MUSEUMS AND MONEY: THE IMPACT OF PROVINCIAL CULTURAL POLICY

by

Robin Nelson

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Museum Studies

Faculty of Information University of Toronto

© Copyright by Robin Nelson 2015

ii

ii

Museums and Money: The Impact of Provincial Cultural Policy

Robin Nelson

Master of Museum Studies

Faculty of Information University of Toronto

2015

Abstract

This thesis examines the influence of provincial funding strategies on museum public

programming in New Brunswick from 2002 until 2014. Using a literature review and archival

research, I traced the development of New Brunswick cultural policy from the 1960s to 2014.

Then, I conducted interviews with seventeen individuals representing museums or the

Government of New Brunswick (GNB). The results demonstrate that GNB’s Exhibit Renewal

and Museum Activities Support Program, a project-based grant, increased the quantity of new or

renewed exhibits and encouraged ancillary programming, but limited human resource capacity

restricted its use. The provincial Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED)

program provided funding for summer staff that offer programming, but SEED’s administration

led to challenges, such as a lack of consistency from one year to the next. I recommend

additional research into the use of GNB’s Museum Network and a shift in government priorities

toward increasing museums’ human resource capacity.

iii

iii

Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to thank those who participated in my research. This thesis would

not have been possible without the participation of individuals from New Brunswick’s museum

community. I appreciate all of their assistance and patience as they answered my questions.

I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Alan Stanbridge, for providing

invaluable advice and assistance. I would also like to thank Dr. Cara Krmpotich for her support

and guidance in this thesis process.

Many thanks are also due to the wonderful staff at the Provincial Archives in Fredericton.

iv

iv

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS   III  

TABLE OF CONTENTS   IV  

LIST OF TABLES   VI  

LIST OF FIGURES   VII  

LIST OF APPENDICES   VIII  

CHAPTER  1 INTRODUCTION   1  

1.1   CONTEXT   1  1.1.1   KEY  TERMS   1  1.1.2   SIGNIFICANCE   3  1.2   THEORETICAL  AND  METHODOLOGICAL  APPROACHES   5  1.2.1   SCOPE   6  1.2.2   LIMITATIONS   10  1.3   CHAPTER  OUTLINE   12  

CHAPTER  2 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: NEW BRUNSWICK CULTURAL POLICY

FROM THE 1960S TO 2014   14  

2.1   CULTURAL  POLICY  IN  NEW  BRUNSWICK   14  2.1.1   FRAMEWORKS:  ROBICHAUD  AND  FEDERAL  INFLUENCE   14  2.1.2   A  PERIOD  OF  CONSULTATIONS:  THE  HATFIELD  AND  MCKENNA  GOVERNMENTS   17  2.1.3   TIME  FOR  CHANGE:  BERNARD  LORD   20  2.2   DISCUSSION   22  2.3   CONCLUSION   31  

CHAPTER  3 GOVERNED DIRECTION: THE INFLUENCE OF PROJECT-BASED FUNDING

ON MUSEUM PUBLIC PROGRAMMING IN NEW BRUNSWICK   34  

3.1   PUBLIC  PROGRAMMING   34  3.2   FUNDING  OVERVIEW   35  3.2.1    BRUSHING  OFF  THE  DUST:  INCREASING  THE  QUANTITY  AND  QUALITY  OF      EXHIBITS   40  

v

v

3.2.2     ANCILLARY  CONTENT:  EXHIBITS  GENERATING  OTHER  ACTIVITIES   44  3.2.3   AN  EXHIBIT  AND  A  TOUR:  THE  STANDARD  FORMAT   45  3.3   DISCUSSION   48  3.4   CONCLUSION   52  

CHAPTER  4 THE NEED FOR SEED: THE INFLUENCE OF THE STUDENT EMPLOYMENT

AND EXPERIENCE DEVELOPMENT (SEED) PROGRAM ON MUSEUM PUBLIC

PROGRAMMING   53  

4.1   FOUNDATIONS   54  4.2   MUSEUM  EMPLOYMENT  IN  NB   55  4.2.1   THE  NEED  FOR  SEED   55  4.2.2   A  BRIEF  HISTORY  OF  SEED   56  4.2.3   REFLECTION  FROM  THE  MUSEUM  COMMUNITY   59  4.3   DISCUSSION   65  4.4   CONCLUSION   66  

CHAPTER  5 CONCLUSION   68  

5.1   AN  OVERVIEW   68  5.2   OBSERVATIONS  AND  DIRECTIONS  FOR  FUTURE  RESEARCH   70  5.2.1   EXPLICIT  VS.  IMPLICIT   70  5.2.2   DISTRIBUTION   72  5.2.3   CIVIL  DISCOURSE   75  5.3   CONCLUSIONS   77  

ENDNOTES   79  

REFERENCES   88  

APPENDICES   100  

vi

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: 9 Interview Participants Divided into Small, Medium, and Large Scale institutions.

Table 2: 17 Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1967 to 1980.

Table 3: 19 Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1980 to 1999.

Table 4: 22 Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1999 to 2014.

Table 5: 42 Financial Information for the Museums Used as Examples in Chapter Three.

vii

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: 7 Interview Participants' Museums' Operating Grant from GNB in 2014-2015. Figure 2: 7 Community Museums and Historical Societies Operating Grants from GNB in 2014-2015. Figure 3: 36 Community Museums and Historical Societies Operational Funding from GNB in 2010-2011. Figure 4: 43 Total Number of Times Museums Received an Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Grant from 2003-2004 to 2014-2015. Figure 5: 57 Number of SEED/PEP Students by Year. Figure 6: 58 SEED/PEP Number of Weeks by Year. Figure 7: 62 The Average Number of Weeks per SEED Position per Year.

viii

viii

List of Appendices

Appendix A: 96 List of Abbreviations. Appendix B: 97 List of Community Museums and Historical Societies that have Received an Operating Grant from GNB between 2002-2003 and 2014-2015. Appendix C: 99 Interview Participants. Appendix D: 100 Sample Interview Topic Guide. Appendix E: 102 Museum Network Map and Chart.

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Within Canada, culture is not the domain of one level of government. Instead, museums’ local,

provincial, and federal governments all influence museum operations. The origins of provincial

cultural policies in Canada reflect different funding frameworks, which have subsequently been

shaped by distinct regional concerns and priorities (Gattinger and Sainte-Pierre 2008). The

Government of New Brunswick (GNB) has a history of direct involvement in heritage and is the

largest single source of funding for community museums in the province.1 However, New

Brunswick cultural policy and, more specifically, policies influencing the province’s museums

are understudied. My research responds to this gap, asking two interrelated questions. First, how

has cultural policy evolved in New Brunswick from the emergence of a deliberate approach in

the 1960s to 2014? Second, how has New Brunswick cultural policy influenced community

museum public programming from the release of GNB’s first comprehensive policy articulation

in 2002 – Cultural Policy for New Brunswick – to the release of the renewed policy in 2014 –

Creative Future: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick?

1.1 Context

1.1.1 Key Terms

Culture is a contested and unstable concept with multiple definitions. As such, the definition of

cultural policy involves multiple interpretations that vary both within and across disciplines.

First, cultural policy can be the range of activities that the government does or does not enact in

an area that the state defines as ‘culture,’ varying across jurisdictions (Gray 2010). Second,

cultural policies can be any “actions that a state and its many operational entities take that affect

the cultural life of its citizens, whether directly or indirectly, whether intentionally or

unintentionally” (Mulcahy 2006a, 267). Third, within museum studies, cultural policy is often

discussed through the lens of Foucault’s governmentality (T. Bennett 1995; Foucault 1991) –

“that is, the process by which the state comes to manage individuals” (Mulcahy 2006b, 320). For

the purposes of my research, I begin with the second definition as a basis for cultural policy.

However, as public policy is “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (Dye 2005, 1;

qtd. in Mulcahy 2006b, 320), I am expanding Mulcahy’s definition to include state inaction in

2

addition to action. Further, since I am investigating the ramifications of policy on museums, an

analysis of all policy issues that influence the cultural life of citizens is not relevant. Schuster

(2003) identifies the arts, humanities, and heritage as three pillars within cultural policy when

looking at Washington State. He argues that while “policy conversation and cooperation within

each of these areas is only weakly developed, policy conversation across these areas is nearly

nonexistent with only a very few exceptions” (2003, 27). This thesis examines museum and

heritage policy as a subsection of cultural policy. Provincial cultural policy will, therefore, refer

to Government of New Brunswick policy articulation, action, or inaction that influences

museums in New Brunswick.

Ahearne distinguishes ‘explicit’ or ‘nominal’ cultural policies – that is, “policies that are

explicitly labeled as ‘cultural’” (2009, 141) – from ‘implicit’ or ‘effective’ cultural policies – that

is “policies that are not labeled manifestly as ‘cultural,’ but work to prescribe or shape cultural

attitudes and habits over given territories” (Ibid.). For example, Cultural Policy for New

Brunswick (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a), as well as its associated support programs, are

labeled as cultural and are, therefore, explicit cultural policies. Conversely, GNB’s Student

Employment and Experience Development (SEED) program is not labeled cultural but has a

significant influence on museum operations because it provides non-profit organizations, such as

museums, with summer employees. As such, it is an implicit cultural policy. Since Mulcahy

(2006a) notes that the government’s effect can be direct or indirect as well as intentional or

unintentional, I discuss both explicit and implicit cultural policies in this thesis.

For the purposes of this thesis, a museum is any organization that receives or has received direct

or indirect assistance through the Government of New Brunswick’s Museum Services Section

within the Heritage Branch or any of the Section’s earlier iterations, focusing on the non-profit

sector. In 2014-2015, 106 organizations received some form of support through the provincially

orchestrated Museum Network, but GNB identifies less than 60 as museums receiving

operational funding (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014).2 I focus on non-profit museums

because GNB defines a museum as “a non-profit community institution, which acts as a

custodian to maintain, conserve, study, and interpret a permanent collection of heritage

resources” (Heritage Branch 2015a, 1). More specifically, I have investigated museums that

receive the Community Museums Assistance Grant (See Appendix B). I will, therefore, use the

3

term ‘community museums’ in reference to museums that are neither for profit nor a key

provincial institution – that is, the New Brunswick Museum, the Beaverbrook Art Gallery, Kings

Landing Historical Settlement, Le Village Historique Acadien, and the Provincial Archives of

New Brunswick (GNB 2014) – and receive an operational grant from the Provincial

Government.

1.1.2 Significance

Despite historical differences, Canadian cultural policy analyses have primarily been conducted

at the federal level (Harvey 1998; Gattinger and Saint-Pierre 2008; Jeannotte and Pineau 2013).

There are some notable exceptions, such as research into the neo-liberal shift or turn found in

Canadian provincial cultural policy (Marontate and Murray 2010; Gattinger and Saint-Pierre

2010; Jeannotte 2010). Further, Gattinger and Saint-Pierre’s Les Politiques culturelles

provinciales et territoriales du Canada: origines, évolutions et mises en oeuvre3 (2011) includes

a chapter on subnational cultural policy in each Canadian province and territory. To date, the

book has only been published in French and the chapter investigating New Brunswick has certain

limitations (Gattinger and Saint-Pierre 2011; Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011). Studies into New

Brunswick cultural policy have only discussed government articulations, action, and inaction that

are explicitly cultural (Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011; Pichette 2001). However, there are

government support programs, such as SEED, with objectives outside the purview of New

Brunswick’s official cultural policy that have an influence on museum public programming.

Unlike previous attempts to examine cultural policy in New Brunswick, I will consider the

influence of an implicit cultural policy, namely SEED, on museum public programming.

Barrieau and Bourgeois (2011), Pichette (2001), as well as Gattinger and Saint-Pierre (2008)

identify two strands of cultural policy in New Brunswick. One recognizes and valorizes “the arts

and culture” and a second recognizes the two official languages, according the same rights to

both linguistic groups. I argue the importance of acknowledging multiple cultural policies or

pillars as identified by Schuster (2003), which have developed concurrently in New Brunswick.

There is now an articulated policy that aims to be comprehensive, but such a policy has only

existed since 2002. Independent documents and branches in different sub-sectors, like art or

heritage, previously guided GNB action or inaction and attempts to analyze cultural policy have

been exclusive. In tracing the historical trajectory of policy concerning art and artists, authors

4

have overlooked the development of policy affecting museums. For example, Barrieau and

Bourgeois (2011) highlight support to the New Brunswick Museum as an early example of

cultural intervention, but they do not include the 1973 provincial museum policy in their

analysis. In contrast, I focus on policy articulations concerning museums up to and including

Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (2002). Further, there are multiple actors with distinct

mandates that developed and implemented programs guided by Cultural Policy for New

Brunswick from 2002 to 2014. After its release, the museum community and the Heritage Branch

collaborated to develop support programs; however, scholarship discussing New Brunswick

cultural policy has focused on the creation of other branches and departments. For instance,

Ouellette (2001) notes that Premier Louis J. Robichaud’s vision of a cultural policy led to the

creation of the Cultural Affairs Branch in March 1968. I demonstrate that the evolution of the

Historical Resource Administration (1967) into the Heritage Branch has not only influenced the

subsequent actions of the Branch, but has also contributed to the development of existing

government action influencing museum operations.

My research examines GNB’s influence on public programming developments in museums

because “social results influence the economic results and vice versa” (Camarero and Garrido

2009, 862). Achieving social objectives, such as “educating the visitors, and creating enthusiasm

for culture,” increases visitor numbers and, consequently, has a positive influence on museum

income (Ibid.). Accordingly, research on visitor-oriented or audience-centric museums finds that

the creation of visitor-focused products, such as exhibits or other public programs, is a means of

increasing organizational stability because these products enhance the likelihood audiences will

return and/or recommend the museum to others (Pietro et al. 2014; Reussner 2003). Further,

public programming benefits patrons by providing access to and engagement with resources,

which can lead to a more sustainable museum by fostering relationships between the institution

and community (Selvakumar and Storksdieck 2013). Lindqvist (2012) argues that the

management of stakeholder relationships is a more reliable way of dealing with financial crises

than short-term strategies. Stakeholders are any group or individual that “can affect or is affected

by the achievement of an organization’s objective” (Freeman 1984, 46),4 which includes

museum audiences. Since public programming is a means of creating relationships with

stakeholders and the development of stakeholder relations is an effective way to achieve long-

5

term economic sustainability,5 my research explores the effect of government support strategies

on the future sustainability of museums.

In short, there is little research on Canadian subnational cultural policy and existing literature on

New Brunswick is limited. The evolutions of explicit cultural policy initiatives since the 1960s,

such as the Heritage Branch and museum or heritage policy articulations, have contributed to

government action supporting museums from 2002 to 2014. However, their development is not

wholly examined in the existing scholarship (Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011; Gattinger and Saint-

Pierre 2008; Pichette 2001). Further, my research shows implicit cultural policy programs like

SEED are crucial to many community museums but, to my knowledge, student employment

programs have not been discussed as cultural policy in the academic literature. The absences

highlight the need for subnational cultural policy research focusing on heritage and museum sub-

sector policy developments in New Brunswick.

1.2 Theoretical and Methodological Approaches

Building on Barrieau and Bourgeois’ (2011) research into New Brunswick cultural policy, I use

a historical institutionalist approach in my research, which considers historical and institutional

factors – that is, “the formal rules, compliance procedures, and standard operating practices that

structure the relationship between individuals in various units of the polity and economy” (Hall

1986, 19; Imbeau et al. 2000). Effectively, I look at the historical development of cultural policy

prior to 2002 in order to analyze developments and influence from 2002 to 2014 because

“changes are not only dependent on current actions and events but also on a series of previous

events” (Kickert and van der Meer 2011, 476).

As part of my approach, I conducted a literature review on cultural policy and, more

specifically, the historical factors shaping its development in New Brunswick, focusing on public

support for museum programming. The review involved scholarly and non-scholarly sources,

including government publications and reports, news releases, newspaper articles, and websites.

I also accessed GNB, Association Museums New Brunswick (AMNB), museum, and personal

files in the Provincial Archives, enhancing my analysis with primary materials from the

departments and individuals that have implemented and received GNB support for community

6

museums. The review and archival research form the basis for Chapter Two, which provides an

overview of explicit cultural policy development from the 1960s to 2014.

In order to elucidate the perceived and understood realities of government policies and policy

outputs, I conducted in-depth interviews with people affected by the Government of New

Brunswick’s funding strategies – that is, representatives from community museums, a private

museum, and Heritage Branch employees (See Appendix C). The interviews were conducted

using a semi-structured interview style with open-ended questions (See Appendix D). I

conducted interviews with three current government staff as well as one representative from a for

profit museum. Since the purpose of the research is to gain a broader understanding of the impact

of policy outputs on the non-profit community museums sector, I conducted thirteen interviews

with representatives from non-profit museums in New Brunswick receiving an operating grant

from GNB. These interviews form the foundation of Chapters Three and Four, which analyze the

influence of policy on museum public programming within the context of their historical

development.

1.2.1 Scope

Interview participants representing non-profit museums include directors (volunteer and paid),

curators, a past president, and general volunteer or board members. While the participants’ titles

varied across the institutions, they all have some influence on or involvement in museum

operations. The thirteen participants represent museums on the list of eighty-three organizations

that have received an operational grant from the Heritage Branch as a historical society or

community museum between 2002-2003 and 2014-2015 (Appendix B). Interview participants

include seven museums receiving $4,999 or less, two museums receiving $5,000 to $9,999, three

museums receiving $10,000 to $19,999, and one museum receiving more than $100,000 from

GNB in 2014-2015. In other words, 54% of my interviews were with museums that receive

$1,000 to $4,999 (Figure 1). In comparison, 54% of the total operational grants to community

museums and historical societies went to organizations in that category in the same year (Figure

2). The next category represents 15% of my interviews and 20% of the total grants. While the

first two interview categories are comparable to the overall percentages, 23% of my interviews

were with museums receiving a $10,000 to $19,999 operational grant and that group only

represents 8% of the total grants awarded in 2014-2015. I interviewed no one from the 9%

7

receiving $20,000 to $49,999 or the 6% receiving $50,00 to $99,999. The last category is

organizations that received more than $100,000, which is 3% of the overall and 8% of my

interviews.

In Chapter Three, I discuss museums as small, medium, and large institutions (Table 1), using

the following criteria: museum’s operational grant from GNB, revenue according to the Canada

Revenue Agency, whether the museum has a year-round employee, and the organization’s

opening hours. Small-scale museums usually receive an operational grant of less than $5,000

54%

15%

23%

8%

Figure 1: Interview Participants' Museums' Operating Grant from GNB in 2014-2015

 

$1,000 - $4,999

$5,000 - $9,999

$10,000 - $19,999

$25,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $99,999

$200,000 - $300,000

54%  20%  

8%  

9%  

6%   3%  

Figure 2: Community Museums and Historical Societies Operating Grants from GNB in 2014-2015 (Allen-Scott, Godin

and Tremblay 2014)

$1,000 - $4,999

$5,000 - $9,999

$10,000 - $19,999

$25,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $99,999

$200,000 - $300,000

8

from GNB, have revenue of less than $50,000, do not have a year-round employee, and are only

open for regular hours seasonally. However, if a museum has revenue of less than $50,000 but

has an employee and is open for regular hours year-round, they are not considered a small-scale

museum. For example, Kings County Museum (KCM) only had revenue of $33,838 in 2013 but

received nonfinancial support from their municipality in the form of accommodations. As such,

they can afford a year-round director and can open during the winter. I have, therefore,

considered the KCM as a medium-scale institution and not a small-scale museum. Medium-

scale museums usually receive an operational grant between $5,000 and $10,000 from GNB,

have revenue of less than $100,000, can have a year-round employee, and may or may not be

open year-round. Large-scale museums usually receive an operational grant of over $10,000

from GNB, have revenue exceeding $100,000, have a year-round employee, and are often open

year round or closed for only two to three months. However, I have considered museums that

have revenue exceeding $100,000, but do not have a year-round employee as medium scale. For

example, Westmorland Historical Society, which operates the Keillor House, had $214,174 in

revenue in 2013, but they do not have a year-round employee and are only open for regular hours

seasonally. I have, therefore, included Keillor House as a medium-scale institution.

The interview participants from community museums that chose to be identified by name and

institution or institution only were from: the John Fischer Memorial Museum, the McAdam

Restoration Commission, the Chocolate Museum, the Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton,

the Fredericton Region Museum, the Campbell Carriage Factory Museum, the Musée historique

de Tracadie, the Musée Mgr.-Camille-Andre Leblanc, the Restigouche Regional Museum, the

Keillor House, and the Kings County Museum. Two participants chose to remain completely

anonymous

9

Table 1: Interview Participants Divided into Small, Medium, and Large Scale Institutions.

Museum Zone Community Museum Assistance Program 2002-2003; 2014-2015

Revenue as per their 2013 CRA report

Participant Year-round employee (y/n)

Large-scale museums Campbell Carriage Factory Museum (Tantramar Heritage Trust)6

Southeastern New Brunswick

$1,500; $5,000

$501,8577 Paul Bogaard, one of the founding directors of the Trust

Y

Fredericton Region Museum (York Sunbury Historical Society)

Central River Valley

$15,000; $15,000

$124,196 Fred White, Past President

Y

Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton

Musées du Sud-Est Nouveau-Brunswick

$215,000; $255,000

- Jeanne-Mance Cormier, Curator

Y

The Chocolate Museum

Fundy Culture

$1,000; $3,000

- Sarah Goulding, Manager/ Director

Y

Medium-Scale Museums Keillor House (Westmorland Historical Society/ Dorchester Heritage Properties)

Southeastern New Brunswick

$17,000; $17,000

$214,174 Alice Folkin, Volunteer and activities coordinator

N

Kings County Museum

Saint John Fundy

$2,500; $4,000

$33,838 Christine (Chris) White, Director

Y

McAdam Railway Station (McAdam Historical Restoration Commission)

Unclear8 0; $3,500

$366,609 - N

Restigouche Regional Museum

Restigouche $5,000; $6,000

- Bill Clarke, Director

N

Small-Scale Museums John Fischer Saint John $2,000; $38,839 - N

10

Memorial Museum (Peninsula Heritage)

Fundy $4,000

Musée Mgr. - Camille - Andre Leblanc (Eglise Historique de Barachois)

Musées du Sud-Est Nouveau-Brunswick (reseau francophone)

$500; $1,500

- - N

Le Musée historique de Tracadie

Peninsula - Chaleur

$2,000; $3,500

$42,647 - N9

1.2.2 Limitations

In order to ensure representation from all regions, I attempted to interview at least one participant

from each of the province’s nine regional museum zones (See Appendix E) – that is,

Restigouche, Madawaska/Victoria, Central Valley, Charlotte County (Fundy Culture), South-

East (anglophone), Sud-Est (francophone), Miramichi, Chaleur and Acadian peninsula, and Saint

John Fundy. Despite attempts, I was unable to interview anyone from a non-profit museum in the

Miramichi or Madawaska/Victoria regions. The list of potential interviews was limited as I

conducted all interviews in English and some regions, such as the Madawaska/Victoria region,

are primarily francophone.

There is a self-selecting bias within this research method as any system that asks for participation

favors the active. Reasonably, those that responded to my interview request are also those who

have an interest in provincial cultural policy. Most of the people who responded to my requests

for an interview were full-time paid directors or volunteers who have the resources to devote

both time to their organization as well as outside requests such as mine. Some of the volunteers

worked at or with the museum full-time at certain times of the year, indicating a degree of

affluence. These individuals were often from museums that actively participated in the larger

discussion in the province, such as the public consultations on the Cultural policy for New

Brunswick and the meetings that led to the development of the associated grant programs. For

example, forty-four people from a museum or historical society that has received an operational

11

grant from the Heritage Branch between 2002-2003 and 2014-2015 participated in a 2002

consultation (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c). Five interview participants took part in that

consultation. Of the nine interview participants from community museums who were involved

with their institutions in 2002, more than half participated in a 2002 cultural policy consultation.

