Museoception

Case Study: Dawson City Museum Timeline, 1960s

Last updated: January 24, 2022

As part of the Dawson City Museum Project, I am creating timelines of the Museum’s development in relation to government policy and community action (1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s).

Museum Operations
Government Policy
Community Action
Questions
References

Museum Operations

Dawson City Museum, August 1962 (Artist: John Gould; Dawson City Museum Archive 1984.241.62)

1960:

The Museum building (the old fire hall) was destroyed by fire.

Old Dawson City Museum on Fire, June 5, 1960 (Artist: Roy McLeod; Dawson City Museum Archive 1993.3.11)

The Museum began searching for a new space, asking to occupy the Old Territorial Administration Building as early as December 1960 (Haldenby 1960).
1961:

Building

The Dawson City Museum and Historical Society struggled to find a new building to house the museum.

Collections

Members of the Dawson City Museum and others made public appeals for objects to rebuild the Museum’s collections. These appeals asked specifically for objects from the Klondike Gold Rush (e.g., the Tear Sheet vol. 18 no. 5):

Found in: 1.1.4: Correspondence w secretary treasurer March 1958 to October 1960. Box 1. DCM.

A Klondike Mines Locomotive was donated to the Museum. It weighed 30 tonnes and was transported across the River. Click here to listen to an interview about that experience.

Klondike Mines Railway Engine No. 1, 1970 (Artists: Ed and Star Jones; Dawson City Museum Archives 1998.22.172)
1962:

Building

The Museum opened in the Old Territorial Administration Building in time for the 1962 Gold Rush Festival.

Old Territorial Administration Building, May 1976 (Artist: Pam Elton; Dawson City Museum Archives 2006.4.21)

Collections

An individual from the National Museum of Canada (Gaston Tessler) spent a week cataloguing the collection. He cleaned, organized and homogenized the space (Warner 1962, 1963).

Visitors engaged with the objects, providing more information or services. For example, someone offered to repair the harmonium. Another individual opened a “metal affair” to fit pieces together and demonstrate that it was a peanut-vending machine (Warner 1962, 1963).

Exhibitions

The Museum hosted traveling exhibitions (DCM Board Meeting Minutes, May 23, 1962; Warner 1963):
- Replicas of the Crown Jewels.
- Royal North West Mounted Police and the chase of the Mad Trapper of Rat River.
- Hudson’s Bay Pictures.
There were also displays of the museum artifacts, such as a broken harmonium, harness-maker’s vise, an old map of the Yukon.

Whitehorse Star, Thursday, June 14, 1962, p. 32.

Other content included:
- a collection of prints from the national archives
- a display of old keys and machinery from the Canadian National Telegraph.
Fundraising (earned revenues)

The Museum sold what would now be called Inuit prints (DCM 1962).

Staffing

Victoria Faulkner (who recently retired from the Department of Northern Affairs) acted as Curator for the summer.
1963:

Whitehorse Daily Star, Monday, February 25th 1963, p. 12

Collection

The Museum received the original staking post from the Carmack’s claim.

Exhibitions

The Museum had displays of cabin interiors (Dawson City Museum Board Meeting Minutes, February 13, 1963).
1964:

Building

The Museum installed a furnace and purchased a blacksmith shop (Warner 1964).

Collections

The Dawson City Museum received funding from a private foundation to clean and paint three engines.

Whitehorse Daily Star, Monday, May 25, 1964, p. 21

“Old-timers” (a term used to discuss miners) estates were given to the Museum (Warner 1964).

There was a deep freeze that resulted in a lot of birds dying. Residents with freezers kept the birds and then a taxidermist in Whitehorse mounted them for the Museum (Warner 1964).

Warner (1964) described other acquisitions, such as old movie film and maps. Importantly, Indigenous baskets and other works were loaned to the Museum.

Exhibitions

The Museum acquired the contents of Harry Leamon’s cabin on Bonanza Creek and exhibited the content to represent a miner’s cabin.

Harry Leamon’s Claim, c1958 (Canadian Photo Archive; Dawson City Museum Archives 2004.13.35)

Research

We begin to see Museum records on research request.
1966:

Exhibitions (Board Meeting Minutes, March 4, 1966)

The Museum has 970 objects on display (This is an assumption. The Minutes actually say they have 970 “exhibitions”).
1967:

Exhibitions

The Museum had 1,000 objects on display (This is an assumption. The Minutes actually say they have 1,000 “exhibitions”- Board Meeting Minutes, January 26, 1967).
1968:

Building

A failed fire inspection report threatened the Museum’s existence (see various letters in 1.1.38: Correspondence 1968. Box 1. Dawson City Museum).

Government Policy

First Nation (Tr’ondëk Hwëchin)

In 1960, the federal government granted First Nations people the right to vote in federal elections without losing treaty status. The Yukon Council of First Nations comments on the significance of this change:

A new generation emerged, barely intact from the brutality of the mission schools, and began a movement to fight oppression, provide vision and hope, and to gain some rights for the generations to come.
Source

Federal

1960:

National Historic Sites

A person from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resource’s National Historic Sites Branch arrives in Dawson to conduct a study of older buildings (Stuart 1990).

Last Trip of the Keno, August, 1960 (Artist: Roy McLeod; Dawson City Museum Archive 1993.3.21)

The Keno, which was donated to the Canadian Government in 1959, made its last voyage on the Yukon River to Dawson City.

SS Keno, August 1963 (Artist: Harold Dines; Dawson City Museum Archive 2013.1.17)

Northern Administration

The Northern Affairs and National Resources’ Northern Administration Branch provided the Dawson City Museum with a 500$ grant for active societies (Collins 1960).
1961:

National Historic Sites

The National Historic Sites Branch acquires the Palace Grand Theatre (Stuart 1990), which the Klondike Visitors Association had purchased then turned over (plaque below).

