Riktlinjer för utvärdering av tidigare konserveringar

Abstract

The aim of this master thesis has been to theoretically describe best practice for non-invasive evaluation of materials and methods used in previously conducted remedial conservation treatments. Here it is suggested that evaluation of previous conservation treatments should be an integrated step in the constant improvement of conservation materials and methods. This study has resulted in an explanation of important terms for the evaluation practice in conservation, a list of basic principles and a list of guidelines for the planning of an evaluation study. Besides, the author of this study suggest that a risk analysis should complement all conservation documentation, in order to aid future evaluations. The suggested guidelines in this study are based on a problem analysis. The problems have been identified through several methods: an online survey among conservators in Sweden, interviews with five experts in different fields and a literature study. Five main problems that have been identified to obstruct evaluations of previous treatments have been addressed in the guidelines. The first is that the ethical guidelines in conservation give unclear judgement criteria, which leads to the possibility to criticize predecessors or competitors on a subjective basis. The second problem concerns validity. Real objects in complex environments give many parameters and variables to compare, possibly too many to be able to draw general conclusions from an evaluation study. The third problem concerns reliability. The easiest at hand investigation technique, the visual inspection, is also the least reliable technique for evaluations. The fourth identified problem is that evaluations are obstructed by the lack of access to documentation records and by the fact that the records are to short-worded and non-standardized. Lastly, there has so far been a lack of guidelines for the evaluation of previous conservation treatments. However, two further identified issues have not been addressed in the guidelines. Firstly, there is no infrastructure for linking conservations data, which makes it difficult to find previously conducted treatments based on searches on conservation materials and methods. This also obstructs the usability of results from conducted evaluations. Secondly, there is a lack of responsibility and authority to ensure the overall quality of conservation.