MUSEUMS AND MONEY: THE IMPACT OF PROVINCIAL CULTURAL POLICY
by
Robin Nelson
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Museum Studies
Faculty of Information University of Toronto
© Copyright by Robin Nelson 2015
ii
ii
Museums and Money: The Impact of Provincial Cultural Policy
Robin Nelson
Master of Museum Studies
Faculty of Information University of Toronto
2015
Abstract
This thesis examines the influence of provincial funding strategies on museum public
programming in New Brunswick from 2002 until 2014. Using a literature review and archival
research, I traced the development of New Brunswick cultural policy from the 1960s to 2014.
Then, I conducted interviews with seventeen individuals representing museums or the
Government of New Brunswick (GNB). The results demonstrate that GNB’s Exhibit Renewal
and Museum Activities Support Program, a project-based grant, increased the quantity of new or
renewed exhibits and encouraged ancillary programming, but limited human resource capacity
restricted its use. The provincial Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED)
program provided funding for summer staff that offer programming, but SEED’s administration
led to challenges, such as a lack of consistency from one year to the next. I recommend
additional research into the use of GNB’s Museum Network and a shift in government priorities
toward increasing museums’ human resource capacity.
iii
iii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost I would like to thank those who participated in my research. This thesis would
not have been possible without the participation of individuals from New Brunswick’s museum
community. I appreciate all of their assistance and patience as they answered my questions.
I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Alan Stanbridge, for providing
invaluable advice and assistance. I would also like to thank Dr. Cara Krmpotich for her support
and guidance in this thesis process.
Many thanks are also due to the wonderful staff at the Provincial Archives in Fredericton.
iv
iv
Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS III
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
LIST OF TABLES VI
LIST OF FIGURES VII
LIST OF APPENDICES VIII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 CONTEXT 1 1.1.1 KEY TERMS 1 1.1.2 SIGNIFICANCE 3 1.2 THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES 5 1.2.1 SCOPE 6 1.2.2 LIMITATIONS 10 1.3 CHAPTER OUTLINE 12
CHAPTER 2 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: NEW BRUNSWICK CULTURAL POLICY
FROM THE 1960S TO 2014 14
2.1 CULTURAL POLICY IN NEW BRUNSWICK 14 2.1.1 FRAMEWORKS: ROBICHAUD AND FEDERAL INFLUENCE 14 2.1.2 A PERIOD OF CONSULTATIONS: THE HATFIELD AND MCKENNA GOVERNMENTS 17 2.1.3 TIME FOR CHANGE: BERNARD LORD 20 2.2 DISCUSSION 22 2.3 CONCLUSION 31
CHAPTER 3 GOVERNED DIRECTION: THE INFLUENCE OF PROJECT-BASED FUNDING
ON MUSEUM PUBLIC PROGRAMMING IN NEW BRUNSWICK 34
3.1 PUBLIC PROGRAMMING 34 3.2 FUNDING OVERVIEW 35 3.2.1 BRUSHING OFF THE DUST: INCREASING THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF EXHIBITS 40
v
v
3.2.2 ANCILLARY CONTENT: EXHIBITS GENERATING OTHER ACTIVITIES 44 3.2.3 AN EXHIBIT AND A TOUR: THE STANDARD FORMAT 45 3.3 DISCUSSION 48 3.4 CONCLUSION 52
CHAPTER 4 THE NEED FOR SEED: THE INFLUENCE OF THE STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
AND EXPERIENCE DEVELOPMENT (SEED) PROGRAM ON MUSEUM PUBLIC
PROGRAMMING 53
4.1 FOUNDATIONS 54 4.2 MUSEUM EMPLOYMENT IN NB 55 4.2.1 THE NEED FOR SEED 55 4.2.2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF SEED 56 4.2.3 REFLECTION FROM THE MUSEUM COMMUNITY 59 4.3 DISCUSSION 65 4.4 CONCLUSION 66
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 68
5.1 AN OVERVIEW 68 5.2 OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 70 5.2.1 EXPLICIT VS. IMPLICIT 70 5.2.2 DISTRIBUTION 72 5.2.3 CIVIL DISCOURSE 75 5.3 CONCLUSIONS 77
ENDNOTES 79
REFERENCES 88
APPENDICES 100
vi
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: 9 Interview Participants Divided into Small, Medium, and Large Scale institutions.
Table 2: 17 Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1967 to 1980.
Table 3: 19 Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1980 to 1999.
Table 4: 22 Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1999 to 2014.
Table 5: 42 Financial Information for the Museums Used as Examples in Chapter Three.
vii
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: 7 Interview Participants' Museums' Operating Grant from GNB in 2014-2015. Figure 2: 7 Community Museums and Historical Societies Operating Grants from GNB in 2014-2015. Figure 3: 36 Community Museums and Historical Societies Operational Funding from GNB in 2010-2011. Figure 4: 43 Total Number of Times Museums Received an Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Grant from 2003-2004 to 2014-2015. Figure 5: 57 Number of SEED/PEP Students by Year. Figure 6: 58 SEED/PEP Number of Weeks by Year. Figure 7: 62 The Average Number of Weeks per SEED Position per Year.
viii
viii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: 96 List of Abbreviations. Appendix B: 97 List of Community Museums and Historical Societies that have Received an Operating Grant from GNB between 2002-2003 and 2014-2015. Appendix C: 99 Interview Participants. Appendix D: 100 Sample Interview Topic Guide. Appendix E: 102 Museum Network Map and Chart.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Within Canada, culture is not the domain of one level of government. Instead, museums’ local,
provincial, and federal governments all influence museum operations. The origins of provincial
cultural policies in Canada reflect different funding frameworks, which have subsequently been
shaped by distinct regional concerns and priorities (Gattinger and Sainte-Pierre 2008). The
Government of New Brunswick (GNB) has a history of direct involvement in heritage and is the
largest single source of funding for community museums in the province.1 However, New
Brunswick cultural policy and, more specifically, policies influencing the province’s museums
are understudied. My research responds to this gap, asking two interrelated questions. First, how
has cultural policy evolved in New Brunswick from the emergence of a deliberate approach in
the 1960s to 2014? Second, how has New Brunswick cultural policy influenced community
museum public programming from the release of GNB’s first comprehensive policy articulation
in 2002 – Cultural Policy for New Brunswick – to the release of the renewed policy in 2014 –
Creative Future: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick?
1.1 Context
1.1.1 Key Terms
Culture is a contested and unstable concept with multiple definitions. As such, the definition of
cultural policy involves multiple interpretations that vary both within and across disciplines.
First, cultural policy can be the range of activities that the government does or does not enact in
an area that the state defines as ‘culture,’ varying across jurisdictions (Gray 2010). Second,
cultural policies can be any “actions that a state and its many operational entities take that affect
the cultural life of its citizens, whether directly or indirectly, whether intentionally or
unintentionally” (Mulcahy 2006a, 267). Third, within museum studies, cultural policy is often
discussed through the lens of Foucault’s governmentality (T. Bennett 1995; Foucault 1991) –
“that is, the process by which the state comes to manage individuals” (Mulcahy 2006b, 320). For
the purposes of my research, I begin with the second definition as a basis for cultural policy.
However, as public policy is “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (Dye 2005, 1;
qtd. in Mulcahy 2006b, 320), I am expanding Mulcahy’s definition to include state inaction in
2
addition to action. Further, since I am investigating the ramifications of policy on museums, an
analysis of all policy issues that influence the cultural life of citizens is not relevant. Schuster
(2003) identifies the arts, humanities, and heritage as three pillars within cultural policy when
looking at Washington State. He argues that while “policy conversation and cooperation within
each of these areas is only weakly developed, policy conversation across these areas is nearly
nonexistent with only a very few exceptions” (2003, 27). This thesis examines museum and
heritage policy as a subsection of cultural policy. Provincial cultural policy will, therefore, refer
to Government of New Brunswick policy articulation, action, or inaction that influences
museums in New Brunswick.
Ahearne distinguishes ‘explicit’ or ‘nominal’ cultural policies – that is, “policies that are
explicitly labeled as ‘cultural’” (2009, 141) – from ‘implicit’ or ‘effective’ cultural policies – that
is “policies that are not labeled manifestly as ‘cultural,’ but work to prescribe or shape cultural
attitudes and habits over given territories” (Ibid.). For example, Cultural Policy for New
Brunswick (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a), as well as its associated support programs, are
labeled as cultural and are, therefore, explicit cultural policies. Conversely, GNB’s Student
Employment and Experience Development (SEED) program is not labeled cultural but has a
significant influence on museum operations because it provides non-profit organizations, such as
museums, with summer employees. As such, it is an implicit cultural policy. Since Mulcahy
(2006a) notes that the government’s effect can be direct or indirect as well as intentional or
unintentional, I discuss both explicit and implicit cultural policies in this thesis.
For the purposes of this thesis, a museum is any organization that receives or has received direct
or indirect assistance through the Government of New Brunswick’s Museum Services Section
within the Heritage Branch or any of the Section’s earlier iterations, focusing on the non-profit
sector. In 2014-2015, 106 organizations received some form of support through the provincially
orchestrated Museum Network, but GNB identifies less than 60 as museums receiving
operational funding (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014).2 I focus on non-profit museums
because GNB defines a museum as “a non-profit community institution, which acts as a
custodian to maintain, conserve, study, and interpret a permanent collection of heritage
resources” (Heritage Branch 2015a, 1). More specifically, I have investigated museums that
receive the Community Museums Assistance Grant (See Appendix B). I will, therefore, use the
3
term ‘community museums’ in reference to museums that are neither for profit nor a key
provincial institution – that is, the New Brunswick Museum, the Beaverbrook Art Gallery, Kings
Landing Historical Settlement, Le Village Historique Acadien, and the Provincial Archives of
New Brunswick (GNB 2014) – and receive an operational grant from the Provincial
Government.
1.1.2 Significance
Despite historical differences, Canadian cultural policy analyses have primarily been conducted
at the federal level (Harvey 1998; Gattinger and Saint-Pierre 2008; Jeannotte and Pineau 2013).
There are some notable exceptions, such as research into the neo-liberal shift or turn found in
Canadian provincial cultural policy (Marontate and Murray 2010; Gattinger and Saint-Pierre
2010; Jeannotte 2010). Further, Gattinger and Saint-Pierre’s Les Politiques culturelles
provinciales et territoriales du Canada: origines, évolutions et mises en oeuvre3 (2011) includes
a chapter on subnational cultural policy in each Canadian province and territory. To date, the
book has only been published in French and the chapter investigating New Brunswick has certain
limitations (Gattinger and Saint-Pierre 2011; Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011). Studies into New
Brunswick cultural policy have only discussed government articulations, action, and inaction that
are explicitly cultural (Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011; Pichette 2001). However, there are
government support programs, such as SEED, with objectives outside the purview of New
Brunswick’s official cultural policy that have an influence on museum public programming.
Unlike previous attempts to examine cultural policy in New Brunswick, I will consider the
influence of an implicit cultural policy, namely SEED, on museum public programming.
Barrieau and Bourgeois (2011), Pichette (2001), as well as Gattinger and Saint-Pierre (2008)
identify two strands of cultural policy in New Brunswick. One recognizes and valorizes “the arts
and culture” and a second recognizes the two official languages, according the same rights to
both linguistic groups. I argue the importance of acknowledging multiple cultural policies or
pillars as identified by Schuster (2003), which have developed concurrently in New Brunswick.
There is now an articulated policy that aims to be comprehensive, but such a policy has only
existed since 2002. Independent documents and branches in different sub-sectors, like art or
heritage, previously guided GNB action or inaction and attempts to analyze cultural policy have
been exclusive. In tracing the historical trajectory of policy concerning art and artists, authors
4
have overlooked the development of policy affecting museums. For example, Barrieau and
Bourgeois (2011) highlight support to the New Brunswick Museum as an early example of
cultural intervention, but they do not include the 1973 provincial museum policy in their
analysis. In contrast, I focus on policy articulations concerning museums up to and including
Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (2002). Further, there are multiple actors with distinct
mandates that developed and implemented programs guided by Cultural Policy for New
Brunswick from 2002 to 2014. After its release, the museum community and the Heritage Branch
collaborated to develop support programs; however, scholarship discussing New Brunswick
cultural policy has focused on the creation of other branches and departments. For instance,
Ouellette (2001) notes that Premier Louis J. Robichaud’s vision of a cultural policy led to the
creation of the Cultural Affairs Branch in March 1968. I demonstrate that the evolution of the
Historical Resource Administration (1967) into the Heritage Branch has not only influenced the
subsequent actions of the Branch, but has also contributed to the development of existing
government action influencing museum operations.
My research examines GNB’s influence on public programming developments in museums
because “social results influence the economic results and vice versa” (Camarero and Garrido
2009, 862). Achieving social objectives, such as “educating the visitors, and creating enthusiasm
for culture,” increases visitor numbers and, consequently, has a positive influence on museum
income (Ibid.). Accordingly, research on visitor-oriented or audience-centric museums finds that
the creation of visitor-focused products, such as exhibits or other public programs, is a means of
increasing organizational stability because these products enhance the likelihood audiences will
return and/or recommend the museum to others (Pietro et al. 2014; Reussner 2003). Further,
public programming benefits patrons by providing access to and engagement with resources,
which can lead to a more sustainable museum by fostering relationships between the institution
and community (Selvakumar and Storksdieck 2013). Lindqvist (2012) argues that the
management of stakeholder relationships is a more reliable way of dealing with financial crises
than short-term strategies. Stakeholders are any group or individual that “can affect or is affected
by the achievement of an organization’s objective” (Freeman 1984, 46),4 which includes
museum audiences. Since public programming is a means of creating relationships with
stakeholders and the development of stakeholder relations is an effective way to achieve long-
5
term economic sustainability,5 my research explores the effect of government support strategies
on the future sustainability of museums.
In short, there is little research on Canadian subnational cultural policy and existing literature on
New Brunswick is limited. The evolutions of explicit cultural policy initiatives since the 1960s,
such as the Heritage Branch and museum or heritage policy articulations, have contributed to
government action supporting museums from 2002 to 2014. However, their development is not
wholly examined in the existing scholarship (Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011; Gattinger and Saint-
Pierre 2008; Pichette 2001). Further, my research shows implicit cultural policy programs like
SEED are crucial to many community museums but, to my knowledge, student employment
programs have not been discussed as cultural policy in the academic literature. The absences
highlight the need for subnational cultural policy research focusing on heritage and museum sub-
sector policy developments in New Brunswick.
1.2 Theoretical and Methodological Approaches
Building on Barrieau and Bourgeois’ (2011) research into New Brunswick cultural policy, I use
a historical institutionalist approach in my research, which considers historical and institutional
factors – that is, “the formal rules, compliance procedures, and standard operating practices that
structure the relationship between individuals in various units of the polity and economy” (Hall
1986, 19; Imbeau et al. 2000). Effectively, I look at the historical development of cultural policy
prior to 2002 in order to analyze developments and influence from 2002 to 2014 because
“changes are not only dependent on current actions and events but also on a series of previous
events” (Kickert and van der Meer 2011, 476).
As part of my approach, I conducted a literature review on cultural policy and, more
specifically, the historical factors shaping its development in New Brunswick, focusing on public
support for museum programming. The review involved scholarly and non-scholarly sources,
including government publications and reports, news releases, newspaper articles, and websites.
I also accessed GNB, Association Museums New Brunswick (AMNB), museum, and personal
files in the Provincial Archives, enhancing my analysis with primary materials from the
departments and individuals that have implemented and received GNB support for community
6
museums. The review and archival research form the basis for Chapter Two, which provides an
overview of explicit cultural policy development from the 1960s to 2014.
In order to elucidate the perceived and understood realities of government policies and policy
outputs, I conducted in-depth interviews with people affected by the Government of New
Brunswick’s funding strategies – that is, representatives from community museums, a private
museum, and Heritage Branch employees (See Appendix C). The interviews were conducted
using a semi-structured interview style with open-ended questions (See Appendix D). I
conducted interviews with three current government staff as well as one representative from a for
profit museum. Since the purpose of the research is to gain a broader understanding of the impact
of policy outputs on the non-profit community museums sector, I conducted thirteen interviews
with representatives from non-profit museums in New Brunswick receiving an operating grant
from GNB. These interviews form the foundation of Chapters Three and Four, which analyze the
influence of policy on museum public programming within the context of their historical
development.
1.2.1 Scope
Interview participants representing non-profit museums include directors (volunteer and paid),
curators, a past president, and general volunteer or board members. While the participants’ titles
varied across the institutions, they all have some influence on or involvement in museum
operations. The thirteen participants represent museums on the list of eighty-three organizations
that have received an operational grant from the Heritage Branch as a historical society or
community museum between 2002-2003 and 2014-2015 (Appendix B). Interview participants
include seven museums receiving $4,999 or less, two museums receiving $5,000 to $9,999, three
museums receiving $10,000 to $19,999, and one museum receiving more than $100,000 from
GNB in 2014-2015. In other words, 54% of my interviews were with museums that receive
$1,000 to $4,999 (Figure 1). In comparison, 54% of the total operational grants to community
museums and historical societies went to organizations in that category in the same year (Figure
2). The next category represents 15% of my interviews and 20% of the total grants. While the
first two interview categories are comparable to the overall percentages, 23% of my interviews
were with museums receiving a $10,000 to $19,999 operational grant and that group only
represents 8% of the total grants awarded in 2014-2015. I interviewed no one from the 9%
7
receiving $20,000 to $49,999 or the 6% receiving $50,00 to $99,999. The last category is
organizations that received more than $100,000, which is 3% of the overall and 8% of my
interviews.
In Chapter Three, I discuss museums as small, medium, and large institutions (Table 1), using
the following criteria: museum’s operational grant from GNB, revenue according to the Canada
Revenue Agency, whether the museum has a year-round employee, and the organization’s
opening hours. Small-scale museums usually receive an operational grant of less than $5,000
54%
15%
23%
8%
Figure 1: Interview Participants' Museums' Operating Grant from GNB in 2014-2015
$1,000 - $4,999
$5,000 - $9,999
$10,000 - $19,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$200,000 - $300,000
54% 20%
8%
9%
6% 3%
Figure 2: Community Museums and Historical Societies Operating Grants from GNB in 2014-2015 (Allen-Scott, Godin
and Tremblay 2014)
$1,000 - $4,999
$5,000 - $9,999
$10,000 - $19,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$200,000 - $300,000
8
from GNB, have revenue of less than $50,000, do not have a year-round employee, and are only
open for regular hours seasonally. However, if a museum has revenue of less than $50,000 but
has an employee and is open for regular hours year-round, they are not considered a small-scale
museum. For example, Kings County Museum (KCM) only had revenue of $33,838 in 2013 but
received nonfinancial support from their municipality in the form of accommodations. As such,
they can afford a year-round director and can open during the winter. I have, therefore,
considered the KCM as a medium-scale institution and not a small-scale museum. Medium-
scale museums usually receive an operational grant between $5,000 and $10,000 from GNB,
have revenue of less than $100,000, can have a year-round employee, and may or may not be
open year-round. Large-scale museums usually receive an operational grant of over $10,000
from GNB, have revenue exceeding $100,000, have a year-round employee, and are often open
year round or closed for only two to three months. However, I have considered museums that
have revenue exceeding $100,000, but do not have a year-round employee as medium scale. For
example, Westmorland Historical Society, which operates the Keillor House, had $214,174 in
revenue in 2013, but they do not have a year-round employee and are only open for regular hours
seasonally. I have, therefore, included Keillor House as a medium-scale institution.
The interview participants from community museums that chose to be identified by name and
institution or institution only were from: the John Fischer Memorial Museum, the McAdam
Restoration Commission, the Chocolate Museum, the Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton,
the Fredericton Region Museum, the Campbell Carriage Factory Museum, the Musée historique
de Tracadie, the Musée Mgr.-Camille-Andre Leblanc, the Restigouche Regional Museum, the
Keillor House, and the Kings County Museum. Two participants chose to remain completely
anonymous
9
Table 1: Interview Participants Divided into Small, Medium, and Large Scale Institutions.
Museum Zone Community Museum Assistance Program 2002-2003; 2014-2015
Revenue as per their 2013 CRA report
Participant Year-round employee (y/n)
Large-scale museums Campbell Carriage Factory Museum (Tantramar Heritage Trust)6
Southeastern New Brunswick
$1,500; $5,000
$501,8577 Paul Bogaard, one of the founding directors of the Trust
Y
Fredericton Region Museum (York Sunbury Historical Society)
Central River Valley
$15,000; $15,000
$124,196 Fred White, Past President
Y
Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton
Musées du Sud-Est Nouveau-Brunswick
$215,000; $255,000
- Jeanne-Mance Cormier, Curator
Y
The Chocolate Museum
Fundy Culture
$1,000; $3,000
- Sarah Goulding, Manager/ Director
Y
Medium-Scale Museums Keillor House (Westmorland Historical Society/ Dorchester Heritage Properties)
Southeastern New Brunswick
$17,000; $17,000
$214,174 Alice Folkin, Volunteer and activities coordinator
N
Kings County Museum
Saint John Fundy
$2,500; $4,000
$33,838 Christine (Chris) White, Director
Y
McAdam Railway Station (McAdam Historical Restoration Commission)
Unclear8 0; $3,500
$366,609 - N
Restigouche Regional Museum
Restigouche $5,000; $6,000
- Bill Clarke, Director
N
Small-Scale Museums John Fischer Saint John $2,000; $38,839 - N
10
Memorial Museum (Peninsula Heritage)
Fundy $4,000
Musée Mgr. - Camille - Andre Leblanc (Eglise Historique de Barachois)
Musées du Sud-Est Nouveau-Brunswick (reseau francophone)
$500; $1,500
- - N
Le Musée historique de Tracadie
Peninsula - Chaleur
$2,000; $3,500
$42,647 - N9
1.2.2 Limitations
In order to ensure representation from all regions, I attempted to interview at least one participant
from each of the province’s nine regional museum zones (See Appendix E) – that is,
Restigouche, Madawaska/Victoria, Central Valley, Charlotte County (Fundy Culture), South-
East (anglophone), Sud-Est (francophone), Miramichi, Chaleur and Acadian peninsula, and Saint
John Fundy. Despite attempts, I was unable to interview anyone from a non-profit museum in the
Miramichi or Madawaska/Victoria regions. The list of potential interviews was limited as I
conducted all interviews in English and some regions, such as the Madawaska/Victoria region,
are primarily francophone.
There is a self-selecting bias within this research method as any system that asks for participation
favors the active. Reasonably, those that responded to my interview request are also those who
have an interest in provincial cultural policy. Most of the people who responded to my requests
for an interview were full-time paid directors or volunteers who have the resources to devote
both time to their organization as well as outside requests such as mine. Some of the volunteers
worked at or with the museum full-time at certain times of the year, indicating a degree of
affluence. These individuals were often from museums that actively participated in the larger
discussion in the province, such as the public consultations on the Cultural policy for New
Brunswick and the meetings that led to the development of the associated grant programs. For
example, forty-four people from a museum or historical society that has received an operational
11
grant from the Heritage Branch between 2002-2003 and 2014-2015 participated in a 2002
consultation (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c). Five interview participants took part in that
consultation. Of the nine interview participants from community museums who were involved
with their institutions in 2002, more than half participated in a 2002 cultural policy consultation.
Further, nine of the thirteen interview participants represent museums from the thirty-one
organizations that received an operational grant as a community museum or historical society
from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015 and participated in the consultation.10
In addition to having the ability to participate in the wider discussion as well as my research,
interview participants were from museums that take advantage of the programs offered through
the Heritage Branch. To demonstrate the imbalance, in 2013-2014 only thirty-two museums took
advantage of the Museum Collection Inventory Program, including ten of the thirteen interview
participants from non-profit museums. Twenty-four museums have taken advantage of the
program at least eight times from 2004-2005 to 2013-2014 and I interviewed representatives
from ten of these institutions, which is a large portion of my thirteen interviews with individuals
from museums eligible for the grant. A total of sixty-three organizations have accessed the grant
at least once from 2004-2005 to 2014-2015, including all but one of the non-profit museums
represented in my research. Where most of the museums in the province are volunteer run, my
results may look different with a greater representation of those institutions without the resources
to participate in the wider discourse. However, the participation of those actively taking
advantage of the provincial programs provided insights into how the support strategies influence
programming, which would have otherwise not been possible.