Interpretive Panel, Palace Grand, 1963 (Artists: Ed and Star Jones; Dawson City Museum Archive 1998.22.190)
1962:

National Historic Sites Branch

The National Historic Sites Branch rebuilt and reopened the Palace Grand Theatre in time for the Gold Rush Festival.

Foxy, Palace Grand Theatre, August 18, 1962 (Canadian Photo Archive; Dawson City Museum Archives 1984.241.2)

The Branch commissioned historical research on the Gold Rush and Dawson buildings, which became important later when the federal government began to acquire additional sites and offer interpretation in Dawson.

National Museums

A zoologist and two student assistants from the National Museum of Canada were in Dawson City for the summer (Lotz 1964).

A cataloguer from the National Museum of Canada spent a week at the museum cataloguing (Warner 1963). The cataloguer was likely one of the Zoologist’s student assistants. Warner (1962) notes Phil Youngman from the National Museum in Ottawa (He was a mammalogist, meaning he is likely the zoologist Lotz described) asked if his cataloguer could assist the museum.
1963:

Explicit Cultural Policy

Secretary of State becomes responsible for culture.
Mid 60s:

National Historic Sites

National Historic Sites had built the theatre and repaired the Keno, but did not participate in the Gold Rush Festival or operate the sites. They leased the sites to the Klondike Visitors Association for tourism related activity while the Mining Recorder acted as the Historic Sites agent in the area. He had limited authority and recommended a full time employee for the historic sites (Stuart 1990).
1965:

Explicit Cultural Policy

The House of Commons established a Standing Committee on Culture.

The Secretary of State recommended a national cultural policy.
1966: Federal officials traveled to Dawson and Recommend the establishment of positions in Yukon (Stuart 1990).
1967:

Explicit Cultural Policy

It was the Canadian Centennial year. The Federal Government invested in the celebration of the centennial.

National Historic Sites

The National Historic Sites Branch announced they would determine how their structures would be used.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada held its annual meeting in Dawson, consulting community organizations. The Board recommended acquiring material relating to the Gold Rush, acquiring and preserving more building, the commemoration of gold mining, and the commemoration of Yukon transportation.

The federal government began acquiring sites, which would become part of the Klondike National Historic Sites (Stuart 1990).

For Dawson, the price of survival was the loss of autonomy. Paid for and developed from the outside by the Canadian taxpayer, Dawson depended upon external decisions for its future development.
Stuart 1990, 128

National Museums

The National Museums of Museum of Canada Act passed, creating the National Museums Corporation to run the national museums.
1968:

National Historic Sites

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled the first policy statement on national historic sites at the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (Parks Canada 1976).

Other

The Government amended to Criminal Code to allow the federal and provincial governments to run lotteries, which influences future territorial funding programs that museums can access.
1969:

Other

The Official Languages Act passed, which influenced future museum funding from the federal government with bilingualism requirements for museums.

Territorial

1961: The Yukon Territorial Council discussed a territorial museum grant program (source).
1962: The Travel and Publicity Branch was established as a two person branch (Graham 1972).
1968: The Yukon Territorial Council discussed the procedures around existing grants. At this time, grants are being made to organizations, like Museum Societies, as special contributory grants without a policy (source).

Yukon Historic Sites and Monuments Board created with the Historic Sites and Monuments Ordinance.

Local

1967: The City renamed the Diamond Tooth Gerties Gambling Hall / Arctic Brotherhood Hall the Centennial Hall in honor of the Canadian centennial (source).

Community Action

1960: The Dawson City Festival Foundation was established.
1962: The Dawson City Festival Foundation organized the Gold Rush Festival with government assistance and the active participation of community organizations. The Klondike Visitors Association was particularly important.

The festival drew attention to the need for better infrastructure to attract tourists, such as improved accommodations (Lotz 1964).

Portable Motel Units Used During Gold Rush Festival, 1962 (Artists: Ed and Star Jones; Dawson City Museum Archive 1998.22. 166)
1963: The Klondike Visitor’s Association’s Gaslight Follies begin performing at the Palace Grand (source).

Program from the 1969 season (from the Jewish Museum Archives)
1966: The Yukon Consolidated Gold Corporation closed.

Questions

Do you know of any important milestones that are missing?

Would any of the entries benefit from more information or links to additional resources?

Resources

Where possible, sources are hyperlinked in text or included as pictures. Additional sources include:

Collins, F.H. 1960, November 24. Letter to the Dawson City Museum and Historical Society Secretary-Treasurer. 1.1.4: Correspondence. Box 1. Dawson City Museum Archives.

DCM. 1962, September 4. Museum Register. 1.1.10 correspondence 1962. Box 1. Dawson City Museum.

Graham, R. D. Tourism and Information Branch. Yukon. 1972. Yukon Tourism 1972 Annual Report: Review of the Yukon Travel Industry 1962-1972. Whitehorse.

Haldenby, Allan. 1960, December 7. Letter to the Superintendent public works. 1.1.4: Correspondence w secretary treasurer March 1958 to October 1960. Box 1. DCM Archives.

Warner, Iris. 1964, November 19. “Preserved in Museum at Dawson. Whitehorse Daily Star. p.9.

Warner, Iris. 1963. “A Museum for Dawson City.” North, 10(4): 13-16.

Warner, Iris. 1962. “Museum – Tribute to Dawson City. Lesson to All Communities.” Journal name is not clear.

Case Study: Dawson City Museum Timeline, 1950s and earlier

Last updated: January 24, 2022

As part of the Dawson City Museum Project, I am creating timelines of the Museum’s development in relation to government policy and community action (1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s).

Museum Operations
Government Policy
Community Action
Questions
References

Museum Operations

Dawson City Museum Exhibit, 1959 (Artist: Charles W. Schneider; Dawson City Museum Archives 1991.40.4)
Dawson City Museum Exhibit, 1959 (Artist: Charles W. Schneider; Dawson City Museum Archives 1991.40.7)

1954: The Klondike Visitors Association opens the museum on June 28 in the old firehall (Doiron 2001).

