums. The findings are that in museums where the
concept of class is vague, the line between professionals and the public becomes
v
blurred. This work has sought to distinguish the relationship between the
re
professional conservators and the general audiences, together with defining the
physical boundaries, knowledge boundaries, and discourse power of this space. The
er
division of boundaries has used the main findings based on two interviews with
professionals, the researcher’s observations and literature reviews about the

pe
European context. Based on analysing existing Chinese cases at the Hainan
Province and Shaanxi History Museums, the positive and negative aspects have
been considered and evaluated with three key aspects having been discussed.
ot
The first was the physical boundary between the audience and the professionals in
tn
the exhibition space. That is, which spaces audiences can enter, what they can or
cannot touch or come into contact with. This section has revealed that audiences
have limited access in this space. There is a benefit for the public in that they can
rin
watch the usual conservation work through the transparent glass wall. They can
understand the content of conservation through the form of display cabinets, digital
ep
cameras, and information display boards. The space can be effective in helping the
public to know and understand conservation.

Pr
Secondly, the thesis has discussed that the differences between the knowledge of
the public and professionals are generated in this space but are not solved. When
34
audiences watch restoration work through the glass wall, this may generate
ed
knowledge curiosity. However, this is a less effective method in respect of filling the
knowledge gap between professionals and audiences in this space.
iew
Thirdly, balancing the range of sharing authority is the key method to engage
audiences. This section has analysed the process of sharing knowledge power as an
engaging method in the museum context. The authority is challenged by the power
v
from outside the museum also putting forward opinions and challenges to the
method of conservation, potentially even giving criticism and judgment. This drives
re
conservators to concentrate on the professionalism and confidence in their skills.
This research has also highlighted how there may be differences between the visible
er
conservation labs in European countries and those China. This is not only in space
pe
design and display content, but also the purpose and attitude of the display. Through
a literature review of existing exhibition experience and research in European
countries, both Chinese and European museums contribute to public engagement,

ot
but differ in the value of heritage objects and aims of the space. A full glass wall
reduces the communication access between professionals and the public in China,
tn
offering fewer opportunities to provide hands-on activities that might increase
audiences’ interest. Berducou (1999) argued that a more adaptive method to

rin
preserving heritage objects is not to hide them, but rather to offer more access to the
public who care about heritage. In a European context, the half glass wall at the
British Museum (Drago, 2011) provides good communication conditions for the
ep
audience and the conservator. From this point of view, the open conservation space
provided by the European museum enables audiences to communicate with

Pr
conservators efficiently. It might be concluded, therefore, that Chinese museums
tend to design the space as a working area more than a communication space.
35
Whereas, in contrast, European museums make the space more interactive and
ed
engaging as a contact zone rather than a working area.
In addition, this research contributes to the literature. It has explored the
iew
mechanisms, design and location of participatory conservation in the Chinese
context. It has found that when creating the primary style, there is a need to offer a
foundation for advanced development, for example in the form of comparative and
v
analysis studies between different types of conservation labs in China.
re
The qualitive research was carried out successfully to collect data by face-to-face
interviews with two conservators who are involved in participatory conservation in
China. The data analysis demonstrated the design ideas and location in the two
er
Chinese cases. The aims of participatory conservation being organized and
pe
developed in China are that more visible conservation labs are expected during the
museum industry boom in China.
The practical aspect of this paper has been to interview the senior conservator
ot
Peichen Zhang who works at the Shanghai Museum. There is a plan to build a new
museum with a 500m2 visible conservation lab space for the public. This project is at
tn
the design phase. Peichen Zhang stated:
‘As the one of the best Chinese museums, the ambition and design is
rin
forward-looking and open. The aims of building the conservation lab are not
only designed as for disseminating and education purposes as a conservation