Further, nine of the thirteen interview participants represent museums from the thirty-one

organizations that received an operational grant as a community museum or historical society

from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015 and participated in the consultation.10

In addition to having the ability to participate in the wider discussion as well as my research,

interview participants were from museums that take advantage of the programs offered through

the Heritage Branch. To demonstrate the imbalance, in 2013-2014 only thirty-two museums took

advantage of the Museum Collection Inventory Program, including ten of the thirteen interview

participants from non-profit museums. Twenty-four museums have taken advantage of the

program at least eight times from 2004-2005 to 2013-2014 and I interviewed representatives

from ten of these institutions, which is a large portion of my thirteen interviews with individuals

from museums eligible for the grant. A total of sixty-three organizations have accessed the grant

at least once from 2004-2005 to 2014-2015, including all but one of the non-profit museums

represented in my research. Where most of the museums in the province are volunteer run, my

results may look different with a greater representation of those institutions without the resources

to participate in the wider discourse. However, the participation of those actively taking

advantage of the provincial programs provided insights into how the support strategies influence

programming, which would have otherwise not been possible.

The opinions given during the interviews cannot represent the views of the entire museum

community. However, as active members of the museum community, the participants provided

valuable insights into the influence of government action as well as information about the

creation of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick and the subsequent support programs. It is also

important to note that in focusing on interviews as my primary research method, I am primarily

investigating the perceived influence of provincial cultural policy on museum public

programming.

12

1.3 Chapter Outline

This thesis is divided into five sections, including the introduction and the conclusion. The

second chapter investigates how provincial support for museums has evolved over time, leading

to and including the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick in 2002. Building on Barrieau

and Bourgeois’ (2011) work, Chapter Two is the culmination of a literature review as well as

archival work. In order to provide a foundation for the subsequent chapters, I analyze the

development of an explicit cultural policy in New Brunswick from the 1960s to the release of

Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (2002) and subsequent program developments, ending with

the release of Creative Futures (2014). My discussion focuses cultural policy discourses as they

emerge over time, using the state, market, and civil discourses outlined by McGuigan to frame

the analysis. I conclude that the evolution of policy in the province shapes the current programs

and, therefore, the influence of NB cultural policy on museum public programming.

The third and fourth chapters evaluate information obtained through the interview process. They

examine the influence of GNB support on community museum public programming from the

perspectives of the interview participants. Chapter Three discusses the grants offered by GNB’s

Museum Services Section, focusing on the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support

Program. I use examples in order to illustrate three arguments. First, interview participants

believe the grant has led to a greater quantity of exhibits that are of greater quality. Second, the

grant influences programming beyond what it funds as museums plan additional public programs

in association with the exhibits. Third, museums need people to plan programs, apply for

funding, and implement their plans. As such, some museums can access the grant more often and

generate more activity with the funding because they have the necessary staff and personnel.

The fourth chapter examines the influence of SEED as an implicit cultural policy. After

discussing the need for the program and its historical development, I examine its effect on

museum public programming from the perspective of those I interviewed, emphasizing the

importance of student employees to museum operations. While the program is crucial to many

museums and more accessible than its federal counterpart, there are issues with its administration

that lead to problems with its application. More specifically, three challenges with nonstandard

employment highlighted by Akingbola (2004) – retention, consistency, and quality – are evident

with SEED. While volunteers have provided museums with consistency, New Brunswick

13

community museums are in need of an alternative staffing model as the current volunteer base

ages. The chapter concludes with recommendations on the future of SEED and New Brunswick

community museum employment.

The conclusion begins with a summary of my findings from the proceeding chapters. I observe

that an implicit cultural policy – SEED – has the greatest influence on museum public

programming in New Brunswick. Then, I provide recommendations for future research,

discussing the thin distribution of funding in the province and highlighting some of the programs

since 2002 that address this issue. The Museum Network distributes funding through zones to

coordinate meetings and for marketing projects. Research is necessary in order to increase the

effectiveness of this funding model because there are other areas in which museums can

cooperate that would increase their capacity to offer public programming. I conclude with a

recommendation to shift GNB priorities toward increasing museums’ human resource capacity.

Interview participants believe the Provincial Government’s project-based funding has increased

the quantity and/or quality of their public programming. As individuals are needed to implement

these programs, it stands to reason that an increase in human resources will further enable

museums to take advantage of existing support strategies and to improve their offerings.

14

Chapter 2 A Historical Perspective: New Brunswick Cultural Policy from the

1960s to 2014

As historical specificity is essential to subnational cultural policy analysis (Gattinger and Saint-

Pierre 2010; Jeanotte 2010), this chapter asks how provincial support from the Government of

New Brunswick (GNB) for community museums in the province has evolved from the 1960s

until 2014. For the analysis, I have divided New Brunswick’s explicit cultural policy

development into three periods: from 1967 to 1980, from 1980 to 1999, and from 1999 to 2014.

First, I highlight the historical and administrative factors that shaped provincial cultural policy

frameworks from 1967 to 1980. Second, I discuss the reduced government funding to museums,

increased public consultation, and the publication of several policy documents that characterize

the second period from 1980 to 1999. Finally, I outline the collaborative process shaping

government articulations, action, and inaction in the most recent period, ending in 2014. I then

use the state, market, and civil discourses outlined by Jim McGuigan (2004) as a framework to

discuss the evolution of cultural policy in New Brunswick. As the development of cultural policy

in the province has shaped funding programs and, therefore, the influence of policy on museum

public programming, this chapter provides the historical and theoretical foundation from which I

have pursued my research.

2.1 Cultural Policy in New Brunswick

2.1.1 Frameworks: Robichaud and Federal Influence

The foundational period of a deliberate cultural policy in New Brunswick is from 1967 to 1980,

beginning with the Canadian Centennial Celebrations and ending with departmental

reorganization. During that time, GNB established administrative structures as well as plans and

priorities for museums, which formed a cultural policy framework for subsequent developments.

Several historical and administrative factors played a critical role in the formation of this

structure. First, there was a pre-existing provincial funding program for community museums.

Second, the 1967 Canadian Centennial celebrations provoked a significant shift in provincial

heritage resource development. Third, Premier Louis J. Robichaud initiated a cultural policy

15

along with his Equal Opportunity Program. Finally, the release of the National Museums Policy

in 1972 encouraged provincial action, including the creation of a provincial museums policy.

Prior to 1967, community museums received provincial support, but funding was given on an ad

hoc basis and not directed by a department responsible for heritage. Instead, grant applications

were mainly addressed to Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) then forwarded to the

Treasury Board’s Grants Committee as recommendations, which were rarely rejected (Pichette

2001, 75). This granting system continued with the input of the Historical Resource

Administration (HRA), created in 1967, until the Museums Branch11 developed a new funding

system in the late 1970s that continued these operational grants through the government unit

responsible for museums.12 This grant program continues today as the Community Museums

Assistance Program and, until the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick in 2002, was the

only consistent provincial funding program available to community museums.13

In a 1967 budget speech, the provincial Minister of Finance discussed an increased interest in

and appreciation for history in New Brunswick, remarking that the Centennial commemorations

had encouraged this concern and provided an opportunity to focus these interests.14 The

increased attention to local heritage and history contributed to the creation of the HRA,

announced in the budget speech (MacBeath 1975; McGuigan 1972). Initially, the HRA included

a Research and Development component responsible for support to community museums. This

unit of government evolved over time as responsibilities moved between departments and

departments were reorganized, resulting in the Heritage Branch. The Heritage Branch now has a

Museum Services Section that administers cultural policy to community museums. In short, the

Centennial provided the impetus for increased attention to heritage, contributing to the creation

of the Branch now responsible for program development and implementation.

The form and timing of the HRA were influenced not only by the Centennial celebrations, but

also by Liberal Premier Louis J. Robichaud’s broad policy objectives. As the first Premier

concerned with cultural policy, Robichaud’s interest and initiatives laid the foundation for its

development (Ouelette 2001).15 While Robichaud did not witness the establishment of a

Department of Culture Affairs, he did oversee the creation of the HRA, a centralized government

unit responsible for historical resource development in the province. During the 1960s,

16

Robichaud also implemented the Equal Opportunity Program, which involved the abolishment of

the decentralized county council form of government and the centralization of services. The

program’s objective was to provide equal access to services, like health care and education, for

all New Brunswickers regardless of their location in the province or language (Pichette 2001). At

the time, Lester B. Pearson’s Liberal government in Ottawa was actively building the welfare

state with new social initiatives, which often involved federal-provincial shared-cost programs.

Through the centralization of services, GNB created a tax base to pay for new initiatives and

could plan strategically in order to access federal resources (Young 2001). For example, the

establishment of the HRA enabled the Provincial Government to create plans and priorities to

take advantage of resources offered as part of the National Museum Policy.

On March 28, 1972 the Canadian Secretary of State announced the National Museum Policy

with the objectives of democratization and decentralization. Under the new policy, local

museums could apply for Special Grants from the Federal Government. One of the qualifications

for funding was how well the project fit within the “provincial or municipal government

priorities in the development of a network of museums” (National Museums of Canada 1972, 3).

Under Progressive Conservative Premier Richard Hatfield, elected in 1970, the HRA advocated

provincial museum policy guidelines, arguing that an articulated plan was critical in order to

receive an equitable share of the new federal funding (HRA 1973). Echoing the national concern

with democratization and decentralization, Order-in-Council 73-518 divided the province into

five regions in order to establish priorities and create regional museums with local support from

historical societies. Although the plan led to the establishment of the Madawaska Museum in

Edmundston, the creation of five regional museums and coordination within zones was not fully

realized at that time. The Museums Branch, created in 1975 to administer the provincial museum

policy, suffered financial cuts and was reorganized by 1980.

From 1967 to 1980, GNB also established the Provincial Archives, Kings Landing, Village

Historique Acadien as well as provincial historic sites – MacDonald Farm, the birthplace of

Andrew Bonar Law, and Minister’s Island. GNB was thus actively and directly involved in

museum development. As stated by the Deputy Head of the HRA, George MacBeath, “those

were the days when New Brunswick and Premier Robichaud had money for heritage matters”

(2012, 12).

17

Table 2: Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1967 to 1980.

Year Provincial National

1960 • Liberal Premier Robichaud’s government elected

1967 • The HRA established • The Provincial Archives of New Brunswick established

• Canadian Centennial Celebrations

1970 • Progressive Conservative Premier Hatfield elected • GNB purchased MacDonald Farm

1972 • Kings Landing Opens • National Museums Policy

1973 • Provincial Museums Policy (Order Council 73-518) • The Association Museums New Brunswick (AMNB) is

incorporated

1974 • GNB acquired the birthplace of Andrew Bonar Law

1975 • Museums Branch and Cultural Affair Branch established.

1977 • GNB purchased Minister’s Island

1980 • Departmental reorganization

2.1.2 A Period of Consultations: The Hatfield and McKenna Governments

The next period of cultural policy development is from 1980, beginning with the reorganization

of the Museums Branch under Premier Richard Hatfield and continuing with budget reductions

under Premier Frank McKenna, until the election of Bernard Lord’s government in 1999. GNB

priorities began to change in 1980, as illustrated by the reorganization of the Museums Branch.

The Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Heritage replaced the Department of Historical and

Cultural Resources in 1985 and there was a 5% to 10% decrease in operational grants that same

year (AMNB 1985). The Branch responsible for historic sites began devolving its responsibility

for operations, such as the Madawaska Museum in 1987, and shifted its focus to providing

services. With the formation of an advisory committee to study cultural policy in the province,

Hatfield brought in an era that involved provincial consultations on cultural policy development

every few years.16

18

By the release of the Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts’ Final Report (1989), Liberal

Premier McKenna’s government had won every seat in the Legislature. McKenna is known for

his economic reforms as he focused on job creation, promoted business, and actively sought

investment in the province (Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick 2014). He also reduced the

number and size of provincial departments, resulting in the formation of a joint Department of

Municipalities, Culture and Housing (MCH). The articulations and actions of the MCH,

responsible for heritage from 1991 until 1998, influenced museum policy in the province. The

Department, concerned with facilitating partnerships and encouraging community action,

oversaw several public consultations on cultural policy and, during the Department’s tenure,

museums experienced more cuts in operational funding (Duffe 1994).

In 1990, the Federal Government released an updated national museums policy, the Canadian

Museum Policy: Temples of the Human Spirit. At the time, the Provincial Government had no

clear policy articulation on funding museums and heritage resources, resulting in inconsistent

practices.17 The MCH then initiated the development of Through Partnership to Stewardship:

New Brunswick Heritage Policy in 1992. The policy, released in 1994, advocated the application

of standards to smaller museums in order to justify support and the use of private sector

partnerships. Despite the importance of museums and heritage articulated in the policy, budget

cuts and no new support strategies for museums followed its release.

By the time Bernard Lord’s Progressive Conservative government came into power in 1999,

there had been much discussion regarding cultural policy. There were consultations as part of

FORUM ’87, a strategic planning study on provincial parks and heritage sites (1989-1990), the

heritage policy review (1992-1994), FORUM ’95,18 and a cultural policy review (1997). As

stated by Barrieau and Bourgeois (2011, 86), the issue of cultural policy had been discussed at

great length and stakeholders, including organizations or individuals working in culture and

education as well as the general public, had expressed themselves repeatedly. From 1987 to 1998

there were more than ten papers published or commissioned by GNB discussing specific aspects

of cultural policy.19 These consultations and documents resulted in some action, such as the

creation of the New Brunswick Arts Board in 1990, but did not lead to the requested

comprehensive cultural policy that would set “forth the government’s desire to affirm New

19

Brunswick’s cultural identity and support artists, businesses, and organizations who excel and

wish to be part of the international scene” (Theriault, Fry et. al 1997, 13).

Table 3: Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1980 to 1999.

Year Provincial National 1982 • Department of Historical and Cultural Resources replaces the

HRA

1985 • Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage formed • 5-10% decrease in community museum operational funding

1987 • FORUM ’87 • GNB begins negotiations to transfer the Madawaska Museum to

the University of Moncton Edmunston Campus

1988 • Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts: Interim Report20

1989 • Final Report (Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts)21 • Response to the Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts

1990 • New Brunswick Arts Board created

• Provincial Parks and Heritage Sites Master Plan: Final Report (TRH)

• Canadian  Museum  Policy:  Temples  of  the  Human  Spirit  

1991 • Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing formed • A Strategy on Culture Toward the Year 2000 (Division of

Culture)

1992 • Heritage Policy Review begins

1993 • Through Partnership to Stewardship: A Discussion Paper (MCH)

1994 • Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Heritage

Policy (MCH) • Operational grant reductions

1995 • FORUM ’95 • Towards an Arts Policy for New Brunswick (New Brunswick

Arts Board)

1997 • Cultural Policy Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations for a Cultural Policy (Theriault, Fry et. al.)

1998 • A Commitment to our Culture: Response to the Cultural Policy Task Force Report

1999 • Progressive Conservative Premier Bernard Lord’s government elected

20

2.1.3 Time for Change: Bernard Lord

The final period of cultural policy development in New Brunswick, beginning with the election

of Progressive Conservative Premier Bernard Lord in 1999, is ongoing. After Lord had come

into power, officials tried making a cultural policy based on past consultations and publications,

but this approach was not well received by stakeholders. The cultural community voiced concern

regarding the proposed policy, saying they could not identify with the document as it was too

general and lacked clarity (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002b).22 GNB then formed a working

group with representatives from various arts and heritage organizations, involving the wider

community through consultations both before and after the policy’s release. Cultural Policy for

New Brunswick was thus formed in an environment of cooperation between stakeholders and

government officials. GNB released the policy in February 2002 as part of Lord’s 10-year Road

to Prosperity initiative and it addresses four areas of concern: Culture in Everyday Life,

Professional Artists and Cultural Professionals, Our Collective Heritage, and Culture and the

Economy (Office of the Premier 2002). Cultural Policy for New Brunswick is comprehensive,

involved stakeholder participation in its formation, and was followed by increases in financial

support.

GNB announced funding increases with the policy, supporting their articulation with action and

leading to new support strategies. Cultural Policy for New Brunswick resulted in the

establishment of the Museum Network and an initial $100,000 investment in its development,

which is the only new support program for museums articulated in the policy.23 In order to

develop this Network and new funding programs, the Heritage Branch divided the province into

nine regional zones and invited participants to Fredericton for workshops, covering travel and

accommodation costs (Burley 2002). In preparation for the meeting, the Heritage Branch asked

participants to refer to Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick (AMNB 2000), published by

the AMNB in collaboration with the Heritage Branch, and to conduct an environmental scan of

their museum.24 They then held workshops to determine what funding programs the community

believed they needed. Within the year, the Branch implemented funding for marketing,

professional or organizational development, as well as exhibit renewal and other museum

activities. The following November, the Heritage Branch held additional stakeholder meetings,

leading to the Museum Collection Inventory Program. The Branch also implemented a fine arts

21

conservation program and built heritage funding, but these programs are only available,

respectively, to museums dealing with fine art or housed in a historic property and are, therefore,

not my present focus. I discuss the new funding programs and their influence in greater detail in

Chapter Three.

Since the implementation of the Museum Collection Inventory Program in 2004-2005,

community museums have not seen new support programs from the Museum Services Section.

While GNB maintained support for existing policies, there was little development under Liberal

Premier Sean Graham, elected in 2006. The new government shifted their focus toward

sustainability and established a Task Force to examine the challenges faced by non-profits in

New Brunswick (Hood 2009).25 In 2010, David Alward’s Progressive Conservative government

replaced Graham’s Liberal government. While continuing existing funding programs, GNB

began a cultural policy renewal in 2012, which involved a working group, public consultations,

and a website where the public could submit their opinions. Following the release of Creative

Futures: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick in July 2014, the Museum Services

Section conducted a consultation at the AMNB annual meeting and GNB revised the built

heritage program, but it remains unclear what, if any, new support strategies will be created.

Looking broadly, from 1999 to 2014 provincial heritage policy included the formation and

release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick and Creative Futures in an environment of

cooperation. GNB also continued and increased the budget for the Community Museum

Assistance Program, as well as implemented new funding programs for professional or

organizational development, marketing, coordination within zones, collection inventory, and

exhibit renewal or other museum activities. The Government continued to support key provincial

heritage institutions – the New Brunswick Museum, Kings Landing, and Village Historique

Acadien. The Minister received recommendations to devolve provincial historic sites – Bonar

Law, Ministers Island, Doak Historic Site, MacDonald Farm, and Sheriff Andrews House. To

that end, GNB has completed partnership agreements for all but the Sheriff Andrews House

(THC 2013). The Heritage Branch also collaborated with the AMNB to produce Guidelines for

Museums in New Brunswick (2000), which was called for in the 1994 heritage policy. The

Government then used the guidelines as a basis for consultations after the release of the 2002

policy. While GNB had previously published various policy papers articulating the importance

22

of heritage, the 2002 policy marks the first time since 1973 that the Government not only

articulated a policy, but also took action in the form of funding for museums directed by the

document. While a policy renewal began in 2012 and GNB released a new cultural policy in

2014, it remains unclear whether this articulation marks a shift in direction.

Table 4: Significant Events that Influenced New Brunswick Cultural Policy from 1999 to 2014.

Year Event

1999 • Progressive Conservative Bernard Lord’s government elected

2000 • Culture and Sport Secretariat created • Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick (AMNB)

2002 • Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (Culture and Sport Secretariat) • Consultations with the museum community

2003 • Museum Network for New Brunswick launched • Musée acadien in Moncton receives a $200,000 increase • Consultation with the museum community

2006 • Department of Wellness, Culture and Sport formed • Liberal Premier Sean Graham’s government elected

2007 • Self Sustainability Task Force

2010 • Progressive Conservative David Alward’s government elected

2012 • Department of Culture, Tourism and Healthy Living formed • Cultural Policy Review begins

2014 • Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture formed • Creative Futures: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick

2.2 Discussion

New Brunswick cultural policy has been shaped by prevalent policy discourses as they emerge

over time. Building on the state, market, and civil discourses outlined by McGuigan (2004), this

section highlights the appearance of common cultural policy approaches within New Brunswick.

According to McGuigan, these general discourses are an over-simplification as there is variation

within them and they do not exist in isolation, but interact with one another. However, they

23

provide a general structure within which I have oriented cultural policy developments in New

Brunswick and GNB justifications for its involvement in heritage.

The state discourse emerged in the twentieth century “around the idea that the modern nation-

state should command the whole of society, regulate the economy and cultivate appropriate

selves” (McGuigan 2004, 36). Within this discourse, the state is the key agent in cultural policy,

but there are various justifications for government action, including social access and social

control (McGuigan 1996). For instance, the rise of the welfare state after WWII saw increased

government involvement in heritage (Belfiore 2002; O. Bennett 1995 1996; Gray 2000;

McGuigan 2004; Meisel and Van Loon 1987; Pick 1988). Governments legislated the right for

equal access to the arts, culture, and/or heritage, motivated by the idea that the arts should be

accessible to all irrespective of class or location (O. Bennett 1996; Pick 1988). For example, in

the 1960s, Britain enacted educational and cultural public policies “in the name of ‘access’ to

opportunities and pleasures that were previously denied to most people” (McGuigan 2004, 40).

To that end, the British Government helped “sustain a network of theatres, museums, galleries,

libraries, orchestras and art centres throughout the country” (O. Bennett 1995, 203). As part of

the state discourse, McGuigan argues governments have used cultural policy in an attempt to “re-

engineer the soul,” creating more ‘ideal’ citizens. Further, a key feature of cultural policies in

multicultural countries “is the object of reconciling different ethnic and national identities with

one another” (Ibid., 35). Similarly, Pick (1988) discusses education or training as a justification

for government involvement in arts funding. Within this framework, the state uses art to

emphasize a particular viewpoint, training its citizens. This resonates with T. Bennett’s (1995)

assessment that public museums developed as a means of improving the working class.

The dominant reasoning for cultural policies has changed over time and, since the 1980s, the

market discourse has increasingly directed cultural policy discussions (Gray 2008; McGuigan

2004; Myerscough 1988; Weil 2012; Wu 2002). Within this discourse, there is an increased

concern with the economic aspects of cultural policy as the language of money and efficiency

reduce all value to exchange value (McGuigan 2004). Other authors identify the market

discourse as a neoliberal turn or tide in cultural policy where culture is seen as a commodity and

governance is based on productivity and profitability (Jeannotte 2010). Cultural policies based

on these concepts can be utilized to increase tourism, boost international trade, increase

24

employment, or are seen as part of regional development (Meisel and Van Loon 1987; Strom

2003; Pick 1988).

McGuigan advocates a civil discourse as an alternative to the state and market discourses, which

both reduce culture to “something other than what it is” (2004, 53). Conversely, the civil

discourse is “concerned with the democratization of communications and culture” (Ibid., 144). A

call for and an emphasis on more democratic decision-making and public participation in the

policy process is reflected in policy literature more broadly. For instance, deLeon advocates for

“the greater incorporation of citizens’ values on an explicit basis into the policy process” (1992,

126). In some countries or regions, participatory processes have even become statutorily

mandated (Escobar 2013). However, the civil discourse discussed by McGuigan does not merely

entail civil society’s –a voluntarily associated community of actors who are neither of the state

nor of the market – participation in policy conversations. The discourse involves the

Habermasian public sphere as a “political space for rational-critical debate that, in principle, has

consequences for policy” (McGuigan 2004, 51). Within this construct, participants can reach a

consensus regarding claims on shared resources through mutual understanding rather than

manipulation or coercion. While there is much debate as to whether this form is actual or ideal,

McGuigan explains that for Habermas it was both. However, “the actuality is a good deal less

perfect than the idealization” (McGuigan 2005, 427). As such, I will discuss the civil discourse

and public sphere as theoretical constructs within which I am orienting actual policy

developments.

The state, market, and civil discourses outlined by McGuigan are evident in the evolution of

cultural policy in New Brunswick. The state discourse contributed to the foundation of cultural

policy in the province. For instance, access to services regardless of class or location is a major tenet of Premier Robichaud’s social policies and the initiation of a cultural policy is associated with his reforms (Pichette 2001; Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011). The Equal Opportunity Program

provided equal access to government resources and these social reforms aimed to take advantage

of the Federal Government’s welfare state approach to governance, leading to centralized social

services within the province (Young 2001). Accordingly, the creation of centralized units of

government dealing with culture is a manifestation of the welfare state approach to culture seen

widely at the time and encouraged by the Federal Government. Access is also a justification in

25

GNB’s 2002 policy document, Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. For example, Goal 1.a in the

document is to “improve access to and awareness of culture in New Brunswick” (Culture and

Sport Secretariat 2002a, 11), and a civil servant with the Museum Services Section stated, “the

policy mandates that steps be taken to develop a wider audience and improve access to cultural

resources for residents” (Interview Participant H 2014).

