This document provides an ethnographic analysis of a panel event called "Museum of the Citizen" held at the British Museum. The author observed the panel discussion and analyzed the language used by panel members regarding the museum's partnerships with other institutions. Some key points made in the document include: - The British Museum sees its collection objects as a source of power in forging partnerships with other museums through object loans. - Questions are raised about how the museum defines "citizen" given its international audience, and whether tourism can truly be democratic. - The nature of the museum's partnerships appears to prioritize possession and profit over a truly dialogic approach with other heritage organizations and the public.

1. P a r t n e r s h i p s a n d t h e P o w e r o f
P o s s e s s i o n a n d P r o f i t
“ M u s e u m o f t h e C i t i z e n ” P a n e l a t t h e
B r i t i s h M u s e u m
KYVH7
Ethnography
ARCLG209: Heritage, Globalisation, and Development
22 April 2016
Figure 1: Kopplin, A. 2016, British Museum Great Court after Museum of the Citizen Panel. (black
and white).

2. KYVH7
2
1. Introduction
“Name?” After queuing silently for ten minutes, it was now my turn to produce
proof of my ticket purchase. The British Museum, now closed to the general
public for the evening, was quiet except for the systematic shuffling of ticket-
holders into the auditorium. The question: “How will the British Museum present
itself to the public and behave in the face of suggestions outside the profession?”
ran through my mind as I began to study the content and dynamics of the
“Museum of the Citizen” panel event 4 March 2016.
As one of the most prestigious World Heritage museums in the world, the British
Museum can be seen as constituting its own professional community with a
reputation for purposefully closing itself off from visitors and even other
museums. Liz Forgan, a British Museum panel member, openly acknowledged
the British Museum’s reputation as a “threat” when introducing the event
(“Museum of the Citizen” 2016 panel). Slowly, she explained, the new
museological philosophies circulating and professional appointments within the
museum have resulted in a desire to extend outwards into the public and
professional communities and create a “dialogue between the British Museum
and the world it lives in” (“Museum of the Citizen” 2016 panel).
What became apparent throughout the event were the British Museum’s
assumption about heritage ownership as merely possession and its assertion of
that power within the sector from those possessions. These heritage objects,
often not produced or found within the United Kingdom, are used as pawns in
order to forge partnerships with other museums and further its own name. In

3. KYVH7
3
the course of the evening, hypocrisies arose surrounding the meaning of
citizenship, ownership, and the nature of partnerships among heritage
organizations and their public. The elements of a dialogic approach (Harrison
2013) to heritage partnerships were present in the panel members words and
yet are absent when describing the nature of these partnerships.
2. Ethnography at “Museum of the Citizen” Panel
2.1 Methodology
This study constitutes an ethnography examining the networks the British
Museum has created outside its own walls. In writing this ‘network
ethnography’, I attempt to follow the suggestions of Berthod, Grothe-Hammer,
and Sydow (2016), and apply a mix of both qualitative and quantitative research
methods to the study, though I rely heavier upon my qualitative findings. These
methods are applied when examining the structure of an interorganisational
network and how that plan produces and affects actions (Berthod et al. 2016).
2.2 Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods
The data for this study was collected through observations of the panel members
and physical audience participants as well as their reactions to virtual audience
questions via Twitter #MuseumOfTheCitizen. Additionally, text analysis was
conducted on the ‘Museum of the Citizen’ online resources and promotional
material.
My role as a researcher was that of both observer and participant. The event was
brought to my attention through social media, in the same way as many other