ep
studio but also to construct a participatory and interactive space for the
general public.’
Pr
There are two main limitations to this paper. Firstly, the limitation of time, and the
research angle has been limited to the focus of space design and positioning.
36
Researching public engagement was particularly challenging methodologically and
ed
time consuming. However, the audience feedback, cognition, and interactions merit
further in-depth research. This project has explored the role and expectations of this
space, but how to quantify the effectiveness of the museum space in conservation
iew
and how the public understand conservation in a museum context will be the future
research step. Secondly, the range of qualitive research lacks supportive cases to
explore and research, thus future research would be more robust with additional
v
samples.
re
To conclude, this paper has examined the boundaries of professionals and the public
in open conservation labs within the Chinese museum context. The evidence proves
er
the difference within similar framework of conservation lab in different cultural
context, which represents the different designed purpose in museum and inspire
pe
future research of participatory conservation in a wider international context.
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
37
Bibliography
ed
Anderson, G. (2004) Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary
Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift, Alta Mira Press, Oxford and Lanham, MD.
iew
Apollo. (2018) Should paintings be conserved in public? | Apollo Magazine. [online]
Available at: https://www.apollo-magazine.com/should-paintings-be-conserved-in-
public/ [Accessed 12 Feb. 2020].
v
Ashley-Smith, J. (2016) Losing the edge: the risk of a decline in practical
re
conservation skills, Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 39:2, 119-132, DOI:
10.1080/19455224.2016.1210015
er
Ashley, S. (2005) 'State Authority and the Public Sphere: Ideas on the Changing Role
of the Museum as a Canadian Social Institution', Museum & Society, 3(1), pp. 5-17.
pe
Augé, M. (2000) Non-places: introduction to an anthropology of super modernity.
London: Verso.
ot
Avrami, E (2009) ‘Heritage, Values, and Sustainability’. in A. Bracker, and A.
Richmond, (Eds). Conservation Principles, Dilemmas, and Uncomfortable Truths.

tn
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 177 - 183
Avrami, E., Randall, M, and De la Torre, M. (2000) Values and Heritage Conservation:
rin
Research Report. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.
http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/values_heritage_research_report [Accessed 12
ep
Feb. 2020].
Barrett, J. (2010) The museums and the public Sphere. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pr
Bell, J. (2010) Doing your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers in
education health and social science. Berkshire: Open University Press.
38
Berducou, M., (1999). Why involve the public in heritage conservation-restoration? Is
ed
it important? ‘Nous du service des signes’. In Conservation at the End of the 20th
Century. Plenary Sessions from the 12th Triennial Meeting of ICOM-CC, Lyon,
France (pp. 15-18).
iew
Bhabha, H.K. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge
Bloomberg, L., and Volpe, M., (2016) Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A
v
Road Map from Beginning to End. 3rd ed. United States of America: Sage
re
Publications Inc.
Bradburne, J. (1999) Space Creatures: The Museum as Urban Intervention and

er
Social Forum, Journal of Museum Education, 24:1-2, 16-20, DOI:
10.1080/10598650.1999.11510396
pe
Brooks, M. M. (2008) Talking to ourselves: Why do conservators find it so hard to
convince others of the significance of conservation? In Preprints of the 15th Triennial
Conference of the ICOM Committee for Conservation. New Delhi: Allied Publishers,
ot
II, pp. 1135-1140.

tn
Brooks, M. M. (2013). ‘Culture and Anarchy’: considering Conservation. In E. Williams,
(Eds). The Public Face of Conservation. London: Archetype Publications, pp. 1-7.
rin
Brooks, M.M. (2011) ‘Sharing conservation ethics, practice and decision-making with
museum visitors’ in Marstine, J (ed.) 2011, The Routledge Companion to Museum
Ethics: Redefining Ethics for the Twenty-First Century Museum, Taylor & Francis
ep
Group, Florence.pp.332-349
Cane, S. (2009) ‘Why Do We Conserve? Developing Understanding of Conservation

Pr
as a Cultural Construct’ in A. Bracker, and A. Richmond, (Eds). Conservation
39
Principles, Dilemmas, and Uncomfortable Truths. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp.
ed
163 - 176
Caple, C. (2000) Conservation Skills: Judgement, Method and Decision Making,
iew
Taylor & Francis Group.
Caple, C. (2019) Engaging Conservation, Collaboration across Disciplines, Journal
of the Institute of Conservation, 42:2, 168-170, DOI:
v
10.1080/19455224.2019.1619340
re
Clavir, M. (2002) Preserving What Is Valued: Museums, Conservation, and First
Nations. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

er
Clavir, M. (2009) ‘Conservation and Cultural Significance’ In A. Bracker, and A.
Richmond, (Eds). Conservation Principles, Dilemmas, and Uncomfortable Truths.

pe
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 139 - 149.
Coghlan, R (2018) ‘My voice counts because I’m handsome.’ Democratising the
ot
museum: the power of museum participation, International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 24:7, 795-809, DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2017.1320772

tn
De la Torre, M. (2002) Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, Research Report.
Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.