The HRA began administrating support to community museums, in part, to increase access to

historical resources, but support strategies existed prior to an official government approach to

heritage. As such, broader historical understanding is needed when discussing the foundation of

cultural policy in New Brunswick and the application of a sate discourse in practice. The Branch

responsible for museums did not create an operational funding program with an articulated

intent. Instead, museums initially received grants according to the recommendations of MLAs.

This granting system continued with the input of the HRA and was eventually adopted by the

Museums Branch. While the criteria for the program have not always been clear, museums

originally received funding as requested because the Treasury Board Grants Committee rarely

rejected the recommendations of politicians (Pichette 2001). Support continued in a haphazard

manner through operational grants as GNB budgets were influenced by past funding patterns,

and the Provincial Government did not maintain or follow articulated criteria. For example, one

of the current eligibility requirements is that the museum must be a registered charity. According

to the Canadian Revenue Agency’s online database, institutions receiving the grant, such as the

Chocolate Museum and the Restigouche Regional Museum, are not. The Committee created a

foundation for funding to community museums from which the HRA built a program that

continues today as the largest source of provincial funding for community museums in the

province. The Community Museum Assistance program, therefore, demonstrates that the

evolution of cultural policy is multifaceted and shaped by both broad discourses, such as the state

discourse, as well as historical specificities, such as the program’s origins outside of an official

cultural policy.

Historically and as part of the state discourse in Canada, “nation building and province building have provided powerful incentives for public expenditure on the arts and other cultural pursuits” (Meisel and Van Loon 1987, 307). Accordingly, the HRA’s second annual report states,

“heritage…may better bind us together – with all of our diversity – as members of the province’s

26

community” (HRA1970, xii). The 1973 provincial museum plan calls for the development of

regional museums to tell local histories that would “stimulate both pride in, and understanding

of, the region it serves” (HRA 1973, Appendix A). However, due to reductions in funding, most

of the regional museums were not established and, during the 1980s, the Historic Sites Branch

placed its emphasis on assisting local groups rather than acquiring and developing properties.

However, GNB remained concerned with culture’s role in province building. Strategy on Culture

Toward the Year 2000 (Division of Culture 1991) argues New Brunswickers do not have a sense

of provincial identity. As such, the document’s vision is for citizens to form “a stronger sense of

provincial identity and pride in themselves as people” (Ibid.,7). In order to build provincial pride

and identity, the document states that the Division on Culture “will continue to improve public

awareness of our past” (Ibid.,9) and, to that end, it calls for a provincial museums policy, leading

to Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Heritage Policy (MCH 1994). Culture’s role in identity formation continues to be a key theme in Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, which states “culture defines the identity of a people and draws them together, creating a sense

of cohesion” (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a, 10). Further, GNB supports culture, in part,

because cultural heritage “provides New Brunswickers with an identity” (Ibid., 15).

While the regional museum network would have arguably promoted a specific identity as

directed by the Provincial Government, cultural policies have multiple uses and interpretations.

The network can alternatively be understood as recognizing provincial diversity and an

application of “cultural democracy” rather than the “democratization of culture” (Mulcahy

2006b). Whereas the democratization of culture promotes access to specific content, cultural

democracy focuses on increasing access to modes of production and distribution. The 1973 plan

emphasized local support and difference. At the time, GNB believed that the community

museums were of low caliber due to a lack of suitable infrastructure, professional staff, and

adequate funding. The proposed network would have allowed these institutions to improve while

supporting and receiving support from their regional museum, which recognized distinct

geographic or political priorities. Recall that the implementation of Cultural Policy for New

Brunswick in 2002 involved the creation of a museum network. The Network that exists today

includes nine zones, but none of the zones has an official ‘regional’ museum directed by GNB.

Still, the idea that policy should provide assistance that addresses distinct local needs and

concerns remains prevalent in New Brunswick.

27

The shift toward a market discourse is visible in 1985 when New Brunswick community

museums became the responsibility of the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage

(1985-1991). Economic reasoning then becomes more pronounced under McKenna (1987-1997),

supporting government inaction. A 1991 draft of the Memorandum to the Executive Council

asking for the Heritage Policy Review indicates that museums and heritage resources were too

dependent on government funding. The Memorandum advocates encouraging partnerships

between private businesses and heritage organizations, revenue producing activities, and the use

of “other private sources” (MCH 1991, 2). It also mentions the tourism and revenue

considerations of heritage, stating: “part of the tourism development focus will include culture

and heritage resources” (Ibid.). Within the market discourse, McGuigan discusses organizational

changes, especially privatization, enacted by governments to achieve “greater managerial

efficiency, public-private partnership, relative autonomy from the state and, perhaps, increased

civil democracy and accountability” (2004, 49). The privatization of museums established as

provincial sites or regional museums by GNB began with the devolution of the Madawaska

Museum in 1987 and continues today.

Economic aims continued in subsequent policy articulations. Although GNB articulated a shift

away from direct operational activities in the 1980s, they continued to operate several museums

as historic sites. Shortly after the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, the Government

began a partnership agreement with the Village of Rexton for the management of the Bonar Law

Provincial Historic Site. They then made management or lease agreements with, and began

providing operational grants to, the Van Horne Estate on Ministers Island for Ministers Island

(2007-2008), the Atlantic Salmon Museum for the Doak Historic Site (2011-2012), and the

Highland Society of New Brunswick at Miramichi for the management of MacDonald Farm

(2012-2013). Under the section Culture and the Economy, Goal 4 of Cultural Policy for New

Brunswick is to “maximize the economic benefits of culture in order to improve New

Brunswick’s position in the global economy” (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a, 17). The

cultural policy document states that culture serves to make New Brunswick a more attractive

place for visitors or tourists. It defines cultural tourism as “tourism motivated by an interest in

other peoples, other places, and other cultures” (Ibid., 4), noting this interest often focuses on

museums. The belief that museums are centers for tourism supports the Heritage Branch’s

current placement within the Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture (2012 - present). The

28

devolution of the provincial sites and focus on tourism in New Brunswick from 2002 to 2014

aligns with the market discourse prevalent in the late 1980s and the 1990s.

The devolution of management to local organizations can alternatively be interpreted as

increased civil democracy because GNB decentralized management, giving operational control

to the community. Under the leadership of L.K. Ingersoll,26 the director of the Museums Branch

in 1975, the Branch actively advocated for museums to become involved in policy formation. In

1977, while he was attempting to develop a museum policy and programs, he wrote for the

AMNB newsletter stressing that readers are “not only free to do so, but SHOULD write to our

Minister expressing our needs and suggesting ways and means to jointly enhance our cultural

patterns” (1977, 28). He wanted people in the museum community to “stand up and be counted”

(Ibid.).27 To that end, he consulted the community when developing criteria for the operational

grants.

The museum community was given opportunities to be heard through government-led public

consultations on cultural policy in 1987, 1993, 1995, and 1997, suggesting the presence of a civil

discourse. While none of these consultations led to a comprehensive cultural policy, the 1993

consultation resulted in Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Heritage Policy

(MCH 1994). The timing of the policy review, subsequent reductions in funding, and statements

from museum professionals I interviewed who were involved at the time indicate the document

was not created collaboratively (Interview Participant B; F. White 2014). While the Department

of Municipalities, Culture and Housing initiated the Heritage Policy Review in March 1992, the

Minister did not form a committee to conduct client-partner consultations until March 1993. The

Committee then held consultations through meetings as well as a discussion paper and made

their recommendations within a year. The policy was released in April, only one month after the

Committee met with the Minister. I found no record of subsequent consultations regarding

adjusting the existing funding program for museums or creating new ones under the direction of

the policy. Instead, there were budget cuts. At least seven people I interviewed were involved in

the New Brunswick museum community during the 1990s. When discussing collaboration with

GNB, no participant mentioned the 1994 policy. One individual did not even remember a 1994

heritage policy (Interview Participant B) and another believed it was already written by the time

they were consulted (F. White 2014). During the interviews, participants said, Cultural Policy

29

for New Brunswick was the first policy articulation that involved the museum community

(Interview Participant D). There was thus the appearance of pseudo civil discourse in the second

period of cultural policy development as GNB provided a forum for conversation, but the result

does not reflect community consensus.

In the words of Jeanne-Mance Cormier from the Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton,

“Cultural Policy for New Brunswick [was] a humongous change for our establishment for sure.

We like the cultural policy because it was built with us, for us” (2014). The language of

participation with stakeholders is emphasized in GNB communication on Cultural Policy for

New Brunswick. For example, the policy lists the working group participants and states, “the

Province of New Brunswick acknowledges with gratitude the participation of its many

stakeholders and employees who contributed to the development of a Cultural Policy for New

Brunswick” (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a, iii). The participatory process aligns with the

idealized public sphere where people can reach a consensus regarding shared resources, which

influences policy direction. While not articulated as such, this ideal form is presented within the

21st century New Brunswick cultural policy discourse. For instance, the news release announcing

the policy does not discuss the justifications present in it, but rather the process through which it

was formed. In the release, the Minister responsible for the Culture and Sport Secretariat states,

“with the input of our partners in the arts and heritage sectors, and many stakeholders, a common

vision has been achieved” (Office of the Premier 2002). The statement demonstrates the attention

paid to the involvement of the Working Group that reached a common understanding and also

influenced policy.

People from community museums were involved in shaping the funding programs for their

organizations that evolved from Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. After the policy’s release,

the Heritage Branch invited museum representatives to consultations so they could articulate

what assistance they needed the most. As requested by the community, one of the first funding

programs was for marketing. As such, participation shaped the funding programs that were made

available and, therefore, the influence of policy on museum public programming. In order to

exert this influence, the museum community engaged in a conversation with members of the

civil service, developing mutual understanding. An interview participant (D 2014) noted that the

museum community is being heard, but they understand there is limited money to distribute.

30

Fred White (2014) with the Fredericton Region Museum stated the Heritage Branch can see that

many museums lack the ability to carry out programs and the museum community sees the

Branch’s lack of funding. Through this understanding, the two groups have a non-adversarial

relationship that involves working in partnership to divide the limited financial resources (Ibid).

However, not all interview participants viewed their relationship with GNB as a partnership

amongst acknowledged equals. Paul Boogard (2014) with the Campbell Carriage Factory

Museum stated, “[the cultural policy] sets a framework within which we don’t have much choice

but to operate…. It is a framework that we couldn’t set, province wide, only a province can do

that.”

GNB facilitates conversation amongst museums regarding shared resources. One method for the

community to engage is the Museum Network. The province’s nine regional zones are given

money to coordinate meetings and can apply as a group for marketing funding. According to an

interview participant, the money is distributed within her zone according to need and, therefore,

is not necessarily divided equally. When talking about the division of money to purchase signage

for museums within her zone, she stated, “it was really a generous [process]” (Interview

Participant A 2014). While certain regions, particularly Charlotte County, are used as an example

of how resources can be shared to everyone’s benefit, not all interview participants present this

process as ideal. In fact, two went so far as to say that others are only involved in the community

in order to advance their own interests and museums, demonstrating how the presence of a so-

called public sphere is largely dependent on the zone and individuals in question.

There are shortcomings to using broad frameworks in cultural policy analysis. When discussing

the application of the state discourse in New Brunswick, I demonstrated that a historical

perspective can supplement analysis, offering a more comprehensive understanding, and policies

can have multiple interpretations that do not necessary align with the prevalent discourse.

Gattinger and Saint-Pierre note, it is “important to identify the role of the Canadian federal

government in shaping provincial cultural policy analysis” (Gattinger and Saint-Pierre 2008,

183). The federal government has had a role in shaping New Brunswick cultural policy both

within and beyond the prevalent cultural policy discourses. Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate

provincial cultural policy articulations followed national articulations, such as the 1973

provincial museum plan released to take advantage of resources offered through the National

31

Museums Policy. Table 4 does not demonstrate the same cause and effect because the federal

government has not released a museum policy since 1990 and does not have an articulated

comprehensive cultural policy. However, federal cultural policies have continued to interact with

the subnational. For example, GNB asks museums to upload a number of objects to Artefacts

Canada as part of the Museum Collection Inventory Program. An awareness of the federal

influence on the provincial government is thus significant in an analysis of both the

establishment and continued development of subnational cultural policy.

To summarize, the state discourse had an influence on the formation of cultural policy in New

Brunswick and continues to influence the provincial goals. The market discourse has had an

influence as sites that were operated by GNB were devolved and became funded through the

Community Museums Assistance Program. Finally, while the Museum Network was a strategy

in the culture policy, its implementation and new funding programs came after additional

consultation with the museum community. The civil discourse has, therefore, had a major

influence on museum policy from 2002 to 2014 because government policy articulation and

action through funding programs were developed in collaboration. The presence of these broad

discourses is not confined to a point in time. Instead, they were each prevalent during different

periods of cultural policy development, shaping and continuing to shape policy initiatives. In

other words, New Brunswick cultural policy does not reflect one approach and has been

influenced by cultural policy discourses as they emerge over time.

2.3 Conclusion

Cultural policy existed in New Brunswick prior to 1967 as government action influenced

museum development. GNB gave operational grants to museums, was planning the Provincial

Archives as well as Kings Landing, and funded libraries as well as the New Brunswick Museum.

However, 1967 marks a turning point with the inception of an articulated, explicit cultural

policy, which saw the creation of government units responsible for cultural affairs, such as the

Historical Resource Administration. The HRA continued operational grants to museums and

became directly involved in heritage, providing technical advice or assistance and operating

provincial historic sites. While Kings Landing and the Village Historique Acadien are now

considered key provincial institutions, GNB began to shift away from direct operational

activities in the 1980s. Museums saw cuts in operational funding and the Government did not

32

establish any additional support programs despite the release of From Partnership to

Stewardship in 1994. Instead, the 1994 policy is concerned with encouraging partnerships

beyond the government sector and creating standards for museums. The release of Cultural

Policy for New Brunswick in 2002 marked a significant change in GNB’s approach to culture

because it was created collaboratively, was accompanied by additional funding, and resulted in

new financial support programs for museums.

Historically, GNB influenced museum public programming through the provision of operational

funding as well as technical advice and assistance. Further, they created provincial historic sites

that now operate as community museums through lease or management agreements. There were

no funding programs directed toward programming before 2003 as operational funding could be

spent at the discretion of the institution receiving the grant. After the release of Cultural Policy

for New Brunswick, the civil service collaborated with the museum community to create project-

based funding programs, which have led to an influx of funding. These grants, created using

Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick (AMNB 2000), influence museum public

programming. Notably, the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program provides

funding for exhibits as well as activities such as a lecture series. The grants’ historical

development from the inception of the HRA in 1967 is significant as origins and discourses

influenced their creation and continue to shape their implementation.

Cultural Policy in New Brunswick has reflected and continues to demonstrate the state, market,

and civil discourses discussed by McGuigan (2004). However, pre-existing support strategies

and the significance placed on regional difference in New Brunswick have also shaped cultural

policy development. Further, early plans developed to take advantage of resources offered by the

Federal Government. There are other context specific considerations that have influenced the

development of cultural policy in the province but are beyond the scope of my research. For

example, the releases of the policy articulations discussed above align with election years in

1974, 1995, 2003, and 2014.28 However, I have not discussed the impact of clientelism –a

process whereby goods or services are exchanged for political support. Further research is

needed in order to establish whether the trend in dates denotes a connection between elections

and the release of a cultural policy or is merely coincidental. Another potential influence is from

other provinces, particularly those in the Atlantic region where three of the provinces articulated

33

a comprehensive cultural policy in 2002. As the common date could also demonstrate a shared

federal influence, comparative research would assist in understanding whether there is a causal

link. Further, there were publicized disagreements with regards to the New Brunswick Museum

(NBM) in the 1990s that may have influenced the development of the 1994 heritage policy and

influences GNB support to community museums, but my research did not focus on the NBM due

to time restrictions. An interesting avenue of future research would be into the influence of the

relationship between GNB and the NBM on heritage policy more broadly in New Brunswick.

Due to time restraints, I did not research the influence of municipal cultural policy, but it is a

potential avenue of research. For instance, I will demonstrate in Chapter Three that project-based

grants favor museums with greater capacity. As municipalities provide or do not provide

operational support, the application of provincial policy may be affected. A greater awareness of

municipal influences may have led to better understanding regarding current funding patterns.

My analysis of cultural policy from 1967 onward raises questions regarding the intent and

influence of the new provincial support strategies. Since 2002, there are new project-based forms

of funding that direct museum activity. Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, which guided the

funding programs’ development, is concerned with increasing access, supporting a provincial

identity, and a civil discourse. As such, Chapter Three examines the project-based grants and

attempts to address some of the following questions. Are the new funding programs a way for

GNB to control how their money is spent? Do the programs increase perceived professionalism?

How do these programs influence museums? Do museums now engage in more of the projects

that are funded (i.e. exhibits)? Are the exhibits produced of higher quality?

34

Chapter 3 Governed Direction: The Influence of Project-Based Funding on

Museum Public Programming in New Brunswick

The Government of New Brunswick (GNB) created new project-based grants and increased

operational funding to community museums after the release of Cultural Policy for New

Brunswick (2002), which have directly and indirectly influenced museum public programming.

After discussing the concept of museum public programming, I briefly outline changes to

funding offered through the Museum Services Section since 2002 and its impact on community

museums. Then, I discuss the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program in

detail, focusing on its use as exhibit funding. The analysis includes examples that demonstrate

the grant’s effect in three sections in order to illustrate the following arguments. First, the Exhibit

Renewal Program provides money for a specific activity, which encourages museums to produce

more exhibits with larger budgets. Second, when museums produce new exhibits, they often

offer accompanying public programming. Third, not all museums have the personnel to regularly

access the grant or to develop ancillary programs. In other words, the Exhibit Renewal and

Museum Activities Support Program has had an influence on museum public programming,

leading to more programs and increased spending, but its effect is mitigated by museums’

limited capacity.

3.1 Public Programming

There is no one widely accepted definition of museum public programming. According to the

Smithsonian Institute, museum education “is not clearly defined, and its meaning varies widely

over time and among museums” (2001, 3). In a document outlining skills needed by the museum

workforce, the Canadian Museum Association (CMA) defines public programming as activities

that “provide informal learning opportunities for people of all ages and backgrounds with

emphasis on experiential, developmental and interactive learning” (Canadian Museums Human

Resource Planning Committee 1997, 22). This definition is included within knowledge sharing

competencies and is accompanied with definitions for educational programming, interpretation,

publications and products, design, production, as well as exhibitions. The International Council

of Museum (ICOM) defines public programming competencies as “knowledge of and skills in

35

serving the museum’s communities,” including communications, exhibitions, education and

interpretation, publications and products, and visitor service and public relations (Smithsonian

Center for Education and Museum Studies 2009). Demonstrating inconsistency, the CMA

definition for public programming is distinct from interpretation or exhibition, and the ICOM

definition includes both of those activities. However, the CMA provides a “competency

pyramid” with three areas of museum work – that is, knowledge sharing, administration, and

knowledge creation and preservation. The activities within the CMA’s knowledge sharing

competencies align with ICOM’s definition for public programming, which is part of a career

tree that has four other general competency areas.

During my interviews, I asked participants to discuss the programs at their museums and they

talked about guided tours, school programs, exhibit openings, exhibits, workshops, lectures,

community outreach, and other special events. For some, creating and updating exhibits was not

a regular activity prior to the Exhibit Renewal grant. As an example, I will discuss an institution

that replaced an exhibit during summer 2014 that was originally installed in the 1970s. As New

Brunswick community museums operate with few or no full-time paid staff, they are reliant on

volunteers and student summer employment for their operations. With so few people,

programming and curatorial staff are often the same individual(s). There is, therefore, not always

a clear distinction between these activities. Further, the Smithsonian Institute states, “exhibitions

are the principal public programs of museums” (2001, 5). As such, I use the CMA’s definition

for public programming, but have amended the definition to consider all of the knowledge

sharing competencies, including exhibits. Public programming activities, therefore, involve

providing the museums’ communities with learning opportunities and are distinct from

administrative activities or knowledge creation and preservation activities.

3.2 Funding Overview

As discussed in Chapter One, community museums saw an influx of funding following the

release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002a). GNB

increased their support through the Community Museum Assistance Program and created new

project-based grants, which have increased community museum budgets and provided income

for targeted activities. First, I will outline the indirect influence of the operational grants, the

Museum Network, the Professional and Organizational Development in Museology Program,

36

and the Museum Collection Inventory Program on museum public programming. Then, I will

discuss the direct influence of the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program,

providing examples of how it has been used.

The Community Museum Assistance Program has grown notably since 2002. Operational

funding reductions in the 1980s and 1990s reduced provincial support for fifty-four community

museums and historical societies to $292,300 in 2001-2002, or an average of just under $5,500

per institution (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002d, 18).29 Funding for community museums and

historical societies has since grown to over $800,00030 in 2013-2014. More organizations access

the grant, and most museums have seen increases.31 Nevertheless, of the fifty-nine museums and

historical societies that received operational funding from GNB in 2010-2011, 76% received less

than $10,000 and 47% received less than $5,000 (Figure 3). While the funding to most

community museums is relatively small, the operational grant is often a significant percentage of

the budget and, therefore, has a major influence on the organization’s ability to open to the

public and offer public programming. As stated by an interview participant from the Musée Mgr.

- Camille - Andre Leblanc, which has received between $500 and $3,000 in each year from

2002-2003 to 2014-2015, “the largest single source of our funding is the Government…I don’t

think we could operate without it” (Interview Participant G 2014).

37

While GNB does not control how operational grant money is spent, project-based funding directs

spending to specific projects. As such, they enable the Heritage Branch to guide museum

activities. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, GNB voiced concerns about the limited

professionalism within community museums and the government’s lack of control over how

money was spent (AMNB 1985; McGuigan 1973; MCH 1991). The AMNB then collaborated

with the Heritage Branch to create Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick (AMNB 2000),

which provided a set of operational objectives to assist museums to plan, develop, and achieve

their potential. GNB asked the community to refer to these guidelines as a basis for discussing

the development of the Museum Network (Burley 2002). While the Network was created as part

of Goal 3 in Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, the project-based funding that developed from

consultations in 2002 and 2003 align with the goals articulated in the guidelines as well as the

priorities identified by the museum community during these discussions.

The Museum Network is the only new program for museums that is specifically mentioned, but

not defined, in the 2002 cultural policy. The fourth strategy to support Goal 3 is to “develop and

implement a New Brunswick model for a museum network, clarifying the roles and

responsibilities of provincial institutions and community partners” (Culture and Sport Secretariat

2002a, 15). When developing this network, GNB divided the province into nine regional zones

in order to coordinate support based on local needs (Interview Participant H 2014), which is not

a new idea in New Brunswick (McGuigan 1972). However, the network planned as part of the

1973 provincial museums policy was never fully implemented. Conversely, the 2002 policy led

to the implementation of the Museum Network and continuous funding for its implementation.

The nine zones receive money to meet and coordinate their activities, facilitating support

amongst museums. For instance, one participant explained how their region drove a van to the

different museums, creating a document for each member with suggestions on how to improve

their institution (Interview Participant A 2014). The Network can, therefore, influence museum

public programming as members support one another. As stated by Sarah Goulding from the

Chocolate Museum in Charlotte County, “we are much stronger together than we could ever be

[on] our own” (2012, 1). However, not all zones work well together and, for some, the program

is perceived as a marketing tool rather than a support network.

38

The Heritage Branch began providing marketing funding through the Museum Network after the

stakeholder consultations in fall 2002. Zone members can vote on how money is spent and then

apply for support as a group (Interview Participant H 2014).32 Marketing funding aligns with the

guidelines’ goal to “inform the public of the museum’s mission and activities” (AMNB 2000,

10). Further, increasing museums’ visibility was the top priority identified by the museum

community during the 2002 consultations (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c). Marketing

funding has an indirect influence on museum public programming as increased awareness of an

institution can lead to more public engagement. Reasonably, the public is more likely to go to a

museum when they know it exists.

In the year following the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, the Branch also began

the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program, which I discuss in detail below,

and the Professional and Organizational Development in Museology Program.33 Funding for

professional or organizational development aligns with the AMNB’s Management Guidelines

(2000). Further, the museum community identified professional development and training as a

priority during the 2002 consultation. Few participants mentioned this Program as influencing

public programming. However, the grant can have an indirect effect as it funds strategic

development, which may lead to more programming, or the cost of attending a workshop, which

could encourage skill development that effects programming.

