Results: Consultation on Changing the WG Name
1 post | Page 1 of 1
Results: Consultation on Changing the WG Name
by caroledignard on Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:16 pm
Hi everyone: Here are the results of the Third Consultation. It is a fairly clear outcome: 84% members, and 87% non-members, support changing the Name to the new proposed Name (35% and 20% response rate, respectively). Note that numbers may be slightly tweeked as the membership status of 4-5 members/non-members is being checked but the outcome would remain essentially the same. These results will be submitted to the ICOM-CC Directory Board. We will keep you posted on their decision.
It feels good to have finally concluded this very long process. Thank you everyone for your participation, and for your feedback, comments and encouragement! Bye for now, Carole
Results of the Third Consultation:
Whether to Change the Name ICOM-CC Working Group (WG) on Ethnographic Collections, to ICOM-CC WG on Objects from Indigenous and World Cultures
Participation rate:
ICOM-CC Members: 38 out of 107, or 35%
Participants (non-members): 38 out of 187, or 20%
Question 1: Do you support changing the current Name of the ICOM-CC Working Group on Ethnographic Collections, to: ICOM-CC Working Group on Objects from Indigenous and World Cultures?
Members / Participants (non members)
Yes (change the name): 32 (84%) / 33 (87% )
No (keep the current name): 4 (10.5%) / 4 (10.5% )
undecided; none of the above; other: 2 ( 5%) / 1 ( 3%)
Comments: Members:
1. Your explanation why is clear and good.
2. It is a good idea and the time & effort involved in initiating this change is commendable.
3. I still prefer the original name, but since it is perceived to be problematic for some members, I am ok with a name change.
4. Although I have chosen the option YES, I still prefer to have the word 'indigenous' removed. For me it associates with 'ethnographic' and has the same meaning.
5. This whole thing has been handled badly. It is clear a new name is desired, but the suggested new name simply doesn't work.
6. I agree with the name change and find the statements in this survey explaining the change to be clear and convincing. While I understand others' hesitations to change names, in particular the excellent definition of ethnographic provided by the Oxford English Dictionary, there are simply too many people that have negative associations with the word ethnographic. Negative connotations are not something easily reversed by a dictionary definition, even if the definition is fully understood. The fact that committees have considered a name change for 40 years is significant. If the negative connotations did not exist – or were easier to overcome - this wouldn't be a recurring issue. The language of the new name does not contain any single word, as far as I can see, that can be understood negatively. Though a bit clumsy, the new name describes, simply, what we conserve.
7. I strongly feel that changing the name is important
Comments: Non-members:
1. The title Indigenous and World Culture seems to exclude local culture and culture that is not tied to ethnicity. The term "ethnographic" does not. This seems to me to make the us/them dichotomy worse, not better.
2. I strongly feel that changing the name is important.
3. I feel that the name change is unnecessary. I understand that much work has gone into exploring a new name but still feel that there isn't enough evidence put forward, or in my own research, to suggest that the word Ethnographic is offensive, racist or outdated 'to the majority'. I feel that the term Ethnographic incorporates each and every culture including my own being British white, which does not readily fit into a category of Indigenous or World cultures. Throughout this debate I have found it difficult to understand why we wish to separate 'Indigenous Cultures' from 'World Cultures' in the group title.
4. Ethnography is not a racist term. This is my opinion. Is my point of view more or less valid that that of a Maori conservator? Any word might have different connotations to different people, depending on their viewpoint. The proposed new name is slightly odd-is an indigenous culture not a world culture? What's the difference between the two? Do you not think that the word 'indigenous' is itself loaded with meaning-just as much as the word 'ethnographic' may be?
5. I have described myself as a conservator of ethnographic objects for many years without feeling or experiencing any negative implications. However, I think the term is now more of a convenient 'short-hand' for what we do for those of us in the profession rather than a useful description. I agree that it can be offensive to indigenous peoples and out of step with wider policy and approaches. It also means nothing to the majority of museum visitors. Although the new name is a bit cumbersome it approaches more closely our remit. I am very grateful to the naming committee for the extensive, detailed hard work they have put in to get us to this point.
6. I won't be unhappy if the name isn't changed but I was impressed with the process of working through the name change options and am comfortable that the new name is appropriate and that there is good justification for the change.
7. Only remark: it's a long denomination and can be a bit clunky in some context. But I agree with the meaning and choice of each word.
8. Hi, sorry, i may not have understood one point, but for my understanding the term "World cultures" already expresses that ALL cultures are included in an unbiased manner.
