Governance Strategies for the Management of Museums and Heritage Institutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Aim

The aim of the paper is to propose a new governance model for museums that includes participatory approaches. The proposed model has been developed based on a bibliographic review and on four (five?) case studies of museums in Gran Canaria, each representing a different governance model, and on extensive interviews with their directors.

General comments

Museums are the focus of the paper and this should be made clear in the paper itself, in its title and the abstract. The new model suggests the creation of an Assembly, which is an original proposal.

The possibility of extrapolation of the proposed model to other institutions and to cultural heritage as a whole is envisaged, but little detail is provided on the feasibility or obstacles to do so. It also seems somewhat premature to suggest the validity of the proposed model for all regions in the world. Implementation of the model and comparative studies would be needed to underpin this hypothesis, and this is not the focus of the paper. Although the possibility of using the proposed model in other institutions and other world regions should not be dismissed, a word of caution should be added.

A more direct narrative and writing style is recommended, responding to a few key questions: eg. Why was this research undertaken? How did the authors go about it? What are the findings and what do they propose?

The structure of the paper corresponds to the above questions, but the writing style is too convoluted and could be simplified. The numerous general statements and references to other authors are diluting the key messages of the paper. This is particularly the case for sections 1 (Introduction), 2 (State of the question) and 5 (Discussion). A better balance between the different sections could be reached by reducing section 3 (Methodology and case studies) and developing section 4 (Results). It is recommended to delete the general comments in sections 1-2-3-5 of the paper unless they have a specific relevance for the proposed governance model.

Definitions on the key concepts used in the paper should be added, eg. ‘stakeholders’, ‘tourist product’, ‘cultural product’.

Literature consulted

Unfortunately, the paper does not demonstrate that recent literature for the museum world has been reviewed: there are no references to publications from the last 5 years (eg. ‘Governance for Cultural Heritage: Towards Participatory Approaches’ in the European Journal of Cultural Management & Policy, Vol 11, Issue 1, 2021). The debate on the definition of museums within ICOM is not mentioned either although it may have an impact on the scope of the study and on museum governance. It is also not clear whether governance models in other sectors have been examined during the bibliographic review, in particular the governance of Unesco, ICOM, associations (non-profits, professional organisations) as well as the governance of (listed) companies (cfr publications by the Canadian Institute of Corporate Directors). The proposed governance model would have gained in strength by doing so.

Additional comments on section 3

It would be sufficient to describe the methodology and present a rationale for the choices made.

Line 227 is not a hypothesis. Please check lines 227-230 with the hypothesis and objectives mentioned in lines 78-84.

Are there 4 or 5 case studies, because in the end there were 2 interviews with the directors of 5 ‘museums’. A short textual description of the 5 institutions and situating them on a diagram presenting the 4 existing governance models along 2 axes would be helpful.  

Ideally the questions that were used in the interviews should be made available. The key questions regarding governance mentioned in lines 262-269 should be made more visible, if possible: please check the possibilities in the author’s guidelines or put them in a figure.

Additional comments on section 4

As it stands, it is not clear how the ‘results’ listed in section 4.2 could lead to the proposed governance model. Section 4.2 should be developed and cover the 5 case studies.

The proposed governance model is the core of the paper. What has determined the order of the items 1) to 12)? Please consider putting ‘Benefits’ as the last item.

The authors do not include the creation of an advisory or scientific board: has this been envisaged or not? If so, why was the idea not retained?

2) Who has the right to participate in the Assembly? Who would chair it? Who would prepare the draft ‘annual lines of action’?

3) The Board of government seems to be an Executive Board. How will its members be designated and by whom?

Could 4) be ‘Accountability’ instead of ‘Control’?

The ‘ownership in 5) needs some clarification: does it concern the buildings, works, assets? 

6) and 7) are more related to the vision and mission. Cfr the earlier comment on the ICOM debates regarding the definition of museums and the role of museums in society today. If this is the intention, should it not come first?

Is 10) about the visitors and the visitors’ experience or about ‘evaluation’? If it is the latter, then it should follow 4) ‘control/accountability’.

In fig 1, ‘internal stakeholders’ and ‘external stakeholders’ have been switched.

On section 5

This section needs a close re-examination because the paper has proposed a new governance model, but this model has not yet been tested. Linking it to the lessons learnt from the case-studies and the interviews could be an option.

On section 6

The conclusions are again more about generalities than about the author’s own research and proposal. In the end, the authors should chose where to put the focus: on describing their own research and how the new proposed model results from it, or on lessons gained in (some) literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors are non-native speakers, which has hindered them. It is suggested that they use shorter sentences. It would be useful to add definitions of the key concepts at the beginning and to stick to this vocabulary throughout the paper.

Subtitle 4.1 in line 368 should be clarified: are these the topics that the directors mentioned over and over again in the interviews? Or are these the topics that the authors decided to discuss with them (= literal meaning of the title)? 

A careful proofreading before submission would have been welcomed. Some paragraphs need to be checked in terms of grammar and amended accordingly (ex. lines 405-412, 423-433). Several sentences are cut off and/or punctuation is missing: line 56 and lines 175-176 are two examples, but there are more occurrences.

 

Author Response

Following your instructions, the text has been thoroughly revised to achieve a more direct narrative style. The title has been modified, including museums and heritage sites as the focus. An attempt has been made to rework the hypothesis and objectives to provide greater explanatory clarity. New headings and an updated bibliography have been included. In any case, texts prior to 2015 are still used, as their relevance as a source of knowledge remains. The shortcomings of traditional management models and the contributions of the proposed model are highlighted in the Discussion. An explanatory table of stakeholder roles is included, attempting to clarify the model's applicability. The limitations of extrapolation of the proposed model are acknowledged, depending on future comparisons with multiple cases from the literature. The English version has been reviewed by a specialized professional.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the manuscript with considerable interest and would like to extend my gratitude to the authors for their valuable efforts in addressing this important topic. The article aims to make a significant contribution to the academic literature by proposing a new hybrid model in the field of cultural heritage management. It aims to improve the effectiveness of cultural heritage management by addressing the differences between management models and the participatory management approach. 
The research has many strengths. It can be said that it will contribute to filling an important gap in the academic literature in terms of presenting an innovative hybrid model by combining public, private and non-profit management models. The model proposed by the study goes beyond traditional management approaches and offers a more flexible and inclusive approach. The literature review and the theoretical framework strengthen the academic context of the research by providing a comprehensive foundation on the subject. Furthermore, the analysis of four different governance models on the island of Gran Canaria provides a concrete case study-based investigation and supports the theoretical findings with practical examples. The multiple methodological approaches (interview, observation, bibliographic review) combined with qualitative data analysis increased the methodological robustness of the research and reinforced the reliability and validity of the results obtained. These are important factors that strengthen both the theoretical and practical contributions of the paper.
Some sections of the paper need further clarification and elaboration. Firstly, it is suggested that the main purpose of the research should be more clearly stated in the abstract and introduction. The gap that the research fills, its innovations and theoretical/practical contributions should be clarified. The innovations that the study brings to governance mechanisms should be emphasized and a brief outline of the theoretical approach on which the hybrid model is based should be presented. Furthermore, at the end of the summary, the main findings and recommendations of the study should be briefly mentioned.
The theoretical framework requires a more detailed discussion of the theoretical foundations used in the development of the hybrid model. There should be a stronger link to previous studies in the literature on this topic and a clearer explanation of why the model is necessary. In other words, the reader should be informed in detail how the model contributes to scientific knowledge in a way that is different from previous studies.  The shortcomings of traditional management models should be emphasized and how the model addresses these shortcomings. In addition, if possible, a model or table explaining the roles of stakeholders could be added to make the applicability of the model more concrete.
The methodology section requires a more detailed explanation of the analysis process based on the Nvivo software used in the research. In particular, the data coding and analysis stages and the methods used (e.g. inductive or deductive analysis approaches) should be clarified. Sample selection criteria should be specified in more detail, and how the selected cases serve the purpose of the study should be explained. The techniques used for validity and reliability of the data should be made more explicit. For example, how the triangulation method was applied and how the accuracy of the research findings was tested should be discussed in more detail.
The findings and discussion sections require a stronger link to the existing literature. It should be discussed how the research results overlap or differ from similar studies in the literature. There should be more critical analysis of the applicability of the hybrid model and a comprehensive discussion of the potential challenges and solutions to these challenges. In the four cases analyzed in the study, it should be assessed which factors contribute to the successful implementation of the hybrid model and which factors may pose obstacles.

