ICOM-IMRECRESEARCH PROPOSAL TEMPLATEInternational Research Alliance on Public Funding for Museums(IRAPFM)
By the Chair on Museum Governance and Cultural Law (UQAM), as Lead Partner
1. Abstract (half page / 250 words maximum)
To answer the questions asked by ICOM-IMREC and arrive to answers and solutions, theInternational Research Alliance on Public Funding for Museums (IRAPFM) is under the direction ofa team:• The Chair on Museum on Governance and Cultural Law (UQAM) as lead partner,• Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, and Spain as institutional partners,• India and South Africa as additional individual international researchers.
The research will be conducted in two complementary stages.
First, a statistical survey will be sent to the 124 ICOM National Committees and the corresponding
museum’s supervising Ministries, on the state and recent evolution of public funding for cultural
institutions.
In a second step, a qualitative analysis will be carried out from a selection of various museums
proposed by the Consortium members (25 museums per region). This qualitative survey will allow
us to better identify the main factors having an impact on public funding, and the operation of
museums. Looking at the realities on the ground, specific to a continent, a region, a country, thesedata will furthermore measure the disparities between countries, as well as the disparities
between the official discourse and what the Museums associations have communicated. Finally,
the collected answer will allow us to identify funding strategies developed by museums.
The report will address recommendations to museums, funding agencies, national governments
as well as regional or international bodies based on the qualitative surveys. To disseminate theseanswers, IRAPFM will propose some series of webinars following the outstanding work done by
ICOM Define: Standing Committee for the Museum Definition with webinars. IRAPFM will workwith museums associations and local partners identified along these surveys, establishing thinktanks and some global network.
2. Description of the proposal (5 to 8 pages / 4000 words maximum)
Problem Statement
Public funding has always been one of the foundations for the development of museums. From ahistorical point of view, State support has enabled the emergence of the European museum
model, which aimed to give the general public access to national treasures and heritage (Pomian,2020). Without going into the details of this history, which began in the Renaissance and really
took off in the Enlightenment, many historians and researchers recognize the fundamental role
played by museums in the democratization of culture and the impetus they gave to popular
education. It is therefore not without reason that museum visits have been widely encouraged inrecent decades by most States, which, of course, see them as an institution dedicated to culture,whether artistic, scientific, scholarly, or popular. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic that shook theworld in 2020, museum attendance statistics showed steady growth. While 19th and 20th century
museums gradually reached wider audiences, museums acquired the status of mass media at theturn of the millennium. It is therefore not surprising that governments have made national

museums instruments for the development of national identities and consequently institutions
specific to cultural diplomacy. We need only think of international agreements for the circulationof major exhibitions, or projects like the Louvre in Abu Dhabi, inaugurated in 2017. It can be seenthat museums have become key players in culture and the economy for States. The economic
spin-offs of major exhibitions on tourism therefore motivate public authorities to invest in themaintenance and development of museums.
If the various levels of government (States, provinces, cities and regions) have created publicmuseums which constitute the founding model and the heart of the museum network, we havealso seen a proliferation in recent decades of private museum projects initiated by communities(interpretation centers, exhibition centers, ecomuseums, neighborhood museums) andbusinesses (ecomuseums). This diversity has given rise to new management models that oscillate
between public museums financed by the various levels of government, private for-profit
museums (wax and entertainment museums, corporate museums) and established museums in a
non-profit organization (NPO) based in particular on the social economy (Pearse, 1991).
Consequently, there are today several variations of these models, which constitute hybrid formsof financing between public and private (Hervé, Mencarelli, Pulh, 2011). In the long history ofmuseums, never has there been such a wide variety of museum management models. François
Mairesse identifies three types of logic that structure the financing of museums: market logic,
logic linked to public subsidies and donation logic (Mairesse, 2022).
Since the global financial crisis of 2007–2008, we have observed major transformations in themethods of financing museums. While some governments have chosen to invest less money inthe museum network, independent revenue (ticketing, room rentals, sponsorships, etc.) has
become the key to development for many museums (Bergeron, Dumas, 2006). In the UnitedStates, for example, museum foundations lost significant sums during the crisis, but the capital
was rebuilt due notably to donations from patrons and citizens. There has been a significant
increase in the number of subscribers and friends of museums. Citizens’ mobilization saved many
US museums from closing. It has also been observed, in the years that followed, that North
American museums, for example, which overcame the crisis, could count on a solid network offriends and volunteers (Lessans Gelelr, Salamon, Mengel, 2010). In these so-called community
museums, the volunteer staff has been maintained, unlike state museums and private museums,
which have seen their financial resources decrease. Museums created and defended bycommunities have reminded major museums; while tourists generate the most important
income, local audiences ensure the permanence of museums in times of crisis. In this context, itis perhaps no coincidence that the values of the new community-oriented museology haveemerged over the past two decades to the point where the International Council of Museums haschosen to equip itself with a new definition of what a museum is. The debate at the ICOM meetingin Kyoto in 2019 is a good illustration of this change in values within the international community(Giraud, Orellana Rivera, 2020). If the audacious proposal of Kyoto was not adopted, it
nevertheless initiated a profound change by valuing the social role of museums so that the new
definition adopted in Prague in 2022 testifies to a profound change in museum culture (Sandahl,
2019).
A trial of trust
Many researchers are interested in what is changing in the world of museums. Research on thesocietal trends that are transforming museums has multiplied over the past two decades (Robert,
2009; Davis, Mairesse 2015). However, the transformations have accelerated with the pandemiccrisis, forcing museums to close their doors, or to put an end to educational and cultural activities.
Own-source box office revenues have melted like snow in the sun, and sponsors for exhibitions,school and cultural programs have ceased to support museums. Some governments have