rin
Drago, A (2011) ‘I feel included’: The Conservation in Focus exhibition at the British
Museum, Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 34:1, 28-38, DOI:

ep
10.1080/19455224.2011.566473
Duclos-Orsello, E., (2013). Shared authority: The key to museum education as social
Pr
change. Journal of Museum Education, 38(2), pp.121-128.
40
Eastop, D. (2009) ‘The Cultural Dynamics of Conservation Principles in Reported
ed
Practice’ In A. Bracker, and A. Richmond, (Eds). Conservation Principles, Dilemmas,
and Uncomfortable Truths. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 150-162.
iew
Fleming, D (2013) “Museums for Social Justice.” In Museums, Equality and Social
Justice, edited by E. Nightingale and R. Sandell, 72. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gurian, E.H. (2005) ‘Threshold fear’, in Macleod, S (ed.) Reshaping Museum Space,
v
Routledge, Florence, pp. 95-107.
re
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry
into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Thomas Burger (trans.), MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
er
Henderson, J. and Nakamoto, T (2016) Dialogue in conservation decision-making,
pe
Studies in Conservation, 61:sup2, 67-78, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2016.1183106
Hölling, H. (2017) The technique of conservation: on realms of theory and cultures of

ot
practice, Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 40:2, 87-96, DOI:
10.1080/19455224.2017.1322114
tn
Hooper‐Greenhill, E. (1990) The space of the museum, Continuum, 3:1, 56-69, DOI:
10.1080/10304319009388149
rin
Hughes, C. (1998). Museum Theatre: Communicating with visitors through drama.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

ep
ICOM (2006) Code of Ethics for Museums. Online. Available Http:
http://icom.museum/ ethics.htm [Accessed 10 April 2020].

Pr
41
ICOM Statutes (2007) ICOM Internal Rules and Regulations. Online.
ed
http://archives.icom.museum/download/InternalRulesandRegulations.pdf [Accessed
10 April 2020].
iew
ICOM. (2011) ICOM Checklist on Ethics of Cultural Property Ownership: Especially
Concerning Museum Collections. Available:
http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/ Codes/110825_Checklist.pdf
v
[Accessed 10 April 2020].
re
ICON. (2018) The “GOLDEN AGE”: opportunity for UK-CHINA collaboration in cultural
heritage conservation. [online] Icon.org.uk. Available at:
https://icon.org.uk/system/files/documents/icon_thegoldenageshaanxireport_june201
er
8_fv_1.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2020].
pe
Institute of Archaeology. (2009). Conservation's Catch 22. [online] Available at:
<https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/directory/conservations-catch-22>
[Accessed 20 April 2020].

ot
Jenkins, D. 1994. Object lessons and ethnographic displays: Museum exhibitions
and the making of American anthropology. Comparative Studies in Society and

tn
History 36, no. 2: 242-70.
Jones, H., (2002) The Importance of Being Less Earnest: Communicating

rin
Conservation, V&A Conservation Journal, 41. Available at:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/conservation-journal/issue-41/the-importance-
ep
of-being-less-earnest-communicating-conservation/ [Accessed 23 April 2020].
Jones, S. and Holden, J. (2008) It's a Material World. Caring for the Public Realm.
Pr
London: Demos. Available at:
42
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Material%20World%20-%20web.pdf [Accessed 10
ed
April. 2020].
Koutromanou, D. (2015) Public Engagement in Cultural Heritage Conservation: An
iew
Investigation of Museum Visitors’ Views. MPhil thesis, University of York.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell, p.26.
Lewenstein, B and Bonney, R. (2004) Different ways of looking at public
v
understanding of research. In Creating connections. Museums and the public
re
understanding of current research, eds. David Chittenden, Graham Farmelo, and
Bruce Lewenstein, 6372. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

er
Lithgow, K (2015) Communicating conservation science, Studies in Conservation,
60:sup2, 57-63, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2015.1117856

pe
Los, S. (2002). Carlo Scarpa. Cologne: Taschen.
Lowenthal, D. (1998). Fabricating Heritage. History and Memory, 10 (1), 5–24.