The Heritage Branch held a second consultation with the museum community in November 2003

and, subsequently, the Museum Collection Inventory Program was created. The Program

provides museums with up to $3,000 to inventory their collection, requiring the institutions to

upload a number of objects to Artefacts Canada.34 It aligns with Section 3.2 Collections

Management: Documentation in the guidelines. While the Program’s aim is to “encourage

museums to focus on their collection and in particular, the managing of their collection records”

(Heritage Branch 2015c, 1), some interview participants believe it influences public

programming. As argued by a civil servant and two museum representatives, the Program

increases knowledge of the collection, leading to more informed activities (Cormier 2014;

Interview Participant B 2014; Interview Participant I 2014). For instance, a guide can provide

guests with information about an object more easily if it has been researched and catalogued

(Cormier 2014).

39

Funding for marketing, professional or organizational development, and collection inventory

have an indirect influence on museum public programming. The Exhibit Renewal and Museum

Activities Program has a more direct affect on programming than the other grants. The grant was

originally titled “Exhibit Renewal and New Museological Activities Support Program” and it

supported updating exhibits as well as complementary museum activities. Initially, having a

permanent exhibit that was at least seven years old was an eligibility requirement for the funding

(Heritage Branch 2003). The grant primarily encouraged museums to refresh their permanent

exhibits, but it could also be used for temporary content (Museum Services 2015, personal

communication). These activities fall within the goal, in the guidelines, “to provide exhibits

which convey [a] specific theme or message in an accurate and visually attractive matter”

(AMNB 2000, 11). While the museum community did not identify updating exhibits as one of

the three priorities during the 2002 consultations, they did identify exhibit production as both a

strength and an area for improvement (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c, 3).

Over time, the Exhibit Renewal Program evolved and the scope broadened to better suit the

needs of the museum community (Museum Services Section 2015, personal communication). As

of 2014, it provides a maximum grant of $10,000, which cannot exceed 75% of project cost, to

support the:

Construction of an exhibit; Renewal of an existing exhibit; Realization of complementary museum activities (conservation, cultural activities, etc.) that enhance the exhibits displayed at the institution; Design of a new interpretation program or educational activities; Conservation of artifacts that are not eligible under the province’s Fine Art Conservation Program (Heritage Branch 2014, 1-2).

The Program can be used to fund programming and one participant used the grant to support

heritage talks. However, some institutions do not know what the Museum Activities component

entails. During our interview, Paul Bogaard (2014) from the Campbell Carriage Factory Museum

stated, “It seems to me we know about the New Museological Activities and it’s not clear that it

fits anything that we can make use of.” Bill Clarke (2014) from the Restigouche Regional

Museum said, “I am not even sure what that would apply to.” Most museums that apply for the

grant use it to fund the construction of an exhibit. From 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, 71% of the

applications were for exhibits and 29% for other museum activities (Museum Services 2015,

40

personal communication). As such, in the following sections, I focus on the grant’s use and

influence as funding for exhibits.

In summation, GNB has influenced public programming directly and indirectly through grants

initiated after the release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. The program that has had the

greatest impact on public programming is the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support

Program. The grant directly influences museum public programming by encouraging more

exhibits and increasing spending on those projects.

3.2.1 Brushing off the Dust: Increasing the Quantity and Quality of Exhibits

With the increase in funding for exhibits in New Brunswick, interview participants believe their

quantity has increased, which agrees with research on increased funding for exhibits in the

United States (Alexander 1996). The Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program

has been used by community museums to update or replace permanent exhibitions that, in some

cases, had not been updated since they were installed in the 1970s and 1980s. It also provides

funding for temporary exhibits, encouraging changing content. While some museums did these

activities prior to accessing the grant, they were not “as well researched, presented or

interpreted” (Interview Participant B 2015, personal communication). Instead, they resembled

“’grandma’s attic’ type displays” (Ibid.). The grant increases the amount of money spent on

exhibits overall as well as each individual project, which can increase the perceived quality.

The Fredericton Region Museum (FRM), a large-scale museum operated by the York Sunbury

Historical Society, has received a $15,000 operational grant from GNB in each year from 2002-

2003 to 2014-2015. The FRM’s revenue has exceeded $100,000 in each year since 2007 and

they have a full-time staff person (Table 5).35 The Exhibit Renewal grant provided the funding

and impetus to redevelop the FRM’s permanent exhibitions. Prior to the Program, some of the

exhibits had not been updated or replaced for a prolonged period. For instance, the WWI Trench,

which re-opened in 2014 as New Brunswick and the Great War, was originally built in the early

1970s (Wilson 2014). In 2006, the FRM began a Five Year Exhibits Plan as part of the Society’s

Strategic Development Plan, calling for seven permanent exhibits tracing the history of central

New Brunswick (York Sunbury Historical Society Exhibits Committee 2006). To that end, the

41

museum created or re-designed eight permanent exhibits from 2007 to 2014, at least one of

which was around forty years old when it was replaced.36 Of these, six received the $10,000

Exhibit Renewal grant from GNB (York Sunbury Historical Society and Museum 2008 2009

2010 2011; York Sunbury Historical Society and Fredericton Region Museum 2012 2013).

The FRM demonstrates the use of provincial funding in reviving or replacing outdated displays.

Prior to the Exhibit Renewal Program, the FRM created both permanent and temporary exhibits.

However, they spent significantly less on these projects than they have since accessing the grant.

In 1999, the Museum’s “Exhibit Expenses” were $1,307 (York-Sunbury Historical Society Inc.

1999). In 2012, they spent $33,933 on exhibits and only $10,000 came from the Exhibit Renewal

Program (York Sunbury Historical Society and Fredericton Region Museum 2012). The $3,500,

or 25% that the Museum has to contribute for the $10,000 grant, is more than twice what they

spent on exhibits in 1999. As articulated by the Past President Fred White (2014), the Society has

used the provincial funding as “seed money.” For example, the War of 1812 exhibit, launched in

2012, received $10,000 from the Heritage Branch, $7,800 from the Federal Government, and

$1,406 from the City of Fredericton (York Sunbury Historical Society and Fredericton Region

Museum 2012). The provincial grant has, therefore, contributed to an increase in spending on

exhibits beyond the $10,000 they provide. It has also increased the amount of money spent on

each individual exhibit at the FRM, allowing for professionally designed and printed didactics.

The FRM began producing more, and spending more money on, exhibits they produce after the

provincial funding became available.

The Restigouche Regional Museum (RRM) is a medium-sized institution that has received from

$5,000 to $6,000 in operational funding from GNB in each year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015

(Table 5). Their operational budget ranges from $60,000 to $100,000 and they do not have full-

time, year round paid staff (Bill Clarke 2015, personal communication). The RRM is not

dependent on GNB for its exhibits and has created temporary content in every year since 1994,

on which they spent around three or four thousand dollars (Clarke 2014). However, they used the

Exhibit Renewal grant to create a new permanent exhibit, receiving from $3,480 to $8,759 in

each year from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008. The Museum received $33,747 over five years to

replace displays in their permanent exhibit, increasing spending. Commenting on their quality,

42

Bill Clarke said, “During the summer, almost on a daily basis, one of our visitors tells us that

they’re surprised to find such sophisticated exhibits in a little town like ours” (AMNB 2012, 2).

The Exhibit Renewal program has also been used to replace aging exhibits at small-scale

community museums, enhancing the participants’ perception of the institutions’ quality. For

instance, Peninsular Heritage Inc. operates the John Fischer Memorial Museum (JFMM) and the

1810 Carter House. They received between $2,000 and $5,000 in operational grants from GNB

in each year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015 (Table 5). JFMM is a small-scale community

museum with revenue of less than $50,000 and no year-round paid staff. Prior to using the grant,

their permanent exhibit did not have a narrative and it looked like a “jumble sale’ or a ‘granny’s

attic or back shed” (Interview Participant D 2014). The Exhibit Renewal grant was not enough to

pay someone to construct or curate an exhibit. Instead, the JFMM used the funding to purchase

materials like plexiglass. The better materials enabled the Museum to redesign the displays to tell

story with a deliberate design, resulting in a “wow effect” from visitors (Ibid.).

As these examples show, the Exhibit Renewal program has increased the number of exhibits that

museums produce, increased the money that museums spend on exhibits, enabled museums to

update old displays, and increased the perceived quality of the end product. A range of

community museums of different sizes and located across the province use the grant. The Exhibit

Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program has directly influenced museum public

programming as it leads to more exhibits at New Brunswick community museums that interview

participants believe are of better quality.

43

Table 5: Financial Information for the Museums Used as Examples in Chapter Three.

Museum Zone Community Museum Assistance Program 2002-2003; 2014-2015

Total Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program (number of years received)

Total Revenue According to their Canadian Revenue Agency Report 2002; 2013

Year Round Paid Staff (Y/N)

Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton

Musées du Sud-Est Nouveau-Brunswick

$215,000; $255,000

$39,944 (4) N/A Y

Campbell Carriage Factory Museum (Tantramar Heritage Trust)

Southeastern New Brunswick

$1,500; $5,000

$33,500 (4) $62,638; $501,857

Y

Fredericton Region Museum (York Sunbury Historical Society)

Central River Valley

$15,000 $15,000

$60,000 (6) $69,410; $124,196

Y

John Fischer Memorial Museum (Peninsula Heritage Inc.)

Saint John Fundy

$2,000 $4,000

$14,347 (3) $41,515; $38,839

N

Kings County Museum

Saint John Fundy

$2,500 $4,000

$31,338 (6) $22,835; $33,838

Y

Queens County Heritage

Central River Valley

$12,000 $15,000

$101,000 (10) $40,416; $198,576

N

Restigouche Regional Museum

Restigouche $5,000 $6,000

$43,747 (6) N/A N

Le Musée historique de Tracadie

Peninsula - Chaleur

$2,000 $3,500

$19,000 (3) $11,760; $42,647

N

44

3.2.2 Ancillary Content: Exhibits Generating Other Activities

The Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities grant motivates additional public programs as

institutions provide services in connection with their exhibits. Most notably, all but one of the

participants I interviewed were from museums that offer guided tours of their permanent and/or

temporary displays. In connection with exhibits, museums also offer openings, workshops,

lectures, and other special events.

Queens County Heritage (QCH) is a medium-scale community museum that has a paid director

for only part of the year, but revenue exceeding $100,000 in each year since 2008.37 In 2002,

GNB provided a $12,000 operational grant, which grew to $14,000 in 2005 and has been

$15,000 since 2006 (Table 5). They have received more funding through the Exhibit Renewal

Program than any other institution: $101,000 since the program became available. QCH typically

uses the grant to fund a summer exhibit such as Loyalist Legacy (2011) and For the Birds (2013).

In Summer 2014, the organization’s signature exhibit, Food for Thought, aimed to create

conversation about the past, present, and future of food. To that end, the exhibit opened with

Flour Fest, a baking contest that honored local recipes, inviting audiences to engage with the

exhibit’s themes (Christie 2014). In 2012, Art Under the Influence: Three Centuries of Queens

County Art invited local artists to create a work inspired by an older piece in the collection (Lyall

2012). There were also four children’s workshops where QCH asked participants to be inspired

and produce a work of art (QCH 2012a). Like many of their peer institutions, Queens County

Heritage conducts other forms of public programming in connection with their exhibits,

encouraging more public interaction.

Kings County Museum (KCM) is also a medium-sized institution. The Museum is open year

round and has a paid director who works full-time during the summer and part-time during the

winter. However, KCM has less than $50,000 in revenue and only received a $2,500 to $5,000

provincial operating grant in each year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015 (Table 5).38 They offer

heritage workshops in order to interest youth in their exhibits, using some of the provincial

exhibit funding for the programs’ upfront costs (Chris White 2015, personal correspondence).

However, the grant has an influence beyond the direct funding. Discussing the heritage

45

workshops, KCM Director Chris White (2014) stated, “The exhibition renewal [grant] is the

kernel to delivering these programs.” She believes people generate ideas for programming

through the research and work involved in creating an exhibit. For example, in Summer 2012 the

Museum had the temporary exhibit Flewwellings: From Loyalist Loss to Hampton Star, for

which the Museum received a $3,949 grant. As the exhibit featured information about the

Kennebecasis Steamship Company, they held a children’s workshop where the participants built

model steamships. The Exhibit Renewal Program’s influence on exhibit creation shapes the

workshops.

Numerous museums use the Exhibit Renewal Program to fund exhibits around which they

develop additional public programming. For example, the Fredericton Region Museum hosts

children’s birthday parties and one of the themes is based on their provincially funded loyalist

exhibit. The Musée acadien de l'université de Moncton, another large-scale museum, had a night

of storytelling in conjunction with Folktales and Storytelling in Acadie (2011). However, it is

important to note that those receiving the grant often offer programs beyond those funded by

GNB or associated with a provincially funded exhibit. For example, the Tantramar Heritage

Trust is a large-scale organization that operates the Campbell Carriage Factory Museum. The

Museum hosts special events, such as the Antique Tool Collectors Show and Family Fun Day. In

2009, they held “Tuesday Nights at the Carriage Factory in July,” featuring a "Carriage and

Wagon Drive-In Movie," a star-talk, a concert, and an evening of plays. Further, the Trust

facilitates a Heritages Day at the local high school every year. They also provide heritage

demonstrations and activities at the Sackville Farmer’s Market in July and August. As such, the

Exhibit Renewal grant increases museum public programming directly through funding for

exhibits as well as other public programs. It also indirectly inspires program development,

providing the impetus to develop certain activities. However, programming develops beyond

what is affected by GNB’s direct grant.

3.2.3 An Exhibit and a Tour: The Standard Format

Half of the sixty-two institutions that have been awarded the Exhibit Renewal grant have only

received it once. Only nine organizations have accessed the grant more than five times in eleven

years (Figure 4). As one museum has received a total of $336 and another has received a total of

$101,000 through the grant, the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program

46

influences public programming at particular museums more than others. In a report analyzing the

financial, human resource, and structural capacities of nonprofits and voluntary organizations in

Canada, Hall et al. conclude, “people are at the heart of nonprofit and voluntary organizations”

(2003, 56). Accordingly, some museums in New Brunswick generate more activity with

government funding because they have the staff and volunteers who are able and willing to plan

and administer programs. As stated by Chris White (2014), “with our larger numbers [of

members] we are able to accomplish a bit more.” As such, GNB’s influence on public

programming through project-based funding is largely dependent on the museums’ human

resource capacity.

The Restigouche Regional Museum (RRM), discussed above, does not have full-time paid staff,

but they do have a volunteer director and provincially funded students who work full time during

the summer. Despite the lack of staff, the RRM is open from 9am to 5pm from Monday to Friday

and often on Saturday mornings during the off-season, depending on the volunteer director’s

presence (Clarke 2015, personal correspondence). The Museum is one of nine institutions that

received the Exhibit Renewal grant more than five times. As discussed above, they accessed the

grant when re-developing their permanent exhibits and they also create yearly temporary content

without using the funding. The Museum offers some additional public programming, such as

graveyard tours and guided tours of the RRM. However, their programs are limited because

operations are largely dependent on the dedication of one volunteer. As stated by Bill Clarke

31  

7   8   7  0   4   3   0   1   1  0  

5  10  15  20  25  30  35  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  

Num

ber

of m

useu

ms

Number of Years the Exhibition Renewal Grant was received

Figure 4: Total Number of Times Museums Received an Exhibit Renewal and New Museum Activities Grant from 2003-2004 to

2014-2015

47

(2014), the volunteer director, “If we had staff that was dedicated to programming then there

would be a lot more going on here.”

The Musée historique de Tracadie is a small-scale museum that has received an operational grant

from GNB of $2,000 to $4,500 in each year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015 (Table 5). They have

an operating budget of less than $50,000 and are located inside a building that also hosts other

groups. They have accessed the Exhibit Renewal Program twice from 2003-2004 to 2013-2014

to update their permanent exhibit, totaling $11,500, and received a $7,500 grant in 2014-2015.

The Musée has student guides during the summer and conducts some public programs, such as

exhibit openings and participating in the province’s Heritage Week. However, the Musée is

limited in how it can use the Exhibit Renewal grant because they do not have the necessary staff

or space for certain activities. For instance, if they offered children’s programming in the off-

season, it would disturb those that occupy the building’s classrooms during the winter (Interview

Participant F 2014). Further, the Musée has volunteers, a secretary for about five months, and an

accountant, but primarily operates on summer student employees (Ibid.; Interview Participant F

2015, personal correspondence) and is, therefore, limited in program development as discussed

in Chapter Four. The Interview Participant from the Musée historique de Tracadie stated that the

Board works with other organizations to offer the public heritage programming because they

have neither the staff nor the space to do so.

The most significant factor in determining if a museum accesses provincial support, how much

they receive, and, therefore, the influence of government funding on their public programming is

whether the museum even applies for the grants. Many New Brunswick community museums are

“one-person shops” and funding applications or public program development depends on that

person (Interview Participant I 2014). As such, when discussing the Exhibit Renewal and

Museum Activities Support Program with clients, the Museum Services Section often hears

“there is no time to do that” (Ibid.). Museums’ capacity to develop provincially funded programs

is largely determined by their volunteers and staff who often have limited time to develop

programs because they are few in number. Grants are then directed to institutions with personnel

– paid and/or volunteer – who are both willing and able to develop a project, meaning certain

museums access the grant more often and also develop additional programming with an exhibit.

48

3.3 Discussion

As demonstrated, provincial funding has an effect on museum public programming. While all of

the grants can have some indirect impact, I have focused on the Exhibit Renewal and Museum

Activities Support Program’s more direct influence.

Heritage Branch employees as well as the representatives from community museums that I

interviewed stressed the collaborative process used to develop support strategies after the release

of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick – that is, the presence of a civil discourse. Accordingly,

the new grants, including the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program, align

with the community museum standards published by the AMNB in 2000. Further, the marketing

funding as well as the professional and organizational development grant target the priorities

identified by the museum community during the 2002 consultations. The three priorities are:

1. Visibility through: • Conventional media utilization. • Developing networking relationships with the community.39

2. Stability: funding. 3. Professional development and training for:

• Professional and seasonal staff. • Volunteers and Board members (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c, 7).

However, the Exhibit Renewal Program does not clearly align with these priorities. In a

workshop titled “Program Management Guidelines,” the museum community identified exhibit

production as an area to be improved as often as they identified it as a strength. Further, a 2003

report indicates the Exhibit Renewal grant developed separately from the two funding programs

that were “based on the recommendations coming out of last year’s consultation meeting”

(Culture and Sport Secretariat 2003, 3). GNB may have created the Exhibit Renewal Program in

accordance with unrecorded requests from the museum community. However, this information is

not in the final reports from the 2002 and 2003 consultations, which raises the question: what is

the motivation behind the Exhibit Renewal Program?

The grant does not direct funding toward projects that foster particular ideas. Instead, it provides

money for exhibits and activities that “fall within a programming plan for the museum in

accordance with its mission and mandate” (Heritage Branch 2014, 1). As stated by Fred White

(2014), “They’re looking for the fact you deliver a product that you chose.” Accordingly, the

49

first two evaluation criteria are the project’s feasibility and impact in relation to the museum’s

mission. While the program does not fund projects thematically, exhibit themes can be

influenced by external factors, which then shapes the projects the GNB funds. For example, in

2014 the Heritage Branch had an increase in applications. A civil servant attributed the increase,

in part, to the WWI anniversary as seven of twenty-one applications were for WWI

commemorations (Interview Participant I 2014).

Since the Program does not direct funding toward specific themes or content, GNB seems to

value the production of exhibits rather than increasing access to particular ideas. The Provincial

Government may value the production of exhibits as a means of increasing museum quality.

GNB voiced concerns with community museum professionalism in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s,

leading to Guidelines for New Brunswick Museums in 2000. While there were attempts to create

standards and regulations for funding, it does not appear any system was ever maintained. In

fact, not all of the museums receiving a grant through the Community Museum Assistance

Program qualify for it according to the eligibility requirements.40 However, project-based

funding enables GNB to guide activity, increasing perceived quality and professionalism. From

the civil servants’ perspective, the community museum standards have increased with the

implementation of the grants. One civil servant stated, “I am proud of what the community did

because… they [have] clearly improved” (Interview Participant H 2014). From the perspective

of the museum community, the funding increases the quality of their offerings. For instance,

Chris White (2014) with the Kings County Museum said, “We could not deliver the quantity or

quality of programs that we do without that funding, without that support.” One participant stated

that without funding for targeted activities, community museums may never learn how to

produce an exhibit or develop programming (Interview Participant B 2014). The funding has

expanded what museums can accomplish because project-based grants provide the impetus for

volunteers and other staff persons to develop the necessary skills in order to create an exhibit or

other content.

In Chapter Two, I discussed the state discourse and increasing access as an early justification for

cultural policy in New Brunswick that remains present in policy discussions. The Exhibit

Renewal grant encourages organizations to update and change their exhibits, promoting the “use

of the collection / artifacts in the exhibit or activity” (Heritage Branch 2014, 1). To be eligible,

50

the project must “focus on making culture more accessible to the public” (Ibid., 2). Further, the

project must “show promise for raising public awareness” (Ibid., 1). Exhibits place objects and

research on display, making them more accessible through increased visibility. Then, as argued

by the director of the Kings County Museum (C. White 2014), creating changing content

provides local residents with a reason to go to the Museum, increasing the frequency they access

heritage resources. However, many New Brunswick community museums are only open for

regular hours seasonally and by appointment or chance the rest of the year. For instance, the

AMNB website provides information for forty organizations and at least twenty-seven of them

do not open for regular hours during the winter.41 The Exhibit Renewal grant, therefore,

increases access to heritage content, but the timing of this accessibility is limited.

In Chapter One, I argued that organizations can achieve long-term stability by developing

stakeholder relationships, which can be facilitated through public programming. Similarly, Fred

White (2014) with the Fredericton Region Museum said, “public programming…allows us to

relate to our community.” One of the Exhibit Renewal Program’s criteria is, “community interest

and involvement in the project,” which includes “contributions accompanied by a letter of

support clearly indicating the nature of the contribution” (Heritage Branch 2014, 2). According

to a civil servant, they are proud because more and more museums are not simply providing the

25% that the grant requires from their own budget. Instead, they are soliciting financial or in kind

support from other groups (Interview Participant I 2014). In line with a market discourse, GNB’s

conception of community interest seems to involve not only attendance or participation, but also

some form of assistance for the project. Under the priority “Stability: Funding,” the museum

community recommended the Provincial Government facilitate the development of private sector

partnerships (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c). Accordingly, GNB may support public

programming to encourage museums to create content that provides the motivation for other

groups to support community museums in New Brunswick.

The introduction of project-based funding marks a shift in GNB support programs to community

museums. Prior to these grants, the Government’s financial support was widely and thinly

distributed through their operational grant – the Community Museum Assistance Program. As

demonstrated in Figures 2 and 3, operational grants to community museums and historical

societies continue to provide a large number of organizations with relatively small amounts of

51

funding every year. More specifically, 76% of the organizations receive less than $10,000 to

operate. The Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program is available to all “non-

profit museum and heritage organizations based in New Brunswick and incorporated under the

Companies Act” (Heritage Branch 2014, 1). However, only thirty-one of the sixty-two

organizations that have received the grant have accessed it more than once. Only nine

organizations have received the grant more than five times over twelve years (Figure 4). GNB’s

project-based funding is thus distributed less widely than its operational funding. The Exhibit

Renewal grant has enabled GNB to concentrate funding to organizations with both the desire and

capacity to offer programs with regular project-based grants. It also enhances the quality of other

organizations with one-time grants that enable museums to improve or create an exhibit, which is

often their primary form of public programming.