demanded that museums reduce their expenses as much as possible by cutting posts and rethinktheir distribution methods by turning to digital. Staff with precarious status, assigned toeducational services, have lost their positions (Bergeron, Baillargeon, Bosset, 2020). Other
governments, such as Canada in particular, have chosen on the contrary to invest more tocompensate for the losses incurred by museums by betting on the social role of museums andhoping for a post-pandemic recovery. It seems that state policies vary considerably and that there
have been different strategies to safeguard the museum network.
While the health crisis has affected all countries, and while activities have started to resume in
2022, the war in Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis are complicating the financial and logisticalbalance of European museums. To this geopolitical problem is added, as in 2007–2008, aninternational financial crisis that causes inflation and economic instability, the outcome of which
is difficult to predict. In short, in this context of health, economic, political, and social crisis, culture
and museums, in particular, are weakened. Therefore, it seems essential to conduct such aninternational survey to identify possible solutions to a world that is posing more and morechallenges.
Research Question
The call for proposals highlights that research conducted between 2018 and 2021 reveals thatdeclining public funding has become a serious problem that threatens the sustainable andequitable development of museums around the world. Let us recall here the questions to which
ICOM-IMREC would like the research teams to provide answers and possible solutions.
• What does the term “public funding” currently encompass and how is the term understoodacross the globe?
• Is declining public funding for museums a global phenomenon?
• Where, to what extent and what kinds of declines are occurring? With what impact?
• In areas where reductions are occurring, how are museums responding? Are there discernible
trends emerging from new business models?
These questions should be explored with reference to each of the major regional areas (SouthAmerica, North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia) so that comparisons can be made.
Considering the context of the crisis, four main questions emerge. It seems that the definition of“public funding” does not have the same meaning for all ICOM member countries. Distinct
political regimes and economic models as well as new categories of museums generate different
conceptions of the role of governments. It will be interesting to identify these different
conceptions from a geographical and political perspective. It is undeniable that the so-called
national museums, therefore created and financed by the States, are at the origin of the definitionof public financing. Moreover, the large number of private museums, but supported by various
government programs (culture, science, and tourism for example) have a different conception of
public funding to which is added private funding consisting in particular of independent funding
comparable to that of cultural industries. As we will see in the methodological section that follows,
we want to take national museums into account first, since they play the role of a model for themuseum network. They stand as barometers for all museums.
The statistical survey sent to the line ministries and to national groups of museums will also makeit possible to qualify ICOM’s observation on the drop in funding for museums according to regions
and government policies. This comparative approach between the vision of States and that ofmuseum professionals will make it possible to identify the issues and challenges facing museums.
The survey will also provide leads to identify the most innovative strategies in terms of financing
and governance.
The team of the Research Alliance on public funding for museums is based on the experience ofthe principal researcher who worked for more than 15 years with the Observatoire de la Culture,attached to the Institut de la statistique du Québec1, and on the expertise in management and lawof the members of the Research Alliance who combine three disciplinary approaches: museology,
management, and cultural law.
Theoretical framework - A multidisciplinary approach
A review of the curriculum vitae of the members of the Research Alliance will show that the teamhas interdisciplinary research expertise in museology on trends, museum management andgovernance, and cultural law. Several team members have researched and published on museum
management. Many have careers in museums or have worked in national associations so thatthey are aware of the culture and the major transformations in the world of museums. It should
be noted that most are attached to ICOFOM and can therefore count on an international networkof museology researchers. This is why the bibliography bears witness to statistical (Bergeron,
Merrigan), anthropological (Roigé), financial studies (Baillargeon), legal (Rivet, Labadie) social(Menezes de Carvalho) perspectives and approaches specific to critical museum studies (Hoffman,
ICOFOM researchers).
Methodology and data collection
For this type of survey, the relevance of the analysis and recommendations is above all based ona rigorous methodological approach to the data, making it possible to collect the most relevant
and representative information, considering the diversity of the international network of member
museums of ICOM, and of different models of museum governance.
The investigation will be conducted in two complementary stages. First, a statistical survey ofICOM member states and national museum associations. In a second step, an analysis by nonrandom sampling will be carried out from a selection of museums proposed by the team’s
researchers in different regions (Europe, North America, South America, Middle East, Africa,
Asia—Pacific) and will take into account the three major categories of museums (art, society, andscience) funded and recognized by the various levels of government. This qualitative survey ofmuseums will make it possible to better identify the main factors having an impact on publicfunding and the operation of museums. The objective is to identify and document new financing
and management models.
As far as methodological choices are concerned, the team’s frame of reference is Survey Methods
and Practice, by Statistics Canada. The members of the Research Alliance have undertaken the
structure of the questionnaire which will be administered by a team of young researchprofessionals who will make sure to follow up with the responding museums if necessary. The
committee will select a corpus of museums judged to be representative according to the threemain categories of museums (art, society, and science) by region.
Step 1: Statistical survey - A double look at the public funding of museums
Considering the objectives and the duration planned for collecting the information, we drew
inspiration from the two recent surveys carried out by UNESCO “Museums around the world
facing the COVID-19 pandemic” published in 2020 and 2021. An online questionnaire will be
produced in order to reach, on the one hand, the line ministries of all the countries which havecreated an ICOM national committee (126) taking into account the breakdown by region. In
addition to the line ministries, we believe it is appropriate to administer this same questionnairewith the national committees. Why this double look? We believe there might be a discrepancy
between the responses provided by States and the responses of representatives of national
museum associations concerned about the future of the museum network. These associations
must defend both national museums and other museum models. This is why we believe that it is1

