Historically, there has been a tendency for interpretation to reflect the curatorial voice. This is because we have to make decisions about what elements of object information to include on any interpretation we produce based on how they have been recorded and interpreted in the past.
For example, a label for an object might record that is it a piece of jewellery from Samoa, as the associated acquisition information may record this. The label might describe the items as being from the South Pacific region for geographical context and elaborate on the piece itself, describing what the piece is made of, how it would have been worn and by whom. However, to a member of an indigenous community, the regional description will not be sufficiently nuanced and the object may have a much more significant meaning that won’t be reflected in the object interpretation.
In order to combat this, not only should more object research be done but attempts should be made to engage with members of the community that objects might originate from or for whom object might have meaning. This doesn’t just apply to world collections but others too. A tool or piece of machinery in an industrial history collection, for example, might have much deeper meaning and trigger memories for someone who could have used it.