Some Interview Participants identified a relationship between human resources and the ability to

offer public programming using GNB funding. It is evident that without staff or volunteers who

are willing and have the necessary time resource, museums cannot develop or implement public

programs. However, there are museums that do not receive the Exhibit Renewal grant regularly,

but have the capacity to do so. For example, Resurgo Place and the Musée acadien de

l’université de Moncton have full-time and year round paid staff but have received the grant less

than five times (Interview Participant I 2014). It is also important to note that those who have

applied more than five times are not necessarily paid employees, such as Bill Clarke with the

Restigouche Regional Museum. More research is needed to establish why a museum identified

as a “one-person” shop by the Museum Services Section, like the Musée acadien de Caraquet, is

more likely to receive the Exhibit Renewal grant than certain museums with more than one full-

time, year round staff. The data I obtained during my research is incomplete, as I cannot clearly

establish the relationship between number of staff, type of staff, number of volunteers, number of

hours volunteered, and the receipt of government funding. As such, additional research is

needed, perhaps in the form of surveys to all New Brunswick community museums. Further, I

did not research municipal or other external funding, which could be a factor that influences a

museum’s likelihood of applying to GNB grants.

While there are weaknesses and limits to what my research can reveal, Interview Participants

actively engaged in exhibit creation often credit their museum’s staff or volunteers (Interview

52

Participant B 2014; C. White 2014; F. White 2014). Museums with limited exhibit development,

as well as some who develop exhibits regularly, believe they could accomplish more with the

available funding if they had more personnel able and willing to implement activities (Bogaard

2014; Clarke 2014; Interview Participant F 2014). For instance, Tantramar Heritage Trust is

largely a volunteer organization. GNB does not restrict how often they can utilize the Exhibit

Renewal grant, but their own human resources are limiting. As Paul Bogaard (2014) notes, the

“limit is really getting our act together and making use of what the province offers us.”

3.4 Conclusion

GNB has influenced community museum public programming from 2002 to 2014 through the

introduction of project-based funding and the continuation of operational grants. Most notably,

the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program provides funding for exhibits and

other programming activities. While exhibits fall within the definition of public programming,

their creation also generates additional programs. However, people with the community

museums are responsible for project development, implementation, and applying for the funding

that supports theses activities. As such, these individuals influence the impact of Government

funding on museum public programming. Museums with limited human resource capacity are

restricted in their ability to access these resources.

In total, GNB has funded 161 projects with $1,138,22242 over twelve years through the Exhibit

Renewal grant. The Provincial Government has thus had a significant influence on museum

public programming with a relatively small amount of funding. As discussed in Chapter Five, the

apparent success of this program in increasing museum quality and encouraging public program

development is significant when considering a funder preference for supporting programs or

capital expansions rather than operational cost (Genoways and Ireland 2003; Jenkins 2005). In

cases where operational funding is distributed widely and thinly, as seen in New Brunswick,

there may be value in directing increases in funding towards project-based programs because,

from the perspective of interview participants, the new forms of funding have allowed

institutions to improve. However, community museums’ ability to access and utilize the grant is

largely dependent on their human resources. As many museums are “one-person shops” and

these people are often volunteers, the following chapter looks at policy influencing staffing at

community museums and how it has influenced public programming.

53

Chapter 4 The Need for SEED: The Influence of the Student Employment and

Experience Development (SEED) Program on Museum Public Programming

As demonstrated in Chapter Three, the Government of New Brunswick (GNB) has influenced

museum public programming since 2002 through an influx of funding that shapes museum

activities. However, as noted by Bill Clarke (2014) with the Restigouche Regional Museum,

“public programming is ultimately dependent on the people who are involved and set policy in

the individual museums. You have places where there are wonderful things going on, places

where there is not much going on, and everything in-between.” Many New Brunswick

community museums do not have the budget for full-time, year round staff and are dependent on

volunteers as well as student summer employment. This chapter discusses the impact of people

and the primary method that GNB has influenced staffing in community museums – the Student

Employment and Experience Development Program (SEED).

After considering SEED as an implicit cultural policy, I briefly review literature on non-standard

employment in the non-profit sector. I then discuss human resources at community museums in

New Brunswick and outline SEED’s development from its inception as a formal program in

1971, emphasizing the importance of individuals in museum public programming development

and implementation. After demonstrating SEED’s influence and highlighting some of the issues

that have arisen in its implementation, I discuss these issues within the context of non-profit

sector employment. While this analysis aims to cover the period from 2002 to 2014, interview

participants had often accessed provincially funded student employees since before 2002 and

could not always distinguish when events took place. Further, many of the benefits and issues

with SEED are longstanding. While 2002 to 2014 is a useful timeframe when looking at the

GNB’s explicit cultural policy, it is not as helpful when looking at this program. I conclude

SEED has a widespread influence on museums and a significant impact on public programming,

raising questions regarding its effectiveness and the best use of government funding.

54

4.1 Foundations

SEED is a provincial program that provides non-profit organizations, including museums, with

student summer employees. The Program is cultural policy as it is government action influencing

the cultural life of its citizens. However, SEED’s objective – to “provide students with

employment related to their skills and education…. while enabling them to finance the

continuation of their education” (GNB 2013, 3) – is not explicitly cultural. An explicit cultural

policy “deals directly with culture” (Throsby 2009, 179). An implicit cultural policy “influences

culture only indirectly, the overt intention of the policy being directed elsewhere” (Ibid., 179).

Applying these concepts, Throsby (2009) notes that some explicit economic policies are implicit

cultural policies because they have veiled cultural purposes. For example, international trade

policy has “a direct impact on culture when trade in cultural goods and services is involved”

(Ibid., 181-182). While SEED is not articulated as having ‘cultural’ objectives, I demonstrate

that it has a significant influence on museum operations. As such, the student employment

program is a cultural policy with an implicit ‘cultural’ objective.

SEED provides non-profit organizations with short-term employees, a form of nonstandard

employment. Non-standard employment or alternate staffing is characterized by impermanent

relationships between the employee and employer, including temporary contracts, part-time

employment, and independent contracts (Akingbola 2004). Looking at the Canadian Red Cross,

Akingbola (2004, 462) found “the main implications of nonstandard work were lack of

consistency, retention, and quality.” Other scholars researching employment in the non-profit

sector come to similar conclusions. For instance, Hall et al. (2003) identify recruitment and

retention as issues that affect non-profit organizations’ human resource capacity. Katherine

Scott’s (2003, 106) study finds reliance on contract staff or job creation programs is a barrier to

establishing stable and high quality services. As such, nonstandard employment may have certain

negative influences on museum public programming in New Brunswick.

As noted by Nickson et al. (2008, 20), an organization’s ability to provide services is “dependent

on the quantity and quality of suitable labour.” According to studies on non-profit organizational

capacity, human resources is a critical factor in goal attainment (Hall et al. 2003; Misener and

Doherty 2009). Accordingly, Sarah Goulding (2014) with the Chocolate Museum stated that she

does not necessarily need a lot of money to do public programming, but she needs people. People

55

are her “biggest resource and biggest asset” in operating the museum. As such, a discussion of

staffing within the museum sector in New Brunswick as well as the implications of temporary

employment is vital to an analysis of Government influence on museum public programming.

4.2 Museum Employment in NB

4.2.1 The Need for SEED

Most community museums in New Brunswick do not have the budget for year-round and full-

time paid staff. Only five of the thirteen interview participants that represented non-profit

community museums were from institutions with a year round staff person. However, museums

have committed volunteers that will sometimes work full-time hours. In 1986, the John Fischer

Memorial Museum, a small-scale community museum in New Brunswick, wrote a proposal for

funding to hire a Director. A volunteer had provided stability and nurtured the project “to a level

where it is unfair to continue this position on a volunteer basis” (John Fischer Memorial Museum

1986, 6). The Museum was concerned that the individual would leave the project upon finding

paid work. Instead, she stayed with the organization and continues to volunteer her time. One

interview participant who is also a volunteer indicated he spends at least one full-time week a

year on grant applications for his institution in addition to the time he spends on operation and

program activities (Interview Participant B 2014). While museums may not have the money for

full-time, year round staff, they do have dedicated volunteers that act in place of or alongside

paid staff.

There are some organizations that have a full-time, year-round employee, but few community

museums have more than one.43 It is challenging for museums to operate and provide

programming with only one person. The director of the Chocolate Museum said “you are very

volunteer dependent if you’re a small museum with only one staff member most of the time”

(Goulding 2014). Even museums that can afford a paid director are heavily reliant on volunteers

and summer students. 44 For instance, the Fredericton Region Museum (FRM) employs a director

year round and also has a budget for part-time hours. However, the Museum relies on its board

and other volunteers for various activities, including writing exhibit didactics, cataloguing

artefacts, and giving tours. The past-president, Fred White (2014), said the Museum has an

average of sixty-five volunteers a year and can have as many as one hundred, depending on the

56

year. As stated in a Facebook post, “The FRM is … dependent on the willingness of volunteers

to give their time and summer student grants” (FRM 2012). When discussing the approximately

600 volunteers and 500 employees at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Susan Ashley

(2012, 108) states, “volunteers are a means to stretch budgets and offer additional services.” In

New Brunswick, there are no museums with that many employees and, most often, the

volunteers far out number the paid employees. Volunteers in the province’s community

museums are a means of offering basic services rather than additional services.

Funding through SEED provides money for full-time employees for about two months of the

year, enabling museums to open and offer additional programming. Whereas about 50% of

museums and historical societies receive less than $5,000 from GNB for operations (Figure 2

and 3), and a full-time student at minimum wage for ten weeks costs more than $4,000, the

program enables museums to have an employee for around eight or ten weeks that they would

otherwise be unable to afford. That is not to say the students replace volunteers for those ten

weeks. Instead, volunteers continue to offer their time by supervising and coordinating activities.

In many cases, they also continue to help with programming.

4.2.2 A Brief History of SEED

A report from the Department of Labour suggests GNB began a formalized student summer

employment program in the spring of 1971.45 The goal was to “play a significant role in

providing employment opportunities and functioning as an information centre to assist students

in obtaining jobs at other sources” (Christie 1971, 1). The program has continued and is now the

Student Employment and Experience Development program (SEED). 46 The Department of Post

Secondary Education, Training and Labour (PETL) operates SEED with the same intent – to

provide students returning to post-secondary schools in the fall with money for tuition and skill

development. It funds student jobs at non-profits, provincial departments or agencies, First

Nation communities, and municipalities full-time for a specified number of weeks at minimum

wage.

57

From the program’s inception, GNB has provided community museums with student employees

during the summer.47 When the program began in 1971, the Historical Resource Administration

(HRA) employed eighteen students through the employment program. By the summer of 1979,

the HRA facilitated fifty student positions, increasing provincially financed student employment

in museums and historical societies by thirty-two positions over eight years. In 2014, SEED

funded a total of 102 student employees or 947 weeks in New Brunswick community museums

and historical societies (Allen-Scott, Godin, and Tremblay 2014).

Through SEED, GNB provides funding for Priority Student Employment (PEP), which is first

mentioned by the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage in 1990. Although PEP is

funded through SEED, they are awarded differently. PEP provides a number of student weeks to

a government branch or department, which distributes positions to support a targeted activity.

For example, in 1994 GNB provided Community Museum Attendants through the Heritage

Branch, noting the positions are essential to continue operating most museums during the

summer (Ministers Committee Employment Development 1994). 48 Alternatively, SEED is

administered through the Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs). The politicians receive a

certain number of weeks to distribute within their riding as they find appropriate. Since they are

given a number of weeks rather than jobs to allocate, SEED positions generally range from eight

to ten weeks and are usually only eight. Museums can, therefore, apply for both PEP and SEED,

sending their application to the Heritage Branch. Most museums receive at least one PEP student

and they can receive one or more SEED positions depending on the wishes of their MLA.

Of the 116 SEED positions in 2007, 55 were 10-week PEP students. In summer 2008, GNB

provided fewer students through PEP. They only funded 32 students, compared with 55 the year

before and 50 in each year from 2009 to 2014. Consequently, the Heritage Branch has funded

additional students to supplement the SEED/PEP program since 2008. The Branch also assists

museums that receive students by facilitating the program. Museums submit time sheets through

the Heritage Branch, the Branch has a student that verifies the sheets were completed correctly

before sending them to PETL, and they pay the students directly so museums do not have to wait

to be reimbursed (Interview Participant H 2014). The involvement of the Branch in the

application and administrative process, the existence of PEP, and the fact the Heritage Branch

supplements SEED/PEP supports the conception of the Program as a cultural policy.

58

From 2002 to 2014, the number of positions and weeks assigned to community museums

through SEED/PEP has declined (Figures 5 and 6). Museums and historical societies employed

145 SEED/PEP positions in 2002 and only 102 in 2014. The SEED/PEP program funded the

fewest student positions in 2012 with a total of 89 positions or 50 PEP and 39 SEED students.

The number of students funded through the Heritage Branch from 2008 onward is variable

ranging from 6 to 16. These figures demonstrate that SEED/PEP is widespread and a significant

source of employment for community museums. However, the number of positions is

inconsistent from year to year, despite consistency with PEP since 2009 and the Heritage

Branch’s attempts to supplement the program.

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

90  

2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014  

Num

ber  of  Students  

Year  

Figure 5: Number of SEED/PEP Students by Year (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014)

SEED  

PEP  

Tourism,  Heritage  and  Culture  

59

4.2.3 Reflection from the Museum Community

All of the participants I interviewed from non-profit community museums use SEED/PEP. They

emphasized the Program’s significance, but also discussed challenges posed by its restrictions

and administration. In this section, I will discuss provincially funded student employment from

the perspective of those I interviewed and its influence on museum public programming.

The summer is the only time the majority of NB community museums open to the public for

regular hours because they hire a student or students through SEED/PEP and, in cases where the

organization has enough financial capacity, the federal employment programs. The participant

from the Musée historique de Tracadie stated, “we need the students as guides during the

summer; we are not able to open a museum without them” (Interview Participant F 2014). The

participant from the John Fisher Memorial Museum said, “We operate on students” (Interview

Participant D 2014). Of the seven organizations in the Fundy Heritage Zone receiving

operational funding through the Community Museum Assistance Program,49 only the Kings

County Museum opens for regular hours in the winter.50 Even museums with a year round staff

person benefit from student employment. For instance, King County Museum is open for six

0  

100  

200  

300  

400  

500  

600  

700  

800  

2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014  

Num

ber  of  Weeks  

Figure 6: SEED/PEP Number of Weeks by Year (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014)

SEED  

PEP  

THC  

60

instead of three days during the summer because they have students. SEED/PEP has a major

influence on public programming because it provides museums with the staff to open and, in

effect, facilitate activity.

In some cases, the number of weeks provided through SEED/PEP helps determine how many

weeks museums can open in the summer or for how long. PEP provides museums with a student

for ten weeks and SEED usually provides museums with a student for eight weeks. Seven of the

ten organizations listed on the North East Museum Network website with accessible opening

hours are only open for regular hours from mid-June or July to August each year. 51 Another is

open for extended hours during that time. Commenting on her Museum’s winter programs, Chris

White, the Director of the Kings County Museum, noted that with a year-round and paid director

a museum can offer programming to the community during the off-season. However, “a lot of

the other museums they are summer month tourist offerings by necessity” (C. White 2014).

Discussing the fall season, one participant stated, “We lose our students and have to close our

operations” (Interview Participant D 2014). Some community museum hours may have

developed around the tourism season, because buildings are not properly insulated for winter, or

because of the high heating costs. However, interviews substantiate causal links between when

museums are open, or open for longer, and the time museums can get student employees from

GNB.

Critically for my research, student employees enable museums to conduct public programming.

Many SEED/PEP students give guided tours of their museums. These tours are some museums’

“primary program” (Interview Participant E 2014). Jeanne-Mance Cormier (2014) with the

Musée acadien de l'université de Moncton, a museum that has full-time staff, said that without

students, “we wouldn’t do any guided tours during summer months.” In some institutions,

permanent exhibits have developed with the expectation that there will be students available to

give guided tours. As such, the artefacts are exposed and could easily be stolen or vandalized

without the attention of a tour guide. Alice Folkin (2014) with the Keillor House noted they

would have to change their exhibits if they did not have summer students, adding Plexiglas and

securing objects in place. In other words, exhibits have developed without certain security

measures because students are available to walk with guests through the museum.

61

SEED/PEP students engage in a variety of tasks including educational programming, collection

work, operating the gift shops, and conducting or facilitating research. As Chris White (2014)

stated, without students, or even with only one student, “you are not offering a lot of workshops

or programming.” Cormier (2014) observed, “Without the students we wouldn’t do any

programming.” According to Fred White (2014), the Fredericton Region Museum receives

around seven students through the federal and provincial summer employment programs and at

least two are devoted to public programming. Student employment programs, therefore, allow

museums to have an employee or employees that can provide programming.

SEED/PEP is not the only student summer employment program that has an affect on museum

public programming. The federal government provides wages for summer students through

Young Canada Works (YCW). However, the provincial program is in some ways more

accessible to community museums. First, the Heritage Branch does not ask organizations to pay

a portion of the wage as YCW does. Second, the Museum Services Section facilitates SEED/PEP

to community museums, paying the students directly and then getting reimbursed by the

department responsible for SEED (Interview Participant H 2014). As such, organizations that do

not have the budget for an employee and have little cash on hand are not asked to pay the

student(s). Third, the museum community has positive relationships with the provincial

employees in the Heritage Branch, perceiving staff as “easy to talk to” (Folkin 2014). In contrast,

fewer museums can access the federal student employment program because they cannot afford

to contribute the 25% required by YCW (Interview Participant D 2014) and some find federal

staff less available (Folkin 2014).

While SEED/PEP is more accessible to some community museums, there are restrictions that

hamper its use. It places museums in rural areas at a disadvantage because they have difficulty

attracting students that fit the criteria (Interview Participant B 2014; Interview Participant D

2014). Museums have to hire individuals going to college or university full-time in the fall.

Fewer students attending post-secondary education live in rural areas without universities or

colleges than in the cities that have those institutions, making it more challenging to find eligible

students (Interview Participant B 2014). It is also difficult to hire suitable employees because

students are already out of school and looking for employment before museums know whether

they have SEED/PEP funding. There have been instances where museums prepare to open for

62

the summer without knowing whether they will receive funding for any student employees

(Clarke 2014; Folkin 2014; Interview Participant D 2014; C. White 2014).52 As Bill Clarke

(2014) stated, “we never know until almost the last minute if we have positions or not.” Many

university students are not in school from May to August, which makes an eight to ten week

position in the summer unattractive and adds another obstacle for museums (Interview

Participant F 2014). Interview participants also voiced concern that the “good” or more

experienced students may be gone when they can hire (Folkin 2014; C. White 2014). The timing

makes it easier to hire a student who just finished grade twelve and is going to university or

college in the fall rather than a student returning to one of those institutions (Goulding 2014).

SEED/PEP restrictions and administration provide obstacles to filling positions and if positions

are left unfilled, museum programming is affected. An interview participant was unable to fill a

student job in the past because of restrictions. As a result, they were not able to open for their

normal summer hours or deliver the same quality of programming during the summer (Interview

Participant B 2014, personal communication).

It can be challenging to retain employees because SEED/PEP does not provide multi-year hiring

contracts. As museums do not know how many positions they will have and for how many

weeks, they cannot provide assurances that a good employee will have a position the following

year (Interview Participant B 2014, personal communication). PEP has offered a level of

consistency since 2009 as it assigns a number of student employees to community museums.

Through PEP, community museums will ideally receive at least one student for ten weeks every

summer. However, as one participant noted, the number of students is not guaranteed and it “is a

gamble each and every year” (Ibid.).

SEED positions are inconsistent because, as articulated by Bill Clarke (2014), “SEED is

blatantly political” and museums do not know what the criteria for selection are (Cormier 2014).

The program is distributed through MLAs who are given a certain number of weeks to assign

positions in their district.53 Therefore, the number of positions and weeks allocated to a museum

may change from one year to the next. The participant from the Musée historique de Tracadie

received two eight-week SEED students in 2014 and credited their success with having a “good

deputy” (Interview Participant F 2014). However, the politician will not stay in power

63

indefinitely. A new and ‘bad deputy’ may not value the Museum as much as the previous one,

allocating fewer or no weeks to the organization.

In 1991, three students were employed for ten weeks at the Saint John Jewish Historical Museum

through SEED’s predecessor, the Jet Stream Program.54 In 2006, museums and historical

societies received 75 SEED students or 696 weeks of employment. The average position was

therefore 9.28 weeks. In 2009 the average SEED job was 8.60 weeks. As politicians allocate jobs

at their discretion on a yearly basis, the distribution of positions and the number of weeks for

SEED is inconsistent from one year to the next (Figure 7). Figure 7 demonstrates that from 2006

to 2014, the highest average number of weeks per SEED position was 9.28 in 2006 and the

lowest was 8.25 in 2010. Critically for my research, the difference is only 1.03 weeks. Further,

the difference between SEED and PEP is only 0.72 to 1.75 weeks. However, the difference has a

significant influence on museum operations as these students often enable museums to open to

the public.

Since museums do not know whether they have one, multiple, or no SEED students and for how

many weeks each summer, they are limited in what activities they can plan and advertise in

advance (Folkin 2014). As stated by Chris White (2014), with only one student you are just

“trying to keep the door open and manage lunch hour.” With multiple students, a museum may

9.28

8.97

8.6 8.6

8.25

8.65

8.38 8.35

8.6

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 7: The Average Number of Weeks per SEED Position per Year

64

be able to conduct some public programming. In other words, SEED encourages a lack of long

term planning in both program development and hiring practices.

Issues arise in program implementation when the students change from year to year. Talking

about collections work, Bogaard (2014, personal communication) stated, “with skilled students

and the best of intentions, differences and even inconsistencies get introduced.” While his

comment was specific to collections work, the concept is applicable to any museum activity.

Accordingly, he also said, “any project that has different people moving in and out of it over and

over and over again is asking for trouble” (Bogaard 2014).

The short contracts pose challenges to public programming when museums rely on students for

program implementation. Discussing the Restigouche Regional Museum’s ghost walks, Bill

Clarke (2014) explained that they no longer have student guides give the tours because students

begin working at the end of June and are, therefore, not well-trained enough to offer programs

the first week of July. Another participant noted that it takes a season to train a student and for

them to get a working knowledge of the region’s history. In a year where all of the students are

new, a museum has to spend more time on training and will not be able to offer as much public

programming (Interview Participant B 2014).

In sum, SEED/PEP funding has a significant influence on museum public programming because

it allows museums to open their doors when they may not otherwise be able. One of the primary

methods of engaging the public is through guided tours, which students give. The availability of

students has influenced the way some museums exhibit their materials and the hours they can

open. The increase in employees enables a museum to develop and offer programming.

However, issues with SEED/PEP’s administration influence the program’s effect on operations.

There are eligibility requirements that are difficult to meet in some areas and by the time

museums are able to hire, many quality students have already found summer employment.

Further, the lack of consistency from year to year influences museums’ ability to plan ahead as

well as the quality of programming they can offer.

65

4.3 Discussion

As demonstrated, museums have come to rely on SEED/PEP and it is necessary for their public

programming. However, challenges with the Program raise questions regarding its effectiveness

and the best use of government funding from the perspective of both the student employees and

the museums as employers. The three issues with non-standard employment highlighted by

Akingbola (2004) are evident in New Brunswick: retention, consistency, and quality. After

discussing these challenges and their implications as they relate to SEED/PEP, I discuss the role

of volunteers in offering consistent and quality services.

Museums have had positive experiences with SEED/PEP students, leading to quality programs in

greater quantity. However, retention can be an issue as museums cannot guarantee a student will

have the same position the following year. Further, organizations are competing with employers

that can offer longer contracts and know if there is a job available when students finish university

or college in April or May. If an organization is unable to retain staff, it is difficult to develop

and to sustain competencies (Akingbola 2004). As argued by Hjalager and Andersen (2001, 126)

with reference to the tourism sector, “repositories of knowledge are depreciating by virtue of a

high staff turnover, and it is all that management can do to hold on to non-trivial and enterprise-

specific knowledge.” When museums have to train new employees with regularity, they are

unable to build on staff knowledge, influencing the programs they can offer. There is also a lack

of consistency in how many SEED positions museums receive and how many weeks those

positions will be, resulting in inconsistent services from one season to the next. Further,

organizations are unable to plan in the long-term, influencing quality. Quality is also affected as

museums hire from a limited pool of eligible people, which is further limited because of delays

in hiring and the short contracts. Akingbola (2004) argues that temporary employees are

discouraged from developing improvement plans because they do not know whether services

will continue past their employment. Museums cannot know if they will have the same number

of employees with the same capacities the following year, which potentially discourages students

from trying to improve museum operations. Relying on temporary student employees to operate

museums presents challenges to offering quality services.