You can consult the 111 reports, 3 of which were written by Yves Bergeron and Suzanne Dumas (books 1, 5 and10) on the inventory and the economic impact of museums and heritage on the Statistical Institute website :https://statistique.quebec.ca/en/fichier/cahier-1-premier-regard.pdf.

useful to have this double look at the state of museum finances in the perspective where one ofthe objectives of the survey is to identify the issues and impacts of public funding. This statisticalsurvey should highlight the points of convergence and divergence between the vision of theStates, and the wishes of the professional communities. It should be noted that we are planninga pre-test to validate the response categories to the closed questions and ensure the quality of
the responses obtained.
The questionnaire which should be administered at the beginning of 2023 will make it possible todraw up an inventory of public financing for the year 2021–2022 in comparison with the year 2019(pre-pandemic) which we will consider as a reference year for measure changes. We want to
identify the percentage of public funding, taking into account the percentage of own-source
revenue (ticketing, sales of derivative products, room rentals, sponsorships, etc.). By identifying
the percentage of inflation per country, we will be able to determine whether there has been an
actual increase or a decrease in public funding. In addition, we will be able to identify the different
consequences of these changes in museum funding on salaries, job losses, contracts, exhibitions,educational and cultural activities, opening hours, attendance, membership, as well as relations
with financial, scientific and community partners. The last part of the questionnaire will be
devoted to innovative strategies to counter funding cuts and increase museum revenues.
The database will be hosted on a secure university server in Canada and the data shared on theintranet with the team members. The data collected will be validated first by the research teamand then by the ICOM National Committees concerned.

ICOM 124 national Committees

Step 2: Qualitative survey - New models
In parallel with the statistical survey that will be used to establish an inventory of trends observedon the international scene, we are planning a second survey to provide answers to the statistical
data. In September 2022, we undertook exploratory research on trends that will make it possible
to compile an international review of the literature on museum funding since 2019, which will beconsidered the reference year. This literature review, which benefits from the network of ICOFOM
researchers and researchers from the School of Management Sciences at UQAM, will be usefulfor analyzing the results.
From the statistical survey and research on trends, we will compose a representative subgroup of
20 to 25 museums per region. These museums will be selected by the international research teaminsofar as they are distinguished by their policies and strategies for ensuring the financing andmanagement of museums. We will conduct interviews with museums that demonstrateoriginality and that have proposed solutions to the problem of museum funding.
Collaborative Approach
For each step, the Research Alliance intends to adopt a resolutely collaborative approach. Initially,
the questionnaire will be developed by members of the Research Alliance and administered by ateam of young research professionals who will ensure that respondents are followed up as
needed. Alliance members will be responsible for analyzing the data collected for the major areasthey represent. Then, we will consult with ICOM National Committees to ensure the validity ofthe data collected and their interpretation. Regular meetings are planned for each stage of theresearch. This analysis will also be supported by researchers in management sciences who will beable to come and discuss and validate the analysis to cover all the issues. Data analysis will makeit possible to identify the management models that stand out and that are emerging in different
regions, making it possible to plan a face-to-face consultation. We will therefore carry out
interviews to document these typical cases. As for the first stage, the relevance of the case studies
will be validated by the members of the Alliance as well as by experts from the School ofManagement Sciences who will contribute to the writing of these case studies.

Expected Results
It appears difficult to assume the data that the statistical survey will reveal, because it is this firststep that will determine the choice of museums selected for the qualitative survey. What also
seems fundamental to us is to be able to draw up an inventory that reflects the overall reality of
public funding of museums. As for the qualitative survey, it will make it possible to identify thetrends emerging on the international scene. We will thus be able to draw an overview of thedifferent funding models by identifying the museums that are innovating to identify goodpractices. That being said, the quality as well as the relevance of the expected results will be basedon the collaborative work within the research team.
Selected bibliography
Bergeron, Y., S. Dumas, 2006, Inventory of heritage and museum institutions/ État des lieux dupatrimoine et des institutions muséales, Québec, Institut de la statistique. www.stat.gouv.qc.ca
Bergeron, Y. L. Baillargeon, P. Bosset, « Securing public and private funding and managing teams
are serious challenges for museum boards of directors in a time of financial precariousness »,Policy Options politiques, Montréal, Institut de recherche en politiques publiques (IRPP), 24 août2020.https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2020/the-challenge-of-museumgovernance-in-a-pandemic/
Brulon Soares B., Brown K., Nazor O. (ed.), 2018, Defining Museums of the 21st Century : Plural
Experiences, Paris : ICOM/ICOFOM.