ot
Lynch, B. T. (2011). “Custom-made Reflective Practice: Can Museums Realise Their
Capabilities in Helping others Realise Theirs?” Museum Management and

tn
Curatorship 26 (5): 441–458. doi:10.1080/09647775.2011.621731.
Macleod, S. (2005) ‘Rethinking museum architecture: Towards a site-specific history

rin
of production and use. In Macleod, S (ed.) Reshaping Museum Space, Routledge,
Florence, pp.9-25.
ep
Marçal, H & Macedo, R. (2017) From the periphery to the centre: Community
engagement and justice in conservation decision making. In: Proceedings of the 18th
Pr
ICOM Committee for Conservation Triennial Conference. International Council of
Museums (ICOM-CC): Copenhagen, Denmark.
43
Marçal, H.P (2017) Conservation in an era of participation, Journal of the Institute of
ed
Conservation, 40:2, 97-104, DOI: 10.1080/19455224.2017.1319872
McClellan, A. (2008) The Art Museum: From Boullee to Bilbao, University of
iew
California, Berkeley.
Morgan, M. (2008) On the boundaries and partial connections between amateurs
and professionals. Museum and society, 6(1), 28-53
v
Morgan, M. (2011) Researchers on display: moving the laboratory into the museum,
re
Museum Management and Curatorship, 26:3, 261-272, DOI:
10.1080/09647775.2011.585800
er
Morris, H.M. (2008). ‘I feel included’: An evaluation of Conservation in focus in Room
3 at the British Museum. Manchester: Morris Hargreaves McIntyre.

pe
Muñoz Viñas, S. (2005). Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Oxford: Elsevier.
Onciul, B. (2015) Museums, Heritage and Indigenous Voice: Decolonizing

ot
Engagement. New York, NY: Routledge. 268 pages. ISBN: 978-1-138-78111-5
Owczarek, N., Grant, L. and Gleeson, M. (2017) Engaging Conservation:

tn
Collaboration Across Disciplines. London, UK: Archetype Publications.
Parry, R. (2007) Recoding the Museum: Digital Heritage and the Technologies of
rin
Change. London: Routledge.
Pearlstein, E. (2017) Conserving ourselves: Embedding significance into conservation

ep
decision-making in graduate education, Studies in Conservation, 62:8, 435-444, DOI:
10.1080/00393630.2016.1210843
Pr
44
Pye, E & Sully, D. (2007) ‘Evolving challenges, developing skills’, The Conservator,
ed
vol. 30, pp. 19–38.
Pye, E. (2009) Archaeological conservation: scientific practice or social process? In A.
iew
Bracker, and A. Richmond, (Eds). Conservation Principles, Dilemmas, and
Uncomfortable Truths. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 129 - 138.
Sandell, R. (2005) ‘Constructing and communicating equality’, in Macleod, S (ed.),
v
Reshaping Museum Space, Routledge, Florence, pp.185-200.
re
Saunders, J (2014) Conservation in Museums and Inclusion of the Non-Professional.
Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies, 12(1): 6, pp. 1-13, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jcms.1021215
er
Shaanxi History Museum (2014) Exhibition record of conservation and restoration in
pe
Shaanxi history museum. Shanxi: China Publisher.
Shryock, A., 2004. Other conscious/self aware: First thoughts on cultural intimacy and
ot
mass mediation. In A. Shryock, ed. Off Stage On Stage: Intimacy and Ethnography in
the Age of Public Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 3–28.
tn
Simon, N. (2010). The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0.
Sully, D. (2013). Conservation Theory and Practice: Materials, Values, and People in
rin
Heritage Conservation. In: C. McCarthy, ed. Volume 2: Museum Practice. International
Handbooks of Museum Studies. Malden, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 1–23.

ep
Sully, D. (ed.). (2007), Decolonising Conservation: Caring for Maori Meeting Houses
outside New Zealand. Left Coast Press Walnut Creek, US.