Question 2: Other Comments:
Members:
1. Background research for this survey process and its deliberations, cultural sensitivity and inclusivity is impressive.
2. I would like to thank the name change committee for all the work that has been put into this proces!
3. Congratulations with the way this name change has been set up!
4. Thank you Carole for your careful consideration of everyone's views, the meanings of words and phrases, the organization and sequence required for fair discussion, the compilation of view points and communicating (and encouraging communication) with the working group membership and other interested people. A terrific job.
5. This Working Group has been at the leading edge of many technological advances in the international conservation of culturally representative objects. So, it is especially rewarding at this time in our history to see how its membership is equally sympathetic to ICOM's and UNESCO's recent initiatives in support of culture and society. This name change and new name being proposed reflect a significant development in the history of not only this Working Group, but also within the Conservation Committee itself.
6. Dears, I support the name change. In my opinion, the new name is not motivated by political correctness. It's better, updated and the most suitable description about what we do and what we use to identify our collection. Best regards, Ana Carolina Delgado Vieira Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia Universidade de São Paulo Brasil
7. I have the greatest respect for the conservators on the name change committee, many of whom are old friends, but I still in my heart do not believe the name change is the right way forward.
8. Thanks for the process and thoughfulness.
Non-members:
1. Changing the name is fine for now but ultimately, I think that conservators need to address whether the existence of this group is relevant in this day and age--it feels like a form of out-dated affirmative action. Most of the WGs are materials-based and I'd rather see indigenous and world cultures objects take their place in the relevant materials-based WG, for example the conservation of a Naskapi semi-tanned leather coat in the Leather and Related Materials WG (maybe providing the opportunity for fruitful interaction with conservators working on other painted leather objects such as wall coverings, shields etc?). Ethical issues should be discussed in a more multidisciplinary forum as they will have relevance to conservators working on sacred materials, working objects, contemporary art etc. (perhaps in the Theory and History of Conservation or Legal Issues in Conservation WGs or whatever works best--maybe an expanded remit or re-working of one/both of these groups is necessary?).
2. I have been a member of ICOM-CC in the past but can no longer afford the membership fee on a fixed income. This may become an issue for more people as the economy constricts, especially in museum funding. ICOM-CC may wish to consider this issue, as access to professional information should not depend on income level.
3. Please accept my gratitude for your thoughtful and clearly expressed presentation of the thoughts and opinions of so many people. I feel this has been a very fair and considered process and an example of how potentially divisive topics can be addressed.
4. Dear team members: thanks for the effort and all the time you have dedicated to this challenge!!!
It feels good to have finally concluded this very long process. Thank you everyone for your participation, and for your feedback, comments and encouragement! Bye for now, Carole
Results of the Third Consultation:
Whether to Change the Name ICOM-CC Working Group (WG) on Ethnographic Collections, to ICOM-CC WG on Objects from Indigenous and World Cultures
Participation rate:
ICOM-CC Members: 38 out of 107, or 35%
Participants (non-members): 38 out of 187, or 20%
Question 1: Do you support changing the current Name of the ICOM-CC Working Group on Ethnographic Collections, to: ICOM-CC Working Group on Objects from Indigenous and World Cultures?
Members / Participants (non members)
Yes (change the name): 32 (84%) / 33 (87% )
No (keep the current name): 4 (10.5%) / 4 (10.5% )
undecided; none of the above; other: 2 ( 5%) / 1 ( 3%)
Comments: Members:
1. Your explanation why is clear and good.
2. It is a good idea and the time & effort involved in initiating this change is commendable.
3. I still prefer the original name, but since it is perceived to be problematic for some members, I am ok with a name change.
4. Although I have chosen the option YES, I still prefer to have the word 'indigenous' removed. For me it associates with 'ethnographic' and has the same meaning.
5. This whole thing has been handled badly. It is clear a new name is desired, but the suggested new name simply doesn't work.
6. I agree with the name change and find the statements in this survey explaining the change to be clear and convincing. While I understand others' hesitations to change names, in particular the excellent definition of ethnographic provided by the Oxford English Dictionary, there are simply too many people that have negative associations with the word ethnographic. Negative connotations are not something easily reversed by a dictionary definition, even if the definition is fully understood. The fact that committees have considered a name change for 40 years is significant. If the negative connotations did not exist – or were easier to overcome - this wouldn't be a recurring issue. The language of the new name does not contain any single word, as far as I can see, that can be understood negatively. Though a bit clumsy, the new name describes, simply, what we conserve.
7. I strongly feel that changing the name is important
Comments: Non-members:
1. The title Indigenous and World Culture seems to exclude local culture and culture that is not tied to ethnicity. The term "ethnographic" does not. This seems to me to make the us/them dichotomy worse, not better.
2. I strongly feel that changing the name is important.
3. I feel that the name change is unnecessary. I understand that much work has gone into exploring a new name but still feel that there isn't enough evidence put forward, or in my own research, to suggest that the word Ethnographic is offensive, racist or outdated 'to the majority'. I feel that the term Ethnographic incorporates each and every culture including my own being British white, which does not readily fit into a category of Indigenous or World cultures. Throughout this debate I have found it difficult to understand why we wish to separate 'Indigenous Cultures' from 'World Cultures' in the group title.
4. Ethnography is not a racist term. This is my opinion. Is my point of view more or less valid that that of a Maori conservator? Any word might have different connotations to different people, depending on their viewpoint. The proposed new name is slightly odd-is an indigenous culture not a world culture? What's the difference between the two? Do you not think that the word 'indigenous' is itself loaded with meaning-just as much as the word 'ethnographic' may be?
5. I have described myself as a conservator of ethnographic objects for many years without feeling or experiencing any negative implications. However, I think the term is now more of a convenient 'short-hand' for what we do for those of us in the profession rather than a useful description. I agree that it can be offensive to indigenous peoples and out of step with wider policy and approaches. It also means nothing to the majority of museum visitors. Although the new name is a bit cumbersome it approaches more closely our remit. I am very grateful to the naming committee for the extensive, detailed hard work they have put in to get us to this point.
6. I won't be unhappy if the name isn't changed but I was impressed with the process of working through the name change options and am comfortable that the new name is appropriate and that there is good justification for the change.
7. Only remark: it's a long denomination and can be a bit clunky in some context. But I agree with the meaning and choice of each word.
8. Hi, sorry, i may not have understood one point, but for my understanding the term "World cultures" already expresses that ALL cultures are included in an unbiased manner.
Question 2: Other Comments:
Members:
1. Background research for this survey process and its deliberations, cultural sensitivity and inclusivity is impressive.
2. I would like to thank the name change committee for all the work that has been put into this proces!
3. Congratulations with the way this name change has been set up!
4. Thank you Carole for your careful consideration of everyone's views, the meanings of words and phrases, the organization and sequence required for fair discussion, the compilation of view points and communicating (and encouraging communication) with the working group membership and other interested people. A terrific job.
5. This Working Group has been at the leading edge of many technological advances in the international conservation of culturally representative objects. So, it is especially rewarding at this time in our history to see how its membership is equally sympathetic to ICOM's and UNESCO's recent initiatives in support of culture and society. This name change and new name being proposed reflect a significant development in the history of not only this Working Group, but also within the Conservation Committee itself.
6. Dears, I support the name change. In my opinion, the new name is not motivated by political correctness. It's better, updated and the most suitable description about what we do and what we use to identify our collection. Best regards, Ana Carolina Delgado Vieira Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia Universidade de São Paulo Brasil
7. I have the greatest respect for the conservators on the name change committee, many of whom are old friends, but I still in my heart do not believe the name change is the right way forward.
8. Thanks for the process and thoughfulness.
Non-members:
1. Changing the name is fine for now but ultimately, I think that conservators need to address whether the existence of this group is relevant in this day and age--it feels like a form of out-dated affirmative action. Most of the WGs are materials-based and I'd rather see indigenous and world cultures objects take their place in the relevant materials-based WG, for example the conservation of a Naskapi semi-tanned leather coat in the Leather and Related Materials WG (maybe providing the opportunity for fruitful interaction with conservators working on other painted leather objects such as wall coverings, shields etc?). Ethical issues should be discussed in a more multidisciplinary forum as they will have relevance to conservators working on sacred materials, working objects, contemporary art etc. (perhaps in the Theory and History of Conservation or Legal Issues in Conservation WGs or whatever works best--maybe an expanded remit or re-working of one/both of these groups is necessary?).
2. I have been a member of ICOM-CC in the past but can no longer afford the membership fee on a fixed income. This may become an issue for more people as the economy constricts, especially in museum funding. ICOM-CC may wish to consider this issue, as access to professional information should not depend on income level.
3. Please accept my gratitude for your thoughtful and clearly expressed presentation of the thoughts and opinions of so many people. I feel this has been a very fair and considered process and an example of how potentially divisive topics can be addressed.
4. Dear team members: thanks for the effort and all the time you have dedicated to this challenge!!!
- caroledignard
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:02 pm