Dawson City Museum, June 7, 1959 (Artist: Roy McLeod; Dawson City Museum Archive 1993.3.7)
1957:

Building

The Dawson City Museum and Historical Society formed to cash a cheque for $500 from the federal government (DCM Board Minutes, October 1959).
- The check is used to repair the old fire hall, housing the museum (DCM Board Minutes, February 25, 1961).
1959:

Governance

The Dawson City Museum and Historical Society incorporated, creating bylaws and a constitution (DCM Board Minutes, October 1959 and November 1959).

Whitehorse Star, Thursday, December 17, 1959, p. 6.

Government Policy

First Nation (Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in)

In the late 1800s, an increased number of people associated with the Klondike Gold Rush began settling the Tr’ochëk, displacing the Hän speaking Indigenous peoples. Chief Isaac moved his people to Moosehide.

Importantly, Chief Isaac also sent the gänhäk (dancing stick) to relatives in Tanacross village in Alaska. These relatives kept sacred songs and dances safe during a period of uncertainty for Hän speaking peoples from the Tr’ochëk (Council of Yukon First Nations; Stories North; Tr’ondëk Heritage).

1950s: The population at Moosehide had declined and the Hän people return to the area now incorporated as Dawson City (Council of Yukon First Nations).

Federal

1953: Historic Sites and Monuments Act
1957: Provided a $1,000 grant to Yukon museums, which is split between the Dawson City Museum and MacBride Museum.
1958: Prime Minister Diefenbaker was re-elected after a campaign that launched a northern vision (Norquay 2014).
1959: Prime Minister Diefenbaker suggested Dawson City should be developed as a tourist attraction (Taylor 1990).

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada recognized Dawson City (Stuart 1990).

Due to the HSMBC recognition, Parks Canada eventually began operating the Klondike National Historic Sites in Dawson City (link)

A meeting between the Stratford Festival and Department of Norther Affairs and National resources led to a proposal for a Dawson City Festival (Stuart 1990).

Territorial

Importantly, the museum is now housed in a historic building – the Old Territorial Administration building.

Picture of the Dawson City Museum — Dawson City Museum

Designed by Thomas Fuller in 1899 and built in 1901, the site is significant because of its association with the 1896 Gold Rush and subsequent settlement in the territory. It was the site of federal and territorial action until 1953.

1953: The territorial government was transferred to Whitehorse.
1959: The Yukon Territorial government offered a $300 operating and maintenance grant to registered societies (DCM 1988).

Local

1950: Dawson City incorporated (Lotz 1964)
1951: The City obtained Diamond Tooth Gerties Gambling Hall (then the Arctic Brotherhood Hall) and began operating it as a community hall (source).

Community Action

The 1896 Gold Rush is of particular importance to the development of both Dawson City and its museum. For more information about the Klondike Gold Rush, check out this Canadian Encyclopedia article.

When Dawson City ceased to be the capital of the Yukon (due in large part to the Alaskan Highway), attention to the tourism industry increased. Members of the community felt they had to draw tourists to survive (Stuart 1990).

1952: The Klondike Tourist Bureau (later, the Klondike Visitors Association) formed (English 1997).

Last trip of the Keno, August, 1960 (Artist: Roy McLeod; Dawson City Museum Archives 1993.3.21)
1958: The Klondike Tourist Bureau received a grant from the Yukon Visitors Association to fix up local attractions (Stuart 1990).
1959: The Klondike Tourist Bureau incorporated (Stuart 1990).

The Museum’s incorporation led to a surge in artifact donations from community members (DCM 1988).

Questions

Do you know of any important milestones that are missing?

Would any of the entries benefit from more information or links to additional resources?

References

Where possible, I have linked to sources. The following are references that are not currently available online:

Dawson City Museum & Historical Society. 1988. “1988 DCM History.” Box 14. Dawson City Museum Corporate Documents. Dawson City Museum Archives, Dawson City.

Taylor, C.J. 1990. Negotiating the past: The making of Canada’s National Historic Parks and Sites. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Case Study: Property Tax as Cultural Policy?

Municipal museums and related cultural institutions often have greater capacity than non-municipal museums because of the non financial supports municipal structures provide. Examples might include IT services, human resources, and lawn maintenance. Most importantly, municipal institutions are often housed in municipal buildings. As a result, they do not have to pay for utilities, maintenance and property tax.

Property tax can be a huge expense for museums and other cultural organizations (particularly non profit ones). For example, an article in the Canadian Museums Association’s Museogramme June/July 1991 issue discusses cut backs on staff, programs and hours at the Art Gallery of Hamilton. At the time, they were paying $300,000 in property taxes, leaving little for maintenance or preservation.

Within this case study post, I examine the MacBride Museum’s relationship with the City of Whitehorse to argue property tax abatement is a form of cultural policy, which has a major influence on the community museum sector. Petitioning municipalities for property tax exemptions is a significant form of cultural policy advocacy.

Whitehorse and the MacBride Museum

As part of the Dawson City Museum Project, I have been reading through the Yukon Historical and Museums Association’s (YHMA) newsletters. I talk about how useful museum association newsletters are to cultural policy research in another post (here).

As the YHMA’s Fall 2013 Newsletter, a few CBC articles (here, here, and here), and the MacBride Museum’s website describe:

1950s: The MacBride Museum opens. It did not (and has never) paid property taxes.
Mid 1990s: The City of Whitehorse provides non profits (including museums) with tax exemptions (100%).
2013: The City proposes a modification to the exemptions, planning to cover only 88% of the property tax payment.

The YHMA began sharing concerns, opposing the proposal through the radio, television, and papers.