The conclusion and contribution section requires a clear articulation of the theoretical and practical contributions of the research. The novelty of the hybrid model to the academic literature should be clearly stated. The areas where the model can be effective in terms of tourism, heritage management and governance should be explained with examples. Furthermore, recommendations for future research should be made more concrete. Issues such as how the hybrid model can be tested in different contexts and with which methodological approaches it can be supported should be discussed.

Author Response

Following your instructions, the text has been thoroughly revised to achieve a more direct narrative style. The title has been modified, including museums and heritage sites as the focus. An attempt has been made to rework the hypothesis and objectives to provide greater explanatory clarity. New headings and an updated bibliography have been included. In any case, texts prior to 2015 are still used, as their relevance as a source of knowledge remains. The shortcomings of traditional management models and the contributions of the proposed model are highlighted in the Discussion. An explanatory table of stakeholder roles is included, attempting to clarify the model's applicability. The limitations of extrapolation of the proposed model are acknowledged, depending on future comparisons with multiple cases from the literature. The English version has been reviewed by a specialized professional.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article completely lacks the results of the investigations conducted on the case studies and the analyses of such data.
Reference is made to the methodology used, which appears correct, but its application is not illustrated, inferring the results in an incomprehensible manner.

Author Response

Following your instructions, the text has been thoroughly revised to achieve a more direct narrative style. The title has been modified, including museums and heritage sites as the focus. An attempt has been made to rework the hypothesis and objectives to provide greater explanatory clarity. New headings and an updated bibliography have been included. In any case, texts prior to 2015 are still used, as their relevance as a source of knowledge remains. The shortcomings of traditional management models and the contributions of the proposed model are highlighted in the Discussion. An explanatory table of stakeholder roles is included, attempting to clarify the model's applicability. The limitations of extrapolation of the proposed model are acknowledged, depending on future comparisons with multiple cases from the literature. The English version has been reviewed by a specialized professional.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following a first reading, this draft paper has been thoroughly revised and updated. The second version is very well written. It now presents the results of the research in more detail, which was lacking in the first draft. The new parts are very welcome and needed additions. The paper reads very well and contributes to the reflection on the governance of museums and other cultural heritage institutions.

All comments from the previous review have been properly addressed, but two:

1/ There is still a problem with the scope: the paper is about ‘museums and other cultural heritage institutions’ (see for example item 11 on p 15 and conclusion p 24 lines 913-914). The paper does not address the very specific needs and governance issues for cultural heritage sites including buildings, towns and landscapes, in short the historic environment. For this type of heritage issues such as for example item 4 on p 17 are far more complex. Whilst an integrated approach to cultural heritage is (or should be) the norm, it is equally important to recognise the specificities of different forms of heritage. The expressions ‘heritage spaces’ or ‘heritage sites’ are thus not interchangeable with ‘heritage institutions’. It is therefore strongly recommend to: a/ add this clarification whilst specifying that the governance of ‘heritage sites’ could be studied in the future, and b/ replace ‘cultural heritage spaces’ or ‘heritage sites’ by ‘other cultural heritage institutions’ both  in the title and throughout the paper. 