The opinions given during the interviews cannot represent the views of the entire museum
community. However, as active members of the museum community, the participants provided
valuable insights into the influence of government action as well as information about the
creation of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick and the subsequent support programs. It is also
important to note that in focusing on interviews as my primary research method, I am primarily
investigating the perceived influence of provincial cultural policy on museum public
programming.
12
1.3 Chapter Outline
This thesis is divided into five sections, including the introduction and the conclusion. The
second chapter investigates how provincial support for museums has evolved over time, leading
to and including the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick in 2002. Building on Barrieau
and Bourgeois’ (2011) work, Chapter Two is the culmination of a literature review as well as
archival work. In order to provide a foundation for the subsequent chapters, I analyze the
development of an explicit cultural policy in New Brunswick from the 1960s to the release of
Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (2002) and subsequent program developments, ending with
the release of Creative Futures (2014). My discussion focuses cultural policy discourses as they
emerge over time, using the state, market, and civil discourses outlined by McGuigan to frame
the analysis. I conclude that the evolution of policy in the province shapes the current programs
and, therefore, the influence of NB cultural policy on museum public programming.
The third and fourth chapters evaluate information obtained through the interview process. They
examine the influence of GNB support on community museum public programming from the
perspectives of the interview participants. Chapter Three discusses the grants offered by GNB’s
Museum Services Section, focusing on the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support
Program. I use examples in order to illustrate three arguments. First, interview participants
believe the grant has led to a greater quantity of exhibits that are of greater quality. Second, the
grant influences programming beyond what it funds as museums plan additional public programs
in association with the exhibits. Third, museums need people to plan programs, apply for
funding, and implement their plans. As such, some museums can access the grant more often and
generate more activity with the funding because they have the necessary staff and personnel.
The fourth chapter examines the influence of SEED as an implicit cultural policy. After
discussing the need for the program and its historical development, I examine its effect on
museum public programming from the perspective of those I interviewed, emphasizing the
importance of student employees to museum operations. While the program is crucial to many
museums and more accessible than its federal counterpart, there are issues with its administration
that lead to problems with its application. More specifically, three challenges with nonstandard
employment highlighted by Akingbola (2004) – retention, consistency, and quality – are evident
with SEED. While volunteers have provided museums with consistency, New Brunswick
13
community museums are in need of an alternative staffing model as the current volunteer base
ages. The chapter concludes with recommendations on the future of SEED and New Brunswick
community museum employment.
The conclusion begins with a summary of my findings from the proceeding chapters. I observe
that an implicit cultural policy – SEED – has the greatest influence on museum public
programming in New Brunswick. Then, I provide recommendations for future research,
discussing the thin distribution of funding in the province and highlighting some of the programs
since 2002 that address this issue. The Museum Network distributes funding through zones to
coordinate meetings and for marketing projects. Research is necessary in order to increase the
effectiveness of this funding model because there are other areas in which museums can
cooperate that would increase their capacity to offer public programming. I conclude with a
recommendation to shift GNB priorities toward increasing museums’ human resource capacity.
Interview participants believe the Provincial Government’s project-based funding has increased
the quantity and/or quality of their public programming. As individuals are needed to implement
these programs, it stands to reason that an increase in human resources will further enable
museums to take advantage of existing support strategies and to improve their offerings.
14
Chapter 2 A Historical Perspective: New Brunswick Cultural Policy from the
1960s to 2014
As historical specificity is essential to subnational cultural policy analysis (Gattinger and Saint-
Pierre 2010; Jeanotte 2010), this chapter asks how provincial support from the Government of
New Brunswick (GNB) for community museums in the province has evolved from the 1960s
until 2014. For the analysis, I have divided New Brunswick’s explicit cultural policy
development into three periods: from 1967 to 1980, from 1980 to 1999, and from 1999 to 2014.
First, I highlight the historical and administrative factors that shaped provincial cultural policy
frameworks from 1967 to 1980. Second, I discuss the reduced government funding to museums,
increased public consultation, and the publication of several policy documents that characterize
the second period from 1980 to 1999. Finally, I outline the collaborative process shaping
government articulations, action, and inaction in the most recent period, ending in 2014. I then
use the state, market, and civil discourses outlined by Jim McGuigan (2004) as a framework to
discuss the evolution of cultural policy in New Brunswick. As the development of cultural policy
in the province has shaped funding programs and, therefore, the influence of policy on museum
public programming, this chapter provides the historical and theoretical foundation from which I
have pursued my research.
2.1 Cultural Policy in New Brunswick
2.1.1 Frameworks: Robichaud and Federal Influence
The foundational period of a deliberate cultural policy in New Brunswick is from 1967 to 1980,
beginning with the Canadian Centennial Celebrations and ending with departmental
reorganization. During that time, GNB established administrative structures as well as plans and
priorities for museums, which formed a cultural policy framework for subsequent developments.
Several historical and administrative factors played a critical role in the formation of this
structure. First, there was a pre-existing provincial funding program for community museums.
Second, the 1967 Canadian Centennial celebrations provoked a significant shift in provincial
heritage resource development. Third, Premier Louis J. Robichaud initiated a cultural policy
15
along with his Equal Opportunity Program. Finally, the release of the National Museums Policy
in 1972 encouraged provincial action, including the creation of a provincial museums policy.
Prior to 1967, community museums received provincial support, but funding was given on an ad
hoc basis and not directed by a department responsible for heritage. Instead, grant applications
were mainly addressed to Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) then forwarded to the
Treasury Board’s Grants Committee as recommendations, which were rarely rejected (Pichette
2001, 75). This granting system continued with the input of the Historical Resource
Administration (HRA), created in 1967, until the Museums Branch11 developed a new funding
system in the late 1970s that continued these operational grants through the government unit
responsible for museums.12 This grant program continues today as the Community Museums
Assistance Program and, until the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick in 2002, was the
only consistent provincial funding program available to community museums.13
In a 1967 budget speech, the provincial Minister of Finance discussed an increased interest in
and appreciation for history in New Brunswick, remarking that the Centennial commemorations
had encouraged this concern and provided an opportunity to focus these interests.14 The
increased attention to local heritage and history contributed to the creation of the HRA,
announced in the budget speech (MacBeath 1975; McGuigan 1972). Initially, the HRA included
a Research and Development component responsible for support to community museums. This
unit of government evolved over time as responsibilities moved between departments and
departments were reorganized, resulting in the Heritage Branch. The Heritage Branch now has a
Museum Services Section that administers cultural policy to community museums. In short, the
Centennial provided the impetus for increased attention to heritage, contributing to the creation
of the Branch now responsible for program development and implementation.
The form and timing of the HRA were influenced not only by the Centennial celebrations, but
also by Liberal Premier Louis J. Robichaud’s broad policy objectives. As the first Premier
concerned with cultural policy, Robichaud’s interest and initiatives laid the foundation for its
development (Ouelette 2001).15 While Robichaud did not witness the establishment of a
Department of Culture Affairs, he did oversee the creation of the HRA, a centralized government
unit responsible for historical resource development in the province. During the 1960s,
16
Robichaud also implemented the Equal Opportunity Program, which involved the abolishment of
the decentralized county council form of government and the centralization of services. The
program’s objective was to provide equal access to services, like health care and education, for
all New Brunswickers regardless of their location in the province or language (Pichette 2001). At
the time, Lester B. Pearson’s Liberal government in Ottawa was actively building the welfare
state with new social initiatives, which often involved federal-provincial shared-cost programs.
Through the centralization of services, GNB created a tax base to pay for new initiatives and
could plan strategically in order to access federal resources (Young 2001). For example, the
establishment of the HRA enabled the Provincial Government to create plans and priorities to
take advantage of resources offered as part of the National Museum Policy.
On March 28, 1972 the Canadian Secretary of State announced the National Museum Policy
with the objectives of democratization and decentralization. Under the new policy, local
museums could apply for Special Grants from the Federal Government. One of the qualifications
for funding was how well the project fit within the “provincial or municipal government
priorities in the development of a network of museums” (National Museums of Canada 1972, 3).
Under Progressive Conservative Premier Richard Hatfield, elected in 1970, the HRA advocated
provincial museum policy guidelines, arguing that an articulated plan was critical in order to
receive an equitable share of the new federal funding (HRA 1973). Echoing the national concern
with democratization and decentralization, Order-in-Council 73-518 divided the province into
five regions in order to establish priorities and create regional museums with local support from
historical societies. Although the plan led to the establishment of the Madawaska Museum in
Edmundston, the creation of five regional museums and coordination within zones was not fully
realized at that time. The Museums Branch, created in 1975 to administer the provincial museum
policy, suffered financial cuts and was reorganized by 1980.
From 1967 to 1980, GNB also established the Provincial Archives, Kings Landing, Village
Historique Acadien as well as provincial historic sites – MacDonald Farm, the birthplace of
Andrew Bonar Law, and Minister’s Island. GNB was thus actively and directly involved in
museum development. As stated by the Deputy Head of the HRA, George MacBeath, “those
were the days when New Brunswick and Premier Robichaud had money for heritage matters”
(2012, 12).
17
Table 2: Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1967 to 1980.
Year Provincial National
1960 • Liberal Premier Robichaud’s government elected
1967 • The HRA established • The Provincial Archives of New Brunswick established
• Canadian Centennial Celebrations
1970 • Progressive Conservative Premier Hatfield elected • GNB purchased MacDonald Farm
1972 • Kings Landing Opens • National Museums Policy
1973 • Provincial Museums Policy (Order Council 73-518) • The Association Museums New Brunswick (AMNB) is
incorporated
1974 • GNB acquired the birthplace of Andrew Bonar Law
1975 • Museums Branch and Cultural Affair Branch established.
1977 • GNB purchased Minister’s Island
1980 • Departmental reorganization
2.1.2 A Period of Consultations: The Hatfield and McKenna Governments
The next period of cultural policy development is from 1980, beginning with the reorganization
of the Museums Branch under Premier Richard Hatfield and continuing with budget reductions
under Premier Frank McKenna, until the election of Bernard Lord’s government in 1999. GNB
priorities began to change in 1980, as illustrated by the reorganization of the Museums Branch.
The Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Heritage replaced the Department of Historical and
Cultural Resources in 1985 and there was a 5% to 10% decrease in operational grants that same
year (AMNB 1985). The Branch responsible for historic sites began devolving its responsibility
for operations, such as the Madawaska Museum in 1987, and shifted its focus to providing
services. With the formation of an advisory committee to study cultural policy in the province,
Hatfield brought in an era that involved provincial consultations on cultural policy development
every few years.16
18
By the release of the Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts’ Final Report (1989), Liberal
Premier McKenna’s government had won every seat in the Legislature. McKenna is known for
his economic reforms as he focused on job creation, promoted business, and actively sought
investment in the province (Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick 2014). He also reduced the
number and size of provincial departments, resulting in the formation of a joint Department of
Municipalities, Culture and Housing (MCH). The articulations and actions of the MCH,
responsible for heritage from 1991 until 1998, influenced museum policy in the province. The
Department, concerned with facilitating partnerships and encouraging community action,
oversaw several public consultations on cultural policy and, during the Department’s tenure,
museums experienced more cuts in operational funding (Duffe 1994).
In 1990, the Federal Government released an updated national museums policy, the Canadian
Museum Policy: Temples of the Human Spirit. At the time, the Provincial Government had no
clear policy articulation on funding museums and heritage resources, resulting in inconsistent
practices.17 The MCH then initiated the development of Through Partnership to Stewardship:
New Brunswick Heritage Policy in 1992. The policy, released in 1994, advocated the application
of standards to smaller museums in order to justify support and the use of private sector
partnerships. Despite the importance of museums and heritage articulated in the policy, budget
cuts and no new support strategies for museums followed its release.
By the time Bernard Lord’s Progressive Conservative government came into power in 1999,
there had been much discussion regarding cultural policy. There were consultations as part of
FORUM ’87, a strategic planning study on provincial parks and heritage sites (1989-1990), the
heritage policy review (1992-1994), FORUM ’95,18 and a cultural policy review (1997). As
stated by Barrieau and Bourgeois (2011, 86), the issue of cultural policy had been discussed at
great length and stakeholders, including organizations or individuals working in culture and
education as well as the general public, had expressed themselves repeatedly. From 1987 to 1998
there were more than ten papers published or commissioned by GNB discussing specific aspects
of cultural policy.19 These consultations and documents resulted in some action, such as the
creation of the New Brunswick Arts Board in 1990, but did not lead to the requested
comprehensive cultural policy that would set “forth the government’s desire to affirm New
19
Brunswick’s cultural identity and support artists, businesses, and organizations who excel and
wish to be part of the international scene” (Theriault, Fry et. al 1997, 13).
Table 3: Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1980 to 1999.
Year Provincial National 1982 • Department of Historical and Cultural Resources replaces the
HRA
1985 • Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage formed • 5-10% decrease in community museum operational funding
1987 • FORUM ’87 • GNB begins negotiations to transfer the Madawaska Museum to
the University of Moncton Edmunston Campus
1988 • Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts: Interim Report20
1989 • Final Report (Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts)21 • Response to the Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts
1990 • New Brunswick Arts Board created
• Provincial Parks and Heritage Sites Master Plan: Final Report (TRH)
• Canadian Museum Policy: Temples of the Human Spirit
1991 • Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing formed • A Strategy on Culture Toward the Year 2000 (Division of
Culture)
1992 • Heritage Policy Review begins
1993 • Through Partnership to Stewardship: A Discussion Paper (MCH)
1994 • Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Heritage
Policy (MCH) • Operational grant reductions
1995 • FORUM ’95 • Towards an Arts Policy for New Brunswick (New Brunswick
Arts Board)
1997 • Cultural Policy Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations for a Cultural Policy (Theriault, Fry et. al.)
1998 • A Commitment to our Culture: Response to the Cultural Policy Task Force Report
1999 • Progressive Conservative Premier Bernard Lord’s government elected
20
2.1.3 Time for Change: Bernard Lord
The final period of cultural policy development in New Brunswick, beginning with the election
of Progressive Conservative Premier Bernard Lord in 1999, is ongoing. After Lord had come
into power, officials tried making a cultural policy based on past consultations and publications,
but this approach was not well received by stakeholders. The cultural community voiced concern
regarding the proposed policy, saying they could not identify with the document as it was too
general and lacked clarity (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002b).22 GNB then formed a working
group with representatives from various arts and heritage organizations, involving the wider
community through consultations both before and after the policy’s release. Cultural Policy for
New Brunswick was thus formed in an environment of cooperation between stakeholders and
government officials. GNB released the policy in February 2002 as part of Lord’s 10-year Road
to Prosperity initiative and it addresses four areas of concern: Culture in Everyday Life,
Professional Artists and Cultural Professionals, Our Collective Heritage, and Culture and the
Economy (Office of the Premier 2002). Cultural Policy for New Brunswick is comprehensive,
involved stakeholder participation in its formation, and was followed by increases in financial
support.
GNB announced funding increases with the policy, supporting their articulation with action and
leading to new support strategies. Cultural Policy for New Brunswick resulted in the
establishment of the Museum Network and an initial $100,000 investment in its development,
which is the only new support program for museums articulated in the policy.23 In order to
develop this Network and new funding programs, the Heritage Branch divided the province into
nine regional zones and invited participants to Fredericton for workshops, covering travel and
accommodation costs (Burley 2002). In preparation for the meeting, the Heritage Branch asked
participants to refer to Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick (AMNB 2000), published by
the AMNB in collaboration with the Heritage Branch, and to conduct an environmental scan of
their museum.24 They then held workshops to determine what funding programs the community
believed they needed. Within the year, the Branch implemented funding for marketing,
professional or organizational development, as well as exhibit renewal and other museum
activities. The following November, the Heritage Branch held additional stakeholder meetings,
leading to the Museum Collection Inventory Program. The Branch also implemented a fine arts
21
conservation program and built heritage funding, but these programs are only available,
respectively, to museums dealing with fine art or housed in a historic property and are, therefore,
not my present focus. I discuss the new funding programs and their influence in greater detail in
Chapter Three.
Since the implementation of the Museum Collection Inventory Program in 2004-2005,
community museums have not seen new support programs from the Museum Services Section.
While GNB maintained support for existing policies, there was little development under Liberal
Premier Sean Graham, elected in 2006. The new government shifted their focus toward
sustainability and established a Task Force to examine the challenges faced by non-profits in
New Brunswick (Hood 2009).25 In 2010, David Alward’s Progressive Conservative government
replaced Graham’s Liberal government. While continuing existing funding programs, GNB
began a cultural policy renewal in 2012, which involved a working group, public consultations,
and a website where the public could submit their opinions. Following the release of Creative
Futures: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick in July 2014, the Museum Services
Section conducted a consultation at the AMNB annual meeting and GNB revised the built
heritage program, but it remains unclear what, if any, new support strategies will be created.
Looking broadly, from 1999 to 2014 provincial heritage policy included the formation and
release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick and Creative Futures in an environment of
cooperation. GNB also continued and increased the budget for the Community Museum
Assistance Program, as well as implemented new funding programs for professional or
organizational development, marketing, coordination within zones, collection inventory, and
exhibit renewal or other museum activities. The Government continued to support key provincial
heritage institutions – the New Brunswick Museum, Kings Landing, and Village Historique
Acadien. The Minister received recommendations to devolve provincial historic sites – Bonar
Law, Ministers Island, Doak Historic Site, MacDonald Farm, and Sheriff Andrews House. To
that end, GNB has completed partnership agreements for all but the Sheriff Andrews House
(THC 2013). The Heritage Branch also collaborated with the AMNB to produce Guidelines for
Museums in New Brunswick (2000), which was called for in the 1994 heritage policy. The
Government then used the guidelines as a basis for consultations after the release of the 2002
policy. While GNB had previously published various policy papers articulating the importance
22
of heritage, the 2002 policy marks the first time since 1973 that the Government not only
articulated a policy, but also took action in the form of funding for museums directed by the
document. While a policy renewal began in 2012 and GNB released a new cultural policy in
2014, it remains unclear whether this articulation marks a shift in direction.
Table 4: Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1999 to 2014.
Year Event
1999 • Progressive Conservative Bernard Lord’s government elected
2000 • Culture and Sport Secretariat created • Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick (AMNB)
2002 • Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (Culture and Sport Secretariat) • Consultations with the museum community
2003 • Museum Network for New Brunswick launched • Musée acadien in Moncton receives a $200,000 increase • Consultation with the museum community
2006 • Department of Wellness, Culture and Sport formed • Liberal Premier Sean Graham’s government elected
2007 • Self Sustainability Task Force
2010 • Progressive Conservative David Alward’s government elected
2012 • Department of Culture, Tourism and Healthy Living formed • Cultural Policy Review begins
2014 • Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture formed • Creative Futures: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick
2.2 Discussion
New Brunswick cultural policy has been shaped by prevalent policy discourses as they emerge
over time. Building on the state, market, and civil discourses outlined by McGuigan (2004), this
section highlights the appearance of common cultural policy approaches within New Brunswick.
According to McGuigan, these general discourses are an over-simplification as there is variation
within them and they do not exist in isolation, but interact with one another. However, they
23
provide a general structure within which I have oriented cultural policy developments in New
Brunswick and GNB justifications for its involvement in heritage.
The state discourse emerged in the twentieth century “around the idea that the modern nation-
state should command the whole of society, regulate the economy and cultivate appropriate
selves” (McGuigan 2004, 36). Within this discourse, the state is the key agent in cultural policy,
but there are various justifications for government action, including social access and social
control (McGuigan 1996). For instance, the rise of the welfare state after WWII saw increased
government involvement in heritage (Belfiore 2002; O. Bennett 1995 1996; Gray 2000;
McGuigan 2004; Meisel and Van Loon 1987; Pick 1988). Governments legislated the right for
equal access to the arts, culture, and/or heritage, motivated by the idea that the arts should be
accessible to all irrespective of class or location (O. Bennett 1996; Pick 1988). For example, in
the 1960s, Britain enacted educational and cultural public policies “in the name of ‘access’ to
opportunities and pleasures that were previously denied to most people” (McGuigan 2004, 40).
To that end, the British Government helped “sustain a network of theatres, museums, galleries,
libraries, orchestras and art centres throughout the country” (O. Bennett 1995, 203). As part of
the state discourse, McGuigan argues governments have used cultural policy in an attempt to “re-
engineer the soul,” creating more ‘ideal’ citizens. Further, a key feature of cultural policies in
multicultural countries “is the object of reconciling different ethnic and national identities with
one another” (Ibid., 35). Similarly, Pick (1988) discusses education or training as a justification
for government involvement in arts funding. Within this framework, the state uses art to
emphasize a particular viewpoint, training its citizens. This resonates with T. Bennett’s (1995)
assessment that public museums developed as a means of improving the working class.
The dominant reasoning for cultural policies has changed over time and, since the 1980s, the
market discourse has increasingly directed cultural policy discussions (Gray 2008; McGuigan
2004; Myerscough 1988; Weil 2012; Wu 2002). Within this discourse, there is an increased
concern with the economic aspects of cultural policy as the language of money and efficiency
reduce all value to exchange value (McGuigan 2004). Other authors identify the market
discourse as a neoliberal turn or tide in cultural policy where culture is seen as a commodity and
governance is based on productivity and profitability (Jeannotte 2010). Cultural policies based
on these concepts can be utilized to increase tourism, boost international trade, increase
24
employment, or are seen as part of regional development (Meisel and Van Loon 1987; Strom
2003; Pick 1988).
McGuigan advocates a civil discourse as an alternative to the state and market discourses, which
both reduce culture to “something other than what it is” (2004, 53). Conversely, the civil
discourse is “concerned with the democratization of communications and culture” (Ibid., 144). A
call for and an emphasis on more democratic decision-making and public participation in the
policy process is reflected in policy literature more broadly. For instance, deLeon advocates for
“the greater incorporation of citizens’ values on an explicit basis into the policy process” (1992,
126). In some countries or regions, participatory processes have even become statutorily
mandated (Escobar 2013). However, the civil discourse discussed by McGuigan does not merely
entail civil society’s –a voluntarily associated community of actors who are neither of the state
nor of the market – participation in policy conversations. The discourse involves the
Habermasian public sphere as a “political space for rational-critical debate that, in principle, has
consequences for policy” (McGuigan 2004, 51). Within this construct, participants can reach a
consensus regarding claims on shared resources through mutual understanding rather than
manipulation or coercion. While there is much debate as to whether this form is actual or ideal,
McGuigan explains that for Habermas it was both. However, “the actuality is a good deal less
perfect than the idealization” (McGuigan 2005, 427). As such, I will discuss the civil discourse
and public sphere as theoretical constructs within which I am orienting actual policy
developments.
The state, market, and civil discourses outlined by McGuigan are evident in the evolution of
cultural policy in New Brunswick. The state discourse contributed to the foundation of cultural
policy in the province. For instance, access to services regardless of class or location is a major tenet of Premier Robichaud’s social policies and the initiation of a cultural policy is associated with his reforms (Pichette 2001; Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011). The Equal Opportunity Program
provided equal access to government resources and these social reforms aimed to take advantage
of the Federal Government’s welfare state approach to governance, leading to centralized social
services within the province (Young 2001). Accordingly, the creation of centralized units of
government dealing with culture is a manifestation of the welfare state approach to culture seen
widely at the time and encouraged by the Federal Government. Access is also a justification in
25
GNB’s 2002 policy document, Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. For example, Goal 1.a in the
document is to “improve access to and awareness of culture in New Brunswick” (Culture and
Sport Secretariat 2002a, 11), and a civil servant with the Museum Services Section stated, “the
policy mandates that steps be taken to develop a wider audience and improve access to cultural
resources for residents” (Interview Participant H 2014).
The HRA began administrating support to community museums, in part, to increase access to
historical resources, but support strategies existed prior to an official government approach to
heritage. As such, broader historical understanding is needed when discussing the foundation of
cultural policy in New Brunswick and the application of a sate discourse in practice. The Branch
responsible for museums did not create an operational funding program with an articulated
intent. Instead, museums initially received grants according to the recommendations of MLAs.
This granting system continued with the input of the HRA and was eventually adopted by the
Museums Branch. While the criteria for the program have not always been clear, museums
originally received funding as requested because the Treasury Board Grants Committee rarely
rejected the recommendations of politicians (Pichette 2001). Support continued in a haphazard
manner through operational grants as GNB budgets were influenced by past funding patterns,
and the Provincial Government did not maintain or follow articulated criteria. For example, one
of the current eligibility requirements is that the museum must be a registered charity. According
to the Canadian Revenue Agency’s online database, institutions receiving the grant, such as the
Chocolate Museum and the Restigouche Regional Museum, are not. The Committee created a
foundation for funding to community museums from which the HRA built a program that
continues today as the largest source of provincial funding for community museums in the
province. The Community Museum Assistance program, therefore, demonstrates that the
evolution of cultural policy is multifaceted and shaped by both broad discourses, such as the state
discourse, as well as historical specificities, such as the program’s origins outside of an official
cultural policy.
Historically and as part of the state discourse in Canada, “nation building and province building have provided powerful incentives for public expenditure on the arts and other cultural pursuits” (Meisel and Van Loon 1987, 307). Accordingly, the HRA’s second annual report states,
“heritage…may better bind us together – with all of our diversity – as members of the province’s
26
community” (HRA1970, xii). The 1973 provincial museum plan calls for the development of
regional museums to tell local histories that would “stimulate both pride in, and understanding
of, the region it serves” (HRA 1973, Appendix A). However, due to reductions in funding, most
of the regional museums were not established and, during the 1980s, the Historic Sites Branch
placed its emphasis on assisting local groups rather than acquiring and developing properties.
However, GNB remained concerned with culture’s role in province building. Strategy on Culture
Toward the Year 2000 (Division of Culture 1991) argues New Brunswickers do not have a sense
of provincial identity. As such, the document’s vision is for citizens to form “a stronger sense of
provincial identity and pride in themselves as people” (Ibid.,7). In order to build provincial pride
and identity, the document states that the Division on Culture “will continue to improve public
awareness of our past” (Ibid.,9) and, to that end, it calls for a provincial museums policy, leading
to Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Heritage Policy (MCH 1994). Culture’s role in identity formation continues to be a key theme in Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, which states “culture defines the identity of a people and draws them together, creating a sense
of cohesion” (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a, 10). Further, GNB supports culture, in part,
because cultural heritage “provides New Brunswickers with an identity” (Ibid., 15).
While the regional museum network would have arguably promoted a specific identity as
directed by the Provincial Government, cultural policies have multiple uses and interpretations.
The network can alternatively be understood as recognizing provincial diversity and an
application of “cultural democracy” rather than the “democratization of culture” (Mulcahy
2006b). Whereas the democratization of culture promotes access to specific content, cultural
democracy focuses on increasing access to modes of production and distribution. The 1973 plan
emphasized local support and difference. At the time, GNB believed that the community
museums were of low caliber due to a lack of suitable infrastructure, professional staff, and
adequate funding. The proposed network would have allowed these institutions to improve while
supporting and receiving support from their regional museum, which recognized distinct
geographic or political priorities. Recall that the implementation of Cultural Policy for New
Brunswick in 2002 involved the creation of a museum network. The Network that exists today
includes nine zones, but none of the zones has an official ‘regional’ museum directed by GNB.
Still, the idea that policy should provide assistance that addresses distinct local needs and
concerns remains prevalent in New Brunswick.
27
The shift toward a market discourse is visible in 1985 when New Brunswick community
museums became the responsibility of the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage
(1985-1991). Economic reasoning then becomes more pronounced under McKenna (1987-1997),
supporting government inaction. A 1991 draft of the Memorandum to the Executive Council
asking for the Heritage Policy Review indicates that museums and heritage resources were too
dependent on government funding. The Memorandum advocates encouraging partnerships
between private businesses and heritage organizations, revenue producing activities, and the use
of “other private sources” (MCH 1991, 2). It also mentions the tourism and revenue
considerations of heritage, stating: “part of the tourism development focus will include culture
and heritage resources” (Ibid.). Within the market discourse, McGuigan discusses organizational
changes, especially privatization, enacted by governments to achieve “greater managerial
efficiency, public-private partnership, relative autonomy from the state and, perhaps, increased
civil democracy and accountability” (2004, 49). The privatization of museums established as
provincial sites or regional museums by GNB began with the devolution of the Madawaska
Museum in 1987 and continues today.
Economic aims continued in subsequent policy articulations. Although GNB articulated a shift
away from direct operational activities in the 1980s, they continued to operate several museums
as historic sites. Shortly after the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, the Government
began a partnership agreement with the Village of Rexton for the management of the Bonar Law
Provincial Historic Site. They then made management or lease agreements with, and began
providing operational grants to, the Van Horne Estate on Ministers Island for Ministers Island
(2007-2008), the Atlantic Salmon Museum for the Doak Historic Site (2011-2012), and the
Highland Society of New Brunswick at Miramichi for the management of MacDonald Farm
(2012-2013). Under the section Culture and the Economy, Goal 4 of Cultural Policy for New
Brunswick is to “maximize the economic benefits of culture in order to improve New
Brunswick’s position in the global economy” (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a, 17). The
cultural policy document states that culture serves to make New Brunswick a more attractive
place for visitors or tourists. It defines cultural tourism as “tourism motivated by an interest in
other peoples, other places, and other cultures” (Ibid., 4), noting this interest often focuses on
museums. The belief that museums are centers for tourism supports the Heritage Branch’s
current placement within the Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture (2012 - present). The
28
devolution of the provincial sites and focus on tourism in New Brunswick from 2002 to 2014
aligns with the market discourse prevalent in the late 1980s and the 1990s.
The devolution of management to local organizations can alternatively be interpreted as
increased civil democracy because GNB decentralized management, giving operational control
to the community. Under the leadership of L.K. Ingersoll,26 the director of the Museums Branch
in 1975, the Branch actively advocated for museums to become involved in policy formation. In
1977, while he was attempting to develop a museum policy and programs, he wrote for the
AMNB newsletter stressing that readers are “not only free to do so, but SHOULD write to our
Minister expressing our needs and suggesting ways and means to jointly enhance our cultural
patterns” (1977, 28). He wanted people in the museum community to “stand up and be counted”
(Ibid.).27 To that end, he consulted the community when developing criteria for the operational
grants.
The museum community was given opportunities to be heard through government-led public
consultations on cultural policy in 1987, 1993, 1995, and 1997, suggesting the presence of a civil
discourse. While none of these consultations led to a comprehensive cultural policy, the 1993
consultation resulted in Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Heritage Policy
(MCH 1994). The timing of the policy review, subsequent reductions in funding, and statements
from museum professionals I interviewed who were involved at the time indicate the document
was not created collaboratively (Interview Participant B; F. White 2014). While the Department
of Municipalities, Culture and Housing initiated the Heritage Policy Review in March 1992, the
Minister did not form a committee to conduct client-partner consultations until March 1993. The
Committee then held consultations through meetings as well as a discussion paper and made
their recommendations within a year. The policy was released in April, only one month after the
Committee met with the Minister. I found no record of subsequent consultations regarding
adjusting the existing funding program for museums or creating new ones under the direction of
the policy. Instead, there were budget cuts. At least seven people I interviewed were involved in
the New Brunswick museum community during the 1990s. When discussing collaboration with
GNB, no participant mentioned the 1994 policy. One individual did not even remember a 1994
heritage policy (Interview Participant B) and another believed it was already written by the time
they were consulted (F. White 2014). During the interviews, participants said, Cultural Policy
29
for New Brunswick was the first policy articulation that involved the museum community
(Interview Participant D). There was thus the appearance of pseudo civil discourse in the second
period of cultural policy development as GNB provided a forum for conversation, but the result
does not reflect community consensus.
In the words of Jeanne-Mance Cormier from the Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton,
“Cultural Policy for New Brunswick [was] a humongous change for our establishment for sure.
We like the cultural policy because it was built with us, for us” (2014). The language of
participation with stakeholders is emphasized in GNB communication on Cultural Policy for
New Brunswick. For example, the policy lists the working group participants and states, “the
Province of New Brunswick acknowledges with gratitude the participation of its many
stakeholders and employees who contributed to the development of a Cultural Policy for New
Brunswick” (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a, iii). The participatory process aligns with the
idealized public sphere where people can reach a consensus regarding shared resources, which
influences policy direction. While not articulated as such, this ideal form is presented within the
21st century New Brunswick cultural policy discourse. For instance, the news release announcing
the policy does not discuss the justifications present in it, but rather the process through which it
was formed. In the release, the Minister responsible for the Culture and Sport Secretariat states,
“with the input of our partners in the arts and heritage sectors, and many stakeholders, a common
vision has been achieved” (Office of the Premier 2002). The statement demonstrates the attention
paid to the involvement of the Working Group that reached a common understanding and also
influenced policy.
People from community museums were involved in shaping the funding programs for their
organizations that evolved from Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. After the policy’s release,
the Heritage Branch invited museum representatives to consultations so they could articulate
what assistance they needed the most. As requested by the community, one of the first funding
programs was for marketing. As such, participation shaped the funding programs that were made
available and, therefore, the influence of policy on museum public programming. In order to
exert this influence, the museum community engaged in a conversation with members of the
civil service, developing mutual understanding. An interview participant (D 2014) noted that the
museum community is being heard, but they understand there is limited money to distribute.
30
Fred White (2014) with the Fredericton Region Museum stated the Heritage Branch can see that
many museums lack the ability to carry out programs and the museum community sees the
Branch’s lack of funding. Through this understanding, the two groups have a non-adversarial
relationship that involves working in partnership to divide the limited financial resources (Ibid).
However, not all interview participants viewed their relationship with GNB as a partnership
amongst acknowledged equals. Paul Boogard (2014) with the Campbell Carriage Factory
Museum stated, “[the cultural policy] sets a framework within which we don’t have much choice
but to operate…. It is a framework that we couldn’t set, province wide, only a province can do
that.”
GNB facilitates conversation amongst museums regarding shared resources. One method for the
community to engage is the Museum Network. The province’s nine regional zones are given
money to coordinate meetings and can apply as a group for marketing funding. According to an
interview participant, the money is distributed within her zone according to need and, therefore,
is not necessarily divided equally. When talking about the division of money to purchase signage
for museums within her zone, she stated, “it was really a generous [process]” (Interview
Participant A 2014). While certain regions, particularly Charlotte County, are used as an example
of how resources can be shared to everyone’s benefit, not all interview participants present this
process as ideal. In fact, two went so far as to say that others are only involved in the community
in order to advance their own interests and museums, demonstrating how the presence of a so-
called public sphere is largely dependent on the zone and individuals in question.
There are shortcomings to using broad frameworks in cultural policy analysis. When discussing
the application of the state discourse in New Brunswick, I demonstrated that a historical
perspective can supplement analysis, offering a more comprehensive understanding, and policies
can have multiple interpretations that do not necessary align with the prevalent discourse.
Gattinger and Saint-Pierre note, it is “important to identify the role of the Canadian federal
government in shaping provincial cultural policy analysis” (Gattinger and Saint-Pierre 2008,
183). The federal government has had a role in shaping New Brunswick cultural policy both
within and beyond the prevalent cultural policy discourses. Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate
provincial cultural policy articulations followed national articulations, such as the 1973
provincial museum plan released to take advantage of resources offered through the National
31
Museums Policy. Table 4 does not demonstrate the same cause and effect because the federal
government has not released a museum policy since 1990 and does not have an articulated
comprehensive cultural policy. However, federal cultural policies have continued to interact with
the subnational. For example, GNB asks museums to upload a number of objects to Artefacts
Canada as part of the Museum Collection Inventory Program. An awareness of the federal
influence on the provincial government is thus significant in an analysis of both the
establishment and continued development of subnational cultural policy.
To summarize, the state discourse had an influence on the formation of cultural policy in New
Brunswick and continues to influence the provincial goals. The market discourse has had an
influence as sites that were operated by GNB were devolved and became funded through the
Community Museums Assistance Program. Finally, while the Museum Network was a strategy
in the culture policy, its implementation and new funding programs came after additional
consultation with the museum community. The civil discourse has, therefore, had a major
influence on museum policy from 2002 to 2014 because government policy articulation and
action through funding programs were developed in collaboration. The presence of these broad
discourses is not confined to a point in time. Instead, they were each prevalent during different
periods of cultural policy development, shaping and continuing to shape policy initiatives. In
other words, New Brunswick cultural policy does not reflect one approach and has been
influenced by cultural policy discourses as they emerge over time.
2.3 Conclusion
Cultural policy existed in New Brunswick prior to 1967 as government action influenced
museum development. GNB gave operational grants to museums, was planning the Provincial
Archives as well as Kings Landing, and funded libraries as well as the New Brunswick Museum.
However, 1967 marks a turning point with the inception of an articulated, explicit cultural
policy, which saw the creation of government units responsible for cultural affairs, such as the
Historical Resource Administration. The HRA continued operational grants to museums and
became directly involved in heritage, providing technical advice or assistance and operating
provincial historic sites. While Kings Landing and the Village Historique Acadien are now
considered key provincial institutions, GNB began to shift away from direct operational
activities in the 1980s. Museums saw cuts in operational funding and the Government did not
32
establish any additional support programs despite the release of From Partnership to
Stewardship in 1994. Instead, the 1994 policy is concerned with encouraging partnerships
beyond the government sector and creating standards for museums. The release of Cultural
Policy for New Brunswick in 2002 marked a significant change in GNB’s approach to culture
because it was created collaboratively, was accompanied by additional funding, and resulted in
new financial support programs for museums.
Historically, GNB influenced museum public programming through the provision of operational
funding as well as technical advice and assistance. Further, they created provincial historic sites
that now operate as community museums through lease or management agreements. There were
no funding programs directed toward programming before 2003 as operational funding could be
spent at the discretion of the institution receiving the grant. After the release of Cultural Policy
for New Brunswick, the civil service collaborated with the museum community to create project-
based funding programs, which have led to an influx of funding. These grants, created using
Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick (AMNB 2000), influence museum public
programming. Notably, the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program provides
funding for exhibits as well as activities such as a lecture series. The grants’ historical
development from the inception of the HRA in 1967 is significant as origins and discourses
influenced their creation and continue to shape their implementation.
Cultural Policy in New Brunswick has reflected and continues to demonstrate the state, market,
and civil discourses discussed by McGuigan (2004). However, pre-existing support strategies
and the significance placed on regional difference in New Brunswick have also shaped cultural
policy development. Further, early plans developed to take advantage of resources offered by the
Federal Government. There are other context specific considerations that have influenced the
development of cultural policy in the province but are beyond the scope of my research. For
example, the releases of the policy articulations discussed above align with election years in
1974, 1995, 2003, and 2014.28 However, I have not discussed the impact of clientelism –a
process whereby goods or services are exchanged for political support. Further research is
needed in order to establish whether the trend in dates denotes a connection between elections
and the release of a cultural policy or is merely coincidental. Another potential influence is from
other provinces, particularly those in the Atlantic region where three of the provinces articulated
33
a comprehensive cultural policy in 2002. As the common date could also demonstrate a shared
federal influence, comparative research would assist in understanding whether there is a causal
link. Further, there were publicized disagreements with regards to the New Brunswick Museum
(NBM) in the 1990s that may have influenced the development of the 1994 heritage policy and
influences GNB support to community museums, but my research did not focus on the NBM due
to time restrictions. An interesting avenue of future research would be into the influence of the
relationship between GNB and the NBM on heritage policy more broadly in New Brunswick.
Due to time restraints, I did not research the influence of municipal cultural policy, but it is a
potential avenue of research. For instance, I will demonstrate in Chapter Three that project-based
grants favor museums with greater capacity. As municipalities provide or do not provide
operational support, the application of provincial policy may be affected. A greater awareness of
municipal influences may have led to better understanding regarding current funding patterns.
My analysis of cultural policy from 1967 onward raises questions regarding the intent and
influence of the new provincial support strategies. Since 2002, there are new project-based forms
of funding that direct museum activity. Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, which guided the
funding programs’ development, is concerned with increasing access, supporting a provincial
identity, and a civil discourse. As such, Chapter Three examines the project-based grants and
attempts to address some of the following questions. Are the new funding programs a way for
GNB to control how their money is spent? Do the programs increase perceived professionalism?
How do these programs influence museums? Do museums now engage in more of the projects
that are funded (i.e. exhibits)? Are the exhibits produced of higher quality?
34
Chapter 3 Governed Direction: The Influence of Project-Based Funding on
Museum Public Programming in New Brunswick
The Government of New Brunswick (GNB) created new project-based grants and increased
operational funding to community museums after the release of Cultural Policy for New
Brunswick (2002), which have directly and indirectly influenced museum public programming.
After discussing the concept of museum public programming, I briefly outline changes to
funding offered through the Museum Services Section since 2002 and its impact on community
museums. Then, I discuss the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program in
detail, focusing on its use as exhibit funding. The analysis includes examples that demonstrate
the grant’s effect in three sections in order to illustrate the following arguments. First, the Exhibit
Renewal Program provides money for a specific activity, which encourages museums to produce
more exhibits with larger budgets. Second, when museums produce new exhibits, they often
offer accompanying public programming. Third, not all museums have the personnel to regularly
access the grant or to develop ancillary programs. In other words, the Exhibit Renewal and
Museum Activities Support Program has had an influence on museum public programming,
leading to more programs and increased spending, but its effect is mitigated by museums’
limited capacity.
3.1 Public Programming
There is no one widely accepted definition of museum public programming. According to the
Smithsonian Institute, museum education “is not clearly defined, and its meaning varies widely
over time and among museums” (2001, 3). In a document outlining skills needed by the museum
workforce, the Canadian Museum Association (CMA) defines public programming as activities
that “provide informal learning opportunities for people of all ages and backgrounds with
emphasis on experiential, developmental and interactive learning” (Canadian Museums Human
Resource Planning Committee 1997, 22). This definition is included within knowledge sharing
competencies and is accompanied with definitions for educational programming, interpretation,
publications and products, design, production, as well as exhibitions. The International Council
of Museum (ICOM) defines public programming competencies as “knowledge of and skills in
35
serving the museum’s communities,” including communications, exhibitions, education and
interpretation, publications and products, and visitor service and public relations (Smithsonian
Center for Education and Museum Studies 2009). Demonstrating inconsistency, the CMA
definition for public programming is distinct from interpretation or exhibition, and the ICOM
definition includes both of those activities. However, the CMA provides a “competency
pyramid” with three areas of museum work – that is, knowledge sharing, administration, and
knowledge creation and preservation. The activities within the CMA’s knowledge sharing
competencies align with ICOM’s definition for public programming, which is part of a career
tree that has four other general competency areas.
During my interviews, I asked participants to discuss the programs at their museums and they
talked about guided tours, school programs, exhibit openings, exhibits, workshops, lectures,
community outreach, and other special events. For some, creating and updating exhibits was not
a regular activity prior to the Exhibit Renewal grant. As an example, I will discuss an institution
that replaced an exhibit during summer 2014 that was originally installed in the 1970s. As New
Brunswick community museums operate with few or no full-time paid staff, they are reliant on
volunteers and student summer employment for their operations. With so few people,
programming and curatorial staff are often the same individual(s). There is, therefore, not always
a clear distinction between these activities. Further, the Smithsonian Institute states, “exhibitions
are the principal public programs of museums” (2001, 5). As such, I use the CMA’s definition
for public programming, but have amended the definition to consider all of the knowledge
sharing competencies, including exhibits. Public programming activities, therefore, involve
providing the museums’ communities with learning opportunities and are distinct from
administrative activities or knowledge creation and preservation activities.
3.2 Funding Overview
As discussed in Chapter One, community museums saw an influx of funding following the
release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a). GNB
increased their support through the Community Museum Assistance Program and created new
project-based grants, which have increased community museum budgets and provided income
for targeted activities. First, I will outline the indirect influence of the operational grants, the
Museum Network, the Professional and Organizational Development in Museology Program,
36
and the Museum Collection Inventory Program on museum public programming. Then, I will
discuss the direct influence of the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program,
providing examples of how it has been used.
The Community Museum Assistance Program has grown notably since 2002. Operational
funding reductions in the 1980s and 1990s reduced provincial support for fifty-four community
museums and historical societies to $292,300 in 2001-2002, or an average of just under $5,500
per institution (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002d, 18).29 Funding for community museums and
historical societies has since grown to over $800,00030 in 2013-2014. More organizations access
the grant, and most museums have seen increases.31 Nevertheless, of the fifty-nine museums and
historical societies that received operational funding from GNB in 2010-2011, 76% received less
than $10,000 and 47% received less than $5,000 (Figure 3). While the funding to most
community museums is relatively small, the operational grant is often a significant percentage of
the budget and, therefore, has a major influence on the organization’s ability to open to the
public and offer public programming. As stated by an interview participant from the Musée Mgr.
- Camille - Andre Leblanc, which has received between $500 and $3,000 in each year from
2002-2003 to 2014-2015, “the largest single source of our funding is the Government…I don’t
think we could operate without it” (Interview Participant G 2014).
37
While GNB does not control how operational grant money is spent, project-based funding directs
spending to specific projects. As such, they enable the Heritage Branch to guide museum
activities. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, GNB voiced concerns about the limited
professionalism within community museums and the government’s lack of control over how
money was spent (AMNB 1985; McGuigan 1973; MCH 1991). The AMNB then collaborated
with the Heritage Branch to create Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick (AMNB 2000),
which provided a set of operational objectives to assist museums to plan, develop, and achieve
their potential. GNB asked the community to refer to these guidelines as a basis for discussing
the development of the Museum Network (Burley 2002). While the Network was created as part
of Goal 3 in Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, the project-based funding that developed from
consultations in 2002 and 2003 align with the goals articulated in the guidelines as well as the
priorities identified by the museum community during these discussions.
The Museum Network is the only new program for museums that is specifically mentioned, but
not defined, in the 2002 cultural policy. The fourth strategy to support Goal 3 is to “develop and
implement a New Brunswick model for a museum network, clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of provincial institutions and community partners” (Culture and Sport Secretariat
2002a, 15). When developing this network, GNB divided the province into nine regional zones
in order to coordinate support based on local needs (Interview Participant H 2014), which is not
a new idea in New Brunswick (McGuigan 1972). However, the network planned as part of the
1973 provincial museums policy was never fully implemented. Conversely, the 2002 policy led
to the implementation of the Museum Network and continuous funding for its implementation.
The nine zones receive money to meet and coordinate their activities, facilitating support
amongst museums. For instance, one participant explained how their region drove a van to the
different museums, creating a document for each member with suggestions on how to improve
their institution (Interview Participant A 2014). The Network can, therefore, influence museum
public programming as members support one another. As stated by Sarah Goulding from the
Chocolate Museum in Charlotte County, “we are much stronger together than we could ever be
[on] our own” (2012, 1). However, not all zones work well together and, for some, the program
is perceived as a marketing tool rather than a support network.
38
The Heritage Branch began providing marketing funding through the Museum Network after the
stakeholder consultations in fall 2002. Zone members can vote on how money is spent and then
apply for support as a group (Interview Participant H 2014).32 Marketing funding aligns with the
guidelines’ goal to “inform the public of the museum’s mission and activities” (AMNB 2000,
10). Further, increasing museums’ visibility was the top priority identified by the museum
community during the 2002 consultations (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c). Marketing
funding has an indirect influence on museum public programming as increased awareness of an
institution can lead to more public engagement. Reasonably, the public is more likely to go to a
museum when they know it exists.
In the year following the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, the Branch also began
the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program, which I discuss in detail below,
and the Professional and Organizational Development in Museology Program.33 Funding for
professional or organizational development aligns with the AMNB’s Management Guidelines
(2000). Further, the museum community identified professional development and training as a
priority during the 2002 consultation. Few participants mentioned this Program as influencing
public programming. However, the grant can have an indirect effect as it funds strategic
development, which may lead to more programming, or the cost of attending a workshop, which
could encourage skill development that effects programming.
The Heritage Branch held a second consultation with the museum community in November 2003
and, subsequently, the Museum Collection Inventory Program was created. The Program
provides museums with up to $3,000 to inventory their collection, requiring the institutions to
upload a number of objects to Artefacts Canada.34 It aligns with Section 3.2 Collections
Management: Documentation in the guidelines. While the Program’s aim is to “encourage
museums to focus on their collection and in particular, the managing of their collection records”
(Heritage Branch 2015c, 1), some interview participants believe it influences public
programming. As argued by a civil servant and two museum representatives, the Program
increases knowledge of the collection, leading to more informed activities (Cormier 2014;
Interview Participant B 2014; Interview Participant I 2014). For instance, a guide can provide
guests with information about an object more easily if it has been researched and catalogued
(Cormier 2014).
39
Funding for marketing, professional or organizational development, and collection inventory
have an indirect influence on museum public programming. The Exhibit Renewal and Museum
Activities Program has a more direct affect on programming than the other grants. The grant was
originally titled “Exhibit Renewal and New Museological Activities Support Program” and it
supported updating exhibits as well as complementary museum activities. Initially, having a
permanent exhibit that was at least seven years old was an eligibility requirement for the funding
(Heritage Branch 2003). The grant primarily encouraged museums to refresh their permanent
exhibits, but it could also be used for temporary content (Museum Services 2015, personal
communication). These activities fall within the goal, in the guidelines, “to provide exhibits
which convey [a] specific theme or message in an accurate and visually attractive matter”
(AMNB 2000, 11). While the museum community did not identify updating exhibits as one of
the three priorities during the 2002 consultations, they did identify exhibit production as both a
strength and an area for improvement (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c, 3).
Over time, the Exhibit Renewal Program evolved and the scope broadened to better suit the
needs of the museum community (Museum Services Section 2015, personal communication). As
of 2014, it provides a maximum grant of $10,000, which cannot exceed 75% of project cost, to
support the:
Construction of an exhibit; Renewal of an existing exhibit; Realization of complementary museum activities (conservation, cultural activities, etc.) that enhance the exhibits displayed at the institution; Design of a new interpretation program or educational activities; Conservation of artifacts that are not eligible under the province’s Fine Art Conservation Program (Heritage Branch 2014, 1-2).
The Program can be used to fund programming and one participant used the grant to support
heritage talks. However, some institutions do not know what the Museum Activities component
entails. During our interview, Paul Bogaard (2014) from the Campbell Carriage Factory Museum
stated, “It seems to me we know about the New Museological Activities and it’s not clear that it
fits anything that we can make use of.” Bill Clarke (2014) from the Restigouche Regional
Museum said, “I am not even sure what that would apply to.” Most museums that apply for the
grant use it to fund the construction of an exhibit. From 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, 71% of the
applications were for exhibits and 29% for other museum activities (Museum Services 2015,
40
personal communication). As such, in the following sections, I focus on the grant’s use and
influence as funding for exhibits.
In summation, GNB has influenced public programming directly and indirectly through grants
initiated after the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. The program that has had the
greatest impact on public programming is the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support
Program. The grant directly influences museum public programming by encouraging more
exhibits and increasing spending on those projects.
3.2.1 Brushing off the Dust: Increasing the Quantity and Quality of Exhibits
With the increase in funding for exhibits in New Brunswick, interview participants believe their
quantity has increased, which agrees with research on increased funding for exhibits in the
United States (Alexander 1996). The Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program
has been used by community museums to update or replace permanent exhibitions that, in some
cases, had not been updated since they were installed in the 1970s and 1980s. It also provides
funding for temporary exhibits, encouraging changing content. While some museums did these
activities prior to accessing the grant, they were not “as well researched, presented or
interpreted” (Interview Participant B 2015, personal communication). Instead, they resembled
“’grandma’s attic’ type displays” (Ibid.). The grant increases the amount of money spent on
exhibits overall as well as each individual project, which can increase the perceived quality.
The Fredericton Region Museum (FRM), a large-scale museum operated by the York Sunbury
Historical Society, has received a $15,000 operational grant from GNB in each year from 2002-
2003 to 2014-2015. The FRM’s revenue has exceeded $100,000 in each year since 2007 and
they have a full-time staff person (Table 5).35 The Exhibit Renewal grant provided the funding
and impetus to redevelop the FRM’s permanent exhibitions. Prior to the Program, some of the
exhibits had not been updated or replaced for a prolonged period. For instance, the WWI Trench,
which re-opened in 2014 as New Brunswick and the Great War, was originally built in the early
1970s (Wilson 2014). In 2006, the FRM began a Five Year Exhibits Plan as part of the Society’s
Strategic Development Plan, calling for seven permanent exhibits tracing the history of central
New Brunswick (York Sunbury Historical Society Exhibits Committee 2006). To that end, the
41
museum created or re-designed eight permanent exhibits from 2007 to 2014, at least one of
which was around forty years old when it was replaced.36 Of these, six received the $10,000
Exhibit Renewal grant from GNB (York Sunbury Historical Society and Museum 2008 2009
2010 2011; York Sunbury Historical Society and Fredericton Region Museum 2012 2013).
The FRM demonstrates the use of provincial funding in reviving or replacing outdated displays.
Prior to the Exhibit Renewal Program, the FRM created both permanent and temporary exhibits.
However, they spent significantly less on these projects than they have since accessing the grant.
In 1999, the Museum’s “Exhibit Expenses” were $1,307 (York-Sunbury Historical Society Inc.
1999). In 2012, they spent $33,933 on exhibits and only $10,000 came from the Exhibit Renewal
Program (York Sunbury Historical Society and Fredericton Region Museum 2012). The $3,500,
or 25% that the Museum has to contribute for the $10,000 grant, is more than twice what they
spent on exhibits in 1999. As articulated by the Past President Fred White (2014), the Society has
used the provincial funding as “seed money.” For example, the War of 1812 exhibit, launched in
2012, received $10,000 from the Heritage Branch, $7,800 from the Federal Government, and
$1,406 from the City of Fredericton (York Sunbury Historical Society and Fredericton Region
Museum 2012). The provincial grant has, therefore, contributed to an increase in spending on
exhibits beyond the $10,000 they provide. It has also increased the amount of money spent on
each individual exhibit at the FRM, allowing for professionally designed and printed didactics.
The FRM began producing more, and spending more money on, exhibits they produce after the
provincial funding became available.
The Restigouche Regional Museum (RRM) is a medium-sized institution that has received from
$5,000 to $6,000 in operational funding from GNB in each year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015
(Table 5). Their operational budget ranges from $60,000 to $100,000 and they do not have full-
time, year round paid staff (Bill Clarke 2015, personal communication). The RRM is not
dependent on GNB for its exhibits and has created temporary content in every year since 1994,
on which they spent around three or four thousand dollars (Clarke 2014). However, they used the
Exhibit Renewal grant to create a new permanent exhibit, receiving from $3,480 to $8,759 in
each year from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008. The Museum received $33,747 over five years to
replace displays in their permanent exhibit, increasing spending. Commenting on their quality,
42
Bill Clarke said, “During the summer, almost on a daily basis, one of our visitors tells us that
they’re surprised to find such sophisticated exhibits in a little town like ours” (AMNB 2012, 2).
The Exhibit Renewal program has also been used to replace aging exhibits at small-scale
community museums, enhancing the participants’ perception of the institutions’ quality. For
instance, Peninsular Heritage Inc. operates the John Fischer Memorial Museum (JFMM) and the
1810 Carter House. They received between $2,000 and $5,000 in operational grants from GNB
in each year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015 (Table 5). JFMM is a small-scale community
museum with revenue of less than $50,000 and no year-round paid staff. Prior to using the grant,
their permanent exhibit did not have a narrative and it looked like a “jumble sale’ or a ‘granny’s
attic or back shed” (Interview Participant D 2014). The Exhibit Renewal grant was not enough to
pay someone to construct or curate an exhibit. Instead, the JFMM used the funding to purchase
materials like plexiglass. The better materials enabled the Museum to redesign the displays to tell
story with a deliberate design, resulting in a “wow effect” from visitors (Ibid.).
As these examples show, the Exhibit Renewal program has increased the number of exhibits that
museums produce, increased the money that museums spend on exhibits, enabled museums to
update old displays, and increased the perceived quality of the end product. A range of
community museums of different sizes and located across the province use the grant. The Exhibit
Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program has directly influenced museum public
programming as it leads to more exhibits at New Brunswick community museums that interview
participants believe are of better quality.
43
Table 5: Financial Information for the Museums Used as Examples in Chapter Three.
Museum Zone Community Museum Assistance Program 2002-2003; 2014-2015
Total Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program (number of years received)
Total Revenue According to their Canadian Revenue Agency Report 2002; 2013
Year Round Paid Staff (Y/N)
Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton
Musées du Sud-Est Nouveau-Brunswick
$215,000; $255,000
$39,944 (4) N/A Y
Campbell Carriage Factory Museum (Tantramar Heritage Trust)
Southeastern New Brunswick
$1,500; $5,000
$33,500 (4) $62,638; $501,857
Y
Fredericton Region Museum (York Sunbury Historical Society)
Central River Valley
$15,000 $15,000
$60,000 (6) $69,410; $124,196
Y
John Fischer Memorial Museum (Peninsula Heritage Inc.)
Saint John Fundy
$2,000 $4,000
$14,347 (3) $41,515; $38,839
N
Kings County Museum
Saint John Fundy
$2,500 $4,000
$31,338 (6) $22,835; $33,838
Y
Queens County Heritage
Central River Valley
$12,000 $15,000
$101,000 (10) $40,416; $198,576
N
Restigouche Regional Museum
Restigouche $5,000 $6,000
$43,747 (6) N/A N
Le Musée historique de Tracadie
Peninsula - Chaleur
$2,000 $3,500
$19,000 (3) $11,760; $42,647
N
44
3.2.2 Ancillary Content: Exhibits Generating Other Activities
The Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities grant motivates additional public programs as
institutions provide services in connection with their exhibits. Most notably, all but one of the
participants I interviewed were from museums that offer guided tours of their permanent and/or
temporary displays. In connection with exhibits, museums also offer openings, workshops,
lectures, and other special events.
Queens County Heritage (QCH) is a medium-scale community museum that has a paid director
for only part of the year, but revenue exceeding $100,000 in each year since 2008.37 In 2002,
GNB provided a $12,000 operational grant, which grew to $14,000 in 2005 and has been
$15,000 since 2006 (Table 5). They have received more funding through the Exhibit Renewal
Program than any other institution: $101,000 since the program became available. QCH typically
uses the grant to fund a summer exhibit such as Loyalist Legacy (2011) and For the Birds (2013).
In Summer 2014, the organization’s signature exhibit, Food for Thought, aimed to create
conversation about the past, present, and future of food. To that end, the exhibit opened with
Flour Fest, a baking contest that honored local recipes, inviting audiences to engage with the
exhibit’s themes (Christie 2014). In 2012, Art Under the Influence: Three Centuries of Queens
County Art invited local artists to create a work inspired by an older piece in the collection (Lyall
2012). There were also four children’s workshops where QCH asked participants to be inspired
and produce a work of art (QCH 2012a). Like many of their peer institutions, Queens County
Heritage conducts other forms of public programming in connection with their exhibits,
encouraging more public interaction.
Kings County Museum (KCM) is also a medium-sized institution. The Museum is open year
round and has a paid director who works full-time during the summer and part-time during the
winter. However, KCM has less than $50,000 in revenue and only received a $2,500 to $5,000
provincial operating grant in each year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015 (Table 5).38 They offer
heritage workshops in order to interest youth in their exhibits, using some of the provincial
exhibit funding for the programs’ upfront costs (Chris White 2015, personal correspondence).
However, the grant has an influence beyond the direct funding. Discussing the heritage
45
workshops, KCM Director Chris White (2014) stated, “The exhibition renewal [grant] is the
kernel to delivering these programs.” She believes people generate ideas for programming
through the research and work involved in creating an exhibit. For example, in Summer 2012 the
Museum had the temporary exhibit Flewwellings: From Loyalist Loss to Hampton Star, for
which the Museum received a $3,949 grant. As the exhibit featured information about the
Kennebecasis Steamship Company, they held a children’s workshop where the participants built
model steamships. The Exhibit Renewal Program’s influence on exhibit creation shapes the
workshops.
Numerous museums use the Exhibit Renewal Program to fund exhibits around which they
develop additional public programming. For example, the Fredericton Region Museum hosts
children’s birthday parties and one of the themes is based on their provincially funded loyalist
exhibit. The Musée acadien de l'université de Moncton, another large-scale museum, had a night
of storytelling in conjunction with Folktales and Storytelling in Acadie (2011). However, it is
important to note that those receiving the grant often offer programs beyond those funded by
GNB or associated with a provincially funded exhibit. For example, the Tantramar Heritage
Trust is a large-scale organization that operates the Campbell Carriage Factory Museum. The
Museum hosts special events, such as the Antique Tool Collectors Show and Family Fun Day. In
2009, they held “Tuesday Nights at the Carriage Factory in July,” featuring a "Carriage and
Wagon Drive-In Movie," a star-talk, a concert, and an evening of plays. Further, the Trust
facilitates a Heritages Day at the local high school every year. They also provide heritage
demonstrations and activities at the Sackville Farmer’s Market in July and August. As such, the
Exhibit Renewal grant increases museum public programming directly through funding for
exhibits as well as other public programs. It also indirectly inspires program development,
providing the impetus to develop certain activities. However, programming develops beyond
what is affected by GNB’s direct grant.
3.2.3 An Exhibit and a Tour: The Standard Format
Half of the sixty-two institutions that have been awarded the Exhibit Renewal grant have only
received it once. Only nine organizations have accessed the grant more than five times in eleven
years (Figure 4). As one museum has received a total of $336 and another has received a total of
$101,000 through the grant, the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program
46
influences public programming at particular museums more than others. In a report analyzing the
financial, human resource, and structural capacities of nonprofits and voluntary organizations in
Canada, Hall et al. conclude, “people are at the heart of nonprofit and voluntary organizations”
(2003, 56). Accordingly, some museums in New Brunswick generate more activity with
government funding because they have the staff and volunteers who are able and willing to plan
and administer programs. As stated by Chris White (2014), “with our larger numbers [of
members] we are able to accomplish a bit more.” As such, GNB’s influence on public
programming through project-based funding is largely dependent on the museums’ human
resource capacity.
The Restigouche Regional Museum (RRM), discussed above, does not have full-time paid staff,
but they do have a volunteer director and provincially funded students who work full time during
the summer. Despite the lack of staff, the RRM is open from 9am to 5pm from Monday to Friday
and often on Saturday mornings during the off-season, depending on the volunteer director’s
presence (Clarke 2015, personal correspondence). The Museum is one of nine institutions that
received the Exhibit Renewal grant more than five times. As discussed above, they accessed the
grant when re-developing their permanent exhibits and they also create yearly temporary content
without using the funding. The Museum offers some additional public programming, such as
graveyard tours and guided tours of the RRM. However, their programs are limited because
operations are largely dependent on the dedication of one volunteer. As stated by Bill Clarke
31
7 8 7 0 4 3 0 1 1 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Num
ber
of m
useu
ms
Number of Years the Exhibition Renewal Grant was received
Figure 4: Total Number of Times Museums Received an Exhibit Renewal and New Museum Activities Grant from 2003-2004 to
2014-2015
47
(2014), the volunteer director, “If we had staff that was dedicated to programming then there
would be a lot more going on here.”
The Musée historique de Tracadie is a small-scale museum that has received an operational grant
from GNB of $2,000 to $4,500 in each year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015 (Table 5). They have
an operating budget of less than $50,000 and are located inside a building that also hosts other
groups. They have accessed the Exhibit Renewal Program twice from 2003-2004 to 2013-2014
to update their permanent exhibit, totaling $11,500, and received a $7,500 grant in 2014-2015.
The Musée has student guides during the summer and conducts some public programs, such as
exhibit openings and participating in the province’s Heritage Week. However, the Musée is
limited in how it can use the Exhibit Renewal grant because they do not have the necessary staff
or space for certain activities. For instance, if they offered children’s programming in the off-
season, it would disturb those that occupy the building’s classrooms during the winter (Interview
Participant F 2014). Further, the Musée has volunteers, a secretary for about five months, and an
accountant, but primarily operates on summer student employees (Ibid.; Interview Participant F
2015, personal correspondence) and is, therefore, limited in program development as discussed
in Chapter Four. The Interview Participant from the Musée historique de Tracadie stated that the
Board works with other organizations to offer the public heritage programming because they
have neither the staff nor the space to do so.
The most significant factor in determining if a museum accesses provincial support, how much
they receive, and, therefore, the influence of government funding on their public programming is
whether the museum even applies for the grants. Many New Brunswick community museums are
“one-person shops” and funding applications or public program development depends on that
person (Interview Participant I 2014). As such, when discussing the Exhibit Renewal and
Museum Activities Support Program with clients, the Museum Services Section often hears
“there is no time to do that” (Ibid.). Museums’ capacity to develop provincially funded programs
is largely determined by their volunteers and staff who often have limited time to develop
programs because they are few in number. Grants are then directed to institutions with personnel
– paid and/or volunteer – who are both willing and able to develop a project, meaning certain
museums access the grant more often and also develop additional programming with an exhibit.
48
3.3 Discussion
As demonstrated, provincial funding has an effect on museum public programming. While all of
the grants can have some indirect impact, I have focused on the Exhibit Renewal and Museum
Activities Support Program’s more direct influence.
Heritage Branch employees as well as the representatives from community museums that I
interviewed stressed the collaborative process used to develop support strategies after the release
of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick – that is, the presence of a civil discourse. Accordingly,
the new grants, including the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program, align
with the community museum standards published by the AMNB in 2000. Further, the marketing
funding as well as the professional and organizational development grant target the priorities
identified by the museum community during the 2002 consultations. The three priorities are:
1. Visibility through: • Conventional media utilization. • Developing networking relationships with the community.39
2. Stability: funding. 3. Professional development and training for:
• Professional and seasonal staff. • Volunteers and Board members (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c, 7).
However, the Exhibit Renewal Program does not clearly align with these priorities. In a
workshop titled “Program Management Guidelines,” the museum community identified exhibit
production as an area to be improved as often as they identified it as a strength. Further, a 2003
report indicates the Exhibit Renewal grant developed separately from the two funding programs
that were “based on the recommendations coming out of last year’s consultation meeting”
(Culture and Sport Secretariat 2003, 3). GNB may have created the Exhibit Renewal Program in
accordance with unrecorded requests from the museum community. However, this information is
not in the final reports from the 2002 and 2003 consultations, which raises the question: what is
the motivation behind the Exhibit Renewal Program?
The grant does not direct funding toward projects that foster particular ideas. Instead, it provides
money for exhibits and activities that “fall within a programming plan for the museum in
accordance with its mission and mandate” (Heritage Branch 2014, 1). As stated by Fred White
(2014), “They’re looking for the fact you deliver a product that you chose.” Accordingly, the
49
first two evaluation criteria are the project’s feasibility and impact in relation to the museum’s
mission. While the program does not fund projects thematically, exhibit themes can be
influenced by external factors, which then shapes the projects the GNB funds. For example, in
2014 the Heritage Branch had an increase in applications. A civil servant attributed the increase,
in part, to the WWI anniversary as seven of twenty-one applications were for WWI
commemorations (Interview Participant I 2014).
Since the Program does not direct funding toward specific themes or content, GNB seems to
value the production of exhibits rather than increasing access to particular ideas. The Provincial
Government may value the production of exhibits as a means of increasing museum quality.
GNB voiced concerns with community museum professionalism in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s,
leading to Guidelines for New Brunswick Museums in 2000. While there were attempts to create
standards and regulations for funding, it does not appear any system was ever maintained. In
fact, not all of the museums receiving a grant through the Community Museum Assistance
Program qualify for it according to the eligibility requirements.40 However, project-based
funding enables GNB to guide activity, increasing perceived quality and professionalism. From
the civil servants’ perspective, the community museum standards have increased with the
implementation of the grants. One civil servant stated, “I am proud of what the community did
because… they [have] clearly improved” (Interview Participant H 2014). From the perspective
of the museum community, the funding increases the quality of their offerings. For instance,
Chris White (2014) with the Kings County Museum said, “We could not deliver the quantity or
quality of programs that we do without that funding, without that support.” One participant stated
that without funding for targeted activities, community museums may never learn how to
produce an exhibit or develop programming (Interview Participant B 2014). The funding has
expanded what museums can accomplish because project-based grants provide the impetus for
volunteers and other staff persons to develop the necessary skills in order to create an exhibit or
other content.
In Chapter Two, I discussed the state discourse and increasing access as an early justification for
cultural policy in New Brunswick that remains present in policy discussions. The Exhibit
Renewal grant encourages organizations to update and change their exhibits, promoting the “use
of the collection / artifacts in the exhibit or activity” (Heritage Branch 2014, 1). To be eligible,
50
the project must “focus on making culture more accessible to the public” (Ibid., 2). Further, the
project must “show promise for raising public awareness” (Ibid., 1). Exhibits place objects and
research on display, making them more accessible through increased visibility. Then, as argued
by the director of the Kings County Museum (C. White 2014), creating changing content
provides local residents with a reason to go to the Museum, increasing the frequency they access
heritage resources. However, many New Brunswick community museums are only open for
regular hours seasonally and by appointment or chance the rest of the year. For instance, the
AMNB website provides information for forty organizations and at least twenty-seven of them
do not open for regular hours during the winter.41 The Exhibit Renewal grant, therefore,
increases access to heritage content, but the timing of this accessibility is limited.
In Chapter One, I argued that organizations can achieve long-term stability by developing
stakeholder relationships, which can be facilitated through public programming. Similarly, Fred
White (2014) with the Fredericton Region Museum said, “public programming…allows us to
relate to our community.” One of the Exhibit Renewal Program’s criteria is, “community interest
and involvement in the project,” which includes “contributions accompanied by a letter of
support clearly indicating the nature of the contribution” (Heritage Branch 2014, 2). According
to a civil servant, they are proud because more and more museums are not simply providing the
25% that the grant requires from their own budget. Instead, they are soliciting financial or in kind
support from other groups (Interview Participant I 2014). In line with a market discourse, GNB’s
conception of community interest seems to involve not only attendance or participation, but also
some form of assistance for the project. Under the priority “Stability: Funding,” the museum
community recommended the Provincial Government facilitate the development of private sector
partnerships (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c). Accordingly, GNB may support public
programming to encourage museums to create content that provides the motivation for other
groups to support community museums in New Brunswick.
The introduction of project-based funding marks a shift in GNB support programs to community
museums. Prior to these grants, the Government’s financial support was widely and thinly
distributed through their operational grant – the Community Museum Assistance Program. As
demonstrated in Figures 2 and 3, operational grants to community museums and historical
societies continue to provide a large number of organizations with relatively small amounts of
51
funding every year. More specifically, 76% of the organizations receive less than $10,000 to
operate. The Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program is available to all “non-
profit museum and heritage organizations based in New Brunswick and incorporated under the
Companies Act” (Heritage Branch 2014, 1). However, only thirty-one of the sixty-two
organizations that have received the grant have accessed it more than once. Only nine
organizations have received the grant more than five times over twelve years (Figure 4). GNB’s
project-based funding is thus distributed less widely than its operational funding. The Exhibit
Renewal grant has enabled GNB to concentrate funding to organizations with both the desire and
capacity to offer programs with regular project-based grants. It also enhances the quality of other
organizations with one-time grants that enable museums to improve or create an exhibit, which is
often their primary form of public programming.