The City’s proposal was voted down.
2014: The City reintroduces the proposal and it passes.
2015: The City passes an amendment that if the museum holds the title for their land, it would not be taxed. This exemption only applies to the MacBride Museum (and not the Transportation or Old Log Church museums).
2016: The MacBride Museum begins a planned expansion and confirms the exemption would continue to apply to their larger space.
2018: The City sends the MacBride Museum a bill for property tax after the assessed value of the museum’s property increased. The Museum’s annual property taxes had increased from about 30,000 to 71,000.

The City of Whitehorse argues the MacBride Museum is now ineligible for tax abatement because it has a cap of $50,000 on annual grants to a single organization. The MacBride Museum argues the 2015 amendment is not contingent on the size of the tax.

As of July 2021, property taxes and whether the MacBride is exempt seems to still be a point of contention. The MacBribe and YHMA have posted related content, showing advocacy in action.

The YHMA has:
The MacBride Museum has (most of these points are visible on their website – here):
- Asked for signatures on a petition and letters of support from other organizations
- Made a submission to City Council
- Correspondeded with the City
- Articulated an argument as to why they should not pay taxes
- Answered questions people may have about the issue simply and clearly. There are a number of questions and answers, but here is the first page:

First page of a six page Q&A sheet. The document is available here.

Other Examples

As seen in the Yukon example, provincial governments often say non profits museums and other cultural organizations (or those registered as charities) can be exempt from property taxes. They allow municipalities to impose additional requirements, indicating the exemption is simply a possibility. Here are a couple of examples:

Alberta

A guide on property tax explains the exemption for museums and other cultural organizations. Notably, municipalities may impose additional requirements:

British Columbia

Provincial guidelines note museums owned by a charitable organization may be eligible for property tax exemption:

Screenshot from a page on “Local Government Tax Exemptions”

Saskatchewan

Under The Cities Act museums are not exempt from property taxes. However, they can be. In Saskatoon, for example, museums can apply for relief through the Culture Grant Program. They are not always successful! Click here for an example where the museum was not immediately successful but the City staff were committed to helping the organization meet requirements in the future.

Municipalities

As you can see, municipalities generally decide whether museums are exempt from property taxes in what is now known as Canada. As such, there is a lot of variance across the country. Part of the YHMA’s argument for the MacBride Museum is that most municipalities exempt museums. Here is a screenshot of their position with information on two municipalities:

Questions

To summarize, municipal tax exemptions are a significant form of cultural policy, requiring advocacy and attention, within what is now known as Canada. They demonstrate the important of advocacy at the municipal level (in addition to provincial / territorial, federal, and possibly First Nation).

Do you agree? Can you think of other significant examples?

Research: Newsletters

Newsletters are one of my favorite things to read when researching community museums and museum policy in what is now known as Canada.

Picture of an Ontario Historical Society Bulletin — Image of an Ontario Historical Society Bulletin from 2018 (source)

They are so much fun!

Pre-internet newsletters are particularly helpful. Nowadays, a lot of organizations create email notifications with lots of links and short descriptions. As a researcher, I am not a fan. There is something more interesting about a physical newsletter or a PDF document with grainy photos and long descriptions.

Screenshot of Page 10 in the YHMA Summer 2009 Newsletter

This post is going to explore:

Why are newsletter so useful in community museum policy research?

No (or few) Links! And so Much Information!

The newsletters are such rich sources of information.

Email communications often link to a website for details. Conversely, the newsletters are (or were) more self contained and describe things.

For example, they describe speeches and personal communications not documented elsewhere. Or, if they are documented in an archive, the documentation can be difficult to find. The Canadian Museums Association’s (CMA) Gazette from the early 1970s provides information about the development of the national museum policy, demonstrating how the policy changed from the Honorable Gerald Pelletier’s initial ideas in 1970/71 to 1973. Here is an excerpt from a speech he gave at a conference in 1971 and the CMA’s response:

Excerpt from the CMA's gazette in 1971 showing the beginning of a speach. — CMA Gazette, Oct. 1971, Vol. 5 No. 4, Page 4

Except from the CMA Gazette in 1971 showing the CMA's response to a proposed museum policy — CMA Gazette, Oct. 1971, Vol. 5 No. 4, Page 5

Before reading the Gazette, I did not know how much the museum policy had changed with the input of the CMA and other museum people.

Demonstrating and Simplifying Complexity

Community museums are not the designated responsibility of any one level of government in what is now known as Canada. They receive support from and are regulated by all levels. Further, the support and regulation is not limited to a singular department responsible for museums. For example, a museum may be eligible for support from economic or community development programs.

In addition to government, non profit associations provide support to community museums. And, once again, the support is not limited to associations specifically for museums. Community museums may also benefit from the work of associations connected to one of their programs or goals (e.g., a tourism association).

In relation to this complexity, newsletters do two things:

They highlight the breadth of support available, demonstrating complexity.

The image below is from the Ontario Museum Association’s (OMA) newsletter – Currently – in 1983. The OMA provided information on a new organization for tourist attractions and a Ministry of Tourism and Recreation initiative related to tourism data. Articles like these demonstrate tourism related support is significant to community museums in Ontario.

Excerpt from an Ontario Museum Association Currently in 1983 on the Provincial Attractions Monitor and Attractions Ontario. — Excerpt from *Currently*, January 1983, Vol. 6 No. 7

2. Newsletters help define the scope of research, simplifying complexity.

In addition to demonstrating the complexity of support for museums, the example above also provides parameters for research. It shows that I should consider tourism related support AND also identifies the specific tourism related support of relevance, meaning I don’t have to research everything that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation did that may be relevant. Presumably, the most relevant actions are already identified for me in newsletters.

The Human Component

I saved this one for last because it is my favorite part.

Newsletters demonstrate community. Through the newsletters people are (or were) able to learn about what other people are (or were) doing.