4. KYVH7
4
participants. I purchased the same £5 ticket and sat in the auditorium seats along
with every other audience member physically present. Though audience
members were granted permission to ask questions, I chose to not guide the flow
of conversation towards my personal research questions and instead opted to
observe the panel discussion progress organically.
2.3 The Research Field
The central setting for this ethnography was the “Museum of the Citizen” panel
that took place between 18:00 and 20:00 in the auditorium of the British
Museum in Bloomsbury on 4 March 2016. Though I estimated between one
hundred and one-hundred-and-twenty physical audience members, I focused
primarily on the presentations and answers of the five panel members and the
two additional speakers at the event. A secondary, online setting was also used in
this study as the event created a virtual community through the use of social
media and a website.
2.4 Research Ethics
For this study I conducted my research covertly, but within an entirely public
setting. The objects of my research, the panel members, already had their
identities published in advertisements for the events and were prepared to
speak in a public capacity. With their words and professional identities publicly
known and advertised, there was not a need to contact the speakers beforehand
for the use of their spoken content or conceal their names and professions.

5. KYVH7
5
Since the audience members were informed by the museum that the event was
being recorded in audio and visual format, they were aware their words could be
used publicly. Their identities however, would still remain anonymous unless
voluntarily offered by the participants themselves. My research was not
concerned with the personal identities of the participants, merely the panel
members’ reactions to their words (whether verbal or virtual). Therefore, the
content the audience members provided has been used in this study to
contextualize panel members’ responses, but the personal identities of the
individuals remain anonymous even to this researcher.
2.5 Reflexivity
I recognize my position as a Museum Studies masters student and current
volunteer for the British Museum’s Community Engagement Department can
complicate my analysis of this topic and potentially leave me open to bias. These
factors simultaneously provide me with a deeper insight into the museological
practices of the British Museum and the historical contexts of these heritage
policies; however, much of my personal work in museums has been in the field of
audience research and outreach, making me sensitive to the concerns of the
public communities. I seek then to be transparent in how these experiences
might affect my analysis.
2.6 Theoretical Framework
The academic theory that shapes this ethnography is hinged upon the idea that
heritage policies are more accurately understood as processes rather than
products (Howard 2003; Harrison 2013). The museum historically has

6. KYVH7
6
perpetuated and heightened its own cultural practices through authoritative and
social and political platforms (Bennett 1995). The practices they bring into the
future are depended upon their current values, but these values are strongly
perpetuated by the more powerful actors (Harrison 2013).
There are multiple actors that contribute to heritage-production and by
widening the network of dialogue, the previously excluded actors are given a
chance to actively participate (Harrison 2013). Naturally then, heritage can be
seen as a social act and by examining the conversations had among partners and
the nature of their relationship to one another, heritage begins to present itself in
a more holistic form. Heritage policies are created through networks of
inseparable actors, both tangible people and objects as well as intangible
practices (Harrison 2013). As with any social interaction, power dynamics exist.
Once we identify the more powerful actors, we can begin to see why particular
sets of values have been highlighted, and more importantly, what sets of values
have been suppressed.
The aim of a dialogic approach to heritage is to democratize the process of
heritage-making and actively seek out the diversity that exists in the world and
begin to incorporate them into mainstream heritage policies as equally valuable
producers and consumers of heritage (Harrison 2013: 229). “Difference and
diversity must be presented not as intrinsic, but as something to be chosen and
actively promoted; not as something that is simply rooted in the past, but as an
effective choice towards which societies must work in the future” (Harrison
2013: 230). In circulating the notions that other groups have about heritage,

7. KYVH7
7
those actors as well as their ideas become more accepted and less contested
throughout the world and the entire sector benefits.
3. Defining ‘Citizen’ of the Museum
The event was publicized with the tagline: “Have your say and help shape the
museum of the future at this special event” (Appendix 1). The event aimed to
demonstrate the British Museum’s democratic practices in producing
collaborative heritage policies by engaging with their ‘citizens’. Citizenry is often
defined in terms of inclusion, but Miller and Yúdice (2002: 105) warn against
that fallacy, considering the exclusions as well, “the non-citizen, and their fate.”
The term ‘citizen’ generally produces ideas of nationalism and even patriotism,
but the increasing emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism since the late-
twentieth century in the United Kingdom has generated more fluid notions of the
term (Feldblum 1997: 103). The British Museum, a national museum, has a
diversely international visitor base. This causes one to question: “what terms
define the panel’s use to define a ‘citizen’ of the museum?”
Liz Forgan, the British Museum Trustee present at the panel, stressed the goal of
the British Museum is to make itself available to the widest possible audience.
She specified who the British Museum is aiming to initiate a dialogue with;
defining the term ‘citizen’ in this context as “everybody; British citizens and
citizens of the world” (“Museum of the Citizen” panel).

