The results of risk assessments and significance assessments can help collecting organisations set work priorities. However, the complementary nature of the two methods, deriving from different professional traditions, means that recommended priorities may differ. The desire of cultural heritage risk analysts to include significance determinations in their workings is understandable. In the more comprehensive risk analysis systems, this inclusion depends on the quantification of changes in value due to changes in states of objects or collections, which can be difficult to deliver. Significance assessment purists reject the reduction of complex, shifting meanings to numerical values because of the apparent rigidity and certainty this implies.
The purpose of this essay is to provoke discussion. Should risk assessment or significance assessment come first when decisionmaking for collections? Who has the power of veto if opinions differ? Do concepts of ‘value,’ as differentiated from significance, assist? Will professional demarcations doom the marriage of these two hopefuls?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenT.F.H., TainterJ. A., and HoekstraT. W.2003. Supply-Side Sustainability.New York: Columbia University Press.
2.
AntomarchiC., BrokerhofA., MichalskiS., VergerI., and WallerR.2005. “Teaching Risk Management of Collections Internationally”Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals Spring 2006: 117–140.
3.
Ashley-SmithJ.1999. Risk Assessment for Object Conservation.Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman.
4.
Ashley-SmithJ.2000. “Developing Professional Uncertainty.” In Tradition and Innovation: Advances in Conservation, edited by RoyA., and SmithP.London: International Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works.
5.
Ashley-SmithJ.2001. “Practical Uses of Risk Analysis.”The Paper Conservator25.
6.
Australia ICOMOS.1999. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of Cultural Significance. Melbourne. The original 1979 and later versions, as well as translations are available at: http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/
BellS., and MorseS.1999. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable.London: Earthscan.
9.
Brokerh ofA.2006. Collection Risk Management—The Next Frontier. Cultural Property Protection Conference, Canadian Museum Association, Ottawa, 16 January
10.
BullockV. M.2011. “Collections Management: Its Value as a Unifying Concept.” In Cultural Heritage/ Cultural Identity: The Role of Conservation, Preprints of the 16th Triennial meeting of the ICOM Committee for Conservation. Lisbon.
11.
ClavirM.2009. “Conservation and Cultural Significance.” In Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by RichmondA., and BrackerA.London: Victoria and Albert Museum.
12.
Commonwealth of Australia.2001. Significance: A Guide to Assessing the Significance of Cultural Heritage Objects and Collections.Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of the Heritage Collections Council. Available at: http://www.collectionsaustralia.net/sector_info_item/5
FordB., and SmithN.2011. “The Development of a Significance-based Lighting Framework at the National Museum of Australia.”AICCM Bulletin, Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material Inc., Vol. 32.
JonesS.2010. “It's a Material World: Caring for the Public Realm.”Studies in Conservation Vol. 55, No. 4.
20.
Kerr-AllisonA.2011. “Looking Out and Looking In: A Perspective on Public Outreach.”AIC News May 2011 (Vol. 36, No. 3).
21.
LeiboffJ. M.2004. “Reconstructing the Role of Cultural Significance in the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth).” Ph.D. thesis. Faculty of Business and Law, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Available at: http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/public/adt-QGU20061101.094917/index.html
MeulV.2008. “Safeguarding the Significance of Ensembles: Value Assessments in Risk Management for Cultural Heritage.” In Diversity in Heritage Conservation: Tradition, Innovation and Participation, Preprints of the 15th triennial meeting of the ICOM Committee for Conservation in New Delhi. Vol 2.
28.
MichalskiS.1994. “A Systematic Approach to Preservation: Description and Integration with Other Museum Activities.” In Preventive Conservation: Practice, Theory and Research. International Institute for Conservation, Ottawa Congress, 12–16 September, London.
PesmaC.2010. Review of Contemporary Theory of Conservation by S. Muñoz-Viñas. Studies in Conservation, Vol 55, No 4.
32.
RussellR., and WinkworthK.2009. Significance 2.0: A Guide to Assessing the Significance of Collections.Adelaide: Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of the Collections Council of Australia. Online version now available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/significance2-0/
33.
Standards Australia.AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009Australian/New Zealand/International Standard, Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines. Sydney and Wellington.
WallerR. Robert. 2003. “Cultural Property Risk Analysis Model: Development and Application to Preventive Conservation at the Canadian Museum of Nature.”Göteborg Studies in Conservation 13. Göteborg: Göteborg Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
36.
WallerR., and MichalskiS.2005. “A Paradigm Shift for Preventive Conservation, and a Software Tool to Facilitate the Transition.” In Preprints of the 14th triennial meeting of the ICOM Committee for Conservation, edited by VergerI. I. London.
37.
WallerR.2010. Email communication to author. 8 December.