My favorite instances are “Current People News” from the OMA’s Currently, “Of People and Museums” from the CMA’s Museogramme, and any section of the OHS’s Museums Committees newsletters. Here are examples:

Currently, December 1977, Vol 1 No. 2, page 6
Museogramme, January – February 1979, Vol 6 no. 10-11
Local Museums Committee Newsletter, No 21, page 1

Interestingly, the Yukon Historical and Museum Association did not have a similar section / component in their early newsletters. These newsletters do not evoke the same sense of community that I have studied elsewhere. I am interested to see how or whether the association comes up during interviews for the Dawson City Museum Project.

Questions

How about you? Do you like reading these newsletters as a practitioner or researcher? What role do they serve? Do you have a favorite example that I should consider?

Podcasts: BC Museum Portraits Project

As someone who loves studying community museums, I am often frustrated that they do not have a lot of information available about their own histories.

So I was really excited to see the BC Museum Portraits Project. The podcast mini series is a collaboration between the BC Museums Association and Spencer Stuart, which aims to provide an institutional memory of the province’s museums. The podcasts are available here.

Course Application

I am excited to use the podcasts in a module on the historical development of museums in what is now known as Canada for our museum management course.

The objective is to better understand the development of museums in order to consider the causes of contemporary issues or opportunities.

Here is my current plan:

Students will each have to listen to the episode of their choice as a required reading
At the beginning of the “activity” class, they will be given some time to review their notes and prepare a mini presentation
- The presentation should introduce the museum and state 3 – 5 interesting things they learnt about the institution from the podcast episode they chose (and additional googling maybe?).
- I will give the following questions as prompts: Where do/did its collections come from? When/why was it founded? Did they discuss or explain any recent changes in their practices?
Students will be divided into small groups. For most of the remaining time (classes are 1.5 hours), they will:
- Take turns presenting the information to their small groups.
- Work together to identify common themes and significant differences in the museums’ development.
To end the class, we will come back together and each group will be asked about the similarities / differences.

I am excited to see what common themes the students identify!

Questions

Thoughts? Do you have any suggestion on how I could modify the plan so it is more useful to students?

Have you listened to the podcast? Do you have a favorite?

Case Study: The Importance of a Marvelous Lunch

When thinking about advocacy, I generally think of major campaigns.

For example, in 2011, about two hundred people showed up at Montgomery’s Inn (Toronto) to oppose rumored cuts to the City’s museums, which would have closed the historic site. There was also a petition and social media campaign. These advocacy efforts worked. Yay. If you would like to learn more, click here for an article about the efforts.

These kinds of campaigns are incredibly important because, as seen with the Toronto example, they can work! However, effective advocacy is not limited to a one day event or short term social media push. These efforts are most effective when paired with ongoing relationship building.

I have heard about the importance of relationship building at the local, provincial, and federal levels from museum professionals in Ontario and New Brunswick when researching community museum policy.

In my research for the Dawson City Museum Project, I am seeing the same thing. Ongoing relationship building with politicians is important. Fostering positive relationships can lead to more visibility and attention to museums within the legislature.

For example, after returning from a visit to Teslin in 2001, an MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) asked the Minister of Tourism about the Museum Advisor’s recommendations to the George Johnston Museum and was able to get a commitment to fix an issue the Museum was having with their signage (Source). In this example, the Museum’s relationship building with their MLA led to concrete and immediate results.

The MacBride Museum provides a more entertaining example.

The MacBride Museum and Some Delicious Sandwiches

The MacBride Museum is located in Whitehorse – the capital of Yukon and where the Legislative Assembly sits. While there are other community museums in the area (e.g., Old Log Church Museum), the MacBride is larger, older, and has historically had better organization capacity.

The MacBride Museum is mentioned in the Legislature minutes more than any other Yukon community museum. A search for “MacBride Museum” in Hansard yields 125 results and a search for “McBride Museum” yields another five, meaning MLAs mention the museum in at least 130 sittings (I say at least because the search function can be unreliable). In comparison, “Old Log Church Museum” yields 5 results and “Dawson City Museum” yields 44 (“Dawson Museum” yields another 22 results but there is some overlap). While the Old Log Church Museum was established more recently and is much smaller, the Dawson City Museum and MacBride were both originally established in the 50s and, until recently, received the same amount in operational funding from the territorial government.

Why do the MLAs mention the MacBride Museum so much more than other community museums?

The Simple Explanation

The simplest explanation is that the MacBride Museum is in Whitehorse and has a longer history than other Whitehorse community museums. As a result, it may be the only museum some MLAs know to mention.

The Way to an MLAs Heart = Sandwiches

There is also a more entertaining explanation.

The MacBride Museum has held events for MLAs, which get mentioned in the minutes and keep the museum’s complaints fresh in their minds. One day, an opposition member decided it was important to push for more funding to the MacBride Museum (specifically and without consideration of other community museums) after the MacBride had fed the MLAs a “marvelous lunch” and told them about their troubles between sandwich bites.

The opposition member stated:

I would like to move on to a few heritage questions. The Minister will remember the marvelous lunch that we had at the MacBride Museum around Christmastime. Between bites of our sandwiches at the legislative lunch, we learned that the MacBride Museum was interested in seeking more funding from the department.
Source

The Minister responded that if they gave the MacBride museum increased funding, all the community museums would require more money because there was a formula.

The concern is that if you increase the funding of the MacBride Museum, you have to increase the funding of the other museums, because they are funded in a set ratio.
Source

The opposition member was not convinced and continued to refer back to the information the MacBride provided at lunch, concluding:

I am trying to get a better appreciation of what it was about the MacBride Museum’s argument that the Ministers felt did not provide sufficient justification for additional funds.
Source

The lunch did not lead to an immediate funding increase. However, it is indicative of the MacBride’s relationship building with MLAs, which does not include the other community museums. The MacBride is good at being remembered.

Why is this significant?

Historically, the MacBride Museum and Dawson City Museum (DCM) received the same operational grant from Yukon.