8. KYVH7
8
The difficulty in this is that ‘citizens of the world’ are not a united community;
they have different ideas and needs that can conflict with one another (Boniface
1995: 41). Tourists prefer to see as much heritage in one location for efficiency;
they cannot be expected to travel to various parts of the country to see a
distributed collection. On the other hand, many British citizens do not regularly
travel to Bloomsbury and they would benefit the most from UK object loans,
which have increased from 151 locations to 170 locations since 2009 ("The
British Museum Celebrates Successes In London, The UK And Around The World:
Annual Review Launch 2015"). In 2015, more British citizens saw British
Museum objects outside the museum than in Bloomsbury (“Museum of the
Citizen” panel). It is potentially for these reasons that the British Museum has
largely developed partnerships with and loaned objects to museums outside of
London. This issue is a concerning one that generates the valid question, “Can
tourism be democratic; and can the cultural heritage be accessible to all?”
(Boniface 1995: 12).
4. Partnerships and Possession, Power, and Profit
4.1 Partnerships of Possession
“Certain objects have the ability, through their appearance, association, history
and story to fire the imagination of curators, public and the media. These ‘star
objects’ can certainly raise the profile of the Museum” (Roberts 2006: 49). Steven
Miller, one of the speakers from Norfolk Museum Service, explained the “power
of a British Museum object” in drawing in visitors (“Museum of the Citizen”
panel). In 2014, the British Museum saw 6.7 million visitors in 2014 making it
the most visited UK attraction ("The British Museum Celebrates Successes In

9. KYVH7
9
London, The UK And Around The World: Annual Review Launch 2015").
Additionally, where British Museum objects go, visitors follow as exemplified
with the Dunwich Museum in Suffolk. This museum is small, solely run by
volunteers, yet saw 20,000 visitors when the British Museum loaned them the
Dunwich Seal for an exhibition in 2011 (The British Museum 2012).
This collection and in turn the cultural power the entire UK enjoys was built in
part through the collecting practices of the British Empire. It is no coincidence
that the greatest archaeological collection in the world is situated within what
used to be the largest empire of the world. The political ownership of land led to
the physical possession of objects. O’Neill (2006) connects the European desire
to assemble empires with the love of collecting objects.
The extensiveness and uniqueness of the collection are the most impressive
characteristics of the collection; there are very few areas not represented in it
and only those poorly represented periods are considered for new large
archaeological acquisitions (Roberts 2006: 51). But alternatively, all objects from
the British Museum enjoy a level of status simply as ‘British Museum objects’; the
‘value addedness’ factor, or as Steven Miller described ‘power’ is prescribed to all
objects from the British Museum regardless of their own merit as individual
objects (Boniface 1995: 58).
Some of the museum’s most prized objects, such as the Elgin Marbles and the
Rosetta Stone, have become synonymous with the British Museum itself
regardless of place of origin. World Heritage has been embedded and

