OK Sandy, go on, let's get it out into the light of day--please explain the parallels. So far, I've got the following: 1. Academic accreditation is bad (even though it has nothing but the name in common with museum accreditation), 2. So probably museum accreditation is somehow bad (even though 90% of museums get on just fine without it), and 3. Museum accreditation is somehow especially bad for railroad museums, or we wouldn't be discussing it here, right?

I can't really see that this amounts to much of a logical argument.

What I do see is a powerful emotional argument, in which we are again invited to focus our wrath on the Snidely Whiplash academics, or accreditors, or some other pointy-headed elite, that never gets grease under its fingernails, that is somehow doing something, that in some unspecified way--that we must nevertheless explore!--is bad for railway preservation.

If I were to need surgery, I'd sure prefer an accredited hospital.

dave

And what I'm seeing is a highly emotional reaction by someone who seems upset or indignant at someone raising questions about the very field in which he works and makes a living. It's to be expected, especially when there are no hard-and-fast answers to be had as there are in math and engineering.

In the article cited, someone is questioning the "return on investment" and the actual worth of accreditation of institutions of higher learning. The term gets bandied about a bit, but few in the public seem to really understand all that it actually entails, other than a "good college/bad college" guideline. To cite the authors of the study cited in the essay, "college accreditation depends overwhelmingly on the assessment of its inputs and procedures rather than on outcomes." Thus, the question raised: What does a college get for its accreditation?

We can ask the same for museum accreditation: What does a museum get in return for its accreditation by AAM or anyone else?

Now, to belatedly answer your other question:



PRR 7002 and 1223 and train on the PRR main line. 611 and 1218 thundering side by side at Christianburg. 844 and 3985 on the UP main lines. SP 4449, T&P 610 and Reading 2101 on the American Freedom Train. Heck, the entire Strasburg Railroad, East Broad Top, Durango & Silverton, etc. A wheelchair-accessible excursion car or streetcar. And an entire generation of railfans knowing something beyond SD40-2's, Amtrak, double-stack container trains, and AC44CW's.

In short, the concept of "historical fabric" cannot and should not be ignored. But nor should one become a slave to it, either.

Gentlemen:

First, we HAVE D&S, CATS, Strasburg, et al as well as MOT's collection, the Smithsonian's. etc. No point arguing about valid models for either philosophy.

Second, I'm pretty sure the most pressing reason we don't see doubleheaded steam on the PRR (or any other) main line is PRR (or whoever else) in it's new corporate guise. We've got mainline ready locomotives capable of working many more events than they can work now due to lack of venue oportunity. Perhaps not 1223 and 7004, but still mainline steam.

Can we bring any valid basis for continuing any discussion back into the real world, please?

dave

Dave I agree that there are models of conservation using both operational and non-operational display techniques. Dicussing which is better will be fruitless, because both have their advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps we can improve on the quality of both of these techniques by considering the questions which I had mentioned earlier in this threat

To me, accreditation seems to be ill fit for guiding railroad preservation. However, I do feel that there is a collective desire for some sort of meaningful overseeing body which guide preservationists on using appropriate conservation and preservation techniques in their use of artifacts.

Accreditation can be used successfully in fields where customers make a significant long-term investment and want a positive long-term outcome i.e. colleges and hospitals. In these situations customers attend the said institution for a given length of time, and expect positive long term results. The accreditation is a predictor of long-term success as a result of attending a given instuitution.

In retrospect, a museum may be attended by visitors multiple times, and the visitor expects both short and long term benefits each time they visit in the form of knowldge, memories and entertainment. I would bargain that average visitor chooses to visit a museum not because of an accreditation status, but rather due to their collection and its condition. After attending once, or several times, they are satisfied.

Perhaps accreditation could be successfuly employeed for financial benefits. Foundations and individuals seeking to make donations may want to see a positive predictor of the long-term success of the result of their investment. This could be provided by an accreditation body such as the AAM or a similar organization.

Stephen Piwowarski
Berkshire Scenic Railway Museum, Inc.

I think, quite possibly, the program we need has in fact just been introduced--and there was a presentation on it at the Fall 2010 ARM Meeting.

I doubt we need, or can support, and accrediting body--there is a significant amount of overhead in running a peer-reviewed, juried accreditation system and we are too small to easily support it, even on a volunteer basis.

However, we could use a structured system of voluntary, self-paced, self-review. Enter StEPS: The Standards and Excellence Program for History Organizations, from AASLH.

"StEPs is a voluntary assessment program for small- and mid-sized history organizations. The program, created by AASLH with funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services, encourages awareness and achievement of national standards. Organizations that enroll in this new self-paced, self-study program use assessment questions and performance indicators (Basic, Good, Better) to rate their policies and practices in six standards sections. Participating organizations can clearly identify their strengths and areas needing improvement, and begin taking steps to plan for positive change.

How will this program benefit my organization? StEPs offers:

* Increased credibility with funders, your community, and stakeholders
* Education and awareness of standards for staff and volunteers, members of your governing authority, and your community
* A valuable opportunity to make the case for improvement to stakeholders for staffing, training, materials, and equipment
* Improved policies and practices based on national standards
* Clear direction for future improvement
* Meaningful progress–identify, articulate, and measure your organization’s accomplishments
* Easier and more meaningful long-range and budget planning
* Preparation for participation in other programs including AAM’s Museum Assessment and Accreditation programs."

Take a look:

http://www.aaslh.org/steps.htm

What you have fundamentally is a clash in culture between two railway museum factions.

The "intellectual museum types" want to see researched restorations, sensible collection policies, and interpretive exhibits, and they're always on about grants and fundraising and a public face.

The "emotional train clubbers" are there to play with trains... and are highly reactionary to rules which MIGHT restrict their freedom to do whatever the heck they want.

And then there are those who walk into the museum and ask difficult questions like:

"Why isn't the person who designed the equipment mentioned in this exhibit?"

And that seems to get everybody in both groups upset.

PC

As someone who has had to be on both sides of this "gulf" at various times, let me correct:

The "emotional train clubbers" will listen to well-reasoned proposals to restrict their pleasures. What they will react to are "rules" which definitely WILL restrict their freedom in trade for debatable, and perhaps less easily quantifiable, gain in other areas--of which "preservation of historic fabric" is the one that started this whole thread.

Or, in a paraphrase of one bit of sarcastic cynicism I heard one time, "What's the use of going out to get a bunch of grants if, once we have the money, you won't let us touch the original paint to restore it?"