Pr
Szczepanowska, H. M. (2013) Conservation of Cultural Heritage: Key Principles and
Approaches, Taylor & Francis Group.
45
Tzortzi, K. (2015) Museum Space: Where Architecture Meets Museology, Routledge.
ed
UKIC (United Kingdom Institute of Conservation) (1983) Guidance for Conservation
Practice, London: UKIC
iew
University of York. (2014) Engaging Conservation. [online] Available at:
https://engagingconservationyork.wordpress.com/ [Accessed 10 Feb. 2020].
Waterton, C. (2003) Amateurs as “experts”, paper given at the workshop on
v
Boundaries: Materialities, Differences, Continuities, Centre for Science Studies,
re
University of Lancaster, delivered 3 April 2003
Wharton, G., (2008). Dynamics of participatory conservation: the Kamehameha I

er
sculpture project. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 47(3), pp.159-
173.
pe
Williams, E. (2013) Presenting Conservation: Where Art and Science Meet. The Public
Face of Conservation. Emily Williams (eds). London: Archetype Publications.

ot
Wood, J (2005) ‘The studio in the gallery?’ in Macleod, S (ed.) 2005, Reshaping
Museum Space, Routledge, Florence.pp.158-169

tn
rin
ep
Pr
46
Locating and Designing Participatory Conservation in the Museum:
ed
an analysis of Chinese practices.
iew
Weikang Dai
v
Department of Conservation, Shanghai Museum, China
re
Corresponding Author:
er
Weikang Dai
pe
Shanghai Museum
Kings_2ly@126.com
ot
Word count: 9700

tn
rin
ep
Pr

SSRN Id4241212

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id4241212

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id4241212

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ed

analyses of semi-structured interviews with professionals, individual observations of

insights to meet audiences’ curiosity. This is achieved by opening the professional

conservation outreach. However, it argues how Chinese museums might be seen to

on communicating, interpreting and sharing the process of engaging audiences.

engage audiences with conservation in different spaces. More recently, cooperation

‘understanding’, are key touchstones in the vocabulary of contemporary museology,

in addition to conservation principles and practices.

conservation galleries at the Ashmolean Museum (Koutromanou, 2015) and more

audiences in a museum. It makes a valuable contribution on the comparison of four

audiences in the conservation display? Specifically, the boundaries refer to three

Aim and objective of this thesis

space to framework the Chinese participatory conservation design and location in

recognition, ethics, and the manner of conservation.

 Semi-structured interviews with conservators involved with the conservation

display in the public spaces of each museum

of a problem to be studied in some depth”. Whilst it could be argued that quantitative

research should be considered in this research through surveying audiences, due to

A face-to-face semi-structured interview was conducted with a participant in the

Museum, who currently is working to a timetable to build a public conservation lab.

This was a 15-minute interview.

disciplines including sociology, museum studies, conservation studies, science

theory and insights might be woven. Firstly, it is necessary to understand where

spaces (exploring the principle of conservation and conservation outreach). This is to

Understanding public and space

It is stated by Szczepanowska (2013) that a museum is a physical space for

experience (Tzortzi, 2015) and the curator’s vision (Hooper-Greenhill,1990).

Museum architecture makes art accessible and understandable, which is considered

multiple meanings of ‘public’ in the context of museums, such as individuals visiting

museum studies (Barrett, 2010). Specifically, a museum is an important space for

(social) product’’; in the context of museums, the architecture of the museum is a

characteristic of a museum’s space is considered as constituting, reproducing and

Engagement, the ‘Engagement Zone’”, Onicul (2015, p.73) defined and

conceptualised the museum space as the concept of ‘engagement zones’, which is a

physical and conceptual space where participants can interact in an unpredictable

being sought. Furthermore, consensus and exchange are not predetermined or

such as professional knowledge, customary boundaries and hierarchies, are

between internal and external personnel is blurred, and a temporary boundary

Understanding space and engagement

A significant relationship shift has occurred between museums and audiences. It

is democratising museum experiences, leading to cultural and social changes within

understanding the specific museum engagement of conservation display, by

rethinking the framework, cooperation and participation of museum practice.

(2018) supports Simon’s (2010) argument, claiming that the application of

democratic in practice and more relevant to a democratic society. Coghlan (2018)

aspect of political processes.

conservation lab in a museum (Brook, 2011). Morgan’s (2011) research on moving a

aims to encourage audiences to understand scientific research. It focuses on the

understanding of research (now a popular argument in science museums and many

academic works), but it may also promote a ‘critical understanding of research

example that exhibiting is like a ‘photographic approach’, the display is bounded,

glass-covered, to be viewed (never touched)’ (Jenkins, 1994). Furthermore, the key

issue is to find a balance between establishing an unrestricted space to reduce the

generating knowledge (Morgan, 2011).

investigation, preservation and conservation-restoration for cultural property’ (ICOM-

However, it is argued by Lithgow (2015) that nowadays, conservation is not only

public and create a communicative environment. Cross-disciplinary expertise