10. KYVH7
10
assimilated into British national heritage through these geographically non-
confined collecting practices over the centuries. Collecting objects from across
the globe is British heritage in its own right. Origin culture’s claims to these
objects are pushed aside once the objects are housed within the British Museum.
As Liz Forgan was speaking about the pride that comes with a sense of
ownership over heritage as his or her own, she stopped herself abruptly to add
as an aside, “I’m not talking about the Parthenon Marbles!” to which the room
joined her in laughter at the thought of returning an object of such value to its
source. The British Museum in practice defines ownership of World Heritage
merely as possession of that heritage and dismisses any other notions.
4.2 Partnerships of Profit
There is a monetary incentive for the British Museum to loan objects to external
UK museums that should not be ignored when considering museum
partnerships. Object value makes culture a profitable commodity (Miller &Yúdice
2002: 73) and that value increases with respect to rarity and popularity. “If
heritage was a commodity, ‘World Heritage’ was the most marketable of this
form of commodity” (Harrison 2013: 89).
As a national museum, visits to the British Museum’s permanent galleries are
free to all visitors; charges are only applied to temporary exhibitions. This does
not leave the British Museum to profit directly from their world-renown
collection, except through object loans to museums that generally do not have as
extensive or impressive of a collection. In the face of funding cuts, “items like a
national museum represent a unique selling proposition in the fight to bring in

11. KYVH7
11
visitors” (Boniface 1995: 58). Unsurprisingly then given their collection, the
British Museum lends the largest amount of objects to the widest locations in the
world (“Museum of the Citizen” website). Through object loans, the museums
involved can generate revenue from objects that otherwise would be in storage
or viewed for free. Perhaps this is the incentive behind the British Museum
increasing their overall object loans by 41% sine 2009 ("The British Museum
Celebrates Successes In London, The UK And Around The World: Annual Review
Launch 2015").
These exhibitions essentially sell world heritage to a British audience and even
re-sell heritage back to its source communities. Stephen Welsh, Curator of Living
Cultures from the Manchester Museum, enthusiastically spoke of their successful
partnership with the British Museum where the collaborated on the China:
Journey to the East exhibition (“Museum of the Citizen” panel). They attempted to
engage with the Manchester Chinese Community by inviting them to see the
British Museum’s collection of their own heritage. The invitations were even sent
in Chinese in order to establish communication in their own language.
Though a dialogue was initiated in Chinese, it was not motivated by a desire to
co-produce their own heritage, but instead by an opportunity to profit from them
after the interpretation of their objects already occurred. Rather than including
various cultures as equal citizens into heritage-production, they are creating a
system that further exploits them as consumers of a heritage-production they
were excluded from. “There is a complicated relationship between the citizen
and its logocentric double, the consumer” (Miller & Yúdice 2002: 73).

12. KYVH7
12
Consumerism and tourism have increasingly been promoted within the sector
(Harrison 2013: 106), particularly as funding becomes more insecure. Howard
(2003: 203) asserts that the promise of profit is behind the transition from
museums no longer simply allowing access, but beginning to actively seek
visitors.
This is further demonstrated in the ticket-purchase requirement in attending the
“Museum of the Citizen” event and having a platform on which to speak. Though
the £5 price of the ticket was not steep, the purchase of the ticket reveals
information about the citizen/consumer: he or she has at least a minimal
disposable income and a credit card for the digital transaction, the ability to
travel to and from the museum, and is either retired or has the freedom to leave
work early on a Friday. These qualifications alone significantly reduce the ability
to attend the event physically. Even by democratizing the process by offering the
event for free would only generate “a mass tourism market rather than an elite
tourism market” (Boniface 1995: 111) because there are other profit-generating
elements at play with the British Museum.
4.3 Partnerships of Power
Using the term ‘citizen’ may seem democratic at the surface, but a deeper
analysis raises the issue that the word itself actually upholds this power relation:
people have to be citizens of something larger then themselves, a network that is
more important than the individuals that compose it. Bonnie Greer, another
panel member, urged the audience when talking of citizenship to consider, “What

