The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Collaborating Beyond Collections: Engaging Tribes in Museum Exhibits
Abstract
There has been—and continues to be—tension between Native peoples and museums in the United States due to past collecting practices and exhibitions that strive to interpret their culture and history without their involvement. Previously, many of these exhibitions stereotyped and lumped Native peoples together, depicting their cultures as static and interpreting them and their material culture from a Western scientific perspective. Changes are being made. Collaboration between Native peoples and museums in all areas of museum work, including exhibitions, is beginning to be considered by many as a best practice. Exhibitions developed in collaboration with Native peoples, with shared curatorial authority, decidedly help ease the historic tension between the two, and they are much more vibrant and accurate than when collaboration is lacking. This article will provide three examples of collaboration, defined with our tribal partners, to develop exhibitions at History Colorado, the state history museum, concluding with lessons learned.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The shift toward collaborative NAGPRA and repatriation policies has been a catalyst for many institutions to develop and implement collaborative policies for broader institutional practices for collections that fall outside of the purview of NAGPRA (see Barnes and Warren 2022;Bazan et al. 2021;Goff et al. 2019;Nash andColwell 2020, 2022;Richardson et al. 2017;Sievert and Ryker-Crawford 2022;Teeter”
From Considerations for Developing Collaborative Policies on NAGPRA, Repatriation, and the Care of Ancestors and Cultural Items (2025) · cites this paper as Goff et al. 2019
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- McKeown, 2010, MRM5 Museum Registration Methods, 448
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226299044.001.0001 · DOI
- Gazi, 2014, Exhibition Ethics—An Overview of Major Issues, Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies, 12
- Dovers, 2015, Protected Area Governance and Management, 415
- 10.17730/praa.33.2.mv07j4327231542u · DOI
- 10.2979/jfolkrese.52.1.39 · DOI
- Ambler, 2013, Accomplishing NAGPRA, 195
- Shannon, 2015, Artifacts of Collaboration at the National Museum of the American Indian, Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, 7, 37
- Lonetree, 2012, Decolonizing Museums
- Fine-Dare, 2002, Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The NAGPRA Nexus, Institutional Integrity, and the Evolving Role of Archaeological Laboratories
Roberts Thompson, A., Thompson, V. D., Garland, C. J., Butler, R. A., deBeaubien, D., Panther, M., Hunt, T., Wendt, L., Fontenot, R., Langley, L., et al. (2023) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2022.43 · Cited by 21
Pathways to Repatriation for NAGPRA Practitioners: Introduction
Yann, J., Domeischel, J., Roberts Thompson, A., & Schreiner, N. M. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.10107 · Cited by 2
Garland, C. J., Alapisco, D. M., Arbolino, R., Sieg, L., Covell-Murthy, A., Edwards, B., & Yann, J. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.10079 · Cited by 2
A Granular Analysis of Public Comments to the 2022 Proposed NAGPRA Revisions
Guthrie, E. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.12 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Goff, S., Chapoose, B., Cook, E., & Voirol, S.
- ORCID
- Goff, Sheila
- Venue
- Advances in Archaeological Practice
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2019-05-28
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 224-233
- ISSN
- 2326-3768
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review