THE MUSEUM COLLECTION AND LIBRARY UNITSSYNERGY
IN CONSTRUCTING CULTURAL HERITAGE
INFORMATION:
CASE STUDY AT MUSEUM NASIONAL AND
MUSEUM SEJARAH JAKARTA

byY. Sumaryanto, MHum
Dr. Laksmi(University of Indonesia)

I. RESEARCH BACKGROUND Museum

 centre of study, research and recreation

 information about its collection

 conditio sine qua non limited working procedure: Standard →routines trap Both museums

 fail in achieving it

 lack of background information of theircollection

 Research urgency:

 need → research to describe what really

happens in the interactions among agentsworking in the two museums and need → something to inspire synergy potentials
to construct information

II. OBJECTIVE AND BENEFIT OF RESEARCH
 Objective : To describe the social interaction and role ofagents in the synergy to construct cultural
heritage information

 Benefit:

 to provide advice in the form of guidelines andstrategies to be used by Museum Nasional andMuseum Sejarah Jakarta.
 to produce literary publications in aninternational reputation journal

III. LITERATURE REVIEWS
 Synergy?
 Interaction between two or more agents so as toproduce a greater effect than that produced byeach The interaction involves role, knowledge,
expertise, commitment of all agents, as well as
structure and regulation. Synergy within anorganization is known as cooperation orcoordination (Stueart, 2002: 169).
 Unintegrated
 Synergies in library and museum management or
in information construction is not integrated. Eachmanages i.e. planning, organizing, directing,monitoring, and maintaining physically its own
collection (Clayton and Gorman, 2001).

 Acquisition principle accept only collectionsin the specifiedtheme
 collection may derive from research result,gift or loan

 Processing stage

 inventory and cataloging is considerd themost important aspects

 Information construction

Maintenance and preservation is also
considered important represent Indonesian intact cultural heritage

 Structuration theory of Anthony Giddens
 Giddens’ structuration theory is about theform of relationship between agents andstructure in the form of duality relation insocial practices which is repeated andpatterned over space and time.
 e.g. museum exhibition at Museum Nasionaland Museum Sejarah Jakarta.

 What is duality?

 The duality lies in the facts that a "guide likestructure " which is the practice principle invarious places and times are the result ofrepetations of human action.
 But the “rule like schemata" is also a vehicle(medium) for the ongoing social practices.
 Giddens called the schemata as structures.

 Structure is not seen as something thatcurbs but empowers (enables): allow socialpractices.

 Giddens sees it as a means (medium) andresource.
 According to Giddens there are three majorgroups of structures.

Sign or sygnificance structures which relate tosymbolic schemata, meaning, articulation, anddiscourse.
2. Control or dominance structure which includes
mastery on man (politics) and goods / things(economy).
3. legitimacy structure which relates to normative
regulations schemata in the rule of law.
1.

 The centrality of space - time, and agents

Time and space are usually understood as an arenaor action stage (stages) where we go, where we goout.
 Without time and space, there will be no action.
 Therefore, time and space should be an integral
element in the theory of the social sciences.
 Globalization can be seen as stretching as well ascompression of time and space (time spacedistanciation) or distance action
 Agents and agencies is one importantelement in the concept of structuration.
 Reflexive monitoring of the actions of asingle fixed element of everyday actions
involves not only the individual, but also
the behavior of other individuals.
 Rationalization of action is that the actors
constantly maintain a theoreticalunderstanding of their activities
foundation
 In their actions there are practical as wellIV. RESEARCH METHODS Qualitative approach with case study

method The research design enables us to understandthe synergy practices in information
construction done in both units
 Focus on data identification on cultural
heritage And then processing Data collection
 Interviews

 Observation

 Document analysis

 Research Location:

 Museum Nasional (Jl Medan Merdeka Barat

No 12, Jakarta Pusat)
 Museum sejarah Jakarta (Jl Taman
Fatahillah No 2, Jakarta Barat) Potentials

 First research on the topic

 Research procedure Proposal ; Permission ; Approach toinformants ; Observation and interviews ;Analysis ; Report

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Profile Museum Nasional (MN)
 V1.1

 It used to be intellectual gathering(Baataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten enWetenschappen) meant to promote researches
on arts and science especially biology, physics,archaeology, literature, ethnology and history
 Established in 1862 to be the centre of cultural and tourism
information (vision); Its mission among others
are to promote security and comfort,
information services, preservation, people
appreciation, documention 140.000 museum objects (2006) consisted ofancient statues, inscription, ceramics, textiles,numismatics, historical relics, other valuableobjects
 Collections are arranged according to(1) Religion system (2) Social system andorganization (3) Knowledge system (4) Language(5) Arts (6) livelihood systems (7) Technology andequipment system
 5 fields of organization structure Museum Sejarah Jakarta

17 century classical European architecture building;
Kota tua Jakarta tourism spot Meant to record and inform the history of Jakartacity Established in 1937
 It aims to be excellent tourism spot (vision); Its mission
among others are promoting research, preservation,exhibition,; information services on the history ofjakarta city, assets use
 The principal is supported by administration andtechnical sections; the museum hires 10 full time
employees and 4 freelances 30.476 museum objects (2008) V.2.1 Organization of cultural heritage

information
 Position of organization personnels in MN is
more clearly stated than that of MSJ
 MN has a more clear work procedure Acquisition and selection for exhibition(collection unit); museum collection physicaldata (registration unit); inventory (inventoryunit); documentation (documentation unit)
collection list of objects exhibited (catalogingunit); information services (library unit;volunteers) V.2.2 Information organization flow Information: end product to be used by public

 Physical logging → label, catalog and naration draft →information searching, librarians and volunteers help →curator check and recheck → text writing Research on collection . MSJ seldom does
 IHV helps a lot V.2.3 Information presentation

Adjusted to theme chosen Physical form and its content:
Label (name of the artefact; materials; place and yearfound) Brochure (address, location map, opening hours, picture,
information concerning collection)
 Catalog (history, provenance) Books (article on ancient map, benefit, Indonesian existencein the map since 15 century) Research reports
 clipping V.3.1Synergy

between collection unit andmuseum library unit

Synergy practices are dynamic
 MN and MSJ have the same work climate
 Competition interaction
 Significance structure spread to dominance andlegitimacy structure Collection unit dominates Library unit is dominated V.3.2 Agent and structure

Awareness (agents) that knowledge or information
mastery of museum objects considered important. InMSJ it is significantly seen
 Agents in the library unit do not have thatknowledge; what they have are library technicalknowledge
 Agents of MSJ are more productive
 Steven: interaction among language experts,
volunteers, museum head and her staffs are nothormonious
 Among agents they have strong feeling about the useof terms V3.3 Dialectics between agents andstructure in constructing information

 Knowledge capital and control on museum

objects make curators in the collection unit
dominate roles in information construction
 As a consequence agents work on their owninterest
 Implication on the regulation or structures that
unsupport agents from the library units (smallbudget; unbalanced facilites; bad images,supporting role)VI. CONCLUSIONS Synergy can not be established fully yet

due to Domination structure Library unit →to be the last resource Limited facilities owned by library unit →Poorlibrary service
 Structural implication on regulation : limited
fund for library materials acquisition, images Suggestion

 Improve librarian knowledge quality/ masterqualification
 Change information organization working
procedure