13. KYVH7
13
are we a citizen to?” (“Museum of the Citizen” panel). Deriving its power from its
extensive and prestigious collection, the British Museum has amassed a network,
a citizenry, of organizations and individuals.
In describing what constitutes a successful partnership, the panel effectively
endorsed the dialogic heritage method. Kenneth Olumuyiwa applied the same
characteristics of good partnerships as he does to his friendships; they must start
with a conversation to establish: empathy, trust, shared values, agreements, and
shared purpose (“Museum of the Citizen” panel). Liz Forgan agreed, adding
“Mutual partnerships work when both sides give and both sides receive”
(“Museum of the Citizen” panel).
In practice however, museum professionals often clash with their visitors in their
attitudes on access to the objects and their interpretation process (Howard
2003). “The museum sphere has the ability to act as a discursive, multi-vocal
space, where the voice of the ‘expert’ is no longer the loudest” (Boehm 2015:
153). Sustainable partnerships will be forged only once access to the
management of that heritage itself is widened. Simply allowing access to the
objects themselves will not produce strong relationships; the objects cannot be
isolated from the processes that involve them:
“The challenge for museums, and the process of heritage management
more generally, thus becomes one of finding ways of engaging
creatively with these objects so as to facilitate their ongoing
relationships with people and the other objects around them in the

14. KYVH7
14
future. This means opening up a dialogue with heritage objects, places
and practices as actors in their own right” (Harrison 2013: 222).
Even when the division between professional and visitor is removed, cultural
differences of heritage values still persist. Since the British Museum’s collection
is comprised of objects from all over the world, many of these cultures constitute
what Howard (2013) calls ‘insiders’: individuals who feel entitled to objects
based on their personal attachment to them. In a global world, this could mean
geographically, ethnically, politically, or culturally; some people acquire a
possessive nature to certain objects throughout their lives, while others lose
them through education or situation (Howard 2013: 117). Dealing with ‘insiders’
has often created conflicts over ownership and access for the British Museum.
When asked by an audience member if and how the British Museum would foster
partnerships with religious minorities, Steven Miller defended the museum’s
current policy that allows all visitors to use the British Museum to their own
purpose and because these can include religiously motivated ones, he sees no
reason to expand or amend it (“Museum of the Citizen” panel). The vagueness of
this policy did not satisfy the audience member and she continued to press him
further to clarify that the museum currently does not invite, highlight, or even
acknowledge the specific religious visitor uses.
It was clear that he felt the objects’ diverse source locations and original
purposes should be satisfactory regardless of the ways visitors are currently
engaging with them. He also displayed the ignorance experts often have to the

15. KYVH7
15
power social norms have over visitors in museums; without being explicitly
invited to do so, visitors do not feel comfortable acting outside their perception
of appropriate museum conduct (Boniface 1995: 24).
Perhaps this is why an attempt is made to downplay these cultural differences by
emphasizing the greatness of the objects. Valuing objects over individuals leads
to the ‘custody battles’ Kenneth Olumuyiwa warned ruins partnerships. Bonnie
Greer describes her walks through the Syrian, Egyptian, and Greek galleries at
the British Museum as an exhibition on “humanity” (“Museum of the Citizen”
panel). She emphasized the importance of considering all objects as products of
one species: Homo sapien sapien (“Museum of the Citizen” panel). It is the objects
created, not the cultures that created them that are valued and respected. This is
further supported as the panel later condemned the current destruction of
archaeological objects in Syria (“Museum of the Citizen” panel).
Mainstream heritage experts produce heritage based on their own knowledge
and the values of their own culture, largely excluding entirely the knowledge and
values of laypersons and minorities. Cultural heritage is a production of the
entire world, “its appropriate conduct must be considered globally” (Boniface
1995:111). London is a vastly diverse city, with inhabitants and tourists from
every corner of the world. Heritage values are exposed through the ways
minorities are addressed or ignored in such events (Harrison 2013: 224).
Increasing financial pressures of the museum sector are disproportionately
affecting local authority and smaller museums in the United Kingdom, while