1950s: As early as 1957, the federal government provided $1,000 to the territory for museums, which the MacBride and DCM split equally.
1980s: While the DCM and MacBride eventually started receiving the same operating grant again, the MacBride received less operational funds than both the DCM and Old Log Church museum when the territorial program for museums began in the 80s.

Table from the 1986 Lord Report

Please note: This section was added after the post was originally published to incorporate information from the Lord report.
2014: Both museums received $100,000 from the territory’s Museum Contribution Program (MCP).

Then, the Cole Report (2014) recommended increased funding through the MCP. One option involved an additional fee for service agreement with both the MacBride and DCM.
2015 and Beyond: In 2015, Yukon began a 30% increase to the museum grants.

As a result, the DCM now receives S130,000 from the MCP. The MacBride received a much larger increase. Yukon’s 2019-2020 public statements indicate they received $232,000.

Why did the MacBride begin receiving a much a larger grant?

I don’t know for sure. There does not seem to be any public explanation.

If you know the justification that Yukon Government gave, I would love to hear it. Please comment or message me!

However, I have an idea. I think it’s because the MacBride occasionally feeds MLAs yummy sandwiches. Or, more broadly, the MacBride seems to have fostered relationships whereby they are given more visibility in the legislature. Perhaps that visibility extends to the bureaucracy as well?

Questions

What do you think? Does the explanation make sense to you or is there another one that is a better fit?

Shared Bibliography on Cultural Policy

When writing about cultural policy in what is now known as Canada, finding references about the Canadian context can be difficult.

Cultural policy is not a distinct field because “culture” is such a broad concept and, as such, the sector encompasses a lot of subsectors with their own policy concerns. Cultural policy is studied within disciplines focused on specific subsectors (e.g., museology), communications, public administration, history, and more. If I tried listing every discipline that intersects with cultural policy, I would inevitably miss some.

These different disciplines write about cultural policy differently. For example, when researching heritage commemoration policy as a kind of cultural policy, I found historians’ works document government commemorative actions without ever using the keywords “cultural policy,” “heritage policy,” or even just “policy.” After discovering the correct keywords, I found so many more examples of relevance.

In an attempt to share labour, I created a Mendeley bibliography years ago with all of my sources on Canadian cultural policy and shared it with everyone I knew studying the subject. They said thank you, but no one ever seemed to use it or contribute to the resource.

I still think it’s a good idea.

So, I have now made it a teaching resource and am working to expand the bibliography so that it reflects more than my interests. It is available to view here.

The subject librarian at MacEwan is helping me to expand the resource now and I would love to see more sources added. If you’d like to contribute, ask to join! I would love to have help and to make this something that is useful for research broadly.

Research: Interviews Part Three

Now that I am starting the interviews for the Dawson City Museum (DCM) Project, it is time to transcribe them.

Transcribing is interesting because I notice themes and intersections between interviews when paying such close attention to what people are saying. Unfortunately, transcribing is also really tedious, involving more decision-making and time then I ever thought possible.

This post explains why I am doing edited transcripts and describes some of those edits. It was originally an instruction sheet for my Research Assistant, but I think the information may be interesting to some interview participants and other students.

Background

For my Masters and PhD interviews, I did verbatim-ish transcripts. They were close to what the person said with punctuation added and sounds like “um” or “ah” removed. This is not the approach I am taking for the DCM project because:

People (myself included) do not like reading verbatim transcripts. The grammar is almost always awful. As a result, participants will often stop reading them or get distracted (they want to fix their grammar). For the DCM project, informed consent is incredibly important to the community partnership and related ethical concerns. I need people to read the transcripts they approve (or simply be very confident they stand by everything they said).
The approved transcripts will be preserved in the DCM archives (with the participants’ consent). I may have an inflated sense of self importance about my work… but I think the transcripts will be relevant in the future. For example, in 40 years it will be the DCM’s 100th anniversary and they may want to do an exhibit about themselves.

For these reasons, my Research Assistant and I will create edited transcripts. The sections below illustrate the difference.

Examples

The interview excerpt I am using is from my first interview with Alex, the current Executive Director of the Dawson City Museum. I received consent to make this post and use the audio / transcript in this way.

Verbatim Transcript

Robin: If you could start by just telling me your name and your relationship to the Dawson City Museum right now, that would be great.

Alex: Sure. My name is Alex Somerville and, uh, right now I’m the Executive Director of the Dawson City Museum.

Robin: Great. Um, so, how did you become involved with, ah, community museums? Ah, how did you start in the museum sector?

Alex: Ah, my first job was in the community museum, was in a community museum. Uh, yeah. Yeah, my first job was in a community museum. And I guess had sort of a a first job later than a lot of people. It was in the summer between my first and second years of university. Um, and, ah, I’d never, never even, you know, beyond having a job, that first job, I had never been had any any contact or any role or any part in any community museum.

Audio

In my opinion, Alex’s second answer is a little confusing as a written response in the verbatim transcript. If you listen to the audio, the answer is not confusing at all:

Edited Transcript

The edited transcript, I believe, better communicates what he said even though it is not verbatim. I also deleted things that I said, which do not really enhance the document. Here is what I sent to Alex for approval:

Alex: My name is Alex Somerville and right now I’m the Executive Director of the Dawson City Museum.

Robin: How did you become involved with community museums? How did you start in the museum sector?

Alex: My first job was in a community museum. I had a first job later than a lot of people. It was in the summer between my first and second years of university. And beyond having that first job, I had never had any contact or any role or any part in any community museum.

Examining the Differences

What differences do you notice between the verbatim and edited versions? Which do you prefer?