Davis, A., F. Mairesse (dir) 2015, New Trends in Muselogy, ICOFOM Study Series - 43-a, 43-b.
Hervé, F., R. Mencarelli, et M. Pulh. « L’évolution de la structure de financement des organisations
muséales : éclairage sur le rôle des endowment funds ». Management international 15, no 3 (28juillet 2011): 4555. https://doi.org/10.7202/1005432ar.
Girault, Y., I. Orellana Rivera, 2020, Actas Coloquio International Museología Participativa, Social
y Crítica, Santiago de Chile, 18, 19 y 20 de noviembre de 2020, Ediciones Museo de la Educación
Gabriela Mistral. Servicio Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural.
ICOM. « Le financement des musées ». Édité par Sara Heft. Nouvelle de l’ICOM 67, no 3 (2014) :22p.
Knell S. J, MacLeod S., Watson S. (ed.), 2007, Museum Revolutions. How Museums Change and
Are Changed, Londres: Routledge.
Lessans Geller, S., L. M. Salamon and K. L. Mengel “Museums and Other Nonprofits in the Current
Recession: A Story of Resilience, Innovation, and Survival”, The Journal of Museum EducationVol.
35, No. 2, Mission, Money, and Authority: Part One (SUMMER 2010), pp. 129–140 (12 pages)
Mairesse F., Desvallées A. (dir.), 2007, Vers une redéfinition du musée ?, Paris : L’Harmattan.
Mairesse, F., 2022, Dictionnaire de muséologie, Paris, Armand Colin.
Pauget, B., Tobelem, « Between Museum and Health Care: An Example of the Successful Creation,
Implementation, and Diffusion of Organizational Innovations » De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of
Innovation Economics & Management » 2019/3 n° 30 | pages 145 à 161.
https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2019-3-page-145.htm
Pearce, Susan. 1991. Museum Economics and the Community. New Research in Museum Studies,
2. London: Atlantic Highlands.
Pomian, K. (2020) Le Musée une histoire mondiale, 1 Du trésor au musée, Paris, Gallimard.
Rex, Bethany, et Peter Campbell. « Local Authority Investment in Museums after a Decade ofAusterity ». London : Museums Association, 2021.
Rivet, Michèle. « La définition de musée, défis et compromis au XXIe siècle » : ICOFOM Study
Series, no 482 (15 décembre 2020): 193207. https://doi.org/10.4000/iss.2765.
Robert R. J., 2009, Museums in a Troubled World Renewal, Irrelevance or Collapse?, Routhledge.
Sandahl J. (ed.), 2019, “The Museum Definition, The Backbone of Museums”, Museum
International, 71 (281–282), pp. 1–169.

3. Description of the social impact and actions to promote the results of the project (1 page / 500
words maximum)
Social impact of the research

The general statistical data that IRAPFM will collect will make it possible to identify what should
be understood by “Public Funding”. Looking on the one hand at the realities on the ground, thesedata will measure the disparities between countries, as well as the disparities between the official
discourse and what the Museums associations have communicated. This analysis will thus
contribute, on the other hand, to raising the awareness of the communities and will allow, if
required, approaches and claims with funding agencies, with national governments, as well as
regional or international bodies.
The qualitative data collected is also of prime importance. The 25 museums selected by each of
the members of the Consortium and international experts will allow the collection of data andinformation and will encourage dialogue and pooling. IRAFPM has chosen these different partners
with great care; They come from different cultures, languages, and continents. Most certainly, if
indeed the answers are different depending on the type of museum, these answers could also be
different depending on the solutions adopted. It will be very interesting to analyze it. These
answers will serve as examples and models to other museums. In a way, these will be laboratory
experiments that could be disseminated on a larger scale. A hypothesis: It I generally acceptedthat social museology plays an important role in Brazil. Can we think of original solutions, of“imagination in power”, in the responses that IRAPFM will receive from Brazil museums? Thequestion arises for each of the museums that will be approached. Moreover, throughout thedrafting of the report, the members of the consortium as well as the international researchers will
be called upon and work together. Already, ideas will circulate, solutions will be exchanged.
Proposals to disseminate the research results after completion
That year research will not stay on the shelves. The ideas will be disseminated even during thewriting of the report. The following mentions are far from being exhaustive and simply give an
idea of the type of dissemination that is envisaged: as broad, as efficient as possible.
The report will have a set of recommendations for international and regional organizations, local
governments, and museums associations. These recommendations will be sent to each of thesecomponents and published, namely on social media.
The report will also address and disseminate recommendations to museums, based on thequalitative surveys with them. To do so, IRAPFM will propose series of webinars following theoutstanding work done by ICOM Define: Standing Committee for the Museum Definition withwebinars. IRAPFM will work with museums associations and local partners identified along thesesurveys, establishing think tanks and some global network.
IRAPFM will also have some recommendations for future research or actions. Along the year,
some questions will appear of importance, arising from data, surveys, and not covered or lengthy
discussed.
4. Bibliography supporting the research project (1 to 2 pages / 1000 words maximum)
International publications
DAVIS, A., and F. Mairesse (ed). (2015). “New Trends in Muselogy” ICOFOM Study Series: 43a (215p.), 43-b (270 p.)
ICOM. (2020). Survey: Museums, museum professionals and COVID-19, 21 p.
———. (2020). Follow-up report: Museums, Museum professionals and COVID-19, 34 p.
UNESCO (2019). Culture and public policy for sustainable development. Paris: Unesco, 103 p.
———. (2006). “Museum and cultural policy” Museum International, Vol 58, n°4 / 232, 76 p.
———. (1982). “Museums, heritage and cultural policies in Latin America and the Caribbean”
Museum International, Vol 32, n° 2, 69 p.
Country Specific Surveys

BERGERON, Yves, Suzannne Dumas, Marie-Thérèse H. Thibault, Louise Dusseault-Letocha,
Jacques Grimard, and Charles Ramangalahy. (2006). État des lieux du patrimoine des institutions
muséales et des archives. Cahier 1 : Premier regard. Québec: Observatoire de la culture et descommunications du Québec, Institut de la statistique du Québec, 70 p.
MANJARREZ, Carlos, Carole Rosenstein, Celeste Colgan, and Erica Pastore. (2008). Exhibiting
Public Value: Museum Public Finance In the United States (IMLS-2008-RES-02). Washington, D.C:
Institute of Museum and Library Services, 158 p.
Heritage Canada (2019). Government of Canada Survey of Heritage Institutions: 2019. Ottawa 53
p.
Museums Association. (2018). Museums in the UK 2018 Report. London: Museums Association,
30 p.
Office fédéral de la statistique (OFS). (2021). Paysage muséal et public des musées en Suisse:
Situation en 2019 et évolution sur cinq ans. Statistique de la Suisse. Suisse, Neufchâtel. 32 p.
Books
BRULON SOARES B., Brown K., and Nazor O. (ed.). (2018). Defining Museums of the 21st Century:
Plural Experiences, Paris : ICOM/ ICOFOM, 233 p.
FREY, Bruno S. (2019). Economics of Art and Culture. Springer in Economics.Cham: Springer,142 p.
GINSBURGH, Victor, and C. D. Throsby. (2014) Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture.
Volume 2. Oxford, UK: North-Holland, 678 p.
KNELL, S. J, MacLeod S., and Watson S. (ed.). (2007). Museum Revolutions. How Museums Change
and Are Changed, Londres : Routledge. 416 p.
MAIRESSE, François, and Fabrice Rochelandet. (2015). Économie Des Arts Et De La Culture.
Collection U. Sciences Humaines & Sociales. Paris: A. Colin. 272 p.
MAIRESSE, François, (ed.). (2022). Dictionnaire de muséologie, Paris, Armand Colin. 710 p.
MATHIEU, Chris, and Valerie Visanich, (ed). (2023). Accomplishing Cultural Policy in Europe :Financing, Governance and Responsiveness. The Sociology and Management of the Arts.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 228 p.
PEARCE, Susan. (1991). Museum Economics and the Community. New Research in Museum
Studies, 2. London: Atlantic Highlands. 219 p.
ArticlesBALLARINI, Marie. (2020). “Musées et financements participatifs: Nouvelles pratiques etreprésentations”. Réseaux N° 219, no 1: 203 240.
BERGERON, Y. L. Baillargeon, and P. Bosset. (2020). “Securing public and private funding andmanaging teams are serious challenges for museum boards of directors in a time of financial
precariousness”, Policy Options politiques, Montréal, Institut de recherche en politiques
publiques (IRPP).
CAMARERO, Carmen, María-José Garrido, and Eva Vicente. (2021) “Social and Financial Signalling
to Increase Fundraising Revenue in Museums”. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 1
21.
FREY, Bruno S., and Lasse Steiner. (2012) “Pay as You Go: A New Proposal for Museum Pricing”.
Museum Management and Curatorship 27, no 3 : 223 35.
HERVÉ, Fabrice, Rémi Mencarelli, and Mathilde Pulh. (2011) “L’évolution de la structure definancement des organisations muséales : éclairage sur le rôle des endowment funds”.
Management international 15, no 3 : 45 55.
LESSANS GELLER, S., L. M. Salamon and K. L. Mengel. (2010) “Museums and Other Nonprofits in
the Current Recession: A Story of Resilience, Innovation, and Survival”, The Journal of Museum
Education Vol. 35, No. 2, Mission, Money, and Authority: Part One (12 pages)
LINDQVIST, Katja. (2012) “Museum Finances: Challenges beyond Economic Crises”. Museum
Management and Curatorship 27, no 1 : 1 15.