2/ The other point concerns governance studies and in particular how the private sector, international organisations, associations deal with governance, in particular because this is relevant for the cultural heritage sector, both in terms theoretical development and implementation. It would have been interesting to consult ‘primary sources’ and break silo’s but it is beyond the scope of this paper. The references mentioned in the first review remain useful should the authors pursue their work on cultural heritage and governance.

The proposal to hold an ‘assembly’ as a platform for dialogue between al stakeholders and for preparing decisions is less clear in the current version of the paper than in the previous draft. Assemblies are common in the private sector, associations, international organisations and daily life (eg. appartement buildings with many co-owners) but not in the museum world. There are multiple ways to organise a dialogue between stakeholders but the ‘assembly’ idea triggers reflection. Could be mentioned again for example in item 1 on page 14 and in the discussion on p 22?

There are some editorial points to consider for clarification/revision:

• p 2 - lines 81-82: what is meant by ‘may necessitate the decentralisation of patrimonial administration’? Suggestion: ‘may necessitate more decentralisation’
• p 4 - lines 156-160: why was ‘study’ deleted? Study and research remain essential as shown in line 163. Suggestion: ‘research and conservation’ on lines 157 and 159.
• p 5 - lines 208-209: isn’t there a word missing? E.g. ‘the degree of centralisation or decentralisation of decision-making within cultural heritage institutions’ ?
• p 6 - line 222: not clear what is meant.
• p 6 - table: spelling to check (eg. Arm’s Length, Trustees?, Funding?). Not sure that ‘ownership’ is the best wording to cover both the responsibility and the legal entity in charge.
• p 8 - lines 290-295: if this is a quote form a publication, one should leave it as it is.
• p 13 - lines 526-529: if this statement is made by the authors, it should read ‘(…) the demands of cultural and tourism studies as proposed by van Assche et al. (2022)’.
• p 16 - figure 1: some links and arrows are missing in the figure. Idem for the dialogue between the extrinsic agents and the intrinsic agents. Will this happen through the proposed assembly?
• p 16 - line 643: ‘the authors’ to delete?
• p 19 - line 700: ‘the key factors are outlined’ instead of ‘I outline’
• p 21 - line 804: delete ‘significantly’ (authors cannot say this themselves or can they? It could be cultural)

The authors should be congratulated for this new draft.

Author Response

Thank you for your attention, time and effort in making this research significantly improved. To make it easier to review, we have highlighted the corrections made in red.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following a first reading, this draft paper has been thoroughly revised and updated. The second version is very well written. It now presents the results of the research in more detail, which was lacking in the first draft. The new parts are very welcome and needed additions. The paper reads very well and contributes to the reflection on the governance of museums and other cultural heritage institutions.

All comments from the previous review have been properly addressed, but two:

1/ There is still a problem with the scope: the paper is about ‘museums and other cultural heritage institutions’ (see for example item 11 on p 15 and conclusion p 24 lines 913-914). The paper does not address the very specific needs and governance issues for cultural heritage sites including buildings, towns and landscapes, in short the historic environment. For this type of heritage issues such as for example item 4 on p 17 are far more complex. Whilst an integrated approach to cultural heritage is (or should be) the norm, it is equally important to recognise the specificities of different forms of heritage. The expressions ‘heritage spaces’ or ‘heritage sites’ are thus not interchangeable with ‘heritage institutions’. It is therefore strongly recommend to: a/ add this clarification whilst specifying that the governance of ‘heritage sites’ could be studied in the future, and b/ replace ‘cultural heritage spaces’ or ‘heritage sites’ by ‘other cultural heritage institutions’ both  in the title and throughout the paper. 

Governance needs were studied in a 2-year fieldwork and a 3-year follow-up in several heritage institutions (4), with different management models

The scope of the study has been corrected, replacing ‘cultural heritage spaces’ or ‘heritage sites’ by ‘cultural heritage institutions’ both  in the title and throughout the paper.