Volunteers provide the retention, consistency, and quality that is not necessarily provided

through precarious student employment. At least five of the nine community museum volunteers

66

who participated in my research have been involved in their organization for twenty or more

years.55 Further, the volunteers are arguably the primary strength at most of the institutions I

researched. However, two participants commented on aging volunteers, noting they do not have

the same ability to contribute to their museums as they did twenty years ago (Folkin 2014;

Interview Participant D 2014). As explained by the participant from the John Fischer Memorial

Museum, their volunteers are “older by the day” and, as such, it is becoming more difficult to

operate a museum (Interview Participant D 2014).56 Discussing his Museum’s membership,

which can serve as a volunteer base, Fred White (2014) said, “We lose twelve to fifteen people a

year from our membership lists through death.” However, he believes the most effective

volunteers are sixty to seventy years old because they have more disposable time. Younger

volunteers, such as his daughter in her forties or students, have less free time. As such, when

they volunteer, it is often be for a brief commitment to help with events (F. White 2014). As

those providing consistency at the community museums age and eventually pass away,

organizations require new volunteers or permanent employees that can provide the necessary

consistency. If this does not occur, the quality of museum public programming will be affected.

I have primarily discussed SEED/PEP from the museums’ perspective. However, the Program’s

objective is to help students raise money for tuition and develop employable skills. SEED jobs

are most often eight weeks at minimum wage, which is only half the time many university or

college students are on their summer break. Distributing contracts so that there are more

positions with fewer weeks allocates government funding to a greater number of students and/or

organizations. However, to work for the entire summer, students would have to find a different

eight-week position for the first two months they are off school. Thus, the structure and

administration of SEED/PEP poses challenges for both museums and students. Although

volunteers have provided consistency and quality in museum services, the sustainability of the

current staffing model is questionable.

4.4 Conclusion

Despite the issues and questions I have raised, SEED/PEP is vital to community museums

because of the importance of people to museum operations. The individuals in New Brunswick

that operate community museums have the greatest influence on the programming their museums

can and do offer. If GNB would like to encourage access and increase community museum

67

standards as demonstrated in Chapters Two and Three, funding permanent staff would help.

More specifically, if a museum could pay a programmer year round, students would serve to

enhance existing museum operations rather than offer basic services. The Heritage Branch

supports SEED/PEP by administrating and supplementing funding for students. In 2014, they

funded 12 students for 10 weeks, which would have cost more than $48,000. While this

assistance has helped community museums, adjusting the current program to address

longstanding issues or developing an alternative funding method may be more effective. For

instance, the museum community has called for multi-year hiring contracts, which would provide

greater consistency and retention that would also benefit students. The jobs at community

museums enable employees to develop a wide range of skills because they are most often

working in institutions that are understaffed. It is likely that these skills would be better

developed with longer contracts over multiple years. GNB could provide fewer jobs for longer

contracts, which would provide greater influence on a smaller group of museums and students.

SEED funding could also be approved earlier in the year to enable medium-term planning and

allow students to choose to wait for a job they know will become available. Further, MLAs are

not the best individuals to distribute the SEED jobs because they are politically motivated.

Instead, the program could be distributed according to a clear set of criteria by a branch or

department within the Provincial Government.

I have provided preliminary suggestions based on the responses from my interview participants.

However, more research is needed that looks at number of jobs provided and the effectiveness of

the current program from the perspectives of all stakeholders. Rather than adjusting the current

program, alternatives could also be considered and further research is required to consider all

possibilities. Conducting research on alternatives and implementing changes to address

longstanding issues with SEED/PEP is critical because the program plays a significant role in

shaping New Brunswick community museum public programming. Effectively, it has a greater

influence in many museums than the programs enacted under GNB’s explicit cultural policy.

68

Chapter 5 Conclusion

Museums in New Brunswick use public programming to build relationships with their publics.

Discussing the increase in changing exhibits at the Kings County Museum, Chris White (2014)

stated, “Engagement at the community level has gone up… we’ve seen increased school visits,

we’ve seen increased requests to go out into the community, and that’s exactly what we are

hoping for.” As building relationships with stakeholders is vital to organizations’ long-term

stability, government policy that influences the public programs a museum can and does offer

has an effect on the future of those institutions. I have demonstrated that the Government of New

Brunswick (GNB) has shaped public programming through the Exhibit Renewal and Museum

Activities Support Program as well as the Student Employment and Experience Development

(SEED) program. To conclude, I will first outline my findings from chapters two, three, and four.

Then, I will make general observation and recommendations for further research, concluding

with recommendations for a change in policy direction.

5.1 An Overview

As part of a state discourse, GNB was actively involved in heritage in the 1960s and 1970s,

purchasing historic sites and developing support structures for museums. These structures

continue to exist and shape policy direction. For example, community museums began receiving

provincial funding according to the recommendations of their local politicians. The operational

grants continued though the Department of Historical and Cultural Resources, which began as

the Historical Resource Administration in 1967 and continues today as the Heritage Branch

within the Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture. The 1980s and 1990s saw reduced

funding to heritage as GNB entered into a market discourse, releasing a heritage policy that

advocated the application of standards to community museums and the use of private sector

partnerships. Entering the twenty-first century, the Provincial Government’s approach toward

community museums shifted again. After a failed attempt to create a policy without consulting

the cultural community in 2001, GNB began allocating funding through project-based programs

and a policy articulation created collaboratively with stakeholders, reflecting a civil discourse.

69

From 2002 to 2014, all of the new and increased grants offered by the Museum Services Section

have had some effect on museum public programming. The Exhibit Renewal and Museum

Activities Support Program has had the most direct influence through the provision of funds

specifically for public programming. Museums use the grant to create new or renovate existing

exhibits, demonstrating that money for an activity can increase that activity. Further, museums

now spend more on each individual exhibit, which may elevate the quality because they can

afford professionally printed didactics and other materials for the displays. The work involved in

creating an exhibit often encourages community museums to develop more activities and

provides the inspiration for programming. The most pervasive examples are guided tours of

museums’ permanent and temporary exhibits. Other examples are children’s workshops, lecture

series, and special events.

While the grant programs outlined in Chapter Three are influential, the people at an institution

have the greatest influence on the programming the museum offers. Without summer student

employees, many New Brunswick museums could not open and others would offer much less

public programming. The Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED) program

as well as the Priority Employment Program (PEP) influence when and for how long museums

are open. In many cases it also affects what programming a museum can offer during the

summer and how they create their exhibits. While SEED/PEP is necessary for many institutions,

its administration leads to certain challenges. The number of weeks museums can have student

employees has declined since the 1990s and eight to ten weeks is a short contract. With the

exception of those finishing high school that will go to university or college in the fall, eligible

students are often free for longer than eight weeks. Further, even if a museum only wants to be

open for two months, an eight-week contract is restrictive in terms of training. There is a lack of

consistency in museum operations as there are no multi-year hiring contracts and the SEED jobs

are awarded by MLAs without clear criteria. The absence of certainty hinders long term planning

and the development of public program plans.

From the perspective of most participants I interviewed, Cultural Policy for New Brunswick and

the resultant grants have had a positive influence on museum public programming. One

participant went so far as to say that all of the programs are “wonderful” (Interview Participant A

2014). However, it is not surprising that museum representatives have a high opinion of the new

70

funding as they are receiving more money than before through programs they helped create.

There are issues with the current funding structure that became evident through the interviews

and archival research, requiring further research.

5.2 Observations and Directions for Future Research

5.2.1 Explicit vs. Implicit A significant outcome from my research is that an implicit cultural policy – SEED – has had a

greater and more widespread influence on museum public programming than GNB’s explicit

cultural policy. The Museum Services Section recognizes SEED/PEP’s importance to the

museum sector and, to some extent, acts as an intermediary between PETL – the Department of

Post Secondary Education, Training and Labour – and museums, administering PEP and paying

museums’ SEED/PEP students directly. In this way, SEED/PEP has been implemented as part of

GNB’s explicit cultural policy. However, the Museum Services Section advises community

museums to discuss the benefits students’ receive from the employment opportunity when

applying for SEED instead of the fact community museums “need students and without students

[they] cannot operate” (Interview Participant H 2014). The program’s explicit aim is to benefit

student employees and not to keep museums open from one year to the next. When discussing

government influence on the cultural sector, it is, therefore, crucial to consider the influence of

policies that governments have not designated as cultural, but nevertheless have an affect on the

cultural life of its citizens.

That an implicit cultural policy has a greater influence on museum public programming

compared to the province’s explicit grants raises the question: why? Simply put, SEED provides

museums with the resource that is arguably most needed to accomplish both operational

activities and special projects – namely, people. The broader implication is that if governments

would like to influence museum operations, they need to provide funding for the people who

operate museums.

Cultural Policy for New Brunswick states that provincial departments, including the Department

that administered SEED in 2002, “share responsibility for the promotion and development of the

cultural sector” (2002, 20). The Policy was meant to provide “a common vision for the

71

development of culture in our province” (Office of the Premier 2002). SEED is PETL’s

responsibility and, according to the 2002 policy, PETL shares responsibility for the development

of culture in New Brunswick. The idea that multiple government units share responsibility for

culture acknowledges the influence of policies enacted by those units on the cultural life of its

citizens. This recognition is unsurprising given the community’s involvement in the policy

process. However, in practice, government units and the programs they enact have their own

explicit mandates. As such, to what extent can departments that are not explicitly cultural enact

programs that consider the state’s cultural objectives?

In practice, the distribution of SEED positions influences the development of the cultural sector,

but does not seem to be guided by the explicit cultural policy. For instance Goal 1.a of the policy

is “To improve access to and awareness of culture in New Brunswick and to increase

participation in cultural activities” (11). While SEED increases access to culture through the

provision of student employees who staff museums, the number of students allocated to

museums through SEED has declined since 2002. Further, I demonstrated in Chapter Two that,

at least since 2002, cultural policy in New Brunswick primarily reflects a civil discourse. While

some of the Museum Services Section’s programs may not have actually been created

collaboratively, GNB consulted the museum community in their development and interview

participants believe they had an influence on policy development. Conversely, many of the

issues with SEED that I discussed in Chapter Four are longstanding. Despite the many

recommendations given by the museum community during the task force on self-sufficiency in

2007 and the 2012 cultural policy review, there have been few changes to the program.57

My research primarily looked at the influence of subnational policy from the perspective of the

museum community, including community museum and Museum Services Section

representatives. As such, I do not know what, if any, processes GNB put in place to ensure

multiple government units and individual MLAs work to enact the cultural policy. This gap

presents an avenue for future research: if an explicit cultural policy is meant to guide programs

and activities with explicit aims that are not cultural, what mechanisms need to be in place to

ensure the cultural policy is enacted?

As indicated in Chapters One and Three, the research method used in this thesis has limitations.

72

However, since I approached the research from the perspective of the museum community, using

interviews with broad open-ended questions, it also provided a more comprehensive

understanding of GNB policies influencing museum public programming. As most interview

participants mentioned the student employment program when discussing cultural policy, I was

able to investigate SEED, even though it is not part of GNB’s explicit cultural policy. If I had

approached the interviews and asked only how Cultural Policy for New Brunswick and the

programs explicitly guided by the policy have influenced operations or ignored the results that

were not influenced by explicit cultural policy, I would have missed GNB’s most significant

effect. An avenue for future research would be to conduct interviews asking: what government

actions, inactions, or policy articulations influence your operations? I believe the research would

bring to light a broad range of topics that are not usually discussed as part of the cultural policy

conversation.

5.2.2 Distribution

In 1958 Carl and Grace Guthe wrote a report on Canadian museums. In it they note,

“Government support of the museum movement is very widely and thinly distributed. For this

reason, in spite of appropriations which must be large in the aggregate, many museums find it to

be woefully inadequate” (1958, 19). Similarly, when talking about NB and provincial operational

grants in 2014, Paul Bogaard (2014) said, “They’re keeping it minimal so they can spread their

money around in other ways.” For many New Brunswick community museums, their budgets are

insufficient to develop the necessary capacity to consistently offer public programming or even

open for the same hours from one summer to the next. As stated by Fred White (2014), GNB

provides museums with core funding so they can continue to exist. The grants are distributed so

that GNB supports most non-profit museums in New Brunswick, but, for the most part, the

museums are not given enough funding to significantly strengthen their human resource

capacity. As discussed in Chapters Three and Four, this issue is most evident with the

Community Museum Assistance and SEED/PEP programs, which both existed prior to 2002 and

have historically shaped non-profit museum operations in the province.

The Provincial Government recognized the limited size of museum operational grants as an issue

in a 1972 proposal for the regional museum network. However, a Museum Network did not

73

become a reality until after Cultural Policy for New Brunswick (2002). Through the Network,

each of the nine zones can apply as a group for marketing funding. They are also given funding

in order to meet and coordinate their activities. The idea being, by giving a larger amount of

money to the region, museums can accomplish more as a group (Interview Participant H). As

such, the Network is an attempt to address distribution issues by awarding funding to zones

rather than museums, raising questions with implications for cultural policy research more

broadly. Do museums accomplish more when working together? Is money spent more efficiently

when non-profits are funded as a group?

Ambrose and Pain (2012) highlight a number of advantages to being part of a museum network,

which are reflected in some of New Brunswick’s regional zones. For instance, participants

discussed sharing their experiences and expertise. Interview Participant A (2014) talked about

the zone members’ diverse “previous lives” as educators, graphic designers, and non-profit

managers. The Network has also been used to share new ways of working because in seeing

what is successful in other museums, museums are more likely to experiment themselves. As

stated by Jeanne-Mance Cormier (2014), there is more communication between museums since

the policy and the implementation of the Network. She discussed beginning new public programs

that were inspired by communication with another museum’s staff, stating museums “mimic”

one another.

The museum community has proposed ways they could share funding and work together as a

network that would influence public programming but, to my knowledge, a number of relevant

ideas and suggestions are not reflected in the current Museum Network model. For instance, in

their policy renewal recommendations, Queens County Heritage (2012b) asked GNB to

encourage partnerships. While the Provincial Government has encouraged cooperative marketing

and professional development opportunities, the Network is an opportunity for more

collaboration in public programming activities. For instance, two or more museums could

collaborate and share the financial and time costs for a temporary exhibit that would travel to

both institutions. Particularly considering the prevalence of WWI exhibits in 2014-2015,

museums could also share research, and thereby reduce the time spent developing projects with

similar themes. Rather than funding marketing, GNB could consider supporting the cost of

shared units – staff shared amongst museum zones with certain expertise. During the

74

consultations, the museum community recommended a provincial wage subsidy program to hire

an Executive Director as a full-time staff member (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c).

Museums have also asked for increased support and collaboration between provincial institutions

and community museums (Westmorland Historical Society 2012). Others have called for a

strengthening of provincial institutions in order to strengthen access to museum professionals

(AMNB 2012; QCH 2012b).

The Museum Network is an initial attempt to provide funding to groups in order to maximize

GNB’s influence. Additional research that focuses on the success and failures of the New

Brunswick’s Museum Network in sharing and maximizing resources may provide insights into

the effectiveness of museum networks more broadly. My research cannot answer whether

museums accomplished more when asked to work together and funded as a group. Community

museums are collaborating in New Brunswick and some Interview Participants note the Network

has had a positive influence on museum operations (Cormier 2014; Goulding 2012 2014;

Interview Participant A). However, others disagree. For instance, Interview Participant D (2014)

stated, “If you look at Charlotte County, they got a whole lot of bang for their buck. We got

nothing. We got a whole lot of brochures. A whole lot of crap that lays around that nobody’s

interested in.” It is possible that some of the apparent disappointment with the network may be

because of its focus on marketing funding, which I discuss in section 5.2.3. Research comparing

museum experiences with the network in different zones may reveal why the system seems to

work better in different regions.

Critically for my research, many of the benefits of museum networking seen in New Brunswick

or requested by the museum community relate to museum public programming and/or increasing

staff time in community museums. Another method through which GNB has changed how

funding is distributed is the project-based grants, namely the Exhibit Renewal and Museum

Activities Support Program, which has had an influence on public programming. As

demonstrated in Chapter Three, in each year, GNB supports fewer organizations through this

grant than the Community Museum Assistance Program. While many museums have benefited

from one-time grants, the programs’ cumulative affect is concentrated on the institutions that

receive the grants regularly. As the Museum Services Section has noted that few applications are

rejected each year (Interview Participant I 2014), GNB has effectively created a program that

75

allocates budget increases without directly deciding which museums will be rewarded. To some

extent, institutions decide for themselves what museums receive grant increases through their

application to the new programs.

As outlined in Chapters Three and Four, community museums in New Brunswick have limited

human resource capacity, which influences their ability to utilize funding and offer public

programs. With new sources of funding, it is possible organizations will shift their limited

resources away from operational activities or projects that align more closely with their mission

and towards those funded by the Government. Some Interview Participants stated the Exhibit

Renewal program does not provide enough money to pay someone to construct the exhibit or

that they rely on volunteers as curators (Interview Participate D, 2014; F. White 2014). As such,

the efforts of their human resources – volunteers and staff – become directed towards the funded

activity. As Krmpotich and Peers note, “funding programs need to recognize staff as critical,

indeed indispensable, aspects of core museum functions and special museum projects” (2013,

231). Fred White (2014) with the Fredericton Region Museum stated, “The indirect way of

creating public programming would have been to find a way to provide more staff time because

it takes staff to organize them.” As GNB directs funding to projects with one-time grants rather

than staffing costs or other operational costs they are encouraging projects and not encouraging

museums to hire long-term employees that can operate museums and develop programs.

An alternative perspective regarding project-based funding is that in funding activities, GNB

“frees up other money in the budget that we can then spend on program development, staff time

and buying supplies, for example” (Interview Participant B 2014). It is possible museums wanted

to or were trying to create more exhibits with their limited resources prior to the funding

becoming available. With the new source of funding for exhibits, operational money can be spent

on other areas, like human resources. However, in this situation, museums would be better

served with multi-year project grants.

5.2.3 Civil Discourse

GNB collaborated with the museum community to create the Museum Network and decide how

funding would be allocated through the zones. As stated by a civil servant (Interview Participant

H 2014), “I was sure the need in community museums was more for collections. But,

76

surprisingly, it came to our attention that people … were more willing to develop a marketing

approach.” Funding through the Network is primarily directed toward marketing activities

because that was the number one priority identified by the museum community as part of

consultations in 2002 (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c), raising the question: does a civil

discourse result in the best possible program?

It remains difficult to find basic information about many of the province's community museums,

such as location and opening hours. For example, the Northeastern New Brunswick zone has a

rack card listing the eleven museums and placing them on a map. While there is no information

such as opening hours or telephone numbers, the card directs the reader to the zone website.

Unfortunately, as of January 2015, the website also does not contain hours and some of the

museums do not have their own site. The lack of information available on community museums

may be a reflection of the lack of certainty they face from year to year. For instance, if a museum

does not know how many student summer employees they will have from one year to the next, it

is more difficult to offer consistent opening hours. As such, it is better to produce advertisements

without the hours, which may change and make the advertisement outdated. Considering the

basic uncertainties many museums face, marketing may not have been the best choice when

developing support strategies. However, my research did not focus on this program, as most

interview participants did not identify marketing funding as having an influence on their public

programs. More research into community museum marketing practices before and after the

program’s implementation is needed to make conclusions regarding the program’s success.

As discussed in Chapter Three, the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program

followed the 2002 consultation, but does not appear to have been created collaboratively. I have

demonstrated that both the museum community and the civil service perceive the grant as

successfully increasing and/or improving museum public programming. Further, most

participants discussed the 2002 policy and resultant programs as having a positive influence on

the community, stressing the role the museum community had in creating the policy. As the

Exhibit Renewal grant is guided by Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, which was created in

partnership with the community, the implication may be that public consultation and influence

on the policy process is valuable, but only to a certain extent.

77

5.3 Conclusions

The development of support strategies for museums after 2002 reflects a civil discourse and the

public sphere as a place for individuals to reach a common understanding regarding the division

of shared resources. However, GNB’s decision to develop new forms of funding and consult the

museum community in their creation was an official one. The civil service and not the museum

community itself decided what recommendations to use in developing programs as well as which

museums GNB would award funding. Further, the exhibit funding does not clearly align with the

priorities identified in the final report from the 2002 consultation. While the community

identified marketing funding as a need as part of the original consultations, advertising museums

when they do not even know their opening hours is not an effective use of funding. There are

greater areas of concern.

A government’s objectives in creating support strategies are significant in considering the

influence of the public sphere or, in this case, consultations with the museum community on the

policy process. As stated, GNB is now influencing the perceived quality by directing activities

rather than voicing concern about the standards of the province’s museums. If the Provincial

Government would like to influence the quality and professionalism of community museums as

well as create support strategies collaboratively using a civil discourse approach, they need to

work with the community to strengthen museums’ human resource capacity.

The community has already made suggestions on how GNB could help improve their operations

with regards to their human resource capacity. For instance, the Westmorland Historical Society

(2012), Queens County Heritage (2012b), and the Association Museums New Brunswick

(AMNB 2012) suggested providing volunteer tax credits to act as an incentive for encouraging

volunteers. The AMNB also noted that multi-year commitments in operational and project-based

support could promote long-term stability (AMNB 2012). As part of the cultural policy renewal,

several organizations suggested modifying SEED. For instance, the Westmorland Historical

Society (2012) and the AMNB (2012) recommended multi-year commitments for the program.

Queens County Heritage (2012b) recommended that GNB simplify SEED and look to the federal

programs for ideas on how to operate the program more efficiently. During the 2002

consultations, the museum community asked that GNB notify them with regards to the SEED

78

program earlier in the year. Blueprint for Action: Building a Foundation for Self-Sufficiency

(Bradshaw et al. 2007), a report from the self sustainability task force established by GNB,

makes eight suggested improvements to SEED, including the following:

…earlier notification of student allocations so non-profits have more timely access to the student pool….higher wage allocations for non-profits who cannot afford to top up the minimum wage….possibility of compensation for a student supervisor….automatic re-employment for a student who wants to return to an organization which wants him/her back the next year (Ibid., 26).

AMNB (2007) offered additional recommendations, including extending the eligibility

requirements to include students in the eleventh grade, increasing the eligible workweeks to

“correlate with museum ‘hours of operation’, and ‘hours to prepare for opening,’” and extending

SEED to provide occasional employment during the “shoulder season” (AMNB 2007, 15).

In conclusion, GNB can develop support strategies with the museum community while also

targeting an identifiable need. In order to access the funding that is available and accomplish

more public program activities, museums would benefit from greater human resource capacity.

The community has already provided suggestions on how to do so and my interviews suggest

that there are those that would welcome a shift away from marketing funding toward support for

human resources. Interview participants discussed the people that make public programs possible

and many discussed the need for more human resources in order to accomplish these activities

(Bogaard 2014; Clarke 2014; Cormier 2014; Goulding 2014; Interview Participant B 2014;

Interview Participant D 2014; Interview Participant F 2014; C. White 2014; F. White 2014).

Support strategies that focus on these people is likely key to the development of public programs

that will, ideally, interest stakeholders and, therefore, foster more sustainable community

museums.

79

Endnotes

1 According to a presentation given by the museum services section, community museums received 38% of their funding from GNB in 2009-2010 and 34.4% in 2013-2014. The next largest source of funding in 2009-2010 was the private sector at 19% and in 2013-2014 it was municipalities at 19% (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014). 2 In addition to institutions identified as non-profit museums receiving operational support through GNB, support through the zones benefits for profit museums, key provincial institutions, 2 In addition to institutions identified as non-profit museums receiving operational support through GNB, support through the zones benefits for profit museums, key provincial institutions, historic sites, archives, and other related institutions, such as an arts and nature centre, a garden, and a costal trail. 3 Canadian Provincial and Territorial Cultural Policies: Origins, Developments, and Implementation [Translation by author]. 4 While there are many definitions for stakeholder, this definition is the most widely accepted (Fassin 2009). 5 Sustainability is defined as “the possession of sufficient resources to maintain the existence of an organization, and achieve their goals in the future” (Pietro et al. 2014, 5745).