16. KYVH7
16
national museums have faced little funding cuts. Not only does the British
Museum possess object of great world heritage value, it can use these objects as
profitable bargaining chips when forming partnerships and loaning to paid,
temporary exhibitions. This creates a hierarchy of heritage with national
museums such as the British Museum at the top. Kenneth Olumuyiwa was wise
to question if successful partnerships can even exist within a hierarchy
(“Museum of the Citizen” panel).
This hierarchy is even self-proclaimed by British Museum representative
Jonathan Williams when he explicitly stated the museum’s authority is derived
from “the name that we have” (“Museum of the Citizen” panel). As the holder of
the ‘powerful’ World Heritage objects, it is the British Museum that maintains
cultural power over citizens, consumers, and partner museums. Contrary to the
dialogic approach to heritage, and the panel’s own definition of a good
partnership/friendship, the British Museum is actively perpetuating their
powerful image at the top of a hierarchy; only the British Museum can decide if
and how it wishes to share its cultural power down the line to its ‘partners’.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Summary of Ethnographic Study
The original promise to allow participants an opportunity to co-create the
museum’s policies was not kept; an hour and a half event was comprised of over
fifty-five minutes of presentations from panel members, before inviting the
audience into the final thirty-five minutes. Ultimately, once that voice was finally
heard, it was not listened to. The audience was allowed to ask questions, not

17. KYVH7
17
offer up their suggestions or criticisms on the British Museum’s practices. What
was advertised as an opportunity to converse as equals, resulted in re-affirming
notions knowledge as power. This format left the representatives of the British
Museum with the final word, a sign of authority over the audience, not the other
way around.
With the opportunity for the public to interact openly and in close proximity with
policy-makers, I was hoping to witness dialogical heritage production, but
instead was left wondering, “Why the terms ‘citizen’ and ‘consumer’ of World
Heritage seem to be interchangeable and how an opportunity for co-heritage-
production manifested itself into a platform to uphold exclusion?” Ultimately,
type of partnership described at this event actually goes against the dialogic
model of they aimed for and instead reaffirms the existing barrier between
citizens and the museum (Harrison 2013).
5.2 Suggestions for Further Ethnographic Research
A more in-depth network ethnography applying the same suggestions from
(Berthod et al. 2016) could include research reviewing each of the professional
partnerships with other museums, both present and past. Liz Forgan of the
British Museum alluded to “failed” partnerships when speaking and the actions
to continually forge new partnerships (“Museum of the Citizen” panel). The
numbers and durations of these partnerships could be explored qualitatively
while qualitative interviews or questionnaires could provide reasons for why
these partnerships were either successful or unsuccessful.

18. KYVH7
18
This research should not only further an academic discussion on heritage-
production, but be representative to the theory itself. ’Scholarship’ should not
take precedence over the other actors involved (Boardman 2006: 35). An
exploration into the communities excluded from heritage-production could
balance the narrative by widely distributing the scrutiny of the topic and making
democratic co-production more difficult for the currently powerful actors to
ignore.
Acknowledging the power ‘citizens’ or consumers of the museum have over
heritage policy will increase transparency and openness between policy-makers
and those whom the policies affect. Once the issue is acknowledged, the voices of
previously excluded communities can be listened to as co-producers in the
heritage-production process and management of museum collections (Boehm
2015).