Some Interview Participants identified a relationship between human resources and the ability to
offer public programming using GNB funding. It is evident that without staff or volunteers who
are willing and have the necessary time resource, museums cannot develop or implement public
programs. However, there are museums that do not receive the Exhibit Renewal grant regularly,
but have the capacity to do so. For example, Resurgo Place and the Musée acadien de
l’université de Moncton have full-time and year round paid staff but have received the grant less
than five times (Interview Participant I 2014). It is also important to note that those who have
applied more than five times are not necessarily paid employees, such as Bill Clarke with the
Restigouche Regional Museum. More research is needed to establish why a museum identified
as a “one-person” shop by the Museum Services Section, like the Musée acadien de Caraquet, is
more likely to receive the Exhibit Renewal grant than certain museums with more than one full-
time, year round staff. The data I obtained during my research is incomplete, as I cannot clearly
establish the relationship between number of staff, type of staff, number of volunteers, number of
hours volunteered, and the receipt of government funding. As such, additional research is
needed, perhaps in the form of surveys to all New Brunswick community museums. Further, I
did not research municipal or other external funding, which could be a factor that influences a
museum’s likelihood of applying to GNB grants.
While there are weaknesses and limits to what my research can reveal, Interview Participants
actively engaged in exhibit creation often credit their museum’s staff or volunteers (Interview
52
Participant B 2014; C. White 2014; F. White 2014). Museums with limited exhibit development,
as well as some who develop exhibits regularly, believe they could accomplish more with the
available funding if they had more personnel able and willing to implement activities (Bogaard
2014; Clarke 2014; Interview Participant F 2014). For instance, Tantramar Heritage Trust is
largely a volunteer organization. GNB does not restrict how often they can utilize the Exhibit
Renewal grant, but their own human resources are limiting. As Paul Bogaard (2014) notes, the
“limit is really getting our act together and making use of what the province offers us.”
3.4 Conclusion
GNB has influenced community museum public programming from 2002 to 2014 through the
introduction of project-based funding and the continuation of operational grants. Most notably,
the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program provides funding for exhibits and
other programming activities. While exhibits fall within the definition of public programming,
their creation also generates additional programs. However, people with the community
museums are responsible for project development, implementation, and applying for the funding
that supports theses activities. As such, these individuals influence the impact of Government
funding on museum public programming. Museums with limited human resource capacity are
restricted in their ability to access these resources.
In total, GNB has funded 161 projects with $1,138,22242 over twelve years through the Exhibit
Renewal grant. The Provincial Government has thus had a significant influence on museum
public programming with a relatively small amount of funding. As discussed in Chapter Five, the
apparent success of this program in increasing museum quality and encouraging public program
development is significant when considering a funder preference for supporting programs or
capital expansions rather than operational cost (Genoways and Ireland 2003; Jenkins 2005). In
cases where operational funding is distributed widely and thinly, as seen in New Brunswick,
there may be value in directing increases in funding towards project-based programs because,
from the perspective of interview participants, the new forms of funding have allowed
institutions to improve. However, community museums’ ability to access and utilize the grant is
largely dependent on their human resources. As many museums are “one-person shops” and
these people are often volunteers, the following chapter looks at policy influencing staffing at
community museums and how it has influenced public programming.
53
Chapter 4 The Need for SEED: The Influence of the Student Employment and
Experience Development (SEED) Program on Museum Public Programming
As demonstrated in Chapter Three, the Government of New Brunswick (GNB) has influenced
museum public programming since 2002 through an influx of funding that shapes museum
activities. However, as noted by Bill Clarke (2014) with the Restigouche Regional Museum,
“public programming is ultimately dependent on the people who are involved and set policy in
the individual museums. You have places where there are wonderful things going on, places
where there is not much going on, and everything in-between.” Many New Brunswick
community museums do not have the budget for full-time, year round staff and are dependent on
volunteers as well as student summer employment. This chapter discusses the impact of people
and the primary method that GNB has influenced staffing in community museums – the Student
Employment and Experience Development Program (SEED).
After considering SEED as an implicit cultural policy, I briefly review literature on non-standard
employment in the non-profit sector. I then discuss human resources at community museums in
New Brunswick and outline SEED’s development from its inception as a formal program in
1971, emphasizing the importance of individuals in museum public programming development
and implementation. After demonstrating SEED’s influence and highlighting some of the issues
that have arisen in its implementation, I discuss these issues within the context of non-profit
sector employment. While this analysis aims to cover the period from 2002 to 2014, interview
participants had often accessed provincially funded student employees since before 2002 and
could not always distinguish when events took place. Further, many of the benefits and issues
with SEED are longstanding. While 2002 to 2014 is a useful timeframe when looking at the
GNB’s explicit cultural policy, it is not as helpful when looking at this program. I conclude
SEED has a widespread influence on museums and a significant impact on public programming,
raising questions regarding its effectiveness and the best use of government funding.
54
4.1 Foundations
SEED is a provincial program that provides non-profit organizations, including museums, with
student summer employees. The Program is cultural policy as it is government action influencing
the cultural life of its citizens. However, SEED’s objective – to “provide students with
employment related to their skills and education…. while enabling them to finance the
continuation of their education” (GNB 2013, 3) – is not explicitly cultural. An explicit cultural
policy “deals directly with culture” (Throsby 2009, 179). An implicit cultural policy “influences
culture only indirectly, the overt intention of the policy being directed elsewhere” (Ibid., 179).
Applying these concepts, Throsby (2009) notes that some explicit economic policies are implicit
cultural policies because they have veiled cultural purposes. For example, international trade
policy has “a direct impact on culture when trade in cultural goods and services is involved”
(Ibid., 181-182). While SEED is not articulated as having ‘cultural’ objectives, I demonstrate
that it has a significant influence on museum operations. As such, the student employment
program is a cultural policy with an implicit ‘cultural’ objective.
SEED provides non-profit organizations with short-term employees, a form of nonstandard
employment. Non-standard employment or alternate staffing is characterized by impermanent
relationships between the employee and employer, including temporary contracts, part-time
employment, and independent contracts (Akingbola 2004). Looking at the Canadian Red Cross,
Akingbola (2004, 462) found “the main implications of nonstandard work were lack of
consistency, retention, and quality.” Other scholars researching employment in the non-profit
sector come to similar conclusions. For instance, Hall et al. (2003) identify recruitment and
retention as issues that affect non-profit organizations’ human resource capacity. Katherine
Scott’s (2003, 106) study finds reliance on contract staff or job creation programs is a barrier to
establishing stable and high quality services. As such, nonstandard employment may have certain
negative influences on museum public programming in New Brunswick.
As noted by Nickson et al. (2008, 20), an organization’s ability to provide services is “dependent
on the quantity and quality of suitable labour.” According to studies on non-profit organizational
capacity, human resources is a critical factor in goal attainment (Hall et al. 2003; Misener and
Doherty 2009). Accordingly, Sarah Goulding (2014) with the Chocolate Museum stated that she
does not necessarily need a lot of money to do public programming, but she needs people. People
55
are her “biggest resource and biggest asset” in operating the museum. As such, a discussion of
staffing within the museum sector in New Brunswick as well as the implications of temporary
employment is vital to an analysis of Government influence on museum public programming.
4.2 Museum Employment in NB
4.2.1 The Need for SEED
Most community museums in New Brunswick do not have the budget for year-round and full-
time paid staff. Only five of the thirteen interview participants that represented non-profit
community museums were from institutions with a year round staff person. However, museums
have committed volunteers that will sometimes work full-time hours. In 1986, the John Fischer
Memorial Museum, a small-scale community museum in New Brunswick, wrote a proposal for
funding to hire a Director. A volunteer had provided stability and nurtured the project “to a level
where it is unfair to continue this position on a volunteer basis” (John Fischer Memorial Museum
1986, 6). The Museum was concerned that the individual would leave the project upon finding
paid work. Instead, she stayed with the organization and continues to volunteer her time. One
interview participant who is also a volunteer indicated he spends at least one full-time week a
year on grant applications for his institution in addition to the time he spends on operation and
program activities (Interview Participant B 2014). While museums may not have the money for
full-time, year round staff, they do have dedicated volunteers that act in place of or alongside
paid staff.
There are some organizations that have a full-time, year-round employee, but few community
museums have more than one.43 It is challenging for museums to operate and provide
programming with only one person. The director of the Chocolate Museum said “you are very
volunteer dependent if you’re a small museum with only one staff member most of the time”
(Goulding 2014). Even museums that can afford a paid director are heavily reliant on volunteers
and summer students. 44 For instance, the Fredericton Region Museum (FRM) employs a director
year round and also has a budget for part-time hours. However, the Museum relies on its board
and other volunteers for various activities, including writing exhibit didactics, cataloguing
artefacts, and giving tours. The past-president, Fred White (2014), said the Museum has an
average of sixty-five volunteers a year and can have as many as one hundred, depending on the
56
year. As stated in a Facebook post, “The FRM is … dependent on the willingness of volunteers
to give their time and summer student grants” (FRM 2012). When discussing the approximately
600 volunteers and 500 employees at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Susan Ashley
(2012, 108) states, “volunteers are a means to stretch budgets and offer additional services.” In
New Brunswick, there are no museums with that many employees and, most often, the
volunteers far out number the paid employees. Volunteers in the province’s community
museums are a means of offering basic services rather than additional services.
Funding through SEED provides money for full-time employees for about two months of the
year, enabling museums to open and offer additional programming. Whereas about 50% of
museums and historical societies receive less than $5,000 from GNB for operations (Figure 2
and 3), and a full-time student at minimum wage for ten weeks costs more than $4,000, the
program enables museums to have an employee for around eight or ten weeks that they would
otherwise be unable to afford. That is not to say the students replace volunteers for those ten
weeks. Instead, volunteers continue to offer their time by supervising and coordinating activities.
In many cases, they also continue to help with programming.
4.2.2 A Brief History of SEED
A report from the Department of Labour suggests GNB began a formalized student summer
employment program in the spring of 1971.45 The goal was to “play a significant role in
providing employment opportunities and functioning as an information centre to assist students
in obtaining jobs at other sources” (Christie 1971, 1). The program has continued and is now the
Student Employment and Experience Development program (SEED). 46 The Department of Post
Secondary Education, Training and Labour (PETL) operates SEED with the same intent – to
provide students returning to post-secondary schools in the fall with money for tuition and skill
development. It funds student jobs at non-profits, provincial departments or agencies, First
Nation communities, and municipalities full-time for a specified number of weeks at minimum
wage.
57
From the program’s inception, GNB has provided community museums with student employees
during the summer.47 When the program began in 1971, the Historical Resource Administration
(HRA) employed eighteen students through the employment program. By the summer of 1979,
the HRA facilitated fifty student positions, increasing provincially financed student employment
in museums and historical societies by thirty-two positions over eight years. In 2014, SEED
funded a total of 102 student employees or 947 weeks in New Brunswick community museums
and historical societies (Allen-Scott, Godin, and Tremblay 2014).
Through SEED, GNB provides funding for Priority Student Employment (PEP), which is first
mentioned by the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage in 1990. Although PEP is
funded through SEED, they are awarded differently. PEP provides a number of student weeks to
a government branch or department, which distributes positions to support a targeted activity.
For example, in 1994 GNB provided Community Museum Attendants through the Heritage
Branch, noting the positions are essential to continue operating most museums during the
summer (Ministers Committee Employment Development 1994). 48 Alternatively, SEED is
administered through the Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs). The politicians receive a
certain number of weeks to distribute within their riding as they find appropriate. Since they are
given a number of weeks rather than jobs to allocate, SEED positions generally range from eight
to ten weeks and are usually only eight. Museums can, therefore, apply for both PEP and SEED,
sending their application to the Heritage Branch. Most museums receive at least one PEP student
and they can receive one or more SEED positions depending on the wishes of their MLA.
Of the 116 SEED positions in 2007, 55 were 10-week PEP students. In summer 2008, GNB
provided fewer students through PEP. They only funded 32 students, compared with 55 the year
before and 50 in each year from 2009 to 2014. Consequently, the Heritage Branch has funded
additional students to supplement the SEED/PEP program since 2008. The Branch also assists
museums that receive students by facilitating the program. Museums submit time sheets through
the Heritage Branch, the Branch has a student that verifies the sheets were completed correctly
before sending them to PETL, and they pay the students directly so museums do not have to wait
to be reimbursed (Interview Participant H 2014). The involvement of the Branch in the
application and administrative process, the existence of PEP, and the fact the Heritage Branch
supplements SEED/PEP supports the conception of the Program as a cultural policy.
58
From 2002 to 2014, the number of positions and weeks assigned to community museums
through SEED/PEP has declined (Figures 5 and 6). Museums and historical societies employed
145 SEED/PEP positions in 2002 and only 102 in 2014. The SEED/PEP program funded the
fewest student positions in 2012 with a total of 89 positions or 50 PEP and 39 SEED students.
The number of students funded through the Heritage Branch from 2008 onward is variable
ranging from 6 to 16. These figures demonstrate that SEED/PEP is widespread and a significant
source of employment for community museums. However, the number of positions is
inconsistent from year to year, despite consistency with PEP since 2009 and the Heritage
Branch’s attempts to supplement the program.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Num
ber of Students
Year
Figure 5: Number of SEED/PEP Students by Year (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014)
SEED
PEP
Tourism, Heritage and Culture
59
4.2.3 Reflection from the Museum Community
All of the participants I interviewed from non-profit community museums use SEED/PEP. They
emphasized the Program’s significance, but also discussed challenges posed by its restrictions
and administration. In this section, I will discuss provincially funded student employment from
the perspective of those I interviewed and its influence on museum public programming.
The summer is the only time the majority of NB community museums open to the public for
regular hours because they hire a student or students through SEED/PEP and, in cases where the
organization has enough financial capacity, the federal employment programs. The participant
from the Musée historique de Tracadie stated, “we need the students as guides during the
summer; we are not able to open a museum without them” (Interview Participant F 2014). The
participant from the John Fisher Memorial Museum said, “We operate on students” (Interview
Participant D 2014). Of the seven organizations in the Fundy Heritage Zone receiving
operational funding through the Community Museum Assistance Program,49 only the Kings
County Museum opens for regular hours in the winter.50 Even museums with a year round staff
person benefit from student employment. For instance, King County Museum is open for six
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Num
ber of Weeks
Figure 6: SEED/PEP Number of Weeks by Year (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014)
SEED
PEP
THC
60
instead of three days during the summer because they have students. SEED/PEP has a major
influence on public programming because it provides museums with the staff to open and, in
effect, facilitate activity.
In some cases, the number of weeks provided through SEED/PEP helps determine how many
weeks museums can open in the summer or for how long. PEP provides museums with a student
for ten weeks and SEED usually provides museums with a student for eight weeks. Seven of the
ten organizations listed on the North East Museum Network website with accessible opening
hours are only open for regular hours from mid-June or July to August each year. 51 Another is
open for extended hours during that time. Commenting on her Museum’s winter programs, Chris
White, the Director of the Kings County Museum, noted that with a year-round and paid director
a museum can offer programming to the community during the off-season. However, “a lot of
the other museums they are summer month tourist offerings by necessity” (C. White 2014).
Discussing the fall season, one participant stated, “We lose our students and have to close our
operations” (Interview Participant D 2014). Some community museum hours may have
developed around the tourism season, because buildings are not properly insulated for winter, or
because of the high heating costs. However, interviews substantiate causal links between when
museums are open, or open for longer, and the time museums can get student employees from
GNB.
Critically for my research, student employees enable museums to conduct public programming.
Many SEED/PEP students give guided tours of their museums. These tours are some museums’
“primary program” (Interview Participant E 2014). Jeanne-Mance Cormier (2014) with the
Musée acadien de l'université de Moncton, a museum that has full-time staff, said that without
students, “we wouldn’t do any guided tours during summer months.” In some institutions,
permanent exhibits have developed with the expectation that there will be students available to
give guided tours. As such, the artefacts are exposed and could easily be stolen or vandalized
without the attention of a tour guide. Alice Folkin (2014) with the Keillor House noted they
would have to change their exhibits if they did not have summer students, adding Plexiglas and
securing objects in place. In other words, exhibits have developed without certain security
measures because students are available to walk with guests through the museum.
61
SEED/PEP students engage in a variety of tasks including educational programming, collection
work, operating the gift shops, and conducting or facilitating research. As Chris White (2014)
stated, without students, or even with only one student, “you are not offering a lot of workshops
or programming.” Cormier (2014) observed, “Without the students we wouldn’t do any
programming.” According to Fred White (2014), the Fredericton Region Museum receives
around seven students through the federal and provincial summer employment programs and at
least two are devoted to public programming. Student employment programs, therefore, allow
museums to have an employee or employees that can provide programming.
SEED/PEP is not the only student summer employment program that has an affect on museum
public programming. The federal government provides wages for summer students through
Young Canada Works (YCW). However, the provincial program is in some ways more
accessible to community museums. First, the Heritage Branch does not ask organizations to pay
a portion of the wage as YCW does. Second, the Museum Services Section facilitates SEED/PEP
to community museums, paying the students directly and then getting reimbursed by the
department responsible for SEED (Interview Participant H 2014). As such, organizations that do
not have the budget for an employee and have little cash on hand are not asked to pay the
student(s). Third, the museum community has positive relationships with the provincial
employees in the Heritage Branch, perceiving staff as “easy to talk to” (Folkin 2014). In contrast,
fewer museums can access the federal student employment program because they cannot afford
to contribute the 25% required by YCW (Interview Participant D 2014) and some find federal
staff less available (Folkin 2014).
While SEED/PEP is more accessible to some community museums, there are restrictions that
hamper its use. It places museums in rural areas at a disadvantage because they have difficulty
attracting students that fit the criteria (Interview Participant B 2014; Interview Participant D
2014). Museums have to hire individuals going to college or university full-time in the fall.
Fewer students attending post-secondary education live in rural areas without universities or
colleges than in the cities that have those institutions, making it more challenging to find eligible
students (Interview Participant B 2014). It is also difficult to hire suitable employees because
students are already out of school and looking for employment before museums know whether
they have SEED/PEP funding. There have been instances where museums prepare to open for
62
the summer without knowing whether they will receive funding for any student employees
(Clarke 2014; Folkin 2014; Interview Participant D 2014; C. White 2014).52 As Bill Clarke
(2014) stated, “we never know until almost the last minute if we have positions or not.” Many
university students are not in school from May to August, which makes an eight to ten week
position in the summer unattractive and adds another obstacle for museums (Interview
Participant F 2014). Interview participants also voiced concern that the “good” or more
experienced students may be gone when they can hire (Folkin 2014; C. White 2014). The timing
makes it easier to hire a student who just finished grade twelve and is going to university or
college in the fall rather than a student returning to one of those institutions (Goulding 2014).
SEED/PEP restrictions and administration provide obstacles to filling positions and if positions
are left unfilled, museum programming is affected. An interview participant was unable to fill a
student job in the past because of restrictions. As a result, they were not able to open for their
normal summer hours or deliver the same quality of programming during the summer (Interview
Participant B 2014, personal communication).
It can be challenging to retain employees because SEED/PEP does not provide multi-year hiring
contracts. As museums do not know how many positions they will have and for how many
weeks, they cannot provide assurances that a good employee will have a position the following
year (Interview Participant B 2014, personal communication). PEP has offered a level of
consistency since 2009 as it assigns a number of student employees to community museums.
Through PEP, community museums will ideally receive at least one student for ten weeks every
summer. However, as one participant noted, the number of students is not guaranteed and it “is a
gamble each and every year” (Ibid.).
SEED positions are inconsistent because, as articulated by Bill Clarke (2014), “SEED is
blatantly political” and museums do not know what the criteria for selection are (Cormier 2014).
The program is distributed through MLAs who are given a certain number of weeks to assign
positions in their district.53 Therefore, the number of positions and weeks allocated to a museum
may change from one year to the next. The participant from the Musée historique de Tracadie
received two eight-week SEED students in 2014 and credited their success with having a “good
deputy” (Interview Participant F 2014). However, the politician will not stay in power
63
indefinitely. A new and ‘bad deputy’ may not value the Museum as much as the previous one,
allocating fewer or no weeks to the organization.
In 1991, three students were employed for ten weeks at the Saint John Jewish Historical Museum
through SEED’s predecessor, the Jet Stream Program.54 In 2006, museums and historical
societies received 75 SEED students or 696 weeks of employment. The average position was
therefore 9.28 weeks. In 2009 the average SEED job was 8.60 weeks. As politicians allocate jobs
at their discretion on a yearly basis, the distribution of positions and the number of weeks for
SEED is inconsistent from one year to the next (Figure 7). Figure 7 demonstrates that from 2006
to 2014, the highest average number of weeks per SEED position was 9.28 in 2006 and the
lowest was 8.25 in 2010. Critically for my research, the difference is only 1.03 weeks. Further,
the difference between SEED and PEP is only 0.72 to 1.75 weeks. However, the difference has a
significant influence on museum operations as these students often enable museums to open to
the public.
Since museums do not know whether they have one, multiple, or no SEED students and for how
many weeks each summer, they are limited in what activities they can plan and advertise in
advance (Folkin 2014). As stated by Chris White (2014), with only one student you are just
“trying to keep the door open and manage lunch hour.” With multiple students, a museum may
9.28
8.97
8.6 8.6
8.25
8.65
8.38 8.35
8.6
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 7: The Average Number of Weeks per SEED Position per Year
64
be able to conduct some public programming. In other words, SEED encourages a lack of long
term planning in both program development and hiring practices.
Issues arise in program implementation when the students change from year to year. Talking
about collections work, Bogaard (2014, personal communication) stated, “with skilled students
and the best of intentions, differences and even inconsistencies get introduced.” While his
comment was specific to collections work, the concept is applicable to any museum activity.
Accordingly, he also said, “any project that has different people moving in and out of it over and
over and over again is asking for trouble” (Bogaard 2014).
The short contracts pose challenges to public programming when museums rely on students for
program implementation. Discussing the Restigouche Regional Museum’s ghost walks, Bill
Clarke (2014) explained that they no longer have student guides give the tours because students
begin working at the end of June and are, therefore, not well-trained enough to offer programs
the first week of July. Another participant noted that it takes a season to train a student and for
them to get a working knowledge of the region’s history. In a year where all of the students are
new, a museum has to spend more time on training and will not be able to offer as much public
programming (Interview Participant B 2014).
In sum, SEED/PEP funding has a significant influence on museum public programming because
it allows museums to open their doors when they may not otherwise be able. One of the primary
methods of engaging the public is through guided tours, which students give. The availability of
students has influenced the way some museums exhibit their materials and the hours they can
open. The increase in employees enables a museum to develop and offer programming.
However, issues with SEED/PEP’s administration influence the program’s effect on operations.
There are eligibility requirements that are difficult to meet in some areas and by the time
museums are able to hire, many quality students have already found summer employment.
Further, the lack of consistency from year to year influences museums’ ability to plan ahead as
well as the quality of programming they can offer.
65
4.3 Discussion
As demonstrated, museums have come to rely on SEED/PEP and it is necessary for their public
programming. However, challenges with the Program raise questions regarding its effectiveness
and the best use of government funding from the perspective of both the student employees and
the museums as employers. The three issues with non-standard employment highlighted by
Akingbola (2004) are evident in New Brunswick: retention, consistency, and quality. After
discussing these challenges and their implications as they relate to SEED/PEP, I discuss the role
of volunteers in offering consistent and quality services.
Museums have had positive experiences with SEED/PEP students, leading to quality programs in
greater quantity. However, retention can be an issue as museums cannot guarantee a student will
have the same position the following year. Further, organizations are competing with employers
that can offer longer contracts and know if there is a job available when students finish university
or college in April or May. If an organization is unable to retain staff, it is difficult to develop
and to sustain competencies (Akingbola 2004). As argued by Hjalager and Andersen (2001, 126)
with reference to the tourism sector, “repositories of knowledge are depreciating by virtue of a
high staff turnover, and it is all that management can do to hold on to non-trivial and enterprise-
specific knowledge.” When museums have to train new employees with regularity, they are
unable to build on staff knowledge, influencing the programs they can offer. There is also a lack
of consistency in how many SEED positions museums receive and how many weeks those
positions will be, resulting in inconsistent services from one season to the next. Further,
organizations are unable to plan in the long-term, influencing quality. Quality is also affected as
museums hire from a limited pool of eligible people, which is further limited because of delays
in hiring and the short contracts. Akingbola (2004) argues that temporary employees are
discouraged from developing improvement plans because they do not know whether services
will continue past their employment. Museums cannot know if they will have the same number
of employees with the same capacities the following year, which potentially discourages students
from trying to improve museum operations. Relying on temporary student employees to operate
museums presents challenges to offering quality services.