PROKŮPEK, Marek, Ellen Loots, and Diana Betzler. (2022) “Emergency or Emerging Financing
Strategies of Art Museums in the Context of a Pandemic?” Museum Management andCuratorship, 1 18.
PROTEAU, Jasmine. (2018) “Reducing Risky Relationships: Criteria for Forming Positive MuseumCorporate Sponsorships”. Museum Management and Curatorship 33, no 3 : 235 42.
REX, Bethany. (2020) “Which Museums to Fund? Examining Local Government Decision-Making
in Austerity”. Local Government Studies 46, no 2:186 205.
VICENTE, Eva, Carmen Camarero, et María José Garrido. (2012) “Insights into Innovation in
European Museums: The Impact of Cultural Policy and Museum Characteristics”. Public
Management Review 14, no 5:649 79.
WOODWARD, Simon. (2012) “Funding Museum Agendas: Challenges and Opportunities”.
Managing Leisure 17, no 1:14 28.
5. Description of the consortium (1 page / 500 words)
Abbreviations or this specific text:“CS:” Members of the Consortium“IE”: International Experts“They”: Lead Partner, Members of the Consortium, International Experts
Overall description
It is essential for IRAPFM, that Members of the Consortium (CS) represent different continents,
different parts of the world, to have with the Lead Partner an ongoing relationship throughout
the whole year, for a better understanding of the geopolitical global worldwide situation and topresent a broad variety of recommendations. These Members of the Consortium engage their
university, their museum. Members of the Consortium include Canada (North America) as theLead partner, Brazil (South America), New Zealand (Oceania), and Spain (Europe). They are
joined by “International Researcher” (IR), who want to be closely involved but were not able toget the credentials of their institution due to time constraints: namely USA, South Africa, andIndia.
• CS as IR will act as consultants through the whole year.
• Both CS and IR will play an essential role in permitting IRAPFM to cover, as required, eachmajor worldwide region so comparisons can be made in a much more complete and in-depth
fashion.
Responsibilities of each researcher in the development of the project• Questionnaires will be built and set up by the Lead Partner and discussed with CS/IR.
• CS will identify between 20 and 25 Museums, in his/her country/region, that will answer thequestionnaire on public funding, on decrease if so of funding, and on new business models
developed as a result.
• CS will help in assessing the received Museums’ answers.
• CS and IR will also look at all the bibliographical research, complete it if required, and identify
critical theoretical issues analyzed by international authors.
• CS and the Lead Partner with the help of IR, if necessary, will look at all Museums answers
received, at all data compiled from official governments and museums associations determine
practical issues that international community is facing.
• CS and IR will be part of a think tank with the Lead Partner that will meet every 4 to 6 weeks,at least for the second part of the year, by zoom.
• They will all work in the report’ writing.
• They will arrive to a set of recommendations for measures to be implemented internationallyor nationally or for future research.

• In doing so, CS and IR will keep in mind their role in developing the social impact of theresearch (see Social Impact) and will help in framing it more specifically.
• CS and IR will collaborate with the Lead Partner in developing tools to disseminate research
results after completion (See Dissemination) and will help in the dissemination itself.
Executive Committee (Lead Partner) composition:
Pr. Yves Bergeron, Ph.D. Founder of the Chair on Museum Governance and Cultural Law (UQAM).
Pr. Bergeron has lengthy published on Museum Studies and has namely an experience of morethan 15 years with publications working with the Observatoire de la Culture, Quebec Statistic
Institute. (SEE RESUME)
Pr. Lisa Baillargeon, Ph.D. Founding member of the Chair on Museum Governance and CulturalLaw. Lisa Baillargeon is a tenure professor at the École des Sciences de la gestion (UQAM Business
School) and has extensive experience in accounting, management, and governance.
Me Michèle Rivet., C.M., Ad.E. Scientific Director, Chair on Museum Governance and CulturalLaw. In 2017, Me Rivet administered a survey of 23 countries to research how and why the 2007
ICOM museum definition is considered or not into their national legislation for ICOFOM.