Project Guidelines

Using the example above as a starting point, I created the following guidelines for the Project’s RA (Research Assistant):

Remove stammering sounds (e.g., um, ah)
Repeating words (e.g., “a a” or “any any”) do not serve a function and can be removed unless they are emphasis words (e.g., “very very very big”).
After this, the editing involves more decisions and some people may make different choices. Here two choices explained:
- In speech people often change how they are going to say something (e.g., “my first job was in the community museum, was in a community museum”). In most cases, it is more readable to transcribe what the person decided to say (e.g., “my first job was in a community museum”).
- In speech people often overuse certain words (e.g., most conjunctions, you know, I guess, like). Sometimes, keeping these words helps preserve the person’s speech pattern. However, they can also make reading more difficult and the transcript is better without them (e.g., “Um, and, ah, I’d never,’d never even, you know, beyond having a job, that first job, I had never been had any any contact or any role or any part in any community museum.” became “And beyond having that first job, I had never had any contact or any role or any part in any community museum.)

Questions

Do you have experience transcribing interviews? If so, are there additional guidelines that you would recommend?

Research: Interviews Part Two

I did the first interview last week! Or, more accurately, I did a practice interview with my community partner.

The first interview is the most difficult for me because I get nervous, asking:

What if my questions are poorly written?
What if the recording does not work?
What if I come across as uninformed?
What if the participant feels I have wasted their time?
How silly am I going to sound in the recording?

Within the last post on interviews, I considered the steps leading up to the interviews. This post expands on step two, considering the prep work immediately after the interview is scheduled. More specifically I am answering:

What preparation do I do mitigate the nervousness described above?

What if my questions are poorly written?

My question guide is available here:

Question Guide Download

This is not an “if” issue. One or more of my questions are likely poorly written. However, during the first interview, problems did not arise when I read the questions as they were written. My bigger problem is that when I adjust the questions to better fit the conversation and connect to what we’re discussing, I fumble.

Other than spending time writing and editing the question guide at the beginning, I don’t know how to better prepare for this issue. Suggestions are welcome.

What if the recording does not work?

This is my nightmare: I go home, attempt to download the audio, and it is missing or corrupted.

I do not know what I would do in that situation. Cry?

So, I do my best to avoid it at all costs. In the last interviews post, I asked: How would you record phone conversations?

I am making two recordings in an attempt to avoid my nightmare and ensure at least one works:

TapeACall: I did some searching and this seems to be a good app to record conversations on an iPhone with a decent paid transcription function. Before using it for an interview, I called my dad and had a random conversation about tools. It seems to work well.
Speakerphone and a recorder: My backup is a regular audio recorder, which I have used in other projects for in person interviews.

With two recording methods, fingers crossed the recording will always work… I have spare batteries prepped for the recorder and everything!

What if I come across as uninformed?

As I outlined in the last interview post, some pre-research is required because it helps me ask better questions and avoid annoying people. If someone has already expressed themselves on a topic, but I want more information it helps to say something like: “In _____ you said ______. Could you expand a bit? I am not sure I understand _______.”

While research helps, the purpose of interviews is to learn from the participants so, of course, I am less informed than they are. This is a silly concern.

What if the participant feels I have wasted their time?

I am constantly worried people will feel I have wasted their time when I interview them. However, generally speaking, the museum community is extremely willing to help facilitate research about the museum community. More broadly, people like talking about themselves and believe their work is worth sharing. So, the best thing to do, is to come prepared and make sure the participants know how much I appreciate their time.

How silly am I going to sound in the recording?

Very. I am going to sound very silly in the recording. Listening to my own voice is awful. Nothing can be done.

Questions

Do you have any suggestions on how to avoid nervousness and prepare for a good interview?

Reflections: What interest groups or networks of significance exist in Yukon? What issues have they identified as significant?

As part of my pre-interview reflections for the Dawson City Museum (DCM) Project, this post considers:

What interest groups or networks of significance exist and what issues have they identified as significant?

Like the posts on ideas and institutions, this post is a preliminary reflection that will evolved as I do interviews. In particular, I suspect there are more local networks that I have not adequately considered and/or networks of relevance related to community museums’ roles as tourist institutions in Yukon.

I have organized this post in terms of jurisdiction.

National

Instead of considering the federal government exclusively, I have decided to incorporate the idea of nation to nation in my research. From now on, I will consider both the “Canadian government” and First Nations as national jurisdictions.

Yukon First Nations

First Nations’ Cultural Centers (such as, the Dänojà Zho Cultural Centre in what is now Dawson City) receive funding under the Yukon Government’s museum operational funding program. However, these institutions are distinct from community museums.

The differences begin with the distinct settler-based and Yukon First Nations’ conceptions of heritage. A Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in document states:

The Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in have a broad definition and perception of what heritage is and what it includes. Heritage is not something from the past, but a way of life reflected in the beliefs, values, knowledge, and practices passed from generation to generation. Heritage permeates all aspects of First Nation lives, communities, and governance. It includes much more than the material remains that are left behind. These heritage resources are understood as physical reminders of what is truly important.
Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Heritage Department 2011, 8

I do not know how the Cultural Centers began receiving funding under the museum program (yet). However, Umbrella Final Agreement (1993) mandated a more equitable distribution of Yukon Government program dollars related to heritage resource management. The agreement states:

As the Heritage Resources of Yukon Indian People are underdeveloped relative to non-Indian Heritage Resources, priority in the allocation of Government program resources available from time to time for Yukon Heritage Resources development and management shall, where practicable, be given to the development and management of Heritage Resources of Yukon Indian People, until an equitable distribution of program resources is achieved.
13.4.1

Considering the Umbrella Agreement, I believe advocacy around heritage resource management is likely of significance to community museum policy development.

However, in a post on interest groups and advocacy, I am struggling with who and what I should consider here. I think the problem is that I should have included a section titled “First Nations – Territorial” in my post on institutions. The intersections between First Nations and the territorial government are relevant. As such, moving forward, I will more actively consider these intersections.

In terms of advocacy groups of interest to the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in or Yukon First Nation heritage resource management more broadly, I don’t know where to look.

Are there advocacy groups at this level that I should consider? Since I am consider a settler institution, what is the relevance of advocacy to this jurisdiction? Moving forward, this is something I will be asking in interviews (when appropriate).

Federal

When I interviewed the Canadian Museums Association’s (CMA) Executive Director (now retired) as part of my PhD research in 2018, he emphasized the significance of the Association’s advocacy role.

Reflecting the importance of that role, the CMA has a webpage (very helpfully) titled “advocacy,” which draws attention to the issues they have identified as significant. These issues include:

Copyright legislation revisions
Museums’ need for pandemic relief specifically and increased federal funding more broadly
National museum policy – that is, the lack of a current articulated museum policy for non-national museums. The last policy is from 1990. It is out of date, making references to a department that no longer exists and promises that were not kept.

Advocacy for the development of a renewed national museum policy is of particular importance and has been a component of the CMA’s advocacy work for about 20 years.

National – Territorial

First Nation – Territorial

I suspect the Yukon First Nations Culture and Tourism Association will become relevant here. However, at the moment, I do not know and cannot find anything of relevance online.

Federal – Territorial

The territorial museum association is the Yukon Historical and Museums Association (YHMA or, confusingly, Heritage Yukon on their website). Importantly, the subnational associations are often involved in the national association’s advocacy. For example, the YHMA’s name is on a CMA news release (here) asking for a review of national museum policy, increased funding, and simplified applications for small museums.

Screenshot of the BC Museums Association logo

There is also collaboration between subnational associations. For example, the YHMA made a joint submission (here) with the BC Museums Association (BCMA) for the federal budget consultations. Their concerns included:

Pandemic relief
Increased federal funding
A national museums policy that complies with UNDRIP

Territorial

Yukon had its most recent territorial election in 2021. I cannot find an advocacy paper from the YHMA for the election. However, they asked the parties questions about heritage and posted the answers (here). The questions suggest that the YHMA concerns are:

Territorial policy. As seen at the federal level, the existing museum policy is from 89/90 and is outdated.
Museums’ need for pandemic relief and increased funding.
Property taxes as a barrier for some museums
The need for government to collaborate with museums on related issues

I was a little surprised at the limited about of advocacy or training information for museums on the YHMA website. My surprise may be unfair and a function of having studied the Ontario Museum Association (OMA) so recently. The OMA is an association for a subnational region with more museums, meaning it has more capacity.

That being said, it is also possible the YHMA functions like a historical society with a museums committee rather than a museums association. I am currently reading the YHMA newsletters from the late 70s to the 90s and these documents remind me of the Ontario Historical Society’s (OHS) work. The OHS has a museums committee and does work to support its members who are museums. However, both the YHMA and OHS have a broad focus and expend efforts on issues like cemetery preservation and circulating research on the history of the region. The broad focus means their limited capacity is not always devoted to museum issues. I am excited to learn more and expand on this idea as I do research.

Local

The Klondike Visitors Association (KVA) seems to be a significant interest group for the tourism sector at a local level. In Dawson City, heritage organizations (e.g., Parks Canada, the DCM) are extremely important members of this sector (e.g., the DCM Executive Director is also a member of the KVA Board). However, I have not yet found relevant advocacy documents to use in my analysis.

This points to broader research gaps that I hope to fill – that is, local level advocacy work and work related to museums as tourist organizations.

Summary

Museums (or, I should say, their associations) want a new museum policy at both the national and territorial level. Another common concern includes the need for more money (in normal times and covid times).

Questions

What interest groups should I consider in addition to museum associations?

My next question is part of a broader area of confusion for me. People in the cultural sector often ask for an articulated and comprehensive policy document. However, I am not convinced that policy articulations – that is, a document called “museum policy” or “cultural policy” – will actually lead to more secure or increased support for a few reasons:

Since the 1990s, policy articulations for culture have led to long term commitments as financial investment is needed in implementation. For example, the 1990 federal community museum policy promised increases to the Museums Assistance Program. There were cuts to the program in the mid 90s and the program offers less support now than it did in the 70s. Here is a statement from the CMA on the issue:

The Museums Assistance Program (MAP), a main funding source for Canada’s museums, has seen a consistent decline in funding since being introduced in 1972. In 1977, MAP funding reached its highest level with a program budget that was $15 million ¹, valued at $63 million today when adjusted for inflation. The Program’s budget in 2016-17 was $16.2 million, 74% lower than in 1977
source

In the 21^st century (and the 90s to some extent), cultural policy articulations within what is now known as Canada are often pretty vague. They aim to articulate a broader direction without necessarily institutionalizing the specific actions and programs that will enact the policy. Ontario’s heritage policy review (late 80s and early 90s) and Cultural Strategy are both examples.

In my opinion, the creation of programs and their annual budgets (cuts or increases) create more significant changes than policy documents (which, as seen in Ontario, the next party in power can ignore). Here is an example of what I mean:

The national museum policy from the 1970s was originally announced in a speech. Then, the policy of democratization and decentralization was articulated with a commitment to specific actions, such as:
- Funding that continues today (though in a reduced capacity) through MAP
- The establishment of the Canadian Conservation Institution, which still exists.
- The establishment of the Canadian Heritage Information Network’s predecessor (the national inventory project).
Yukon operational funding for museums increased in 2003-2004, 2007-2008, and then over three years started in 2015. To my knowledge, the last territorial policy document was a museum strategy in 2005 and anytime funding for the program increases it has not gone down.

So, I am genuinely curious. Why do these interest groups pursue policy articulations so persistently?

For example, museum support is historical tied to tourism funding in Yukon. Why not lean into that? I assume an increase in operational funding = the most helpful thing the Yukon government could do for community museums, which would lead to a better product that supports tourism and encourages tourists to stay in Yukon longer.

What do you think? Is arguing for a policy an effective approach?