Volunteers provide the retention, consistency, and quality that is not necessarily provided
through precarious student employment. At least five of the nine community museum volunteers
66
who participated in my research have been involved in their organization for twenty or more
years.55 Further, the volunteers are arguably the primary strength at most of the institutions I
researched. However, two participants commented on aging volunteers, noting they do not have
the same ability to contribute to their museums as they did twenty years ago (Folkin 2014;
Interview Participant D 2014). As explained by the participant from the John Fischer Memorial
Museum, their volunteers are “older by the day” and, as such, it is becoming more difficult to
operate a museum (Interview Participant D 2014).56 Discussing his Museum’s membership,
which can serve as a volunteer base, Fred White (2014) said, “We lose twelve to fifteen people a
year from our membership lists through death.” However, he believes the most effective
volunteers are sixty to seventy years old because they have more disposable time. Younger
volunteers, such as his daughter in her forties or students, have less free time. As such, when
they volunteer, it is often be for a brief commitment to help with events (F. White 2014). As
those providing consistency at the community museums age and eventually pass away,
organizations require new volunteers or permanent employees that can provide the necessary
consistency. If this does not occur, the quality of museum public programming will be affected.
I have primarily discussed SEED/PEP from the museums’ perspective. However, the Program’s
objective is to help students raise money for tuition and develop employable skills. SEED jobs
are most often eight weeks at minimum wage, which is only half the time many university or
college students are on their summer break. Distributing contracts so that there are more
positions with fewer weeks allocates government funding to a greater number of students and/or
organizations. However, to work for the entire summer, students would have to find a different
eight-week position for the first two months they are off school. Thus, the structure and
administration of SEED/PEP poses challenges for both museums and students. Although
volunteers have provided consistency and quality in museum services, the sustainability of the
current staffing model is questionable.
4.4 Conclusion
Despite the issues and questions I have raised, SEED/PEP is vital to community museums
because of the importance of people to museum operations. The individuals in New Brunswick
that operate community museums have the greatest influence on the programming their museums
can and do offer. If GNB would like to encourage access and increase community museum
67
standards as demonstrated in Chapters Two and Three, funding permanent staff would help.
More specifically, if a museum could pay a programmer year round, students would serve to
enhance existing museum operations rather than offer basic services. The Heritage Branch
supports SEED/PEP by administrating and supplementing funding for students. In 2014, they
funded 12 students for 10 weeks, which would have cost more than $48,000. While this
assistance has helped community museums, adjusting the current program to address
longstanding issues or developing an alternative funding method may be more effective. For
instance, the museum community has called for multi-year hiring contracts, which would provide
greater consistency and retention that would also benefit students. The jobs at community
museums enable employees to develop a wide range of skills because they are most often
working in institutions that are understaffed. It is likely that these skills would be better
developed with longer contracts over multiple years. GNB could provide fewer jobs for longer
contracts, which would provide greater influence on a smaller group of museums and students.
SEED funding could also be approved earlier in the year to enable medium-term planning and
allow students to choose to wait for a job they know will become available. Further, MLAs are
not the best individuals to distribute the SEED jobs because they are politically motivated.
Instead, the program could be distributed according to a clear set of criteria by a branch or
department within the Provincial Government.
I have provided preliminary suggestions based on the responses from my interview participants.
However, more research is needed that looks at number of jobs provided and the effectiveness of
the current program from the perspectives of all stakeholders. Rather than adjusting the current
program, alternatives could also be considered and further research is required to consider all
possibilities. Conducting research on alternatives and implementing changes to address
longstanding issues with SEED/PEP is critical because the program plays a significant role in
shaping New Brunswick community museum public programming. Effectively, it has a greater
influence in many museums than the programs enacted under GNB’s explicit cultural policy.
68
Chapter 5 Conclusion
Museums in New Brunswick use public programming to build relationships with their publics.
Discussing the increase in changing exhibits at the Kings County Museum, Chris White (2014)
stated, “Engagement at the community level has gone up… we’ve seen increased school visits,
we’ve seen increased requests to go out into the community, and that’s exactly what we are
hoping for.” As building relationships with stakeholders is vital to organizations’ long-term
stability, government policy that influences the public programs a museum can and does offer
has an effect on the future of those institutions. I have demonstrated that the Government of New
Brunswick (GNB) has shaped public programming through the Exhibit Renewal and Museum
Activities Support Program as well as the Student Employment and Experience Development
(SEED) program. To conclude, I will first outline my findings from chapters two, three, and four.
Then, I will make general observation and recommendations for further research, concluding
with recommendations for a change in policy direction.
5.1 An Overview
As part of a state discourse, GNB was actively involved in heritage in the 1960s and 1970s,
purchasing historic sites and developing support structures for museums. These structures
continue to exist and shape policy direction. For example, community museums began receiving
provincial funding according to the recommendations of their local politicians. The operational
grants continued though the Department of Historical and Cultural Resources, which began as
the Historical Resource Administration in 1967 and continues today as the Heritage Branch
within the Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture. The 1980s and 1990s saw reduced
funding to heritage as GNB entered into a market discourse, releasing a heritage policy that
advocated the application of standards to community museums and the use of private sector
partnerships. Entering the twenty-first century, the Provincial Government’s approach toward
community museums shifted again. After a failed attempt to create a policy without consulting
the cultural community in 2001, GNB began allocating funding through project-based programs
and a policy articulation created collaboratively with stakeholders, reflecting a civil discourse.
69
From 2002 to 2014, all of the new and increased grants offered by the Museum Services Section
have had some effect on museum public programming. The Exhibit Renewal and Museum
Activities Support Program has had the most direct influence through the provision of funds
specifically for public programming. Museums use the grant to create new or renovate existing
exhibits, demonstrating that money for an activity can increase that activity. Further, museums
now spend more on each individual exhibit, which may elevate the quality because they can
afford professionally printed didactics and other materials for the displays. The work involved in
creating an exhibit often encourages community museums to develop more activities and
provides the inspiration for programming. The most pervasive examples are guided tours of
museums’ permanent and temporary exhibits. Other examples are children’s workshops, lecture
series, and special events.
While the grant programs outlined in Chapter Three are influential, the people at an institution
have the greatest influence on the programming the museum offers. Without summer student
employees, many New Brunswick museums could not open and others would offer much less
public programming. The Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED) program
as well as the Priority Employment Program (PEP) influence when and for how long museums
are open. In many cases it also affects what programming a museum can offer during the
summer and how they create their exhibits. While SEED/PEP is necessary for many institutions,
its administration leads to certain challenges. The number of weeks museums can have student
employees has declined since the 1990s and eight to ten weeks is a short contract. With the
exception of those finishing high school that will go to university or college in the fall, eligible
students are often free for longer than eight weeks. Further, even if a museum only wants to be
open for two months, an eight-week contract is restrictive in terms of training. There is a lack of
consistency in museum operations as there are no multi-year hiring contracts and the SEED jobs
are awarded by MLAs without clear criteria. The absence of certainty hinders long term planning
and the development of public program plans.
From the perspective of most participants I interviewed, Cultural Policy for New Brunswick and
the resultant grants have had a positive influence on museum public programming. One
participant went so far as to say that all of the programs are “wonderful” (Interview Participant A
2014). However, it is not surprising that museum representatives have a high opinion of the new
70
funding as they are receiving more money than before through programs they helped create.
There are issues with the current funding structure that became evident through the interviews
and archival research, requiring further research.
5.2 Observations and Directions for Future Research
5.2.1 Explicit vs. Implicit A significant outcome from my research is that an implicit cultural policy – SEED – has had a
greater and more widespread influence on museum public programming than GNB’s explicit
cultural policy. The Museum Services Section recognizes SEED/PEP’s importance to the
museum sector and, to some extent, acts as an intermediary between PETL – the Department of
Post Secondary Education, Training and Labour – and museums, administering PEP and paying
museums’ SEED/PEP students directly. In this way, SEED/PEP has been implemented as part of
GNB’s explicit cultural policy. However, the Museum Services Section advises community
museums to discuss the benefits students’ receive from the employment opportunity when
applying for SEED instead of the fact community museums “need students and without students
[they] cannot operate” (Interview Participant H 2014). The program’s explicit aim is to benefit
student employees and not to keep museums open from one year to the next. When discussing
government influence on the cultural sector, it is, therefore, crucial to consider the influence of
policies that governments have not designated as cultural, but nevertheless have an affect on the
cultural life of its citizens.
That an implicit cultural policy has a greater influence on museum public programming
compared to the province’s explicit grants raises the question: why? Simply put, SEED provides
museums with the resource that is arguably most needed to accomplish both operational
activities and special projects – namely, people. The broader implication is that if governments
would like to influence museum operations, they need to provide funding for the people who
operate museums.
Cultural Policy for New Brunswick states that provincial departments, including the Department
that administered SEED in 2002, “share responsibility for the promotion and development of the
cultural sector” (2002, 20). The Policy was meant to provide “a common vision for the
71
development of culture in our province” (Office of the Premier 2002). SEED is PETL’s
responsibility and, according to the 2002 policy, PETL shares responsibility for the development
of culture in New Brunswick. The idea that multiple government units share responsibility for
culture acknowledges the influence of policies enacted by those units on the cultural life of its
citizens. This recognition is unsurprising given the community’s involvement in the policy
process. However, in practice, government units and the programs they enact have their own
explicit mandates. As such, to what extent can departments that are not explicitly cultural enact
programs that consider the state’s cultural objectives?
In practice, the distribution of SEED positions influences the development of the cultural sector,
but does not seem to be guided by the explicit cultural policy. For instance Goal 1.a of the policy
is “To improve access to and awareness of culture in New Brunswick and to increase
participation in cultural activities” (11). While SEED increases access to culture through the
provision of student employees who staff museums, the number of students allocated to
museums through SEED has declined since 2002. Further, I demonstrated in Chapter Two that,
at least since 2002, cultural policy in New Brunswick primarily reflects a civil discourse. While
some of the Museum Services Section’s programs may not have actually been created
collaboratively, GNB consulted the museum community in their development and interview
participants believe they had an influence on policy development. Conversely, many of the
issues with SEED that I discussed in Chapter Four are longstanding. Despite the many
recommendations given by the museum community during the task force on self-sufficiency in
2007 and the 2012 cultural policy review, there have been few changes to the program.57
My research primarily looked at the influence of subnational policy from the perspective of the
museum community, including community museum and Museum Services Section
representatives. As such, I do not know what, if any, processes GNB put in place to ensure
multiple government units and individual MLAs work to enact the cultural policy. This gap
presents an avenue for future research: if an explicit cultural policy is meant to guide programs
and activities with explicit aims that are not cultural, what mechanisms need to be in place to
ensure the cultural policy is enacted?
As indicated in Chapters One and Three, the research method used in this thesis has limitations.
72
However, since I approached the research from the perspective of the museum community, using
interviews with broad open-ended questions, it also provided a more comprehensive
understanding of GNB policies influencing museum public programming. As most interview
participants mentioned the student employment program when discussing cultural policy, I was
able to investigate SEED, even though it is not part of GNB’s explicit cultural policy. If I had
approached the interviews and asked only how Cultural Policy for New Brunswick and the
programs explicitly guided by the policy have influenced operations or ignored the results that
were not influenced by explicit cultural policy, I would have missed GNB’s most significant
effect. An avenue for future research would be to conduct interviews asking: what government
actions, inactions, or policy articulations influence your operations? I believe the research would
bring to light a broad range of topics that are not usually discussed as part of the cultural policy
conversation.
5.2.2 Distribution
In 1958 Carl and Grace Guthe wrote a report on Canadian museums. In it they note,
“Government support of the museum movement is very widely and thinly distributed. For this
reason, in spite of appropriations which must be large in the aggregate, many museums find it to
be woefully inadequate” (1958, 19). Similarly, when talking about NB and provincial operational
grants in 2014, Paul Bogaard (2014) said, “They’re keeping it minimal so they can spread their
money around in other ways.” For many New Brunswick community museums, their budgets are
insufficient to develop the necessary capacity to consistently offer public programming or even
open for the same hours from one summer to the next. As stated by Fred White (2014), GNB
provides museums with core funding so they can continue to exist. The grants are distributed so
that GNB supports most non-profit museums in New Brunswick, but, for the most part, the
museums are not given enough funding to significantly strengthen their human resource
capacity. As discussed in Chapters Three and Four, this issue is most evident with the
Community Museum Assistance and SEED/PEP programs, which both existed prior to 2002 and
have historically shaped non-profit museum operations in the province.
The Provincial Government recognized the limited size of museum operational grants as an issue
in a 1972 proposal for the regional museum network. However, a Museum Network did not
73
become a reality until after Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (2002). Through the Network,
each of the nine zones can apply as a group for marketing funding. They are also given funding
in order to meet and coordinate their activities. The idea being, by giving a larger amount of
money to the region, museums can accomplish more as a group (Interview Participant H). As
such, the Network is an attempt to address distribution issues by awarding funding to zones
rather than museums, raising questions with implications for cultural policy research more
broadly. Do museums accomplish more when working together? Is money spent more efficiently
when non-profits are funded as a group?
Ambrose and Pain (2012) highlight a number of advantages to being part of a museum network,
which are reflected in some of New Brunswick’s regional zones. For instance, participants
discussed sharing their experiences and expertise. Interview Participant A (2014) talked about
the zone members’ diverse “previous lives” as educators, graphic designers, and non-profit
managers. The Network has also been used to share new ways of working because in seeing
what is successful in other museums, museums are more likely to experiment themselves. As
stated by Jeanne-Mance Cormier (2014), there is more communication between museums since
the policy and the implementation of the Network. She discussed beginning new public programs
that were inspired by communication with another museum’s staff, stating museums “mimic”
one another.
The museum community has proposed ways they could share funding and work together as a
network that would influence public programming but, to my knowledge, a number of relevant
ideas and suggestions are not reflected in the current Museum Network model. For instance, in
their policy renewal recommendations, Queens County Heritage (2012b) asked GNB to
encourage partnerships. While the Provincial Government has encouraged cooperative marketing
and professional development opportunities, the Network is an opportunity for more
collaboration in public programming activities. For instance, two or more museums could
collaborate and share the financial and time costs for a temporary exhibit that would travel to
both institutions. Particularly considering the prevalence of WWI exhibits in 2014-2015,
museums could also share research, and thereby reduce the time spent developing projects with
similar themes. Rather than funding marketing, GNB could consider supporting the cost of
shared units – staff shared amongst museum zones with certain expertise. During the
74
consultations, the museum community recommended a provincial wage subsidy program to hire
an Executive Director as a full-time staff member (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c).
Museums have also asked for increased support and collaboration between provincial institutions
and community museums (Westmorland Historical Society 2012). Others have called for a
strengthening of provincial institutions in order to strengthen access to museum professionals
(AMNB 2012; QCH 2012b).
The Museum Network is an initial attempt to provide funding to groups in order to maximize
GNB’s influence. Additional research that focuses on the success and failures of the New
Brunswick’s Museum Network in sharing and maximizing resources may provide insights into
the effectiveness of museum networks more broadly. My research cannot answer whether
museums accomplished more when asked to work together and funded as a group. Community
museums are collaborating in New Brunswick and some Interview Participants note the Network
has had a positive influence on museum operations (Cormier 2014; Goulding 2012 2014;
Interview Participant A). However, others disagree. For instance, Interview Participant D (2014)
stated, “If you look at Charlotte County, they got a whole lot of bang for their buck. We got
nothing. We got a whole lot of brochures. A whole lot of crap that lays around that nobody’s
interested in.” It is possible that some of the apparent disappointment with the network may be
because of its focus on marketing funding, which I discuss in section 5.2.3. Research comparing
museum experiences with the network in different zones may reveal why the system seems to
work better in different regions.
Critically for my research, many of the benefits of museum networking seen in New Brunswick
or requested by the museum community relate to museum public programming and/or increasing
staff time in community museums. Another method through which GNB has changed how
funding is distributed is the project-based grants, namely the Exhibit Renewal and Museum
Activities Support Program, which has had an influence on public programming. As
demonstrated in Chapter Three, in each year, GNB supports fewer organizations through this
grant than the Community Museum Assistance Program. While many museums have benefited
from one-time grants, the programs’ cumulative affect is concentrated on the institutions that
receive the grants regularly. As the Museum Services Section has noted that few applications are
rejected each year (Interview Participant I 2014), GNB has effectively created a program that
75
allocates budget increases without directly deciding which museums will be rewarded. To some
extent, institutions decide for themselves what museums receive grant increases through their
application to the new programs.
As outlined in Chapters Three and Four, community museums in New Brunswick have limited
human resource capacity, which influences their ability to utilize funding and offer public
programs. With new sources of funding, it is possible organizations will shift their limited
resources away from operational activities or projects that align more closely with their mission
and towards those funded by the Government. Some Interview Participants stated the Exhibit
Renewal program does not provide enough money to pay someone to construct the exhibit or
that they rely on volunteers as curators (Interview Participate D, 2014; F. White 2014). As such,
the efforts of their human resources – volunteers and staff – become directed towards the funded
activity. As Krmpotich and Peers note, “funding programs need to recognize staff as critical,
indeed indispensable, aspects of core museum functions and special museum projects” (2013,
231). Fred White (2014) with the Fredericton Region Museum stated, “The indirect way of
creating public programming would have been to find a way to provide more staff time because
it takes staff to organize them.” As GNB directs funding to projects with one-time grants rather
than staffing costs or other operational costs they are encouraging projects and not encouraging
museums to hire long-term employees that can operate museums and develop programs.
An alternative perspective regarding project-based funding is that in funding activities, GNB
“frees up other money in the budget that we can then spend on program development, staff time
and buying supplies, for example” (Interview Participant B 2014). It is possible museums wanted
to or were trying to create more exhibits with their limited resources prior to the funding
becoming available. With the new source of funding for exhibits, operational money can be spent
on other areas, like human resources. However, in this situation, museums would be better
served with multi-year project grants.
5.2.3 Civil Discourse
GNB collaborated with the museum community to create the Museum Network and decide how
funding would be allocated through the zones. As stated by a civil servant (Interview Participant
H 2014), “I was sure the need in community museums was more for collections. But,
76
surprisingly, it came to our attention that people … were more willing to develop a marketing
approach.” Funding through the Network is primarily directed toward marketing activities
because that was the number one priority identified by the museum community as part of
consultations in 2002 (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c), raising the question: does a civil
discourse result in the best possible program?
It remains difficult to find basic information about many of the province's community museums,
such as location and opening hours. For example, the Northeastern New Brunswick zone has a
rack card listing the eleven museums and placing them on a map. While there is no information
such as opening hours or telephone numbers, the card directs the reader to the zone website.
Unfortunately, as of January 2015, the website also does not contain hours and some of the
museums do not have their own site. The lack of information available on community museums
may be a reflection of the lack of certainty they face from year to year. For instance, if a museum
does not know how many student summer employees they will have from one year to the next, it
is more difficult to offer consistent opening hours. As such, it is better to produce advertisements
without the hours, which may change and make the advertisement outdated. Considering the
basic uncertainties many museums face, marketing may not have been the best choice when
developing support strategies. However, my research did not focus on this program, as most
interview participants did not identify marketing funding as having an influence on their public
programs. More research into community museum marketing practices before and after the
program’s implementation is needed to make conclusions regarding the program’s success.
As discussed in Chapter Three, the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program
followed the 2002 consultation, but does not appear to have been created collaboratively. I have
demonstrated that both the museum community and the civil service perceive the grant as
successfully increasing and/or improving museum public programming. Further, most
participants discussed the 2002 policy and resultant programs as having a positive influence on
the community, stressing the role the museum community had in creating the policy. As the
Exhibit Renewal grant is guided by Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, which was created in
partnership with the community, the implication may be that public consultation and influence
on the policy process is valuable, but only to a certain extent.
77
5.3 Conclusions
The development of support strategies for museums after 2002 reflects a civil discourse and the
public sphere as a place for individuals to reach a common understanding regarding the division
of shared resources. However, GNB’s decision to develop new forms of funding and consult the
museum community in their creation was an official one. The civil service and not the museum
community itself decided what recommendations to use in developing programs as well as which
museums GNB would award funding. Further, the exhibit funding does not clearly align with the
priorities identified in the final report from the 2002 consultation. While the community
identified marketing funding as a need as part of the original consultations, advertising museums
when they do not even know their opening hours is not an effective use of funding. There are
greater areas of concern.
A government’s objectives in creating support strategies are significant in considering the
influence of the public sphere or, in this case, consultations with the museum community on the
policy process. As stated, GNB is now influencing the perceived quality by directing activities
rather than voicing concern about the standards of the province’s museums. If the Provincial
Government would like to influence the quality and professionalism of community museums as
well as create support strategies collaboratively using a civil discourse approach, they need to
work with the community to strengthen museums’ human resource capacity.
The community has already made suggestions on how GNB could help improve their operations
with regards to their human resource capacity. For instance, the Westmorland Historical Society
(2012), Queens County Heritage (2012b), and the Association Museums New Brunswick
(AMNB 2012) suggested providing volunteer tax credits to act as an incentive for encouraging
volunteers. The AMNB also noted that multi-year commitments in operational and project-based
support could promote long-term stability (AMNB 2012). As part of the cultural policy renewal,
several organizations suggested modifying SEED. For instance, the Westmorland Historical
Society (2012) and the AMNB (2012) recommended multi-year commitments for the program.
Queens County Heritage (2012b) recommended that GNB simplify SEED and look to the federal
programs for ideas on how to operate the program more efficiently. During the 2002
consultations, the museum community asked that GNB notify them with regards to the SEED
78
program earlier in the year. Blueprint for Action: Building a Foundation for Self-Sufficiency
(Bradshaw et al. 2007), a report from the self sustainability task force established by GNB,
makes eight suggested improvements to SEED, including the following:
…earlier notification of student allocations so non-profits have more timely access to the student pool….higher wage allocations for non-profits who cannot afford to top up the minimum wage….possibility of compensation for a student supervisor….automatic re-employment for a student who wants to return to an organization which wants him/her back the next year (Ibid., 26).
AMNB (2007) offered additional recommendations, including extending the eligibility
requirements to include students in the eleventh grade, increasing the eligible workweeks to
“correlate with museum ‘hours of operation’, and ‘hours to prepare for opening,’” and extending
SEED to provide occasional employment during the “shoulder season” (AMNB 2007, 15).
In conclusion, GNB can develop support strategies with the museum community while also
targeting an identifiable need. In order to access the funding that is available and accomplish
more public program activities, museums would benefit from greater human resource capacity.
The community has already provided suggestions on how to do so and my interviews suggest
that there are those that would welcome a shift away from marketing funding toward support for
human resources. Interview participants discussed the people that make public programs possible
and many discussed the need for more human resources in order to accomplish these activities
(Bogaard 2014; Clarke 2014; Cormier 2014; Goulding 2014; Interview Participant B 2014;
Interview Participant D 2014; Interview Participant F 2014; C. White 2014; F. White 2014).
Support strategies that focus on these people is likely key to the development of public programs
that will, ideally, interest stakeholders and, therefore, foster more sustainable community
museums.
79
Endnotes
1 According to a presentation given by the museum services section, community museums received 38% of their funding from GNB in 2009-2010 and 34.4% in 2013-2014. The next largest source of funding in 2009-2010 was the private sector at 19% and in 2013-2014 it was municipalities at 19% (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014). 2 In addition to institutions identified as non-profit museums receiving operational support through GNB, support through the zones benefits for profit museums, key provincial institutions, 2 In addition to institutions identified as non-profit museums receiving operational support through GNB, support through the zones benefits for profit museums, key provincial institutions, historic sites, archives, and other related institutions, such as an arts and nature centre, a garden, and a costal trail. 3 Canadian Provincial and Territorial Cultural Policies: Origins, Developments, and Implementation [Translation by author]. 4 While there are many definitions for stakeholder, this definition is the most widely accepted (Fassin 2009). 5 Sustainability is defined as “the possession of sufficient resources to maintain the existence of an organization, and achieve their goals in the future” (Pietro et al. 2014, 5745).
6 The totals include funding given to Tantramar Heritage Trust for both the Boultenhouse Heritage Centre and the Campbell Carriage Factory Museum. 7 While their revenue was $501,857, their expenses were only $151,722. The Trust received $240,944 from the federal government. As their year-end is March 31, this funding was part of Sackville’s 250th anniversary in 2012. 8 According to a chart from the Museum Services Section, the Museum is part of the Central Valley zone. However, as of June 2, 2015, they are listed on the Charlotte County website. 9 The CRA report does state the Musée historique de Tracadie has a full time employee. However, the report only lists a total of $22,101 in compensation. According to the interview participant from this museum (Interview Participant F 2014), they do not have a year round employee, but they have a secretary for five months and someone comes in as the secretary accountant for one or two days a month. 10 The thirty organizations are: Albert County Museum, AMNB, Atlantic Salmon Museum, Bathurst Heritage Trust Commission, Beaverbrook Art Gallery, Carleton County Historical Society, Central NB Woodmens Museum, Grand Manan Museum, Kings County Museum, La
80
Société historique de Clair, La Société historique du Madawasa, Maison historique Pascal Poirier, Miramichi Natural History Association, Moncton Museum, Musée acadien, Musée de Kent, Musée des Papes, Musée du Madawaska, Musée historique de Tracadie, Peninsula Heritage, Queens County Museum, Restigouche Gallery, “School Days” Museum, St. John Firefighters Museum, St Michaels Museum, Tantramar Heritage Trust, The Chocolate Museum, Village of Rexton, Westmorland Historical Society, and York Sunbury Museum. 11 The spelling – that is, “Museums Branch” and not “Museums’ Branch” – is in accordance with the Historical Resource Administration’s Annual Reports. 12 The Branch developed a funding system in the late 1970s in consultation with the museum community. However, it is unclear whether the unit responsible for museums took control of the operational funding during the 1970s. The Branch did take responsibility for operational grants to Keillor House and Tilley House in the early 1970s and the Department of Historical and Cultural Resources administered support to museums in 1981 with a different set of criteria than those planned by the Museums Branch in the late 1970s. 13 It is possible that there were other funding programs available through the Museum Services Section before the 2002 articulation. A capital grant may have been implemented in the 1970s as it is included in drafts outlining changes to the operational grants. If it was implemented, it is not discussed in annual reports and did not remain a program. According to those working in the Heritage Branch, there were no project-based funding programs until 2003-2004 (Interview Participant H and I 2014). 14 The Government of Canada supported the creation of local museums in 1967 with an influx of funding. The 1968 Canadian Museums’ Association Directory lists thirty-three museums in New Brunswick, and seven of those were made possible through the Centennial Capital Grants Program (Key 1973, 199). 15 Ouelette (2001) argues, “although no actual Department of Cultural Affairs was established during his tenure of office, an embryonic cultural policy was developed, the tangible results of which are still being felt today” (19). The “embryonic cultural policy” refers to the creation of the Cultural Affairs Branch within the Department of Youth (1968), plans for the Provincial Archives and Kings Landing, the establishment of an ad hoc committee to develop cultural policy and strategy (1968), and a conference on the state of the arts (1969). 16 Hatfield’s 1986 committee was primarily concerned with “the arts” and lead to FORUM ’87, a public consultation with over two hundred artists from across the province. While the recommendations in the 1989 report influenced subsequent initiatives in culture, such as the creation of the New Brunswick Arts Board in 1990, they did not have any noticeable effect on support for community museums. During the consultations, the Advisory Committee defined
81
museums as cultural facilities, asking whether GNB should be involved in their maintenance and operation (1986, 12). However, the final report does not discuss museums in detail. 17 In 1985, the AMNB newsletter Horizons noted GNB was allocating funding in a haphazard manner without policy or planning. The Memorandum asking for the heritage policy also notes a lack of consistency. 18 In 1995 the New Brunswick Arts Board and MCH organized FORUM ’95, a conference for the arts sector. The consultation led to the creation of a Cultural Policy Task Force, which conducted targeted consultations, eight public meetings, and invited the community to react. While GNB responded to and accepted many of the Committee’s twenty-three recommendations, the process did not result in the articulation of a comprehensive policy. A Commitment to our Culture: Response to the Cultural Policy Task Force (1998) is primarily a statement about the arts, outlining government direction in areas like arts education and promoting creativity. However, some of the policy statements concern museums, such as those on cultural tourism, and are reflected in the 2002 comprehensive policy, as discussed in detail elsewhere (Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011). 19 The publications include: Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts: Interim Report (1987), Final Report: Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts (Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts 1989), Response to the Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts (1989), Provincial Parks and Heritage Sites Master Plan: Final Report (TRH 1990), A Strategy on Culture Toward the Year 2000 (Division of Culture 1991), Through Partnership to Stewardship: A Discussion Paper (MCH 1993), Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Cultural Policy (MCH 1994), Towards an Arts Policy for New Brunswick: Discussion Paper (New Brunswick Arts Board 1995), Cultural Policy Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations for a Cultural Policy (Theriault, Fry, et al. 1997), A Commitment to our Culture Response to the Cultural Policy Task Force Report (1998), and Towards a Cultural Policy (Cultural Policy Task Force n.d.). 20 The report has two dates: December 21, 1987 after the final page of the English portion and February 12, 1988 after the final page of the French section. As such, I have used 1988 as the date the bilingual report was likely released. 21 Government documents contain conflicting information regarding the date of this report – some say 1988 and others say 1989. The date is based on the front cover, which reads, “January 1989.” However, the report’s copyright date is 1988. 22 In his April 2000 budget speech, the Minister responsible for the Culture and Sport Secretariat announced the preparation of a comprehensive policy for study. In June 2001, the Culture and Sport Secretariat began conducting focused consolations with stakeholders. Following these consultations, the Minister responsible for the Culture and Sport Secretariat established a
82
Working Group to review the policy, conduct consultations, and make recommendations (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002b). 23 Other support strategies that developed include the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program, the Museum Collection Inventory Program, and the Professional and Organizational Development in Museology Program. 24 The stakeholder meetings included presentations, workshops (Marketing in Museology, Professional and Organizational Development in Museology, and Fundraising for Museums: How can we work together?), and a plenary session where participants shared ideas across groups. The Heritage Branch produced a booklet summarizing the meetings after the 2002 and 2003 consultation – Together, Toward Museum Networking (2002) and Together, For Museum Networking: Final Report (2003). 25 While the Task Force praised the relationship between the Heritage Branch and museum community, the final report, discussion papers, and GNB’s Our Action Plan to be Self-Sufficient in New Brunswick (2007) did not have a visible or lasting impact on action influencing museums. 26 Ingersoll had been the Director of the NBM and was also involved at the community museum level as one of the founders of the Grand Manan Museum in 1967. 27 In the 1980s, there was a shift away from government action, as heritage became a unit within a larger department. George MacBeath, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Historical and Cultural Resources, retained his title but became head of a smaller unit of government within Department of Tourism, Heritage and Recreation and was eventually asked to take early retirement (MacBeath 2012). 28 The first provincial museums policy was articulated in 1973, and there was an election in 1974. From Partnership to Stewardship was released in 1994, and there was an election in 1995. The release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick preceded the 2003 election. Finally, the recently released Creative Futures was announced months before the 2014 election. 29 I do not have a consistent record of operational grants from before 2002. However, the funding reductions were mentioned in my interviews, in letters to museums in 1994, and in the AMNB’s newsletter (AMNB 1985; Clark 2014; Duffe 1994). While most annual reports before the Culture and Sport Secretariat do not mention the museum operational grant amounts, the MCH’s 1995 annual report states, “Under the Community Museums and Historical Society Assistance Program, a total of $301,010 was provided to 44 museums and ten historical societies” (28). 30 The numbers used in this paragraph and Figure 3 are from unpublished charts and information provided by the Museum Services Section.
83
31 Of the over $700,000 given to museums and historical societies in 2011-2012, over 25% of the budget went to provincial associations or provincially established sites. GNB gave a total of $85,000 to two provincial associations – that is, the Association Museums New Brunswick (AMNB) and the Council of Archives New Brunswick – and they gave $112,500 to organizations with whom they have begun management or lease agreements since 2002 to manage sites that were previously provincially operated. The $112,500 is not really an increase as it was given to operate institutions previously operated by GNB. 32 While GNB does not provide clear criteria for this funding through their website, the Heritage Branch discussed the program in a 2014 presentation for the AMNB. Through the Museum Network, GNB provides funding for coordination within the zones and activities GNB labels outreach or marketing. The program is described as follows:
“Promote museums and organizations committed to cultural development partnering in each zone to establish a common heritage outreach activity; Provides support for projects that facilitate the pooling of resources for the purpose of outreach and promotion of the Museum Network; Develop heritage awareness; Supports innovative cultural tourism initiatives; Increase visitation“ (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014).
From 2003-2004 to 2013-2014, funding totaled $1,128,126 and, of that funding, $458,000 funded zone coordination and $670,126 funded marketing activities. While the presentation is not clear regarding what is funded, interview participants mentioned funding for websites, brochures, posters, passports, and placemats. 33 More specifically, this program supports projects in two categories. First, the professional development component aims to “increase opportunities for museum and heritage organizations to enhance the professional skills of their employees, board members and volunteers” (Heritage Branch 2015b). Second, the organizational development aims to:
“Enhance the efficiency of boards of organizations working in the heritage sector so that they can better fulfill their mandate. Encourage the development of organizations working in the heritage and museum sector; Assist with projects aimed at improving the financial stability of the organizations” (Ibid.).
From 2003-2004 to 2014-2015, funding through the program totaled $168,569 and funded over 259 participants (Allen-Scott, Godin, and Tremblay 2014). 34 The programs objectives are:
84
“To support community museums in establishing and upgrading their physical and/or computerized collection inventory; To promote museum accountability with respect to conservation in all areas of collection related activities; To encourage museums to adopt and implement their “Collection Management Policy” (Heritage Branch 2015c, 2).
It has funded between 26 and 37 organizations in each year from 2003-2004 to 2014-2015, totaling $1,039,000 (Allen-Scott, Godin, and Tremblay 2014). 35 In 2012, the $32,500 from GNB was 22.5% of their $144,049 in revenue. In comparison, the $13,900 from the Provincial Government in 2001 was 20.3% of their $68,473 in revenue. The FRM has taken advantage of the Museum Collection Inventory Program eight times from 2004-2005 to 2013-2014 and the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program six times from 2003-2004 to 2014-2015. They have also received support for coordinating within their zone, marketing through the zone, and professional development. Additionally, the Museum receives indirect support from GNB. They are located in the provincially owned Office Quarters of the Historic Garrison District and the FRM pays utilities, but not rent. 36 The FRM opened the orientation room in 2007, Fredericton’s Loyalists in 2008, The Boss’s World in 2009, the Acadians of Fredericton exhibit in 2010, From Black Bag to High Science in 2011, New England Planters of Maugerville/Sheffield, 1763-2013 in 2013 and New Brunswick and the Great War in 2014. They also created a permanent exhibition, War of 1812: A Fredericton Perspective, in 2012. I have included the orientation room as an exhibit as it is referred to as a permanent exhibit in the 2009 Annual Report. 37 Queens County Heritage began when the 1967 Queens County Centennial Project purchased and restored the Samuel Leonard Tilley house, which is now a museum displaying Queens County history. QCH now operate the Tilley House, the Court House, the Flower House, and, most recently, the Loomscrofter Studio in Gagetown, New Brunswick. They are eligible for and have received money through the built heritage program, which I am not discussing in this analysis. The provincial contribution has increased with the addition of new funding programs, but the contribution has decreased as a percent of the overall budget. In 2012, the $36,281 they received from the Provincial Government was 28.6% of their $126,884 in revenue. In comparison, the $14,184 they received from GNB in 2001 was 34.2% of their $41,472 in revenue. The organization is an atypical example because it takes advantage of both the Museum Collection Inventory and the Exhibit Renewal programs most years, they receive over $10,000 in operational funding, and they hire a full time director during the summer. 38 KCM received support from their municipal government, which is not reflected in their revenue. They are housed in a municipal building and do not have to pay utilities.
85
39 While public programming ideally fosters relationships with the museums’ communities, the community referred to in this priority seems to be the heritage or cultural community. For instance, ideas on how to address this priority included developing a directory of institutions and staff, creating a message board for questions, and an annual heritage conference. The general ‘public’ is only mention in a recommendation to develop strategic plans with their input (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c, 8). 40 One of the qualifications is that museums are registered charities. According to the Canadian Revenue Agency’s database, many, such as the Chocolate Museum and the Restigouche Regional Museum, are not. 41 Some of these ‘museums’ are part of the same organizations. For example, the website provides separate pages for the Keillor House and the St. James Textile Museum, which are both part of Dorchester Heritage Properties. Some of the organizations with opening hours that appear to be year round on the AMNB website are seasonal offerings. I tried to confirm that museums were or were not open during the winter on their websites, Facebook pages, or the tourism NB website, but was not able to find the information in all cases. The information was verified May 29, 2019 and may change as museums update their information.
42 There are some discrepancies in the total amount. In the chart provided by the Museum Service Section there is a note that eight grants were approved in 2003-2004, but there are only seven on the chart. This number is not included in the section’s 2014 presentation (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014) or the figures herein. The number $1,138,222 was reached by adding the figure for 2003-2004 to 2013-2014 in the presentation – $1,013,499 – with the number on the chart for 2014-2015, which includes $10,000 under review –$124,723. 43 Museums receiving a Community Museums Assistance grant and employing multiple people full-time and year-round include, but are not limited to, Resurgo Place, which is supported by the municipal government, and the Musée acadien in Moncton, which is supported by the Université de Moncton. Both of these institutions also received an operational grant greater than $30,000 in 2014. 44 During my interview with Chris White, the Director of the KCM who is a full-time employee in the summer and part-time in the winter, a volunteer had to operate the museum so we could talk. 45The Program operated from June to September. During the first summer they provided 251 employment opportunities and allocated $272,136 to the program. The report mentions student employment by the government, but suggests these were initiatives from individual departments
86
and not part of a broader policy. The report claims that 71.4% of the student participants would have been unable to carry on their education without the Government’s intervention. 46 The program’s name has changed over time. In the 1980s, the Federal Government encouraged investment in student employment through the Challenge program, which included funding for Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED) that was augmented by provincial investment. In the 1990s, GNB provided student summer employment through the JET Stream program. Today, the Department of Post Secondary Education, Training and Labour (PETL) runs the program as Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED). 47 As part of the program in 1971, the Carleton County Courthouse hired four females who worked as guides, answering questions and providing tours while dressed in costume. The Carleton County Historical Society, formed in 1960, continues to operate the Old Court House in addition to the Connell House and receives operational as well as project funding through the Museum Services Section. The students enabled public access to the property and benefited “from the job through the knowledge acquired during training, a certain compatibility acquired through constant contact with the public, and an ability to speak to the public” (Christie 1971, 7). 48 It is unclear when PEP became available to museums. The Heritage Branch first mentions PEP in a 1990 annual report; however, a proposal from the John Fisher Memorial Museum distinguished between funding for students from the NB student project or the Challenge program and the department responsible for museums beginning in 1983. 49 The seven organizations are: The Agricultural Museum of New Brunswick, Kings County Museum; 8th Hussars Museum; Kingston Historic District; Saint John Jewish Historical Museum; Loyalist House (New Brunswick Historical Society); and Quaco Museum. 50 The Kings County Museum opens three days a week during the winter. 51 The ten organizations are: Musée acadien de Caraquet, Bathurst Heritage Museum; Musée historique de Tracadie, Memorial War Museum, New Brunswick Aquarium and Marine Centre, New Brunswick Mining and Mineral Interpretation Centre, Oyster Museum, Paquetville Historic Hall, Pope’s Museum and the Village Historique Acadien. I could not find the opening hours for the Saint-Isidore Church and Museum. This information is from January 2015 and may change as some museums’ hours are different from year to year. 52 Some interview participants noted the timing for SEED has improved in recent years and, more specifically, was better for summer 2014. 53 The number of weeks that the MLAs’ are given is influenced by their political affiliation. In 2015, Green Party leader David Coon reported he only received 80 weeks to allocate, while government MLAs received 200 weeks to allocate (Poitras 2015).
87
54 The Museum had the three students write letters to the Government about their positive work experience with the museum. 55 Of the thirteen individuals from community museums who participated in my research, nine are volunteers and four are paid staff. 56 As younger people are not replacing the aging members, the Museum needs to hire at least one full-time person to maintain operations. Unfortunately, they do not have the financial capacity because their money is committed elsewhere – that is, to restoring one of their properties.
57One change is that employers no longer have to hire from a list of students provided by GNB. Instead, as of 2012, they can hire any student who has filled out the appropriate forms and is eligible for a SEED position (PETL 2015, personal communication). While this change has eliminated one barrier to hiring students, the challenges highlighted in Chapter Four that limit museums’ capacity to offer programs remain an issue.
88
References
1. Primary Government of Canada Communications, Department of. 1990. Canadian Museum Policy: Temples of the
Human Spirit. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
National Museums of Canada, The. 1972. The National Museum Policy: A Programme for Canadian Museums. Ottawa: The National Museums of Canada.
Government of New Brunswick 1989. Response to the Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts. Fredericton: Province
of New Brunswick. 1998. A Commitment to our Culture: Response to the Cultural Policy Task Force.
Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick. 2007. Our Action Plan to be Self-Sufficient in New Brunswick. Fredericton: Province of
New Brunswick. 2013. Employer Application for Student Summer Employment. Accessed April 14, 2015.
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/petl-epft/PDF/Emp/SEED_EmployerBooklet.pdf
2014. Creative Futures: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. Fredericton:
Province of New Brunswick. Allen-Scott, Janice, Andrée Godin, and Guy Tremblay. Museum Services. Heritage
Branch. Tourism, Heritage and Culture, Department of. 2014. “Heritage Branch and the Museum Network of New Brunswick.” Presentation at the Association Museum New Brunswick’s 2014 Conference and AGM. November 7, 2014. Accessed April 13, 2015. http://www.amnb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Heritage-Branch-AMNB-Nov-5-2014-ENG.pdf
Bradshaw, Claudette, Fleurette Landry, Sue Rickards, and Rich Hutchins. 2007. Blueprint for
Action: Building a Foundation for Self-Sufficiency. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/hic-csi/pdf/cnpo-ocslb/plan_en.pdf
Burley, Wayne. Heritage Branch. Culture and Sport Secretariat. 2002. Correspondence.
MC1341 54529 0335 07. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.
89
Christie, Terry. Labour, Department of. 1971. Student Summer Employment Program, 1971. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick.
Cultural Policy Task Force. N.d. Towards a Cultural Policy. Culture and Sport Secretariat. 2002a. Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. Fredericton:
Government of New Brunswick. http://leg-horizon.gnb.ca/e- repository/monographs/30000000043815/30000000043815.pdf
---. 2002b. Documents. RS1034 2200-c 55703. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New
Brunswick. ---. 2002c. Together, Toward Museum Networking: Final Report. Fredericton: Province of New
Brunswick. ---. 2002d. 2001-2002 Annual Report. Fredericton: Culture and Sport Secretariat. ---. 2003. Together, for Museum Networking: Final Report. Fredericton: Province of New
Brunswick. Division of Culture. Tourism, Recreation and Heritage, Department of. 1991. A Strate gy
on Culture Toward the Year 2000. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick. Duffe, Paul. Municipalities, Culture and Housing, Department of. 1994. Correspondence.
RS738 19175 2370 1. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. Heritage Branch. Culture and Sport Secretariat. 2003. “Exhibit Renewal and New
Museological Activities Support Program.” Unsorted. MC300. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Heritage Branch. Tourism, Heritage and Culture, Department of. 2014. “Exhibit Renewal and
Museum Activities Support Program.” Accessed December 20. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/thc-tpc/pdf/Heritage-Patrimoine/Museum- /ExhibitRenewalMuseumActSupportProgram2014.pdf
---. 2015a. “Museum – Operations Grant.” Accessed April 13.
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/services/services_renderer.201031.Museum_-_Operations_Grant.html.
---. 2015b. “Professional and Organizational Development in Museology Program.” Accessed
April 15. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/thc-tpc/pdf/Heritage-Patrimoine/Museum-Musee/ProfessionalAndOrganizationalDevelopmentProgram2015.pdf
90
---. 2015c. “Museum Collection Inventory Program.” Accessed April 14, 2015. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/thc-tpc/pdf/Heritage-Patrimoine/Museum-Musee/MuseumCollectionInventoryProgram2014.pdf
Historical Resource Administration. 1969 to 1982. Annual Reports. Fredericton:
Government of New Brunswick. ---. 1973. Memorandum to Cabinet: Provincial Plan for Museum Priorities. 3350 9 1.
Provincial Archives, New Brunswick. MacBeath, George. Historical Resources Administration. 1975. Correspondence. 3350 9
1. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. McGuigan, J.L. Historical Resource Administration. 1972. Policy Recommendations.
RS806 35 8 6 3. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. Ministers Committee Employment Development. 1994. “1994-95 J.E.T. Stream
Program.” RS627 20 7 94. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. Municipalities, Culture and Housing, Department of. 1991. Draft Memorandum to the
Executive Council. RS738 1901 2370 1. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.
---. 1993. Through Partnership to Stewardship: A Discussion Paper. Fredericton:
Government of New Brunswick. ---. 1994. Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Heritage Policy.
Fredericton: Government of New Brunswick. Office of the Premier. 2002. “Government Releases Cultural Policy for New Brunswick
(02/02/02).” News Release. Accessed December 28, 2015. http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/pre/2002e0176pr.htm
Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts. 1986(?). “The Provincial Government and its
Programmes.” MC1341 2464. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. --- 1988. Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts: Interim Report. Fredericton: The
Committee. ---.1989. Final Report: Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts. Fredericton:
Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage, Government of New Brunswick. Theriault, Paulette, George Fry, et al. 1997. Cultural Policy Task Force: Final Report
and Recommendations. Fredericton: Government of New Brunswick.
91
Tourism, Heritage and Culture, Department of. 2013. Annual Report 2012-2013. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick.
Tourism, Recreation and Heritage, Department of. 1990. Provincial Parks and Heritage
Sites Master Plan: Final Plan. Fredericton: Government of New Brunswick. Personal Interviews Bogaard, Paul. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. September 2.
Campbell Carriage Factory Museum. Sackville, New Brunswick. Clarke, Bill. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio Recording. August 18. Restigouche
Regional Museum. Dalhousie, New Brunswick. Cormier, Jeanne-Mance. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. July 29.
Musée acadien. Moncton, New Brunswick. Folkin, Alice. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. July 19. Keillor
House. Dorchester, New Brunswick.
Goulding, Sarah. 2014. August 28. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. The Chocolate Museum. St. Stephen, New Brunswick.
Interview Participant A. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio Recording. July 28.
New Brunswick. Interview Participant B. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio Recording. June 30.
New Brunswick. Interview Participant D. John Fischer Memorial Museum. 2014. Audio Recording.
August 5. Kingston, New Brunswick. Interview Participant E. MacAdam Railway Station. 2014. Audio Recording. September
4. Telephone. Interview Participant F. Musée historique de Tracadie. 2014. Audio Recording. August
19. Tracadie-Shelia, New Brunswick. Interview Participant G. Musée Mgr. - Camille - Andre Leblanc. 2014. Audio Recording.
November 10. Telephone. Interview Participant H and Interview Participant I. Museum Services, Government of
New Brunswick. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. November 4. Fredericton, New Brunswick.
92
White, Chris. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. July 8. Kings County Museum. Hampton, New Brunswick.
White, Fred. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. July 22. Fredericton
Region Museum. Fredericton, New Brunswick Other Association Museums New Brunswick. 1985. Horizons. 3(2). ---. 2000. Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick. Fredericton: AMNB. ---. 2007. “Building a New Foundation for the Museum Community: Comments on the Findings
of the Premier’s Community Non-Profit Task Force.” Advocacy. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://www.amnb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BradshawAMNBResponse.doc
---. 2012. “Brief on New Brunswick Cultural Policy Renewal.” Unpublished document. Christie, Gillian. 2014. “New Summer Exhibition Now Opens at Queens County
Museum.” Oromocto This Week. June 12. Clarke, Bill. 2012. “Presentation on Cultural Policy Renewal.” Accessed April 27, 2015.
http://www.gnb.ca/0131/polcul/Submitions.asp Fredericton Region Museum. 2012. September 4. Facebook Post. Accessed April 14, 2015.
https://www.facebook.com/FrederictonRegionMuseum?fref=ts Goulding, Sarah. 2012. “Cultural Policy Renewal Consultation Meeting: Presentation by
Sarah Goulding.” Unpublished presentation. Ingersoll, L. Keith. 1977. “Provincial Museums Policy and Programmes.” Horizons. 3(1):
24-28. John Fischer Memorial Museum. 1986. “Proposal for MacDonald-Stewart Foundation
Overview History/Programs/Grants.” RS966 R1966.274 39593. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Lyall, Laura. 2012. “Voicemail from the Victorian Era.” Telegraph Journal. Saint John, New Brunswick. August 4.
MacBeath, George. 2012. “A Short Autobiography of my Beginnings and Career.”
Personal files. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. New Brunswick Arts Board. 1995. Towards an Arts Policy for New Brunswick:
Discussion Paper. Moncton: Institut de leadership Universite de Moncton.
93
Poitras, Jacques. 2015. “David Coons Slams System of Awarding Student Summer Jobs.” CBC. Online Edition. June 3. Accessed June 14. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/david-coon-slams-system-of-awarding-student-summer-jobs-1.3097600
Queens County Heritage. 2012a. July 18. Facebook Post. Accessed April 14, 2015.
https://www.facebook.com/QCHeritage/photos/pb.123946040971677.-2207520000.1429028162./448299601869651/?type=3&theater
---. 2012b. “A Presentation to the Cultural Policy Working Group.” Public Consultations.
Accessed April 27, 2015. http://www.gnb.ca/0131/polcul/Submitions.asp Westmorland Historical Society. 2012. “Presentation to the Cultural Policy Working Group
September 27, 2012.” Public Consultations. Accessed April 27, 2015. http://www.gnb.ca/0131/polcul/comments/JudyMorisonWestmorlandHistoricalSociety.pdf
Wilson, Brent. 2014. Brent Wilson Speaking at the Fredericton Region Museum First
World War Exhibit Launch. YouTube video. Posted by Fredericton Region Museum, August 21. Accessed on April 14, 215. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pZEyENYhk
York Sunbury Historical Society and Museum. 2008. Annual Report 2008. Accessed
April 14, 2015. https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2008-annual-report-black-and-white.pdf.
---. 2009. 2009 Annual Report. Accessed April 14, 2015.
https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2009-agm-report-2.pdf ---. 2010. 2010 Annual Report. Accessed April 14, 2015.
https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2010-agm-report-low-res.pdf
---. 2011. 2011 Annual Report. Accessed April 14, 2015.
https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2011-agm-report-75dpi.pdf
York Sunbury Historical Society and Fredericton Regional Museum. 2012. 2012 Annual
Report. Accessed April 14, 2015. https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2012-agm-report.pdf
---. 2013. 2013 Annual Report. Accessed April 14, 2015.
https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2013-agm-report.pdf York Sunbury Historical Society Exhibits Committee. 2006. “Five Year Plan of
Exhibits.” Unsorted Documents. MC300. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.
94
York-Sunbury Historical Society Inc. 1999. “Financial Statements (Unaudited) December
31, 1999.” Unsorted. MC300. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. 2. Secondary Ahearne, Jeremy. 2009. “Cultural Policy Explicit and Implicit: A Distinction and Some
Uses.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 15(2): 141-153. Akinbola, Kunle. 2004. “Staffing, Retention, and Government Funding: A Case Study.”
Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 14(4): 453-465. Alexander, Victor. 1996. Museums and Money: The Impact of Funding on Exhibitions,
Scholarship, and Management. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ambrose, Timothy, and Crispine Paine. 2012. Museum Basics. New York: Routledge. Ashley, Susan. 2012 “Museum Volunteers: Between Precarious Labour and Democratic
Knowledge Community.” In Cultural Policy, Work and Identity, edited by Jonathan Paquette, 107-128. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Barrieau, Nicole, and Daniel Bourgeois. 2011. “Le Nouveau-Brunswick: dualité
culturellee et institutionnelle.” In Les politiques culturelles provinciales et territoriales du Canada: Origines, evolutions et mises en oeuvre, edited by Monica Gattinger and Diane Saint-Pierre, 77-104. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
Belfiore, Eleonora. 2002. “Art as a Means of Alleviating Social Exclusion: Does it Really
Work? A Critique of Instrumental Cultural Policies and Social Impact Studies in the UK.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 8(1): 91-106.
Bennett, Oliver. 1995. “Cultural Policy in the United Kingdom: Collapsing rationales and the
end of a Tradition.” The European Journal of Cultural Policy. 1(2): 199-216. ---. 1996 “Cultural Policy and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Entrepreneurial Answers in the United
Kingdom.” Kultur/Norden. 4: 1-22 Bennett, Tony. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London:
Routledge. Camarero, Carmen, and María-José Garrido. 2009. "Improving Museums’ Performance Through
Custodial, Sales, and Customer Orientations." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 38(5): 846-868.
Canadian Museums Human Resource Planning Committee. 1997. The Workforce of the
Future. Ottawa: Canadian Museum Association.
95
deLeon, Peter. 1992. “The Democratization of the Policy Sciences.” Public Administration Review. 52 (2): 125-129.
Dye, Thomas R. 2005. Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Escobar, Oliver. 2013. “Public Engagers and the Political Craft of Participatory Policy Making.” Public Administration Review. 73(1): 36-37.
Fassin, Yves. 2009. “The Stakeholder Model Refined.” Journal of Business Ethics. 84:113-135. Foucault, M. 1991. Discipline and Punish: the birth of a prison. London: Penguin. Freeman, E. 1984. Stakeholder Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Ptiman. Freeman, R. Edward, and David L. Reed. 1983. “Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New
Perspective on Corporate Governance.” California Management Review. 25(3): 88-106. Gattinger, Monica, and Diane Saint-Pierre. 2010. “The “Neoliberal Turn” in Provincial
Cultural Policy and Administration in Quebec and Ontario: The Emergence of ‘Quasi-Neoliberal’ Approaches.” Canadian Journal of Communication. 35(2): 279-302.
---. eds. 2011. Les Politiques culturelles provinciales et territoriales du Canada: origines,
évolutions et mises en oeuvre. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Gattinger, Monica, Diane Saint-Pierre, with Alexander Couture Gagnon. 2008. “Toward
Subnational Comparative Cultural Policy Analysis: The Case of Provincial Cultural Policy and Administration in Canada.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. 38(3): 167-186.
Genoways, Hugh H. and Lynne M. Ireland. 2003. Museum Administration: An
Introduction. New York, Toronto: Altamira Press. Gray, Clive. 2000. The Politics of the Arts in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ---. 2008. “Instrumental Policies: Causes, Consequences, Museums and Galleries.” Cultural
Trends. 17(4): 209-222.
---. 2010. “Analyzing Cultural Policy: Incorrigibly Plural or Ontologically Incompatible?” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 16(2): 215-230.
Guthe, Carl, and Grace Guthe. 1958. The Canadian Museum Movement. Toronto: Canadian
Museum Association.
96
Hall, Michael, et al. 2003. The Capacity to Serve: A Qualitative Study of the Challenges Facing Canada’s Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.
Hall, Peter. 1986. Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and
France. New York: Oxford University Press. Harvey, F. 1998. “Cultural policies in Canada and Quebec: Directions for future
research.” In Cultural policies and cultural practices: Exploring the links between culture and social change, edited by C. Murray, 13-15. Ottawa: Canadian Cultural Research Network.
Hjalager, Anne-Mette, and Steen Andersen. 2001. “Tourism Employment: Contigent
Work or Professional Career?” Employee Relations. 23(2): 115-129. Hood, Thomas. 2009. “Let’s Get Creative: The Forgotten Role of Culture in New
Brunswick’s Quest for Self-Sufficiency. In Exploring the Dimensions of Self-Sufficiency for New Brunswick, edited by Michael Boudreau, Peter G. Toner, and Tony Tremblay, 196-209. Sherbrooke: Transcontinental Metrolitho.
Hughes, Margaret W. 2010. “Bridging the Divide: Mission and Revenue in Museum
Programming.” Journal of Museum Education. 35(3): 279-288. Imbeau, Louis M., Rejean Landry, Henry Milner, Francois Petry, Jean Crete, Pierre-
Gerlier Forest, and Vincent Lemieux. 2000. “Comparative Provincial Policy Analysis: A Research Agenda.” Journal of Political Science. 33(4): 779-804.
Jeannotte, M. Sharon. 2010. “Going with the Flow: Neoliberalism and Cultural Policy in
Manitoba and Saskatchewan.” Canadian Journal of Communication. 35(2): 303- 324.
Jeannotte, Sharon, and Alain Pineau, eds. 2013. Flat lined but still alive: Overview of the
2012- 13 provincial and territorial budgets from the perspective of the arts and culture sector. Ottawa: Canadian Conference of the Arts.
Jenkins, Barbara. 2005. “Toronto’s Cultural Renaissance.” Canadian Journal of
Communication. 30:169-186. Key, Archie F. 1973. Beyond Four Walls: The Origins and Development of Canadian
Museums. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited. Kickert, Walter J. M., and Frans-Bauke van der Meer. 2011. “Small, Slow, Gradual Reform:
What can Historical Institutionalism Teach us? International Journal of Public Administration. 34: 475-485.
97
Krmpotich, Cara, and Laura Peers. 2013. This is our Life: Haida Material Heritage and Changing Museum Practice. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. 2014. “Frank McKenna.” Premiers Since
Confederation. Accessed December 27. http://www.gnb.ca/legis/publications/tradition/premiers/mckennaf-e.asp
Lindqvist, Katja. 2012. “Museum Finances: Challenges Beyond Economic Crises.” Museum
Management and Curatorship. 27(1): 1-15. Marontate, Jan, and Catherine Murray. 2010. “Neoliberalism in Provincial Cultural
Policy Narratives: Perspectives from Two Coasts.” Canadian Journal of Communication. 35(2): 325-343.
McGuigan, Jim. 1996. Culture and the Public Sphere. London and New York: Routledge. ---. 2004. Rethinking Cultural Policy. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill House. ---. 2005. “The Cultural Public Sphere.” European Journal of Cultural Studies. 8(4): 427-445. Meisel, John and Jean Van Loon. 1987. “Cultivating the Bushgarden: Cultural policy in
Canada.” In The Patron State, edited by Milton C. Cummings, Jr. and Richard S. Katz, 276-310. New York: Oxford University Press.
Misener, Kate, and Doherty, A. 2009. “A Case Study of Organizational Capacity in
Community Sport.” Journal of Sport Management. 23(4): 457-482. Mulcahy, Kevin V. 2006a. “Cultural Policy.” In Handbook of Public Policy, edited by
Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, 265-281. London: Sage. ---. 2006b. “Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches.” Journal of Arts
Management, Law, and Society. 35(4): 319-330. Myerscough, John. 1988. The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain. London:
Policy Studies Institute. Nickson, Denis, Chris Warhurst, Eli Dutton, and Scott Hurrell. 2008. “A Job to
Believe in: Recruitment in the Scottish Voluntary Sector.” Human Resource Management Journal. 18(1): 20-35.
Ouellette, Roger. 2001. “Introduction.” In The Robichaud Era, 1960-70: Colloquium
Proceedings, 17-21. Moncton: The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development.
98
Pichette, Robert. 2001. “Culture and Official Languages.” In The Robichaud Era, 1960- 70: Colloquium Proceedings, 67-86. Moncton: The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development.
Pick, John. 1988. The Arts in a State. Bristol: Bristol Classical. Pietro, Laura Di, Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion, Maria Francesca Renzi, and Martina Toni. 2014.
“An Audience-Centric Approach for Museum Sustainability.” Sustainability. 6: 5745-5762.
Reussner, Eva. 2003. “Strategic Management for Visitor Oriented Museums: A Change of Focus.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 9(1): 95-108.
Schuster, J. Mark. ed. 2003. Mapping State Cultural Policy: The State of Washington.
Chicago: The University of Chicago. Scott, Carol A., ed. 2013. Museums and public value: Creating sustainable futures.
Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. Scott, Katherine. 2003. Funding Matters: The Impact of Canada’s New Funding Regime
on Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.
Selvakumar, Meena, and Marting Storksdieck. 2013. “Portal to the Public: Museum
Educators Collaborating with Scientists to Engage Museum Visitors with Current Science.” Curator: The Museum Journal. 56(1): 69-78.
Smithsonian Centre for Education and Museum Studies. 2009. “ICOM Curricula
Guidelines for Museum Professional Development.” Accessed April 14, 2015. http://museumstudies.si.edu/ICOM-ICTOP/comp.htm
Smithsonian Institute. Office of Policy & Analysis. 2001. Art Museums and the Public.
Accessed February 3, 2015. http://www.si.edu/Content/opanda/docs/Rpts2001/01.10.ArtPublic.Final.pdf
Strom, Elizabeth. 2003. “Cultural Policy as Development Policy: Evidence from the United States.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 9(3): 247-263.
Throsby, David. 2009. “Explicit and Implicit Cultural Policy: Some Economic Aspects.”
International Journal of Cultural Policy. 15(2): 179-185. Weil, Stephen. 2012. “Creampuffs and Hardball: Are you Really Worth What You Cost or
Merely Worthwhile?” In Reinventing the Museum: The Evolving Conversation on the Paradigm Shift, edited by Gail Anderson, 130- 134. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
Wu, Chin-Tao. 2002. Privatizing Culture. London: Verson.
99
Young, Robert A. 2001. “The Programme of Equal Opportunity: An Overview.” In The
Robichaud Era, 1960-70: Colloquium Proceedings, 23 – 36. Moncton: The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development.
100
Appendices
Appendix A: Abbreviations
AMNB: Association Museums New Brunswick
CMA: Canadian Museum Association
FRM: Fredericton Region Museum
GNB: Government of New Brunswick
HRA: Historical Resource Administration
ICOM: International Council of Museums
JFMM: John Fisher Memorial Museum
KCM: Kings County Museum
MCH: Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing
MLA: Member of Legislative Assembly
PEP: Priority Employment Program
PETL: Post Secondary Education, Training and Labour
QCH: Queens County Heritage
RRM: Restigouche Regional Museum
SEED: Student Employment and Experience Development
THC: Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture
TRH: Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage
YCW: Young Canada Works
101
Appendix B: Community Museums and Historical Societies that have Received an Operating Grant from GNB between 2002-2003 and 2014-2015
PLACE ORGANIZATION
1. Albert Albert County Heritage Trust 2. Bathurst Bathurst Heritage Trust Comm. 3. Beaver Harbour Beaver Harbour Archives and Museum 4. Blackville Blackville Parish Historical Society 5. Boiestown Central NB Woodmen’s Museum 6. Bouctouche Musée de Kent 7. Campbellton Galerie Restigouche Gallery 8. Campbellton La Société historique du Comté de Restigouche 9. Caraquet Musée acadien 10. Clair La Société historique de Clair 11. Dalhousie Restigouche Regional Museum 12. Doaktown Atlantic Salmon Museum 13. Dorchester Dorchester Heritage Properties 14. Edmundston La Société historique du Madawaska 15. Edmundston La Société Fortin du Petit-‐Sault 16. Edmundston Musée de Madawaska 17. Florenceville-‐Bristol NB Potato Museum 18. Fredericton Junction Sunbury West Historical Society 19. Fredericton “School Days” Museum 20. Fredericton Association Museum New Brunswick 21. Fredericton Beaverbrook Art Gallery 22. Fredericton Council of Archives NB 23. Fredericton La Société d’histoire de la Rivière Saint Jean 24. Fredericton Science East Association Inc. 25. Fredericton York Sunbury Historical Society 26. Gagetown Queens County Museum 27. Grand Barachois Musée Mgr.-‐Camille-‐André Leblanc 28. Grand Falls Grand Falls Historical Society 29. Grand Manan Grand Manan Historical Society 30. Grand Manan Grand Manan Museum 31. Grande-‐Anse Musée de Papes 32. Grande-‐Digue La Société Historique de Grande-‐Digue 33. Hampton Kings County Museum 34. Hillsborough Canadian Railroad Historical Association 35. Hillsborough Heritage Hillsborough 36. Hopewell Cape Albert County Historical Society 37. Kedgwick Musée Forestier de Kedgwick 38. Kingston Peninsula Heritage 39. McAdam McAdam Historical Restoration Committee 40. Memramcook Association Histoire de Chez Nous Inc. 41. Memramcook La Société historique de Vallée de Memramcook 42. Miramichi Miramichi Historical Society
102
43. Miramichi Miramichi Natural History Association 44. Miramichi Beaverbrook House Commission 45. Miramichi Friends of Beaubeaurs Island 46. Miramichi St. Michael’s Museum 47. Miramichi Highland Society of NB at Miramichi 48. Moncton Moncton Museum (Resurgo Place) 49. Moncton La Société historique acadienne 50. Moncton Lutz Mountain Heritage Foundation 51. Moncton Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton 52. New Denmark New Denmark Historical Society 53. New Maryland NB Scottish Cultural Association Inc. 54. Notre-‐Dame Comité historique de Notre-‐Dame 55. Perth Andover Southern Victoria Historical Society 56. Petit-‐Rocher Centre d’interpretation des Mines et Minerais 57. Rexton Village of Rexton 58. Sackville Owens Art Gallery 59. Sackville Tantramar Heritage Trust 60. Saint John Saint John Jewish Museum 61. Saint John Saint John Firefighters Museum 62. Saint John NB Historical Society 63. Saint-‐Françoise-‐de-‐Madawaska Commision La Forge Jos B Michaud 64. Saint-‐Françoise-‐de-‐Madawaska Société culturelle de Saint-‐Françoise 65. Saint-‐Françoise Sale de 150e Société Culturelle 66. Saint-‐Isidore Musée de Saint-‐Isidore 67. Saint-‐Lénard Le cercle culturel et historique Hilarion Cyr inc. 68. Saint-‐Quentin Société Patrimoine Saint-‐Quentin 69. Shédiac La Société historique de la Mer Rouge 70. Shédiac Maison Pascal Poirier 71. Shippagan La Société historique Nicolas-‐Denys 72. St. Andrews Charlotte County Historical Society Archives 73. St. Andrews Ross Museum 74. St. Andrews The Van Horne Estate on Ministers Island 75. St. Andrews Town of St. Andrews 76. St. Martins Quaco Historical Society 77. St. Stephen The Charlotte County Museum 78. St. Stephen The Chocolate Museum 79. Sussex 8th Canadian Hussars Museum 80. Sussex Agricultural Museum of NB Inc. 81. Tabusintac Tabusintac Centennial Memorial Museum 82. Tracadie Le Musée historique de Tracadie 83. Woodstock Carleton County Historical Society
103
Appendix C: Interview Participants
Bogaard, Paul. Campbell Carriage Factory Museum. Sackville, New Brunswick. September 2, 2014. Clarke, Bill. Restigouche Regional Museum. Dalhousie, New Brunswick. August 18, 2014. Cormier, Jeanne-Mance. Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton. Moncton, New Brunswick. July 29, 2014. Folkin, Alice. Keillor House. Dorchester, New Brunswick. July 19, 2014. Goulding, Sarah. The Chocolate Museum. St. Stephen, New Brunswick. August 28, 2014. White, Chris. 2014. Kings County Museum. Hampton, New Brunswick. July 8, 2014. White, Fred. Fredericton Region Museum. Fredericton, New Brunswick. July 22, 2014. Interview Participant A. July 28, 2014. Interview Participant B. June 30, 2014. Interview Participant C. Heritage Education, Government of New Brunswick. Fredericton, New Brunswick. September 4, 2014. Interview Participant D. John Fischer Memorial Museum. Kingston, New Brunswick. August 5, 2014. Interview Participant E. MacAdam Railway Station. McAdam, Fredericton. September 4, 2014. Interview Participant F. Musée historique de Tracadie. Tracadie-Shelia, New Brunswick. August 19, 2014. Interview Participant G. Musée Mgr. - Camille - Andre Leblanc. Shediac, New Brunswick. November 10, 2014. Interview Participant H and Interview Participant I. Museum Services, Government of New Brunswick. Fredericton, New Brunswick. November 4, 2014. Interview Participant J. Private Museum. July 21, 2014.
104
Appendix D: Sample Interview Topic Guide
The questions will be asked in an order that is responsive to the interviewee’s contributions and not necessarily as they are written here. New topics can be introduced if they contribute to the topic or if bringing the respondent back to the topic would disrupt the conversation. Relevant questions from the list below will be asked but not all questions will be relevant to all participants. Additional questions may be added dependent on context and relevant to the topic. 1. An interview topic guide for my interviews with museum professionals.
Personal Information
• What is your name? • What institution do you work for? • What is your official title? • How long have you held this position?
• (if the person has held this position since after 2002) What did you do prior to ---?
Public programming • I am imagining public programming as a set of practices that invite audiences to engage
with the institution. With this in mind, could you tell me about your museum’s public programming?
• Describe what you do for ----? • Could you give me an example? • How do you or does your institution imagine public programming?
• You’ve probably had some interesting experiences planning programming, can you recall any of them? Has government funding ever posed a particular challenge to your programming? Has it ever posed a particular opportunity?
• How have your programs changed since 2002? • How are your programs funded?
Cultural Policy Outputs
• Could you tell me about the provincial funding your institution usually receives (....applies for)?
• How does this funding impact museum programming? • How has provincial funding changed since the implementation of Cultural Policy
for New Brunswick in 2002? • Are there different kinds of ---? • In practice, what are the differences between the different levels of government funding?
• Does your institution strategize its public programming according to different govt programs?
• Have you ever been involved in efforts to influence govt funding? i.e. advocacy, working groups, professional organizations, lobbying
Funding and management
• Could you tell me how your public programs are funded? OR What are all the ways your
105
museum funds its public programs? Has this changed over time? If so, in what ways? • How does this compare with --- years ago? • How does the timing of govt funding influence your programming or your museum
operations? • In your mind, has the provincial funding scheme hindered public programming at your
institution in any way? If so, in what ways? Or Can you provide an example? Based on your experience, has the provincial funding scheme helped public programming at your institution? How/example…
• Do you have a sense of how provincial funding is being influenced by external factors – i.e. the economic recession; newly-elected govts; Canadian Heritage; anniversaries (i.e. Canada’s upcoming 150 yrs; World War anniversaries…); municipal politics
2. An interview topic guide for government employees. Personal Information
• What is your name? • What institution do you work for? • What is your official title? • How long have you held this position?
• (if the person has held this position since after 2002) What did you do prior to ---? Cultural Policy Outputs
• Could you tell me about the provincial funding available to museums? • How does this funding support museum programming? • How has provincial funding changed since the implementation of Cultural Policy
for New Brunswick in 2002? • Are there different kinds of ---?
106
Appendix E: Museum Network Map and Chart
NOTE: The chart and image in this Appendix are from a PowerPoint presentation given by the Heritage Branch (Allen-Scott, Godin, and Tremblay 2014).