2/ The other point concerns governance studies and in particular how the private sector, international organisations, associations deal with governance, in particular because this is relevant for the cultural heritage sector, both in terms theoretical development and implementation. It would have been interesting to consult ‘primary sources’ and break silo’s but it is beyond the scope of this paper. The references mentioned in the first review remain useful should the authors pursue their work on cultural heritage and governance.

It's quite true that this proposal to "address governance" is necessary, but we don't have space in this article to detail the specifics. It's a topic of interest for another in-depth study. Here are some aspects that can be explored in more depth in the near future.

The proposal to hold an ‘assembly’ as a platform for dialogue between al stakeholders and for preparing decisions is less clear in the current version of the paper than in the previous draft. Assemblies are common in the private sector, associations, international organisations and daily life (eg. appartement buildings with many co-owners) but not in the museum world. There are multiple ways to organise a dialogue between stakeholders but the ‘assembly’ idea triggers reflection. Could be mentioned again for example in item 1 on page 14 and in the discussion on p 22?

It is true that it is necessary to explain the role of the "Assembly" as a space for dialogue; it must be a participatory instrument that takes into account the needs of stakeholders. This will be the subject of further development work for future research.

There are some editorial points to consider for clarification/revision:

• p 2 - lines 81-82: what is meant by ‘may necessitate the decentralisation of patrimonial administration’? Suggestion: ‘may necessitate more decentralisation’

Is corrected

• p 4 - lines 156-160: why was ‘study’ deleted? Study and research remain essential as shown in line 163. Suggestion: ‘research and conservation’ on lines 157 and 159.

Is correted

• p 5 - lines 208-209: isn’t there a word missing? E.g. ‘the degree of centralisation or decentralisation of decision-makingwithin cultural heritage institutions’ ?

Is corrected

• p 6 - line 222: not clear what is meant.

Is reviewed

• p 6 - table: spelling to check (eg. Arm’s Length, Trustees?, Funding?). Not sure that ‘ownership’ is the best wording to cover both the responsibility and the legal entity in charge.

Spelling revised. Yes, property, as the term itself, is copied from the cited authors. (Sometimes it's public, sometimes it's private), it refers to one's own heritage (as an object). (Lord & Lord, 1998).

• p 8 - lines 290-295: if this is a quote form a publication, one should leave it as it is.

It has been left as is, without paraphrasing and with quotation marks

• p 13 - lines 526-529: if this statement is made by the authors, it should read ‘(…) the demands of cultural and tourism studies as proposed by van Assche et al. (2022)’.

Is corrected

• p 16 - figure 1: some links and arrows are missing in the figure. Idem for the dialogue between the extrinsic agents and the intrinsic agents. Will this happen through the proposed assembly?

Yes, connecting lines are missing because they are highlighted where there is a stronger and more direct relationship in management. As the "Assembly" is explored in more depth, other connecting ties will emerge in management methods and decision-making. This paper presents the initial, basic model, with details to be explored in the near future.

• p 16 - line 643: ‘the authors’ to delete?

Removed

• p 19 - line 700: ‘the key factors are outlined’ instead of ‘I outline’

Is corrected

• p 21 - line 804: delete ‘significantly’ (authors cannot say this themselves or can they? It could be cultural)

Is corrected

The authors should be congratulated for this new draft.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing the feedback. The improvements in clarity, structure, and theoretical grounding have significantly enhanced the study.

Key revisions include a refined title, clearer hypotheses and objectives, and an updated bibliography. The discussion section now better highlights the shortcomings of traditional models and the contributions of the proposed hybrid model. The inclusion of an explanatory table clarifies stakeholder roles, and methodological transparency has been strengthened.

Given these substantial improvements, I find the manuscript suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your attention, time and effort in making this research significantly improved.