Tag Archives: Reaction

Reaction: Museums Are Being Tasked With Radically Transforming the Way They Work.

September 3, 2020

I saw this op-ed on Artnet news via Twitter written by post-graduate Interpretive Fellow at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Aaron Ambroso, titled “Museums Are Being Tasked With Radically Transforming the Way They Work. Here Are 6 Practical Steps They Can Take to Do That”. This is an interesting piece because it is important that museums should transform the way they work, and it is important to hear multiple perspectives on what is going on in the museum field. What also drew my attention to this piece was the responses to this op-ed. A number of tweets argued that the misconception that “all museums are art museums” was present within the piece. It is a misconception that is spread both within and outside of the museum field in webinars, newspaper articles, et. cetera. The problem with implying that “all museums are art museums” is not every advice, suggestion, or guideline fits with all museums, and by talking about museums in general while only highlighting the art experience it alienates other history, science, natural history, children, and many more types of museums that are working on transforming the work they do. I decided to take a closer look to see for myself what Ambroso had to say about museums transforming the way they work and where the misconception came from.

Since the op-ed was released on Artnet news, which is an extension of Artnet (the leading online resource for the international art market, and the destination to buy, sell, and research art online), it seems that the intended audience for this piece is art museums. The title of the piece and the arguments made within the piece, however, suggests that it addresses all museums. As I read the piece, I noticed that Ambroso discussed museums while heavily using examples of art museums. For instance, he stated that

Museums around the country have done pathbreaking and important work addressing issues of political neutrality, and many have made explicit discussions of race, sex, and class a central part of exhibitions and programming. Yet still too often, museums display works of art with an exclusive focus on qualities that are supposed to speak in universal ways, or with blinders about the way art objects may be read in problematic ways by disadvantaged communities.

For example, is it best to emphasize a 16th-century British portrait’s technical and formal qualities? Or should we recontextualize 16th-century symbolic objects, which were closely tied to the upper nobility, to better understand the historic inequality of the present? Too often, issues of technique and formal composition can be seen as implicitly neutral—as if they do not evince a particular perspective with an implicit value system.

The previous statements might make sense for art museums, but it may not make sense for other types of museums such as history, science, natural history, and children’s museums.

In response to the steps presented in the op-ed piece, I have mixed reactions to what was being presented in the piece. I agree that it is important for museums to connect with the community museums are located in. Ambroso pointed out the importance of connecting with the community:

Museums must go beyond the expertise of curatorial and education staff and understand themselves as interacting with specific communities across often fraught social and geographic boundaries. Many museums have come a long way in co-creating with indigenous communities. But there are also communities only miles away from museums that may feel as far away socially as people from another continent.

My concern is with the section that Ambroso labeled as “Let’s Be Neutral, Please”. While he pointed out that museums need to continue to question the history of neutrality and acknowledge the active role they play in stage-crafting the art experience, I think the title of the neutrality section was misleading since it could be easily misinterpreted as his suggestion that museums should be neutral.

Ambroso’s op-ed expressed interesting points that are important for art museums to consider when working on transforming their interactions within the community and within their walls during these hard times. If opinions are shared on what museums in general should do when reforming their practices, they should reflect on how they can be applied to all museums and not one specific type of museum. When articles are written about museums and webinars are presented for museums, it is important to develop the information that apply for all types of museums not just art museums. Every museum has not only their focused subject matter their exhibits, programs, and collections support but they have their own budget sizes, communities they serve, locations, et cetera that any specific advice or guideline does not apply to their needs.

I recommend reading the piece to see more of what they wrote on reforming museums in the link below.

Links:

https://news.artnet.com/opinion/museum-ethics-op-ed-1904895

https://news.artnet.com/

Humanities Indicators Results Reaction: Visitors Historic Sites and Museums on the Rise

August 15, 2019

This past Monday, I discovered an interesting study that was examined and presented by Humanities Indicators. For those who are not familiar with them, Humanities Indicators is run by the American Academy of the Arts and Sciences. The Academy is an honorary society that recognizes and celebrates the excellence of its members, and it is an independent research center convening the leaders from across disciplines, professions, and perspectives to address significant challenges. Humanities Indicators, according to the website, presents data which are quantitative descriptive statistics that chart trends over time in aspects of the humanities that are of interest to a wide audience and for which there are available data. As the title suggests, the results from the study revealed the number of visitors coming to historic sites and museums is on the rise.

On the results page, it revealed that the results were updated this month, so we know they continuously update the information as new studies have been completed. In the report, it stated according to the National Endowment for the Arts’ Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA), the percentage of people making at least one such visit fell steadily from 1982 to 2012, before rising somewhat in 2017. The recent results make me hopeful that the numbers will continue to increase especially since we need to preserve the historic sites, parks, and collections for future generations to learn about our past, and learn how we remember and preserve the past. It is important now more than ever to help educate people and future generations why history is significant in understanding how the country came to the current state it is in. I continued to read the study to learn about the findings they discovered about historic sites and museums.

There were a few findings and trends they reported on the webpage to explain the rise of visitors to historic sites and museums. For instance, the number of American adults who visited historic sites has changed in a few ways:

In 2017, 28% of American adults reported visiting a historic site in the previous year. This represented an increase of 4.4 percentage points from 2012 (the last time SPPA was administered), but a decrease of 8.9 percentage points from 1982 (Indicator V-13a). The bulk of the decline in visitation occurred from 2002 to 2008.

The Indicator V-13a refers to the bar graph that measures the percentage of U.S. adults by age who toured a park, monument, building, or neighborhood for historic or design value in the previous 12 months between 1982 and 2017. What did not surprise me too much was the bulk of the decline between 2002 and 2008 since it was the years leading up to the recession and I assume not many people were willing or able to travel as much (of course there is more than one reason for the decline). Other findings and trends that were shared by Humanities Indicators include:

From 1982 to 2017, the differences among age groups with respect to rates of historic site visitation decreased. For example, in 1982, the rate of visitation among 25-to-34-year-olds (the group most likely to visit a historic site in that survey) was approximately 11 percentage points higher than that of the youngest age group (18-to-24-year-olds), and more than 17 points higher than that of people ages 65–74. By 2017, however, the visitation rate of 25-to-34-year-olds had dropped to within five percentage points of the younger cohort and was virtually identical of that for the older group.

Much of the recent growth in visits to historic sites occurred among parks classified as national memorials and was driven by a particularly high level of visitation at sites that did not exist in 1995, such as the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial (3.3 million visitors in 2018), the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial (3.6 million visitors), and the World War II Memorial (4.7 million visitors). As a result, visits to national memorials increased more than 300% from 1995 to 2016, even as the number of sites increased just 26% (from 23 to 29). In comparison, visits to national monuments increased only 3%, even as the number of sites in the category increased by 9% (from 64 to 70). From 2016 to 2018, the number of visits fell in every category, with the largest decline occurring at the memorial sites (down 10%), and the smallest drop at national monuments (3%).

When I read the study not only was I beginning to see hope in the future of museum and historic site visits, but I also began to get curious about how historic sites and museums visits were influenced by people outside the country visiting the United States. Is there a study out there that showed foreign visitors at the historic sites, parks, museums? Were the patterns like what has been presented in this study?

I would also be interested in the number of families that visit the historic sites and museums. Are there similar patterns found in this study for family visitors? It would be worth looking into both foreign visitors and families.

To find out the rest of the findings and the charts that visually represented the results they discovered, I included a link to the original site they presented the study. They also included a study on attendance of art museums, and I included the link to this one as well.

Resources:

Historic Sites Visits: https://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=101

Art Museum Attendance: https://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=102

American Academy of the Arts and Sciences: https://www.amacad.org/

Humanities Indicators: https://www.humanitiesindicators.org/default.aspx

Reaction: No Money, No New Ideas Conundrum

April 4, 2019

I’m back! I am officially married and I am back from my honeymoon. Thank you all for your patience and support while I took time off to make final preparations for the wedding. My husband and I went into New York City to spend our honeymoon, and we did a number of things we have not done before in the City such as going to see The Phantom of the Opera and Hamilton, visited the Fraunces Tavern Museum (stay tuned for a blog post about this museum), and visited the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island Museum. After we came back from the honeymoon, I came across another post on the Leadership Matters website about an important conundrum that is facing museums and non-profit organizations: no money, no new ideas.

Joan Baldwin wrote about how money and new ideas are important for museums. As museum professionals, we should understand that we could not have one or the other. If we focus too much on bringing in money then we would potentially lose out on new ideas that can keep visitors coming back for more of what we offer. If we focus on too many new ideas, we may not have enough money to support all of these ideas. It is a conundrum we are all familiar with, and it is worth discussing especially as we prepare for new museum professionals to emerge in the field.  One of the takeaways that stuck with me when I read the post was how the right balance between money and new ideas can make a difference. She pointed out that money is important and can ease some worries,

But an organization can be really rich and also really boring. Surely you’ve been to some of those. They are beautifully presented, but stiff, still, and flat. There is, to quote Gertrude Stein, “No there there.” But there are other organizations where, without warning and often without huge budgets, you’re challenged, confronted by things you hadn’t thought about before or presented with memorable narratives. They are the places you remember. They are the ones that stick with you.

One of the reasons I have worked in small museums is how unique the narratives are, and the staff that work with a limited budget are faced with the challenge to keep their exhibits and programs both relevant and interesting for visitors to make numerous trips back to them. I have written about museums I previously visited, and the majority of the ones I write about are those that face the challenge everyday to keep people invested in the narratives. For instance, in a post called Museum Memories: Stanley-Whitman House, I wrote about how the narrative of the house not only shares the history of the families that lived in the house but the history of the town of Farmington; the Stanley-Whitman House is one of the places that continues to find ways to bring attention to its narrative and its significance in the community.

Another point that I took away from the post is the significance of having creativity within the museum. Baldwin revealed in her post that

Imagination and ideas are a museums’ biggest tools. Otherwise you’re just a brilliantly-organized storage space. And yet how do you get out of the scarcity mindset? Practice. Truly. And start small.

It is true that the biggest tools that we can use as museum professionals are our imaginations and ideas. This is also why it is important all of us should take self-care seriously when it comes to using our imaginations, ideas, and creativity. If we continue to work while we burnout, we will not be able to come up with fresh ideas we need to help our museums keep running. Also, it is important that we participate in professional development and networking programs to get inspiration for our own ideas. As the saying goes “Practice makes perfect”, and it definitely applies to us as museum professionals attempting to use our imaginations and ideas for our museums.

I also read the advice Baldwin left for leaders and board members, and I try to follow each advice in my own practice as a museum professional. For instance, I try to model respect and treat everyone’s ideas as doable especially when I work with volunteers who are passionate about the work we do and they bring up ideas that may be helpful for the museum. I think this is what all museum professionals should do no matter what title they hold because if we keep shutting down each other’s ideas we may not be able to have the leaders we need for the future of the museum field. Also, I pay attention to and try to read as much reading material I can get my hands on to expand my knowledge in the museum field and beyond to get inspiration.

I read the advice Baldwin gave for board members, and this advice is important for all board members to follow. Baldwin provided a list of advice she had for board members who may be reading the post:

If you’re a board member:

Model respect and treat everyone’s ideas as doable even if they’re not actionable in the moment.

Know what matters. Understand your organization.

Invite a different staff member to your board meeting every month. Ask them what they would do if you gave them a million dollars. Listen. (And ban the eye-roll.)

Devote some time as a group to talking about ideas as opposed to what’s just happened, what’s currently happening or what will happen. How can you raise money for an organization if you’re not excited about what it’s doing?

Think about ideas as cash catalysts.

All of these points are wonderful and should be followed to not only help the museum but also develop a better relationship between the staff and board. For instance, I think it is a wonderful idea for board members to invite a different staff member to board meetings each month. Staff and board will be able to learn from one another about each other’s perspectives, and help one another come up with ideas that could be practical to execute for the museum. Another quote I would like to leave here is what I hope everyone will consider:

If you’re a leader or a board member, you’re role isn’t to maintain the status quo. You want more than mediocrity, don’t you? You’re a change agent, and change doesn’t have to come in a multi-million-dollar addition. Sometimes it comes in a volunteer program that models great teaching, a friendly attitude and deep knowledge.

It does not take much to create change in a museum, and we have a responsibility as museum professionals to figure out ideas we can use to help our museums move forward.

Resource:

https://leadershipmatters1213.wordpress.com/2019/04/01/the-no-money-no-new-ideas-conundrum/

Reaction: Considering Relevance

February 28, 2019     

Announcement: Since my wedding is this upcoming month and will be busy putting the final details together, I will not be writing new posts for March. I will try to share previously written posts during the month. Thank you so much for your understanding. Stay tuned for new posts in April!

I came across a post yesterday on the National Council on Public History’s History @ Work written by Tim Grove on considering relevance. Relevance is an important topic in the museum field and we should be applying it more in our history museums, sites, historic house museums, and historical societies. In previous blog posts, I have talked about relevance and how relevance will help our history organizations create connections between the visitors and the historical narratives we present.

One of the points Grove made I took away from his post was when he stated “If something is not perceived as relevant, it usually does not have high value.” Our purpose as museum professionals and public historians is to help bridge together human emotion and knowledge together to keep adding value to what we can learn from the past. If we cannot translate our work’s value to the visitors, we would not be able to effectively argue history’s relevance.

I believe we have been working towards keeping history relevant in our society but we also need to remember that society does change and adapt. Therefore, as society continues to change we should be finding ways to make sure relevance is present within our exhibitions and educational programs. In my Museums vs. The Couch post I wrote last September, I pointed out that relevance

continues to be an important topic as new media, technology, events, et cetera, develop and change how people interact with the world around them. I have previously stated in my blog post “Does ‘Hamilton’ use Relevance to Teach Our Nation’s History?”: Relevance is significant especially in museums to understand who our community is and to help individuals feel they can connect to our past in a way that they can relate to.

I feel this statement is still true today and historic sites, museums, and historical societies should keep this in mind when working towards relevance. There is at least one example out there of how historic places and historical societies use their exhibits and education programs to maintain relevance.

In the same Museums vs. The Couch post, I wrote about the Three Village Historical Society in East Setauket, New York and their consideration of relevance in the tours and programs. According to my blog post and what I have experienced,

Founded in 1964, Three Village Historical Society continues to meet its goals to educate the community about local history through events, walking tours, and educational programs. Inside there is an exhibit dedicated to General Washington’s Culper Spy Ring which was an American spy network, mainly made up of members who lived or grew up in East Setauket, that operated during the Revolutionary War. The spies were able to provide Washington information on what the British troops’ plans were to help win the War. A television series was produced by AMC in 2014 called Turn, which is based on the Culper Spy Ring and the Revolutionary War, for four seasons. Turn brought a number of fans to the Three Village Historical Society who wanted to learn more about the Culper Spy Ring. Even after the show ended, fans still come to the site thanks to the show’s accessibility on DVDs and on Netflix.

Three Village Historical Society uses modern media to help visitors create connections to local history and to understanding the human side of becoming a spy. Also, I liked that Grove addressed Nina Simon’s work on The Art of Relevance to convey the significance of relevance in historic places.

Grove pointed out Simon’s overall message of her book which is: relevance is necessary for any public-facing institution, or even movement, to consider. I also read and wrote a book review on Simon’s book to express why relevance should be considered. In my post, I pointed out that

The Art of Relevance is also an important book in the museum education field since our museums can practice this art of relevance through the educational programs offered including public programming, school programs, and summer programs. After reading the book, I felt that I could adapt these advices to my own practices as a museum educator.

Museum educators, of course, are not the only ones who can benefit from developing relevance between visitors and programs. Public historians in the sites, historic house museums, historical societies, and history museums can benefit from helping visitors make emotional connections with the past.

History organizations can absolutely be relevant not only within their communities but to everyone. We need to dig a little deeper to inspire visitors to make their own connections to the exhibits and programs we develop.

I like to pose the same questions Grove did in his post on relevance: Can an organization be relevant to everyone? Should it even try?

Resources:

https://ncph.org/history-at-work/considering-relevance/

Check out his website: https://timgrove.net/about/

https://lookingbackmovingforwardinmuseumeducation.com/2018/09/27/museums-vs-the-couch-how-museums-can-retain-relevance-and-visitation/ https://lookingbackmovingforwardinmuseumeducation.com/2017/06/16/book-review-the-art-of-relevance-by-nina-simon/

Reaction: Recognizing the Best in Public History Blog

Added to Medium, January 31, 2019

Since I earned my Master’s degree in Public History, I continue to review sources and read about current developments in Public History. According to my graduate program at Central Connecticut State University, public historians are front-line interpreters bringing historical knowledge to a broad public audience beyond the traditional academic classroom. Public historians expand research skills and content knowledge of traditionally trained historians to incorporate new sources of historical evidence such as oral history and material culture in varied institutions such as museums, government agencies, and heritage destination sites. I recently came across the Backstory website which posted a blog post written by Diana Williams about recognizing various mediums public history is shared.

Backstory, according to their website, is a weekly podcast that uses current events in America to take a deep dive into the past, and each episode provides listeners with different perspectives on a specific theme or subject by giving listeners all sides to the story and then more. For the first time, Backstory is acknowledging the works of public history with a prize. There are numerous public history projects that deserve to be acknowledged and it is wonderful several of them are being nominated for the prize. I did not know that other than museum associations there are recognition of excellence in public history projects, and it makes me happy to learn there is a way our work in public history that is recognized outside of academia.

I am also impressed that there was so much work that went into researching public history project. In the Williams’ blog post, she pointed out that

BackStory lead researcher Monica Blair created the list, thinking broadly about historical mediums, both physical and digital. In addition to online reviews, she looked up reviews in academic journals like “The Public Historian” and general newspapers like “The Washington Post.” For books, she turned to “The New York Times” Non-Fiction Bestsellers List and for podcasts, she used Apple Podcasts charts. Each nominee fell under a broadly conceived definition of American history.

I can imagine that there are so many projects that are out there but have not been acknowledged or noticed. After reading through the blog, there is a lengthy list for each category for the Backstory prize.

A list of categories and nominees is given to show which ones were nominated for this prize. The categories were films, documentaries, podcasts, plays, books, and exhibits and monuments both physical and digital. In the films category, there were 16 nominations which include The Post, Darkest Hour, First Man, Battle of the Sexes, and American Animals. In the documentaries category, there were 21 nominations and they include Rachel Carson: The Woman Who Launched the Modern Environmental Movement, Won’t You Be My Neighbor, Tell Them We Are Rising: The Story of Black Colleges and Universities, and Birth of a Movement. In the podcasts category, there were 23 nominations including Ben Franklin’s World, Omohundro Institute, The New York City Public Library Podcasts, American History Tellers, Wondery, Stuff You Missed in History Class, and Witness, BBC. In the play category, there were seven nominations including American Revolutions: The United States History Cycle, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Come From Away, and Days of Rage.

In the book category, there were nine nominations which include The Gulf: The Making of an American Sea by Jack E. Davis, Darkness Falls on the Land of Light: Experiencing Religious Awakenings in Eighteenth-Century New England by Douglas L. Winiarski, Hitler in Los Angeles: How Jews Foiled Nazi Plots Against Hollywood and America by Steven J. Ross, and These Truths: A History of the United States by Jill Lepore. In the exhibits and monuments both physical and digital category, there were 31 nominations including The National Memorial for Peace and Justice — Equal Justice Initiative, Black Citizenship in the Age of Jim Crow — New York Historical Society Museum and Library, Echoes of the Great War: American Experiences of World War I — Library of Congress, Righting a Wrong: Japanese Americans and World War II — National Museum of American History, and City of Hope: Resurrection City & the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign — National Museum of African American History and Culture.

Each of these categories, except for the book category, have links to each of the nominations listed to show and describe the projects. The blog post also gave a brief description of the decision process for selecting a project for the BackStory prize.

The hosts of BackStory, Ed Ayers, Brian Balogh, Nathan Connolly and Joanne Freeman, as well as the Senior Producer David Stenhouse were joined by guest judges Chris Jackson (“Hamilton” on Broadway) and Margot Lee Shetterly (“Hidden Figures”) to review the nominees to determine the best project. There was a rigorous debate and ultimately decided and announced The National Memorial for Peace and Justice — Equal Justice Initiative was the winner. The National Memorial, which opened on April 26, 2018 in Montgomery, Alabama, according to the website:

is the nation’s first memorial dedicated to the legacy of enslaved black people, people terrorized by lynching, African Americans humiliated by racial segregation and Jim Crow, and people of color burdened with contemporary presumptions of guilt and police violence.

With so many nominated for the prize, I can imagine that it was a long and challenging process to select one project. Especially in this day in age, The National Memorial is important for all to visit and pay respect, so we will never forget this sad period in our history. I recommend taking the time to review each nomination to learn about what public history projects are out there.

Resources:

https://www.backstoryradio.org/blog/recognizing-the-best-in-public-history/

https://museumandmemorial.eji.org/memorial

https://www.backstoryradio.org/ http://www.ccsu.edu/history/graduate/MA_publicHistory.html

Reaction: Giving Tuesday & Low Salaries in Museums

Added to Medium, December 6, 2018

Many museum professionals, as well as non-profit professionals, are familiar with Giving Tuesday. This takes place annually the Tuesday after Thanksgiving to ask shoppers to consider donating money to non-profit organizations, and museums also participate in asking visitors to donate to help support museums. It is ironic that while museums participate in Giving Tuesday to convince people to give charity to these museums, museum executives and boards are not using the same mentality of charity to its hard-working staff. While I was celebrating Thanksgiving and working at the Long Island Explorium, I came across the blogpost “Giving Tuesday & Low Salaries in Museums” by Seema Rao, and I started to think about the current state of museum professionals’ salaries and working conditions. Articles and blog posts like this one prove that while we are bringing more awareness to the situation we have so far to go to make the changes we need to make for our museums. Another thing that these articles,blog posts, seminars, etc. about salaries and the museum workforce have in common is the salary is the most talked about topic in our field right now.

Our field needs to be doing more to make changes in how we pay our staff and the working conditions in the museum. As Rao pointed out, staff are aware of how low their salaries are:

Junior staff members see their peers making vastly more in other sectors. Colleagues are learning that peers in other parts of their organizations are making more for the same job, and they are unhappy. Mid-career professionals are looking around for other jobs that pay better.

Museum educators are definitely not happy with the current state of salaries in the field. It was one of the topics discussed in NYCMER’sprogram last year “Career Growth in Museum Education” in which we not only focused on  how to build and sustain careers in museum education but we talked about the survey results from the “Why are Great Museum Workers Leaving the Field?” survey conducted in September 2016. According to the results of the survey, which were also shared in the “Leaving the Museum Field” article on AAM’s website, the pay was too low was the number one reason respondents who answered why they left the field. 

I also wrote a reaction piece to the AAM article last year highlighting my thoughts about the conditions of the museum field. In that post, I said that 

I still believe museums can illuminate an individual’s educational experience, and by continuing in the museum field I hope to make an impact on the public. It is a challenge to accomplish this when there are things that prevent me from fulfilling this goal.

This statement is just as true now as it was then. Unfortunately, for many museum professionals including myself, the challenges preventing us from fulfilling our goals in our careers is continuing to present problems that make us want action to be taken to correct our field sooner. And we should be not only having more open discussions about salaries with one another and with our executives we need to see results to keep our passions for our work alive. 

We cannot make effective change without bringing awareness of this issue to the executives and museum boards who make the big decisions to run the museum. Rao has pointed out that

Museums replicate some elements of corporate America, giving their CEO’s higher salaries. But, they have chosen to ignore others. Lower level staff generally doesn’t have any perks that keep them there. Flex time, infinite vacation, and profit-sharing don’t generally exist in museums. Instead, museum staff members remain in place due to their drives and hopes. There is the dream that their penury will have a long-term payoff when they get to the top, or their martyrdom is worth being part of this amazing mission. For others, there is no job mobility. The majority of cities in America don’t have enough museums for professionals to move from museum job to museum job without moving. In other words, museum executives get the benefit of corporate salaries while leading a group of people who might feel trapped by their ideals.

By changing the way museums are run to make them resemble corporations, the staff are the ones that pay the price of greater hardship within their personal and professional lives. While we may be holding on to our passions for museums and to our hopes of having a long-term payoff for the hard work we put in, we cannot hold on forever. Eventually, if we have not done so already, will burn out and be trapped in a never-ending loop of the hardship while the higher ups will reap the rewards they see in their paths.

A question was posed in the blog post that resonatedwith me: If we can’t even preserve our staff at a living wage, why should people trust us with their collections or money?

Since the purpose of many museums is to preserve its collections, we will not be able to do the work that we do if museums continue down this path of paying its staff low wages. What museum executives and boards seem to not realize, as Rao has beautifully stressed in her post, is the staff engage with the visitors on a regular basis and the visitors’ impressions of the museum also depend on how the staff treats them. Staff members may be able to conceal their unhappiness with their work conditions and low salaries, but there may be days that they are  unable to conceal it as well and this could easily effect how they interact with the visitors. 

If the executives and boards are not willing to properly compensate their staff with living wages and create a safe work environment, then how can they convince visitors to come into our doors?

For those who do not workin the museum field, please keep in mind what museum workers are going throughand be supportive to them. To learn more, please read the following sources:

https://www.medium.com/@artlust/giving-tuesday-low-salaries-in-museums-b4080566c81b

https://lookingbackmovingforwardinmuseumeducation.com/2017/09/27/leaving-the-museum-field-a-reaction-to-the-alliance-labs-blog/

https://www.aam-us.org/2017/09/22/leaving-the-museum-field/

Reaction: Me vs. Us Museum Leadership

Added to Medium, November 1, 2018

In the past, I have written a number of blog posts about museums and leadership. I decided to write one more about museum leadership when I came across Joan Baldwin’s “Me vs. Us Museum Leadership” posted earlier this week. Baldwin started her post on Leadership Matters website with a few examples of servant leadership, or as described in the post a form of leadership that puts people first and ultimately everyone serves the institution. She pointed out in the post that

We can’t all be servant leaders. In fact, of the many leadership qualities, servant leadership is one of the hardest because it asks a leader not to be the center of attention. Instead, it puts staff and organization in the spotlight. It makes for a museum where director/staff relationships are strong, where staff know the director has their backs, and where there is always hope because collectively everyone serves the museum. Sounds like workplace heaven, right? Maybe. It’s not a panacea, but take a week and be intentional about the following:
· Standing behind your staff.
· Saying thank you.
· Listening. A lot.
· Acknowledge a diversity of opinions. And really listening to them.
· Modeling the behavior you want. If you wish staff would shut off lights in spaces not in use, do you do it yourself? Or do you just send emails asking others to do it?
· Mentoring, counseling, developing leadership in others.

Each individual is different, and therefore would be comfortable with whatever leadership style they are comfortable. I think that servant leadership would be beneficial for relationships between directors and staffs so there is not only a strong bond between them This servant leadership style seems to accurately describe how I define leadership since I approach leadership as every individual has something of value to contribute to how we can help museums continue to function, and we should help one another develop each other’s skills especially leadership skills.

The blog post I wrote “Where You Lead, I Will Follow: The Importance of the Leader-Follower Relationship in Museums” expresses the need for leaders and followers to work together on keeping museums running. As I previously explained in this post,

Leaders and followers have varying experiences in the museum field, and they can learn from each of their perspectives to run the museum. Followers typically work directly with the visitors, and learn from the visitors what museum staff and the museum in general can improve on to fulfil its goals. Leaders typically work with the administrative tasks that run the museum such as but not limited to grant writing and ordering materials for programs.

What we need to remember is the museum’s most valuable asset, other than its collections, are its staff, both paid and volunteers. Leaders and followers in the museum field have many contributions to help its museum continue fulfilling the mission. Each museum professional working in a museum have varying needs, emotions, and personality traits, and being able to work effectively with groups and within groups is essential to the museum professional and to the museum’s success in fulfilling its educational mission.

I understand that the relationship between leaders and followers I described in this post seems to be close to what Baldwin’s blog post defined as servant leadership. One of the reasons I thought that what my thoughts on museum leadership is close to servant leadership is when Baldwin made the suggestion to readers: Mentoring, counseling, developing leadership in others. We need to work together to not only use our leadership skills to make museums serve the community better but it will encourage future leaders to become more involved in the museum field.

What type of leadership works for you and for colleagues in your museum or organization?

Announcement: Next week there will not be a new blog post because I will be at the New England Museum Association (NEMA) conference, but I will share previous blog posts. Also, I will write about my experience at the NEMA conference after next week.

Resources:

https://leadershipmatters1213.wordpress.com/2018/10/29/me-vs-us-museum-leadership/

Where You Lead, I Will Follow: The Importance of the Leader-Follower Relationship in Museums: https://wp.me/p8J8yQ-pP

Reaction: The Importance of Structured Interviews

Added to Medium, September 6, 2018

On September 5th AAM released a blog post written by Laurie Davis, the Talent Acquisitions Manager at The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum & Foundation, about structured interviews and why they are important for reducing hiring bias. To have our museum field grow and be more diverse, one of the ways we can accomplish this is to have an unbiased workforce. Davis’ blog post for AAM stressed that having structured interviews would help reduce unintentional hiring bias in the field. After I read the blog post, I thought about my own experiences being interviewed for positions in the museum field. While I see flexible interviews as ways to express museums’ unique team dynamics to find individuals who will be the best fit with the team I also believe that structured interviews would benefit interviewees more since not only they will be able to be more prepared for interviews but each interviewee will be given an equitable chance to be selected for the position within the museum.

Museums should at least consider structured interviews to hire potential candidates without unintentional bias. Also, museums will be able to see the what candidates have to offer that will help museums move forward. Interviews can help museums find the best candidates for their teams but structured interviews can help museums have a better process in selecting candidates to fill the vacant positions. According to Laurie Davis’s post, she stated that

“The structured interview simply means that questions are planned out in advance and that every candidate is asked the same set of questions, in the same order. The goal is to ascertain skills and competencies, rather than seeking commonalities with the candidates which often come about from non-structured interviews (“I see you’re originally from Colorado? Me too! Where about? Do you enjoy skiing?”). Now, this is not to say that a few icebreaker questions to put a candidate at ease and gauge their communication/social skills are taboo. But research shows that structured interview questions most accurately and fairly evaluate the actual skill set of a candidate and predict future job performance.”

Finding commonalities is important to help candidates feel comfortable in the interview process and see how the candidates will get along with the team. Structured interviews, however, can provide consistency for both interviewers and interviewees. Museum professionals who conduct interviews should be trained to make sure they can select the best candidates without bias for a more diverse workforce and field. In the blog post, Davis shared a few resources to support her argument for structured interviews.

Davis revealed a New York Times article “With New Urgency, Museums Cultivate Curators of Color” written by Robin Pogrebin which discussed the need for diversity within the museum field. In the same article, she pointed out that a 2015 study from the Mellon Foundation was cited in the blog post emphasizing the need for more diversity in the museum field.

Another resource shared in the blog post was an article from the Harvard Business Review about the ways to reduce bias in the hiring process. While there is only one example referenced in the blog post, Davis pointed out that there are an overabundance of articles that cover the concept of unconscious bias in interviewing.

There is also a guide from the US Office of Personnel Management on various topics including structured interviews with information on crafting interview questions, creating a rating scale to objectively and equitably evaluate candidate’s interview performance, and training others in the organization on this technique. Also, museum professionals can benefit from the guide since it helps museums follow guidelines that will help them find the right candidates for the positions. If all museums use this guide and train their staff to conduct structured interviews, the museum field would be able to have a more diverse and equitable workforce. Consistent interviews would especially be beneficial for job candidates, and my personal experiences are examples of why it is important to have structure in interviews.

During my career in the museum field, I have participated in varying types of interviews over the years and I learned that each museum has different methods for conducting interviews and each interviewer chose methods they are more comfortable for them. I also learned from my experience that while it is important to be as prepared as possible before the interview it is also important to be flexible since one may still be surprised; for instance, one may prepare for a more structured interview but at the interview one finds out it is a flexible interview. It is important that the structured interview should also have resources for job candidates to have so they can prepare for these interviews. Resources shared on museum association websites direct to resources for general job application and interview processes, and it can be confusing for job candidates since most guidelines are not clear on how relevant they are to museum interview processes. By having structured interview processes, museums and candidates benefit from consistent practices that promote equitable workplaces.

I open this discussion to all of you reading my post: How do you feel about structured interviews? What are your experiences conducting interviews and being interviewed?

Resources:
“With New Urgency, Museums Cultivate Curators of Color” by Robin Pogrebin: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/arts/design/museums-curators-diversity-employment.html
https://www.aam-us.org/2018/09/05/the-importance-of-the-structured-interview/
https://hbr.org/2017/06/7-practical-ways-to-reduce-bias-in-your-hiring-process

US Office of Personnel Management: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/structured-interviews/guide.pdf

“Leaving the Museum Field”: A Reaction to the Alliance Labs Blog

Added to Medium, September 27, 2017

This week I am posting earlier than usual because I have a family event this weekend I am preparing for and I also want to address a blog post from Alliance Labs, the American Alliance of Museums blog, discussing the topic of why many museum professionals are leaving the field.

It is an important topic because there are so many people considering leaving the field for various reasons, and we need to do something to work towards making our field more inclusive and rewarding for museum professionals to make it more appealing to stay. After reading this blog and similar articles, the experience made me think about my own reasoning for staying in the field as well as my resolve to be a part of making this museum field a more encouraging field to continue working in.

Sarah Erdman, Claudia Ocello, Dawn Estabrooks Salerno, and Marieke Van Damme last week talked about this topic in their blog “Leaving the Museum Field”. These four museum professionals got together after the 2016 AAM conference in DC to try to find out the reasons museum workers leave the field. In this blog, they presented their findings based on the over one thousand individuals who participated in a survey with open-ended questions. One of the questions that were placed in the survey include,
“Why we stay. Hands down, we stay because of the work we do. Unsurprisingly, for those of us who have made lifelong friends at our museums, we also stay because of our coworkers. The close 3rd and 4th reasons for staying are “Pay/Benefits” and “No Other Option.” The least popular response was “Feel Lucky to Have a Job” (1%) and the write-in “I love dinosaurs.”’

I have mentioned in previous blog posts my reasons for joining the museum field, and for me my reasons are definitely for the love of the work I do as well as my passion for museums. In my very first blog post, “Writing about Museum Education”, I mentioned my family trips to museums inspired my passion for and my career in museum education. I also pointed out that

“Education for me has always been my favorite part of life, and while at times it was challenging for me field trips especially to museums have given me a way to understand the lessons I learned in the classroom.”

I still believe museums can illuminate an individual’s educational experience, and by continuing in the museum field I hope to make an impact on the public. It is a challenge to accomplish this when there are things that prevent me from fulfilling this goal.

As I was graduating with my Master’s degree in Public History, there were limited opportunities to get a position in the field that would meet the typical needs. Similar limitations were addressed in the blog post as reasons museum professionals are leaving. According to the blog,

“Reasons why museum workers leave the field. We had about 300 answers to this open-ended question. We grouped them by theme and found the following reasons (in order of frequency of response):
1. Pay was too low
2. Other
3. Poor work/life balance
4. Insufficient benefits
5. [tie] Workload/Better positions
6. Schedule didn’t work.”

There was a point that I thought I should consider leaving. However, I thought about my experiences I have had at this point, and knew there is so much I still have to offer to the field. I began working at the Maritime Explorium, a children’s science museum, which is a little different from my previous experiences but is just as passionate about education for children and the public as I am. Also, I began work on this blog sharing my experiences in the museum field as well as my impressions on current trends in the field. I also became involved in museum organizations, including the Gender Equity in Museums Movement, to help other museums and museum professionals make a difference in the community and within their institutions.

In a way, I adapted my career in the museum education field and I found a way to stay in the field. I continue to work hard to stay in the field. This blog pointed out a number of ways to help museum professionals stay; it stated,

“How can we prevent museum workers from leaving? Again, increasing pay was at the top of the list, but respondents also suggested many free or cost-effective ways to create better working environments, like:
Create mentoring opportunities
Respect each other – break departmental silos
Make room for new ideas.”

By following the previously mentioned suggestions, we as museum professionals will be able to work towards making museums a better workforce to stay in so we would be able to work within our communities better.

While I continue to face challenges in attaining these needs, I am thankful for every opportunity that I have experienced in the field. Each experience has led me to getting to know various people in the field and to learning lessons in the field that help me grow as a museum professional.

The key to making this field a more appealing field to stay in is to keep working towards making a change in our museums and the museum community. It would not be realistic to expect the museum field to be better overnight. We need to keep talking about this situation, and be able to learn from this experience to move forward. I included the original link to the blog in my resources section for all museum professionals to refer to, and it also includes a variety of resources related to this topic to refer to.

Please leave your responses about this topic on my blog and/or the Alliance Labs blog, and continue this discussion among your colleagues.
Resources:
http://labs.aam-us.org/blog/leaving-the-museum-field/
https://www.genderequitymuseums.com/

 

Reaction to Museum Magazine: Engaging Visitors

Added to Medium, July 13, 2017

I decided for this week I am react to something different than I have reacted to in the past. As an American Alliance of Museums member, I receive regular subscriptions to Museum magazine published by AAM, and I thought I would give you my thoughts on the most recent edition of the magazine. The July/August edition of Museum magazine compiled many articles about engaging visitors in the museum. In addition to my thoughts on the Museum magazine, I am also going to briefly talk about other resources I have read on visitor engagement as well as my experience on engaging visitors to the museums I have worked for.

This edition of Museum magazine has the regular pieces from the departments. In the beginning of the magazine, a letter from the President and CEO Laura L. Lott discusses what is in this issue and additional information available to AAM members to sharpen the institutions’ focus on audience engagement through professional networks such as the Committee on Audience Research and Evaluation (CARE) and the Public Relations and Marketing Network (PRAM). There is a “By the Numbers” section that shares brief statistics of how museums impact the nation; this edition focuses on visitor statistics for museums. One of the statistics shared in the magazine was in 2016 forty-eight percent of those who participated in the U.S. leisure attraction visitors survey, published in the Voice of the Visitor: 2017 Annual Outlook on the Attractions Industry, visited museums. The magazine also shared what is new going on at AAM’s member museums, an article providing information about creating collaborative community-based programming, and an article on museum educators sharing ideas with Chinese counterparts as part of the strategic plan to connect U.S. museums with international organizations.

After the regular pieces, Museum has five features related to the magazine’s main topic.

Greg Stevens wrote about the 25th anniversary of AAM’s 1992 publication Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums called “Excellence and Equity at 25: Then, Now, Next” which includes an interview with the individuals who wrote the original publication discussing the document then, how it has changed to reflect what is happening in the museum now, and what they think the document will be used in the future. Everyone who was interviewed for the article agreed that the effort to address diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion (referred to as DEAI in the article) in the museum field is still ongoing especially since as one of the contributors put it there will never be an endpoint where they will sit back and congratulate themselves on finally being inclusive. I thought that this last point shows there is always room to improve our inclusive programming in museums.

Another article is “Converting Family into Fans”, written by Bob Harlow and Cindy Cox Roman, which is about how the Contemporary Jewish Museum changed its focus and increased visitation to this museum. Their article shared various strategies they had used when they put together strategy and tasks including designing major exhibitions designed to attract families and new programs and a welcoming environment, reduce financial barriers, and develop community partnerships. Since I began my career as a museum educator, and when I started working at the Maritime Explorium, I have seen different ways of engaging families with museum programs and activities. I have participated in engaging families during programs such as family concerts, First Night Hartford, Family Fun Day, and the Mini Maker Faire. These programs have taught me how engaging families with museums are beneficial for not only museums but for families looking for ways to spend time together.

Sara Lowenburg, Marissa Clark, and Greg Owen discuss creating programs uniquely suited to build confidence, comfort, and community for veterans in the third article called “Serving Those Who Served: Engaging Veterans at Museums”. The article includes case studies from the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum in New York City, the Philadelphia Museum of Art in Pennsylvania, and the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Washington on how their programming attracts veterans. Lowenburg, Clark, and Owen proved in the article that veterans can benefit from programs and activities museums can offer.

The article “Think of a Time When You Didn’t Feel Welcome”, written by Barbara Cohen-Stratyner, Michael Lesperance, and Renae Youngs, discuss how museums can align and apply the LGBTQ Welcoming Guidelines in their internal and external museum operations. I appreciate that this article is included in this edition since our mission for visitor-centered museums is to allow all visitors to not only engage with the museum programs and exhibits but to make sure all visitors are able to express themselves as well as feel comfortable within the museum while participating in its programming and interacting with the exhibits. It makes me sad that at different points people did not feel welcome in the museum, and by using the guidelines Lesperance and Youngs discuss in their article this shows that we are making sure that all visitors and staff members can feel they have a space to go to no matter what sexual orientation and gender they identify as.

The last feature “A Visitors’ Perspective on Visitor Engagement” by Max A. van Balgooy discussed how understanding visitors’ needs will greatly inform museums work in visitor engagement. I appreciate that this article was included in this edition because to understand what the visitors want we should learn from the visitors themselves.

Visitor engagement as a topic is not new but it is worth discussing because our audiences wants and needs change as the community and nation values change. I have discussed this topic previously with my book review on the Visitor-Centered Museum by Peter Samis and Mimi Michaelson that introduces various methods of creating visitor centered programs (the link to the original blog post can be found here: https://medium.com/@steward.lindsey/visitor-centered-museums-how-we-can-appeal-to-our-audiences-6a5ebc33853). MuseumNext, an organization that joins museums from across the world together to discuss what happens next for the museum field, posted a brief article on their website called “Visitor Centered Museums in Practice and its Future” covering a discussion Lath Carlson and Seema Rao (MuseumNextUSA speakers with 30 years’ experience in the museum field) had about what museums are doing now to be more visitor-centered and what directions the visitor-centered museums may be like going forward. The discussion can be found here: https://www.museumnext.com/2017/07/visitor-centered-museums-practice-future/. We continue to work towards an improved visitor experience for all visitors who come to our museums.

Have you read this edition of Museum? If you have, what are your thoughts? For those who have visited museums, whether you work for one or not, can you describe your experiences at the most recent museum you have visited? What did you take away from those experiences?