Global Journal of Human-Social Science, A: Arts and Humanities, Volume 21 Issue 12

study of the history of museological documentation (Marín 1999), new museology (Alonso 1999), the history of museology (Lorente 2012), cultural and historical heritage (Hernández 2002; VV. AA. 2010), house museums and intangible heritage (Pérez Mateo, 2014), museology courses (Zubiaur 2005), heritage didactics (Calaf 2009) or heritage education (Fontal, 2003), among many others. They do so as a way of enriching knowledge of the human and cultural reality of our society, following in the wake of the teachings of ICOFOM and Stránský. Additionally, they have extended the study of museology to the study of heritage to show that not only can museums preserve material testimonies, but other institutions can also do so. Some authors, when dealing with the theoretical framework of museology, have tried to approach it from the point of view of the close relationship that exists between museums and the heritage. Thus, they highlight the need to approach museology from the perspective of cultural heritage, given that a museum’s main objective is to preserve heritage and pass it on to future generations. It is a question of managing museum practices differently, giving them a new meaning more in line with the demands of the new times in which we live. Specifically, in the Master's in Education and Museums: Heritage, Identity and Cultural Mediation, taught at the University of Murcia during the 2011-2012 academic year, one of the activities related to the contents of Block 1 (Theme 1) on Introduction to Museology was precisely the debate of Zbynek Stránský versus Tomislav Sola. The two authors differ in their approach to the study of museology and cannot agree. While Stránský (1980) considers museology as "an independent, specific scientific discipline whose object of study is the specific attitude of man to reality," Tomislav Sola (1982: 7) states that for him, it makes no difference whether the theory of museums is to be called museology or museography, as long as the content of the discipline is established. Hence, he uses the term heritology (patrimoniology) and asks why not call such a broad concept as museology, a discipline that is no longer centered on museums, by the names of “ heritology and mnemosophy ” (Sola 1997, 2015). He considers these terms to be the most appropriate to express the central concept of heritage in its full breadth, asserting that the concept implies the relationship between theory and practice without requiring the existence of science. Against the objections of Stránský, who defends museology as a science, Sola points out that his proposal, formulated as early as the 1980s, is an attempt to question the very existence of museology with the express desire to scandalize and encourage museologists to continue researching. Sola himself (2015: 16-17) states that if he sets out to abandon the term museology, he considers it 'unproductive and confusing.' Moreover, the English, French, Germans and Americans all reject it because they think the term is linguistically inaccurate, and lacks relevance to the museum profession. However, he notes that since the birth of patrimoniology, many different terms have emerged - new museology, ecomuseology, economuseology, social museology, general heritage theory, etc. - reflecting the frustration that has been experienced with museology. This debate is mentioned here, but we cannot expand on it in this article. Finally, the study of emerging museologies - interdisciplinary, critical, gender, dialogic and radical - is a task of great interest because it offers the possibility of applying new museographies to very different heritage realities. This proves that Spanish museology is in good health and has a promising future. Indeed, many museologists are committed to a serious, scientific, and critical study of museology to put it at the service of society. In the figure of Stránský and his scientific- philosophical thinking on museology, we find an example that shows us one of the many possible paths to follow. R eferences R éférences R eferencias 1. ALONSO FERNÁNDEZ, Luis: Introducción a la nueva museología . Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 1999. 2. ASENSIO, Mikel; CASTRO, Yone; VILLAR, Cristina; CABRERA, Ana; POL, Elena (2012): Evaluación frontal de los públicos para el desarrollo de contenidos de realidad aumentada dentro del proyecto europeo de ARtSENSE . Empoderar al Visitante: Proceso, Progreso, Protesta. Tunis 1-3 November . ICOFOM Study Series , 2012, 41: 47-61. 3. AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (1979): Llibre Blanc dels Museus , Delegació de Cultura de la Generalitat, Barcelona. 4. AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (1981): Els Museus de Catalunya. Aproximació a la seva problemática. Un exemple concret: els Museus de Penedes. Delegació de Cultura de la Generalitat, Barcelona. 5. AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (1984): Els Museus de Catalunya . Criteris per a l´organizatciò del patrimonio museistic del país. Delegació de Cultura de la Generalitat, Barcelona. 6. BALLBÉ, Xavier. Cultural Assets and the New Professional: The Experience of the Escola Europea in Barcelona. Symposium Museums, Space and Power. Athens-Thessaloniki, ICOFOM Study Series , 1993, 22: 125-126. 7. BELLIDO BLANCO, Antonio. La renovación museológica en España durante los años setenta, Museo , 10, 2005: 329-345. 8. CALAF, Roser. Didáctica del Patrimonio: Epistemología, Metodología y Estudio de Casos . Ediciones Trea, Gijón, 2009. 9. CARRILLO, Rosario. Methodologie Museologique et Formatión Professionele. Methodologie of © 2021 Global Journals Volume XXI Issue XII Version I 31 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 A Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský’s Museological Impact on Spain