19. KYVH7
19
Bibliography
Bennett, T. The Birth Of The Museum: History, Theory, Politics. 1st ed. London: Routledge,
1995. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.
Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., and Sydow, J. 2016. “Network Ethnography: A Mixed-
Method Approach for the Study of Practices in Interorgranizational Settings”.
sagepub.com, 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.
Boardman, J. "Archaeologists, Collectors, And Museums". Who Owns Objects?: The Ethics
and Politics of Collecting Cultural Artefacts. E. Robson, L Treadwell and C. Gosden.
1st ed. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006. 33-46. Print.
Boehm, H. "Community Engagement, Local Identity and Museums: A Review of Past
Heritage Initiatives and Recent Developments on the Island of Saba”. Managing
Our Past Into The Future: Archaeological Heritage Management In The Dutch
Caribbean. Corinne L. Hofman and Jay B. Haviser. 1st ed. Leiden: Sidestone Press,
2015. 153-168. Print.
Boniface, P. Managing quality cultural tourism. London: Routledge, 1995. Print.
"British Museum: Policy on Acquisitions". britishmuseum.org. 2007. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
Harrison, R. Heritage. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Howard, P. Heritage. London: Continuum, 2003. Print.
Feldblum, M. ‘”Citizenship matters”: Contemporary Trends in Europe and the United
States’ Stanford Humanities Review 5, no. 2 (1997): 96-113. Print.
Miller, T., and G. Yúdice. Cultural Policy. London: Sage Publications, 2002. Print.
“Museum of the Citizen”. 2016. Panel.
"Museum of The Citizen". Citizen.britishmuseum.org. 2016. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
O’Neill, M. “Repatriation And Its Discontents”. Who Owns Objects?: The Ethics and Politics
of Collecting Cultural Artefacts. E. Robson, L. Treadwell and C. Gosden. 1st ed.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2016. 105-128. Print.
Roberts, P. "Barriers Or Bridges? Museums And Acquisitions In The Light Of New Legal
And Voluntary Codes". Who Owns Object?: The Ethics and Politics of Collecting
Cultural Artefacts. E. Robson, L. Treadwell and C. Gosden. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 2006. 47-60. Print.
"The British Museum celebrates successes in London, the UK and around the world:
Annual Review Launch 2015". britishmuseum.org. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
The British Museum. Museums and galleries in partnership across the UK ... with the
British Museum. London: The British Museum, 2012. Print.

20. KYVH7
20
Appendix 1

21. KYVH7
21
Appendix
1
Human Participant Research Application Form
for Student Coursework
This form is intended for UCL Institute of Archaeology students and those doing the joint
Archaeology/Anthropology degree. It should be submitted for approval by your course coordinator or
tutor, as specified in class or in your course handbook. This form is designed to be filled in using
Microsoft Word.
You will normally be notified of the outcome within 2 weeks of submitting your application.
Section A. Personal Details
Name Allison Kopplin
Email address allison.kopplin.15@ucl.ac.uk
Course ARCLG209: Heritage, Globalisation and Development
Course
coordinator
Rodney Harrison
Application date 13 April 2016
Essay or project
Submission date
22 April 2016
Section B. Description of Proposed Research
B1. Essay or project title.
Ethnography: Partnerships of Power (working title)
B2. Give a brief overall description of your research.
I observed the Museum of the Citizen panel event at the British Museum. The panel
was composed of members of organizations and museums the British Museum
partners with. The event was presenting the ways in which the British Museum is
managing the heritage and partnering with external museums and other cultural
organizations to share that heritage with a wider audience. Its goal was publisisd as a
way to increase transparency and agency with the audience. After each panel member
presented, they answered audience questions (those in person as well as asked via the
internet).
B3. Outline your main research questions and aims.
1. How does the British Museum perceive ownership and access of the World

22. KYVH7
22
2
Heritage they posess?
2. What does the British Museum see is the role of the public in heritage policy
development?
Section C. Participant Details
C1. What age groups will you be recruiting? Tick all that apply.
Children (under 15 years)
Young adults (15-17 years)
Adults (18 and over)
C2. Will you be recruiting any of the following? Tick all that apply.
Vulnerable adults (those without capacity to give informed consent,
including those with learning disabilities, mental health issues or dementia)
Prisoners or young offenders
Asylum seekers or refugees
Public figures, such as politicians, judges, journalists or artists
NHS patients
Friends or family
Other UCL students
I will not be recruiting from any of these groups
C3. Explain how you will be identifying and recruiting participants.
The data will come from individuals participating and presenting at the Museum of
the Citizen panel event at the British Museum.

23. KYVH7
23
3
Section D. Proposed methods and data
D1. Which of the following methods will you be using? Tick all that apply.
Interviews: in person via skype via email
Questionnaires: in paper form online
Focus groups
Observations of human behaviour
Secondary datasets (data collected previously by others)
Other (please describe).
Other: Text analysis of published British Museum printed and online material
D2. Describe how these methods will applied to your research subjects.
I will observe the presenations of panel members and responses to audience questions
as well as analyze the publisised materials relating to the event to explore the ways
the British Museum presents their partnerships and responds to external questions.
D3. Where will you be collecting your data? e.g.: schools, museums, public spaces,
within particular communities. Please give the names of any organisations involved,
if known.
The British Museum Museum of the Citizen panel event
D4. What data will your research generate? Tick all that apply.
Notes
Interview or focus group transcripts
Photographs
Film or video recordings
Audio recordings

24. KYVH7
24
4
Other (give details).
D5. What position will you take regarding anonymisation of participants during data
collection and/or reporting? Note that you do not need to name a person for their
opinion to have weight. This may be achieved by using a role-specific pseudonym,
such as ‘a curator’, ‘a professional illustrator’, ‘an academic’ etc.
Some or all participants will be anonymised
Some or all participants may be identifiable
D6. Which of the following will apply to your participants? Tick all that apply.
Participants will be fully anonymised. No individuals will be linked to
the data they provide, at any stage of my research.
Participants will be partially anonymised. Names will be withheld, but
it may be possible to identify individuals from the data they provide.
Participants will be named in my research notes, and their identity
linked to the data they provide, but names will not appear in the final report.
Participants will be clearly identified in the final report.
D7. If you ticked more than one box in the previous section, please explain in more
detail which recruits the different degrees of anonumisation/identification refer to.
D8. If any participants will be identified, or potentially identifiable during data
collection and/or reporting, please explain why this is considered necessary.
The professional position of some individuals was publicly stated at the panel. Their
positions within their museums are relevant to the research question and the entire
panel was recorded by the British Museum, so the information they provide can be
linked to the individual.
D9. Will you be filming or photographing people, in such a way that they could be
identifiable from the images.

25. KYVH7
25
5
Yes No
If ‘yes’, please explain further.
Section E. Risks and benefits
E1. List all the countries where you will be working.
UK
E2. Will data collection pose any risks to yourself? Risks might include lone working
in potentially unsafe environments, physical risks associated with experimental
research, or visiting countries where the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has
advised against all travel (see https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice).
Yes No
E3. Will you be dealing with sensitive or potentially distressing subject matter? This
might include experiences of violence, abuse or exploitation or illegal behaviour.
Yes No
E4. Is there likely to be significant risk of harm to the rights and wellbeing of
participants (physical, emotional, psychological, reputational, legal or financial) as a
result of taking part in your research?
Yes No
If ‘yes’ please explain further.
E5. Will any of your research be conducted covertly (carried out without the
knowledge or active consent of the participants, or by misleading participants about
the purpose of the research)?
Yes No
If ‘yes’ please explain why this might be necessary.
It is not necessary to identify the participants and obtain explicit consent because all

26. KYVH7
26
6
the information is open to the public. All participants are aware there is a public
audience and are speaking at a public forum, crucial to examining the persona the
British Museum is presenting to the public.
E6. How might your research benefit participants?
Participants might become aware of the ways their partnerships are perceived by the
public and where they fall short.
Section F. Dissemination of results
F1. Will the results of your research be reported to participants?
Yes No
If ‘yes’, please explain how you plan to do this.
Section G. Further comments and statement of understanding
G1. Do you have any further comments or questions?
G2. Please check the following boxes to complete your application.
I agree that I have read the ethical guidelines for student dissertations
provided online at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/ethics
I undertake to conduct this research in the manner advised.
I agree that, if any of the answers given above change due to
modification of my research design, I will inform tmy course coordinator
immediately, and seek additional approval for my research.
I understand that I must wait for ethics approval before collecting any
research data from human participants.

27. KYVH7
27
7
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
UCL Research Ethics Committee approval required? Yes No
REC reference Date obtained:
DBS checks required? Yes No
External ethics approval required? Yes No
UCL Data protection to be informed? Yes No
Risk Assessment required? Yes No
Special Instructions for student:
Date IoA Approval Granted: 15/04/2016
Authorized by: Rodney Harrison Other (please specify)