6 The totals include funding given to Tantramar Heritage Trust for both the Boultenhouse Heritage Centre and the Campbell Carriage Factory Museum. 7 While their revenue was $501,857, their expenses were only $151,722. The Trust received $240,944 from the federal government. As their year-end is March 31, this funding was part of Sackville’s 250th anniversary in 2012. 8 According to a chart from the Museum Services Section, the Museum is part of the Central Valley zone. However, as of June 2, 2015, they are listed on the Charlotte County website. 9 The CRA report does state the Musée historique de Tracadie has a full time employee. However, the report only lists a total of $22,101 in compensation. According to the interview participant from this museum (Interview Participant F 2014), they do not have a year round employee, but they have a secretary for five months and someone comes in as the secretary accountant for one or two days a month. 10 The thirty organizations are: Albert County Museum, AMNB, Atlantic Salmon Museum, Bathurst Heritage Trust Commission, Beaverbrook Art Gallery, Carleton County Historical Society, Central NB Woodmens Museum, Grand Manan Museum, Kings County Museum, La

80

Société historique de Clair, La Société historique du Madawasa, Maison historique Pascal Poirier, Miramichi Natural History Association, Moncton Museum, Musée acadien, Musée de Kent, Musée des Papes, Musée du Madawaska, Musée historique de Tracadie, Peninsula Heritage, Queens County Museum, Restigouche Gallery, “School Days” Museum, St. John Firefighters Museum, St Michaels Museum, Tantramar Heritage Trust, The Chocolate Museum, Village of Rexton, Westmorland Historical Society, and York Sunbury Museum. 11 The spelling – that is, “Museums Branch” and not “Museums’ Branch” – is in accordance with the Historical Resource Administration’s Annual Reports. 12 The Branch developed a funding system in the late 1970s in consultation with the museum community. However, it is unclear whether the unit responsible for museums took control of the operational funding during the 1970s. The Branch did take responsibility for operational grants to Keillor House and Tilley House in the early 1970s and the Department of Historical and Cultural Resources administered support to museums in 1981 with a different set of criteria than those planned by the Museums Branch in the late 1970s. 13 It is possible that there were other funding programs available through the Museum Services Section before the 2002 articulation. A capital grant may have been implemented in the 1970s as it is included in drafts outlining changes to the operational grants. If it was implemented, it is not discussed in annual reports and did not remain a program. According to those working in the Heritage Branch, there were no project-based funding programs until 2003-2004 (Interview Participant H and I 2014). 14 The Government of Canada supported the creation of local museums in 1967 with an influx of funding. The 1968 Canadian Museums’ Association Directory lists thirty-three museums in New Brunswick, and seven of those were made possible through the Centennial Capital Grants Program (Key 1973, 199). 15 Ouelette (2001) argues, “although no actual Department of Cultural Affairs was established during his tenure of office, an embryonic cultural policy was developed, the tangible results of which are still being felt today” (19). The “embryonic cultural policy” refers to the creation of the Cultural Affairs Branch within the Department of Youth (1968), plans for the Provincial Archives and Kings Landing, the establishment of an ad hoc committee to develop cultural policy and strategy (1968), and a conference on the state of the arts (1969). 16 Hatfield’s 1986 committee was primarily concerned with “the arts” and lead to FORUM ’87, a public consultation with over two hundred artists from across the province. While the recommendations in the 1989 report influenced subsequent initiatives in culture, such as the creation of the New Brunswick Arts Board in 1990, they did not have any noticeable effect on support for community museums. During the consultations, the Advisory Committee defined

81

museums as cultural facilities, asking whether GNB should be involved in their maintenance and operation (1986, 12). However, the final report does not discuss museums in detail. 17 In 1985, the AMNB newsletter Horizons noted GNB was allocating funding in a haphazard manner without policy or planning. The Memorandum asking for the heritage policy also notes a lack of consistency. 18 In 1995 the New Brunswick Arts Board and MCH organized FORUM ’95, a conference for the arts sector. The consultation led to the creation of a Cultural Policy Task Force, which conducted targeted consultations, eight public meetings, and invited the community to react. While GNB responded to and accepted many of the Committee’s twenty-three recommendations, the process did not result in the articulation of a comprehensive policy. A Commitment to our Culture: Response to the Cultural Policy Task Force (1998) is primarily a statement about the arts, outlining government direction in areas like arts education and promoting creativity. However, some of the policy statements concern museums, such as those on cultural tourism, and are reflected in the 2002 comprehensive policy, as discussed in detail elsewhere (Barrieau and Bourgeois 2011). 19 The publications include: Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts: Interim Report (1987), Final Report: Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts (Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts 1989), Response to the Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts (1989), Provincial Parks and Heritage Sites Master Plan: Final Report (TRH 1990), A Strategy on Culture Toward the Year 2000 (Division of Culture 1991), Through Partnership to Stewardship: A Discussion Paper (MCH 1993), Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Cultural Policy (MCH 1994), Towards an Arts Policy for New Brunswick: Discussion Paper (New Brunswick Arts Board 1995), Cultural Policy Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations for a Cultural Policy (Theriault, Fry, et al. 1997), A Commitment to our Culture Response to the Cultural Policy Task Force Report (1998), and Towards a Cultural Policy (Cultural Policy Task Force n.d.). 20 The report has two dates: December 21, 1987 after the final page of the English portion and February 12, 1988 after the final page of the French section. As such, I have used 1988 as the date the bilingual report was likely released. 21 Government documents contain conflicting information regarding the date of this report – some say 1988 and others say 1989. The date is based on the front cover, which reads, “January 1989.” However, the report’s copyright date is 1988. 22 In his April 2000 budget speech, the Minister responsible for the Culture and Sport Secretariat announced the preparation of a comprehensive policy for study. In June 2001, the Culture and Sport Secretariat began conducting focused consolations with stakeholders. Following these consultations, the Minister responsible for the Culture and Sport Secretariat established a

82

Working Group to review the policy, conduct consultations, and make recommendations (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002b). 23 Other support strategies that developed include the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program, the Museum Collection Inventory Program, and the Professional and Organizational Development in Museology Program. 24 The stakeholder meetings included presentations, workshops (Marketing in Museology, Professional and Organizational Development in Museology, and Fundraising for Museums: How can we work together?), and a plenary session where participants shared ideas across groups. The Heritage Branch produced a booklet summarizing the meetings after the 2002 and 2003 consultation – Together, Toward Museum Networking (2002) and Together, For Museum Networking: Final Report (2003). 25 While the Task Force praised the relationship between the Heritage Branch and museum community, the final report, discussion papers, and GNB’s Our Action Plan to be Self-Sufficient in New Brunswick (2007) did not have a visible or lasting impact on action influencing museums. 26 Ingersoll had been the Director of the NBM and was also involved at the community museum level as one of the founders of the Grand Manan Museum in 1967. 27 In the 1980s, there was a shift away from government action, as heritage became a unit within a larger department. George MacBeath, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Historical and Cultural Resources, retained his title but became head of a smaller unit of government within Department of Tourism, Heritage and Recreation and was eventually asked to take early retirement (MacBeath 2012). 28 The first provincial museums policy was articulated in 1973, and there was an election in 1974. From Partnership to Stewardship was released in 1994, and there was an election in 1995. The release of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick preceded the 2003 election. Finally, the recently released Creative Futures was announced months before the 2014 election. 29 I do not have a consistent record of operational grants from before 2002. However, the funding reductions were mentioned in my interviews, in letters to museums in 1994, and in the AMNB’s newsletter (AMNB 1985; Clark 2014; Duffe 1994). While most annual reports before the Culture and Sport Secretariat do not mention the museum operational grant amounts, the MCH’s 1995 annual report states, “Under the Community Museums and Historical Society Assistance Program, a total of $301,010 was provided to 44 museums and ten historical societies” (28). 30 The numbers used in this paragraph and Figure 3 are from unpublished charts and information provided by the Museum Services Section.

83

31 Of the over $700,000 given to museums and historical societies in 2011-2012, over 25% of the budget went to provincial associations or provincially established sites. GNB gave a total of $85,000 to two provincial associations – that is, the Association Museums New Brunswick (AMNB) and the Council of Archives New Brunswick – and they gave $112,500 to organizations with whom they have begun management or lease agreements since 2002 to manage sites that were previously provincially operated. The $112,500 is not really an increase as it was given to operate institutions previously operated by GNB. 32 While GNB does not provide clear criteria for this funding through their website, the Heritage Branch discussed the program in a 2014 presentation for the AMNB. Through the Museum Network, GNB provides funding for coordination within the zones and activities GNB labels outreach or marketing. The program is described as follows:

“Promote museums and organizations committed to cultural development partnering in each zone to establish a common heritage outreach activity; Provides support for projects that facilitate the pooling of resources for the purpose of outreach and promotion of the Museum Network; Develop heritage awareness; Supports innovative cultural tourism initiatives; Increase visitation“ (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014).

From 2003-2004 to 2013-2014, funding totaled $1,128,126 and, of that funding, $458,000 funded zone coordination and $670,126 funded marketing activities. While the presentation is not clear regarding what is funded, interview participants mentioned funding for websites, brochures, posters, passports, and placemats. 33 More specifically, this program supports projects in two categories. First, the professional development component aims to “increase opportunities for museum and heritage organizations to enhance the professional skills of their employees, board members and volunteers” (Heritage Branch 2015b). Second, the organizational development aims to:

“Enhance the efficiency of boards of organizations working in the heritage sector so that they can better fulfill their mandate. Encourage the development of organizations working in the heritage and museum sector; Assist with projects aimed at improving the financial stability of the organizations” (Ibid.).

From 2003-2004 to 2014-2015, funding through the program totaled $168,569 and funded over 259 participants (Allen-Scott, Godin, and Tremblay 2014). 34 The programs objectives are:

84

“To support community museums in establishing and upgrading their physical and/or computerized collection inventory; To promote museum accountability with respect to conservation in all areas of collection related activities; To encourage museums to adopt and implement their “Collection Management Policy” (Heritage Branch 2015c, 2).

It has funded between 26 and 37 organizations in each year from 2003-2004 to 2014-2015, totaling $1,039,000 (Allen-Scott, Godin, and Tremblay 2014). 35 In 2012, the $32,500 from GNB was 22.5% of their $144,049 in revenue. In comparison, the $13,900 from the Provincial Government in 2001 was 20.3% of their $68,473 in revenue. The FRM has taken advantage of the Museum Collection Inventory Program eight times from 2004-2005 to 2013-2014 and the Exhibit Renewal and Museum Activities Support Program six times from 2003-2004 to 2014-2015. They have also received support for coordinating within their zone, marketing through the zone, and professional development. Additionally, the Museum receives indirect support from GNB. They are located in the provincially owned Office Quarters of the Historic Garrison District and the FRM pays utilities, but not rent. 36 The FRM opened the orientation room in 2007, Fredericton’s Loyalists in 2008, The Boss’s World in 2009, the Acadians of Fredericton exhibit in 2010, From Black Bag to High Science in 2011, New England Planters of Maugerville/Sheffield, 1763-2013 in 2013 and New Brunswick and the Great War in 2014. They also created a permanent exhibition, War of 1812: A Fredericton Perspective, in 2012. I have included the orientation room as an exhibit as it is referred to as a permanent exhibit in the 2009 Annual Report. 37 Queens County Heritage began when the 1967 Queens County Centennial Project purchased and restored the Samuel Leonard Tilley house, which is now a museum displaying Queens County history. QCH now operate the Tilley House, the Court House, the Flower House, and, most recently, the Loomscrofter Studio in Gagetown, New Brunswick. They are eligible for and have received money through the built heritage program, which I am not discussing in this analysis. The provincial contribution has increased with the addition of new funding programs, but the contribution has decreased as a percent of the overall budget. In 2012, the $36,281 they received from the Provincial Government was 28.6% of their $126,884 in revenue. In comparison, the $14,184 they received from GNB in 2001 was 34.2% of their $41,472 in revenue. The organization is an atypical example because it takes advantage of both the Museum Collection Inventory and the Exhibit Renewal programs most years, they receive over $10,000 in operational funding, and they hire a full time director during the summer. 38 KCM received support from their municipal government, which is not reflected in their revenue. They are housed in a municipal building and do not have to pay utilities.

85

39 While public programming ideally fosters relationships with the museums’ communities, the community referred to in this priority seems to be the heritage or cultural community. For instance, ideas on how to address this priority included developing a directory of institutions and staff, creating a message board for questions, and an annual heritage conference. The general ‘public’ is only mention in a recommendation to develop strategic plans with their input (Culture and Sport Secretariat 2002c, 8). 40 One of the qualifications is that museums are registered charities. According to the Canadian Revenue Agency’s database, many, such as the Chocolate Museum and the Restigouche Regional Museum, are not. 41 Some of these ‘museums’ are part of the same organizations. For example, the website provides separate pages for the Keillor House and the St. James Textile Museum, which are both part of Dorchester Heritage Properties. Some of the organizations with opening hours that appear to be year round on the AMNB website are seasonal offerings. I tried to confirm that museums were or were not open during the winter on their websites, Facebook pages, or the tourism NB website, but was not able to find the information in all cases. The information was verified May 29, 2019 and may change as museums update their information.

42 There are some discrepancies in the total amount. In the chart provided by the Museum Service Section there is a note that eight grants were approved in 2003-2004, but there are only seven on the chart. This number is not included in the section’s 2014 presentation (Allen-Scott, Godin and Tremblay 2014) or the figures herein. The number $1,138,222 was reached by adding the figure for 2003-2004 to 2013-2014 in the presentation – $1,013,499 – with the number on the chart for 2014-2015, which includes $10,000 under review –$124,723. 43 Museums receiving a Community Museums Assistance grant and employing multiple people full-time and year-round include, but are not limited to, Resurgo Place, which is supported by the municipal government, and the Musée acadien in Moncton, which is supported by the Université de Moncton. Both of these institutions also received an operational grant greater than $30,000 in 2014. 44 During my interview with Chris White, the Director of the KCM who is a full-time employee in the summer and part-time in the winter, a volunteer had to operate the museum so we could talk. 45The Program operated from June to September. During the first summer they provided 251 employment opportunities and allocated $272,136 to the program. The report mentions student employment by the government, but suggests these were initiatives from individual departments

86

and not part of a broader policy. The report claims that 71.4% of the student participants would have been unable to carry on their education without the Government’s intervention. 46 The program’s name has changed over time. In the 1980s, the Federal Government encouraged investment in student employment through the Challenge program, which included funding for Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED) that was augmented by provincial investment. In the 1990s, GNB provided student summer employment through the JET Stream program. Today, the Department of Post Secondary Education, Training and Labour (PETL) runs the program as Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED). 47 As part of the program in 1971, the Carleton County Courthouse hired four females who worked as guides, answering questions and providing tours while dressed in costume. The Carleton County Historical Society, formed in 1960, continues to operate the Old Court House in addition to the Connell House and receives operational as well as project funding through the Museum Services Section. The students enabled public access to the property and benefited “from the job through the knowledge acquired during training, a certain compatibility acquired through constant contact with the public, and an ability to speak to the public” (Christie 1971, 7). 48 It is unclear when PEP became available to museums. The Heritage Branch first mentions PEP in a 1990 annual report; however, a proposal from the John Fisher Memorial Museum distinguished between funding for students from the NB student project or the Challenge program and the department responsible for museums beginning in 1983. 49 The seven organizations are: The Agricultural Museum of New Brunswick, Kings County Museum; 8th Hussars Museum; Kingston Historic District; Saint John Jewish Historical Museum; Loyalist House (New Brunswick Historical Society); and Quaco Museum. 50 The Kings County Museum opens three days a week during the winter. 51 The ten organizations are: Musée acadien de Caraquet, Bathurst Heritage Museum; Musée historique de Tracadie, Memorial War Museum, New Brunswick Aquarium and Marine Centre, New Brunswick Mining and Mineral Interpretation Centre, Oyster Museum, Paquetville Historic Hall, Pope’s Museum and the Village Historique Acadien. I could not find the opening hours for the Saint-Isidore Church and Museum. This information is from January 2015 and may change as some museums’ hours are different from year to year. 52 Some interview participants noted the timing for SEED has improved in recent years and, more specifically, was better for summer 2014. 53 The number of weeks that the MLAs’ are given is influenced by their political affiliation. In 2015, Green Party leader David Coon reported he only received 80 weeks to allocate, while government MLAs received 200 weeks to allocate (Poitras 2015).

87

54 The Museum had the three students write letters to the Government about their positive work experience with the museum. 55 Of the thirteen individuals from community museums who participated in my research, nine are volunteers and four are paid staff. 56 As younger people are not replacing the aging members, the Museum needs to hire at least one full-time person to maintain operations. Unfortunately, they do not have the financial capacity because their money is committed elsewhere – that is, to restoring one of their properties.

57One change is that employers no longer have to hire from a list of students provided by GNB. Instead, as of 2012, they can hire any student who has filled out the appropriate forms and is eligible for a SEED position (PETL 2015, personal communication). While this change has eliminated one barrier to hiring students, the challenges highlighted in Chapter Four that limit museums’ capacity to offer programs remain an issue.

88

References

1. Primary Government of Canada Communications, Department of. 1990. Canadian Museum Policy: Temples of the

Human Spirit. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

National Museums of Canada, The. 1972. The National Museum Policy: A Programme for Canadian Museums. Ottawa: The National Museums of Canada.

Government of New Brunswick 1989. Response to the Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts. Fredericton: Province

of New Brunswick. 1998. A Commitment to our Culture: Response to the Cultural Policy Task Force.

Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick. 2007. Our Action Plan to be Self-Sufficient in New Brunswick. Fredericton: Province of

New Brunswick. 2013. Employer Application for Student Summer Employment. Accessed April 14, 2015.

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/petl-epft/PDF/Emp/SEED_EmployerBooklet.pdf

2014. Creative Futures: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. Fredericton:

Province of New Brunswick. Allen-Scott, Janice, Andrée Godin, and Guy Tremblay. Museum Services. Heritage

Branch. Tourism, Heritage and Culture, Department of. 2014. “Heritage Branch and the Museum Network of New Brunswick.” Presentation at the Association Museum New Brunswick’s 2014 Conference and AGM. November 7, 2014. Accessed April 13, 2015. http://www.amnb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Heritage-Branch-AMNB-Nov-5-2014-ENG.pdf

Bradshaw, Claudette, Fleurette Landry, Sue Rickards, and Rich Hutchins. 2007. Blueprint for

Action: Building a Foundation for Self-Sufficiency. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/hic-csi/pdf/cnpo-ocslb/plan_en.pdf

Burley, Wayne. Heritage Branch. Culture and Sport Secretariat. 2002. Correspondence.

MC1341 54529 0335 07. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.

89

Christie, Terry. Labour, Department of. 1971. Student Summer Employment Program, 1971. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick.

Cultural Policy Task Force. N.d. Towards a Cultural Policy. Culture and Sport Secretariat. 2002a. Cultural Policy for New Brunswick. Fredericton:

Government of New Brunswick. http://leg-horizon.gnb.ca/e- repository/monographs/30000000043815/30000000043815.pdf

---. 2002b. Documents. RS1034 2200-c 55703. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New

Brunswick. ---. 2002c. Together, Toward Museum Networking: Final Report. Fredericton: Province of New

Brunswick. ---. 2002d. 2001-2002 Annual Report. Fredericton: Culture and Sport Secretariat. ---. 2003. Together, for Museum Networking: Final Report. Fredericton: Province of New

Brunswick. Division of Culture. Tourism, Recreation and Heritage, Department of. 1991. A Strate gy

on Culture Toward the Year 2000. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick. Duffe, Paul. Municipalities, Culture and Housing, Department of. 1994. Correspondence.

RS738 19175 2370 1. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. Heritage Branch. Culture and Sport Secretariat. 2003. “Exhibit Renewal and New

Museological Activities Support Program.” Unsorted. MC300. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Heritage Branch. Tourism, Heritage and Culture, Department of. 2014. “Exhibit Renewal and

Museum Activities Support Program.” Accessed December 20. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/thc-tpc/pdf/Heritage-Patrimoine/Museum- /ExhibitRenewalMuseumActSupportProgram2014.pdf

---. 2015a. “Museum – Operations Grant.” Accessed April 13.

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/services/services_renderer.201031.Museum_-_Operations_Grant.html.

---. 2015b. “Professional and Organizational Development in Museology Program.” Accessed

April 15. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/thc-tpc/pdf/Heritage-Patrimoine/Museum-Musee/ProfessionalAndOrganizationalDevelopmentProgram2015.pdf

90

---. 2015c. “Museum Collection Inventory Program.” Accessed April 14, 2015. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/thc-tpc/pdf/Heritage-Patrimoine/Museum-Musee/MuseumCollectionInventoryProgram2014.pdf

Historical Resource Administration. 1969 to 1982. Annual Reports. Fredericton:

Government of New Brunswick. ---. 1973. Memorandum to Cabinet: Provincial Plan for Museum Priorities. 3350 9 1.

Provincial Archives, New Brunswick. MacBeath, George. Historical Resources Administration. 1975. Correspondence. 3350 9

1. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. McGuigan, J.L. Historical Resource Administration. 1972. Policy Recommendations.

RS806 35 8 6 3. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. Ministers Committee Employment Development. 1994. “1994-95 J.E.T. Stream

Program.” RS627 20 7 94. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. Municipalities, Culture and Housing, Department of. 1991. Draft Memorandum to the

Executive Council. RS738 1901 2370 1. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.

---. 1993. Through Partnership to Stewardship: A Discussion Paper. Fredericton:

Government of New Brunswick. ---. 1994. Through Partnership to Stewardship: New Brunswick Heritage Policy.

Fredericton: Government of New Brunswick. Office of the Premier. 2002. “Government Releases Cultural Policy for New Brunswick

(02/02/02).” News Release. Accessed December 28, 2015. http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/pre/2002e0176pr.htm

Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts. 1986(?). “The Provincial Government and its

Programmes.” MC1341 2464. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. --- 1988. Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts: Interim Report. Fredericton: The

Committee. ---.1989. Final Report: Premier’s Advisory Committee on the Arts. Fredericton:

Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage, Government of New Brunswick. Theriault, Paulette, George Fry, et al. 1997. Cultural Policy Task Force: Final Report

and Recommendations. Fredericton: Government of New Brunswick.

91

Tourism, Heritage and Culture, Department of. 2013. Annual Report 2012-2013. Fredericton: Province of New Brunswick.

Tourism, Recreation and Heritage, Department of. 1990. Provincial Parks and Heritage

Sites Master Plan: Final Plan. Fredericton: Government of New Brunswick. Personal Interviews Bogaard, Paul. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. September 2.

Campbell Carriage Factory Museum. Sackville, New Brunswick. Clarke, Bill. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio Recording. August 18. Restigouche

Regional Museum. Dalhousie, New Brunswick. Cormier, Jeanne-Mance. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. July 29.

Musée acadien. Moncton, New Brunswick. Folkin, Alice. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. July 19. Keillor

House. Dorchester, New Brunswick.

Goulding, Sarah. 2014. August 28. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. The Chocolate Museum. St. Stephen, New Brunswick.

Interview Participant A. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio Recording. July 28.

New Brunswick. Interview Participant B. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio Recording. June 30.

New Brunswick. Interview Participant D. John Fischer Memorial Museum. 2014. Audio Recording.

August 5. Kingston, New Brunswick. Interview Participant E. MacAdam Railway Station. 2014. Audio Recording. September

4. Telephone. Interview Participant F. Musée historique de Tracadie. 2014. Audio Recording. August

19. Tracadie-Shelia, New Brunswick. Interview Participant G. Musée Mgr. - Camille - Andre Leblanc. 2014. Audio Recording.

November 10. Telephone. Interview Participant H and Interview Participant I. Museum Services, Government of

New Brunswick. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. November 4. Fredericton, New Brunswick.

92

White, Chris. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. July 8. Kings County Museum. Hampton, New Brunswick.

White, Fred. 2014. Interview by Robin Nelson. Audio recording. July 22. Fredericton

Region Museum. Fredericton, New Brunswick Other Association Museums New Brunswick. 1985. Horizons. 3(2). ---. 2000. Guidelines for Museums in New Brunswick. Fredericton: AMNB. ---. 2007. “Building a New Foundation for the Museum Community: Comments on the Findings

of the Premier’s Community Non-Profit Task Force.” Advocacy. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://www.amnb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BradshawAMNBResponse.doc

---. 2012. “Brief on New Brunswick Cultural Policy Renewal.” Unpublished document. Christie, Gillian. 2014. “New Summer Exhibition Now Opens at Queens County

Museum.” Oromocto This Week. June 12. Clarke, Bill. 2012. “Presentation on Cultural Policy Renewal.” Accessed April 27, 2015.

http://www.gnb.ca/0131/polcul/Submitions.asp Fredericton Region Museum. 2012. September 4. Facebook Post. Accessed April 14, 2015.

https://www.facebook.com/FrederictonRegionMuseum?fref=ts Goulding, Sarah. 2012. “Cultural Policy Renewal Consultation Meeting: Presentation by

Sarah Goulding.” Unpublished presentation. Ingersoll, L. Keith. 1977. “Provincial Museums Policy and Programmes.” Horizons. 3(1):

24-28. John Fischer Memorial Museum. 1986. “Proposal for MacDonald-Stewart Foundation

Overview History/Programs/Grants.” RS966 R1966.274 39593. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Lyall, Laura. 2012. “Voicemail from the Victorian Era.” Telegraph Journal. Saint John, New Brunswick. August 4.

MacBeath, George. 2012. “A Short Autobiography of my Beginnings and Career.”

Personal files. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. New Brunswick Arts Board. 1995. Towards an Arts Policy for New Brunswick:

Discussion Paper. Moncton: Institut de leadership Universite de Moncton.

93

Poitras, Jacques. 2015. “David Coons Slams System of Awarding Student Summer Jobs.” CBC. Online Edition. June 3. Accessed June 14. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/david-coon-slams-system-of-awarding-student-summer-jobs-1.3097600

Queens County Heritage. 2012a. July 18. Facebook Post. Accessed April 14, 2015.

https://www.facebook.com/QCHeritage/photos/pb.123946040971677.-2207520000.1429028162./448299601869651/?type=3&theater

---. 2012b. “A Presentation to the Cultural Policy Working Group.” Public Consultations.

Accessed April 27, 2015. http://www.gnb.ca/0131/polcul/Submitions.asp Westmorland Historical Society. 2012. “Presentation to the Cultural Policy Working Group

September 27, 2012.” Public Consultations. Accessed April 27, 2015. http://www.gnb.ca/0131/polcul/comments/JudyMorisonWestmorlandHistoricalSociety.pdf

Wilson, Brent. 2014. Brent Wilson Speaking at the Fredericton Region Museum First

World War Exhibit Launch. YouTube video. Posted by Fredericton Region Museum, August 21. Accessed on April 14, 215. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pZEyENYhk

York Sunbury Historical Society and Museum. 2008. Annual Report 2008. Accessed

April 14, 2015. https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2008-annual-report-black-and-white.pdf.

---. 2009. 2009 Annual Report. Accessed April 14, 2015.

https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2009-agm-report-2.pdf ---. 2010. 2010 Annual Report. Accessed April 14, 2015.

https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2010-agm-report-low-res.pdf

---. 2011. 2011 Annual Report. Accessed April 14, 2015.

https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2011-agm-report-75dpi.pdf

York Sunbury Historical Society and Fredericton Regional Museum. 2012. 2012 Annual

Report. Accessed April 14, 2015. https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2012-agm-report.pdf

---. 2013. 2013 Annual Report. Accessed April 14, 2015.

https://frederictonregionmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2013-agm-report.pdf York Sunbury Historical Society Exhibits Committee. 2006. “Five Year Plan of

Exhibits.” Unsorted Documents. MC300. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick.

94

York-Sunbury Historical Society Inc. 1999. “Financial Statements (Unaudited) December

31, 1999.” Unsorted. MC300. Provincial Archives. Fredericton, New Brunswick. 2. Secondary Ahearne, Jeremy. 2009. “Cultural Policy Explicit and Implicit: A Distinction and Some

Uses.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 15(2): 141-153. Akinbola, Kunle. 2004. “Staffing, Retention, and Government Funding: A Case Study.”

Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 14(4): 453-465. Alexander, Victor. 1996. Museums and Money: The Impact of Funding on Exhibitions,

Scholarship, and Management. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ambrose, Timothy, and Crispine Paine. 2012. Museum Basics. New York: Routledge. Ashley, Susan. 2012 “Museum Volunteers: Between Precarious Labour and Democratic

Knowledge Community.” In Cultural Policy, Work and Identity, edited by Jonathan Paquette, 107-128. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

Barrieau, Nicole, and Daniel Bourgeois. 2011. “Le Nouveau-Brunswick: dualité

culturellee et institutionnelle.” In Les politiques culturelles provinciales et territoriales du Canada: Origines, evolutions et mises en oeuvre, edited by Monica Gattinger and Diane Saint-Pierre, 77-104. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.

Belfiore, Eleonora. 2002. “Art as a Means of Alleviating Social Exclusion: Does it Really

Work? A Critique of Instrumental Cultural Policies and Social Impact Studies in the UK.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 8(1): 91-106.

Bennett, Oliver. 1995. “Cultural Policy in the United Kingdom: Collapsing rationales and the

end of a Tradition.” The European Journal of Cultural Policy. 1(2): 199-216. ---. 1996 “Cultural Policy and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Entrepreneurial Answers in the United

Kingdom.” Kultur/Norden. 4: 1-22 Bennett, Tony. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London:

Routledge. Camarero, Carmen, and María-José Garrido. 2009. "Improving Museums’ Performance Through

Custodial, Sales, and Customer Orientations." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 38(5): 846-868.

Canadian Museums Human Resource Planning Committee. 1997. The Workforce of the

Future. Ottawa: Canadian Museum Association.

95

deLeon, Peter. 1992. “The Democratization of the Policy Sciences.” Public Administration Review. 52 (2): 125-129.

Dye, Thomas R. 2005. Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice

Hall.

Escobar, Oliver. 2013. “Public Engagers and the Political Craft of Participatory Policy Making.” Public Administration Review. 73(1): 36-37.

Fassin, Yves. 2009. “The Stakeholder Model Refined.” Journal of Business Ethics. 84:113-135. Foucault, M. 1991. Discipline and Punish: the birth of a prison. London: Penguin. Freeman, E. 1984. Stakeholder Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Ptiman. Freeman, R. Edward, and David L. Reed. 1983. “Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New

Perspective on Corporate Governance.” California Management Review. 25(3): 88-106. Gattinger, Monica, and Diane Saint-Pierre. 2010. “The “Neoliberal Turn” in Provincial

Cultural Policy and Administration in Quebec and Ontario: The Emergence of ‘Quasi-Neoliberal’ Approaches.” Canadian Journal of Communication. 35(2): 279-302.

---. eds. 2011. Les Politiques culturelles provinciales et territoriales du Canada: origines,

évolutions et mises en oeuvre. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Gattinger, Monica, Diane Saint-Pierre, with Alexander Couture Gagnon. 2008. “Toward

Subnational Comparative Cultural Policy Analysis: The Case of Provincial Cultural Policy and Administration in Canada.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. 38(3): 167-186.

Genoways, Hugh H. and Lynne M. Ireland. 2003. Museum Administration: An

Introduction. New York, Toronto: Altamira Press. Gray, Clive. 2000. The Politics of the Arts in Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ---. 2008. “Instrumental Policies: Causes, Consequences, Museums and Galleries.” Cultural

Trends. 17(4): 209-222.

---. 2010. “Analyzing Cultural Policy: Incorrigibly Plural or Ontologically Incompatible?” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 16(2): 215-230.

Guthe, Carl, and Grace Guthe. 1958. The Canadian Museum Movement. Toronto: Canadian

Museum Association.

96

Hall, Michael, et al. 2003. The Capacity to Serve: A Qualitative Study of the Challenges Facing Canada’s Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

Hall, Peter. 1986. Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and

France. New York: Oxford University Press. Harvey, F. 1998. “Cultural policies in Canada and Quebec: Directions for future

research.” In Cultural policies and cultural practices: Exploring the links between culture and social change, edited by C. Murray, 13-15. Ottawa: Canadian Cultural Research Network.

Hjalager, Anne-Mette, and Steen Andersen. 2001. “Tourism Employment: Contigent

Work or Professional Career?” Employee Relations. 23(2): 115-129. Hood, Thomas. 2009. “Let’s Get Creative: The Forgotten Role of Culture in New

Brunswick’s Quest for Self-Sufficiency. In Exploring the Dimensions of Self-Sufficiency for New Brunswick, edited by Michael Boudreau, Peter G. Toner, and Tony Tremblay, 196-209. Sherbrooke: Transcontinental Metrolitho.

Hughes, Margaret W. 2010. “Bridging the Divide: Mission and Revenue in Museum

Programming.” Journal of Museum Education. 35(3): 279-288. Imbeau, Louis M., Rejean Landry, Henry Milner, Francois Petry, Jean Crete, Pierre-

Gerlier Forest, and Vincent Lemieux. 2000. “Comparative Provincial Policy Analysis: A Research Agenda.” Journal of Political Science. 33(4): 779-804.

Jeannotte, M. Sharon. 2010. “Going with the Flow: Neoliberalism and Cultural Policy in

Manitoba and Saskatchewan.” Canadian Journal of Communication. 35(2): 303- 324.

Jeannotte, Sharon, and Alain Pineau, eds. 2013. Flat lined but still alive: Overview of the

2012- 13 provincial and territorial budgets from the perspective of the arts and culture sector. Ottawa: Canadian Conference of the Arts.

Jenkins, Barbara. 2005. “Toronto’s Cultural Renaissance.” Canadian Journal of

Communication. 30:169-186. Key, Archie F. 1973. Beyond Four Walls: The Origins and Development of Canadian

Museums. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited. Kickert, Walter J. M., and Frans-Bauke van der Meer. 2011. “Small, Slow, Gradual Reform:

What can Historical Institutionalism Teach us? International Journal of Public Administration. 34: 475-485.

97

Krmpotich, Cara, and Laura Peers. 2013. This is our Life: Haida Material Heritage and Changing Museum Practice. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. 2014. “Frank McKenna.” Premiers Since

Confederation. Accessed December 27. http://www.gnb.ca/legis/publications/tradition/premiers/mckennaf-e.asp

Lindqvist, Katja. 2012. “Museum Finances: Challenges Beyond Economic Crises.” Museum

Management and Curatorship. 27(1): 1-15. Marontate, Jan, and Catherine Murray. 2010. “Neoliberalism in Provincial Cultural

Policy Narratives: Perspectives from Two Coasts.” Canadian Journal of Communication. 35(2): 325-343.

McGuigan, Jim. 1996. Culture and the Public Sphere. London and New York: Routledge. ---. 2004. Rethinking Cultural Policy. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill House. ---. 2005. “The Cultural Public Sphere.” European Journal of Cultural Studies. 8(4): 427-445. Meisel, John and Jean Van Loon. 1987. “Cultivating the Bushgarden: Cultural policy in

Canada.” In The Patron State, edited by Milton C. Cummings, Jr. and Richard S. Katz, 276-310. New York: Oxford University Press.

Misener, Kate, and Doherty, A. 2009. “A Case Study of Organizational Capacity in

Community Sport.” Journal of Sport Management. 23(4): 457-482. Mulcahy, Kevin V. 2006a. “Cultural Policy.” In Handbook of Public Policy, edited by

Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, 265-281. London: Sage. ---. 2006b. “Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches.” Journal of Arts

Management, Law, and Society. 35(4): 319-330. Myerscough, John. 1988. The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain. London:

Policy Studies Institute. Nickson, Denis, Chris Warhurst, Eli Dutton, and Scott Hurrell. 2008. “A Job to

Believe in: Recruitment in the Scottish Voluntary Sector.” Human Resource Management Journal. 18(1): 20-35.

Ouellette, Roger. 2001. “Introduction.” In The Robichaud Era, 1960-70: Colloquium

Proceedings, 17-21. Moncton: The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development.

98

Pichette, Robert. 2001. “Culture and Official Languages.” In The Robichaud Era, 1960- 70: Colloquium Proceedings, 67-86. Moncton: The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development.

Pick, John. 1988. The Arts in a State. Bristol: Bristol Classical. Pietro, Laura Di, Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion, Maria Francesca Renzi, and Martina Toni. 2014.

“An Audience-Centric Approach for Museum Sustainability.” Sustainability. 6: 5745-5762.

Reussner, Eva. 2003. “Strategic Management for Visitor Oriented Museums: A Change of Focus.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 9(1): 95-108.

Schuster, J. Mark. ed. 2003. Mapping State Cultural Policy: The State of Washington.

Chicago: The University of Chicago. Scott, Carol A., ed. 2013. Museums and public value: Creating sustainable futures.

Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. Scott, Katherine. 2003. Funding Matters: The Impact of Canada’s New Funding Regime

on Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.

Selvakumar, Meena, and Marting Storksdieck. 2013. “Portal to the Public: Museum

Educators Collaborating with Scientists to Engage Museum Visitors with Current Science.” Curator: The Museum Journal. 56(1): 69-78.

Smithsonian Centre for Education and Museum Studies. 2009. “ICOM Curricula

Guidelines for Museum Professional Development.” Accessed April 14, 2015. http://museumstudies.si.edu/ICOM-ICTOP/comp.htm

Smithsonian Institute. Office of Policy & Analysis. 2001. Art Museums and the Public.

Accessed February 3, 2015. http://www.si.edu/Content/opanda/docs/Rpts2001/01.10.ArtPublic.Final.pdf

Strom, Elizabeth. 2003. “Cultural Policy as Development Policy: Evidence from the United States.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. 9(3): 247-263.

Throsby, David. 2009. “Explicit and Implicit Cultural Policy: Some Economic Aspects.”

International Journal of Cultural Policy. 15(2): 179-185. Weil, Stephen. 2012. “Creampuffs and Hardball: Are you Really Worth What You Cost or

Merely Worthwhile?” In Reinventing the Museum: The Evolving Conversation on the Paradigm Shift, edited by Gail Anderson, 130- 134. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

Wu, Chin-Tao. 2002. Privatizing Culture. London: Verson.

99

Young, Robert A. 2001. “The Programme of Equal Opportunity: An Overview.” In The

Robichaud Era, 1960-70: Colloquium Proceedings, 23 – 36. Moncton: The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development.

100

Appendices

Appendix A: Abbreviations

AMNB: Association Museums New Brunswick

CMA: Canadian Museum Association

FRM: Fredericton Region Museum

GNB: Government of New Brunswick

HRA: Historical Resource Administration

ICOM: International Council of Museums

JFMM: John Fisher Memorial Museum

KCM: Kings County Museum

MCH: Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing

MLA: Member of Legislative Assembly

PEP: Priority Employment Program

PETL: Post Secondary Education, Training and Labour

QCH: Queens County Heritage

RRM: Restigouche Regional Museum

SEED: Student Employment and Experience Development

THC: Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture

TRH: Department of Tourism, Recreation and Heritage

YCW: Young Canada Works

101

Appendix B: Community Museums and Historical Societies that have Received an Operating Grant from GNB between 2002-2003 and 2014-2015

PLACE ORGANIZATION

1. Albert       Albert  County  Heritage  Trust  2. Bathurst       Bathurst  Heritage  Trust  Comm.  3. Beaver  Harbour   Beaver  Harbour  Archives  and  Museum  4. Blackville     Blackville  Parish  Historical  Society  5. Boiestown       Central  NB  Woodmen’s  Museum  6. Bouctouche       Musée  de  Kent  7. Campbellton       Galerie  Restigouche  Gallery  8. Campbellton       La  Société  historique  du  Comté  de  Restigouche  9. Caraquet       Musée  acadien  10. Clair         La  Société  historique  de  Clair  11. Dalhousie       Restigouche  Regional  Museum  12. Doaktown       Atlantic  Salmon  Museum  13. Dorchester     Dorchester  Heritage  Properties  14. Edmundston       La  Société  historique  du  Madawaska  15. Edmundston       La  Société  Fortin  du  Petit-­‐Sault  16. Edmundston       Musée  de  Madawaska  17. Florenceville-­‐Bristol  NB  Potato  Museum  18. Fredericton  Junction  Sunbury  West  Historical  Society  19. Fredericton       “School  Days”  Museum  20. Fredericton       Association  Museum  New  Brunswick  21. Fredericton       Beaverbrook  Art  Gallery  22. Fredericton       Council  of  Archives  NB  23. Fredericton       La  Société  d’histoire  de  la  Rivière  Saint  Jean  24. Fredericton       Science  East  Association  Inc.  25. Fredericton     York  Sunbury  Historical  Society  26. Gagetown     Queens  County  Museum  27. Grand  Barachois     Musée  Mgr.-­‐Camille-­‐André  Leblanc  28. Grand  Falls     Grand  Falls  Historical  Society  29. Grand  Manan     Grand  Manan  Historical  Society  30. Grand  Manan     Grand  Manan  Museum  31. Grande-­‐Anse     Musée  de  Papes  32. Grande-­‐Digue     La  Société  Historique  de  Grande-­‐Digue  33. Hampton     Kings  County  Museum  34. Hillsborough     Canadian  Railroad  Historical  Association  35. Hillsborough       Heritage  Hillsborough  36. Hopewell  Cape     Albert  County  Historical  Society  37. Kedgwick     Musée  Forestier  de  Kedgwick  38. Kingston     Peninsula  Heritage  39. McAdam     McAdam  Historical  Restoration  Committee  40. Memramcook     Association  Histoire  de  Chez  Nous  Inc.  41. Memramcook     La  Société  historique  de  Vallée  de  Memramcook  42. Miramichi     Miramichi  Historical  Society  

102

43. Miramichi     Miramichi  Natural  History  Association  44. Miramichi     Beaverbrook  House  Commission  45. Miramichi     Friends  of  Beaubeaurs  Island  46. Miramichi       St.  Michael’s  Museum  47. Miramichi       Highland  Society  of  NB  at  Miramichi  48. Moncton     Moncton  Museum  (Resurgo  Place)  49. Moncton       La  Société  historique  acadienne  50. Moncton     Lutz  Mountain  Heritage  Foundation  51. Moncton     Musée  acadien  de  l’université  de  Moncton  52. New  Denmark     New  Denmark  Historical  Society  53. New  Maryland   NB  Scottish  Cultural  Association  Inc.  54. Notre-­‐Dame     Comité  historique  de  Notre-­‐Dame  55. Perth  Andover   Southern  Victoria  Historical  Society  56. Petit-­‐Rocher     Centre  d’interpretation  des  Mines  et  Minerais  57. Rexton       Village  of  Rexton  58. Sackville       Owens  Art  Gallery  59. Sackville     Tantramar  Heritage  Trust  60. Saint  John     Saint  John  Jewish  Museum  61. Saint  John     Saint  John  Firefighters  Museum  62. Saint  John       NB  Historical  Society  63. Saint-­‐Françoise-­‐de-­‐Madawaska   Commision  La  Forge  Jos  B  Michaud  64. Saint-­‐Françoise-­‐de-­‐Madawaska   Société  culturelle  de  Saint-­‐Françoise  65. Saint-­‐Françoise   Sale  de  150e  Société  Culturelle  66. Saint-­‐Isidore     Musée  de  Saint-­‐Isidore  67. Saint-­‐Lénard     Le  cercle  culturel  et  historique  Hilarion  Cyr  inc.  68. Saint-­‐Quentin     Société  Patrimoine  Saint-­‐Quentin  69. Shédiac     La  Société  historique  de  la  Mer  Rouge  70. Shédiac     Maison  Pascal  Poirier  71. Shippagan     La  Société  historique  Nicolas-­‐Denys  72. St.  Andrews     Charlotte  County  Historical  Society  Archives  73. St.  Andrews     Ross  Museum  74. St.  Andrews       The  Van  Horne  Estate  on  Ministers  Island  75. St.  Andrews       Town  of  St.  Andrews  76. St.  Martins     Quaco  Historical  Society  77. St.  Stephen     The  Charlotte  County  Museum  78. St.  Stephen     The  Chocolate  Museum  79. Sussex       8th  Canadian  Hussars  Museum  80. Sussex       Agricultural  Museum  of  NB  Inc.  81. Tabusintac     Tabusintac  Centennial  Memorial  Museum  82. Tracadie     Le  Musée  historique  de  Tracadie  83. Woodstock     Carleton  County  Historical  Society    

103

Appendix C: Interview Participants

Bogaard, Paul. Campbell Carriage Factory Museum. Sackville, New Brunswick. September 2, 2014. Clarke, Bill. Restigouche Regional Museum. Dalhousie, New Brunswick. August 18, 2014. Cormier, Jeanne-Mance. Musée acadien de l’université de Moncton. Moncton, New Brunswick. July 29, 2014. Folkin, Alice. Keillor House. Dorchester, New Brunswick. July 19, 2014. Goulding, Sarah. The Chocolate Museum. St. Stephen, New Brunswick. August 28, 2014. White, Chris. 2014. Kings County Museum. Hampton, New Brunswick. July 8, 2014. White, Fred. Fredericton Region Museum. Fredericton, New Brunswick. July 22, 2014. Interview Participant A. July 28, 2014. Interview Participant B. June 30, 2014. Interview Participant C. Heritage Education, Government of New Brunswick. Fredericton, New Brunswick. September 4, 2014. Interview Participant D. John Fischer Memorial Museum. Kingston, New Brunswick. August 5, 2014. Interview Participant E. MacAdam Railway Station. McAdam, Fredericton. September 4, 2014. Interview Participant F. Musée historique de Tracadie. Tracadie-Shelia, New Brunswick. August 19, 2014. Interview Participant G. Musée Mgr. - Camille - Andre Leblanc. Shediac, New Brunswick. November 10, 2014. Interview Participant H and Interview Participant I. Museum Services, Government of New Brunswick. Fredericton, New Brunswick. November 4, 2014. Interview Participant J. Private Museum. July 21, 2014.

104

Appendix D: Sample Interview Topic Guide

The questions will be asked in an order that is responsive to the interviewee’s contributions and not necessarily as they are written here. New topics can be introduced if they contribute to the topic or if bringing the respondent back to the topic would disrupt the conversation. Relevant questions from the list below will be asked but not all questions will be relevant to all participants. Additional questions may be added dependent on context and relevant to the topic. 1. An interview topic guide for my interviews with museum professionals.

Personal Information

• What is your name? • What institution do you work for? • What is your official title? • How long have you held this position?

• (if the person has held this position since after 2002) What did you do prior to ---?

Public programming • I am imagining public programming as a set of practices that invite audiences to engage

with the institution. With this in mind, could you tell me about your museum’s public programming?

• Describe what you do for ----? • Could you give me an example? • How do you or does your institution imagine public programming?

• You’ve probably had some interesting experiences planning programming, can you recall any of them? Has government funding ever posed a particular challenge to your programming? Has it ever posed a particular opportunity?

• How have your programs changed since 2002? • How are your programs funded?

Cultural Policy Outputs

• Could you tell me about the provincial funding your institution usually receives (....applies for)?

• How does this funding impact museum programming? • How has provincial funding changed since the implementation of Cultural Policy

for New Brunswick in 2002? • Are there different kinds of ---? • In practice, what are the differences between the different levels of government funding?

• Does your institution strategize its public programming according to different govt programs?

• Have you ever been involved in efforts to influence govt funding? i.e. advocacy, working groups, professional organizations, lobbying

Funding and management

• Could you tell me how your public programs are funded? OR What are all the ways your

105

museum funds its public programs? Has this changed over time? If so, in what ways? • How does this compare with --- years ago? • How does the timing of govt funding influence your programming or your museum

operations? • In your mind, has the provincial funding scheme hindered public programming at your

institution in any way? If so, in what ways? Or Can you provide an example? Based on your experience, has the provincial funding scheme helped public programming at your institution? How/example…

• Do you have a sense of how provincial funding is being influenced by external factors – i.e. the economic recession; newly-elected govts; Canadian Heritage; anniversaries (i.e. Canada’s upcoming 150 yrs; World War anniversaries…); municipal politics

2. An interview topic guide for government employees. Personal Information

• What is your name? • What institution do you work for? • What is your official title? • How long have you held this position?

• (if the person has held this position since after 2002) What did you do prior to ---? Cultural Policy Outputs

• Could you tell me about the provincial funding available to museums? • How does this funding support museum programming? • How has provincial funding changed since the implementation of Cultural Policy

for New Brunswick in 2002? • Are there different kinds of ---?

106

Appendix E: Museum Network Map and Chart

NOTE: The chart and image in this Appendix are from a PowerPoint presentation given by the Heritage Branch (Allen-Scott, Godin, and Tremblay 2014).