It is good to have professionals who are willing to be the Devil's Advocate. 

My problem with all of this is that a complicated situation that is caused by politics, economy, educational attainment etc. can not be resolved by constant tinkering. There needs to be a long term plan at all levels, not just in museums and the cultural sector, to attempt to provide a sustainable solution. As an example, Nick Merriman, like many others link the Leave vote to xenophobia and intolerance to immigrants which at best is an over simplistic view but at worst, and more likely, it is labelling all those who voted to leave the EU wrongly, and devaluing the real reasons why these voters justify their decision to vote Leave. Yes a minority are xenophobic etc but in reality the vote to leave by many was a decision based on many issues and the media, politicians etc have been quick to tag Leavers as xenophobic and racist with few people willing to question the accuracy of this. This just continues to fan the fire of distrust and division whilst we should be working to build a stronger community and to understand fully the complex issue of Leave/Remain. Therefore, can the Museum sector move on - Brexit is happening - and let us be forward thinking and take on the challenge rather than continuing to push the stereotypes, as well as clearly pushing an individual's own political view.  

Museums suffer from political interference whether this is from the rationale of grant programmes, national and local museum policy and even to the staff who work in them. In the case of funding, grant programmes target one specific area that is good in the short term, but we then see the direction of funding changing so what was once the target shifts. This means museums constantly have to change their priorities to fit in with  the political thinking of National, Local government and funders, who are generally only worried about short term solutions to meet their political agendas. Instead of having a holistic approach to museum work to include staffing, exhibitions, storage etc  then the sector will continue to generally appear to being missing the targets. If 25 years ago an effective system  had been put into place  to encourage people from all sector's of society to enter the museum world both as visitor's and staff we would not be having this discussion now, but minor tinkering and changes to priorities have meant that many opportunities have been missed and even though the sector has made steps forward we could have achieved so much more. In many cases the present staff in museums are trying to change museums for the better, as did the generation before, and the generation after will attempt as well, but often the goal posts/priorities shift, so what i was trying to do 25 years ago to change things and had to stop as the funding priorities changed (both in local authority and granting bodies) are now being considered again today by the present museum workers. 

Also, the relevance of collections held by museums is often cited as an issue, but the real issue is that staff have not been allowed to fully understand the collections held (through proper documentation, research, better storage, and collection rationalization) as front of house work and the outward looking approach of museums has generally taken priority. If museums had been given adequate funding 25 years ago (as being requested at the time) few museums would have large backlogs of documentation and the collections and exhibitions would now have more relevance to the present audiences and researchers. Museums could also target new collecting policies to fill in the gaps to make them more relevant. 

Finally, the Museum sector must also shoulder some of the blame. We have been bad at recording what we do well and creating an argument for why we should exist beyond the pure financial. Museums have provided very well for society and for the well being of its members, yet as it has been hard to record how museums for example provide a sense of well being, a sense of belonging, provide direct and indirect health benefits and support other sections of the community providers (especially the Local Government run museums). Therefore on paper the museum sector looks an expensive 'luxury' whereas many museums do a lot more than just store and display dusty artifacts.    

I know my views are very simplistic and in a sector with around 2000 museums and galleries there is not one solution, or a quick fix but at the same time we sometimes need to step back and look at what we are doing from a distance. Maybe we should try and simplify museums again and their offer rather than providing an over complicated and over thought 'solution' - there is no 'fix all'' for the whole sector and what may work well for one museum, one region or one subject matter does not necessarily work well for all. However, lets try and make ALL museums reach their full potential. 

 

I have just read this article and on the point about the current museum sector stalling in its efforts to encourage people from lower social-economic groups: Will the current generation of staff do anything substantially different from previous generations? How much of the current generation's attitudes are the barriers? Remember, what people say in their interviews, or in their actual jobs, can be very different from what they write, regardless of how good their intentions are. Is it time that despite the number of reviews, the number of reflections that can happen, the continuing moans about lack of funding or funding being cut, that there are people from such groups who might be opposed to such efforts, that such efforts can be viewed as patronising, ignorant and egotistical? That these so called projects and offers are just an effort by the museums to make sure they stay open, get the funds but only to keep open for themselves and not really for the audience groups identifed;  That collections from the past are out-of-date and represent eras which created the so-called problems they face (and who defines what these problems are anyway?) That collections of the contemporary age are collections which are only for the few and which represent what is wrong about past societies and today's society and very much are the problem not the solutions. That museums are part of a society which wants to keep creating problems  or keep existing problems alive and vibrant in order for staff to stay in jobs and for museums to provide "tailored" services and projects?

 

Just being a devil advocate but my questions are partly based on my own experiences of not just the museum and heritage sector but also the charities sector. 

 

Regards,

Mary (Marette) Hickford

07811 337958
[log in to unmask]

 

Linked In: uk.linkedin.com/in/missmhickford/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MaretteHickford

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 5 January 2017 at 12:33, Nicky Boyd <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Very interesting article from Nick Merriman

http://www.museumsassociation. org/museums-journal/comment/ 01012017-were-failing-in-our- aim-of-mass-participation?dm_ i=2VBX,DDTO,27LR56,1CCSB,1

Nicky

 

Nicky Boyd

Museum Consultant (audience research & evaluation)

17 Lizban Street

Blackheath

London SE3 8SS

020 8853 0110

07759 393 779

[log in to unmask]

www.nickyboyd.co.uk

 

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + GEM list: Contact the list owner for assistance at [log in to unmask] For information about joining, leaving and suspending mail (eg during a holiday) see the list website at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/ cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=GEM + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

 

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + GEM list: Contact the list owner for assistance at [log in to unmask] For information about joining, leaving and suspending mail (eg during a holiday) see the list website at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=GEM + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +