Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 427–447, 20080160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.12.001www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

POSITIONING MUSEUMS ONAN AUTHENTICITY CONTINUUM

Deepak ChhabraArizona State University, USA

Abstract: This research was designed to contribute to scholarly and applied understanding ofhow curators define authenticity and how those perspectives fit into the contemporary role ofmuseums today. The study was drawn from a sample of curators based in the heritage muse-ums of the state of Iowa, United States. A complex cross-section of ideologies behind themuseum curtains is unveiled. This study positions the curators on an authenticity continuumand suggests a negotiation model reflecting active citizenship and social capital for themuseum audience seeking a cultural tourism experience. Keywords: authenticity, museums,essentialism, negotiation, constructivism. � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: Positionnement des musees sur un continuum d’authenticite. Cette recherche a eteconcue pour contribuer a la comprehension erudite et appliquee de comment les conserva-teurs definissent l’authenticite et de comment ces perspectives correspondent actuellementau role contemporain des musees. L’etude a ete tiree d’un sondage de conservateurs basesdans les musees patrimoniaux de l’etat d’Iowa, Etats-Unis. On leve le rideau pour revelerun echantillon complexe d’ideologies dans les coulisses des musees. L’etude determine laposition des conservateurs sur un continuum d’authenticite et suggere un modele de nego-ciation qui reflechisse la citoyennete active et le capital social pour le public qui cherche uneexperience culturelle touristique. Mots-cles: authenticite, musees, essentialisme, negociation,constructivisme. � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced interest in the cultures of others has generated a populardemand for cultural tourism within a highly competitive leisure indus-try environment. Much of cultural tourism thrives on the selected rem-nants of a (assumed to be) simpler and more authentic past, thustriggering ‘‘nostophobia’’. In fact, ‘‘nostalgia for the premodern’’has spurred the demand for cultural tourism over the last few decades(Graburn 1998b). As consumer resources, contemporary cultural tour-ism institutions such as the museums exist to provide an authenticexperience, rather than just act as agents of conservation (Harrison2005; Lennon and Graham 2001; Prentice 2001). Previous studies have

Deepak Chhabra is Assistant Professor at Arizona State University School of CommunityResources & Development, Phoenix AZ 85004-0690, USA. Email <[email protected]>). Her research interests include application of authenticity theories to advancesustainability of heritage pertaining to handicrafts, heritage sites, and museums Additionally,her research focuses on determination of tourist expenditures and economic benefits ofheritage tourism for host communities and the local and state governments.

427

428 D. Chhabra/Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 427–447

argued that experience is one of the basic tenets of the constructednature of authenticity. This view is supported by Lowenthal (1985)who stated that authenticity has always been and should always beviewed as dialectical, not only in the context of experience, but alsoin the redefining and interpretation process. Authenticity is endlesslyconstructed since there is a never-ending need for locally groundedtraditions and lifestyles to be abridged into a space and presented ina reasoned fashion for decipherable consumption in the culture-heri-tage market. It has thus been posited that authenticity discourse is of-ten subject to multiple perspectives because it is always in a state of flux(McKercher and Du Cros 2002). One reason for this dynamism is theaudience. For instance, in an account of the effort to preserve Cana-dian Inuit, Graburn noted that museums representing the Inuit cul-ture pose a ‘‘two-stage ‘then’ and ‘now’ general view of the past,catering both to the White tourist’s expectations and to the educationof local school children’’ (1998a:28).

Therefore, subjectivity in the articulation and construction of knowl-edge often contains rudiments of a quixotic quest for the authentic. Inother words, it has been suggested that subjectivity dictates the questfor authenticity today, and this approach has been debated to be thecontemporary epitomized nucleus triggering the tourist interest(Abbeele 1980; MacCannell 1992; Morris 1998). Objects and placescan thus be adulterated for tourist gaze, leading to ‘‘distory.’’ In thewords of Hollinshead, distory ‘‘is the manufacture of history in thepopular forms of narratives, packaged for commercial purposes. Alter-natively, traditions and lifestyles can often be ‘frozen’ to present amonolithic and a simplistic view of the past’’(1988:11, 63). As such, sev-eral discourses are at work in the imaging and representation of cul-ture and history in associated institutions, such as the museums.

Till the 70s, the underlying premise of the core museum ideologywas collection care and preservation (Anderson 2005; Brandon andWilson 2005; Prentice 2001). Under recent budget squeezes, severalauthors have postulated that museums have shifted their focus frombeing ‘‘product driven’’ to being ‘‘visitor driven.’’ This school ofthought argues that a wave of ‘‘Disneyfication’’ has permeated old mu-seum ideology. Generality and experience in the context of distoricalrelationships, and their contested meanings, underpin such shiftsand changes today. However, according to Pearce, ‘‘museums have al-ways been, and are still, deeply implicated in the maintenance of thecapitalist market system, itself a characteristic part of the code’’ (Pearce1992:235). While one can argue that this view is inherent in the capi-talist ideology, it is not universal. Because curators serving as culturalcustodians of museums are often influenced and nominated by thepower groups, they generally endorse the corpus of knowledge pro-duced by dominant social groups as legitimate and authoritative(Pearce 1992:234).

Records of the past are often falsified in the interests of specific indi-viduals or groups. There is an interweaving of cultural wealth and com-modity in the capitalist strategy where museums play an important role‘‘in authenticating and projecting a clear hierarchy of value in which

D. Chhabra/Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 427–447 429

cultural values match cash’’ (Pearce 1992:237). In other words, culturalrepresentations are based on their ability to draw consumer dollars.While one might argue that this view is inherent in the capitalist ideol-ogy, it is not universal. It has been contended that many kinds ofcultural museums exist and ‘‘capitalist’’-driven visitation (seeking eco-nomic remunerations) is not the only polemic within the nexus of mul-tiple ideologies (Graburn 1998b). For instance, the ongoingdemocratization of museums is another factor, evidence of which is re-flected in the ideological shift in museums from serving as cabinets ofcuriosity in the 17th century to emphasizing education in the 19thcentury to public empowerment in the 20th century (Graburn nd).The shift in pace for each museum is not homogeneous because ‘‘allmuseums are products of their particular cultural and historical expe-riences’’ (MacDonald and Alsford 1995:24).

Advocates of the capitalist argument have indicated that museumshave joined the race directed towards creation of culture for mass con-sumption. They have turned into ‘‘cultural capital-driven developmentcomplexes’’ (Britton 1991:470), attenuated by the need to attract cap-ital and middle-class spending power. They are partners in not onlycurating public education within the parameters of existing past tradi-tions passed on by previous generations, but also in interactions withthe public that facilitate experiences of leisure (Stephen 2001). Thus,multiple museum ideologies and interactive processes serve to filtermeanings of individual collections and the curatorial understandingof core values (Pearce 1992). Authenticity occupies a central themein the midst of meaning attributions, and curators play a significantrole in positioning this theme within the contemporary dynamics, thuspresenting a finite and fluid frame for spectacle.

The contemporary concerns of museums risking commodification oftheir mission and product warranted an exploratory empirical study oftheir role and curatorial inclination towards authenticity (Prentice2001). To address the above need, this study aims to provide abehind-the-scenes view and gauge it against the present museumnomenclature. The study results have unveiled a trichotomous frameof authenticity identical to the existing schools of thought. The re-search setting is the heritage museums located in Iowa, United States.Iowa presents a unique case study as it represents an important part ofMidwest, which has been slow to change. According to one curator, theMidwestern heritage has been less progressive and slower to adapt tothe edutainment culture required for a heritage operation to flourish,as compared to other states in this country (personal communicationin July 2007). It is contended that a study of the heritage museumsof Iowa will provide an important point of comparison for similar stud-ies in other US states. A heritage museum in this study is defined as onethat focuses on collective history, past, and inheritance (Stephen 2001;Welsh 2005). A list of 200 museums with the aforementioned connota-tions was obtained. During the pretesting stage, the selection wasverified by posing the following question to the curators: do you callyour museum a heritage museum; if yes, what is your definition ofheritage? Even though the answers were varied, the majority were


juxtaposed within the boundaries of collective history, past, andancestral inheritance.

This study has important implications for institutions such as themuseums that preserve and safeguard Iowa heritage, which includesconcern over local cultural objects, events, and traditions. Becausethese institutions are increasingly being confronted with the issue ofcommodification, there is a need to design a sustained strategy. Experi-ential cultural tourism is becoming increasingly popular and it focuseson providing cultural empathy and ‘‘authentic, emotional, and spiritualexperiences’’ (Hinch, McIntosh and Ingram 1999:viii). In other words,cultural products are marketed as cultural experiences which reflect the‘‘emerging centrality of consumption as a contemporary hallmark ofexpression, rather than production’’ (Prentice 2001:8).

This research endeavors to provide a critical elucidation of authen-ticity connotations, the museum mission, and sources used to verifyclaims of authenticity. Inductively generated definitions of authentic-ity, its sources, and the different museum roles are analyzed accordingto market demand. In addition, the influence of sociodemographiccharacteristics on curator ideologies is explored. The positions of mu-seum mission, authenticity, and its sources, are determined on a five-point continuum polarized by the essentialist and constructivist schoolsof thought. A negotiation model of authenticity is proposed to addressthe contemporary position of museums today amidst the emergingcentrality of experience-based consumption.

Role of Museums Today

Museums as establishments have often claimed rights to managemateriality that has achieved significance by alliance with time, aesthet-ics, personality, community, or discovery (Welsh 2005). Distinguishedfeatures such as authenticity, selectivity, and ownership have becomethe marketing emblems of museum repositories. Authenticity is a fun-damental measure of museum distinctiveness (Baudrillard 1996; DeLy-ser 1999; Orvell 1989) and serves as an important criterion forallocating a museum’s scarce resources. However, collections in mostof them do not simply document the authentic work of an artist; theyalso become a metaphorical epitome of contemporary culture (Crewand Sims 1991; Errington 1998; Price 1989). In other words, collectionsoften reflect contemporary influences. This in turns dictates the mo-saic of museum domains.

According to Welsh (2005), the domains are the distinct areas thatcontain museums’ contents, communications, and communities. Inrepresenting the underlying fundamental dimensions of the concep-tual framework, the domains elicit activities encompassing materiality,engagement, and representation, which provide the essence of mu-seum mission statements. Materiality sets the objective basis, and repre-sentation emphasizes the processes used by museums to reconstructtheir subject. As the domain in which they create and present their sub-ject, representation is reflected as much by the mission statement, and


curatorial sentiment, as by exhibits and public engagement (Welsh2005). Engagement refers to the multiple methods used by publicsto create images of themselves. The publics encompass categoriessuch as locals, tourists, school groups, donors, or members, peers,governing authorities and agencies, media outlets, and groups promot-ing tourism. These attribute several meanings to the exhibits and fittheir own authentic ideologies, thus adding to the representationalimaginary.

The museums of today thus serve increasingly complex institutionalmissions and diverse audiences through their programs (Carter, Borgeand Darlow 2001; Suarez and Tsutui 2004). These views have been suc-cinctly expressed in the code of ethics developed by the American Mu-seum Association (AAM) which states that the scope of human vision isreflected in the range of special interests depicted by today’s museumwhich is committed in service to the public; their missions ‘‘includecollecting and preserving, as well as exhibiting and educating withmaterials not only owned but also borrowed and fabricated for theseends’’ (AMM 2006:code of ethics, paragraph1). There has clearly beena shift of function from connoisseurship to sociological interests. Pro-moting social inclusion has become one of the top priorities of Wes-tern governments with increasing emphasis on social capital.Contemporary museums are required to act as agents of social changerather than being just focal points of cultural activity in a community.Most of the nationally funded ones have responded by bringing dra-matic changes to their ideological framework to address the fundingsqueezes (Anderson 2005). In addition, because of scarcity of publicfunds, they are under strong pressures to supplement public moneyfrom private sources. Ancillary activities have become the norm ofthe day. Restaurants and shops are now a feature of practically everymuseum. In other words, they have become competitors in the culturalcommodification market.

Within these contexts, the contemporary paradigm of museum ide-ology has been referred to as a union between forces that representmaterial culture and inferences, postmodern concepts rooted in socialtheory and practice, and consumerism (Welsh 2005). The biggest chal-lenge posed by the unleashing of the above forces on museum ideologyis the compromise of authenticity.

MUSEUMS ON AN AUTHENTICITY CONTINUUM

Three theoretical streams of authenticity are gleaned from existingliterature and placed on a continuum with the first and fifth stancepunctuating the extreme poles. The theoretical streams are broadly la-beled as pure essentialism for the first stance, negotiation (essential-ism/constructivism) for the middle stance, and pure constructivismfor the fifth stance. While the second stance describes a predominantlypure essentialist approach, traces of negotiation are present. Similarly,the fourth stance is predominantly constructivist but reflects traces ofthe negotiation stance. A review of authenticity literature indicates that


North American and European scholars have lined up either on bothends or in the middle of the continuum.

The pure essentialism stance focuses on cultural continuity and Mac-Cannell’s (1976) concept of real life behind a constructed backstage.The tourist quest for authenticity creates an insulated space in whichtheir traditions are preserved. This space is hidden from the touristeye and a recreated, nostalgic, mythical stage is set up for gullible tour-ists. MacCannell thus suggests that an essentialist form of authenticityexists in the eventual (original behind the constructed) backstage. Inthe same vein, Medina (2003) describes the essentialist group of theo-rists as those focusing on the persistence of a cosmological order thathas shaped specific cultures across time. According to Medina, the cos-mological nature of culture consists of ‘‘normative constructs that linknature, humans, and cosmic forces in cyclical relationships of death,transformation, and regeneration’’ (2003:355). This implies thatcontinuities have persisted across centuries from the premodern erato the present. Against this perspective, Pearce states that pure essential-ism in its original form does not exist because nature ‘‘itself is a result ofhistorical and social construction’’ (1992:6). In other words, essential-ism is negotiated to address the fluidity of authenticity. This formsthe theoretical underpinnings of the middle (negotiation) stance.

Medina, in the context of a former Mayan Village in western Belize,stated that ‘‘the commodification of culture for tourism may involvethe utilization of new channels to access cultural traditions of greatantiquity’’, arguing that the original text of culture appears in a nego-tiated form to conform to present needs (2003:254-355). Authenticityin this paradigm, becomes a negotiation process inclined to embracethe original. Adams (1996) referred to this ideology as a jointly con-structed process between the makers and consumers. Termed as emer-gent authenticity by Cohen (1988), this view brings forth a usefulpurpose. In his words, ‘‘commodification often hits a culture not whenit is flourishing but when it is in the decline owing to the outside forcespreceding tourism. Under such circumstances, the emergence of a cul-tural tourist market frequently facilitates the preservation of a culturaltradition which would otherwise perish’’(1988:382). This way authen-ticity can be sustained in the re-creation process while serving theneeds of the market, and its careful ‘‘commodification may actuallypreserve traditions by generating demand or attributing value tothem’’ (Medina 2003:354).

Next, the negotiation stance if taken forward to encapsulate pure mar-ket based commodification leads to the constructivist school of thought(the fifth stance). The constructivist readings place the commodifiedforms of authenticity, such as nostalgia and heritage in hyperreal settingsand deliberately constructed pseudo-backstages (MacCannell 1992).The pseudo-setup fortifies the real backstage. Thus, in fake settings, cul-tures ‘‘are continually produced and consumed through the actions ofarchaeologists, tourism promoters, tourists, tours guides, curators, andvendors of artisanal production’’ (Medina 2003:357). In other words,culture is a reification produced by its carry-on suppliers as a means todescribe and explain people’s lives using a systematic approach.


The supporters of the constructivist approach argue that culture ofcontemporary communities is dynamic and flexible, not static. In otherwords, it is not an artifact of premodern times; rather, it is the productof interactions with contemporary powerful noncultural forces. Prod-ucts invented for tourism may become embedded into the local culturein due course of time and be perceived as endorsements of that culture(Cohen 1988). In this sense, the new form modifies to the extent thatthe remnants of the old culture disappear. The internalization createsa transformed culture. In the same vein, Greenwood (1971) asserts thatcommodification alters the meaning of cultural products to such an ex-tent that they eventually lose their meaning for the producers in thistransformation. The postmodern stance blurs boundaries betweenthe real and the imaginary resulting in decontextualization and roman-tic nostalgia. The result is ‘‘distory.’’

According to Barthes (1977), museums manipulate material thingsand set up relationships and associations to create identities. ‘‘Muse-ums always had to modify how they worked, and what they did, ac-cord[ed] to the context, the plays of power, and the social,economic, and political imperatives that surrounded them’’ (Hoo-per-Greenhill 1992:1). Taxonomies have always been socially con-structed and power relationships have dictated the acceptance andrejection of objects. The product-driven power ethos that determinedwhat the museums ‘‘wanted to say and show’’ has shifted to the market-led power ethos from ‘‘creating an experience based on seeing to onebased on doing’’ (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:137).

The aforementioned richly suggestive sources encapsulate that as themuseums ‘‘move away from the object-based services to the contextualapproach’’ (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:138), the new museology cre-ates a dioramic role today for curators to be preservationists, becomepart of the broader academic world, and please the audience bybecoming ‘‘the visitor-friendly, edutainment-abounding, commerciallyachieving museum of today’’ (Anderson 2005:307). Instead of focusingon object research, literature reflects emphasis on fashionability andconstructivism. In the midst of all the transitions and expectations,there is a need for empirical research to delve deeper into the curato-rial approach to and position on the authenticity continuum. Thus, thediscussions derived from Foucault, Popper, and Kirshenblatt-Kimblattideologies are pragmatic and require empirical evidence. The curato-rial postulation on the crossroads of essentialism and constructivismneeds to be considered. This study speculates that the authenticity inthe heritage museum settings of Iowa exists within the framework ofthe aforementioned schools of thought. Additionally, it proposes anegotiation model to address the current curatorial dilemma.

Study Procedures

Different connotations of authenticity were posited from a naturalis-tic form of inductive inquiry. Categories of meaning were gleaned fromthe curators’ own choice of words and descriptions in response to the


following questions: What is your definition of heritage? What is yourdefinition of authenticity? What are the criteria used for authenticity?What are the sources upon which your criteria are based? What influ-ences your criteria? What kind of market do you have in mind whenyou decide on artifacts?

During the preliminary stages of survey design, a geographically strat-ified sample (representing all regions of Iowa) of 50 curators was se-lected and these were interviewed over the telephone during thespring of 2005. Interpretive validity was tested using the participantfeedback or member checking approach. This was accomplished bysharing information on participant opinions with the participants (Lit-win 1995). The curators were emailed answers and asked if they agreedwith their descriptions of heritage, authenticity, and museum role andwith sources used to verify authenticity. In addition, the reflexivity tech-nique was used to test for researcher bias. This technique reflects crit-ically on the self as researcher (Denzin and Lincoln 2000).

The curators’ explanations were analyzed for content. Respondents’words were divided into units of analysis using guidelines and syntag-matic rules (pertaining to interrelations of words in a sentence) pro-posed by Slaybaugh, Littrell and Farrell-Beck (1990). Because eachunit of analysis expressed separate ideas under the authenticity defini-tion, authenticity sources, and museum role questions, categories wereidentified to capture the content domain of the curators’ descriptions.Approximately 12 items were gleaned out of 25 units under the mu-seum role, 14 (out of 19) under the curatorial definition of authentic-ity and 9 (out of 23) under authenticity criteria. In addition, themuseum market breakdown was summarized into five groups: tourists,local residents, members, and donors, plus ‘‘other’’ to reduce the pos-sibility of omission bias.

Content analysis demonstrated multiple connotations of authentic-ity. The curators also differed in their sources used to verify authentic-ity and in their explanation of the role of the museums, the marketfocus, and the potential conflicts with museum ideologies. All selecteditems were included in the final survey. The multiple item selection byindividual curators showed that it was highly probable that some weredeemed more important than others. It was decided to use a Likertscale to determine the level of significance of each connotation. Thefinal survey included a list of items pertaining to authenticity, itssources, and its criteria, and to the museum role, on a 5-point Likertscale rating with 1 being ‘‘not very important’’ and 5 being ‘‘veryimportant.’’

The last part of the survey solicited curators’ sociodemographicinformation such as gender, age, length of service, education, maritalstatus, and ethnicity. All variables except ‘‘the length of service’’ werecategorical. Eight categories represented the education levels: never at-tended school or only attended kindergarten, grades 2 through 8,grades 9 through 11 (some high school), grade 12 (high school grad-uate), college 1 year to 3 years (some college or technical school),bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctorate degree. Marital sta-tus was represented by five categories: married, divorced, widowed, sep-


arated, single (never married), and a member of an unmarried couple.Six options were provided for the ethnicity variable: White, Black orAfrican American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,and American Indian or Alaska Native. Another option labeled as‘‘Some other race? Please specify’’ was provided to reduce omissionbias.

The survey was mailed to 200 curators of heritage museums in Iowa.As mentioned earlier, only those museums were selected whose pur-pose voiced the aforementioned definition of heritage. In the cover let-ter, the research objective was explained, and the confidentiality of theresults assured. Follow-up calls were made every two weeks for threemonths, and three waves of responses were generated. The total re-sponse rate was 74%. Approximately, 30% (18) of the non-respondentswere contacted after a lapse of four months to test for non-responsebias. Nine curators agreed to answer the questionnaire and their re-sponses were found to be similar to the survey data. The last data col-lection phase sought to reaffirm the key study results and elicit furtherexplanations and clarifications on issues raised by the main survey re-sults. This phase entailed a follow-up survey of 75 curators randomlyselected from the respondent list. Information was obtained on curatordiscipline and its possible influence on perceptions. Further clarifica-tions were sought on books as a source for authenticity verificationand the constructivist role of American Association of Museums andthe past-perfect software. Data are analyzed using SPSS.

Descriptive statistics are provided in Tables 1 and 2. With regard toauthenticity definition, Table 1 shows that the highest ratings were of-fered to the following items: representation of the past, true to the ori-ginal object, documented history, and from the actual period. On theother end, lowest rating was given to defining authenticity as modifica-tion to reflect globalized culture. The next lowest rating was given tomarket demand, reproduction, and representation of the donor val-ues. With regard to the museum role, the highest rating was given toa place to find out about the past. This was followed by education,place of learning, and place of interest and entertainment. Lowest rat-ing was offered to complicity and self-esteem. This table also presentscurator ratings on items identified as sources for authenticity verifica-tion. The highest rating was given for information by the donor. Thiswas followed by photographs (which helped contextualize by verifyingstyles and time frame) and historic documents. The PastPerfect pro-gram (software used for cataloging; it encompasses every aspect of col-lection and membership management) and the American Associationof Museums were considered the least important sources for authentic-ity reaffirmation.

Table 2 provides information on sociodemographics of museumcurators. In addition, it provides an average breakdown of the museummarket. As it shows, 41% of the curators were above 60 years old and23% were between 50 and 60. The majority were female (66%) andapproximately 67% of the respondents were married. In race, 97.5%of the curators were White. With regard to education, approximately32% had a master’s degree or above and 31.8% a bachelor’s degree.

Table 1. Descriptives of All Items

Items Average Rating Standard Deviation

Authenticity DefinitionRepresent the past 4.49 .883Represent market demand 2.48 .960Should have a documented history 4.26 .658Should be from the actual period 4.24 .692Should be a reproduction of the original 2.90 .944Real not manufactured 3.74 .938True to the original object 4.28 .615Should be based upon the history version ofthe donors 3.48 1.17Represent the local community 4.00 1.04Represent the donor values 2.90 1.02Represent the values of the local region 3.66 1.04Modified to reflect globalized culture 2.47 .878Verified by historians 3.71 .981

Museum RoleConservation 4.21 .871A place to find out about the past 4.69 .596Interpreter of the past 4.33 .826Education 4.61 .618Place of learning 4.50 .762A place of interest and enjoyment 4.52 .549Place for self enrichment 3.68 1.01Provide social interactions 3.42 1.13Enhance the self-esteem 2.90 1.18Provide contemplation 3.02 .935Provide complicity 2.60 .928Provide conceptual grounds 2.98 .862

Sources Used to Verify AuthenticityAmerican Association of Museums 2.29 1.20PastPerfect program (software) 2.17 1.20Book 3.90 .90Historians 4.00 .91Scholars 3.72 1.03Historic documents 4.32 .82Information provided by the donor 4.37 .66Photographs 4.35 .66Things related to the specific geographic areaof the object 3.92 .98


The average number of years at the current museum was 6.7. Forfurther analyses, the age, marital status, and education variables werecondensed into fewer groupings. Age was represented by four catego-ries: below 40 years, between 40 and 50, between 50 and 60, and above60 years. Marital status was reduced to married, divorced, single andnever married, and other (widowed or a member of an unmarried cou-ple) categories. The education variable was represented by three cate-

Table 2. Sociodemographics Characteristics

Sociodemographics Frequency (%)

AgeBelow 30 years 06.8Between 30 and 40 years 09.1Between 40 and 50 years 20.5Between 50 and 60 years 22.7Above 60 years 40.9

Marital StatusMarried 66.7Divorced 10.3Widowed 07.7Separated 00.0Single and never married 12.8A member of an unmarried couple 02.6

EducationGrade 12 (High school graduate) 06.8College 1 year to 3 years (Some college or technical school) 29.5Bachelor’s degree 31.8Master’s degree 22.7Doctorate degree 09.1


gories: college 1 year to 3 years or less, bachelor’s degree, and master’sdegree or above. The follow-up study revealed that 10% had no collegedegree, 65% a bachelor’s degree in history, 17% masters in museumstudies, and the discipline of the rest was other, which included electri-cal engineering, liberal arts, religion, and leisure studies. A further en-quiry exploring the influence of discipline on authenticity perceptionsindicated history to be the major contributor of the essentialist ideol-ogy. While museum studies did not effect authenticity perceptions,other disciplines supported the constructivist school of thought.Approximately 30% of the curators attributed their perceptions toeither years of experience in the profession or a combination of expe-rience and other disciplines.

A modified form of factor analysis (principal component analysis)was used to cluster variables together. According to Mertler and Vann-atta, ‘‘factor analysis is essentially a process by which the number ofvariables is reduced by determining which variables ‘cluster’ together,and factors are the groupings of variables that are measuring somecommon entity or construct’’ (2002:249). The groupings helped diag-nose incorporeal themes to which authenticity definitions, and authen-ticity sources, and museum role could be connected. Kaiser’seigenvalue criterion and factor loadings were used to determine theoptimal factor structure. Cronbach’s alpha values for all the factorswere above .70 indicating the data reliability. A four factor structure(four components or dimensions with underlying structure) was foundto be the most significant and represented the three aforementioned


authenticity conceptual frameworks. These are labeled as ED (essen-tialist definition) I and II, ND (negotiated definition), and CD(constructivist definition). A two factor structure and a three factorstructure was reported for the museum role and sources used to verifyauthenticity respectively. These structures also bore the characteristicsof the three conventional positions gleaned from literature review. Be-cause the underlying meanings were found to be similar, the two spe-cific domains were represented as ER I and ER II (essentialism) and CR(constructivism) for the role construct and three specific domains wererepresented by ES (essentialist sources), NR and NS (negotiatedsources), and CS (constructivist sources). The brief synopsis that fol-lows in the subsequent paragraphs describes authenticity definition,sources, and museum role within the three stances.

As Table 3 shows, the ED domain had two sub-dimensions: ED I andED II. The former represented ‘‘real not manufactured’’ and the latterneed for a documented history, derived from the actual period, beingtrue to the original object and verification by historians. While the NDdomain measured representation from the past (based upon the his-tory version of the donors), representation of the local community,of donor values, and of values from the local region, the CD domainappropriated market demand, reproduction, and globalized culture.

ER I measured museum role as a place to find out about the past(with a loading of .705) and provide its interpretations (with a loadingof .507). The ER II was represented by conservation (with a loading of

Table 3. Factor Analysis of Authenticity Definitions

Item ND ED I ED II CD

Represent the past .608Represent market demand .733Should have a documented history .892Should be from the actual period .792Should be a reproduction of the original .799Real not manufactured .871True to the original object .490Should be based upon the history .734version of the donorsRepresent the local community .880Represent the donor values .804Represent the values of the local region .932Modified to reflect globalized culture .834Verified by historians .772Eigen Value 4.69 1.17 2.17 1.55The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measureof sampling adequacy .597The Bartlett’s test of Sphericity(significance level) .000

Note: Only factor loadings >.40 are presented. Only those items that loaded on the onlyfactors with eigenvalues greater than 1 are shown.


.801) and the museum role to provide a place of interest and enjoy-ment (with a loading of -.608). The CR domain measured museum roleas a provider for a place of learning, education, self-enrichment, socialinteractions, enhancement of self-esteem, contemplation, complicity,and conceptual grounds (all items loaded above .698). The eigenvaluesfor ER I, ER II, and CR were 4.837, 2.407, and 1.996, respectively. TheKaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .722 and the sig-nificance level for the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was .000.

The sources used by curators to confirm authenticity represented atrichotomous framework. Items loaded under ES were historians,scholars, historic documents, and photographs (all above .689 load-ings). The NS focused on things related to the specific area of the ob-ject (with a loading of .845) and books (with a loading of -.718).However, the books’ negative loading was supported by the follow-upsurvey. Approximately 90% of the curators indicated concern aboutauthor subjectivity in terms of time frame and perspective. Finally,the CS construct measured American Association of Museums andthe PastPerfect program. Both items had above .712 loadings. Theeigenvalues for ES, NS, and CS domains were 2.784, 1.706, and1.537, respectively. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling ade-quacy was found to be .682 and significance level for the Bartlett’s testof sphericity was .000. According to the respondents in the follow-upsurvey, more and more museums are getting accredited with the Amer-ican Association of Museums and it is mostly used to obtain answers toquestions regarding administration, organization, and finance. Ameri-can Association of Museums focuses on the contemporary society andis intermittently used as a source for curatorial work by some. The Past-Perfect program is often used as a database for storing information.Curators who generate information from the database use it to matchspecific features and characteristics of objects under consideration.Many curators stated that these two sources represent the constructivistideology if used for authenticity purposes.

The preliminary interviews divided the Iowa museum market intofour segments: tourists, members, donors, and local residents. Touristsrepresented approximately 49% of the market. The rest of the break-down was as follows: 32% locals, 14% members, 7% donors, and 6%other (such as the school children). Ordinary least squares bivariateregression models were used to identify the market influences on themuseum role, curatorial definition of authenticity, and sources usedto verify authenticity domains.

The analyses indicated that members influenced the CD domain(F = 6.383; p = .001; R2 = .214). Museums highly dependent on mem-bers were more inclined to pursue a postmodern approach towardsthe authenticity concepts. In addition, the members positively influ-enced the ER (F = 6.86; p = .03; R squared = .19), the ES (F = 8.35;p = .001; R squared = .32) and the CS (F = 5.47; p = .04; R squared =.22) domains. In other words, museums with a higher percentage ofmembers as their audience gave a higher rating to the essentialist-basedrole. These museums also gave a higher rating to both the essentialistand constructivist based sources to verify curatorial definition of

Table 4. Sociodemographic Influences

Variable Age Sig. Gender Sig.

<30 30–40 40–50 >60 Males &Females

DefinitionED I 4.00 4.08 4.47 4.02 .194 3.89 4.26 .036*

ED II 3.67 4.29 3.67 3.56 .411 3.46 3.88 .202ND 3.40 3.06 3.58 4.19 .004* 3.42 3.87 .095CD 2.88 2.06 2.47 2.82 .081 2.69 2.55 .581

SourcesES 4.26 4.41 4.06 4.18 .594 3.92 4.38 .007*

NS 4.00 4.06 3.67 4.06 .393 3.77 4.08 .100CS 1.86 2.08 2.22 2.54 .589 2.04 2.36 .403


authenticity. It was interesting to note that the locals negatively influ-enced the ED I domain (F = 5.918; p = .03; R squared = .196). Museumsincreasingly reliant on locals tended not to focus on the traditionalconcepts of authenticity. Similar results were noted for the museumsreliant on tourism revenue.

Literature has shown that perceptions are often influenced by per-sonal traits (Harrison 1997). Ascertaining curatorial concepts requiresexploration of sociodemographic characteristics. Table 4 shows thatage differences existed on the negotiation theoretical stream. Tukey’spost hoc tests indicated that the older curators (above 60 years of age)offered higher rating to the ND domain and the female curators of-fered the highest rating to the ED and ES domains. No age and genderdifferences existed on ER, NS, NR and CD, CR, and CS dimensions.Table 5 demonstrates that curators in different categories of marital

Table 5. Sociodemographic Influences

Variable Marital Status Sig. Ethnicity Sig.

Married Div. Single Other Whites Blacks

DefinitionED I 4.04 4.06 4.20 4.19 .921 4.75 4.00 .217ED II 3.52 4.50 4.00 4.00 .239 3.71 3.80 .770ND 3.72 3.85 3.08 4.41 .139 2.59 3.33 .921CD 2.58 2.42 2.27 3.56 .144 .361

SourcesES 4.16 4.20 4.18 4.21 .998 4.18 4.40 .703NS 3.83 4.00 4.40 4.12 .253 3.93 4.50 .355CS 2.23 2.63 2.00 2.00 .841 2.18 4.50 .022*


status did not differ in their authenticity definitions and the kind ofsources they used to verify authenticity. However, Blacks differed fromthe Whites on the CS dimension by giving a higher rating to the con-structivist approach of verification. No differences were observed basedupon the education categories.

CONCLUSION

Much debate has focused on the commodification of museums inthe present era of global-local nexus. Previous studies suggest thatmuseums have lifted the dead hand of their traditional regulation byopening their doors to the sway of market forces. According to Crang(1996), contemporary museums are focused on convenience-basedpolitics and mass appeal, and the objective of this ideological shift isto harvest from the postmodern heritage demand for mythology andnostalgia.

The museum objects need to be converted into a galaxy of signs (tai-lored meanings) with each sign accommodating the multidimensionalneeds of the museum audience. These changes are not a consequenceof cultural transformation to accommodate the postmodern life; theyare a result of greed and overindulgence of consumerism forces whichthrive on the mass appeals created by distory and ‘‘McDonaldization’’(Fjellman 1991). In this study, postmodernism is equated with hyperre-ality (Wang 1999), constructing a spectrum of meanings and perspec-tives using a progressive approach. Having stated the essentialistframework of current museum ideology, arguably, an empirical studyof museum curators suggests a complex cross-section of ideologies be-hind the curtains. Because the results indicate that authenticity holdsmultiple connotations for the curators, an importance rating scalewas designed to help assess the level of significance for each presentedconnotation.

Representation of the past, documented history, and ‘‘from the ac-tual period’’ were deemed to be the most important criteria of whatconstitutes the authentic for museum curators. It is interesting to notethat the representation of the donor values did not rank high on thescale. The study results further show that the museum role is stretchedbetween past digging (collection, verification, and preservation) andproviding a place for a variety of experiences such as learning, engage-ment, and enjoyment. Because the latter role aims to satisfy experien-tial needs, an analysis of experiences offered and sought within thecontext of Cohen’s (1979) phenomenological typology of tourist expe-riences can be useful. Cohen contended that experiences vary and aresought in different forms based on the tourists’ inclination to pursuethe sacred or seek a modern mass tourism experience.

It seems, for curators who are more concerned about past digging andthe preservation of their objects, not many choices and resources areavailable to verify authenticity claims with the exception of photographsand historic documents. Arguably, the third important source of verifi-cation was perceived to be the donors who received the least ranking in


terms of importance on the authenticity scale. Donors often representthe local community and an attempt is made to incorporate their views.However, several curators expressed concerns when questioned aboutthe authenticity of donor information. In the words of one curator,‘‘we sometimes discover skewed ideas about dates and original stories.Family descriptions are often mythical.’’ Because of the scarcity of fundsand increasing pressure from the power groups, the need to seek furtherverifications often lies buried under other priorities.

The museums of today have to cater to the mindsets of diverse con-stituencies and tourism revenue is not the sole source tapped by suchinstitutions. Because a contemporary museum’s role in the midst of alocal community nexus is contingent upon local financial support ofmultiple audiences, it faces the threat of internalizing multiple ideolo-gies (perspectives) as they delve deeper into the collective bargainingof contested meanings. On one hand, the curators delve into object re-search for its own sake, while on the other hand, they are required tolook into market research to fit the object into the minds of the pres-ent-day multi-perspective audience (Harrison 1997).

Museums do not exist in a vacuum. They have to reflect the currentculture, and the influence of the ruling power relations. The identitydilemma is reflected in the curator’s perceptions of authenticity andthe museum’s tripartite mission. The dioramic requirement of the cura-tors’ approach is evidenced by the reaffirmation of the survey resultswhich demonstrate a conventional tripartite framework of authenticityideologies. The three dimensions gleaned from empirical analysis con-stitute the essentialism, negotiation, and constructivism stances. Whilenegotiation reflects a compromise, the constructivist stance shows incli-nation towards audience orientation and the economic rewards.

The study results show that while the curatorial rhetoric on authenticessentialism did not find support with the member segment of theaudience, locals were supportive towards the curator’s essentialistmindset. However, museums relying heavily on members showed adichotomous emphasis. Their role inclination was essentialist but thesources utilized for authenticity represented both the essentialist andconstructivist stances. Furthermore, an exploration of the fluidity ofauthenticity definitions and sources based upon the sociodemographiccharacteristics of curators indicates few differences based on gender,specific age groups, and race. While the females were more inclinedto support essentialist ideologies, the oldest age group of the curatorsleaned towards a negotiated definition of authenticity. With regard torace-based differences, black curators were found to favor the construc-tivist stance for authenticity.

In summary, overall the curators attach highest significance to theauthentic essentialist ideologies while delivering messages in construc-tivist settings. This mindset to some extent is influenced by personaltraits and the diverse market. The study results indicate that the nego-tiation process is not deemed as pertinent for them as the preset con-ceptions. However, the past cannot be re-created in its original formand present solipsism presents a revolutionary challenge to the curato-rial ideologies. Articulation of the negotiation process in pragmatic set-


tings seems to hold an epistemological constraint (desire to relate to theoriginal) in the curatorial mindset, as presented in this study with themajority of the curators leaning towards polarized stance of essentialismin the midst of contemporary museum roles. A curator’s repertoire topursue essentialist research is in conflict with the mission, lack of re-sources such as time or money, and a diverse audience. The changingmuseum role dynamics within the ideological battleground of authen-ticity suggest that reflexivity needs to be positioned on the forefrontof management. This implies the negotiation approach. A closer reviewof the missions in the past also indicates that museums have alwaysnegotiated their positions in the context of the political environmentwhere they are positioned. Negotiation, since time immemorial, hasthus been influenced by power relations which hinder curators’ abilityto pursue their own individualistic ideologies (Graburn 1998a).

The deschooling of museums and opening of back stages today aimsto captivate the attention of those people who are willing to step out oftheir fantasized worlds. Offering audience flexibility of exploration andaccess to the repositories, recreation of narratives in the backdrop ofinstitutional transparency invokes a praxis approach. Instead of mak-ing the public the ‘‘be-all and end–all,’’ the museum settings can be-come a laboratory of reflection and explanation (Capenberghs2001:5). This view echoes Pierre Nora’s concept of ‘‘lieu de memoire’’which implies a setting where ‘‘past’’ still exists and is palpable in all itslayers, but at the same time can also be interpreted and discussed froma contemporary stance (Nora 2001). The past is often distanced fromthe personal or collective memory of individuals who inherit it and isreshaped by professionals such as historians and curators to reflectthe most vocal power-based perspective. The objective then is to deci-pher the past and associate a connection between ‘‘then’’ and ‘‘now’’(Graburn 1998a). The the latter can be influenced by multiple interestgroups with their own agenda influenced by a single or a variety of fac-tors such as spatial (local, regional, or national), class, and ethnicity.According to Welsh (2005), stewardship by seeking partnerships formutually beneficial and ongoing dialogues can enrich the museumsand garner support for preservation. Local residents’ support of essen-tialism shows a section of the museum audience favorable to social pur-pose and civic engagement.

This study suggests a negotiation model to address the radical dilem-ma presented by the multiple ideologies today (Figure 1). This ap-proach is elucidated by Foucault’s (1980) concept of effectivehistory, Popper’s (1979) third world, and Rojek’s (2005) postulatedbenefits of social capital and active citizenship. Rojek, in his analysisof the postmodern theory of leisure, articulated the benefits of negoti-ation in the form of social capital and active citizenship. Social capitalpertained to the ‘‘social value added by voluntary investment in thecommunity and civic wealth,’’ while active citizenship was based on‘‘an empowered model of the individual to acknowledge and imple-ment civic rights and responsibilities’’ (2005:2).

The proposed negotiation model is based on the study findingsand mirrors the backstage conflict from the curator’s perspective. As

Essentialism ConstructivismNegotiation

Active Citizenship Social Capital

Experiential Cultural Tourism

Figure 1. The Negotiation Model


Figure 1 illustrates, negotiation represents the middle stance betweenthe essentialist and constructivist schools of thought. The negotiationemphasis can facilitate the cultural tourism experience by taking intoconsideration the contemporary trends. This in turn can facilitate so-cial capital and active citizenship, thus providing further evidence ofcommunity involvement and social collectivism. In other words, theproposed negotiation model aims to dilute the ideologies of essential-ism and constructivism and places them in mediated experiential set-tings to promote social capital and active citizenship in experientialcultural tourism. The items representing the negotiation dimensionon the authenticity continuum promote these benefits. These items fo-cus on the history version of the donors and local community represen-tation, the essence of which reflects active citizenship. Furthermore,representation of local values of local regions and donor values pro-motes benefits of social capital by providing opportunities for civicengagement. It is suggested that the negotiation model can reducethe ‘‘dumbing’’ of museums by channeling the museum mission andaudience toward sustained experiences that enrich essentialist values.This calls for challenging the peripheral glosses held by many in theaudience of what constitutes an authentic experience.

Additionally, negotiations can foster hybrid authenticity. In doing so,they can challenge the excess of fragmented and individualistic mean-ings facilitated by existentialism. Cohen’s recent discussion of the post-modern stance on authenticity indicated that ‘‘imaginative, jarringlydiscordant innovations, bordering on the fantastic, may well in thepostmodern future replace the longing for the wholeness of the pre-modern other, as the principal socially accepted manifestations of anovel kind of authenticity’’ (2007:81). However, this notion is disputedby an emerging ‘‘tribal’’ school of thought which argues that the post-modern period represents a period of extreme disorder in consump-tion. Cova (2002) points to a reversal of fragmented and individualistideologies and suggests sociosensitive strategies to help create sustain-able societies where products are designed to establish links with the


society and to support communal type of interactions. Although thisideology takes a social approach and promotes the notion of transientsocieties, such settings can lend credence to the proposed negotiationmodel by carefully commodifying essentialist ideologies to promotecohesion and shared values among multiple societies. The ‘‘negoti-ated tribal form of authenticity’’ warrants future deliberations to testits application in cultural/heritage tourism settings.

REFERENCES

Abbeele, V.1980 Sightseers: Tourist as Theorist. Diacritics 10:2–14.

Adams, V.1996 Tigers of the Snow and Other Virtual Sherpas: An Ethnography of

Himalayan Encounters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.AAM

1996 American Association of Museums Code of Ethics for Museums Æwww.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfmæ (15 June 2006).

Anderson, R.2005 To Thrive or Survive? The State and Status of Research in Museums.

Museum Management and Curatorship 20:297–311.Barthes, R.

1977 Image, Music, Text. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.Baudrillard, J.

1996 The System of Objects. London: Verso.Brandon, L., and G. Wilson

2005 The Canadian Museums Association Research Summit: A Report. MuseumManagement and Quarterly 20:349–358.

Britton, S.1991 Tourism, Capital, and Place: Towards a Critical Geography. Environment

and Planning D 9:451–478.Capenberghs, J.

2001 Museological Reflections on the Royal Museum for Central Africa inTervuren. International Committee for Museums Triennial Conference,Barcelona, July. The International Committee for Museums of Ethnography,Paris.

Carter, J., G. Borge, and G. Darlow2001 Safeguarding the World’s Natural Treasures. Science 294:2099–2101.

Cohen, E.1979 A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13: 179–201.

Cohen, E.1988 Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research 15:371–86. 2007 Authenticity in Tourism Studies: Apres La Lutte.Tourism Recreation Research 32(2): 75–82.

Cova, B.2002 Tribal Market: The Tribalization of Society and its Impact on the Conduct

of Marketing. European Journal of Marketing 36(5/6):595–620.Crang, M.

1996 Magic Kingdom or a Quixotic Quest for Authenticity? Annals of TourismResearch 23:415–431.

Crew, S., and J. Sims1991 Locating Authenticity: Fragments of a Dialogue. In Exhibiting Culture:

The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, I. Karp and S. Lavine, eds., pp.159–175. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

DeLyser, D.1999 Authenticity on the Ground: Engaging the Past in a California Ghost

Town. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89:602–632.

http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm

http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm


Denzin, N., and Y. Lincoln2000 Handbook of Qualitative Research. New York: Sage.

Errington, S.1998 The Death of Authentic Primitive Art and Other Tales of Progress.

Berkeley: University of California Press.Fjellman, S.

1992 Vinyl Leaves and Walt Disney World America. Boulder: Westview.Foucault, M.

1974 The Archeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications. 1980Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Brighton: Har-verster Press.

Graburn, N.1998a Weirs in the River of Time: The Development of Historical Consciousness

among Canadian Inuit. Museum Anthropology 22(1):18–32.1998b A Quest for Identity. Museum International 50 (3):13–18. (align nd with

1998b) The ‘‘Full Service’’ Museum. Berkeley: Manuscript.Greenwood, E.

1971 Botany and English Provincial Museums. Museum Journal 70(4):164–168.Harrison, J.

1997 Museums and Touristic Expectations. Annals of Tourism Research 20:23-40. 2005 Shaping Collaboration: Considering Institutional Culture. MuseumManagement and Curatorship 20:195-212.

Hinch, T., A. McIntosh, and T. Ingram1999 Maori Attractions in Aotearo, New Zealand: Setting a Context for

Sustainable Tourism Center for Tourism Research paper 6. University ofOtago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Hollinshead, K.1988 Disney and Commodity Aesthetics: A Critique of Fjellman’s Analysis of

‘‘Distory’’ and ‘‘Historicide’’ of the Past. Current Issues in Tourism1(1):58–97.

Hooper-Greenhill, E.1992 Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B.1997 Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums and Heritage. Berkeley: Univer-

sity of California Press.Lennon, J., and M. Graham

2001 Prognostication of the Scottish Culture and Heritage Sector’s SkillsProfile. Museum Management and Curatorship 19(2):121–139.

Litwin, M.1995 How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. London: Sage.

Lowenthal, D.1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacCannell, D.1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Shocken.1992 Empty Meeting Grounds: The Tourist Papers. New York: Routledge

MacDonald, G., and S. Alsford1995 Canadian Museums and the Representation of Culture in a Multicultural

Museum. Cultural Dynamics 7(1):15–36.Mckercher, B., and H. Du Cros

2002 Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and CulturalHeritage Management. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press.

Medina, L.2003 Commoditizing Culture: Tourism and Maya Identity. Annals of Tourism

Research 30:353–368.Mertler, C., R. and Vannata

2002. Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods (2nd ed.). Los Angeles:Pyrczak Publishing.

Morris, W.1988 At Henry Parkes Motel. Cultural Studies 2:1–16.


Nora, P.2001 Rethinking France: Les Lieux de Memoire (Volume I). Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press.Orvell, M.

1989 The Real Thing: Imitation and Authenticity in American Culture, 1880–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Pearce, S.1992 Museums, Objects and Collections. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institu-

tion Press.Prentice, R.

2001 Experiential Cultural Tourism: Museums and the Marketing of the NewRomanticism of Evoked Authenticity. Museum Management and Curatorship19(1):5–26.

Price, D.1989 John Woodward and a Surviving British Geological Collection of the Early

Eighteenth Century. Journal of History of Collections 1:79–85.Popper, K.

1979 Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Rojek, C.

2005 Leisure Theory Principles and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Slaybaugh, J., M. Littrell, and J. Farrell-Beck

1990 Consumers of Hmong Textiles. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal8(2):56–64.

Stephen, J.2001 The Contemporary Museum and Leisure: Recreation as a Museum

Function. Museum Management and Curatorship 19(3):297–308.Suarez, A., and N. Tsutu

2004 The Value of Museum Collections for Research. Bioscience 54(1):66–74.Wang, N.

1999 Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience. Annals of TourismResearch 26:349–370.

Welsh, P.2005 Re-configuring Museums. Museum Management and Curatorship

20:103–130.

Submitted 28 March 2006. Resubmitted 17 June 2006. Resubmitted 17 November 2006.Resubmitted 3 August 2007. Resubmitted 19 November 2007. Final version 7 December2007. Accepted 10 December 2007. Coordinating Editor: Nelson H. H. Graburn

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Documents

Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum